U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE I KEEPING AMERICA INFORMED

www.gpo.gov

Regional Depository 

Libraries in the 21st Century: 

A Time for Change?

DRAFT
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

A REPORT TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20401 

June 2008 
DRAFT

ii

“The Federal Government is publishing a wealth of 

materials which affect every citizen ― businessman, 

farmer, housewife, scientist, student, and many others. 

Since enormous amounts are being spent on the studies 

and research and on the printing and processing of the 

resulting publications, it is imperative that they be 

made available economically and efficiently to the 

people who need them. A sound depository library 

system designed for modern conditions is required.” 

Dan A. Williams, Director, 

Public Library of Des Moines, Iowa 

Senate Hearing on Depository Libraries 

1962
DRAFT

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

A. Vision and Mission of the Federal Depository Library Program 

B. Depository Act of 1962 

C. Current Statutes Specific to Regional Depository Libraries 

D. Regional Scenarios in Place 

E. Transformation of Libraries in the Networked Environment 

III. Methodology 

IV. Results and Discussion: State of Regional Depositories 

A. Current Conditions in Regional Depository Libraries 

B. Projected Conditions in Regional Depository Libraries 

V. Title 44 and Regional Depository Libraries 

A. Legacy sections of Title 44, Chapter 19 

B. Previous Efforts to Revise Title 44, Chapter 19 

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations 

VII. References 

VIII. Appendices 

A. GPO AND JCP CORRESPONDENCE RE: SHARED REGIONALS 

Letter from Acting Public Printer William Turri to the Honorable Robert Brady, 

Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing, September 13, 2007 seeking approval of the 

Kansas/Nebraska shared regional depository library proposal 

Letter from the Honorable Robert Brady, Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing to 

Honorable Robert Tapella, Public Printer of the U.S., February 27, 2008. In response to 

Mr. Turri’s letter of September 13, 2007 

Congressional Research Service Memorandum: GPO Authority Over Regional 

Depository Libraries, November 6, 2007. To the House Committee on Administration

B. REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY SURVEY, APRIL 2008 

Regional Depository Library Survey, April 2008: Summary of Results 

C. COMMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY COMMUNITY 

Comments Received Through the FDLP Desktop Comment Form 

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: Regional Depository Librarians’ 

Perspective 

Letters from Library Associations 

D. GUIDELINES 

Establishing Shared Regional Depository Libraries 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) operates under the authority and mandates of 

44 United States Code §§1901-1916. The existing structure of selective and regional depository 

libraries dates back to the Depository Library Act of 1962, which established regional depository 

libraries. 

Within this statutory framework, different models of sharing resources and responsibilities 

between regional and selective libraries within the states they serve have been implemented over 

the years, with Government Printing Office (GPO) approval. These include different models of 

intra-state sharing between regional and selective libraries, and for sharing of some services 

between regional depository libraries in one state and selective depository libraries in an adjacent 

or near-by state where no regional library exists. 

In recent years, technological innovations and the online information environment have made it 

possible for a number of depository libraries to participate in multi-state collaborations for rapid 

interlibrary loan and other services. Technological innovation and the online environment have 

also made it possible to develop models for sharing resources and responsibilities between 

regional depositories in different states and the selective libraries they support. 

In September 2007 GPO sent forward a request to the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) for 

approval of a proposed shared regional designation between the University of Kansas and the 

University of Nebraska at Lincoln. While the JCP cannot approve the request1, there was 

concern that the Kansas/Nebraska proposal to share resources and responsibilities was a “signal 

that growing challenges confront regional depository libraries in maintaining and supporting 

effective public access through the FDLP”. 

The JCP directed GPO, in consultation with the library community, to conduct a study of 

regional depository libraries. The study is to determine the extent to which public access through 

the FDLP is impaired by current and projected organizational, financial, and technological 

conditions in regional depository libraries. A report of the findings and any recommended 

legislative changes to improve the FDLP were to be delivered to the JCP by June 1, 2008. 

 

1

 The JCP cited the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Memorandum of November 6, 2007 to the House 

Committee on Administration, GPO Authority Over Regional Depository Libraries, as the reason they cannot 

approve GPO’s request. See Appendix A for GPO’s request to the JCP and their response, which includes the CRS 

Memorandum. 

Page 1 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

II. BACKGROUND 

The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) can trace its roots to 1813 when Congress first 

authorized legislation to ensure that one copy of the House and Senate Journals and other 

Congressional publications were provided to certain universities, historical societies, and state 

libraries. No-fee access for the general public to their Government’s information is the 

foundation of the Program. The online environment offers new opportunities as well as new 

challenges for depository libraries to provide the desired access.

A. Vision and Mission of the Federal Depository Library Program 

The vision of the Federal Depository Library Program is to provide Government 

information when and where you need it. 

The mission of the Federal Depository Library Program is to provide for no-fee ready and 

permanent public access to Federal Government information, now and for future 

generations. This is achieved through: 

 Organizing processes that enable desired information to be identified and located; 

 Expert assistance rendered by trained professionals in a network of libraries; 

 Collections of publications at a network of libraries; and 

 Archived online information dissemination products from GPO Access, Federal 

agency Web sites, and partner Web sites. 

B. Depository Library Act of 1962 

The intent of the Depository Library Act of 1962, codified in 44 United States Code §§ 

1901-1916, was to provide for needed expansion in the number of depositories and to 

improve the procedures and conditions related to the selection, supply, retention and 

disposal of Government publications distributed to depository libraries for public 

information. 

At the time this legislation was considered there were 594 depository libraries, all of which 

had to retain all the items they received, unless they were superseded. Not being able to 

dispose of materials no longer needed was problematic; libraries were running out of shelf 

space for new publications. Additionally, the Congress wanted to address the lack of 

depository libraries in some geographic areas that had experienced population growth. With 

the passage of the Depository Library Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-579): 

 The number of depository libraries designated per Congressional district doubled, 

from one to two; 

 Libraries of independent Federal agencies became eligible for depository designation; 

 Government publications within the scope of the FDLP was broadened to include 

publications not printed by GPO; 

 Depositories no longer were required to pay postage for their shipments; and 

Page 2 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

 The current structure of selective and regional depository libraries was established. 

Regional depository libraries were established for the acquisition and permanent retention 

of all available Government publications. With regionals in place, other depository libraries 

(selectives) could dispose of materials after retaining them for five years. With the ability to 

withdraw materials from their shelves, selective depositories could offer the public a much 

broader selection of publications, rather than limiting their receipts because of space 

constraints. Microfiche was seen as the solution to the space problems of regional 

depository libraries. 

Report language indicates that regionals were expected to be in State Libraries and that 

most states would suffice with one regional depository; larger states such as California 

would find the need for two regionals. 

C. Current Title 44 Statutes Specific to Regional Depository Libraries 

Two sections of Chapter 19 specifically mention regional depository libraries. The 

requirement for all depository libraries to make Government publications available for the 

free use by the general public appears in §1911. This same section also requires regional 

depository libraries to retain Government publications permanently, unless superseded. 

Regional depository designation and functions are found in §1912. In accordance with this 

section, Senators and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico are permitted to 

designate regional depository libraries and the number of regionals is not to exceed two in 

each state or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. All publications authorized for distribution 

through the FDLP are to be sent to regionals and must be retained unless superseded. 

Additionally, §1912 mandates regionals to provide interlibrary loan, reference service, and 

assistance with the disposition of depository materials to the selective libraries they serve. 

D. Regional Scenarios in Place Today 

While the legislative intent of the Depository 

Library Act of 1962 was to have a regional 

depository in every state and the State Library 

was to serve as the regional depository, this 

has not come to pass. Today there are fiftytwo regional depository libraries in forty-three 

states, of which only fifteen are maintained at 

State Libraries. Four public libraries serve as 

regional depositories and the balance of thirtythree regionals are located in academic 

libraries. Six states are served by regionals in 

other states; the District of Columbia and the 

territories are served by regionals in states. 

One state is not served by a regional 

depository library. 

Page 3 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

Within the statutory framework, different arrangements for sharing resources and 

responsibilities between and among depository libraries have been implemented 

successfully, with Government Printing Office (GPO) approval. As early as 1966 the 

University of Maine became the regional depository library for New Hampshire and 

Vermont, with the support and approval of their Senators. The first shared regionals at the 

University of North Dakota and North Dakota State University were designated by their 

Senators in 1968. 

Variations of these two models exist today. They include intra-state sharing between 

regional and selective libraries and the sharing of some services between regional 

depository libraries in one state and selective depository libraries in an adjacent or near-by 

state where no regional library exists. See Table 1, Existing Regional Depository Library 

Models, for details. 

E. Transformation of Libraries in the Networked Environment 

Much has changed in libraries since the Depository Library Act of 1962. Technological 

innovations facilitated the evolution of state and regional cooperative networks. Libraries 

have standardized bibliographic formats and transfer protocols that allow libraries to share 

catalogs and cataloging records. These same networks provide the infrastructure for rapid 

interlibrary loan and document delivery. 

The more recent online or Web-based environment and the distributive power of 

information technologies offer libraries an opportunity to provide access to materials they 

do not own and make available services that meet the high expectations of library users. As 

libraries are serving more and more users from locations outside the library building, 

librarians are turning to the online environment for delivery of information and services at 

the user’s point of need. Consortia purchasing of full-text databases, cooperative virtual/chat 

reference services, and scanning publications for electronic delivery are examples of ways 

libraries serve their users in a networked environment. These services do not recognize 

geographic boundaries. With leaner budgets libraries look to collaborative solutions in an 

increasingly interconnected environment to increase their return on investment. 

Page 4 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

 Table 1: Existing Regional Depository Library Models 

Table key 

1 regional serving 1 state 

2 regionals serving 1 state

1 regional serving multiple states or areas

Shared regional within 1 state

State not served by a regional 

State # Regionals # Selectives 

Served 

Area(s) Served Model 

AL 2 Auburn University, Montgomery 

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa 

20 Alabama Full regionals 

AZ 1 Arizona State Library, Archives & Public Records 13 Arizona Full regional 

AR 1 Arkansas State Library 13 Arkansas Full regional 

CA 1 California State Library 90 California Full regional 

CO 2 University of Colorado, Boulder 

Denver Public Library 

21 Colorado Full regionals 

CT 1 Connecticut State Library 29 CT, RI Multi-state 

FL 1 University of Florida, Gainesville 43 FL, PR, VI Multi-state 

GA 1 University of Georgia, Athens 23 Georgia Full regional 

HI 1 University of Hawaii, Honolulu 12 HI, AS, Guam, Micronesia Multi-state 

ID 1 University of Idaho, Moscow 9 Idaho Full regional 

IL 1 Illinois State Library 50 Illinois Full regional 

IN 1 Indiana State Library 32 Indiana Full regional 

IA 1 University of Iowa, Iowa City 13 Iowa Full regional 

KS 1 University of Kansas, Lawrence 17 Kansas Full regional 

KY 1 University of Kentucky, Lexington 19 Kentucky Full regional 

LA 2 

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 

Louisiana Tech University, Ruston 

26 Louisiana Full regionals 

ME 1 University of Maine, Orono 25 ME, NH, VT Multi-state 

MD 1 University of Maryland, College Park 63 MD, DE, DC Multi-state 

MA 1 Boston Public Library 28 Massachusetts Full regional 

MI 1 Library of Michigan 43 Michigan Full regional 

MN 1 University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 31 MN, SD Multi-state 

MS 1 University of Mississippi, University 10 Mississippi Full regional 

MO 1 University of Missouri, Columbia 29 Missouri Full regional 

MT 1 University of Montana, Missoula 11 Montana Full regional 

Page 5 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

State # Regionals # Selectives Area(s) Served Model 

Served 

NE 1 University of Nebraska, Lincoln 14 Nebraska Full regional 

NV 1 University of Nevada, Reno 8 Nevada Full regional 

NJ 1 Newark Public Library 27 New Jersey Full regional 

NM 2 New Mexico State Library 

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 

9 New Mexico Full regionals 

NY 1 New York State Library 80 New York Full regional 

NC 1 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 31 North Carolina Full regional 

ND 2 North Dakota State University, Fargo 

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks 

6 North Dakota Shared 

Regional 

OH 1 State Library of Ohio 55 Ohio Full regional 

OK 2 Oklahoma Department of Libraries 

Oklahoma State University 

18 Oklahoma Full regionals 

OR 1 State Library of Oregon 19 Oregon Distributed 

Collection 

PA 1 State Library of Pennsylvania 52 Pennsylvania Full regional 

SC 2 Clemson University 

University of South Carolina, Columbia 

18 South Carolina Shared 

Regional 

TN 1 University of Memphis 23 Tennessee Full regional 

TX 2 Texas State Library & Archives 

Texas Tech University, Lubbock 

57 Texas Full regionals 

UT 1 Utah State University, Ogden 8 Utah Full regional 

VA 1 University of Virginia, Charlottesville 34 Virginia Full regional 

WA 1 Washington State Library 27 WA, AK Multi-state 

WV 1 West Virginia University, Morgantown 13 West Virginia Full regional 

WI 2 University of Wisconsin, Madison 

Milwaukee Public Library 

21 Wisconsin Full regionals 

WY Wyoming does not have and is not served by a regional 

Data current as of June 1, 2008. 

Page 6 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

III. METHODOLOGY

This section details how the data reported in this study were collected and analyzed. An 

explanation as to how the depository library community was kept informed, and their comments 

solicited, is provided as well. 

The timing of the study allowed GPO to benefit from two major depository events, the Biennial 

Survey of Depository Libraries and the Spring Meeting of the Depository Library Council 

(DLC). 

The DLC meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, in March 2008, offered the first opportunity to share 

information about the study and the approach GPO planned to take to produce this report of 

regional depository libraries. A meeting with regional depository librarians in attendance 

consisted of a qualitative structured interview that helped determine a strategy for collecting 

additional data and the feedback obtained was critical in solidifying the framework for the report. 

The major source for data about regional depository libraries was the Biennial Survey of 

Depository Libraries, which was conducted in October 2007. All depository libraries are required 

to complete this survey to fulfill their statutory mandate to report the conditions of their library 

every two years to the Superintendent of Documents (44 USC §1909). Approximately 1,200 of 

the 1,257 Federal depositories submitted the survey in accordance with the deadline for 

responses; two regionals did not submit the survey. Data from this survey were compared to 

results from the 2003 and 2005 surveys to determine trends. 

In April, 2008, GPO sent a letter to regional depository library directors that informed them of 

the study and requested their assistance in providing additional data that would help determine 

the direction and future trends of regional depositories. This included a request for strategic 

plans, library task force reports, or other planning documentation they thought might be useful. 

A brief survey also was included with the letter. Fifty-two surveys were submitted to GPO, a 

response rate of one-hundred per cent. Additionally, a similar letter was sent to selective 

depository library directors in April, 2008, that informed them of the study and encouraged them 

to submit comments to GPO. To reach the entire Federal depository library community, GPO 

posted a message on the FDLP-L listserv announcing this study, the methodology, and soliciting 

comments. FDLP-L is the official notification service for the Federal Depository Library 

Program and has nearly 2,000 subscribers. 

Additional data sources used to prepare this report included the annual surveys from the Institute 

of Museum and Library Services: State Library Agencies and Public Libraries in the United 

States as well as the biennial survey from the National Center for Education Statistics: Academic 

Libraries. Finally, other reports used as reference sources included The State of America’s 

Libraries: A Report from the American Library Association, (April 2008), OCLC Environmental 

Scan: Pattern Recognition (2003), and the Office of Management and Budget’s FY 2007 Report 

to Congress on Implementation of the E-Government Act of 2002 (March 2008). 

Page 7 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

Throughout this process, GPO worked to ensure transparency with the Federal depository library 

community and interested observers. A Web page was established on the FDLP Desktop at 

<http://www.fdlp.gov/regionals/study.html>. Draft sections of the report were made available as 

soon as they were completed. To gather additional feedback GPO provided a Web form for 

comments, which were taken into consideration in preparing the final version of this report. 

All the data were taken together and analyzed, and the narrative information provided in this 

report is fully supported by the data gathered by GPO, both qualitatively and quantitatively. 

Page 8 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

IV. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: STATE OF REGIONAL DEPOSITORIES 

Regional depository libraries are located in different types of libraries. Of the fifty-two regionals 

four are in public libraries, fifteen are in state library agencies, and the remaining thirty-three are 

part of academic libraries. This diverse composition is a strength of the Federal Depository 

Library Program (FDLP). It also means the libraries have different missions, have different 

sources of funding, operate under different reporting structures, have different primary clientele 

they serve, and staff may have varying responsibilities. 

The basis of the following standard library descriptions originates from the ANSI/NISO Z39.7-

2004: Information and Services Use: Metrics & statistics for libraries and information providers 

– Data Dictionary2

: 

ACADEMIC LIBRARY: A library forming an integral part of a college, university, or other 

academic institution for postsecondary education, organized and administered to meet the needs 

of students, faculty, and affiliated staff of the institution. An academic library's population may 

include undergraduate and graduate students as well as faculty. 

PUBLIC LIBRARY: A library that serves all residents of a given community, district, or region, 

and (typically) receives its financial support, in whole or part, from public funds. Public libraries 

make their basic collections and services available to the population of their legal service area 

without charges to individual users. Products and services beyond the library's basic services 

may or may not be provided to the public, with or without individual charges. Individual charges 

may be assessed to library users outside the legal service area of the library. In addition to 

including the tax-supported municipal, county, and regional public libraries, this definition 

includes privately-and federally-controlled libraries governed by single board of trustees or other 

authority, and administered by a single director. Examples of public libraries include: 

  A city library with its branches 

  A county, multi-county, or regional library with outlets functioning as branches.

STATE LIBRARY AGENCY: A State Library Agency is the official agency of a State charged 

by the law of that State with the extension and development of public library services throughout 

the State, and has adequate authority under the law of the State to administer State plans in 

accordance with the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act. Additionally, they 

are involved in the development and operation of electronic information networks, provide 

information services for state agencies, administer state libraries and other special operations like 

state documents programs or archives, and they may serve as a public library that provides 

information services to the general public. 

In addition to supporting institutional and library missions and goals, these libraries also are 

obligated to fulfill their responsibilities as regional depository libraries. They are required to 

 

2

 ANSI is the American National Standards Institute. NISO is the National Information Standards Organization and 

it “identifies develops, maintains, and publishes technical standards to manage information”. NISO is accredited by 

ANSI. NISO also is officially designated by ANSI to represent the United States on the International Organization 

for Standardization’s Technical Committee on Information and Documentation [http://www.niso.org]. 

Page 9 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

provide no-fee public access to the Government information dissemination products, retain all 

publications permanently in either paper or microfacsimile, and support and assist the selectives 

in the region they serve with interlibrary loan, reference services, and the disposal of unwanted 

Government publications. Over the years, and in accordance with guidelines developed by the 

depository community, regionals expanded their services to selectives to include activities such 

as training, site visits, consultation, microfiche reproduction, and other services. 

A. Current Conditions in Regional Depository Libraries

In addition to the comments GPO received, the results of the 2003, 2005, and 2007 Biennial 

Survey of Depository Libraries were used to determine the current conditions of regional 

depository libraries. All depository libraries are required to submit this survey in order to 

meet their statutory obligation to “report to the Superintendent of Documents at least every 

two years concerning their condition”. There were fifty-three regionals in 2003, fifty-two in 

2005 and 2007. Two regionals did not submit the survey in 2007. 

Organizational Conditions. Library administrators are rethinking the way their libraries 

provide service and how the building’s square footage is used. Depository operations are 

competing for limited funds and space that is also needed for users, staff, computers, and 

other collections. Multiple service desks within a library are disappearing in favor of one 

centralized service point and more space is devoted to information commons or knowledge 

centers. 

The 2007 Biennial Survey revealed that 47 out of the 50 regional respondents saw a 

decrease or static number of librarians in depository 

operations over the last five years. Depository staff in 

78% of regionals is training staff throughout the library 

about reference sources and services for Government 

information. This is critical as depositories are also 

reorganizing; a majority (58%) of regionals has 

integrated their service desk with that of the library’s 

main reference area and most depository librarians are no 

longer responsible for only depository operations. Crosstraining activities leverage shrinking staff resources and 

enhance public service to users. Yet the regional 

librarians, in the joint perspective3

 they submitted to 

GPO, reported that this leads to a “generalist” approach 

to service and in-depth expertise diminishes over time 

with retirements and downsizing. 

Since 2005, 47% of regional depositories experienced 

construction, renovation, or relocation. The percentage of r

maintain materials in remote storage (56%) remained consistent from 2005 to 2007; no 

egional depositories that 

 

irport. 

When lined up, materials in a 100 

year old regional depository stretch 

six miles or slightly farther than the 

distance from the U.S. Senate 

Library to Reagan National A

3

 See Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: Regional Depository Librarians’ Perspective and other 

regional study comments submitted to GPO in Appendix C of this report. 

Page 10 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

remote storage data were collected in 2003. Through selective housing agreements, 

depository materials are often located at another site in order to better meet individual 

patron needs. The 2007 survey results indicate that 34% of regional depositories are p

materials in one or more selective housing sites. 

lacing 

Regardless of the construction and renovation activities in regionals, there are some 

regionals operating with very little space in the library and with full remote storage facilities 

as well. Others report the potential availability of remote storage for legacy collections of 

depository materials. This raises an additional dilemma, however. Before materials are 

placed in remote storage libraries are cataloging the materials; they are ensuring there is a 

record in their online catalog that indicates the library holds a particular title and where it is 

located. This is a costly (estimated at $5 per record) and multi-year process. GPO and 

thirty-five regionals are cataloging 2.2 million pre-1976 depository publications. In the 

meantime the lack of records in library online catalogs for these publications is an obstacle 

to public access to the large historical collections maintained by regional depository 

libraries and a barrier to possible space solutions. 

Financial Conditions. Not all regional depository libraries are experiencing budgetary 

constraints, though they are the minority. The slowing economy is taking its toll on regional 

libraries. One director stated, “A static budget would be a welcome one. Instead our budget 

is declining.” Some states are facing cuts anywhere from 6-15% over each of the next two 

years. 

“Regional depository

services, around the

nation, have always

been of uneven quantity

and quality.”

A State Librarian attributes the uneven quantity and 

quality of regional depository services, in part, to 

funding inequalities. The uneven numbers of 

selectives served and geographical areas covered 

also play a role. For example, California has one 

regional depository library and ninety selective 

depositories to serve an area of almost 156,000 

square miles and an estimated 2006 population of 

36,457,550. South Carolina has two shared 

regionals and nineteen selectives to serve an area of 

almost 30,110 square miles and an estimated 2006 population of 4,321,250. This is not what 

the depository reformers envisioned in 1962. Many regional depository librarians cannot 

afford to visit their selectives or provide support services to them. 

Thirty-seven regionals, or 72.5%, disagree or strongly disagree that financial support to 

cover the costs of depository operations continues to increase. The return on investment for 

regional libraries to store, maintain, and preserve their tangible legacy collections has 

diminished as some libraries report institutional costs of more than $1,000,000 a year to 

support their regional depository operation. Fiscal issues coupled with interconnected 

networks and innovations in the delivery of services compel libraries to rethink the services 

they provide and how they provide them. Additionally, they are reexamining how the library 

is used. Collaboration is needed to meet these challenges. 

Page 11 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

Technological Conditions. Technologically, the regionals are faring well. Forty-eight of 

fifty-two, or 92.3%, of regional depositories agree or strongly agree that the library has an 

adequate number of computers for use by the public and 85% meet GPO’s minimum 

technical requirements for public access workstations. Internet filtering software is 

employed by 26% of regionals, with most being able to turn the filter off if requested to do 

so by researchers, and 52% require no user authentication to log in. All regionals provide 

records in their online catalogs for current depository receipts and 100% also include 

hyperlinks in records to online information dissemination products that direct users to the 

full-text. The users are following the links. GPO tracks, for the depository libraries, how 

many users they refer to online publications from their online catalog records through 

GPO’s persistent uniform resource locator (PURL) server. For those regionals that have 

participated in the tracking from 2001-2006, there was a 483% increase in PURL referrals. 

 

Regional depository librarians are cooperating with selective depository librarians to deliver 

Web-based training in the use of government information. Government Information in the 

21st Century (Gi21), an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded project, is 

a continuing education program that delivers training in the use of electronic government 

information for those who provide reference services. Fifty government information 

professionals from Federal depository libraries in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, 

and Wyoming are available as trainers. 

GPO procured and is using OPAL – Online Programming for All Libraries to conduct Webbased training for the depository library community. Recently GPO opened up its virtual 

classroom to depository librarians so that they can share their expertise with others. 

In 2005, 71% of regionals indicated an interest in participating in a national collaborative 

virtual reference service. After a successful pilot project, Government Information Online: 

Ask a Librarian (GIO) was launched in February 2008. At present there are twenty-two 

depository libraries, seven of which are regionals, that contribute to the GIO/GPO service 

partnership to provide chat and e-mail reference service and delivery of digitized or borndigital content. 

Web-based training and virtual reference service are only two examples of how depositories 

are harnessing the power of the Internet to provide collaborative solutions to deliver 

Government information services at the user’s online point of need. User searching 

behavior has changed; more and more people prefer to research from home, work, or the 

local coffee shop with wifi. 

While the migration to electronic deliverables and online databases saves on shelf space for 

collections and provides access to data that can be manipulated, there is a trade-off. Instead 

of purchasing microfiche reader/printers and cabinets, libraries must acquire and maintain 

"robust" computer workstations, laser printers, software upgrades, storage cabinets for CDROMs and diskettes, Internet connections, etc. Staff training is necessarily more 

complicated as is the need to assist patrons with electronic access services. Historic 

information may only be available in optical disk storage or floppy disks whose time has 

come and gone. 

Page 12 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

Effect on Selective Depository Libraries. Many of the comments GPO received for this 

study from selective depositories were very supportive and complimentary of their regional. 

They are grateful for their regional providing training and meeting opportunities, facilitating 

communication within the region, and responding to queries in a timely manner. There was, 

however, an overwhelming number of comments complaining about the disposition of 

materials process, which is managed by regionals per 44 USC §1912. The turn around time 

for regionals to grant their approval to withdraw depository materials is exceedingly long. 

Selectives are withdrawing tangible materials and replacing them with access to online 

versions to meet the needs of their users and to help alleviate space problems. Regionals are 

having difficulties processing the increasing number of requests. GPO recognizes this is an 

issue that needs further investigation, discussion, and collaboration with the Federal 

depository library community to solve. 

According to comments GPO received, not all regionals are meeting the needs of their 

selective depository libraries. It was reported that some regionals never, or very rarely, 

communicate with their selectives and they are unresponsive to requests for assistance. This 

is often attributed to the regional depository librarian being too far extended with other 

responsibilities. 

Several selectives also expressed concern for how impending reorganizations and staff 

decreases at their regionals might affect them. Some indicated a fear that existing problems, 

such as the disposition process, will only be compounded. 

B. Projected Conditions in Regional Depository Libraries 

To project the conditions in regional depository libraries the directors/deans were asked to 

complete a five-level Likert items survey. The response rate to this survey was 100%. See 

Appendix B for a summary of the results and the comments that were included. 

Additionally, strategic planning documents4

 of libraries and their parent institutions were 

examined to determine future directions. Of the fifty-two libraries that are regional 

depositories, thirty-seven or 71%, have some form of strategic planning document. Of 

those, only fifteen specifically addressed the depository operations in their documentation. 

Thirty-six or 69% of parent institutions have planning documents. 

The strategic planning documents revealed several common trends, regardless of library 

type. Libraries are: 

 Improving and increasing access to both physical and virtual information resources; 

 Blending tangible and electronic information access as well as emphasizing physical 

and virtual service in the use of those resources; 

 

4

 For the purpose of this study, strategic planning documents were liberally defined as any written publication that 

provided information regarding the future direction of the organization. This included documents such as strategic 

plans, vision documents, five-year plans, annual reports, goal-setting documents, or mission statements. This broad 

definition accommodated the variation in terminology used by organizations in naming strategic publications. 

Page 13 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

 Highlighting specialized collections and services unique to their library; 

 Assessing, identifying, and responding to end-user information needs; 

 Integrating the library into the environment where end-users live, work, study, and 

research – providing point of need services; 

 Participating in collaborative relationships such as partnerships to share resources 

(physical and virtual), including space and staff; and 

 Addressing the change in knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for library 

employees by training existing staff or hiring additional staff with appropriate skills. 

Results of the survey of regional library directors/deans that GPO conducted in April 2008 

depict a future that maximizes the use of information and service delivery networks and 

collaborative solutions. The results also reveal a commitment to the ideal of public access to 

Government information and a desire to make the content of their tangible legacy collection 

accessible. 

The budget outlook for the next three to five years is not promising for 78.9% of regional 

depositories. Ten libraries, or almost 20%, agree or strongly agree that they are considering 

relinquishing their regional designation and becoming a selective depository. Yet, 27.4% or 

fourteen regionals would consider serving as a regional for selective depositories in a 

neighboring state. In fact seven already serve in such a capacity. Another nine regionals are 

neutral on this issue. 

In some respects staffing in regional depositories does not appear to be a problem; 60% 

agree or strongly agree there is enough professional staff and almost 65% agree or strongly 

agree there is enough support staff to support the regional depository operation. But, 

twenty-four regionals, less than half, agree or strongly agree there is enough staff to support 

their regional responsibilities to their selectives. As mentioned above, according to 

comments, staffing is a concern of the selectives they serve. 

The survey indicates that there is not a perceived space problem in regionals for the next 

five years; 62.8% have room for print materials and 68.6% have room for microfiche. 

Additionally, 80.4% agree or strongly agree that a primarily online FDLP has expanded 

service opportunities and 88.2% agree or strongly agree that participation in statewide and 

regional consortia allows increased services to the people of the region. 

While 53% of regionals agree or strongly agree that they would like to be as “virtual” as 

possible were it an option, comments indicate that in some instances this would not be to 

replace the tangible collection but rather to provide another means of access to the content. 

Almost half (48%) of the regional depository libraries are digitizing, or are developing plans 

to digitize, depository materials locally or through partnerships and 52% are willing to 

receive FDLP access derivative digital files on deposit. 

Page 14 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

Cataloging and preservation of the legacy collection is paramount to providing the level of 

access desired by regional depository libraries. New ways of collaboration are needed to 

meet these challenges. 

Page 15 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

V. TITLE 44 AND REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES 

The Federal Depository Library Program operates under the authority and mandates of 44 United 

States Code, §§1901-1916. Regional depository libraries are addressed in §§1911-1912, 

A. Legacy Sections of Title 44, Chapter 19 Related to Regional Depository Libraries 

§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. 

§1912. Regional depositories; designation; functions; disposal of publications 

Not more than two depository libraries in each State and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico may be designated as regional depositories, and shall receive from the 

Superintendent of Documents copies of all new and revised Government publications 

authorized for distribution to depository libraries. Designation of regional depository 

libraries may be made by a Senator or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico within 

the areas served by them, after approval by the head of the library authority of the State or 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as the case may be, who shall first ascertain from the 

head of the library to be so designated that the library will, in addition to fulfilling the 

requirements for depository libraries, retain at least one copy of all Government 

publications either in printed or microfacsimile form (except those authorized to be 

discarded by the Superintendent of Documents); and within the region served will provide 

interlibrary loan, reference service, and assistance for depository libraries in the disposal of 

unwanted Government publications. The agreement to function as a regional depository 

library shall be transmitted to the Superintendent of Documents by the Senator or the 

Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico when the designation is made. 

The libraries designated as regional depositories may permit depository libraries, 

within the areas served by them, to dispose of Government publications which they have 

retained for five years after first offering them to other depository libraries within their 

area, then to other libraries. 

B. Previous Efforts to Revise Title 44, Chapter 19 

The last major change to Title 44 that affected depository libraries was Public Law 103-40, 

The Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, 

more commonly known as The GPO Access Act. The implementation of the GPO Access 

Act ushered GPO into the online age and accelerated the paradigm shift in the FDLP that 

Page 16 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

changed GPO’s relationship with depository libraries. Regional depositories have the 

responsibility for permanent public access in the tangible publication environment. In the 

online information environment GPO has assumed primary responsibility for ensuring 

content and permanent public access. Depository libraries, particularly regionals, face 

challenges providing access to and delivering Government information to library users 

while continuing to maintain and preserve legacy collections of tangible depository 

resources for permanent availability. 

Since 1993, attempts were made to update Chapter 19, Depository Library Program, to no 

avail. Additionally, the library community identified alternatives for restructuring the 

FDLP in the online information environment that required changes to Chapter 19 to 

implement. The following represent these efforts: 

 Depository Library Council. Alternatives For Restructuring The Depository 

Library Program: a Report to the Superintendent of Documents and the Public 

Printer from the Depository Library Council (September 1993). 

 Dupont Circle Group. Chicago Conference Coordinating Committee. Reinventing 

Access to Federal Government Information: Report of the Conference on the 

Future of Federal Government Information (October 1993). 

 U.S. Government Printing Office. Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a 

Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program 

As Required by Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 Public Law 104-53

(June 1996). 

 Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information Policy. Goals for 

Revising U.S.C. Title 44 to Enhance Public Access to Federal Government 

Information (May 1997). 

 Joint Committee on Printing. Eric Peterson. Concepts for Reform of Title 44

(September 1997). 

 Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information Policy. Federal 

Information Access Program Act of 1998. Draft bill to amend Chapter 19 of Title 

44, United States Code transmitted to The Honorable John W. Warner, Chairman, 

Committee on Rules and Administration. (March 1998). 

 U.S. Congress. Senate. A bill to provide for the reform and continuing legislative 

oversight of the production, procurement, dissemination, and permanent public 

access of the Government’s publications, and for other purposes. 105th Cong., 2nd 

Sess. S. 2288 (Reported in the Senate). 

 Depository Library Council. Knowledge Will Forever Govern: A Vision Statement 

for Federal Depository Libraries in the 21st Century. Final Version (September 29, 

2006). 

 

We were forewarned about the provisions of the structure created by the Depository Library Act 

of 1962. In his March 15, 1962 testimony at a hearing on depository libraries before the 

Page 17 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

Subcommittee on the Library of the Committee on Rules and Administration, Dr. Benjamin 

Powell, the Librarian of Duke University, stated: 

 

Any legislation geared to districts rather than population will not provide enough 

expansion to keep abreast of demand during the next quarter or half century. This 

bill lacks an expansive feature. An amendment which would permit Senators to 

designate additional depositories according to a population formula would make 

this legislation serve the country for many decades.

Thirty-one years passed between the implementation of the Depository Library Act of 1962 and 

the Depository Library Council’s Alternatives For Restructuring The Depository Library 

Program report of 1993. 

While the GPO Access Act and the movement to a primarily electronic FDLP created many 

opportunities to enhance access and services to Government information dissemination products, 

there have not been corresponding revisions to Chapter 19 to provide regional and selective 

depository libraries the flexibility required to operate in an online and networked environment. 

Chapter 19 needs “an expansive feature”.

Page 18 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This study was undertaken at the request of the JCP to determine the extent to which public 

access via the FDLP may be impaired by current or projected organizational, financial, 

technological, or other conditions affecting regional depository libraries. 

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? Yes, it is time for a 

change. Libraries and the world around them have changed radically in the forty-six years since 

the Depository Library Act of 1962 was passed. “A sound depository library system designed for 

modern conditions is required.” 

The regional structure in place today is not what the depository reformers envisioned in 1962. 

Regional depository libraries, and the selective depositories they serve, are located in different 

types and sizes of libraries; they are geographically dispersed; service areas vary greatly in size 

and population; and in addition to meeting the mandates of the FDLP, they must also work 

within the influences of their unique local environment. 

Analysis of the results of the Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries, and the Regional 

Depository Library Survey, April 2008, and review of comments from the library community 

reveal that current and projected conditions of regional depositories differ from library to library. 

Key findings about regional depository libraries include: 

 Regional depositories are committed to the ideal of public access to Government 

information and value the FDLP legacy collections they maintain. 

 100% provide records in their online catalogs for current depository receipts and 100% 

also include hyperlinks in records to online information dissemination products that 

direct users to the full-text; 

 35 libraries and GPO are cataloging 2.2 million pre-1976 depository publications. This, 

however, is a costly (estimated at $5 per record) and multi-year process and should be a 

coordinated cooperative effort. In the meantime the lack of records in library online 

catalogs for these publications is an obstacle to public access to the large historical 

collections maintained by regional depository libraries; 

 80.4% agree or strongly agree that a primarily online FDLP has expanded service 

opportunities and 88.2% agree or strongly agree that participation in statewide and 

regional consortia allows increased services to the people of the region; 

 48% are digitizing, or developing plans to digitize, depository materials locally or 

through partnerships and 52% are willing to receive FDLP access derivative files on 

deposit; 

 92.3% agree or strongly agree that the library has an adequate number of computers for 

use by the public, 85% meet the minimum technical requirements for public access 

workstations, 26% employ filtering software, and 52% require no user authentication to 

log in; 

Page 19 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

 Depository operations are competing for limited funds and space that is also needed for 

users, staff, computers, and other collections; 

 Libraries are rethinking how they provide service; 58% have integrated services for 

depository users with the library’s main reference desk, 94% reported a decrease or static 

number of librarians working in depository operations over the last five years, and most 

depository librarians are no longer responsible for only depository operations; 

 62.8% agree or strongly agree that they have sufficient space for print publications for the 

next five years and 56% house depository materials in remote storage facilities; 

 27.4% would consider serving as a regional for selective depositories in a neighboring 

state and another 17.6% are neutral on this issue; 

 78.9% disagree or strongly disagree that their funding outlook for the next 3-5 years is 

promising; 

 The return on investment for regional libraries to store, maintain, and preserve their 

tangible legacy collections has diminished as some libraries report institutional costs of 

more than $1,000,000 a year to support their regional depository operation; 

 10 libraries are considering relinquishing their regional designation; 

 The condition of publications within the legacy collections housed in regional depository 

libraries prohibits access. The deterioration of materials over time from acidic paper, 

degrading microfiche, lack of preservation-level climate controls in libraries, and decades 

of normal use has resulted in some materials being too fragile for use; 

 Collaboration is needed to meet the challenges of cataloging, storing, preserving, and 

digitizing the legacy collection of depository materials; 

 Chapter 19 of Title 44 must be revised to allow a more flexible structure that permits 

regional depository libraries to operate more effectively at the local level by using 

cooperative networks, with the ultimate result of better serving the public and their 

selective depository libraries; 

 GPO recognizes that the disposition of materials process is challenging for both regional 

and selective depository libraries. This needs further investigation, discussion, and 

collaboration with the Federal depository library community; and 

 The time frame allotted for this study allowed only a cursory look at regional depository 

libraries to identify issues affecting and problems facing them. 

A network of diverse libraries with varying needs, like the designated regionals in the FDLP, 

requires flexibility and collaboration such as is afforded Federal agencies through e-government 

initiatives. Among the purposes identified by Congress for passing the E-Government Act of 

2002 are, “to promote interagency collaboration in providing electronic services where this 

collaboration would improve the service to citizens ... where this collaboration would improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness ...” and to “promote access to high quality Government 

information and services across multiple channels.” 

Page 20 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

As stated by the Office of Management and Budget in FY 2007 Report to Congress on 

Implementation of the E-Government Act of 2002, “the use of information technology to provide 

consistent access to and dissemination of government information is essential to promote a more 

citizen-centered government in a cost-effective manner.” The current framework of regional 

depositories exists within a structure designed more than forty-five years ago prior to the creation 

of statewide and regional consortia for resource sharing and prior to the development of 

information delivery networks. 

For more than fifteen years the depository library community has explored alternative structures 

for the FDLP. In today’s environment where geographic boundaries are a blur to services, who 

better to determine how to deliver government information to meet the needs of a region than the 

depository libraries that serve it? Libraries are improving and increasing access to tangible and 

virtual information resources by digitizing collections; providing point of need services; and 

participating in collaborative relationships to share personnel, space, and services. To move 

forward in the 21st century, regional libraries also must be able to apply these options to their 

depository collections. 

To ensure regional depository libraries are able to provide unimpaired access to Government 

information dissemination products for future generations, GPO recommends: 

 Continuing and increasing appropriations for GPO’s initiative to create machine-readable 

bibliographic records for the legacy collection of pre-1976 depository publications to 

ensure its completion in a timelier manner. 

 Revising Chapter 19 of Title 44 to allow a more flexible structure within the parameters 

of the, already library community-accepted, Guidelines For Establishing Shared 

Regional Depository Libraries5. 

 Approving the Kansas/Nebraska shared regional proposal. GPO is positioned to approve 

intrastate proposals and wants to continue to bring new multi-state proposals that meet 

the criteria in the Guidelines For Establishing Shared Regional Depository Libraries,

forward to the JCP for consideration.

 Making funds available to regional depository libraries to help offset the costs of storing 

and preserving government property and the costs that are shifted from agencies to 

libraries as an unintended consequence of technology (an unfunded mandate). 

 Continuing the dialog between GPO and the depository community about the outcomes 

of this study and to undertake a more in-depth look at the organizational, financial, and 

technological issues affecting the FDLP in its entirety, not just the regional depository 

libraries. Further discussion of scenarios for a flexible future are needed to gain 

consensus for driving Title 44 revisions. 

 

5

 The Guidelines were written at the request of the depository library community and, after much discussion, 

became effective in August 2007. They are available at <http://www.fdlp.gov/regionals/guidelines.html> and as 

Appendix D of this report. 

Page 21 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

VII. REFERENCES

American Library Association. The State of America’s Libraries. April 2008. 

[http://www.ala.org/2008state]. 

Depository Library Council. Alternatives For Restructuring the Depository Library Program: A 

Report to the Superintendent of Documents and the Public Printer from the Depository Library 

Council. September 1993. [http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/council/alternat.html]. 

_______________. Knowledge Will Forever Govern: A Vision Statement for Federal Depository 

Libraries in the 21st Century. Final Version. September 29, 2006 

[http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/council/dlcvision092906.pdf]. 

Dupont Circle Group. Chicago Conference Coordinating Committee. Reinventing Access to 

Federal Government Information: Report of the Conference on the Future of Federal 

Government Information. October 1993 [http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Public_Information/FinsPI-06.txt]. 

Estabrook, Leigh, Evans Witt, and Lee Rainie. Information Searches That Solve Problems: How 

People Use the Internet, Libraries, and Government Agencies When They Need Help. (PEW 

Internet & American Life Project) December 30,2007. 

[http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Pew_UI_LibrariesReport.pdf]. 

Institute of Museum and Library Services. Public Libraries in the United States: Fiscal Year 

2005. (Data files and reports available from the Web site). 

[http://harvester.census.gov/imls/publib.asp]. 

_______________. State Library Agencies: Fiscal Year 2006. (Data files and reports available 

from the Web site). [http://harvester.census.gov/imls/pubs/stla/index.asp] 

Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information Policy. Goals for Revising U.S.C. 

Title 44 to Enhance Public Access to Federal Government Information. May 1997. 

[http://www.aall.org/aallwash/t44goals.html]. 

_______________. Federal Information Access Program Act of 1998. Draft bill to amend 

Chapter 19 of Title 44, United States Code transmitted to The Honorable John W. Warner, 

Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration. March 1998. 

[http://www.aall.org/aallwash/lt030998.html]

Joint Committee on Printing. Eric Peterson. Concepts for Reform of Title 44. September 1997. 

[http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/peterson.html].

National Information Standards Organization. Information Services and Use: Metrics & 

Statistics for Libraries and Information Providers --Data Dictionary (ANSI/NISO Z39.7-2004). 

[http://128.8.237.133/emetrics/current/index.html] 

Page 22 
DRAFT

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education 

Statistics. Academic Library Survey. (Data files and reports available from the Web site). 

[http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/aca_data.asp]. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. A bill to provide for the reform and continuing legislative oversight of the 

production, procurement, dissemination, and permanent public access of the Government’s 

publications, and for other purposes. 105th Cong., 2d Sess. S. 2288 (Reported in the Senate) 

[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:s2288rs.pdf]. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on House Administration. Report to Accompany H.R. 8141.

H.R. Rep. 724, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 1961. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Rules and Administration. Revising the Laws Relating to 

Depository Libraries. S. Rep. 1587, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 1962. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Subcommittee on the Library of the Senate Committee on Rules and 

Administration. Depository Libraries: Hearings on S. 2029 and H.R. 8141. 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 

March 15, 1962. 

U.S. Government Printing Office. Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful 

Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program As Required by 

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 Public Law 104-53. June 1996. 

[http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html]. 

U.S. Government Printing Office. Library Programs Service. Federal Depository Library 

Program: Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1996 - FY 2001 (Exhibit 1 

of the Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition ...) June 1996. 

[http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html]. 

U.S. Government Printing Office. Library Services and Content Management. Biennial Survey of 

Depository Libraries. [http://www.fdlp.gov/repository/bsurvey/index.html]. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. FY 2007 Report to Congress on Implementation of the 

E-Government Act of 2002. May 2008. 

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/reports/fy2007_egov_report.pdf]. 

Wilson, Alane, ed. The 2003 Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition. A report to the OCLC 

membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. December 2003. 

[http://www.oclc.org/reports/escan/]. 

Page 23 
Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: A Time for Change? 

VIII. APPENDICES 

A. GPO AND JCP CORRESPONDENCE RE: SHARED REGIONALS 

Letter from Acting Public Printer William Turri to the Honorable Robert Brady, Chairman, Joint 

Committee on Printing, September 13, 2007 seeking approval of the Kansas/Nebraska shared 

regional depository library proposal 

Letter from the Honorable Robert Brady, Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing to Honorable 

Robert Tapella, Public Printer of the U.S., February 27, 2008. In response to Mr. Turri’s letter of 

September 13, 2007 

Congressional Research Service Memorandum: GPO Authority Over Regional Depository 

Libraries, November 6, 2007. To the House Committee on Administration 

B. REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY SURVEY, APRIL 2008 

Regional Depository Library Survey, April 2008: Summary of Results 

C. COMMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY COMMUNITY 

Comments Received Through the FDLP Desktop Comment Form 

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: Regional Depository Librarians’ Perspective 

Letters from Library Associations 

D. GUIDELINES 

Establishing Shared Regional Depository Libraries 

DRAFT
APPENDIX A: 

GPO AND JCP CORRESPONDENCE RE: SHARED REGIONALS 

Letter from Acting Public Printer William Turri to the Honorable Robert Brady, 

Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing, September 13, 2007 seeking approval of the 

Kansas/Nebraska shared regional depository library proposal 

Letter from the Honorable Robert Brady, Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing to 

Honorable Robert Tapella, Public Printer of the U.S., February 27, 2008. In response 

to Mr. Turri’s letter of September 13, 2007 

Congressional Research Service Memorandum: GPO Authority Over Regional 

Depository Libraries, November 6, 2007. To the House Committee on 

Administration 

DRAFT



HOUSE 

ROBERT A. BRADY,PENNSYLVANIA

CHAIRMAN

 SENATE 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA

VICE CHAIRMAN

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, MASSACHUSETTS

SUSAN A. DAVIS, CALIFORNIA

VERNON J.EHLERS, MICHIGAN

KEVIN MCCARTHY, CALIFORNIA

Congress of the United States 

Joint Committee on Printing

DANIEL INOUYE, HAWAII

PATTY MURRAY,WASHINGTON

ROBERT BENNETT, UTAH

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, GEORGIA

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 - 6157 

February 27, 2008 

The Honorable Robert Tapella 

Public Printer 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Tapella: 

Thank you for Acting Public Printer William Turri’s letter of September 13, 2007, 

requesting the approval of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) for designation 

of the regional depository libraries at the University of Kansas and the University 

of Nebraska as “shared” Federal regional depository libraries. 

As Mr. Turri’s letter notes, the underlying request from the two Federal regional 

depository libraries operating in different states presents the first formal request 

from regional depositories in different states to share collections and to serve 

depository libraries across state lines. The statute authorizing regional depository 

libraries (44 U.S.C. 1912) does not contemplate regional depositories sharing 

collections and serving depository libraries outside their borders. Consequently, 

the instant request asks the JCP to approve the Public Printer’s expansion of the 

regional depository library program across state lines under the statute (44 U.S.C. 

1914) granting the Public Printer flexibility in the “implementation” of the 

program subject to JCP approval. 

While Congress has given the Joint Committee broad authority over operations of 

the Government Printing Office (GPO), which administers the Federal Depository 

Library Program (FDLP), that authority has limits. Before considering GPO’s 

request on the merits, the JCP must determine whether the authority granted to the 

Public Printer and the JCP by 44 U.S.C. 1914 encompasses programmatic change 

of the magnitude sought here. For guidance, the Joint Committee consulted the 

American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Library of 

Congress, for its opinion, a copy of which is enclosed. 
As you will note, CRS concluded that neither the language nor legislative history 

of 44 U.S.C. 1914 supports GPO’s interpretation of the statute. After careful 

review, the Joint Committee finds the CRS analysis persuasive; if the Public 

Printer may not authorize shared regional depository libraries under 44 U.S.C. 

1914, the JCP cannot approve such action. 

Although the Joint Committee cannot approve the Public Printer’s request, it is 

nonetheless concerned that this request to share resources and responsibilities may 

signal that growing challenges confront regional depository libraries in maintaining 

and supporting effective public access through the FDLP. Accordingly, the Joint 

Committee directs you, in consultation with all concerned elements of the library 

community, to undertake a thorough examination of the current state of regional 

depository libraries nationwide. The purpose of the study will be to evaluate 

the extent to which public access via the FDLP may be impaired by current or 

projected organizational, financial, technological, or other conditions affecting 

these institutions. You are further directed to provide the Joint Committee with 

your findings on or before June 1, 2008, together with any legislative 

recommendations for improvements to the program that you may choose to offer. 

B 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. BRADY 

Chairman 

Enclosure 

CC: All Members, Joint Committee on Printing 

The Honorable Ben Nelson 

The Honorable Pat Robert 





APPENDIX B: 

REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY SURVEY, APRIL 2008 

Regional Depository Library Survey, April 2008: Summary of Results 

DRAFT
DRAFT

Regional Depository Library Survey: Summary of Results 

GPO sent this survey to directors/deans of regional Federal depository libraries in April 2008. There

was a 100% response rate, though there were some statements to which there were no responses.

1. Please enter your Depository Library #:

Response Count 

52 

Answered question 52

Skipped question 0

2. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 

Response 

Count 

Space for housing Federal depository 

print publications is sufficient for 5 years.

7.8% 

(4)

15.7% 

(8)

13.7% 

(7)

41.2% 

(21)

21.6% 

(11) 51

Space for housing Federal depository 

microfiche is sufficient for 5 years.

3.9% 

(2)

17.6% 

(9)

9.8% 

(5)

43.1% 

(22)

25.5% 

(13) 51

Space for housing Federal depository 

tangible electronic publications is 

sufficient for 5 years.

4.0% 

(2)

10.0% 

(5)

4.0% 

(2)

58.0% 

(29)

24.0% 

(12) 50

My library does not have an adequate 

number of computers for the public to 

access online depository materials.

50.0% 

(26)

42.3% 

(22)

0.0% 

(0)

7.7% 

(4)

0.0% 

(0) 52

There is enough professional staff to 

support the depository operation in my 

library.

4.0% 

(2)

24.0% 

(12)

12.0% 

(6)

54.0% 

(27)

6.0% 

(3) 50

There is enough support staff to support 

the depository operation in my library.

3.9% 

(2)

17.6% 

(9)

13.7% 

(7)

62.7% 

(32)

2.0% 

(1) 51

There is enough temporary staff (e.g., 

students, volunteers) to help support the 

depository operation in my library.

5.9% 

(3)

9.8% 

(5)

33.3% 

(17)

47.1% 

(24)

3.9% 

(2) 51

There is enough staff in my library to 

support regional responsibilities to 

selectives in the region.

5.9% 

(3)

37.3% 

(19)

9.8% 

(5)

45.1% 

(23)

2.0% 

(1) 51

My library will consider serving as a 

regional for selective Federal depository 

libraries in neighboring states.

25.5% 

(13)

29.4% 

(15)

17.6% 

(9)

17.6% 

(9)

9.8% 

(5) 51

The Federal depository services in my 

library are seldom used.

38.5% 

(20)

51.9% 

(27)

1.9% 

(1)

5.8% 

(3)

1.9% 

(1) 52

The tangible Federal depository 

collection is frequently used.

2.0% 

(1)

15.7% 

(8)

13.7% 

(7)

51.0% 

(26)

17.6% 

(9) 51

A primarily online Federal Depository 

Library Program has expanded service 

opportunities in my library.

0.0% 

(0) 

5.9% 

(3)

13.7% 

(7)

60.8% 

(31)

19.6% 

(10) 51

Page B - 1
DRAFT

Strongly 

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 

Response 

Count 

Regional library staff has sufficient 

support to conduct collection 

management training sessions for 

selective depository libraries in the region 

they serve.

13.7% 

(7)

27.5% 

(14)

15.7% 

(8)

43.1% 

(22)

0.0% 

(0) 51

Financial support to cover the costs of 

regional depository operations continues 

to increase.

33.3% 

(17)

39.2% 

(20)

13.7% 

(7)

11.8% 

(6)

2.0% 

(1) 51

I am prepared to expand the services 

provided to selective depositories in the 

region I serve.  

15.7% 

(8)

39.2% 

(20)

19.6% 

(10)

23.5% 

(12)

2.0% 

(1) 51

Changes in depository library services 

are consistent with changes in other 

library services.

5.9% 

(3)

5.9% 

(3)

11.8% 

(6)

64.7% 

(33)

11.8% 

(6) 51

Changes in the depository collection are 

consistent with changes in other library 

collections.

3.9% 

(2)

15.7% 

(8)

15.7% 

(8)

56.9% 

(29)

7.8% 

(4) 51

Reallocation of funds within a static 

library budget resulted in less financial 

support for the depository operation.

9.6% 

(5)

28.8% 

(15)

19.2% 

(10)

26.9% 

(14)

15.4% 

(8) 52

My library’s participation in statewide and 

regional consortia allows increased 

services to the people of my region.

0.0% 

(0)

0.0% 

(0)

11.8% 

(6)

64.7% 

(33)

23.5% 

(12) 51

The funding outlook for my library looks 

promising over the next 3-5 years; a 

budget increase is expected.

38.5% 

(20)

40.4% 

(21)

19.2% 

(10)

0.0% 

(0)

1.9% 

(1) 52

Federal depository services would 

improve if GPO placed consultants in the 

region I serve or the neighboring region.

9.8% 

(5)

17.6% 

(9)

29.4% 

(15)

31.4% 

(16)

11.8% 

(6) 51

The online information environment (e.g., 

network security, licensing agreements) 

has forced a discrepancy in Internet 

access provided to the general public 

and my library’s primary clientele.

19.2% 

(10)

50.0% 

(26)

7.7% 

(4)

21.2% 

(11)

1.9% 

(1) 52

Budgetary constraints at my library have 

caused a decline in regional services to 

selective depositories in my region.

7.8% 

(4)

39.2% 

(20)

23.5% 

(12)

25.5% 

(13)

3.9% 

(2) 51

My library does not have a strong record 

of promoting Federal depository 

collections and services to constituencies 

other than the library’s primary clientele.

17.6% 

(9)

41.2% 

(21)

3.9% 

(2)

29.4% 

(15)

7.8% 

(4) 51

If the option was available to regional 

depository libraries, my library would 

become as “virtual” as possible.

13.7% 

 (7)

17.6% 

(9)

15.7% 

(8)

27.5% 

(14)

25.5% 

(13) 51

My library is considering relinquishing 

regional depository status and becoming 

a selective depository library.

49.0% 

(25)

25.5% 

(13)

5.9% 

(3)

13.7% 

(7)

5.9% 

(3) 51

Page B - 2
DRAFT

 

3. Please provide any comments, further explanations, or observations about the current or projected 

conditions of your regional depository library specifically or the Federal Depository Library Program 

generally.

Response Count 

35 

Answered question 35

Skipped question 17

 

The State Library of Pennsylvania has recently celebrated its 150th anniversary as a federal depository library and 40 

years as a Regional Depository. This shows the commitment of the State Library of Pennsylvania as a federal depository. 

The State Library is contemplating the moving of its tangible collection from a closed stack area to a more accessible area 

in our Law/Government Publications Reading Room. This will allow for more accessibility than ever before for our paper 

U.S. documents. Our library has increased the involvement of our regional coordinator by being involved with such 

projects as "Government Information Online", being part of the focus groups on the FDLP Desktop and the FDsys pages, 

participating in "Browse Topics", and the testing group for the "Needs & Offers" page of the FDLP desktop. The Regional 

Coordinator has reached out to selectives in our states by reinstituting the State meeting that had not been held for almost 

ten years previous to this administration. The Regional Coordinator has recently been instrumental in encouraging 

selectives in the western part of our state to have a subgroup of their own. The Regional coordinator has also used the 

social networking tool Facebook in order to better communicate with the selectives in the Commonwealth. This tool is also 

used with the laborious task of dealing with the Needs & Offers lists that come in almost daily to our library. Being one of 

the Regionals with one of the largest numbers of selectives under one person it is a time consuming task. The use of a 

consultant sponsored by the Government Printing Office would be helpful in the coverage of training or consulting with 

many of the selectives that the Regional Coordinator does not get to see because of time and traveling costs constraints. 

The cost of advising the selectives and traveling to the fall and Spring Depository meetings is the second largest expense 

of out budget allocated to staff travel other than the Director. The most heavily used areas of our government collection 

are the Census materials, NOAA weather data, as well as our legislative and judicial materials. The materials are also 

heavily used by the local middle school and high school population for National History Day. Many of the selectives ask 

for ILL and copies of microforms that only the Regional library holds. The concern that Pennsylvania has will be for 

storage and migration of electronic materials. There are already many documents that are unreadable or unavailable due 

to changes in electronic formats. As more and more documents are available electronically the storage and retrieval of 

these documents will be challenge in the future. The preservation of the paper materials will also be an issue as well. The 

library feels that any digitization budget should go to the preservation of Pennsylvania documents first since the State 

Library of Pennsylvania may be the only repository of this information rather than the several repositories of U.S. 

government information.

 

The AUM Library is in a state of transition. Budgetary concerns have reduced available staffing for the library by two FTE 

positions. The library is to maintain current services to selectives, but is not able to add new services. 

 

The library building here outgrew its space in the 1980s. The building leaks with nearly every rain and has sewer and 

mold problems. It would be nice if Federal funding would be made available to help regional depositories construct new 

buildings. 

 

Question 1-3 - Room for Collections UVA Library needs more space for all its physical collections. Our remote storage is 

full and we are investigating a more remote remote storage option. We hope to build a second local remote storage 

facility, but funding is not available at this time. Meanwhile, all collections, including the depository ones, continue to grow. 

In addition to these current space pressures our library is planning on a major renovation to reallocate space away from 

collections and to people – more collaborative spaces, more study spaces, more congregating space. This would impact 

the growth space for all collections, including the federal government documents. Question 4 - Computers for public We 

do have enough computers for both our primary clientele AND the general public to use for research and accessing 

government information. However, we have recently required an ID from all members of the general public when using 

our computers. We continue to refine our policies and procedures for computer access to the general public - making sure 

it allows research and academic access without encouraging recreational computing. Question 5-7 - Staffing Twenty 

years ago the “documents” collection had a staff of two professional librarians and three and a half support staff. Now the 

Page B - 3
DRAFT

staff is two librarians and six support staff, but the responsibilities have expanded to include continuing education, 

periodicals, microforms, cataloging, Google book project support, technology, and general reference. The staff is spread 

thinner and the expertise is not as deep. Student workers are expected to provide general humanities and social science 

reference assistance as well as government information assistance. So, while we do have enough staff to serve the 

collections and provide service, those same staff are expected to do many things and they are unable to develop a deep 

expertise in government information. Question 8 - Regional staffing The primary person providing services to Virginia 

selectives is the Regional Librarian. She is also head of the overall Humanities and Social Sciences reference operation 

and acting director of the Library for Humanities and Social Sciences. While the “acting director” position is temporary, the 

combination of head of both general reference and government information means that she might not devote as much 

time as other regional librarian to services to selectives. That said, we believe that Virginia selectives feel well served. The 

Regional Librarian attempts to visit each non-federal selective every 3 years or when there’s a new depository 

coordinator. The Regional also holds annual meetings for Virginia selectives. Question 12 - Online depository Reference 

staff at many of the UVA libraries are able to assist users with government information. Education Library staff can easily 

find the Digest of Education Statistics rather than sending users to government documents for the back files of this title. 

Staff in our data center (Scholars’ Lab) often assist users with census and other government information. Question 13 - 

Collection Management training Again, currently the primary person doing this work is the Regional Librarian who has 

additional local responsibilities. Question 14 - Cost to be a depository continues to increase While staff to support 

continues to be a major expense, it is really the cost of storing the materials that is increasing. Shelf space is a 

commodity, and an increasingly scarce one. Many of our government documents are in remote storage, but this requires 

cataloging them. Such cataloging is costly. Question 15 - Expand services At this time UVA isn’t prepared or staffed to 

provide Virginia selectives with additional services. Our model is, to some extent, a “service on demand” model. If there’s 

a specific need the Regional Librarian will visit a depository, or consult with a depository coordinator. Currently, there are 

not enough staff to offer much else. Question 19 - cooperative efforts Undoubtedly the VIVA (Virtual Library of Virginia) 

our statewide higher education library consortium has vastly increased our services to both students and the residents of 

Virginia. None of the members of VIVA would be able to purchase all the resources that the consortial buying enables us 

to afford. Nor would we be able to offer the training that VIVA makes available. Question 21 - GPO consultants GPO 

consultants would allow Virginia depositories to reach more citizens by, potentially, offering workshops and training in 

government information sources to the general public as well as to depository staff. Most depositories in Virginia are 

academic institutions. While they acknowledge their wider responsibility to the general public, it is unarguable that their 

primary constituents are their students and faculty. Question 22 - Discrepancy in public computing access So far, we have 

been able to continue to offer the general public doing research similar computer access to our students and faculty. 

However, we are committed to providing our students and faculty adequate computer access. Should network security 

concerns or concerns about recreational computing by the general public become overwhelming it might be that we would 

need to, in some way, more closely monitor computer use by the general public. We would always allow the true 

researcher access to a computer, but we might need to require registration of some sort. Question 23 - Regional services 

Actually, in recent years we have funded depository visits and other travel by the Regional Librarian. We have also funded 

some aspects of the annual selective meeting. Question 24 - Promoting depository The depository has always reached 

out to other Virginia libraries – both depository and non-depository. We provide educational programs at the annual 

Virginia Library Association meetings. We have not been strong in reaching out to business groups or individual citizens. 

Question 25 - as virtual as possible Our library is moving toward becoming "as virtual as possible" in many of its 

collections areas. This trend for the depository collections would be consistent with our other collections. General 

comments U.S. government information is much more widely available and accessible now than it was when the 

Depository Library Act of 1962 was passed. At that time slow delivery methods, no scanning or digital delivery technology, 

poor interlibrary loan turn around times, lack of bibliographic control for federal materials and similar issues argued for the

presence of a full regional depository in every state. Now, the ubiquity of federal information on the internet, much better 

bibliographic control of federal documents, and much better delivery methods, both physical and digital, are able to deliver 

federal information to U.S. citizens in all parts of the country. The future of the federal depository system certainly will 

include tangible collections of federal documents spread across the country. Whether there is a need for 50 duplicated 

collections around the country is debatable. More flexibility in the depository law to allow collaborative regional 

arrangements, while ensuring every citizen has reasonable access to government information, is crucial.

 

1. Our space situation is somewhat different from other regional depositories. We have an agreement with the Readex 

corporation in which they borrow our documents to make their Government Publications microfiche product. As part of 

that agreement, we receive a free copy of the microfiche and use that to selectively weed the print collection (format 

substitution being permissible for depositories). While our current space will not be sufficient forever, it will serve for more 

than 5 years. Without the Readex agreement we would be in the same space predicament as other regionals. 2. Due to 

the above mentioned agreement with Readex, we probably have more fiche than other regionals. Readex provides us 

with the necessary cases to house the fiche, but we are out of appropriate places to put the cases. 6-8. There is enough 

professional and support staff to process incoming materials and to fill requests, but there is not enough staff to tackle 

special projects, such as retrospective cataloging, or to provide outreach to likely community audiences such as 

immigrants, legal firms or the local technical institute. We have no temporary staff. We could use more staff to process 

Page B - 4
DRAFT

discard lists. I think the selectives do not feel we do this in a timely manner. Public access would be enhanced by 

spreading documents expertise more widely among the professional staff. 9. The current geographic arrangement for this 

regional and its selectives is very workable. I can reasonably travel to any of the selectives in a one day trip, and – if 

necessary – patrons can reasonably travel here in one day. There is also plenty of public transportation to this location. 

The number of selectives we serve, 27, is also a reasonable number. It might be difficult for us to serve more selectives, 

particularly in regard to processing discard lists, or if over-night travel were required. 10-11. There is room for 

improvement, however. 12. A fair portion of the increased number of questions, however, are really technical questions 

(how to access a .pdf, or navigate a database, for example) rather than questions about which government resource to 

use. There is still a strong demand for tangible materials in our particular community, as well. Using the online FDLP may 

involve printing something out for the patron, or reading a fact to him/her, rather than the patron using the resource 

directly. 15. It depends on the services requested. 21. It depends on what the consultant would do. 22. As a public library, 

the general public is our primary clientele. 23. Staffing shortages have increased the turn-around time on discard lists, 

which is very inconvenient for the selectives. 25. While space constraints call for some reliance on digital materials, most 

of the Library’s collections are still a balance of “virtual” and tangible materials. The depository collection falls into line with 

this practice. 

 

The concept of a shared depository would be viable for some regional depositories and should be an option. Such as 

between a couple of libraries or among a cadre of libraries. LSU Libraries has a long tradition of collecting federal and 

state documents. As a regional depository, we have a l with the other regional depository in the state as well as with the 

selective depositories. 

 

With regard to question 25, we would not discard paper documents but would still become as virtual as possible. We are 

eager to see the legacy collection digitized. Also, we want to stress that we are firmly committed to the depository 

program. 

 

Some questions in this survey are not well crafted and we had difficulty understanding what was being asked. This may 

result in some conclusions being suspect. Question 25 highlights the main theme of our concerns for the future. The 

University of Maryland Libraries would eagerly move to serving our repository role in a more or less completely digital 

environment that allowed for the transformation of the repository system that was created to serve a completely print 

world. The human and technological resources that we invest in supporting a regional depository are disproportionate to 

actual use of the collection when compared to other Library collections and services 

 

Washington State Library is committed to continuing to have a strong regional depository. Many of our selective 

depositories would like more control of the format of publications they receive. 

 

15. We were prepared to expand services if we can reallocate funds by forming with Kansas a joint regional collection. 

17&18. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries proposed a joint regional collection with Kansas so that we can continue 

in the program, improve services, while decreasing costs. We spend $634,400 from our budget per year to support the 

Regional Depository Library Program. This figure includes no Federal funds. Costs include salaries (5.25 FTE), 

equipment, supplies of $244,400 and cost to shelve and maintain the collection of legacy print of over 130,000 items at 

$390,000 per year. Staffing was decreased in the past two years due to overall budget cuts. 

 

Row 1 - The space that over half of the collection, more than one million publications, occupies is slated to be converted 

into a computer technology center sometime in 2009. Rows 8,23,26 - Colorado is fortunate to have two long time 

regionals within 30 miles of each other. Colorado University in Boulder has been the senior partner and driving force in the 

Colorado depository system since Tim Byrne first established the Colorado Government Publications Interest Group 

(GoPIG) years ago. At one time half of the selective's discard lists went to DPL and half went to CU but in the age of the 

internet it was decided that it would be more efficient to centralize discard lists through CU. DPL has done it's smaller part 

by being a very large GPO collection, in generally very good condition, that the Denver metropolitan area has relatively 

easy access to. Rows 11,12 - This is a mixed bag or double-edged sword. Take your pick. We can do more with faster 

access because so many newer items are online but it also means that people with computers at home or office can also 

have access to them without having to go to the library. That combined with the general uses of a public library means 

that our collection is therefore not heavily used. Row 26 - This is the big one. DPL is still weighing the options on this very

important decision. 

Page B - 5
DRAFT

 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) is a large Academic Research Library, currently ranked 17th* in 

the nation by the Association for Research Libraries (ARL). We have served as a Federal Depository since 1884 and as a 

Regional Federal Depository since 1963. While the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) has undergone significant 

changes, the underlying rationale – providing permanent public access to federal government documents - has not. We 

strongly support the continuation of the FDLP but applaud the documents community and GPO for utilizing whatever 

flexibility can be mined from Title 44 to adapt to the current environment while accomplishing this main goal of the 

program. Libraries of all types are facing many of the same challenges – funding, reallocation of space, doing more with 

less staff, and providing service beyond our physical boundaries. In addressing these challenges, libraries are 

increasingly working together in collaborative endeavors that seek not to diminish our service but to continue and often 

enhance what we do for our patrons. To that end, we fully support formal collaborative partnerships such as the 

Kansas/Nebraska shared regional proposal. We also support joint efforts to: retrospectively catalog older government 

documents, strengthen interlibrary loan service, digitize and make freely available government documents, identify 

expertise within the documents community for training and reference as well as ascertain the most complete collections 

for specific government agencies. Whether these collaborations are intra or inter state is irrelevant to the end goal of 

providing permanent public access to government documents. What is relevant and indeed very necessary is 

Congressional support for such collaboration among all federal depositories whether that means permitting creative and 

flexible, but legal, reading of Title 44 or minor tweaks that update the FLDP for its second centennial of service, which 

begins in 2013. *As of 2005-2006, this is the latest year available from ARL. 

 

As the Director of the IN State Library I strongly support and I am committed to our role as the Regional Depository. Our 

budget has gone up, unlike most states. We are inputting our pre 1976 fed docs in our online catalog and use Marcive for 

1976 to current. We have several librarians with a strong knowledge of fed docs and I have taught the course twice at the 

IN Univ School of Lib and INfo Science. We are going out to colleges and universities to talk about gov docs and 

increasing their visibility with exhibits and workshops. Roberta Brooker State Librarian Indiana State Library. 

 

The budgetary support of our state library, including federal documents, has taken a downturn in the past couple of years 

and we expect it to continue for a few more years. We have moved non-depository collections back into this building, but 

moved part of our depository collection to remote storage. We have cut staff in all parts of the library, including 

documents, although we are periodically able to hire contract workers or interns to help with projects. We support the 

selective depository libraries as much as we can, although we are not able to schedule regular on-site visits. In 

addressing these facts, we have looked at other ways to do our work and make it meaningful. We house some of our 

documents (Congressional hearings) in acid-free records boxes to maximize space, we have trained almost all staff in 

documents work so they are able to provide initial assistance to people, and we have found teleconferencing and “Live 

Classroom” software as a help to have group discussions with selective depository librarians. During periods of budget 

cuts, such as the one we are in, the documents area is often better supported than other collections which are getting very 

few new materials. The efforts of the current leadership and staff in the State Library have allowed the depository to 

continue moving forward. This emphasis on the value of federal documents may not be duplicated in future years as 

people move on to new positions. Cuts in our agency budget may also affect our ability to continue as a depository in 

future years, and we consider this situation periodically. All areas of library information have been altered by technology 

except Title 44, which is almost 60 years out-of-date. Technology offers the potential for improved access through 

digitizing copies of government publications and lowers the need to retain multiple formats, and encourages the indexing 

and cataloging of regional collections. We support the need to update the Regional program. Specifically, we support the 

inclusion of shared regionals such as the one proposed by Kansas and Nebraska. The current structure of the depository 

system needs to be more flexible to allow selective depositories to continue conducting business to benefit their users. 

The role of the regional to provide oversight and approval is helpful and limiting. If a state were to lose their regional 

depository, the selectives would be adversely affected and each would be required to retain all materials “forever.” 

Support for selective depositories may be better satisfied on a multi-state perspective and look to the regional depositories 

as facilitators of the good work of selectives. There can be no meaningful budgetary defense of print duplicative legacy 

collections which are often held in prime library real estate. They are underused, costly to store and not indexed in a 

fashion that the society within which we operate understands or values. 

 

The University of Colorado at Boulder will submit additional comments via the open comment page. 

 

Director's responses. 

Page B - 6
DRAFT

Q. 16 & 17 Changes in both depository library services and collections have, and continue to lag behind development of 

digital services and collections in the academic library environment. The following are areas of significant concern: 1) Lack 

of common/similar interfaces for resource discovery, preferably that span all government agencies. 2) Lack of 

reliability/stability (durable URLs) of resources. 3) Lack of adherence to standards (e.g. Open URL) that allow relatively 

seamless linking to and from documents. 4) Lack of downloadable usage data. 5) Lack of complete downloadable MARC 

record sets for e-documents. 

 

Regional depository services, around the nation, have always been of uneven quantity and quality. This is due not only to 

funding inequalities, but also to the uneven numbers of selectives served and geographical areas covered. For example, 

California has one regional and 90 selectives; a few states with smaller populations and many fewer selectives (New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina) have two regionals; some states have no regionals. So the portion of the 1962 

Depository Library Act which authorizes and enables regional depositories has always enjoyed mixed success. If Title 44 

could somehow be revised to address this inequality of regional services, both regional and selective service to the public 

would be enhanced. In addition to this core deficiency, the 1962 Depository Library Act was written for library and 

information services as they existed forty-six years ago, when the Internet, comprehensive electronic libraries, and 

instantaneous electronic delivery of information were the dreams of science fiction. Because electronic library services 

and information delivery systems have resulted in decreased emphasis on physical collections, the costs of being a 

regional (under the terms of the 1962 law) are increasingly becoming an unfunded mandate. Regionals are charged, by 

law, with permanently housing comprehensive physical collections that are the property of the U.S. government. In 1962, 

these collection maintenance costs were mitigated by the free receipt of depository materials that regionals would have 

purchased with local funds—-had they not been regionals. Now that tangible receipts have dwindled (yet the responsibility 

remains of permanently maintaining a heritage collection that belongs to the U.S. government), it is becoming increasingly 

difficult for the administrators of regionals to balance benefit to cost. If the U.S. government were to appropriate money to 

pay regionals for housing these collections, the benefit to cost balance would be at least partially restored. 

 

Comments on Questions 1-3 Responses: We chose to answer in neutral because the reality is not that libraries COULD 

not have sufficient space for housing Federal depository collections (print, microfiche, or electronic), but rather that there 

are many competing needs for spaces and resources to support other collections, staff and for users. As well, we concur 

with the University of Florida comments that although we MAY have enough space in our remote storage facility to house 

the FDLP collections, there are additional challenges involved. Even given the possibility of provided cataloging records 

for pre-1976 materials, the LOCAL costs to process legacy collections for adequate reflection in OPAC's and remote 

storage (estimated at $5.00 per piece) are very high (given the number of legacy collection items), and therefore a 

significant challenge for all Regional institutions. We also strongly believe, and would support, digitization of existing 

legacy collections in manner that would enhance an Open Access environment for these materials. Comment on 

Questions 5, 6, & 7: Although we may have 'enough' staff to sustain FDLP operations in our institution at current 

operational levels - we may not be able to adequately develop, promote, and sustain the kinds of services needed to 

adequately support users in accessing U.S. Government Information. Although much U.S. Government Information is 

readily accessible electronically, and more so as we move forward in time; the skills and expertise in aiding user's access 

to this information ( and therefore supporting library staff at to effectively aid users) is a critical challenge - and one that 

takes resources to undertake. Comment on Question 9: We strongly agree and support the idea of providing support in 

neighboring states. This is at the heart of our (KS and NE) collaborative Regional proposal. Comment on Question 11: 

Our most heavily used materials from FDLP collections include soil surveys, Census, NASA, State, and Congressional 

materials. These areas fit most strongly with our own institutions programmatic areas. However, as a Research One 

Institution, all areas of FDLP materials are potentially relevant and we would wish for a coordinated system that supports 

universal access to the entire range of FDLP materials. And, the collections would be even more widely used if digitized. 

Comment on Question 14: In same fashion that University of Nebraska has done to document the 'costs' of being a 

Regional Library, we have determined that we are spending roughly $80,000/year for services to provide intellectual 

access to FDLP and U.S. Government Information materials (abstracting/indexing, cataloging, full-text); roughly 

$800,000/year to house tangible FDLP materials, and almost $200,000/year for staff support, information technology, and 

other supplies. This comes to a total of $1,092,459.10 a year in local institutional resources devoted to FDLP and other 

U.S. government information resources. Comment on Question 21: We could be interested in GPO Consultants. It would 

depend on what services, and supports a consultant's program was set up to provide to an FDLP Region. Comment on 

Question 23: We would not say that we have intentionally engaged in a recision of regional services to selectives, but 

rather that like all libraries, we are faced with the demands to do more for all users without a concurrent increase in 

resources (fiscal for staffing, content, spaces, services) to do so. Comment on Question 26: As an academic library we 

remain strongly committed to the ideal of public access to government information, and to the Federal Depository Library 

Program. That being said, should the requirements (and the draw on local fiscal and other finite resources) of continuing 

as a Regional become too difficult to maintain, or have a negative impact on other institutional needs, we would have to 

Page B - 7
DRAFT

seriously question continuation as a Regional Library with the FDLP. As well, as Selective Libraries may choose to weed 

their existing collections, select fewer tangible items in the future, or choose to leave the FDLP entirely, all of these 

choices will place increasing pressure on Regionals to support their Selectives in de-accessioning and as 'Collections of 

Last Resort' for their respective regions. Comment on potential future for the FDLP, Regional, and Selective Libraries 

within the program: We strongly believe that a compelling future exists in a more collaborative system of FDLP libraries 

that work together to share resources for training and support of public use for government information. This vision is also 

true for the digitization, and metadata creation, for existing legacy collections and new information formats of government 

information as we may see in the future. Overall comment on survey: We strongly concur with the comments housed by 

the University of Florida (Depository # 0103) as speaking to the current situation for Regional Depositories within the 

FDLP. Overall comment on survey: As other Regional institutions have commented, a more detailed, deliberative, and 

more comprehensive examination of the FDLP System, partner libraries, and pressures on system, would seem 

warranted. This would not be possible by the June 1, 2008 deadline JCP has established, but may be something to factor 

into the response to JCP. 

 

We would like to amplify our answers to the following questions: Questions #1-2 – Growth space for print and microform 

collections of any kind is limited. For every new book we acquire, one must be eliminated or stored. As a Regional, the 

inability to engage in cooperative storage within and beyond the state is a serious problem. We must find new strategies 

for Regionals to participate in shared print collections. Question #3 – (space for CDs) It will be important going forward to 

ensure that a new Regional system will allow for the retention of a title in only one format, including online. A big step in 

that direction would be the revival of GPO’s CD migration project. If all of the CDs we currently house in each Regional 

could be moved to a web-based format, this space issue would be resolved, and would allow our users to get to that 

information online. Allowing more online substitution could also relieve some pressure on our paper and fiche collections. 

Question #4 (computer access for users) and #25 (our desire to be as “virtual” as possible). Going forward, we would 

welcome more clarity in anticipated machine and system requirements regarding GPO requests for Regionals to store 

online files locally. Sudden changes in this environment result in capital expenses at the local level that cannot be 

addressed quickly, essentially becoming unfunded mandates. While GPO has not insisted that all Regionals assist in this 

storage effort up to this point, the time is coming when the issue of back-ups for government-held copies of these 

electronic files will have to be addressed or risk loss of information. If Regionals are to play a part in this effort, there will 

need to be more consultation and pre-planning for the systems component of such a commitment between Regionals and 

GPO. The source of funding to support such new investments is far from assured. Questions #5-7 – All types of staff have 

been reduced in our library system. For next year, we are losing 7 additional positions as a result of budget reductions of 

6% in state support. We can sustain our current operation but future reductions may cause us to reconsider our status as 

a Regional depository. Question #8 – Our staff do an admirable job of training and supporting our Selective libraries. 

However, travel funds are limited both for the Selectives to come to us and for us to go to them. Questions #9 and #17 – 

Our answers to these questions might be different if we could be sure that a more flexible operating environment for 

Regionals is on the horizon. We would be willing to consider serving more than one state in a more flexible, collaborative 

Regional depository system that allows for more targeted collection responsibilities among a group of libraries who could 

share responsibility for cataloging, preserving, digitizing and providing access to a complete Regional depository legacy 

collection. Question #12 –Improved online access has enabled us to serve more users by phone or email rather than 

asking them to come to campus to use tangible materials. Questions #14 and #17 – The concept of shared Regionals is 

essential to our future. All Regional libraries share the same mission to provide the best possible service to the Selectives 

in their region, and to the public at large. The information paradigm for all libraries has shifted to more digital access, and

toward more cooperative resources and services. The Regional depositories need the ability to pursue the same 

collaborative approach, at the same level, as their institutional libraries are pursuing. Questions #14 and #20— Kentucky 

libraries, depending on where their state funding is coming from, are facing budget reductions of anywhere from 6-15% in 

each of the next two years. Question #18 – A static budget would be a welcome one. Instead our budget is declining. 

Where possible, we have mainstreamed government documents processes for efficiency. Questions #19 and #21 –Our 

answers to these questions demonstrate the directions we would like to see a new system move: allow more collaboration 

among libraries, and create more participation incentives for the remaining Regionals or Regional consortia. The amount 

of tangible information products received by Regionals is no longer an adequate incentive to stay in the program. Thus, 

GPO needs to find other “carrots” that will be valuable enough in our new online information world to keep Regionals 

interested in participating. For example, financial assistance with cataloging and digitizing our pre-1976 holdings would be 

a major incentive for Regionals to retain their current status within the FDLP. Question #26 – Libraries are rapidly 

changing and evolving their services to remain relevant in the 21st century. If GPO and the JCP do not encourage and 

permit new models of service, we will be forced to consider whether we can continue serving as a Regional depository. 

 

We have enjoyed and benefited from serving as the Regional for Connecticut and Rhode Island for many years. 

 

Page B - 8
DRAFT

 

Not all regional depositories are in dire straits. As in all libraries generally, there are varying levels of support and funding. 

While library funding may be limited, the federal regional depository at the Texas State Library and Archives Commission 

receives committed support. The depository is considered a valued resource for the citizens of Texas. The depository's 

strengths include: * Knowledgeable documents staff * Reference assistance to patrons statewide and nationally * 

Documents holdings records loaded into OPAC * Disposal/discard lists for all Texas selectives are processed monthly * 

Continually enhancing our historical collection by purchases, and by reviewing discard lists and a "needs" file * Space to 

keep the collection onsite * ILL and resource sharing through a statewide courier service * Computers upgraded as 

needed to meet GPO minimum requirements Areas for public access improvement: * Additional funding for materials 

supporting the documents collection * Funding for training for selective depository librarians and staff (or training materials

and resources provided by GPO) * Retrospective cataloging of documents collection; would like funding or assistance 

from GPO Other long term issues/considerations: * The importance of regional depository historical collections, especially 

as selectives downsize their collections * The importance of stable digital access; limited server downtime; permanent 

access; authentication of electronic documents * Housing electronic documents on local servers * GPO coordinating 

training for depositories, and providing timely promotional materials. 

 

Comments to GPO survey of regional depositories 4/29/08 Question 1. Space may be adequate when our remote storage 

facility becomes available next year, although many of the materials which would be most suitable for remote storage are 

not yet cataloged. I welcome the recent announcement that regionals and some selectives will cooperate to catalog pre1976 materials. We would like to see GPO do some of the cataloging or provide funding for cataloging of pre-1976 docs. 

Question 2. Our library will be undergoing continued significant renovation and it is possible that microfiche materials will 

have to be moved or space for them reduced. We are reluctant to move uncataloged microfiche to remote storage. 

Questions 5 and 6. Like most other regionals our library spends a significant amount of time processing discard lists and 

trying to find homes for materials that we believe should not be discarded that we ourselves do not need. Our time is 

spent making space, processing discards, reviewing discard lists, and doing reference. We do not have much time for 

face-to-face outreach, nor to do much planning to coordinate collections or become a light archive for the state or 

regional, although we would welcome staff and time to pursue these initiatives. Question 11. Our historical (i.e., pre-1976) 

materials are in many cases used more frequently than recent materials. Questions 15, 21, and 25. Our library is not 

prepared to expand services to our region, although we believe that should be our goal. We would like to serve as a light 

archive similar to the Indiana model, and perhaps even to serve with another regional such as the Connecticut State 

Library or University of Maine as one of two light archives in New England. We see the value of retaining print resources 

(mostly in a light or dark archive) while at the same time becoming as virtual as possible. Historically BPL has been a 

weaker regional compared to many others. The Boston Library Consortium responded to GPO’s request several years 

ago and forwarded a proposal to place a consultant in our state, who could help the regional as well as the selectives deal 

with technical services and provide training to us to help non-documents librarians throughout the state provide wider 

access to government documents. Funding for the consultant program was scratched, much to my dismay, so we did not 

get a consultant at what I believe was a critical time in our life as a regional. I obviously cannot say if services would 

improve if a consultant we placed here, but my institution seriously needs guidance on how best to spend our limited 

resources and to become as cost-efficient regional as is possible. Gail Fithian Curator of Government Documents Boston 

Public Library 700 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 (617) 859-2226 FAX (617) 859-2292 

 

Question 1. Until 2004 Michigan was served by two regional depository libraries. Since the Detroit Public Library has 

relinquished their regional status in favor of selective library status, the Library of Michigan has sole responsibility for the 

permanent retention of tangible government publications in the state. The Detroit Public Library is systematically divesting 

itself of large portions of its collection. Given these circumstances, we can no longer predict the point at which we will run 

out of space for print publications. Question 9. Not under the current requirements. We currently attempt to serve 

Michigan depositories with training and occasional visits as well as interlibrary loan and disposal services. Like most state 

libraries, we could not fund travel across state lines to provide such services. We would be very interested in working 

*with* other states in a cooperative manner, such as outlined in the rejected Kansas-Nebraska proposal, should such 

arrangements be legally permitted. Question 15. We have expanded services to the extent we are able given the 

departure of the Detroit Public Library as a regional library. We are not able to serve Michigan libraries to the same level 

we were able to prior to 2004. Question 23. Budgetary contraints statewide led the Detroit Public Library to relinquish 

regional status. Those same budget contraints continue to limit the activities of the Library of Michigan, and make it 

impossible to fill the void. General comments: We remain very concerned for the integrity of the historical federal 

documents collection within the state of Michigan. Our concern is a result of becoming the sole regional serving 43 

depositories over a very large service area, made more difficult by the complete lack of a process for us and the Detroit 

Public Library to follow. 

 

Page B - 9
DRAFT

Rationale for Survey Responses: Questions 1-3 (space): Depository items are currently housed in several buildings on 

campus: Gorgas Library, Rogers Science and Engineering Library, Bruno Business Library, McLure Education Library, 

University Map Library (administered by the Geography Department), and the Libraries’ Annex. It is unclear whether or 

not we are running out of space to house the depository collection – we are currently removing more items from the 

collection than we are adding. However, the trend in libraries is to devote more space to users than to collections, so a 

“repurposing” of the space currently occupied by the depository collection in Gorgas Library could happen. Space is not 

just a concern for the depository collection – we are out of space in the Libraries as a whole. We estimate that we have at 

least 800,000 pre-1976 documents which are not cataloged. To copy catalog, barcode and process these in-house would 

cost at least $4,000,000. This is a substantial amount of money and would not be possible at the current time given the 

restrictions on our budget. Questions 4, 22 (electronic access): Although wireless Internet access is restricted to those 

affiliated with the University, there are 30 public computers in Gorgas Library available for campus visitors interested in 

accessing government information. Licensed electronic resources are available remotely for the University community, 

and to anyone who wants to use them within the confines of the Library. Questions 5-8 (staffing): Current staffing: • 

Government Documents Unit of Gorgas Public Services -- 1 professional librarian -- 2 Library Assistants -- 6 student 

assistants • Cataloging and Metadata Services Department -- Library Assistant III (serials; half-time) -- Library Assistant II 

(monographs; full-time) -- 1 student assistant In previous semesters we have had interns from the School of Library and 

Information Studies. Student employment has fluctuated. The current staffing situation is adequate for our current 

operations/projects. If we want to expand services and take on additional projects in the near future, we will need more – 

particularly in cataloging. Questions 14, 18, 20, 23 (budget/funding): The administration has supported and funded travel 

for the Regional librarian to visit selective depositories and to attend meetings of the Federal Depository Library Council to 

the Public Printer. We have also been able to host a meeting of depository librarians and staff from around the state – the 

2nd time ever that this has happened. Government Documents has a separate collections budget, intended for the 

purchase of materials to supplement the depository collection. We also have purchased/subscribe to some key electronic 

products, including the LexisNexis Congressional Serial Set and HeinOnline. Creating an atmosphere where collaboration 

on projects such as cataloging, digitizing or providing shared access to collections would be welcome. The state of 

Alabama’s budget outlook for higher education is grim, and we are uncertain as to what our budget situation will be like for 

the next few years. Questions 8, 13, 15 (services to selectives): Service to selective depositories is a top priority of this 

Regional depository. Within the past year the depository librarian has: • established a web site with information specifically 

for selective depositories in Alabama • established a discussion list for depositories (ALDOCS) • collaborated with the 

other Regional, at Auburn University Montgomery, to streamline the process of handling disposal lists in the state • visited 

seven selective depositories in Region 1 of the state (the Region served by UA) Other services we provide: • Lend 

documents via Interlibrary Loan • Try to provide replacement materials (photocopies, copies of CDs, etc.) if a selective 

has lost or is missing an item • Answer reference questions, questions re: depository management via phone, email, 

Instant Messenger Future services: We are currently surveying selective depository staff in Alabama as to their training 

needs, as well as their overall expectations of the Regional depositories. Once these results have been analyzed, we will 

be able to tailor our services to meet their specific needs. Question 27 (cost of operating a Regional depository): The 

commitment to run a Regional depository is not insignificant. Our costs for the past year were $273,000. This includes 

staff, travel, supporting materials and cataloging. Running a Regional Depository must be integrated with other library 

priorities such as the increasing pressure to add electronic resources to our overall collections, the need to reallocate 

limited space for user’s, and the uncertainty about state funding for higher education. The benefits of being a Regional 

Depository are many; however, it would be to everyone’s advantage to incorporate innovative ideas like the KansasNebraska partnership into the GPO program. Providing access to materials in a digital format with the assurance of 

preservation and archiving will be vital for the future. This type of access will not only provide greater access of 

government materials to the public, but will also address several other issues such as space. Funding from GPO will be 

necessary to support this kind of initiative and must include funding for metadata creation, harvesting, outreach and 

training. 

 

Questions 4 & 5 on sufficient professional/support staff: UNM is able to provide only 1 professional librarian dedicated to 

the overarching responsibilities that are required for Regional participation. There are only 2 Regional Libraries in New 

Mexico, who split their administrative duties and provide adequate coverage to the state’s 9 selective depositories. UNM 

serves the majority of the depository library users in the state. UNM currently employs one support staff person who has 

responsibility for processing and shelving/interfiling all depository shipments received (GPO, loose mail, maps, and other 

materials disseminated). The support person also assists the Regional Librarian in training, resolving complex reference 

questions and the production of the state’s newsletter. There are also two student assistants who spend 50% of their time 

assisting in the processing. Two student assistants also spend 50% of their time shelving/interfiling microfiche. UNM also 

has a full time employee responsible for the Map Library located in a separate location from the regional library collection. 

This person is not involved in the processing of depository maps (the exception being the shelving of maps received) but 

does provide quality reference services to all users of the map collection. This current staffing is insufficient, with 

dedicated new positions unlikely. A new model of distributing the workload across regionals, including other states, is 

needed. Question 14: Financial Support Like other institutions, internal financial support for the Regional has decreased 

Page B - 10
DRAFT

significantly over the past several years. Because of overall library budget constraints, activities and projects such as 

retrospective (e.g., pre-1976) cataloging, collaboration efforts with regional libraries in other states, travel to state selective 

depositories, and other projects have been decreased or curtailed. The recent opinion of the JCP will negatively impact 

our collaboration efforts that have been in the early planning states with inter- and intra-state regionals. Unless 

cooperative financial support is forthcoming from GPO or another federal entity, our abilities to maintain regional 

commitments will be strained further. Question 26: Relinquishing regional depository status At the current moment, no, we 

are not entertaining this notion and would only do so under extreme circumstances. However, unstable funding coupled 

with the ever changing needs of our many constituents, necessitate that a yearly assessment of our continued 

participation be conducted. The JCP should recognize the potential of the shared regional concept and how important it is 

for border-states to participate in order to continue to provide no-fee, unfettered access to federal government information. 

Although the UNM UL will continue to actively support and participate in sponsored projects such as the GWLA 

Digitization Project, GPO’s Web Harvesting Initiative and other projects where grant funds are available, it becomes 

increasingly challenging to justify to the Provost and President of UNM the need to remain a regional depository. In an era 

of rapidly evolving technologies coupled with the ever-changing needs of our primary constituents, the continued 

commitment to a system last changed more than 40 years ago is increasingly difficult to maintain. 

 

The Oregon State Library is the Federal Depository Library Program’s newest Regional depository. In light of declining 

Regional services in Oregon, the State Library stepped forward to provide leadership for the depository libraries in the 

state in 2007. In agreeing to serve as the State’s Regional, the State Library entered into a partnership with three of the 

State’s largest selective depositories to house and provides services in conjunction with Oregon’s Regional Depository 

Collection. Regional management and outreach responsibilities remain with the State Library. We feel that Oregon’s 

innovative partnership has addressed many of the “challenges” to Regional depository libraries implied in this survey. We 

suggest that a description of Oregon’s challenges and solutions would serve as helpful case study for the report to the 

Joint Committee on Printing, since it offers an alternative to the existing model of Regional services within the current 

statutory requirements. We would be happy to provide GPO with any additional information needed to create a case study 

for the report. 

 

3. Tangible electronic publications is a case of unprofessional direction. 27. The highest priority for the GPO is to choose 

the series that need to be digitized. Cataloging is a waste of time and money. Digitization is the activity that has the 

greatest merit. In an increasingly electronic environment, what does it mean to be a depository library?-not much, if 

anything. The libraries foot the bill; GPO generates additional costs. A poor model. The public's use of Federal documents 

in our library is largely a myth. 

 

1. GPO needs to move more aggressively to digitally archiving federal documents so that access is centralized, especially 

for high-use publications. 2. Regional depositories should move towards sharing collections and even service 

responsibilities with other regional and even selective depositories both intra- and inter-state. 3. Interlibrary lending of 

documents among regional depositories should be encouraged so that not all collections need to maintain holdings of all 

tangible documents. 4. The University of Hawaii at Manoa regional depository lost 95+% of its holdings in an October 

2004 flood. The Library will not be able to replace all that was lost nor will it be able to process all replacement documents 

already received as gifts. 5. Like other university libraries, UH Manoa Library must place increasing emphasis on 

allocating resources for space, processing, and services to locally significant heritage collections and heavily used 

materials. At the same time we are repurposing library space for users rather than storage of collections. We cannot 

afford space for the large number of tangible documents that are not used. 6. Library resources available to allocate to 

federal government documents may not be sufficient to maintain a regional depository in the future. 7. Allow regional 

depositories to discard items not relevant to their local clientele, e.g. documents specific to other states with no 

informational value to a broader audience. 8. GPO needs statutory authority to give grants to regional depositories to do 

training and site visits to their selective depositories. 9. Resource sharing is the modern approach to library collections. A 

new system of several full depository service centers in each region (North, South, East, West) should be sufficient if 

funding is provided to those service centers to provide services to their neighboring states and territories. Existing regional

depositories could then elect to become selective depositories with the materials they know their local clientele need the 

most. 

 

Question #1 asks about space. Our most critical space problem is not necessarily for new materials shipped by GPO, but 

rather to store unprocessed legacy/historical documents that come to us from Missouri selective depository libraries. The 

FDLP system makes Regional depositories responsible for building and preserving tangible legacy government 

collections. The legacy collection is built by taking historic materials being weeded by selectives. Presently we have about 

150 shelves of unprocessed documents in public areas because our storage rooms for unprocessed documents are filled 

Page B - 11
DRAFT

to capacity. We normally wouldn’t have this much, but in the last couple years, two selective libraries in our state dropped 

their FDLP status. When a library drops its status, they must relinquish their government holdings to the regional. An 

increasing number of selective depositories have been dropping their FDLP status due to space considerations, and we 

wouldn’t be surprised if a few more drop FDLP status over the next 10 years. A tremendous backlog caused by staff 

shortages is making it difficult for us to move unprocessed documents out of our public areas. The storage space problem 

is mitigated by the fact that due to decreased staff in the Docs office, we don’t have time to check discard lists from other 

states. This is unfortunate because out-of-state libraries are typically the best source for Missouri materials which are 

lightly used and in good condition. Question #8 asks whether we have sufficient staff to support regional responsibilities to 

selectives. With one professional and one support staff person, we have only enough to fulfill the barest minimum. One of 

the traditional responsibilities has been for the Regional librarian to visit selective libraries in the region, review 

procedures, offer training, and provide advocacy for administrative support. We have 29 selectives. It would be impossible 

to visit all of them on a regular basis without neglecting our own needs at MU. Question #15 asks whether I am prepared 

to expand services to selective libraries. I am prepared to expand in whatever area my selectives demand, but it would 

mean dropping other projects. I’m not sure if this constitutes real expansion. Question #17 asks whether changes in 

depository library collections have been consistent with changes in other library services. One important difference is that 

electronic information from the government is outpacing that from private publishers. Yet the need for documents 

reference service is not decreasing. A great deal of government information is in the “Deep Web” and one must know the 

gateways – DOE Information Bridge, STINET, DTIC, Energy Citations Database, etc. in order to find it. Second, few 

documents questions are searches for known items. Sometimes we hear “Do you have this particular document?” But far 

more often we are asked which government document holds the answer to a question. To answer such a question, good 

knowledge of the collection is required. Third, because we still have vast numbers of documents not yet represented in 

our online catalog, public services staff are still needed to show users paper indexes such as the Monthly Catalog of 

United States Government Publications (1893-1996) and Pooles’s Checklist (1789-1909), and then to show them how to 

use the Documents card files to determine whether we own a particular item. 

 

Question 1. Space for print collections would be sufficient with the utilization of our remote storage facility, but deposit of

documents is inhibited by the fact that this collection is not cataloged. Even when GPO provides cataloging records for the 

pre-1976 material through the shelf list digitization project, the cost of processing the collection will be substantial. We 

estimate that it would cost approximately $4,000,000 to copy catalog and bar code our collection of approximately 

800,000 pre-1976 documents. Questions 2 & 3. Space within our existing building does not allow for additional cabinets to 

house microfiche or tangible electronic products produced by GPO. We continue to purchase auxiliary commercial 

microfiche products to enhance our collection, further limiting our space. Questions 5, 6 & 7. The term “enough” is relative 

and subject to interpretation. We have adequate professional staff (2.5 FTE), support staff (5.5 FTE), and temporary staff 

(6 FTE) to sustain the operation, but not “enough” staff to provide the level of support to our constituents that they would 

like to have. Question 8. While I believe that our selective depository libraries would rank us among the strongest 

regionals, we are not able to support them as much as they (and we) would like. Travel funds are limited, both for the 

selectives to come to us and for us to go to their locations. Question 9. We are already serving as a regional library for two 

territories and have served as a regional for a contiguous state on an interim basis in the past. Question 11. Among the 

most heavily used materials are soil surveys, census data, and costal materials, as well as NASA, Smithsonian and 

Congressional publications. Question 12. Improved online access has enabled us to serve more users through phone and 

e-mail. We can more effectively answer phone and email requests for information and materials by directing users to the 

online sources rather than asking them to come into the library to use tangible materials. Question 14. Libraries today are 

all about collaboration and avoiding duplication. They are putting their resources into the digitization and cataloging of 

their unique (or relatively unique) materials to make them more accessible and visible. They are eliminating or moving to 

storage little used collections to increase user space. Government documents are not going to get the priority for scarce 

internal dollars unless it is an investment in recovery of space -- which means addressing cataloging, substitution rules 

and increased flexibility about establishing truly regional collections. Our library could become a light archive for print for

the SE. We would willingly take on responsibility for a larger region if there is a source of funding. Question 15. We would 

consider providing additional services requested by our selective depository libraries, but our ability to provide such 

services is dependent on funding, so Federal support needs to be considered. Question 25. While we value and will 

continue to take advantage of the online resources, we are committed to maintaining a print collection for primary clientele 

and for the selectives we serve. Question 27. GENERAL COMMENTS: The regional depository libraries are self-funded, 

voluntary participants in the FDLP and they play a crucial critical role in the program. Allowing them more flexibility for 

collaboration in the management of regional collections and services is essential. Innovative ideas like the KansasNebraska partnership should be encouraged. I am glad that GPO and JCP are undertaking this study. I hope this is the 

beginning of a dialog that will lead to constructive changes. The FDLP needs room for innovation and experimentation in 

order to thrive. As a regional depository library, we are experiencing a drastic increase in disposition lists, reflecting the 

pressure on our selectives to better manage their print collections and allocate space within their libraries for users and 

more heavily used collections. This increases their reliance on the regional library collection and services. With their 

collections diminishing, it is more critical than ever that we provide accurate holdings for our own collection, and that can 

only be accomplished through a massive cataloging and processing effort. Such an effort would also facilitate greater 

Page B - 12
DRAFT

collaboration with other depository libraries not within our current regional responsibilities. While the probability of Federal 

funding is extremely low, the urgent need for some funding for current regional depository libraries or new regional centers 

needs to be clearly articulated in the report to JCP. The days when the benefits of regional designation offset the costs 

are going away rapidly and for some may already be gone. Our annual costs for serving as a regional are $437,039. This 

includes $292,000 for professional and support staff. The balance is for temporary staff (student assistants) and operating 

expenses, such as services, equipment, travel and acquisition of commercial information products. It does not include the 

University’s costs for space, building maintenance, utilities, etc. If federal funding became available for establishing 7 to 

10 regional print repositories, including cataloging/inventorying those collections, there would probably be competition 

among existing regional libraries to serve in this new capacity. Our library would certainly be interested. Access to a 

comprehensive digital collection would greatly improve public access and make it feasible to operate a smaller number of 

regional print repositories. Such an initiative would need to provide for the availability of high quality images with 

searchable text, authenticated to assure validity, and supported by a robust system for retrieval and 

preservation/migration. The FDLP needs adequate funding for the new system and for other services such as harvesting 

and cataloging Federal publications from agency websites, digitization, and storage, as well as increased outreach and 

training. These are new or expanded requirements brought about by the changing environment that cannot be 

accomplished with the currently available funds. 

 

Comments on specific questions: 1-2 The University is currently planning to build off-site storage. Assuming this happens 

within the next year, space for housing these collections will be fine but without this additional space, it will not be. Even 

with this space, the burden of the cataloging and barcoding needed to utilize the off-site storage for these print and 

microform government collections is daunting. 8. Iowa only has 13 selective depositories and many of them are 

questioning the value of continuing this commitment. As a result, we are constantly processing lists of items they no 

longer want to house so they can rely even more on the regional for housing these materials and the supporting services. 

This is placing a serious additional burden on the regionals. In addition, because so many of these selective depositories 

in Iowa are small libraries with very limited staff, they are increasingly looking to our library staff to develop and provide 

standard convenience tools for their users. 9. Under the current agreements with regionals, our library would not consider 

this additional responsibility. However, assuming a more up-to-date system for providing government information, we 

might be willing to consider some alternative, depending on how it is structured. 11. While not "frequently" used, the 

tangible collection is used. It is often the very old materials from the tangible collection that get the most use but our users 

would love to see this material in digital format. 21. I would need a clearer sense of what role such consultants would play 

before I could endorse the idea. 26. We have not actively considered relinquishing our regional status since there is no 

other library in Iowa capable or willing to assume this role. However, there clearly is no longer a need to have 50+ 

regional depository libraries. We are eager to see some more up-to-date system established. We might consider giving up 

this commitment or even assuming an additional commitment if some more practical, forward-looking alternative to the 

current program were established. Overall comment: The depository system is based on 40+ year old print-based realities 

that have changed dramatically in the last decade. It is not surprising that so many libraries, especially the selectives, are 

questioning their commitments to a depository system that is so antiquated, inflexible, and expensive to maintain. It is time 

that the whole system were re-examined and updated to reflect an increasingly digital environment, offering new options 

for delivery of information. All the existing regional libraries should not need to continue to house the same collections 

around the country at considerable institutional expense. This should be an excellent time for GPO to be able to 

experiment with new models (such as the one proposed by Kansas and Nebraska as well as other alternatives). We 

should be experimenting with new collaborative alternatives that are more consistent with user needs, financial realities, 

and digital capabilities. These alternative could help us all determine the best models for providing government 

information freely to the public in a way that is manageable for the libraries, effective for the user, and fiscally responsible 

to the tax-paying public. 

 

Wisconsin is an excellent example that each regional depository is unique. It is uncertain if Wisconsin would have a 

regional depository today without this flexibility. The shared status employed here over the years has allowed us to 

manage the responsibilities of the depository by taking advantage of resources and staff expertise across campus. And, 

by distributing specific segments of the collection to campus libraries specializing in that given subject area, we are also 

better able tot provide high-quality services to faculty, students and the general public. The FDLP needs to support 

innovation, experimentation and collaboration in and among regional repositories. As a Library Partner in Google's Book 

Search Project Wisconsin is actively digitizing federal government documents. This will greatly improve public access to 

federal government documents. Digitization projects such as these allow for a repurposing of library space to meet the 

learning needs of today's faculty and students. Regional services that we've been providing include: Managing discard 

lists; loaning materials to selectives; advising libraries on depository guidelines, services, discarding, selection, staying in 

the program; attending depository library conferences and reporting back to selectives; sending reminders about 

participating in GPO surveys; reference assistance; and visits to selectives. 

 

Page B - 13
DRAFT

Questions 1-3 Space is not an issue in our library, the University Libraries has a high-density storage facility that has 

allowed for the transfer of nearly 125,000 items or 6,000+ linear feet of material. Material is currently being annexed at a 

rate of 2,00o items or 100 linear feet per month. Question 4 The library has made a significant investment in public access 

workstations and laptops for the use of students and the general public. Questions 5-7 There is currently enough staff, 

there will likely be some re-purposing of staff in the next fiscal year that should minimally affect depository operations. 

Support for electronic information resources and services is the area of most need. Question 8 The regional librarians 

(USC and Clemson) conduct an annual meeting for selective depository librarians. At that meeting the selectives are 

asked about their needs and offered training. Three site visits were conducted during the current year by the USC 

regional. Training and assistance is provided on request and is encouraged. The selectives are most interested in the 

ability to discard materials. Question 9 This would only be possible if there were some compensation or financial support 

from the institutions or GPO. There needs to be a more regional or consortial approach instead of the state by state 

arrangement. Many large academic libraries already work in this manner, i.e., in the Southeast there is the Association of 

Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) that also works closely with SOLINET (a regional affiliate of OCLC). Question 

10 There approximately 10,000-15,000 questions annually. The Government Information/Microforms service desk is the 

2nd busiest in the library system and is available 84 hours per week during the semester. Question 11 The tangible 

collection use has been steady over the last few years. The library is also actively adding titles to the collection from 

selective discards and through retrospective cataloging of the collection. Question 13 Yes, sessions would be conducted 

is requested by selective depository staff. Question 14 Support remains the same annually, the library is under constant 

pressure to add new services in an environment of minimal increases in the budget. Question 19 Being a member of the 

state and regional consortia expands the expertise of the staff and the value of the collections. This value would increase 

even more if retrospective or legacy collections were available. Federal depository Library Program needs to move 

towards a more consortial service model, including the development of shared reference services, shared collections, and 

creation of center of expertise. Question 20 The current economic situation does not look promising over the next 1-3 

years; it might improve in years 4- 5. Question 21 The library is very much in favor of this concept. It would provide 

expertise to conduct training session for depository and non-depository library staff. Since 95% of the current material is 

available online the need to be a FDL to access government information resources is practically moot. The focus for the 

future should be access (to current and legacy collections) and training for librarians and library staff to identify and 

provide guidance to the resources. A better public awareness campaign is needed. Question 23 The library’s budget for 

depository services has remained flat; however the selective depository libraries have not requested any additional 

services. Question 25 The library and our customers value and see utility in the maintenance of the legacy collections. 

The more legacy material available full-text or virtually would improve access – however, the material must be indexed 

and fully searchable to be of use. 

 

The New Mexico State Library is one of two Regional libraries in the State of New Mexico. The New Mexico State Plan 

articulates shared service responsibilities for the two Regional libraries, but does not directly consider shared collections. 

With the ready availability of current federal information on the internet, expedient document delivery mechanisms, and 

improved bibliographic control, consideration for the necessity of housing two collections in the State is overdue. 

Experience with both institutions over the past 18 years, however lends support to a more cautionary view, and the 

conclusion that redundant services (not necessarily in the same state) if not collections remain important to consider. 

Both institutions have experienced substantive administrative changes in the past 15 years resulting in an ebb and flow of 

support for their respective programs - and for depository libraries statewide. Winds can (and have) changed quickly 

along with each Regional Librarian's ability to provide support to depository libraries in the State. UNM has experienced 

both a fire and a flood in the past 5 years resulting in closed collections and redirecting of staff during times of recovery. 

The State Library was strong during that period of time, and able to step in and provide access to materials that were 

temporarily out of reach for UNM. The State Library's mission directs the depository to serve and train libraries in the 

State, while academic librarians are directed and supported towards national involvement to a higher degree. The balance 

has produced good results for the State. Currently, the State Library is experiencing difficulty filling a vacancy in their 

Regional Librarian position due to the increased cost of living in Santa Fe coupled with the low salaries offered by State 

Government. As a consequence of this extreme situation, New Mexico State Library is examining either relinquishing 

regional status or entering into a formal shared collection agreement. The Regional Librarian at the NM State Library is in 

basic agreement and support of the "Regional Depository Librarians' Perspective", and it is hoped that the long term 

experience of the two regional libraries in a relatively small state will point to the need for the national system to continue

to carefully consider and support redundancies in service as well as collections. Support from institutions and 

governments, and access free of fire and flood that any given library takes for granted, might be here today and gone 

tomorrow. 

May 16, 2008

Page B - 14
APPENDIX C: 

COMMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY COMMUNITY 

Comments Received Through the FDLP Desktop Comment Form 

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: Regional Depository Librarians’ 

Perspective 

Letters from Library Associations

DRAFT
DRAFT

Page 1 

Comments Received Through the FDLP Desktop Comment Form

As of 05/27/2008 

Selective Depository Libraries 

Academic Libraries 

I have been very happy with the services I have received from [regional librarian]. A few years 

ago she visited our library and made many helpful suggestions. She has always posted my 

discard lists in a timely manner. When I have submitted questions she has always been very 

responsive. 

At ... we have seen an increase in the level of communication with our regional depository. This 

increase has been for two reasons. First, we are trimming down our collection and therefore 

offering more weeded government documents to our regional. Second, we hired a new 

government documents librarian, and our regional librarian has been providing training and 

support to her. 

The regional librarian is very supportive of the selective depositories, but the response rate, or 

the ability to handle questions and problems efficiently and quickly, has decreased. This decrease 

seems to be in large part due to a cut in staff support for the regional librarian by her institution. 

Our primary concern is this possible trend in the regional libraries to reduce staffing for the 

depository. We would like to see stronger support from the federal government to help our 

regionals maintain their historically valuable collections. In addition to resource support, 

collaborative activities, such as allowing shared regionals, would relieve pressure on each 

individual institution. 

The last few decades have been a very challenging time for the Regional Depositories in [state]. 

The largest problems we’ve faced have been high turnover among Regional Librarians, the 

inability of our Regionals to hire highly experienced librarians, and the lack of a backup person 

at Regional Depositories when the Regional Librarian position is open. 

When I first moved to [state] in 1991, ... was the Regional Librarian at ... and ... was the 

Regional Librarian at ... Both of these people had a great deal of experience in Depository 

Libraries and they provided excellent service to the selectives in the state. 

[The regional librarian] retired several years ago and her position at ... has since been filled by a 

succession of librarians who have stayed in the position, I would guess, 2 to 4 years on average. 

Some of those people had good experience and knew what they were doing, so they were able to 

hit the ground running. Others had very little experience and went through a steep learning 

curve to get up to speed. At various points the position was vacant for several months at a time. 

Page C - 1
DRAFT

Page 2 

[The other regional librarian] left ... after a reorganization of the library split the Documents 

Department, which had been a stand-alone unit, into several components and folded it into other 

departments. I think he found it very frustrating to be the person responsible for Depository 

operations but to no longer be in charge of the people carrying out Depository operations. If I 

recall correctly, he was particularly appalled by the way the “regular” shelvers were messing up 

the documents stacks. Since [the regional librarian’s] departure, ... too has had trouble hiring 

and keeping an experienced person in the Regional Librarian position. 

Even though many documents departments have been split up and other departments are 

involved in providing depository services, there’s usually no one in a Regional Depository who 

can train a new Regional Librarian. Any training they get will likely have to come from 

someone outside the building. As one of the most experienced Depository librarians in the 

region, I’ve often become a de facto mentor to many of the less experienced Regional Librarians 

who have come through the state. I haven’t minded doing that, but if we had a GPO consultant 

in this region who could provide some sort of orientation and training for new Regional 

Librarians, that might be very useful. If a consultant couldn’t be housed in the area, it would be 

nice if new Regional Librarians could be trained by someone from GPO who would visit their 

library, or perhaps by a more experienced Regional Librarian from a neighboring state. 

The other problem we’ve had is related to the high turnover in Regional Librarians, and that is 

the lack of a backup person to take over depository services when the Regional Librarian 

position is open. 

After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the state in 2005, our Regional Librarians asked us to hold 

all of our weeded items going through the exchange list process and even to hold our superseded 

items in an to attempt to replace materials in the collections that were damaged or destroyed. As 

a result, it was over a year before selectives were allowed to weed their collections and offer 

materials to other libraries. When we finally got to the end of the period during which we had 

agreed to embargo exchange lists, we happened to be in a situation where one or both Regional 

Librarian positions were vacant. While the position at ... was vacant, the Librarian at ... gave us 

permission to offer materials and a paraprofessional at ... checked their collection just to make 

sure they didn’t need anything from our lists. However, when the position at ... became open, 

there was no one there who was willing (or able?) to check their collection for us. The Regional 

Librarian at ... then asked us to again hold our exchange lists. It became very frustrating. 

In many ways we’re blessed to have two Regional Depositories in [state], and even though the 

selectives are divided among the two Regionals for regular reporting purposes, it can be very 

difficult to coordinate services when we all find ourselves temporarily reporting to one or the 

other. If each Regional Librarian had a designated backup person who could at least keep the 

exchange list process moving in the absence of a Librarian, that would be wonderful. If we 

implement a system of shared Regionals, even more people would be impacted by vacancies in 

the Regional Librarian position without the designation of a backup. 

I am satisfied with our Regional depository. 

Page C - 2
DRAFT

Page 3 

Outline looks good. I am particularly glad that you will provide background info and a rundown 

of the regional scenarios in place. "Organizational, financial, technological, and effect-onselectives" factors are probably fine places to start. Here are some of my pet issues, with the 

places they might appear: 

1- loss of librarian jobs with "government documents" in the title. Even at Regionals, we may see 

depository librarians whose primary duties are not described in gov docs terms, and possibly the 

loss of government documents "departments" in libraries. [ORGANIZATIONAL] 

2- loss of expert level documents librarians at Regionals (through retirement, downsizing, etc.) 

[ORGANIZATIONAL] 

3- possible decrease in Regional librarian's ability to travel to selective depositories 

[FINANCIAL] 

4- There's no delicate way to put this: I fear the mass disposing/recycling (probably quietly in 

violation of depository rules, or following the minimum spirit of the rules) of legacy depository 

collections, without strong guidance from GPO and direct conversations with library directors. 

With care, we could do this *well* and make wonderful use of existing collections. 

5- potential improvement: increased training, one-on-one mentoring offered through internet, 

teleconferencing, OPAL, social networking [TECHNOLOGICAL] 

I guess one thing that might be missing, which is definitely part of 5 above, are CULTURAL 

factors. Certainly the culture of the workplace and the culture of libraries are changing, but so are 

our users' habits. Do you think the "technological" section will address these issues? 

(Quantifiable decrease in walk-in reference questions at most librarians, huge jump in in-house 

computing use, use of online government resources, patrons' increasing expectations about 

digital delivery or self-initiated Inter-Library Loan delivery.) 

I don't have long experience with the Regionals in ..., as I have been in my position as 

government documents librarian for less than a year. 

However, my experience thus far has not been great. When I started, there was no Regional 

librarian for my region, so I had no guidance for months. Since the Regional position has been 

filled, there have been long delays between my requests for information and any response. 

In post-Katrina [state], selective libraries are required to offer all to-be-withdrawn materials to 

both Regionals before offering materials to the other selectives -- and neither Regional has been 

prompt to respond, not even with an acknowledgement that the offer has been received. It has 

been necessary to send repeated follow-up messages. 

This has greatly slowed the process of weeding our long-neglected collection, causing us great 

inefficiency and space problems. 

Page C - 3
DRAFT

Page 4 

Unfortunately, I think the reason for these problems is that neither Regional librarian has much 

experience. 

Since the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) is unwilling, at the moment, to allow the University 

of Kansas and the University of Nebraska to become a shared Regional Library (their decision 

seems to be based less on the state of the GPO, FDLP libraries, and information dissemination 

than on allowing an agency to make a decision outside of its legislative authority, thereby setting 

a dangerous precedent for others to follow), the completion of GPO’s proposed Report to the 

Joint Committee on Printing On the State of Regional Depository Libraries should be an eye 

opener to them. By the tone of their memorandum, I don’t believe they really have an idea of the 

current state of electronic information. Their concern I believe, as I mentioned, is the precedent 

that might be set if the GPO is allowed to carry this decision forward. 

Perhaps it’s time to revisit the Depository Act of 1962. Rewrite it and make accommodations 

specifically tailored to digital information. If the JCP is concerned about enough copies of 

publications being available for the public, perhaps the law could be rewritten to allow for 

enough mirror sites as there are Regional Libraries available for the plethora of digital 

publications. After all, these digital documents are not supplementing the print items; they are 

replacing them. They have replaced them. Permanent, long-term access to these documents, I 

believe, is a greater and more pressing issue regarding public assess than having enough [paper] 

copies available. This only makes sense. Electronic documents/publications, unlike distributed 

tangible items, are not in the possession of individual libraries (unless they have downloaded 

them and are hosting them): they reside on a server somewhere else (not necessarily overseen by 

a librarian) and (hopefully) remain there AND remain accessible to users. Were electronic 

publications ever expected to be downloaded and hosted at individual FDLP libraries? They are, 

after all, the new version of tangible items. As it is, in my opinion, a leap of the most 

unbelievable faith to assume that these electronic documents will be available in perpetuity 

considering the short lifespan of computers, the GPO should not only seriously consider this idea 

but hold to it. 

We are a fairly new selective depository library (2004), located in [state] and receive documents 

only in electronic format. My regional library has always offered the level of support we have 

needed, both during the application process and in the years since. 

There has been no change in service or organizational changes in these last 4 years that have 

affected us in any way. The regional stays in regular touch with us by email. This has been an 

exceptionally good experience all around. 

Our regional continues to provide all the support we need, despite the tragic disaster of October 

2004 in which they lost the majority of their documents. I am not aware of any other deliberate 

changes they have made in the past three years, other than the accommodations necessitated by 

the flood. 

Page C - 4
DRAFT

Page 5 

Here at [...] we have a close and personal relationship with our Regional Librarian and her staff. 

I have not encountered any situation in my department that she was not able to help me with. 

When we had to relocate to a smaller room and I made a request to discard our collection that 

was 5-years and older she met with me and my Director at that time to offer us advice on how we 

should handle the discarding procedures. She also helped me with a numerous of other situations 

which I am grateful for. I am very comfortable with contacting her or her staff with my concerns 

because she has shown much concern for the depository libraries and librarian in her regional 

with her show of support 

I work as a librarian at the [library]. My responsibilities include administration of the federal 

depository library program collection designator [depository number], and working to make the 

library's operations and practices comply with the requirements for designation and participation 

in the Federal Depository Library Program. The statements that I am making are my own 

personal statements, and do not represent the position of my supervisors or the administration of 

the [institution]. 

My experience includes 3 years (1971-1974) as an Inventory Management Specialist (in the 

federal government GS-2010 occupation series, and 32 years experience (1977-2008) in 

academic, corporate, and federal government agency libraries. I worked in the Government 

Documents Department of the [library], a regional depository library, 1983-1988, and in the 

Government Documents collection of this library, a selective depository, from December, 1995 

to this date. I was a user of federal government document collections as a college undergraduate, 

and during the 1970sas a researcher on several federal government agency reports. 

I believe that the logistics inventory model used for the stockage and distribution of aircraft 

repair parts is applicable to a model regional depository library system that I will describe. 

In my model, the current selective depository libraries would be equivalent to lowest level units 

that maintain and repair aircraft and aircraft equipment. The local Congressional district 

depository libraries would stock the most frequently sought out and most frequently circulated 

government publications. 

Orders for requested publications not available in a local collection would be filled by attempting 

to cross-fill the order from publication inventory among a cluster of nearby depository 

collections. These libraries would loan a publication for a short while, or send a digitized 

electronic copy or paper photocopy of the request publication. 

Each local library would have a basic collection, and be allowed to select up to X % more 

publication item numbers. These item numbers would be publications of greatest relevance to the 

Congressional district, or all depositories in a sub-state regional cluster. 

It is my belief that the median percentage item number selection rate for all depositories is about 

25 %. It is my belief that most depositories could function with a collection selection rate that is 

near the rates of the U.S. Supreme Court Library 0096B 15 %, U.S. Senate Library 0094A, 11 %, 

and the Executive Office of the President Library 0089C, 19 %. I used the selections of these 3 

Page C - 5
DRAFT

Page 6 

libraries during the years 1997 to 1998 to decide upon a basic collection for this library. My goal 

was to reduce the selection rate from 71 % to a lower rate with a higher identified use. 

Local depository libraries would use the Monthly Catalog of Government Publications or nonfederal bibliographies and indexes to identify publications by name or by group that they wished 

to borrow from a "depot level library". The depot level library would be a Regional Depository 

Library, but one that is not necessarily bound by state geographic boundaries as its service area. 

The slightly more than 50 regional depository libraries would serve from 20 to 30, with an 

average of 25, libraries in a geographic area or economic area. Systems that could be used would 

be the Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Area areas, with from 

3 to 4 EAs per regional depository library. Other alternatives include dividing the U.S. 

population of more than 300 million by 50 -53 regional depositories, and following state political 

boundaries and county boundaries, or national geographic barriers when necessary, to split the 

service areas into equal size units. 

I would like to see regional depository libraries take a lead role in encouraging local selective 

depository libraries select as few item number categories of documents as possible, and in return, 

be on call to provide rapid response with an original copy, photocopy, or digitized computer file 

that can be transmitted via the internet to a local library or local patron. I would like to see the 

oversight responsibility of the regional depository libraries identified and delineated, so that they 

provide standard services to each small group of depositories. 

I have noted that the regional depository library for Indiana, the Indiana University Library and 

the Purdue University Library have concluded that they have an adequate supply of copies of 

publications 1976 and later. It is my understanding that Indiana selective depository libraries 

have been given permission by the state regional library to discard post-1975 documents without 

having to offer them to the state regional, but can post them as offers to other Indiana libraries 

and to national offers lists as they desire. This must be saving many hours of staff time for all 

Indiana libraries, and gives the libraries time to concentrate on examination of 1975 and earlier 

publications, and to identify any publication that might be a "fugitive document" to be moved to 

the state regional depository collection. 

To summarize, I recommend that regional depository libraries be continued. I recommend that 

the workload of oversight and service to selective depository libraries be balanced out so that no 

library has more than 30 libraries in its service region, Regional libraries should send 

information to selective depositories telling them that it is okay to withdraw all publications of a 

classification number stem, or publications before a certain date, or by other criteria, so that 

selective depositories may clear their collections of backlogged material likely to be never used. 

Regional depositories should work with local selectives to see that each one selects a minimum 

number of item numbers, and that each selective can justify retention and selection of materials 

by item number based on circulation records, internal materials handling records, and any other 

fact-based evidence that is relevant. I am available by email, postal mail, or by telephone to give 

additional information. Once again, the comments made are my own opinion, have not been 

cleared for approval with my library administrators or university administrators. 

Page C - 6
DRAFT

Page 7 

My comments relate to Section IV b. and c. of the outline: current and projected conditions in 

regional libraries. 

From my perspective, the library that has regional responsibility is demonstrating less and less 

support for the FDLP in terms of staff, space, and financial resources. Our regional librarian has 

two other significant assignments besides government documents. Government documents are 

less than 25% of his time. As a result, the only service the regional provides is needs and offers; 

there is no instruction, no coordination, and very little communication. The effect on the state's 

selectives is that essentially there is no regional library. 

I see the current reality becoming even more pronounced in the future. In my own organization 

(which is staffed much better than the regional), I'm experiencing administrative pressure to 

reduce collections and services. As a selective, we have more flexibility. But regionals are trying 

to balance the traditional service/collections expectations with diminishing administrative 

support. The end result is that regionals cannot perform their mission, and selectives are 

receiving few if any regional services. 

I hope the study gives serious consideration to the impact resulting from reductions in state 

government depository operations. The State of ... has recently cut state government documents 

staffing, causing a ripple effect on the federal regional depository side by virtue of being interrelated. Our very capable regional depository librarians for both state and federal operations are 

committed to providing information and direction, even if out of their direct responsibility. This 

places further stress on an inadequately-supported, yet essential set of service providers as 

nothing in the universe of government information works in a vacuum. 

Congress must find a way to allow the request for a shared depository to go forward. Forty-six 

years have passed since the enacting of the most recent law. Everything about how we manage 

our libraries has changed dramatically in that period. Libraries are committed to serving the 

public good and value our role as a dispenser of public information. However, as we find 

creative ways to reduce duplication and fast and easy ways to share collections in every other 

portion of our libraries, we must be allowed to do the same with government publications. 

[State] regional depository is, I believe, one of the best in the FDLP. An example of useful new 

service is the collection development training seminars offered at various venues throughout the 

state. The [regional] recently completed a major reorganization, but the transition went smoothly 

with no impact whatsoever on the selective depositories. 

I've only had positive experiences with the Regional Library. They provide reference assistance 

for difficult reference questions and organize informative meetings at the state level where we 

can learn and network with other depository librarians. We are an active group separately and in 

conjunction with the state library association. 

Page C - 7
DRAFT

Page 8 

The permission to discard/offer process has always been slow, but they will have a new staff 

position soon, and the time lag from submission of the discard/offer list to the regional until 

distribution of the list to the other selectives in the state should improve. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the relationship between the [library] Selective 

Depository and our Regional Depository at the [state] State Library. As requested, I would like 

to comment on the impact that changes at [state] State Library, most notably in funding and 

staffing, will have on public access. As indicated in the background notes, the cornerstone of the 

Federal Library Depository Program is the principle that provision of no-fee public access to 

government information is essential to a healthy Democracy. Changes in funding and staffing at 

[state] State Library, which we rely on for critical services, will directly impact our ability to 

provide government information to the public. 

[depository] relies on [state] State Library to assist us in providing access to government 

information by helping us with the day-to-day management of our collections. The assistance 

takes many forms ranging from the coordination of de-selection processes to directing cuttingedge document preservation initiatives. Budgetary cutbacks will impact [state] State Library’s 

role in several ways: 

• [state] State Library has traditionally directed special preservation projects, a role that is 

becoming increasingly important as more government information is born digital. UCI is 

concerned that in the future the State Library will not be able to fully participate in preservation 

projects. 

• As a major research library, the [depository] Library depends on [state] State Library to provide 

us with material we do not have in our depository and to help us replace missing or shorted 

microfiche. Funding and staff cuts will result in delays in Interlibrary Loans and, potentially, the 

need to charge for the fiche they copy. [depository]’s faculty and students will have to wait 

longer to use material germane to their research and the costs will be a barrier to access. 

• The State Library coordinates the de-accessioning of government documents. Staffing 

shortages at [state] State Library will lengthen the time it takes for [depository]’s de-accession 

lists to be posted. The longer it takes for [state] State Library to process these lists, the longer 

other libraries will have to wait to claim the material for their collections. Valuable government 

information will be unavailable to the public for long periods of time. 

[depository]’s concerns are not confined to collection management issues. [state] State Library 

also offers specialized reference assistance, helping [depository]’s researchers to identify and 

access government information that is not readily available. 

• Locating government information often requires the use of specialized tools that are not easy to 

learn or understand, particularly when working with historical documents. Expert help is 

required. If [state] State Library staffing is curtailed due to budget constraints, [depository]’s 

researchers will receive a lower standard of service when they go directly to [state] State Library 

for assistance and [depository] will make fewer referrals. Researchers may not identify 

Page C - 8
DRAFT

Page 9 

documents important for their studies, even though the documents exist. 

• [depository] relies on [state] State Library’s staff to help locate materials in collections that still 

need to be cataloged. The [state] State Library historical collection, for instance, is a rich source 

of information, but is not completely cataloged. Reducing staff experienced in navigating these 

collections will not only make access more difficult, it will ensure the materials remain 

uncataloged. Without specialized assistance and proper cataloging, researchers may not know 

about documents important for their studies, even though the documents exist and a freely 

accessible. 

The Regional Library at the [state] State Library plays a vital role in providing access to 

government information to the people of [state]. In this, the largest of all the Federal Depository 

Regional systems, selective depositories are particularly dependent on the service provided by 

the regional. Changes in staffing, funding etc. will impact its ability to continue offering service 

to selective depositories and the public. 

The Regional Library in Oregon has recently gone through a restructuring process. Prior to the 

restructuring we had one Regional which housed everything. Now Oregon has a distributed 

housing arrangement among four partner libraries with Oregon State Library being determined 

the Regional Library. Each partner library will retain government information products from 

designated federal agencies in accordance with traditional collection strengths of each institution. 

I have managed the Federal Documents program at our library for 10 years and have had very 

little contact with our past Regional. Basically the only reason I had contact with the Regional 

was for disposal of withdrawn material. I hope that the restructuring will improve the support 

and guidance we receive from our regional. We are hoping this new concept includes improved 

support and leadership from Oregon's Regional Library and its partners. 

A lack of funding continues to be an issue for both Regionals and Selectives in every state. 

Addressing funding issues for all depository libraries would help to resolve some of the major 

issues facing these libraries. 

I believe regional depository libraries still have an important role to play in the FDLP. Regionals 

are best suited to provide training on using FDLP information resources which selectives may 

not have the time or staff to devote expertise to. Regionals also serve as the collection of last 

resort for selective depositories within the state or multi-state area they serve. This is particularly 

important because only a small percentage of retrospective U.S. Government publications will 

ever be digitized. 

The [regional library] has provided good support to [state] depository libraries. They have made 

a big step in improving access to their resources by contracting with Marcive to do a tape load of 

their depository collections back to 1976. I only wish the [state] General Assembly would 

provide the library with the fiscal resources needed to effectively house and preserve their vast 

repository of tangible format U.S. Government documents. 

Page C - 9
DRAFT

Page 10 

A number of the selective depositories in [state] have already cooperated to address the services 

provided by our regional. These include the creation of a local community of experts; training; 

catalog records; access to the regional tangible collection; discard process; activities to assist 

smaller selectives; and an initiative toward an updated state plan. These services and issues were 

addressed in detail in a letter from the selective depository librarians to Dean of Libraries at 

[regional library]. 

My opinion is that the regional has been exemplary in its services to selectives. Much of this 

activity has focused upon a local Government Publications Interest Group which normally meets 

9 or 10 times annually. These meetings not only convey information about FDLP activities and 

initiatives, they also provide a forum for all documents librarians locally to participate in 

discussion and training activities. In addition, the regional in the last couple of years has 

sponsored a Five State Conference, the latest (2006) held in Boulder. In 2007 the ...regional also 

obtained in IMLS grant that allows documents librarians in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, 

Wyoming, and Colorado to create training modules on the Web Junction and offer documents 

training to non-documents librarians in the five states. 

All these initiatives point to a very active and involved regional, one that provides excellent 

opportunities for selective depository librarians to easily become involved in FDLP activities, 

including both training and the addressing of current issues of concern. I have been extremely 

impressed with the regional and urge that GPO do all it can to foster and strengthen the regional 

system. 

I am writing in response to your letter to selective depository directors dated April 22, 2008. 

Collectively, the [university] Libraries are a large academic, selective depository served by the 

single Regional Library in [state], the [state] State Library. While we have a positive 

relationship with the Regional Library, we do not rely heavily on the Regional Depository 

Librarian for training, reference support, or mentoring as do many smaller selective libraries. 

The current Regional Depository Librarian at the [state] State Library, [regional librarian], is 

dedicated and passionate about both his place in the depository system and his role in assisting 

selective libraries across the State. While he is the sole (and overburdened) Regional Librarian 

in our very large state, he has made great strides in providing training and leadership, and makes 

an effort to maintain lines of communication with every new depository librarian in the ninety 

selective libraries served by the State Library. 

A significant reorganization at the [state] State Library went into effect on March 1, 2008 which 

directly affected the Government Publications Section of the Library. While the long- term 

effects of this reorganization are uncertain at this juncture, it has reduced the number of 

personnel working directly with government documents. Consequently, this reorganization will 

almost certainly impact services offered to selective depositories. One of the negative impacts of 

Page C - 10
DRAFT

Page 11 

the State Library’s recent reorganization that we anticipate is long delays for selective 

depositories in receiving permission to discard depository materials. 

As a growth campus in the [university] system, [institution] is facing growing numbers of 

incoming students whom we must serve using our current library facilities. Aggressive weeding 

of library collections has already begun to create more student study space and there are plans to 

substantially reduce the footprint of our physical documents collection. The area we are 

targeting first—older agriculture documents from outside our region—will potentially include 

several thousand documents that need to go through regular depository disposal procedures. 

Even before the recent reorganization, the State Library had a backlog of disposal lists because 

of the large number of selective depositories in the state. This problem will almost certainly be 

aggravated in the future, causing our weeding process to be longer and more cumbersome. Over 

the coming years, this will be a continuing struggle and is only one example of how the State 

Library’s reorganization and large area of coverage will make it more difficult for it to serve 

selective depositories in [state], even those that generally require less support. 

 

The Depository Library Act of 1962 was passed in a world in which access to federal depository 

materials was always physical. While there is still much information—current and historical— 

in tangible form, the importance of Regional libraries and Regional depository librarians goes far 

beyond the physical collection housed in the Library building. The law governing the Regional 

Library system should reflect this and allow the FDLP to embrace 21st century collaborative 

solutions rather than hold it to the standards of a previous age. 

The GPO’s stated goal is to make the current system of Regional Depository Libraries more 

flexible. In order to achieve this goal, I strongly encourage the Joint Committee on Printing to 

push forward the changes in Title 44 that will allow Shared Regionals and create a more flexible 

Regional depository system. This change will help rather than hinder public access to 

government information. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. 

I understand that the JCP must have requested a report on "the state of Regional libraries" and 

that caused the report to focus on an examination of conditions pertaining to Regional libraries. 

However, I feel that the focus needs to move somewhat to the condition of the services Regional 

libraries provide to selectives and how the conditions at selectives impact permanent no-fee 

public access to federal information. In ... the Regional's influence is felt through his (excellent) 

work with selectives and his guidance of librarians at selective depositories. The end-user at a 

selective depository is served, in part, through the Regional's work. To ignore the conditions of 

selectives and how those conditions might change in the absence of a Regional is, at least in my 

opinion, missing the point. 

As someone close to the Kansas/Nebraska agreement, I find the premise of this regional study--

that the proposal signals growing challenges, etc., etc.--both interesting and skewed. Interesting 

Page C - 11
DRAFT

Page 12 

because it assumes that something is wrong (it is) and needs to be fixed (it does) and skewed in 

that the bias against this proposal has led to this study in the first place. 

What is wrong and what needs to be fixed is that we are hampered by law and practice that does 

not account for the way government information is now being shared and distributed or the 

collaborative and consortial ways libraries work. Organizational, financial, and space challenges 

are not exclusive to regional depositories but are a part of the larger shifts that we are making in 

academic libraries to better meet user needs. Users come to our facilities for different purposes, 

often not driven by the use of print materials, so many of us are reducing our "collection 

footprint" to accommodate new needs including collaborative learning spaces, data centers, etc. 

Financially and technologically, we continue the shift from ownership to access that we began 20 

years ago. It makes good managerial sense for us to look at our government documents 

collections as a part of the whole when we are setting priorities and seeking alternatives for 

dollars, space and staff. 

I encourage reconsideration and revision of Title 44 to catch up with today's government and 

today's libraries. 

Our regional depository does provide the level of support we expect from a regional depository. 

They have been helpful every time I have requested their assistance. 

I am not aware that there have been any changes in services offered by our regional depository 

within the last 3 years. 

[The former regional librarian] was helpful in the past. He is no longer heading up the regional 

depository. ... is now acting in that position. She and ... have both been ready to help any time I 

have asked for assistance. 

In response to Mr. Davis' letter to selective depository Library directors and suggested topics: 

1. ... is too small and does not have the resources to serve as a regional so we would not consider 

seeking regional designation. 

2. Our regional has served us well over the years providing/exceeding the expected level of 

support. 

3. Our regional has not eliminated any basic services to selectives. 

4. The new regional depository librarian is reaching out to the selectives and continuing the 

excellent support and relationship we had with her predecessor. 

Our depository is a large academic depository and we feel that we receive an appropriate level of 

support from our regional. Although we receive roughly 93-94%, we are not interested in 

becoming a regional at this time. 

Our contacts with the regional are mainly in three categories: 

Page C - 12
DRAFT

Page 13 

1) Occasional offerings of materials we plan to discard; the regional has taken some materials 

we've offered. 

2) Requests for information on material we never received and/or to borrow materials we never 

received (we occasionally borrow to make fiche copies of hearings that never arrived). 

3) Information on discrepancies in what GPO says we are receiving and what has actually 

arrived. 

Responses from the regional are normally prompt and helpful. 

Our regional has been very active and supportive in the last several years. They've been 

particularly in interacting with depositories across the state. This year they hosted a meeting for 

several consortial documents groups that was well attended. 

The [library] (Selective depository #...) understands the challenges facing Regional depositories 

in the current, evolving landscape of government information and library and information 

services in general. We acknowledge that the concept of shared and/or collaborative Regionals 

offers benefits to libraries currently serving as Regional depositories—the primary one being 

more flexibility in their collections, which allows for more efficient allocation of space and 

provides opportunities for cooperation with regard to cataloging and preservation. 

As a Selective depository, our main concerns are the level of service we receive from our 

Regional library and the comprehensiveness and accessibility of the Regionals’ collections. Our 

Regional library at present adequately meets our depository administration needs (i.e. they 

process disposal lists, answer queries, provide support, etc. in a timely manner). There is a 

concern that, in the event that our Regional decided to share responsibilities with another 

Regional, especially across state lines, this could generate confusion and inconsistency, leading 

to a diminution of efficiency. It might also be used by administrators as a justification for a 

decrease in or reallocation of staffing, leading to a subsequent reduction in service quality and 

processing time. If this occurred, it would negatively affect the depository workflow of 

Selectives. 

With regard to shared housing agreements for Regional collections, we embrace this initiative 

with the following caveat: while there are loose guidelines for this, it is imperative that specific 

standards be set by GPO to ensure that, between the shared Regionals, a full, comprehensive 

collection is established and preserved; it must also be comprehensively cataloged to ensure 

identification for public access. Standards would also prevent discrepancies through staff and/or 

administration changes. As a selective, [library] maintains a current collection to meet its users’ 

needs, but for many retrospective or rarely requested materials, it must look to its Regional 

libraries. Often these are the very materials which remain uncataloged and, therefore, 

inaccessible. [library] supports collaborative cataloging initiatives between Regionals which will 

improve access to these resources. Another concern raised by shared housing agreements is that 

of distance. It is important that [library] be able to refer its users to a relatively close Regional 

collection for the information they need if it is not available electronically or through ILL (and 

many retrospective resources, even when cataloged, are not due to format or circulation 

restrictions). 

Page C - 13
DRAFT

Page 14 

We support GPO’s exploration of new and more efficient ways to help Regionals manage both 

their collections and their Selectives, and we look forward to seeing further research and 

discussion on this matter. 

Our State Library comments are that, over the past few years with ... as regional librarian, the 

[state] State Library regional has provided the ... selective depository with guidance, fulfilled 

ILL requests for depository documents, solicited our views on depository operations, arranged 

meetings of [state] depository librarians, and kept us informed of changes in holdings of other 

nearby selective depositories. The ... regional has shown particular concern that the public in 

[county] Congressional districts have access to federal depository publications. We were pleased 

with the attention and service provided by [regional librarian] 

However, we are now concerned that recent deep cuts in [regional library] staffing and the recent 

[regional library] reorganization will lead to reduced services from the regional. Our concern is 

that this will lead to reduced public access to federal government publications.

Shared Collections and Title 44 

The ... serves as the regional library for [state] and has done so for many years. The major 

difference from the University of Kansas and University of Nebraska proposed shared depository 

model is that we do not have agreements to share our collection responsibilities with any 

depository outside our state including our Regional. The Regional functions as a back-up and last 

resort collection as is typical of Regional libraries serving only one state. 

It has been sometime since Title 44 has been amended so maybe the time has come to 

accommodate changes brought about in the depository system of the 21st century through 

amending Title 44. Some in the depository community are fearful that due to common 

misconceptions such as “everything is online”, without strenuous efforts to educate legislators 

and the general public, it will be difficult to pass legislation that will effectively strengthen Title 

44. GPO has struggled for the last decade or so to create a business model that will replace the 

depository funding that was once created by sales of tangible products. 

Level of Support from Regional 

Our regional serves three states and has limited resources available to devote to depository 

functions. It is also a Patent Depository and is actively involved in cartographic services. Thus, 

we receive less support than we would sometimes like and our Regional is definitely not a leader 

in the government information community but we primarily attribute this to lack of resources 

rather than intention or choice. Within the last 3-5 years our Regional did query those of us with 

old and large collections to see if we were interested in assuming responsibility for Regional 

status in [state] and [state]. None of us have been able or chosen to do so. We have been a U. S. 

depository since 1907 and currently select about 80% of the available items. 

Our Regional hosted a conference in 2001 that examined many current and future issues. 

However, with all the virtual communication avenues available, there still is a real lack of 

important dialogue and information sharing that would strengthen our depository community. 

Page C - 14
DRAFT

Page 15 

We have a very good one-on-one relationship with our Regional Depository Librarian (he & I 

have an informal agreement that I monitor & send him any relevant postings from Govdoc-l) and 

he attended our recent New England 100th depository anniversary celebration. At that meeting, 

he presented a very good overview of his role and current conditions in the three states he serves. 

This is the very type of information exchange that needs to be developed and used on an ongoing basis, not just at isolated events. 

Given the geographic location of our Regional, we often serve as the de facto regional in the 

state of ... (we are 1 of only 9 depository libraries in the state). Along with ..., we are the largest 

and oldest U. S. depository in the state. At state-wide meetings we hear again and again that 

other libraries depend on the strength and depth of our collections, resources, and expertise. 

Technology and Depository Libraries 

With the increase in electronic government documents, digital projects, the continuation of new 

tangible titles, the existence of valuable legacy collections, and the transition in library space 

uses, it is to be expected that the nature of both selective depository libraries and regionals 

should change. A shared collection across states, as the Kansas/Nebraska model suggests, no 

longer requires that in every case a tangible document must move between libraries, but rather 

digital copies can be easily shared. 

It is difficult to envision what role both selective and regional depository libraries will play in the 

future although it is clear that digital collections increase in numbers and importance while the 

paper, legacy collections need to be preserved and made accessible but perhaps not at every 

depository library. One challenge will be to identify key materials in legacy collections which 

should definitely be retained, for instance, because limitations in current digital technology make 

the digital surrogates less useful than the originals, or because the existing digital copies are not 

freely available to the public, or because of the value of the documents as historical artifacts as 

well as sources of information. 

Collaboration and Depository Libraries 

With our membership in the Boston Library Consortium (BLC) and our close proximity to 

Boston, we frequently work more closely with the regional depository in this group (Boston 

Public Library) and the other BLC libraries more than our own regional or the other depositories 

in our state. 

Another group with whom we regularly collaborate is the Government Publications Librarians of 

New England (GPLNE). Because the highest concentration of Depository Libraries in New 

England is, by far and away, in the Boston area, this group tends to be more Boston based. The 

[regional] is, of course, part of GPLNE but its geographic location makes participation less 

frequent; it is a true “outlier” even in this day of virtual participation. 

Such connections and networks may well be a national trend given all the cooperative and 

collaborative arrangements. There is often a pull toward the initiatives, collections, colleagues, 

and resources of the cooperative library organization which may or may not include the regional 

or other depository libraries in ones group. There are groups and then there are groups and the 

depository group may no longer be the most active or important for one’s institution. 

Page C - 15
DRAFT

Page 16 

Within the last year or so, my regional library has offered two new services. I will speak about 

both of these services, along with the positives and negatives that are associated with both of 

them. 

The first new service that my regional library has implemented has been a “Documents Group” 

on the social networking site Facebook. The group is a hidden group, which means members can 

only join by invitation. This site allows our regional librarian to communicate quickly with all of 

us selectives via email. We can also post N&O lists to the Facebook group. 

This new service makes it easy for our regional librarian to send emails to us and allows her to 

have one place to check N&O lists. However, it does not guarantee that she will respond to 

emails. It is commonplace among the other selective depositories in my state to complain about 

slow and inconsistent follow-up to emails from our regional. Also, the new way to post N&O 

lists has come with a “no news is good news” policy for discarding items. We post our lists, and 

if we haven’t heard back after 3 months, we are to assume that we have permission to discard the 

items. This 3 month period has cut down on the lag time in hearing back about permission to 

discard, yet it also means that we never receive that definitive “yes” giving us permission to 

discard. 

The second new service that my regional has implemented has been a series of talks that the 

regional librarian offers in conjunction with other librarians from the State Library. I hosted one 

of these talks at my university library, which proved to be very successful and allowed me to 

conduct some excellent marketing for the government documents. 

While this new service contributes greatly to the marketing of government documents, I feel that 

the service comes at the expense of other, more basic services which my regional has spoken 

about but which have not yet come to fruition. When I first become a documents librarian three 

years ago, there was much talk of revising and updating our State Plan, which dates from the 

1980s. The Plan has not yet been revised. There was also much talk about seeking grant money 

for various projects coordinated by the regional. These plans have not yet materialized. 

My underlying concern about all of these new services is the lack of personnel allocated to 

overseeing the regional library. As I understand it, my regional library oversees more selective 

libraries than most other regionals. Yet, my regional librarian wears more hats than just that of 

regional librarian. She has many exciting ideas yet lacks the resources, staff, and time to follow 

through on them. I see her inability to complete something as basic as revising the State Plan as a 

symptom of the steady decline in support that the State Library gives to government documents. 

My comments are intended to express frustration not with my regional librarian as an individual 

but with the overall low priority my state assigns to government documents. 

We maintain a close and personal relationship with our regional. We seek one another’s 

assistance and have an exchange of ideas which makes for a pleasant and emergent environment. 

Page C - 16
DRAFT

Page 17 

Our regional provides the level of support we expect from a regional depository. They respond 

quickly. They offer suggestions. And they are willing to listen to suggestions or comments as 

well. 

Our regional depository has not eliminated any useful or offered new, services to the selectives 

in our region within the last 3 years that I am aware of. 

Our regional has recently undergone an organizational change and thus far it appears to be a 

positive one with a continuation of our close and personal relationship with our regional director 

and depository. The new Regional Director has relayed that her philosophy is progress for the 

betterment of access to our patronage. She wishes to streamline some procedures and go “green” 

with others. She also reminded us that the ... State Plan for Federal Depository Libraries will be 

reviewed and updated this coming year (the last time was in 2001). Even though she is new to 

the position, she is looking forward to meeting with everyone at the ... Library Association 

meeting in the fall and at the winter depository meeting. She is open to suggestions or comments 

on things that may not have worked in the past or any comments we may have. We look forward 

to working with her and aiding her as she needs. 

1. Given a choice between fewer, but healthier, regional depositories, or none at all, to cover 

large geographic areas of the country, we would definitely choose the former. 

2. Obviously, Congress needs to revise Title 44 to promote cooperation and innovation 

among government documents depository libraries, so the program can continue to exist. 

A failure to do so will jeopardize the voluntary program. 

3. ... supports the statement submitted to GPO by the Association of College and Research 

Libraries (ACRL) this week. ACRL supports the FDLP employing cooperative models 

and practices that might improve public access to federal depository resource. As stated 

above, we’re already doing that among the.... 

4. The amount of time the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) allowed for the Government 

Printing Office (GPO) to respond to its query is ridiculously short and will almost 

certainly result in a poor response level from the user community. 

5. ... will not consider seeking regional designation, because such a status is not missioncritical for a private liberal arts college and we’re too small. 

6. Our regional depository, meets our basic needs. It does the very best it can in its role as a 

regional, given the pressures of poor and unpredictable state funding and the competing 

priorities it faces. 

7. The State Library has been supportive of the ... project to consolidate our four collections 

into one. Likewise, they have long hosted meetings and kept communications flowing in 

the [state] government documents community. 

In [state], money is very tight for all public entities, and depository libraries suffer the 

consequences too. In addition, many depository libraries are also now defending their role to 

library directors who believe all government documents are electronic and depository status is no 

longer necessary. 

Page C - 17
DRAFT

Page 18 

Amidst those struggles, putting our depository role in jeopardy, [state] regional depository 

libraries provide services and access to documents which are invaluable. Both of the [state] 

regional depository libraries more than meet their obligation to “...provide interlibrary loan, 

reference service, and publication disposal assistance to depository libraries.” On many 

occasions I have called upon each of them for ILL, help answering patron questions and always 

list materials before they are withdrawn. They never let me down. 

The [state] regional depository libraries go beyond what is required. For example, they call 

meetings twice a year to gather all depository librarians to share news, get to know how we can 

all help each other and provide training. They also offer training and cooperative networking 

with neighboring states including Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and Texas. 

No doubt, “...current and projected conditions of regionals...” is dim in terms of funding and 

often support from their library directors, but the regionals in ... are expanding access to the 

depository materials in every way possible. 

Our regional has always maintained a high level of strong support for our selective libraries. 

Through our library’s renovation in 2005 after the retirement of our document librarian at the 

end of 2004, our regional librarian and her staff provided us with very strong support, which was 

most gratefully received by me, the document assistant, and by our then newly-appointed library 

director, the Associate Dean of Learning Support Services. 

That having been noted, a high level of support is extended by frequent and active 

communication between our regional and all of the selectives through a network of 

announcements and information via several listservs. Our regional also employs a widespread 

outreach policy broadcasting events and news taking place with GODORT of [state] , [state 

library association], and their parent groups. 

I don’t recall that any regional services have been eliminated since I hired on in 1997. However, 

within the past three years our State Plan has been updated, new officers were elected to the 

[state] Council, regional disposal procedures have been updated and streamlined, and workshops 

have been offered to all depository staff at all the selectives. Currently, collection development 

workshops are taking place at several locations around the state. 

Several outstanding actions by our regional come to mind. When our other and former regional 

changed its status to selective, meetings were open to all depositories in the state at which the 

entire process and its fall-out and outcome were announced and discussed. When an Alabama 

depository asked for input of fresh ideas for dissemination of govdoc resources, our regional 

made that request available on our listservs so that we could offer help, indicating a characteristic 

encompassing, rather than insular, approach to depository management. 

Also, collections have recently been moved and facilities renovated at the regional in order to 

improve service to patrons and selectives. 

Lastly, our regional was instrumental in reopening a dialog between GODORT of [state] and 

Page C - 18
DRAFT

Page 19 

[state library association] regarding a combining of memberships. The issue is highly charged, 

and our regional is very capably guiding the political and practical nature of the discussions. 

Our regional is always mindful of the responsibility of the depository program and the gravity of 

its function. Depository business is carried out with great attention to detail and with the goal 

being a high level of accomplishment. 

The Regional Depository has been very responsive to any request or need that I may have had in 

the past as a selective. I feel that they are doing a very fine job of keeping us informed through 

our current [state]GOVDOC-L listserv, as well as, through our annual meetings with the [state] 

selectives. 

... has been a depository library by Senate designation since 1893 and has a collection that is 

rich in historical documents as well as current. The fact is that we are a selective library and do 

not have everything that we may need to help our patrons. This is where the Regional 

Depository comes in. 

Our Regional is vitally important to us in the fact that when we do not have those publications on 

our stacks, we rely on our Regional. I am very happy to say that our Regional comes through for 

us. Not only can we request items from them, they provide reference, answer questions and give 

us assistance whenever they can. I feel that ... has a very good working relationship with the 

Regional and look forward to many more years of a great working relationship. 

The only suggestion that I would have is that I would like to have more training/workshops in 

the ever changing world of government information. Things are changing so fast that up to date 

workshops/training sessions would be useful in learning where the information is and how to 

retrieve it for our faculty, students and patrons. This can pose a problem also because ... is a 

very big state and with budget and time constraints, it is hard to have all the depository libraries 

come together. There are so many misconceptions about documents that I feel we need to 

educate ourselves as well as our patrons that come in to our libraries in that way we can better 

serve our patrons. 

While our regional librarian makes every effort to serve the selective libraries in this state, his 

position is not devoted full time to government documents. It is therefore not possible for him to 

provide the kind of support to the selectives that he believe he should provide, including training. 

In the three years I have been at this library, there has never been any formal training from the 

regional. We have had site visits with informal training, which are helpful. Otherwise, our 

regional librarian is sometimes very slow to respond to questions, and again, this is not the fault 

of the person but the result of not enough staffing at the regional. 

The [regional] Library has been very good about responding to our questions (about retention 

rules, and access to NTIS, to name two). It has also led the way on the creation of a new state 

Page C - 19
DRAFT

Page 20 

plan for federal depositories. 

It has not been active in creating a training program for depositories, although admittedly there 

has not been much demand for one. I would appreciate a web presence run by the State Library 

for federal depositories. 

One reason the [regional] Library may not be more active is that our government librarian 

organization, the Northwest Government Information Network, is very lively and has taken the 

lead in a lot of matters. Of course, the State Library plays a very active role in NGIN. I can recall 

several occasions where the members had to stop at a meeting to think about whether they were 

acting as NGIN or as the federal depository librarians group; since the membership and activities 

are much the same. An example of the relationship is the NGIN Listserv, run by the University 

of Washington, which is often used to pass information through the depositories. 

It is important to note that a few years ago the [regional] Library was threatened with closure. 

This would have been a disaster for the state’s depositories. As it was, many people were laid 

off, including the federal documents librarian, who replaced her, has done an excellent job. 

. 

We are not interested in becoming a regional depository. 

I have fewer concerns about public access for a two- or three-state shared regional like KansasNebraska than about 15-state shared regionals, which at first seemed to be what ASERL was 

proposing. I am against many-state shared regionals precisely because I am convinced that public 

access would decrease. 

Whether two- or three-state shared regionals impair or improve public access, however, depends 

on the guidelines and strictures that GPO sets. Public access is not likely to be impaired unless 

guidelines like these are in place: 

(a) In a two- or three-state shared-regional area, shared regionals should continue to guarantee 

no-fee access to selectives and the public. There shouldn’t need to be no delay in filling requests 

from selectives in just a two- or three-state area. 

(b) Shared regionals should set up a selective-depository advisory group to insure that selective 

depositories’ needs were being filled and that selectives had a regular way to communicate their 

concerns. 

(c) Shared regionals should maintain web pages, wikis, and/or blogs so that selectives would 

know which regional to contact to supply publications from what agencies and so that individual 

depositories would have a quick way to express concerns and get responses from other 

depositories (both regionals and selectives). 

(d) Shared regionals should pledge to work (perhaps with selectives) to get more of regional 

holdings in the public catalogs and on OCLC. 

Page C - 20
DRAFT

Page 21 

(e) Shared regionals should cooperate with other regionals to guarantee a comprehensive 

program of redundant preservation of electronic publications. This will need to happen 

regardless of whether there are shared regionals. 

While I agree that the current system regarding regional depositories needs a little work, I think 

it should be kept intact. Rather than eliminating regionals, they should be given more support. 

Having more, rather than fewer, regionals would make the system work better, as it would 

alleviate the workload of all regional depositories. A good option would be to change the part of 

the law that states each state can have only two. Those states with a higher number of selective 

depositories should have more regionals as well. This would make the workload more 

manageable, thus giving more libraries an incentive to become regionals. 

Similarly, providing some sort of funding for regionals might also encourage more libraries to 

accept the task. It is difficult for depositories to sell the idea of becoming a regional to their 

administrators if they must utilize their own resources without any other support. 

In short, it is management and funding issues that need to be addressed. Doing this will alleviate 

the difficulties that many depositories are facing and will ensure that the system works the way it 

needs to. 

We are a selective depository and are most appreciative of our Regional contact at the [regional 

library]. Helpful and responsive to questions, tolerant of our discard lists and many mistakes. He 

is a great watchdog for all libraries and it is reassuring to know that every detail is cared for and 

attended to. 

... is a selective depository library in the Federal Depository Library Program. ... has 

participated in the program since 1889 and currently selects 75% of resources distributed through 

the Government Printing Office.... is the largest selective depository in ... and leads in holdings 

of over 584,000 volumes in all formats. 

... is designated as a high research institution with significant undergraduate and graduate 

programs in Agriculture/Biological Sciences, Nursing, Pharmacy, Education and Counseling, 

Engineering, Family & Consumer Sciences, General Studies and Arts & Sciences. Government 

publications from all agencies provide support for academic programs at ..., Cooperative 

Extension, and resources to the residents of .... 

Prior to 1987, [state] Selective Depository Libraries were not served by a Regional Depository 

Library. There was no designated Regional Depository Library within the state of .... In 1987, 

the State Library of [state] entered into an agreement with the ... Regional Depository Library to 

serve the selective depositories in [state]. This partnership allowed [state] selective depositories 

to weed their federal documents collections with the approval of the Regional. Without a 

regional library in [state], selective depositories were unable to discard or disperse documents. 

Page C - 21
DRAFT

Page 22 

Special projects, space considerations, future organizational changes, electronic dissemination of 

government information, bibliographic access to pre-1976 documents, and preservation are 

dominant issues facing [state] federal documents collection management decisions. To face these 

challenges, it is necessary to have guidance from a Regional Depository Library. The [regional 

library] has served the selectives in [state] very well and we continue to look to the [regional 

library] for leadership in managing our collections. 

It is unlikely that any [state] selective depository has the resources or the desire to assume the 

role of a Regional Depository Library. Therefore, we respectfully support legislative action to 

amend Title 44 to allow current and future Regional Depositories flexibility in executing their 

mission within the Federal Depository Library Program. 

The ..., a selective depository in the ... is situated 3700 miles from our Regional at the .... 

Consequently because of our remote location, our relationship with the Regional is especially 

significant. What is appreciated is the expertise and specific knowledge available of this region 

by Regional personnel, which supports the unique information needs of our patrons. This 

relationship is actually an information life-line, one that impacts not only the ..., but the local 

and surrounding island communities as well. 

Facts: 

1. The regional librarian has been helpful to the selective library. When we requested, the 

librarian gave us on-site visit and provided her suggestions regarding collection development and 

processing. 

2. When we sent discard list, regional librarian provided approval. 

3. During 2008 Spring FDLP conference, regional librarian called all selective depository 

libraries for quick meeting during lunch time, introducing each other, sharing ideas, and 

answering questions, which was very helpful. 

Comments: 

1. According to FDLP Handbook, regional library should provide state plan to selective 

depository libraries. ...regional library does not have a state plan. We were told the latest state 

plan was 1980’s and no updated one. 

2. FDLP should provide specific guidelines or training to NEW regional librarian about their 

leadership role and corresponding responsibilities to selective libraries. 

I fully support making Regional agreements more flexible, including allowing for cross-state and 

multi-state Regional libraries. Some points I want to make: 

1) The new partnership agreement we've concluded here in ...(with the State Library as the 

Regional, but the collection housed at 3 major academic libraries in addition to the State Library) 

addresses many of the space concerns implied by the survey, and using a committee of veteran 

librarians through the state library association's documents group as resources and trainers. Our 

Page C - 22
DRAFT

Page 23 

model may be useful for the JCP to consider. 

2) It is vitally important for GPO to focus on obtaining increased Congressional funding to 

digitize and catalog older documents, as this would release much of the pressures on both 

Regionals and Selectives concerning their lack of space, and also would make fewer Regional 

libraries necessary. 

My reaction to the idea of a super regional is mixed. I am the government documents librarian at 

a selective depository in [state]. The idea of a super regional was presented to the [state] Library 

Association’s Government Documents Roundtable as something that was to be implemented 

very soon. The depository community was given no voice in the decision. I discovered that ILL 

would be a problem in my library. [Other regional] wouldn’t lend to us because we weren’t in 

their lending group. We were all getting a new regional librarian at [regional library]. He had no 

documents experience. The position was to quarter time. In my 22 years in government 

documents in [state], the position has gone from a full time position with a department with 4-5 

full time people to one where the librarian is quarter time and I have no idea who contact if I 

have a processing or technical problem. I question [the regional library’s] dedication to being a 

regional. They sure don’t seem to be very willing to staff the position in the way that would 

serve the region it covers. I look at the idea of the super regional as a way to put a weaker 

regional with a stronger one. In the case of Kansas and Nebraska becoming a super regional, I 

believe [the state] would come out on a shorter stick than they are one now. GPO really needs to 

look at what it expects regional’s to do. In two rural states like Kansas and Nebraska, distance 

has to be a factor. In [state] we have a strong government documents group that has a listserve. 

This is where most of the librarians in the state go for help! Before any area goes to a super 

regional, all the stake-holder must be involved in the process. This is the only way it will work 

for all participants. 

The ... serves as the regional to my selective depository. The staff there do the best job they can, 

given severe budget and staffing cuts in the past 10 years. [State] has the benefit of a shared light 

archive, which is a wonderful resource for all depositories in the state. 

Currently, the Regional Library at the... also serves as the regional library for the FDLP libraries 

in [state]. Were the [other state] Regional not serving in this capacity for us, it would be difficult 

for the [state] Library to remain a selective. This is particularly so in regards to dealing with 

discard items. Space for collections is at a premium in our building and being about to weed on a 

regular basis allows us to keep the documents collection to a size that will fit in the available 

space. We also rely on the [other state] Regional for reference assistance and training. We feel 

having the [other state] Regional serve as the regional for [state] FDLP libraries is a good use of 

resources. 

Our library has a very good relationship with our regional depository library. It provides the level 

of support we expect from a regional depository. Specifically, the staff reviews our disposal lists 

and answers reference questions in a timely manner. They respond to interlibrary loan requests 

Page C - 23
DRAFT

Page 24 

very promptly. They also provide training and guidance in depository management. Of particular 

value is the day-long workshops they have recently implemented to provide training to new 

depository staff. The staff provides timely updates on issues of significance to the FDLP 

community. The staff is very courteous, helpful, supportive and clear in their directions to the 

selective depositories. Our sense is that they accomplish all of this despite the fact that they have 

very limited funds and staffing, especially given the large number of selective depositories that 

they serve. 

Our regional depository library has recently been re-organized in part due to anticipated budget 

cuts, but we have not yet noticed any impact on our depository’s operations. However, given 

how recent the re-organization is, it may be too soon to evaluate its impact on services to 

selective depositories. 

Does your regional depository provide the level of support you expect from a regional? 

Support and communication from the regional depository library is minimal. My library has 

received one in-person visit from the regional depository librarian during the course of 3 

decades. While my library as a selective is able to fulfill its responsibilities, more active care, 

collaboration, and contact within my region would be appreciated. Training sessions, information 

and news about other selective libraries in the region, and updates on FDLP from the regional 

point-of-view are examples of outreach that the regional could be doing. Some of these needs are 

met through the regional government document librarians’ group but the regional depository 

should be fulfilling them, too. 

Has your regional depository eliminated any useful or offered new services to the selectives in 

your region within the last 3 years? 

To my knowledge no services have been eliminated or new ones offered within the last 3 years. 

Has your regional depository undergone organizational changes that positively or negatively 

affected the depository operation or processes in your library? 

In 2003 the library hosting the regional was affected by a significant budget cut and large-scale 

organizational change, moving from independence as a state agency to being directed by another 

large state agency. There were personnel changes at that time and for a period of time thereafter 

that left the management of the regional depository unclear. 

This did not affect the depository processes in my library but support and direction from the 

regional was either nonexistent or unclear for periods of time. 

There seems to be a situation of understaffing for regional depository operations at this point. 

Would you consider seeking regional depository designation for your library? 

No 

The ... Regional Federal Depository Library and the Regional FDLP Librarian are exemplary. 

[The regional librarian] communicates with the depository libraries about issues and trends 

related to FDLP in bi-monthly meetings of the Documents Association of [the state], via regular 

Page C - 24
DRAFT

Page 25 

email communications forwarding information about the FDLP, and in very timely responses to 

reference questions from our depository library. If there is a need to interlibrary loan material or 

fax material, [the regional librarian] follows through to ensure that the material is received as 

quickly as possible. Laura was instrumental in guiding the process for our State Plan. [The 

regional librarian] has also carefully planned and widely advertised exhibits of government 

documents, including the exhibit, “Window to Your Government: An Exhibition Celebrating the 

Centennial of the Federal Documents Depository”. She also participates actively in the planning 

of the annual [state documents association] fall conference, which focuses on promoting 

government information. [The regional librarian] has participated at the national level in the 

FDLP and regularly shared information with us about the issues facing depository libraries. 

These regular communications foster a relationship that encourages access to the Regional’s 

collections – a necessary collection for our state since no other library in our state can possibly 

provide a complete print collection of documents. 

The role of the regional should include: support for Selectives, training, advice with management 

issues, and sharing their expert knowledge of government information. 

The Regional is GPO at the local level - providing interpretations, explanations, and updates of 

policies and regulations. In my case, my Regional facilitates the Government Publications 

Interest Group presenting opportunities for depository librarians and staff to exchange ideas, 

share best practices and knowledge about collection strengths and areas of expertise. In addition, 

the Regional is the leader in formulating, implementing and carrying out a state plan. 

Training in both content of GPO and government materials, as well as in managing the collection 

(collection development, processing, cataloging, etc.) by the staff at the Regional and 

encouraging presentations from Selectives. 

Catalog and records are critical to access and maintenance; depository Libraries need to have 

every tangible item cataloged at the piece-level. This is needed for local access but also for 

referrals to the Regional for collaborative collection management, interlibrary loan, copycataloging, and verification of the existence and holding of government publications. My 

Regional has been committed to catalog and item convert its holdings. 

Briefly mentioned above, the Regional has a lead role to play in provision of document delivery 

services. 

Selectives need to an expedited discard process run by a well staffed Regional so the process is 

conducted as quickly as possible. 

As a smaller Selective, I really benefit from the activities of the Regional. My have questions 

ranging from managing the collection, to requesting items not owned, to assistance with 

reference inquiries. My Regional has been knowledgeable, helpful, and timely in its responses. 

Page C - 25
DRAFT

Page 26 

Our Regional Librarian has always been extremely supportive of our selective depository. Our 

Depository collection was transferred from the ... in 2001. In preparation for the transfer, [the 

regional librarian] evaluated our library, advised on the transfer process, physical placement and 

access to the Depository collection. More recently, she advised us on physical layout 

specifications during a recent library remodeling project that directly affected the Depository 

collection. 

[The regional librarian] has always remained available to advise and provide support and 

communication on any Depository-related matter. She ensures that the [state] Depository Library 

Council meetings are held soon after the Fall and Spring meetings of the Federal Depository 

Library Council, in order to keep us informed on recent developments. Attendance in person is 

encouraged, but she has provided opportunities for those of us in outlying areas of the state to 

attend meetings via speakerphone and online meeting software. 

As the [state] Coordinator for the Institute of Museum & Library Services/Government 

Information in the 21st Century Grant, our Regional librarian has been extremely supportive. She 

has provided funding so that [state] depository librarians have been able to attend two IMLS 

“Train the Trainer” conferences in Colorado. She has provided advice and much administrative 

support to facilitate IMLS workshops presented recently by myself to [local] area librarians. 

Recently, severe funding challenges have faced the [regional library]. It is essential that funding 

remain adequate to support our Regional Depository Library. The Federal Depository Library 

Program is extremely important to our community for several reasons. We are physically distant 

from other Federal Depository Libraries and large metropolitan areas (approximately 180 miles 

from the nearest Depository library in Arizona).* Our county serves a large minority population 

(55.9% of Hispanic/Latino origin).* [local] County’s unemployment rate is over 9%.* The 

percentage of persons living below the poverty level is over 18%.* Large employers in our area 

include education, agriculture, and the Federal government (military and civilian employees). 

Our Selective Depository Library is housed on the major campus for public higher education in 

[state]. Our Regional Depository Library and Regional Depository Librarian play a critical role 

in keeping [state] informed. 

My experience has been that for me in [territory], the major contact I have with the regional 

library is to send in discard lists and not much else. 

We are geographically isolated by miles of ocean and that makes any real contact or service 

difficult. I suspect that my perceptions are true for any of the depository libraries located in US 

territories. 

With the approval of my library director, we are taking the initiative to invite the [territory] and 

[territory] depository librarians to a meeting on August 22, 2008 to discuss collaborative 

possibilities including the idea of a shared regional. 

In its response to the survey questions, our regional library director stresses the importance of 

collaborative efforts. However, the state served by my regional doesn't have a state plan. Despite 

repeated calls from the selectives, and offers from selective depository librarians to work on a 

Page C - 26
DRAFT

Page 27 

state plan, the regional has not taken a leadership/coordinating role in developing a state plan. 

The lack of a state plan has enabled a group of library directors of selective (state university) 

libraries to step into the void and begin their own planning for coordinated weeding/downsizing 

tangible government documents collections in the state university libraries. Once again, I see no 

evidence that the regional is providing any support for the selective depositories that are trying to 

retain an appropriate documents collection for their institutions. 

In general the regional library system is very valuable for its complete collection of federal 

documents. Having more flexibility in sharing responsibilities would not decrease its value, and 

could improve the services for selective depositories. Certainly our regional has fallen short of 

our expectations in that it rarely provides staff development or collection development 

assistance. The regionals may need assistance from other partners to provide services that would 

improve the program. 

The State of ... is represented by two regional depository libraries. 

The [regional librarians], over the past 15 years, has been the leader in educating the staffs of the 

selective depository libraries. They have provided training sessions for government databases, 

hosted the biennial depository libraries meeting and the regional meetings, they were actively 

involved in and coordinated the writing of the State Plan, and they currently host the directory of 

all depository libraries in ... on their web site and post news relevant to the GPO. [The former 

regional librarian], the former regional librarian at the ... Library, was a founding member of the 

3-States Depository Library Conference, which later evolved into the 5-States Depository 

Library Conference. This conference can be a model for other states that wish to coordinate 

inter-state depository conferences. [The former regional librarian] was also a member of the 

committee that proposed the IMLS Grant, now in its second year of funding. The project 

provides excellent training modules in a large variety of topics. 

The regional depository at the ... has taken a secondary role in leadership in the state, responding 

to queries when requested, but with no proactive approach to educating the selective depository 

library staffs. 

The regional depository at the ... underwent a major organizational change in 2006. At that time 

the Government Publications Department was subsumed by the Reference Department. There 

have been no differences in services provided since the merger. 

Our Regional depository librarian in ... has been very helpful in guiding those of us who are new 

to the depository library system. He has organized one-day informational sessions for new 

depository librarians, and makes it a point to offer his services whenever I run into him at FDLP 

conferences. He occasionally requests items from our N&O lists, and he has been advising me on 

what the FDLP expects from libraries undergoing renovations. David attends the local [area] 

Documents Network meetings which are usually held twice a year. He also informs us of new 

developments from GPO which might affect us at the selective depository level. He does a great 

Page C - 27
DRAFT

Page 28 

job, considering the number of selective libraries in the state, and the fact that they must deal 

with budget constraints at the state level. 

I expect a regional to support the selective depositories it serves. This includes advice, assistance 

and review of titles to be withdrawn from a selective plus having a larger collection for 

Interlibrary loan and referral (though our regional is a day's drive away--from ... to ...--so 

sending users there isn't really practical). 

At this time, we actually have one of the very best regional librarians in charge of the regional 

that we have had for a long time. It isn't that the others were awful, but rather than [the current 

regional librarian] seems to be really good at it; he truly cares, communicates clearly, asks what 

people need and genuinely listens, and is trying to do the very best he can for all the federal 

depositories in [state] with what he has to work with. He has held sessions for new depository 

librarians, thoughtfully reviews our withdrawal titles, aided our library in replacing a volume of 

the Serial Set Catalog that became missing from our collection and has sent fiche copies to us 

when we needed interlibrary loans of hearings. All of this has been much appreciated. 

Regionals, many of which are state funded institutions, face challenges in maintaining large 

tangible collections at a time when digital is more trendy and legislatures are hard pressed to 

fund the needs of libraries. 

Our library's relationship is a good one with our regional . [The regional librarian] and his staff 

are available by phone and email when issues and questions arise. The librarian in charge of our 

depository attends meetings where the regional is represented by [the regional librarian], or his 

staff, and on occasion, hosts [the regional librarian] here at the .... 

My library is a small, private, undergraduate college in [state]. We tend to be understaffed and 

under funded, and the federal government documents provide valuable resources for our library 

and for people in the community. 

Increasingly, we are turning to electronic formats for information resources. Not only does this 

save on limited space, but it makes the information resources accessible any time of the day or 

night by users who may be on or off campus. That is important to us since we have programs at 

off-campus sites, but also many of our students prefer the electronic formats. They may be easier 

to use and search in addition to being more accessible. 

Our regional depository has worked to help documents libraries plan to meet changing 

environments. They have worked with us to help us understand how to provide the resources our 

students need and use and how to maintain them effectively. They have helped us address space 

issues and to see what is available electronically and how to incorporate electronic resources in 

our catalog. They have made it possible for us to continue as a selective depository. Their staff 

are very capable and responsive to our needs, but I know that recent staffing changes (and 

Page C - 28
DRAFT

Page 29 

currently open positions) have made it difficult for them to manage their responsibilities 

effectively. 

[State] Libraries receives a strong level of support from our regional depository library at the .... 

It is likely that the strength of this relationship will not be diluted by a shared regional model, 

particularly as ASERL’s Collaborative Federal Depository Program appears committed to 

creating standards of service that will preserve the guidance and mentoring responsibilities of our 

regional library. 

Regarding tangible collections, selectives’ current level of access will not be lost if there is a 

reliable document delivery system among the regional libraries. This will allow us to maintain 

the ability to refer patrons to our regional library, a one-hour drive from campus. However, this 

is already becoming a rare occurrence as libraries’ retrospective cataloging efforts continue to 

make depository items more accessible through interlibrary loan. 

Given the changing nature of depository services, specifically the decreased focus on tangible 

collections, the support that we receive from our regional depository library should not diminish 

with the creation of a formal collaborative arrangement with other regional libraries. In fact, 

cooperative collection development may allow staff at regional depository libraries to allocate 

more time to assist selectives with reference queries, outreach, and other public service duties. A 

shared regional model that gives regional depository libraries some flexibility to provide the best 

service for patrons will in turn allow them to provide better, more efficient service to selectives. 

I do not think that the current ASERL proposal or a similar plan will have a negative impact on 

our relationship with the [regional]. 

Regional: 

Communication from the Regional to the selectives has always been superb. [The regional 

librarian] updated selective representatives at semi-annual regional meetings with updates from 

the FDLP conferences and council meetings. [The former regional librarian] (when she was the 

Regional Librarian) also was committed to regular communication, and had a strong bond with 

the selectives. There has also been regular communication of updates through the GOVDOCTALK listserv (the listserv for our Regional). [The regional librarian] would also make an effort 

to gather together selectives reps attending the FDLP conference for a regional lunch meeting 

during a conference. The Gov Docs and Maps website at [regional] Library also provides 

relevant information and assistance to its selectives. 

 

[The regional librarian] kept Needs and Offers running pretty smoothly considering she was the 

only staff member there who maintained this process for the Regional and its 64 selectives. [The 

regional librarian] replies to our Needs and Offers were very prompt. 

 

The regional has very supportive of their selectives’ efforts; they sent two representatives to 

supporting our 40th depository celebration. [The regional librarian] also held workshops for 

selective staff, as "hands on" training for new documents staff. One of our staff attended one, and 

Page C - 29
DRAFT

Page 30 

it was very helpful to see what the regional does on a daily basis and to see the Government 

Documents and Map departments. 

 

There seem to have been internal issues at the [regional library] concerning their role as regional. 

There is still no permanent Regional Librarian replacement for [the former regional librarian]

(who left in 2006). ... is still acting head of Gov Docs and Maps there, in addition to her other 

duties and does contact the selectives through the GOVDOC-TALK listserv with some updates. 

 

Our regional is certainly special. Because ... is included in this region, the GPO and government 

agencies in [state] and [state] that supply many of the government documents through the 

FDLP fall under the Regional – they, too, are selectives under this Regional. There always seems 

to have been a good relationship between the Regional and the GPO - one that gives this region a 

special edge. GPO reps have always attended the Regional/Selectives meetings, and eagerly field 

questions from the selectives - which again gives our selectives a great edge - we get additional 

in person updates from the GPO at times during the year in addition to the FDLP conferences. 

GPO: 

Communication has improved with the release of the new improved FDLP Desktop and the 

CGP. There are regular updates on the FDLP Desktop community, and through the FDLP-L 

listserv and FDLP Express (soon to replace the listserv). Responses to direct email questions, 

through the AskGPO help line or to Web claims from GPO reps are more prompt. The updates at 

the Fall 2007 conference were some of the best yet. GPO initiatives of the FDsys and the Public 

Access Assessments are much welcomed. With the Public Access Assessments, the GPO is now 

resuming its role to better communicate and help selectives. Shipping of items still could see 

some improvement. Since GPO switched to UPS, there has been a lot of confusion about the 

look of the new shipping labels, especially with the separates. It is sometimes very difficult by 

the packaging to determine that it is a shipment from the GPO. 

 

With the release of the new FDLP Desktop, the GPO has found a greater role in supporting and 

promoting its depositories in the FDLP, where articles and calendar functions can be entered. We 

appreciated the publicity for our 40th depository celebration. We appreciated having GPO Rep 

attend and present at our 40th celebration. 

As the head of the selective federal depository library, I would like to submit my comments 

about my regional library. 

First, let me state the level of support to my library as a selective by the regional depository has 

been excellent. The regional has established clear communications to the selective libraries, and 

organizes at least two meetings a year. There are also a number of collaborations between the 

regional and the selective libraries, including the recent work on the Government Information in 

the 21st Century (Gi21) grant. 

The regional library has offered new projects over the last few years in that support the work of 

the selective libraries, including: 

Page C - 30
DRAFT

Page 31 

• The purchase and support of meeting software for use by geographically distant selective 

libraries. 

• Harvesting [state]-related federal documents to ensure continued access. 

• Working with the selective libraries to schedule training programs throughout the state as 

part of the Gi21 program. 

• Subscribing as a partner to the library online community website WebJunction. 

As the FDLP has transitioned to electronic publications, the role of the regional libraries has also 

transitioned from storage of government documents to providing services related to government 

information. The regional depository has done an excellent job of supporting that same 

transition in the selective libraries it supports. As a selective, I am confident that my regional 

library would support any program that I would proposal to increase the access to government 

information for my constituents in.... 

I have been a depository library coordinator since July 1997 and have administered collections in 

both [state] and [state]. Both of these states are served by two regionals, one in a state University 

and the other in the State Library. [One state] has 18 selective libraries and [the other state] has 

57. 

 

I was very fortunate to begin my career as a depository coordinator in ...under two of the finest 

regionals in the country. Within my first week on the job, I had been contacted by both the 

regionals to welcome me and offer any possible assistance. They both came for an onsite visit 

and allowed me to visit their respective depositories. I received in depth instructions from them 

on how to handle discards, collection development, and become involved in the depository 

community. They took the time and initiative to get to know me and my strengths and 

weaknesses. They also made sure that I was thoroughly informed of training opportunities. It 

was clear to me from the beginning that I was not alone and could call on them whenever I 

needed assistance. 

During my 10 years in [state] as a depository coordinator, I was able to flourish under the 

mentoring of my designated regional. He provided me with direction and guidance and helped 

me develop my reference skills. In addition to working with [regional librarians], I had the great 

pleasure of working with the other [state] regional. [Other regional librarian] and I collaborated 

on several training events and he also helped to assist me in my development as a depository 

librarian. I think that the situation in ... proves that the regional system is a sound system for 

administering the FDLP when the guidelines established are followed. 

Last August, I moved to [state] to work at the [university]. I have been very frustrated by the 

activity of the two regionals in the state. There is no coordination of training efforts, no 

communication with selectives, and no mentoring. Since GPO began this study of regionals I 

have noticed a brief sign of life from our regional. A recent email went out to the selectives on 

how to handle discards. To my knowledge, this is a first. 

In November, I attended a meeting of the [local] Regional Documents Librarian Group. There 

were no fewer than 5 new depository coordinators in attendance who had no idea how to 

Page C - 31
DRAFT

Page 32 

administer their collections. In January and February I visited each of these librarians to try to 

give them some advice on what gems were in their collections and how to use tools such as the 

FDLP Desktop and the Documents Data Miner. 

This last month, it came to my attention that a selective in the [local] area was having difficulty 

convincing the director that her documents collection was worth keeping. She is on the verge of 

dropping depository status. I have alerted the regional to this situation, but I have little hope that 

anything will be done on their end to try and assist the selective in maintaining depository status. 

I have found myself contacting the two [other state] regionals multiple times since moving to ... 

for help with questions and guidance. In addition, [regional librarian from former state] and I are 

still collaborating on training opportunities for other depository librarians. Some of these are in 

[one state] and some in [other state]. 

From my experience in [state] and [state] I have to say again that the system works when the 

regionals adhere to the guidelines established by GPO. If the regionals do not follow the 

guidelines, then the system is useless. I encourage GPO to look into how to more stringently 

enforce the guidelines. If a regional is not willing to fulfill all their duties then perhaps the state 

can be canvassed to see if another depository would be willing to step up and take over the 

regional duties. 

Our regional depository has seemed quite inactive in the past 3 years. The only thing I would 

contact them for right now is permission to dispose of items. Occasionally we receive a message 

from them via e-mail. They used to hold biennial conferences but that doesn't happen anymore. 

Some of these conditions may be ascribed to lack of money and or support and others to changes 

in staffing. 

Law Libraries 

Since taking over our regional depository in ... a few years ago, [the regional librarian] and his 

staff have vastly improved communications and the processing of our offers lists. He is a 

consistent visible presence in our community, online and in person. For the first time, staffers 

thoroughly review the lists and request documents to fill in their collection. They patiently guide 

us past our mistakes and encourage us to attend meeting and workshops. Given the recent 

reorganization in [regional library] due to budget cuts, I am sure their jobs will be harder and list 

processing slower but the job will be done. Kudos to all of them

As a Selective, we received a letter from GPO dated April 22, 2008 soliciting our comments and 

suggesting some topics we may want to cover. Here are our responses: 

- We are not interested in becoming a regional ourselves 

- No useful services have been eliminated in the last 3 years 

- New services have been added, namely the addition of a Wiki whereby Offers are announced 

on a regular basis, and their "request by" dates clearly displayed. This has streamlined the discard 

Page C - 32
DRAFT

Page 33 

process and made it much easier for all involved. 

- Some new personnel arrived at our Regional in the past year. This could have disrupted the 

previous level of service, it has not. Both communication and service have continued to meet 

expectations. 

We share an online catalog with our Regional and attach our holdings to their Marcive record. 

They have a backlog of the Marcive tapes and it would be helpful if federal funding was 

provided to allow faster loading of the tapes. Another person doing/helping with tape loads 

would be desirable. 

The procedures for discarding/withdrawal of materials should be streamlined. (I know this is not 

really a Regional decision.) Each Regional should be able to make decisions for what the 

Selectives in the area should do to withdraw items. They should know what is needed and what 

is not based on prior demand and inform the Selectives accordingly. 

Thank you for taking on this task and for allowing the community an opportunity to comment on 

the process. It is extremely important that JCP have a full understanding of the situation in the 

FDLP; not just in the regional libraries but in the selectives as well. I was pleased to see that you 

have included a section devoted to the effects on selective depository libraries. 

[State] is served by the .... [The regional library] is also the regional library for all FDLP 

members in the [state], [state] and [state]. This includes the federal libraries in and around [city]. 

It is probably the most diverse group of library types served by any regional in the system. 

Our regional library has played a leadership role in the region but it has also benefited from 

capable and talented individual librarians in the area being served. Accordingly, the regional 

library has not had as great a need to ‘stand alone’ in providing leadership in the region. 

Certainly past regional library coordinators at the [regional library], such as ..., have offered the 

guidance and leadership one would expect from a regional library but the reality in the [regional] 

area is that a style of shared leadership has developed that is not dependant on the familiar 

hierarchical structure of regional to selectives. 

Within the [region] the regional library has been instrumental in taking the lead to coordinate 

technical services functions, particularly the creation of individual and joint bibliographic loaders 

to improve access to government documents. The regional library has also been very helpful in 

coordinating and processing the discard lists in a timely manner, allowing for more efficient 

collection management at the local level. 

The [regional library] has recently released a report that proposes to restructure the level of 

service provided to the region. They have been cognizant of the need to involve the selectives 

they serve in the creation of this report by involving members of that community in the process. 

It remains to be seen how their proposal, if approved, will affect access to services and resources 

across the region. 

Page C - 33
DRAFT

Page 34 

I want to conclude by urging you to also consider a separate section within the report to the JCP 

that will address the situation in the law library community. Yes, these are selectives but law 

libraries occupy a unique role that is both independent and dependant on the regional system. 

Any change in access to the core resources located in a regional library will directly affect 

service in participating law libraries. 

I'm the Tech Services Librarian in charge of the government documents collection at the .... Our 

tangible GPO collection consists mainly of legal materials (Basic and Essential). However, our 

reference staff refers customers to the Regional Library on the University ... campus quite 

frequently. Since [state] is so isolated, a Regional Library on the islands is essential. It would be 

difficult to have a share agreement with another state's regional collection. Although there is a lot 

of transitioning of documents from paper to electronic going on among the government agencies, 

we still need to have access to older tangible materials that regional libraries provide. 

I have been the Documents Librarian at ... for less than two years. We are served by the 

[regional library]. Upon my appointment to the position, I was welcomed by our regional 

librarian with information about local and state resources for document librarians. Since that 

time, I have found [the regional librarian] to be an unfailingly helpful resource, in spite of her 

library’s staffing constraints (which can occasionally cause delays in response, all 

understandable considering the large amount of selective libraries served by the relatively small 

staff at [regional library’s] documents library). 

My main interaction with our regional library has been in the context of collection review and 

withdrawal. ... recently undertook a small collection review, in order to discard items which had 

been flagged for withdrawal following the mandatory 5-year retention period. As directed by the 

FDLP, we submitted the list of publications to our regional library for approval. [The regional 

librarian] responded reasonably quickly, although she had recently lost a member of her 

depository staff and was overwhelmed with other demands. In addition to this one-on-one 

contact, [the regional librarian] frequently reaches her selective libraries via the state documents 

librarian listserv, to provide helpful reminders of approaching deadlines for FDLP duties (such as 

item selection and the Biennial Survey), as well as GPO requests for comment (including this 

one). 

I have found our regional library to provide the appropriate level of support to our selective 

depository collection, although I am mindful of their current staffing and space issues. I would 

not object to a more flexible approach to regional library designation which would ease some of 

the hardships faced by regional depository libraries, although my own selective library would not 

be in a position to accept even a shared regional designation. 

Your review of the regional depository libraries comes at a very appropriate time in our 

profession's work with digital information and government information of all types. On behalf of 

the Law Library at ..., I can say that our staff connects with our regional depository library on an 

Page C - 34
DRAFT

Page 35 

annual basis when we have depository items over 5 years old that we are ready to dispose of, 

which needs their permission. That is our basic connection with our regional. 

We currently have an excellent working relationship with our regional library, meeting with the 

regional librarian periodically and updating her as to our discards/wants list. We have no interest 

in seeking a regional designation. 

We also have concerns with the “shared regional” concept, if it would place users at a 

disadvantage in obtaining print resources. At present, users in [local city] who wish to consult 

government documents in print need to travel just one hour to [city of regional] in order to 

consult documents; if documents were sent to other libraries working in the “shared region,” 

their travel times would be significantly increased. Creating barriers to access is contrary to the 

purpose of the FDLP; forcing users to spend excessive amounts of time in visiting a shared 

regional library would be an access barrier. 

As a selective depository we have been fortunate to have a very good relationship with our 

regional depository at the .... The kinds of support we have come to expect from our regional 

include: assistance in interpreting questions about GPO policies and procedures; reference 

expertise, especially in subject areas outside of the scope of our collection; administration of a 

regional needs and offers list; and the coordination of semi-annual meetings and information 

sharing among regional selectives. Our regional has been responsible for facilitating a dialogue 

between selective depositories that has been fruitful for all involved. For example, the [regional 

library] led in the creation of a state plan covering [state] depository libraries. In addition given 

our proximity to the Government Printing Office, the staff at the [regional library] has arranged 

for selective depositories to have direct access to GPO employees, including the Superintendent 

of Documents. The regionally-based needs and offers list has been particularly useful, allowing 

us to fill gaps while keeping shipping costs down and to place holdings elsewhere which no 

longer meet our collection needs. 

Over the last few years the library system at the [regional library] has gone through a 

reorganization that has impacted government documents. Although the number of government 

documents staff has been reduced and there has been a significant turnover among highly 

qualified staff, the remaining staff has made every effort to maintain the level of service offered 

to selective libraries. One service for selective depositories which our library found useful was 

low-cost duplication of lost or missing microfiche. Our regional was forced to discontinue this 

service in 2005.

As a specialized library, we lack the expertise, space and personnel to undertake regional 

depository status for ourselves. Nor does it seem likely, in a region where law schools and other 

specialized selective depositories predominate, that a replacement could be found if [regional 

library] were forced to step down from its regional status. 

Page C - 35
DRAFT

Page 36 

Public Libraries 

Regional Depositories in our state of ... have faced difficulties in the past few years. We have 

had a lot of turnovers in Regional Document Librarians. At the same time, the selective 

depository librarians have met the challenge. We are a close knit group, and the amount of 

knowledge within the state is awesome. These along with the Regional Depositories have 

worked well together, sharing ideas and knowledge. 

Some concerns are the cataloging of pre-1976 documents. More resources are needed for 

retrospective cataloging at regionals. Quality cataloging records is very important to the 

document program, the selective depositories and the public we serve. This would help serve the 

needs of selectives in determining what to select or deselect. 

Another problem is the lack of training for new regional librarians. This affects the regional and 

selectives as well. We selectives depend on regionals for guidance, information, and problem 

solving. They know us, our libraries, and have a good overview of the document collections in 

the state. Without regionals, the selectives would be like ships in the sea without a rudder. 

Regionals need to be able to help train new selective librarians. They need the ability to travel 

more to visit the selectives. 

[State] is blessed to have an active Federal Depository Advisory Council. The meetings have 

good attendance, and ideas are shared. Some of us cannot travel to national meetings, so these 

state meetings are vital for us to stay up-to-date on changes, procedures, etc. 

Even with the problems stated above, [state] is fortunate to have the best Regional Depositories 

in the nation. While our selective depository does not use regionals every week for reference, 

when we do, the staff is always prompt, helpful and caring. They make obtaining vital 

information a lot easier. 

In our selective depository, the documents are interfiled with other items, and this works well for 

us. Our staff are not document specialists. They do a great job, but there are times they need 

assistance to better serve our patrons. The Regionals are always ready to help and provide Expert 

knowledge. 

The Depository program in [state] is strong with very knowledgeable staff. And with that 

knowledge comes a deep desire to serve our patrons and help one another. Great Regional staffs 

and collections are a must. Regionals must have adequate staff and time to adequately serve the 

needs of their institutions and the selectives. 

I do not have input concerning regional, but I know that my selective is being considered for 

elimination because of severe proposed budget cuts and subsequent staff reductions. I was 

instructed to respond to this survey and also to pursue the process of withdrawal from the 

program if these measures come to pass.

Page C - 36
DRAFT

Page 37 

The ... is happy in our dealings with our regional depository libraries. We are contacted for 

discards and they are very willing to loan hard copies of anything we request to borrow. I have 

noticed no recent changes in their services. Our state library association's Government 

Documents Roundtable is a great source of information and a place where the documents 

librarians can get together and exchange ideas, solve problems and brainstorm.

My major concern is the drastic cutback in staff positions in Government Documents at the 

regional library. Budget concerns have taken them down to basically one full-time staff member. 

We have had initiatives and meetings cut back or eliminated altogether because the qualified 

staff is gone. 

.... is proud of our two regional federal depository libraries in [state]. The [two regional 

libraries] are both very supportive of the selective depository libraries here in Oklahoma for 

many years. The selective depositories have a good relations with their regionals. [The two 

regional libraries] provides leadership in guiding the selectives into the electronic transitions of 

the federal documents. They provide workshops to instruct their depositories personnel on the 

new federal electronic resources. They organized a meeting in which the depositories of the state 

could meet and discuss their concerns and achievements every year. They send emails to the 

state listservs keeping the selectives updated on the current issues. We are very fortunate to be 

able to call our regionals and have our questions answered in a timely manner. Our regionals 

staff are very efficient and their knowledge about federal documents is highly respected among 

the state depositories. I can't say enough praises about both our regional libraries. They are the 

best!! 

In general, I only have positive things to say about our regional depository. [The regional 

librarian] seems to be doing a very good job of moving depository items and processes into the 

online world. She has started a state-wide meeting of documents librarians; the last two I 

attended (held every two years) were very interesting and helpful. I don't remember the previous 

regional depository librarian doing that. [The regional librarian] usually responds to questions I 

have within a reasonable time frame, and is quick to offer assistance when I need help tracking 

down a print document for a patron. 

[The regional librarian] has recently made changes to how disposal lists are handled. I cannot yet 

comment on this change, as I only found out about it this week and have not yet had a chance to 

use the new set-up. It now involves creating a FaceBook account for the library and posting 

disposal lists on a special group run by [the regional librarian]. She did tell me that if I cannot 

create an account, or have problems, she would post my lists for me, thus providing me two ways 

of meeting my requirements for withdrawing old materials. 

As a small public library, I depend on having a larger library willing to help me out when 

needed. I would hate to see the regional depository library system removed. Having a regional an 

hour away from us makes it easier; I would not be able to attend regional meetings if they were 

consolidated with other states, for example. 

Page C - 37
DRAFT

Page 38 

The regional depository for the state of ... is the ..., and the regional librarian is .... The 

[regional library] and [the regional librarian] have provided good support for the ... as a federal 

depository library. While our depository was making improvements to successfully pass 

probation, [the regional librarian] visited three years in a row to review our progress, look over 

the collection and make suggestions for further improvement. When we celebrated our 

centennial anniversary, she attended as a key speaker for the event. 

There have been significant changes in the past five years that have affected the regional library 

and [state]. The event that had the biggest impact was [other regional library] stepping down as a 

regional library. There is now one regional library for the entire state of ..., which has over 40 

depository libraries. This seems an unreasonable number of depository libraries for one regional 

library to support. In addition, there have been many state funding cuts, which resulted in staff 

hours being cut at the regional library. The end result is that there are fewer people doing the 

same number of tasks. Answers to questions and concerns are sometimes delayed, but always 

answered, eventually. 

A useful service recently developed by [the regional librarian] was a collection development 

workshop. She planned several regional workshops throughout the state. The workshops focused 

on practical tools and tips for weeding depository item lists, and how to determine which items 

are best retained or selected for a particular depository users’ needs. 

Our regional depository library provides every service we have needed. The current documents 

librarian and his staff have trained our staff members and answered all questions we have. We 

borrow many items from their collection to meet our patrons' needs and are pleased at our 

affiliation with the depository program. 

[The regional librarian at the] regional depository has been my source for answers to many 

questions since my becoming involved with federal documents. He has made himself know by 

coming to the [local] area on several occasions to present programs, training, and general 

guidance to those of us less well informed about the depository program. He responds in a timely 

manner to emails and, in fact, encourages questions. Additionally, he makes himself available at 

national meetings. All in all, he makes the regional depository an essential part of our system. 

Our [state] Regional Depository has been a helpful resource for state related reference questions 

pertaining to legislative history. Patrons are provided with the information usually within 24 

hours. We have never had a complaint, once the patron has made contact with [city of regional]. 

[The regional librarian] has encouraged us to send any questions we can not answer to him. He 

has taught classes to new depository librarians, and refreshed depository policies with librarians 

who have been in the documents business for a while. We appreciate the communications with 

[the regional librarian] and his staff. 

Page C - 38
DRAFT

Page 39 

Library's relationship with the Regional Depository: The [regional library] has always been a 

service oriented organization focusing on the needs of the State and the libraries therein. Our 

depository has a good relationship with [the regional librarian] and we appreciate the work she 

does on behalf of the document community. Budget constraints at the state level have impacted 

on the public service hours of the facility and, to some degree, the availability of its staff. 

How has it changed in recent years: The ..., where documents are housed for the [selective 

library], was until recently under the auspices of the [regional library] as our "regional". The fact 

that we no longer have two regionals in [state] is unfortunate. Both [regional librarians] worked 

well together and provided a safety net, so to speak, so that when help was needed it was 

possible to get one of the two librarians in a short amount of time. As a valuable state resource, it 

is regrettable that [former regional library] would lose such important resources. With [the 

regional librarian] gone, [the remaining regional librarian] oversees all the depository libraries in 

[state], which is a bigger workload. Despite this, and the cutbacks at the state level, the 

documents department has worked hard to keep lines of communication open and to maintain 

support to selective depositories. 

Seek regional designation for your library: We would not seek regional designation for the 

following reasons: 1. Space considerations 2. Our location in the very southeast corner of the 

state is not easily accessible to the rest of the state 2. We do not plan to allocate additional 

financial resources for what is a broader state-wide function. 

[The regional librarian] has been extraordinarily helpful and supportive. He is proactive, offers 

thoughtful guidance, promptly reviews disposal lists, and provides excellent reference assistance. 

I am very concerned about the staffing cuts faced by the [regional library]. Our regional had 

enormous responsibilities even before the cutbacks, and now it will be even more difficult for 

our regional to stay on top of everything without working large amounts of unpaid overtime. 

I am new to depository work, and I appreciate the expertise and support that our regional's staff 

has given. Their letter to the GPO shows they have given careful consideration to its 

depositories' current and future needs and is working to structure its operations to continue to 

provide a high level of service. 

I know there were staff changes and reorganizations in our regional depository several years ago 

which affected the attention given to map resources. I also know that regional depository staff 

are very busy and pressed for time. However, I have no true sense of what they actually face in 

terms of storage space, funding, and participation in archiving digital information. Our library 

would not be a good candidate for a second regional depository in our state, but could 

establishing second regionals or subregionals within the state be an effective solution? Could we 

establish within our existing network criteria in which selective depositories were used to store 

certain materials, assisting with space concerns and ensuring statewide access to a variety of 

Page C - 39
DRAFT

Page 40 

collections? As digitization becomes more common and archival concerns for those materials 

remain important, could regionals take the lead there and share the burden for storage of other 

materials with the selectives? Just some thoughts. 

I have heard rumors that this report will advocate doing away with the regional system. I hope 

that is not the case. If anything, I think the regionals are needed now more than ever. (Even with 

the Public Access Assessments, it will not be possible for GPO to "know" each selective the way 

the regionals can). It may be that there needs to be *more* regionals so that each one will not be 

so overwhelmed. The place for GPO to engage in this process is to help regionals maintain the 

support of their respective administrations. (What can GPO offer the institution that would make 

it profitable for them to maintain regional status?) I also think there needs to be accountability so 

that the regionals know that someone at GPO knows what they are doing. (Perhaps they could be 

given a different Biennial Survey where they could report on number of site visits or other 

contacts made, number of training sessions offered, etc.) 

I have been generally satisfied with my regional which is .... Most of all, I appreciate the fact 

that the librarian there is visible. He attends and participates in both our state association and a 

group we have for doc librarians in the local area. I know that management of disposal lists has 

been a big challenge for them, partially due to inadequate staffing. But even so, the lists do get 

done eventually so I don't see that as a major issue. 

I do think the strength of the depository program lies in its collaborative nature. There are 

numerous individuals who are committed to it and they form a strong network. I think the 

regionals have been a strong link in the process and I hope that will continue into the future. 

Our regional director is doing a wonderful job. She's very supportive and understanding 

regarding the needs of our library. As an example, the ... is in the process of restructuring its 

departments, with talks of canceling our depository status. When I explained this to [the regional 

librarian], she immediately offered some suggestions and her support to keep this from 

happening. We've really appreciated her help in this matter, especially since we've kept our 

status. 

Our only complaints have been in the area of response time. We've had and still have several 

discard lists awaiting approval that are dated several months back and into last year. I have 

expressed our concern in this matter and [he regional librarian] has explained her situation. 

Improvements have been made, but it still an ongoing issue that we’re hoping will be resolved 

soon. Other than this, we have no other complaints and enjoy working with [the regional 

librarian]. 

I have been in my position as selective coordinator for less than one year. Because I am a new 

coordinator at a somewhat older selective, I reviewed the FDL Handbook Chapter 12: Regional 

Services (http://www.fdlp.gov/repository/individual-sections-of-the-handbook/chapter-12-

regional-services/download.html) as a basis for my comments. 

Page C - 40
DRAFT

Page 41 

[State] has 2 regional libraries. Although ... is my designated regional, the ... Library has the 

benefit of receiving assistance and service from both. I am outlining my comments based on 

some of the headings/designations the FDL Handbook outlines as services and responsibilities of 

the Regional libraries. 

Interlibrary Loan & Reference Services 

Both regionals have come to my rescue with answers to reference questions as well as 

materials for our local customers. I have emailed and phoned both collections and have 

received immediate reference assistance, materials, advisement, or whatever the case may 

be. Not only have the regional directors been helpful, but the staff at each location is 

incredibly knowledgeable and helpful as well. The staff in each location is well aware of 

the learning curve I am still experience as a new depository librarian and each has been 

incredibly patient and helpful in assisting me with any manner of question. 

Collaborative efforts 

I’m unaware of an official State Plan, though I’m sure that if is not formal and official, 

[the 2 regionals] work within the elements of a state plan. [They] communicate often 

about the services each can offer to the selectives throughout the state. I have even heard 

talk of what each would do in the event of the other’s retirement, in hopes of not 

disrupting assistance and service to their customers and their selectives. 

Disposal Process

I have not yet gone through the disposal process. What is currently weeded from the ... 

collection is superceded or older than 5 years. As a new depository librarian, I feel I 

would benefit from greater council and advisement with regard to disposals. I would also 

like to note that my lack of advisement is not the deficiency of either of the regionals, but 

still my lack of knowledge to ask the right question, but I am getting there. 

Regional Coordinator Responsibilities, including legal requirements 

The FDL Handbook notes that a regional coordinator is responsible for the continued 

education of depository coordinators throughout the state. This is an area that [the 

regional librarian] and his staff at [the regional] excel in. Although [the regional librarian] 

and his staff at [the other regional] offer occasional learning opportunities [The regional 

librarian] every year provides a listing of workshops and learning opportunities that he 

will offer at libraries throughout the state, regardless of depository status. [The regional 

librarian]’s tagline is “Have car, will travel.” Not only does the [regional] staff take 

workshops on the road, they include the depository coordinators in the training 

opportunities whenever possible, providing no shortage of continuing education 

throughout the region. 

Both [regional librarians] work to ensure the integrity of the region the serve. Each serves 

as a leader in the depository community, one more on a national level, the other more on 

a local level. Each knows his collection or knows that his staff can be trusted to know the 

collection. And each is available and accessible to assist, serving as a mentor and 

educator as well as a regional coordinator. 

Page C - 41
DRAFT

Page 42 

I would like to say in closing, that I have received nothing but assistance, encouragement and 

support from the regional coordinators in my state. As a new depository coordinator this has 

been invaluable. I hope these comments are found to be helpful, or if nothing else, find their way 

to my regionals as illustration of all that they do to insure access and dissemination of 

government information. 

My comments relate to the support we receive from our Regional Library, the [...]. In the years 

I have been government documents librarian at Hennepin County Library, I have always felt the 

Regional Library has been very responsive and helpful. We have bimonthly meetings of 

documents librarians from around the state. The Regional Library maintains a home page for 

documents librarians. They are available for reference assistance and promptly answer any 

questions I have sent them. They process our discard lists in a timely manner. Our regional also 

offers an annual continuing education Spring Forum on various topics of interest to government 

publications librarians. Their support has remained steady though I know they have experienced 

significant staff reductions recently. 

State Libraries 

The Regional Depository Library for [state’s] selective libraries is the [regional library] has had a 

long-standing, positive relationship with the staff of the [regional library] where the regional 

collection is housed. They provide an excellent level of support in many areas: assistance with 

weeding our collections; providing federal documents through Inter-Library Loan; and providing 

answers to the numerous questions that can come up when managing a selective depository 

collection. They also provide additional support by keeping the lines of communication open 

through the [state] DOCS listserv, and by offering training and collaboration through the annual 

Spring Forum, which is a joint meeting with [state] and [state] depository librarians. We depend 

on them to help us provide quality service to the citizens of this state. 

The [regional library] provides a very useful level of support to our selective depository. Our 

regional allows us to provide our users access to federal documents we may not own; a very 

important resource for both our government and public library users 

We are a selective depository that currently selects items at around 28%. Here is how we will be 

impacted if we no longer have a regional library in [state]. 

1. [Regional library] would no longer be required to maintain a comprehensive collection of 

federal government publications, so we would have to use libraries on the ... to obtain materials 

not available in our region. Using ILL is slow and dependent on the mail system. Information 

turnaround would increase by days, if not weeks. 

2. We would have to send our withdrawal lists to a library on the Mainland. If they requested 

Page C - 42
DRAFT

Page 43 

items from our list, we would have to ship the items to them at our expense. We have no way of 

requesting for reimbursement of postage expense. This factor has limited our ability to offer all 

our withdrawal items to the Needs & Offers list. 

3. We would have to contact a library on the Mainland to ask questions about depository 

management and to get help with reference questions. Librarians on the Mainland would 

probably be less familiar with [local area] resources and publications. Also the time zone 

differences will limit our contact time. 

4. We do not have the space or the resources to be the replacement regional depository library in 

[state]. It is unlikely that another library in [state] would be interested in being designated a 

regional. 

5. When [regional library] got hit with a pre-Halloween flood in 2004, our collection became the 

defacto regional library. We had collected and weeded our depository library resources assuming 

the [regional library] would have the back-up collection. There were many resources not 

available to us. I personally had to deliver the news that a certain reference source was not 

available in [state] and we had to go ILL for their request. We charge $10 for doing an ILL and 

add-on any expenses. The patrons usually could not afford the expense and had to find their 

information another way or had to redefine their study areas. 

6. Our library is the main branch of the ... State Public Library System. Our Internet connection 

is filtered by CIPA required filters and we have restricted access to the Internet by placing 

various firewalls for our protection. These firewalls prevent us from cataloging electronic 

depository library titles because of the potential and real Internet abuse. Therefore, we have 

difficulty in browsing suitable documents for any information requests within our OPAC and 

rely on outside resources for subject headings, etc. 

The ... is a Selective library collecting at 30%. One of the most valuable services that our 

Regional provides for us and the other Selectives in [state] is the coordination of our Needs and 

Offers within the state. In addition to providing us with the usual permissions and guidance in 

discarding documents that have met their retention schedule, our Regional serves as a central 

reporting point. They maintain our state documents listserv and coordinate the posting of our 

Needs and Offers lists to the listserv for the benefit of all of the Selective depositories in the 

state. 

Our Selective is a special library which serves state agency personnel, historians, and the general 

public. We maintain an historical collection in the areas of government, environment, elections, 

census, etc. While there are some indexes, publication lists and other finding aids to help patrons 

locate materials, the Federal Documents collection is not used to its full potential because 

standard cataloging is not available for the older documents (pre-1976) to be added to our online 

public access catalog. It would provide a great service to us and the other Selectives in [state] if 

our Regional library (working in cooperation with other Regionals) could systematically provide 

cataloging for some if not all of the pre-1976 documents. Of course, there is a large time, 

Page C - 43
DRAFT

Page 44 

personnel, and money investment to be considered, however the service to the Selectives would 

be invaluable. 

Regional Depository Libraries 

Academic Libraries 

During the recent Depository Library Council Meeting, the Government Printing Office asked 

regional librarians to provide a report detailing the current and future conditions of their regional 

depository. For the past year, the [regional library] has been looking at this exact issue, first by 

bringing in library process-improvement consultants to make recommendations, then by creating 

the Government Documents Implementation Group to discuss and potentially implement the 

consultant’s recommendations. The Implementation Group is divided into three subgroups with 

each looking at specific recommendations. These subgroups are Positioning for the Future, 

Collections (including management of international, federal, and state documents collections), 

and Processing (including processing and cataloging of all types of documents). These 

subgroups began meeting in March, 2008 and will continue through at least December, 2008. 

In general the consultants’ report makes it obvious that the ... Regional Depository cannot 

sustain current practices and so the University Libraries are looking for a new model that 

continues to provide a high level of library service but that incorporates new technologies and 

new ways of working with government information. The consultants highlighted several areas 

where changes could be made. The Implementation Group is discussing these changes and 

expanding on them to include other areas of potential change. Although the Implementation 

Group is in its initial stages, several critical issues can be described, both from the current 

situation and from the potential plans the University Libraries could take in the near future. 

Ultimately the future of a regional depository library at the [regional library] rests in making 

changes to Title 44 to allow more flexibility in how the regionals can carry out their missions 

within the Federal Depository Library Program. A sustainable infrastructure for government 

information access, through the depository program, will depend on a fundamentally different 

paradigm for coordinating the access, management, and preservation of government resources. 

ISSUE #1: Collections management (space, access, preservation) 

Current Situation

Space is a huge problem for the ...Regional Depository Library. The regional collection is split 

between Wilson Library (at over 90% capacity) and the ... Library Access Center (a cooperative 

storage facility for libraries in the state, based at the [regional library], at 100% capacity). In 

addition to the Regional Library on the [city] campus, the University of ..., houses a selective 

federal depository. The need for and implications of having two depositories on the ... campus 

is part of the space discussion as well. 

In addition to space issues, basic bibliographic access capability is critical, especially for 

documents published before 1976. Post-1976 documents are part of the library’s online catalog. 

However, the only way to find out what the Libraries own for documents older than 1976 is 

Page C - 44
DRAFT

Page 45 

through the paper shelflist found in ... Library, and then only if the call number for the needed 

document is known. The [regional library] is not alone in this situation. The availability of 

foundational bibliographic records in machine readable form for pre-1976 documents is a key 

component of infrastructure for government documents. The return on investment in collections 

from government and depository library resources is seriously hampered by lack of robust 

access. 

Preservation is also a key piece of collection management. The [regional library] documents 

collection is estimated at 3 million documents, the majority of these items published in the last 

125 years. There are preservation issues that can be readily identified which focus on the 

tangible collection: older documents printed on acid paper, general wear and tear of decades of 

use, lack of archival-level temperature and humidity controls, degrading microfiche formats. 

However, there are also the issues of electronic (online) document preservation and issues related 

to digital preservation standards and formats. As new technologies are created and used, 

regional depositories’ legal ability to preserve a copy of all government “documents” is 

expanded to a new level. Present regulatory practices do not anticipate the size of physical 

collections and do not scale; preservation of electronic documents is not even addressed. 

Potential Future

Future scenarios include eliminating the selective depository on campus; creating selective 

housing agreements; developing shared regionals; and digitizing the entire collection (stored on 

institutional servers) and thereby eliminating most of the tangible documents collection. As can 

be seen from this above list, the potential for collaboration with other institutions is very high 

and may be the only way some of these projects will move forward. For many years, the 

University Libraries has looked to the Government Printing Office to provide these partnership 

opportunities; however, for a variety of reasons, GPO has not been able to fund these initiatives. 

The [regional library] is moving forward, looking for partnerships with such institutions as 

selective depositories in the state, libraries within the ... campus, or larger library networks such 

as ..., a state-funded library resource sharing agency which is a division of the University of ... 

Libraries. [State-funded library resource sharing agency] serves academic and government 

libraries, and contracts with public libraries in [state] and [state] and [state]. Another potential 

partner is the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC refers to the “Big 10” schools plus 

University of Chicago). Partnerships with other regionals also will be considered. 

The impetus for the Government Printing Office’s report to the Joint Committee on Printing is 

the concept of shared regionals. Many regional libraries face the same issues and share the same 

concerns outlined here for the [regional library]. All share the same mission to provide the best 

possible service to the selectives in their region, and to the public at large. The information 

paradigm for all libraries has shifted to more digital and more cooperative resources and 

services. The regional depositories need the ability to pursue the same collaborative approach, at 

the same level, as their institutional libraries are pursuing. 

ISSUE #2: Staffing 

Current Situation

Page C - 45
DRAFT

Page 46 

Since 2000, the ... Regional Library has lost two librarian positions, including one in 2007. For 

those staff positions left, recent outside factors have affected the workloads. In the past year two 

selective depositories have dropped status and another five have aggressively weeded their 

collections. The additional work for processing this huge number of discard lists (several of 

these depositories have collections going back 50-75 years) has meant putting off other work that 

would have helped meet the goals of the University Libraries government information services. 

This trend will continue to put added burden on the regional staff. 

Another key issue for staff is the shift in focus that comes with a change from a tangible 

documents collection to a predominantly electronic one. This change is not only in the amount 

of government information available through federal sites but also in the growth of proprietary 

government information databases that staff must be knowledgeable in using. In addition, the 

selectives as well as non-depository libraries in [state] and [state] are looking to the Regional 

Library to provide training and reference support. Within the University Libraries as well, staff 

look to the Regional to provide government information expertise for both reference and 

technical services. With more than 90% of current federal publications being issued 

electronically, it becomes increasingly necessary to build a coherent, federated online 

environment for digital resources. No single institution will be able to complete this task 

independently. 

Potential Future

The number of staff for the Regional Library will not increase in the near future; therefore, the 

University Libraries must look at ways to discontinue some practices and grow in others. The 

current Title 44 leaves little flexibility with what the regionals can do with regards to a tangible 

collection. While the need for withdrawal lists to ensure a complete regional collection has merit 

in providing access to all government information, the specificity in format limits what regionals 

can do to provide the best access. Because of the situation of having a regional and selective on 

the ... campus, the potential of relinquishing the selective status to provide more staffing for 

other initiatives is also being considered. 

The University of ... Libraries recently drafted goals for FY2009 and FY2010. Included in these 

are integrating “information discovery and management tools and services into the workflow of 

students and faculty”; advancing “the Libraries’ transition from print to digital collections, 

fostering cooperative action toward a new model of collection management and increasing the 

visibility of and access to our rich array of resources”; and investing “in staff and organizational 

capacity for innovation, collaboration and risk taking”. For the University Libraries to 

accomplish these goals for the Regional Depository, changes will need to be made to where staff 

spends their time. 

ISSUE #3: Technology 

Current Situation

The ... Regional Library relies heavily on its website to provide access to government 

information that is available electronically. The Libraries’ online catalog also provides access to 

electronic resources as well as access to tangible documents collections published from 1976 to 

present. The Government Printing Office is working on such systems as FDSys to provide a new 

more federated online environment for born-digital resources. The high potential for loss of 

Page C - 46
DRAFT

Page 47 

information makes this a priority. However, as mentioned under the earlier issues, the current 

needs of the Regional Library are dealing with the collections we already have and how to 

improve access to them. 

Potential Future

A major goal of the University Libraries is to transition from print to digital collections and to 

invest in our “capacity for innovation, collaboration and risk taking”. The technology 

development capacity here at the University of ... Libraries provides an opportunity to 

reconceive the Regional Depository collection and service program, an opportunity the 

Government Document Implementation Group is not going to ignore. The group will be 

developing plans on how technology will be part of the Depository’s future including digitization 

of the collection. Note that the University Libraries are part of the Committee on Institutional 

Cooperation partnership with Google to digitize as many as 10 million volumes from our 

collective collections. While government documents are included in that program, questions 

remain about the accessibility of these documents through a commercial service, particularly in 

the interpretation of what is in the public domain. Academic libraries, as non-profit educational 

institutions, offer a venue for greater access to digitized government publications and more 

limited legal risk with respect to copyright interpretation. 

UNDERLYING ISSUE: Funding Models 

As with most public research institutions, the percentage of funding from the state is on a 

decline. Similarly, funding for the University of ... Libraries has not kept pace with inflation in 

publishing nor with demand for services. Resources we already receive must be allocated in 

different, more efficient ways. The current Regional Depository System is based on a tangible 

documents collection, housed in a building. The future of the University of ... Libraries (and its 

funding) is based on greater efficiencies and advanced technologies, providing increased access 

to information electronically and integrating this access into our patron’s workflow at their point 

of need. These paths need to come together for the Regional Depository at the University of ... 

in order to sustain effective services that reflect efficient stewardship of government resources. 

A logical strategy for aligning resources and services in a manner that is effective and efficient 

can only be developed through changes to Title 44. The Title 44, Section 1912 changes being 

highlighted by the Government Printing Office’s Current State of Regional Libraries Report is a 

good place to start. The expansion of the permitted formats for providing permanent, perpetual 

access need to include electronic media at the least, or be non-format specific to allow regionals 

to provide access in the best way they can. The regulatory environment for managing regional 

collections needs to be more flexible and the exploitation of technology more robust in order for 

libraries such as the [institution] to sustain its Regional Library services. 

GPO needs to move more aggressively to digitally archiving federal documents so that access is 

centralized, especially for high-use publications. 

2. Regional depositories should move towards sharing collections and even service 

responsibilities with other regional and even selective depositories both intra- and inter-state. 

Page C - 47
DRAFT

Page 48 

3. Interlibrary lending of documents among regional depositories should be encouraged so that 

not all collections need to maintain holdings of all tangible documents. 

4. The regional depository lost 95+% of its holdings in an October 2004 flood. The Library will 

not be able to replace all that was lost nor will it be able to process all replacement documents 

already received as gifts. 

5. Like other university libraries, [regional library] must place increasing emphasis on allocating 

resources for space, processing, and services to locally significant heritage collections and 

heavily used materials. At the same time we are repurposing library space for users rather than 

storage of collections. We cannot afford space for the large number of tangible documents that 

are not used. 

6. Library resources available to allocate to federal government documents may not be sufficient 

to maintain a regional depository in the future. 

7. Allow regional depositories to discard items not relevant to their local clientele, e.g. 

documents specific to other states with no informational value to a broader audience. 

8. GPO needs statutory authority to give grants to regional depositories to do training and site 

visits to their selective depositories. 

9. Resource sharing is the modern approach to library collections. A new system of several full 

depository service centers in each region (North, South, East, West) should be sufficient if 

funding is provided to those service centers to provide services to their neighboring states and 

territories. Existing regional depositories could then elect to become selective depositories with 

the materials they know their local clientele need the most. 

Draft outline looks good. 

Question #1 - would it be possible to use some questions from the 2003 Regional Depository 

Library Survey done by Kessler, Rowe and Sudduth - using similar questions would allow for 

trend and comparison data that would better support any narrative. 

Section V, b and Appendix - will this include the proposals or summaries of proposals to create 

consultants in the regionals and what their purpose was and how this was to assist Regionals in 

functions they were unable to accomplish? 

Section V, b and Appendix - will this include the proposals to allow GPO to granting authority to 

assist some libraries with programs and projects - I believe this was proposed in FY 2005 or 

2006? 

Section IV, d looks like it will probably be a compilation of narrative statements from the 

regionals that will need to be summarized. 

Page C - 48
DRAFT

Page 49 

Each region should be evaluated separately. What effects one region does not necessarily affect 

another. 

-As a librarian formerly at a regional depository library, I see less demand for traditional library 

services amongst FDL’s and more demand for training in the region. Yet there is still a need for 

future generations to perform those traditional library services like housing print materials and 

cataloging them. As selective libraries pursue their users’ interests and needs, the responsibility 

for regional libraries to maintain their print collections is and will continue to increase. 

-It is ironic that the electronic era has made it easier to facilitate access to print resources through 

ILL systems, online cataloging, etc. These new electronic resources are not bound by traditional 

geographic divisions like state lines. 

-Libraries in general are in transition. It used to be that there were small “technology” offices 

located in libraries. Now web designers, database managers, digital content teams, and more are 

all a part of the general library structure. Consortia are at an all time high in libraries because 

resources are limited, but pooling resources has benefits for all. Depository libraries can benefit 

from the sharing of tangible resources, provided that the appropriate framework for the sharing 

of resources is installed. 

It is also ironic that there is a greater concern about electronic resources, meaning the 

preservation of electronic information, the migration of electronic resources to new platforms, 

and how libraries can serve their users in the future. The maintenance of a shared print collection 

is at a far less risk of disappearing, in need of reformatting, or in need of expertise to utilize. All 

depository libraries share the responsibility of housing print resources, some having more space 

than others. Particularly in the regions in need of more space, a shared housing arrangement 

across state lines should alleviate the space shortage. A shared housing arrangement with a 

support system in place is better than loosing one library to the detriment of that entire region. 

-Every library is in a different financial situation. One library may allocate funds equitably 

amongst print/electronic or monographic/serial fund lines, while others will skew their funding 

towards one or the other. Each library is gambling with their library users’ future needs, as well 

as their expected budgetary situation. In this era budgets are not reliable and many libraries are 

“betting” that it is safer to cut the more expensive, repeating or serial fund lines; leaving the 

static or monographic “one time purchases” at a flat allotment. For some depository libraries it 

may seem economical to cooperatively develop their collections with their nearby depository 

libraries, regardless of state lines. This is particularly important in large states that have few 

depository libraries and travel distances are great. 

-We are already a “virtual” depository library whether we like it or not. It’s not the incoming 

tangible materials that are hurting us (there are so few), instead it is the maintenance of the old 

collection as it deteriorates that is difficult but important. 

One other difficulty virtual depository libraries are facing is the difficulty in gathering electronicdocument usage statistics. Libraries in general are struggling with how to track usage statistics of 

Page C - 49
DRAFT

Page 50 

online and database resources. It has become particularly difficult for depository librarians to 

prove “virtual” depository library usage, despite its actual usage. 

-A depository library is only as good as its staffing. Budgets are tight all over and as people retire 

or move on, positions are not necessarily being filled. This makes it more important for 

depository libraries to train each other so we can maintain a high level of service for our users. It 

is particularly critical at regional libraries who traditionally share the most responsibility for 

training. 

The [regional library] welcomes the opportunity to respond to GPO and the Joint Committee on 

Printing. Let me say at the outset that my library has a very strong commitment to access to 

government information. A convergence of competing needs, however, places some strains on 

my library’s ability to provide the level of regional services to which selective libraries and all of 

our users are entitled. In addition to completing the survey of regional libraries, I offer the 

following additional comments on questions asked, or in some cases not asked, in the survey. 

In order to continue to serve as a regional library, I believe that Title 44 should be amended to 

provide increased flexibility to regional libraries that would enable them to strategically develop 

their collections with the specific goal of tailoring resources and services to meet state-wide and 

regional needs. Key to this endeavor is a revision to Title 44 that would permit and encourage 

intrastate and interstate cooperation and sharing of responsibilities. With the improved delivery 

mechanisms available, every state may not need a regional. In recent years there have been a 

number of suggestions about creating “super” regionals serving multiple states or subject-based 

regionals. With adequate fiscal support from GPO my library would consider becoming a 

“super” regional for my geographic region (question 9). Fiscal support is critical. Because of 

the pressures on the library’s budget (question 18), my library feels constrained in its ability to 

provide collections and services that support its long-term vision of the future. Furthermore, 

because of the need to tailor collections, the law should be amended to allow collection of 

tangible products at less than a 100% level. For example, a regional serving the interior of the 

western United States, might not need to collect all of the materials relating to coastal issues. 

Increased flexibility in the mandate to acquire and maintain 100% collections would also enable 

my library to adopt a needs-driven approach to withdrawal of materials by selective libraries, 

thus reducing the burden imposed by this labor-intensive process. 

Why would the [regional library] be willing to assume additional responsibilities if it were to 

receive adequate support from GPO? Its collections and services are frequently used by citizens 

of [state] and play a vital role in meeting user needs at our research intensive institution (question 

10). The Governor of [state] frequently cites the library’s depository and research collections 

when discussing the needs of the state. Furthermore, feedback from selectives indicates that, 

although highly satisfied with the services provided by [the university], they require increased 

support in a variety of areas including training and consultation. A poor economic outlook for 

the state (question 20) means that my library will be increasingly constrained in its abilities to 

meet these demands. Again, fiscal support is needed to provide services at optimal levels. 

Becoming a “super” regional would place demands on my institution that could not be met 

without monetary support for people, travel, and infrastructure. By “infrastructure” I refer to 

Page C - 50
DRAFT

Page 51 

support for both the physical space to house the collections and the intellectual “space” required 

to facilitate access. In order to facilitate access to the collections, all libraries need cataloging 

records linked to digital copies for the legacy collection that are adequate to support research 

needs. While GPO is to be commended for its initiative to create minimal level catalog records 

based on its shelf list, these minimal level records may not support serious research needs. 

Because cataloging of sufficient quality to meet research needs may not be possible without the 

piece in hand, GPO should partner with regional libraries to enhance these records for the benefit 

of all—another activity that requires financial support. I am also concerned that GPO’s Z39.50 

gateway to its catalog is not sufficiently robust to allow downloading of records at the level 

required to support the large collections of regional libraries. 

Budgetary constraints at my library will cause a decline in regional services to selective 

depositories in my region (question 23). Electronic access has made it possible for a larger and 

more diverse set of libraries to provide government information to users. The University of ... 

has been a leader in providing training on the use of electronic government information through 

its IMLS-funded Government Information for the 21st Century grant initiative. Based on our 

experience with this grant, we believe that a national program, administered by selected regional 

libraries, offers the greatest potential to offer much needed training to all types of libraries and 

their users in a nimble and expeditious manner. Unfortunately, when the grant ends in 

September of 2008, this library will no longer be in a position to provide the level outreach and 

instruction demanded by our users without an additional infusion of monetary resources. Thus, 

services will decline without a source of continuing support. 

Because ability to meet user needs is dependent on access to collections and direct experience 

with meeting user needs, I do not believe the availability of locally-placed GPO consultants 

would add to our abilities to provide depository library services (question 21). Although GPO 

has gained valuable experience with its provision of information in electronic format, its 

historical mission and attendant strength has been the distribution of materials. The expertise in 

using these materials resides in depository libraries with collections at their disposal and direct 

experience in meeting user needs. 

Due to the current constraints of Title 44 the skill sets needed by documents staff are 

concentrated in the area of processing. Processing and handling electronic resources requires a 

distinctly different set of skills. While it seems logical to ask regional libraries to assume 

additional responsibilities for the digitization, storage and long term preservation of electronic 

materials, the current requirements for maintenance of the tangible collection severely impairs 

the library’s ability to transition to a more electronic collection. 

One area of potential concern that was not addressed by the survey or by any of the responses 

shared among directors of ARL libraries is the additional demands that the open access 

movement may place on depository libraries. If, as is widely anticipated, agencies such DOE 

and EPA mandate deposit of funded research in open access repositories similar to NIH’s 

PubMedCentral, this may create additional demands for government publications librarians to 

provide support for these initiatives. 

Page C - 51
DRAFT

Page 52 

I echo concerns raised by Judy Russell and other ARL library directors. In order for the regional 

libraries to survive and thrive, changes to Title 44 are both desirable and necessary. In summary, 

I encourage GPO to suggest changes that: 

• Allow for increased interstate cooperation; 

• Allow for the creation of “super” regionals or subject-based regional collections; 

• Provide greater flexibility in the strategic development of collections and services; 

• Provide for monetary support for regional operations; 

• Mandate that GPO to coordinate the creation and distribution of high-quality cataloging 

records for the legacy collection that are linked to a comprehensive digital repository of 

materials in the legacy collection; 

• Provide incentives and support for regional libraries to continue to provide innovative 

services. 

My comments are based on discussions with depository librarians at [the university] and on a 

letter submitted to me by a group of depository coordinators from libraries in the [state] Alliance 

of Research Libraries (attached). 

 Attached letter 

We, as members of the selective federal depository community of [state], believe that it is the 

responsibility of all depository libraries in the state of ... to ensure, to the best of their abilities, 

that [state] citizens continue to have access to US government information now and in the future. 

A strong Regional Depository Library (RDL) is crucial to this task. 

The RDL at the University of... is one of the strongest RDLs in the nation, providing excellent 

support for selective depository librarians on an ongoing basis as well as through special 

initiatives such as the IMLS grant "Government Information for the 21st Century." The selective 

depository community of [state] desires that these strengths continue. 

The Report to the Congressional Joint Committee on Printing on the current state of regional 

depository libraries, due in June 2008, provides an opportunity for assessment of RDI, activities 

and selective depository librarians encourage a thoughtful discussion of the responses to the 

report. A positive outcome can only benefit the future mission of Colorado depository libraries 

and the Federal Depository Library Program as a whole. Among the services provided by the 

RDL to the selectives, several deserve highlighting: Community of Experts: In many ways the 

RDL serves as the local voice of the Government Printing Office (GPO), providing 

interpretations, explanations, and updates of policies and regulations. Under the RDL's 

leadership, the Government Publications Interest Group (GoPIG) presents opportunities for 

depository librarians and staff to exchange ideas, share best practices and knowledge about 

collection strengths and areas of expertise. Training: For many years the RDL has coordinated 

training on important resources and issues through forums such as the monthly GoPIG meetings. 

The COGOPUB-L listserv and the above mentioned "Government Information for the 21st 

Century" grant, which extends training opportunities to non-documents librarians. Selective 

depository librarians have been encouraged. 

Page C - 52
DRAFT

Page 53 

I'm going to start with my Title 44 suggestions since I suspect new language would be required 

to support existing multi-state Regionals as well as my new vision for Regionals. 

I would suggest for chap. 1911: 

Remove "in either printed form or microfacsimile form" from second sentence following the 

word "permanently" and substitute "in at least one format." 

I would suggest for chap. 1912: 

Remove "either in printed or microfacsimile form" from VERY long second sentence right 

before parenthetical statement about superseded material and substitute "in at least one format." 

Add at the end of the first paragraph in chap. 1912 the following sentence (or create a new 

paragraph?): 

"If no regional depository is designated in a state, the Senator or the Resident Commissioner 

from Puerto Rico within that state or territory may seek to have a regional in a neighboring state 

or territory designated as the regional for their state or territory with the concurrence of the 

Senator or the Resident Commissioner of the neighboring state or territory and the state library 

agencies in both states." 

This might have to be followed by another sentence or two reiterating some of the language in 

the preceding sentences or paragraph. 

-------------------------------------------------------- 

Now for my new vision: 

Since storage space for, maintenance of, and access to the legacy collections, and the possible 

need to archive electronic publications, appear to me to be the primary stressors on existing 

Regionals, my thinking about this has been primarily focused on these two issues. 

I see a new layer of 10-15 Regionals in a geographically dispersed pattern (determined by GPO) 

to agree to be the "light archive" and disposal approving agency for several surrounding states. 

These institutions would also agree to archive some portion of the electronic publications GPO is 

archiving so that together they equal at least one complete, separate mirror site--would be nice if 

we could end up with two nationwide, not just one. Think LOCKSS without quite the amount of 

redundancy (I think they require 6 copies). I am VERY committed to some level of redundant 

archiving of these electronic resources in non-federal government institutions to guard against 

catastrophe or political manipulation. 

Institutions would compete for appointment to do this, so some powerful incentives will have to 

be put in place by GPO (see 2d & 3d paragraphs below) in order to attract volunteer libraries. 

Page C - 53
DRAFT

Page 54 

The existing layer of Regionals would continue to be the primary service and training resource 

for the Selectives in their states if they choose to retain designation as the lead depository in their 

state (thinking this could be handled as a GPO administrative designation covered by language in 

1914?). Such a designation would continue to entitle them to receive all pubs. if they so desire, 

and any "Regional only" distribution of tangible material, e.g., bound Serial Set. However, they 

would now be allowed to submit lists of unwanted materials for disposal to the Regional for their 

group of states per instructions in Title 44, chaps. 1911 and 1912. 

Since the depository information products, regardless of format, are no longer a sufficient 

incentive to libraries to continue their role as Regionals, GPO needs to think out of the box 

regarding what other benefits they can offer to libraries who agree to do more than Selectives. 

The most attractive scenario for libraries would be one where GPO treats these libraries as 

"contractors" for housing and managing their "national collection" in a distributed fashion across 

the U.S. This would allow the libraries to recover the costs of building and managing storage 

facilities for all formats. 

However, assuming that GPO cannot use funding to entice libraries to volunteer to serve in this 

role, the agency would need to move aggressively to create a robust benefit for those institutions 

who agree to take on this task. For example, cataloging (records and OCLC holdings, current 

and retro), processing (smart barcodes?). storage (servers), regional consultant (staffing), ondemand replacement of fiche/paper at no cost, etc. I'm thinking GPO could treat these services, 

supplies, equipment, regionally-based staff, etc., as just a different sort of deliverable to libraries, 

similar to the actual tangible publications. This benefit would have to be available only to those 

institutions who are willing to take on the role of a "light archive" (code word for "SuperRegional" IMHO). 

I have no idea how realistic any of this is, or whether it would require additional Title 44 

changes, but I do know that without some major incentives to Regionals, the current Regionals 

system will die sooner than later. 

These are entirely my own opinions, and do not necessarily reflect the thinking of anyone at my 

institution. 

I have been monitoring this situation, and I am astonished by the hostility of some of the parties 

involved. A number of constituencies have apparently been harboring negative feelings for a 

long time, and are using this opportunity to blast their colleagues. Even GPO has been guilty of 

setting an extremely negative tone. A prime example is the subtitle of the GPO Draft, "study to 

determine the extent to which public access through the federal depository library program is 

impaired by current and projected conditions in regional depository libraries." Why even have a 

study? Apparently you already know that public access is impaired. Wouldn't it be more accurate 

(and more positive) to determine "the impact of current and projected conditions in Regional 

Depository Libraries on public access." 

I'm a realist, not a Pollyanna, so I know that there are problems. But I can't help thinking that we 

are often our own worst enemy by not taking a more positive pro-active approach. 

Page C - 54
DRAFT

Page 55 

The regional depository at the University of ...is committed to servicing our primary clientele at 

the University, the selective depositories in the region, and the larger community. After the 

destructive flood of October 2004 where 95% of the federal documents collection was destroyed, 

we are making every effort to replace as much of the previous holdings to the extent possible 

(within the limitations of funding and staffing). 

... University Library is a member of ASERL, and a full supporter of the letter sent forward by 

them on May 13, 2008 in response to your request for information. It is our perception that the 

regional depository system is overloaded and the task they are given is virtually impossible, and 

we encourage action on the suggestions made in the ASERL letter. It is too difficult for a 

regional to weed its collections, even with the Superintendent of Documents' recommendation 

that it do so, because of the long delays in getting permission to send materials elsewhere or 

discard them. I know that this is not just a problem in [state]. 

Public Users 

The FDLP is a good program. However there are not enough depository libraries. We in ... 

County have to drive (at $4.00 a gallon) to access Government DL material.

As a U.S. citizen, I appreciate and use the Federal depository library system resources. The 

proposed consolidation of Kansas and Nebraska depository libraries is unacceptable. Any 

reduction of Federal support to depository libraries is unacceptable and is discouraged. The 

system should maintain depository libraries in each state. Many citizens have no internet and 

need the physical library for personal and professional research by businesspeople, students, 

researchers, and others. I advocate increased funding and support to these depository libraries.

Existing pressures as outlined in the Regional Depository Librarians’ Joint Perspective must be 

eased while maintaining permanent public access to and services for U.S. Government 

information resources. 

With continuous changes in library collections, a concerted effort to develop a national 

bibliography of U.S. Government publications is very important to maintain access to the 

resources. With enhanced identification of resources, the options for the U.S. Government 

information user to gain access to needed information in a timely manner are more readily 

identified. 

Any changes to the law governing the FDLP must keep in mind that regional depository libraries 

are currently extremely varied, as outlined in Background: Table 1. Existing Regional 

Depository Library Models. They are managed within autonomous institutions and serve 

different numbers of selective libraries, all of which represent different sizes and types of 

Page C - 55
DRAFT

Page 56 

libraries in the FDLP. This has led to varying levels of service for the general public and for the 

selective depository libraries at the different regional depositories. Any changes in the FDLP 

should continue to allow flexibility in how the autonomous Federal depository libraries provide 

service while also maintaining standards of service that guarantee U.S. Government information 

researchers free public access to U.S. Government information resources. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. 

Page C - 56
DRAFT

REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIANS' JOINT PERSPECTIVE 

05/19/2008 

Regional Depository Libraries in the 21st Century: 

Regional Depository Librarians’ Perspective 

Introduction 

In the wake of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) request for a study on regional depository 

libraries, the regional depository community would like to take this opportunity to articulate the 

work that regional depository libraries and librarians do. With this joint statement, regional 

depository librarians are attempting to describe factors affecting service, the various resource 

demands on our institutions, and the ways in which we evolve to meet the needs of the public. 

Most importantly, regional depositories are advocates for robust government information services 

in a state or region. 

The following sections describe some of the general trends and issues that regional depository 

libraries currently face. While each issue is not necessarily experienced by all regional depositories, 

each one factors into a large number of regional depositories’ environments. Although this 

document is intended to be a “sense of the regional depositories” statement, it does not necessarily 

reflect the views of any single regional depository librarian or their administration. However, as a 

group regional depository librarians believe that the information environment is constantly 

changing, and regional depositories must have the flexibility to develop services to meet new 

challenges and to provide expert help to selective depositories and the general public in finding and 

using government information. 

Collections 

With the passage of the Depository Library Act of 1962 (PL 87-579) the landscape of the Federal 

Depository Library Program (FDLP), managed by the U. S. Government Printing Office (GPO), was 

dramatically changed. The creation of a two-tiered depository system significantly affected the 

FDLP in two major areas: 1) the creation of regional depository libraries which accepted the 

responsibility of retaining all depository publications; 2) allowing newly created “selective 

depositories” to discard government publications with the permission of the regional depository 

library. Further, regional depository libraries “within the region served will provide interlibrary loan, 

reference service, and assistance for depository libraries in the disposal of unwanted Government 

publications.” (44USC1912) Over the years, many regional depositories have expanded their 

services to selective depositories and the public to include training, site visits, in-depth 

consultation, and other services. 

Ironically, the same space pressures felt by the 594 depositories which, in 1962, could not discard 

any "unwanted Government publications" are now forcing the FDLP to realistically evaluate how 

many "complete" depository collections are necessary. Importantly, Congress recognized the need 

to ensure access to government information by creating regional depositories which were charged 

with retaining all depository materials. At that time slow delivery methods, no scanning or digital 

delivery technology, poor interlibrary loan turn-around times, lack of bibliographic control for 

federal materials and similar issues argued for the presence of a full regional depository in every 

1 

Page C - 57
DRAFT

REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIANS' JOINT PERSPECTIVE 

05/19/2008 

state. However, this goal was never achieved. There are currently eight regional depository 

libraries serving more than one state/territory. 

Nevertheless, to ensure that every U.S. citizen had easy, convenient access to government 

information in 1962 meant that Congress set a goal to establish at least one regional "complete" 

collection in each state. In 2008 this same level of easy, convenient access can be guaranteed by 

fewer "complete" collections and smarter collaborations and delivery systems. Now, the ubiquity of 

federal information on the Internet, much better bibliographic control of federal publications, and 

improved delivery methods, both physical and digital, make it possible to deliver federal 

information to U.S. citizens in all parts of the country. 

Regional depository librarians continue to believe in the intrinsic value of their tangible collections. 

Without these collections being available in multiple locations around the country, the American 

public would be at a significant loss to access permanent, authentic government information in a 

timely manner. As has been shown in reports by the GPO and confirmed by depository librarians in 

the field, not all government information is available online, especially historical material. Even 

government information that is available online is not always presented in a usable form. No one 

argues the valid need for multiple “complete” depository collections, but new trends of information 

access, remote delivery, and library use argue for allowing GPO and regional depositories some 

flexibility in the placement of collections in order to respond to space constraints for all library 

materials. 

While the tangible collections in regional depositories do provide access to government information, 

there are still issues associated with their access and preservation. One key to using these 

collections is providing the same level of bibliographic access as the library’s other collections. Most 

regional depository libraries lack complete online catalog access to older (pre-1976) federal 

publications. The lack of a complete inventory and description of tangible depository collections 

creates an enormous gap in access which affects all regional depositories’ ability to provide 

reference assistance to the user community. This is one of several places where the expertise of 

the regional depository staff ensures that this less accessible information is, indeed, found. In 

addition, many regional depositories house materials that are over 100 years old, and in some 

cases over 150 years old. There are preservation issues that can be readily identified: acidic paper, 

general wear and tear from decades of use, lack of archival-level temperature and humidity 

controls, and degrading microfiche formats. Given the scope of the issue (a regional depository 

collection can be over one million pieces), it is nearly impossible to successfully preserve all items 

in 52 legacy collections, and a consortial approach to preservation will be essential to assure 

sufficient resources are available to permanently preserve government information. 

Though acquisition of new tangible publications has slowed for depository libraries, regional 

depositories continue their work to build complete collections. However, it cannot be assumed that 

any of the 52 regional depository collections currently existing nationally are complete. Regional 

depository libraries suffer losses through years of use, theft, and catastrophic events such as fire, 

flood or weather events. Obtaining replacement or extra copies of publications from selective 

depositories’ discard lists is an important part of a regional depository’s mission. The legacy print 

collections at multiple regional depositories facilitate the recovery of disaster-affected libraries, 

either through providing extra copies, creating digital surrogates, or filling ILL requests. 

2 

Page C - 58
DRAFT

REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIANS' JOINT PERSPECTIVE 

05/19/2008 

Regionals also collect publications generated by federal agencies at the local or regional levels 

which escape inclusion into the FDLP. By gathering these publications, regional depository libraries 

provide government information that may have previously been unavailable to users residing 

outside of that region. Though information dissemination is changing, regional depository 

collections are dynamic, distinctive, and important. The current wording in Title 44, Chapter 19, 

reflects an outdated picture of the government information landscape, and lacks the flexibility 

needed for management of tangible depository collections in a fast-changing environment. 

Staffing and service to selective depositories 

Tangible collections, digital technology, education, training, promotion and service to selective 

depositories are all integral aspects of being a regional depository. The backbone on which all of 

these initiatives rely is the regional depository staff. As libraries’ goals and missions have changed 

based on the needs of their populations, libraries have re-allocated staff and revised or created 

new job descriptions. Where a regional depository library may have had a separate department 

staffed by multiple individuals whose positions were solely dedicated to government information, 

many regional depositories have now merged their operations with other library units which have 

staff members with a broader range of public and technical service responsibilities. Past staffing 

levels were based on collecting and maintaining a tangible collection and providing specialized 

reference service. As the number of items received in tangible form has dropped and reference 

questions have become fewer, yet more complex, library administrators have typically chosen to 

reduce the number of staff devoted to depository operations. 

While staffing levels shrink, regional depository libraries are still required to build and preserve a 

complete tangible collection for the state/region; maintain knowledge of tangible and digital 

collections to provide necessary reference service; provide training and education opportunities for 

their institutions, selectives, and the public on government information in all formats; and provide 

leadership within their state/region regarding government information. 

Service to selective depository libraries was a primary goal of the establishment of regional 

depository libraries. Providing reference service, collection sharing through interlibrary loan, and 

the responsibility to serve as the region’s comprehensive archive for depository materials are 

functions explicit in the law. Of these requirements, reference service and ILL have always reached 

across state boundaries, but with digital distribution of depository material and virtual reference 

services firmly established, boundaries of these services no longer recognize physical geographic 

limitations. 

As greater numbers of selective depository libraries begin to rely on substituting digital products for 

tangible titles, selective depositories’ collections are being heavily weeded of paper publications 

resulting in an increased number of withdrawal lists. Regional depository services require sufficient 

staffing for records management, searching, and responding to discard requests. With the choice 

to rely on electronic resources, selective depository libraries have reduced their selection rate of 

items or, in many instances, have withdrawn from the FDLP entirely. The impact on the regional 

depository is apparent: space is consumed by tangible copies that have been added in order to 

serve as the state’s sole archival library; preservation activities and costs increase to care for aging 

legacy collections; and ILL requests increase in order to deliver relinquished content to former 

selective depositories. 

3 

Page C - 59
DRAFT

REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIANS' JOINT PERSPECTIVE 

05/19/2008 

Staff downsizing, varying levels of experience or engagement, financial limitations, and 

inconsistent training support affect the quality of service provided by regional depository librarians. 

Site visits, which are advocated in order to enhance communication and develop a sense of 

common purpose within the depository community, are not universally possible due to large 

numbers of libraries within a region, distance between libraries, or lack of travel funding. One way 

to address these shortfalls would be to use the established network of regional depository libraries 

that already exists to share expertise and facilitate information sharing. This is a natural vehicle for 

cross-border collaboration for not only improved services, particularly training, but for other 

collaborative initiatives such as preservation and collection building. Developing web-based training 

opportunities that do not require travel time or costs is another means to improve use of 

depository resources in the electronic environment. 

Regional depository librarians want to serve selective depositories and improve access to 

government information for the public. However, the number of staff in regional depository 

libraries will not increase in the near future. Regional depository librarians now require flexibility to 

shape their services and collections in ways that make the most effective use of staff time and 

reflect the new realities of access to government information. 

Technology 

The technological changes that regional depositories face in managing their collections are the 

same as those faced by all libraries. In the past fifteen years depository libraries have been called 

upon to add sufficient computer work stations for both the libraries’ primary clientele and the 

general public. These costs are ongoing as libraries must frequently upgrade and replace hardware, 

software, and network infrastructure to maintain increasing information demands. 

Digital access to government information has made materials available from multiple locations, and 

new partners are being asked to assist the public with finding and using government information. 

Non-depository libraries are increasingly fielding requests for assistance with government 

information and e-government services. Therefore, regional depository librarians may be called 

upon to provide more educational services to libraries and other service centers within their regions 

in the future. All libraries will face increased resource demands associated with digital information 

and increased referrals from government agencies. Additional staff time is needed for personalized 

assistance, more computer workstations for e-government services, and longer operating hours to 

facilitate access for those without sufficient access at home or work. 

Many regional depository libraries participate in efforts to convert legacy government information 

to digital formats in order to effectively bring their collections to users. These demands will only 

increase, and it is likely that regional depository libraries will be called upon to provide “scan on 

demand” services for selective depositories and members of the general public. This can be seen as 

an expansion of existing ILL services, and this fits with regional depository services. However, 

such an expansion of service would call for more staff time for digitization activities and additional 

hardware such as scanners and servers for storing and accessing converted content. Digitized 

content will expand access for those who have robust internet access at home, work, or school, but 

regional depository librarians are also cognizant of the digital access problems faced by those in 

rural and economically-depressed areas. This is one of many reasons that regional depository 

librarians continue to place value on the maintenance of tangible collections. 

4 

Page C - 60
DRAFT

REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIANS' JOINT PERSPECTIVE 

05/19/2008 

All libraries are dealing with the lack of proven digital preservation for born-digital materials. Borndigital materials that lack geographically distributed back-up copies are susceptible to loss and 

alteration for many reasons, such as data degradation and corruption, human error, political 

motivations, and natural disasters. Regional depository librarians understand the tremendous value 

of born-digital government information and want to make certain this content is available to the 

public for long-term use. It is possible that regional depository libraries will contribute to a 

distributed digital preservation program. To make this happen, depositories will need to develop 

the technological infrastructure, staffing and workflows necessary to facilitate ingest, storage, 

preservation, and migration of data. A distributed system of preservation, where a particular 

library may be responsible for the content of a handful of agencies, would provide the security 

necessary to safeguard information and place more manageable demands on these volunteer 

libraries. 

Funding 

Funding plays an integral part in all of the previously addressed issues. An examination of larger 

trends in regional depository library funding, and library funding in general, will highlight how these 

trends may affect future services. It is worth noting that all regional depository libraries are 

situated in public sector institutions (63% in public higher education institutions; 29% in State 

Library institutions; and 8% in public library institutions). Financial pressures on public sector 

institutions are increasing in all areas of responsibility, including basic infrastructure, health and 

public safety, and environmental controls. As public sector institutions, regional depository libraries 

are heavily affected by the budgets and priorities of their larger “hosts” (i.e., state governments, 

universities, municipal governments). All libraries, including regional depositories, find that they 

have to do more with less. 

All types of libraries are facing the pressures of finite resources to carry out their missions. 

Libraries require funding for acquiring information and for providing services to support that 

information, such as cataloging and metadata and the purchase of resources to provide additional 

intellectual access. In addition, libraries require funding for user support as well as library 

outreach and education, both to end users and library staff. Funding is also required for housing 

and preserving tangible collections of all types, and for supporting the information technology in all 

of these areas. Libraries must also plan for future initiatives, such as digitization and reformatting 

analog information into digital, accessible-anywhere collections. 

In order to reallocate resources in a changing environment, libraries are increasingly integrating 

services into merged service points. Multiple service points, built around specialized collections, 

such as government information, are coming to an end in many libraries. This aggregation holds 

many benefits—staffing, equipment, and facilities costs can be consolidated and economies of scale 

may be realized. In this environment, “one stop shopping” becomes a real possibility for the user. 

However, such a staffing trend incurs more staff training costs for the institution as more staff who 

have never worked with government information are now expected to do so. It could also lead to 

libraries where the staff “know a little about a lot,” but do not have the depth of expertise to assist 

with more complicated government information queries. 

Space issues are perhaps one of the single biggest drivers and stresses on finite resources. 

Libraries must continue housing acquired materials (FDLP and other), but they also have a need to 

5 

Page C - 61
DRAFT

REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIANS' JOINT PERSPECTIVE 

05/19/2008 

provide adequate user spaces. An encouraging trend in many libraries these days is that they are 

very popular spaces for their users. However, this popularity creates its own set of demands on 

space. In academic libraries, for instance, gate counts and building use are continually rising, not 

just for research, but because libraries provide spaces for users to work collaboratively, read email, 

study, and socialize. This means that libraries face two potentially competing space pressures: to 

house and preserve a growing volume of existing and future content and to provide more user 

spaces. Bearing in mind that it costs approximately $250 per square foot to build library space, this 

is not an insignificant challenge. Offsite storage facilities for materials offer some efficiency in this 

area but still require local support and capital investment. 

What does it cost to be a regional depository and how have those costs changed over time? 

FY1991-1992 data collected through an Association of Research Libraries (ARL) study of ARL 

regional depository libraries estimated average annual local expenditures in support of regional 

depository operations to be $300,000. These figures include costs for staff, cataloging and 

processing of collections, additional databases and reference materials in support of FDLP 

collections, and equipment/supplies, such as computers, microform equipment, and collections 

maintenance supplies. However, these figures did not account for facilities costs associated with 

FDLP collections, e.g., the costs for building library spaces, shelving, electricity and other 

consumable resources. 

FY2003-2004 data collected through a similar ARL study of regional depository libraries estimated 

$330,000 in the same average yearly expenditures. The relatively small increase in overall 

expenditures may be a reflection of efforts already underway in many libraries to consolidate 

technical processing, service points, and public services in libraries. They may also be indicative of 

the decline in tangible distribution of FDLP materials and associated processing costs. 

An FY2007-2008 cost study by two regional depository librarians attempted to factor in the longterm costs of housing FDLP materials as measured by existing occupied space costs. They found 

that a typical regional depository library spends approximately $700,000 in yearly amortized costs 

for facilities to house the collections. This figure reflects what institutions have already spent in 

building spaces to house collections, not new construction. Regional depositories have already built 

collections spaces but, given current Title 44, Chapter 19, requirements for collection retention, 

they will need to build more. In addition, regional depository libraries will need to build more user 

spaces and provide services. Given finite resources, it will be a challenge to keep up with both 

demands adequately. User needs are paramount and these needs are changing constantly. It is 

becoming increasingly important to build or restructure libraries in ways that make them user 

friendly and supportive, thus putting more pressure on space for collections. 

Conclusion 

Libraries have a long history of collaborating to offer needed information and support in the face of 

finite resources. Our system of nationwide resource sharing known as interlibrary loan is a good 

example of this. All participating libraries in the FDLP are frequent users of this national 

collaborative library effort. Similarly, the creation of Selective-Regional tiers within the FDLP is 

another effort at such collaboration between libraries. This tiered system allows selective 

depository libraries more latitude in their retention of depository materials, but ensures future 

availability of federal government materials for users at regional depository libraries. Today, more 

6 

Page C - 62
DRAFT

REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARIANS' JOINT PERSPECTIVE 

05/19/2008 

collaboration is required for the future success of the FDLP. A revision of Title 44, Chapter 19, that 

will allow a more flexible approach to regional depository management is needed to ease the 

pressures of finite resources. The information environment has changed dramatically since 1962, 

and regional depository libraries need flexibility to shape their services and collections to fit the 

new modes of information access, to make the best use of their resources, and to best meet the 

government information needs of the general public. 

(revised 5/19/08) 

7 

Page C - 63
Ann T. Fessenden 

President, AALL 

U.S. Courts Library 8th Circuit 

 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 

 Room 22.300, 111 South 10th Street 

St. Louis, MO 63102 

314-244-2660 

 ann_fessenden@ca8.uscourts.gov 

May 14, 2008 

Richard G. Davis 

Superintendent of Documents and 

Director, Library Services and Content Management 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

732 N. Capitol Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20401 

Dear Mr. Davis: 

On behalf of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), I would like to thank you for 

seeking our comments and those of selective depository libraries to incorporate into the report 

requested by the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) on the conditions of regional depository 

libraries. It is our understanding that, based on a legal memorandum from the Congressional 

Research Service (CRS), the JCP decided to not approve the proposed shared regional designation 

between the University of Kansas and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. At the same time, JCP 

raised concerns that the request signaled growing challenges confronting regional depository 

libraries. As the national organization representing law librarians who serve a wide variety of library 

patrons, AALL is well aware of the challenges articulated by the JCP, and we are honored to have 

the opportunity to express our own concerns regarding shared depositories. 

Our Interest in a Vital Federal Depository Library Program 

1 

AALL is a nonprofit educational organization with over 5000 members nationwide. Our members 

respond to the legal information needs of a variety of users: legislators, judges, and other public 

officials at all levels of government, corporations and small businesses, law professors and students, 

attorneys, and members of the general public. AALL’s mission is to promote and enhance the value 

of law libraries, to foster law librarianship and to provide leadership and advocacy in the field of 
2 

legal information and information policy. AALL has long been a strong champion of the FDLP and 

the public’s right to access federal government information at no cost through participating 

depository libraries. Depository law libraries exist at academic law schools, in federal agencies and 

courts, and within state and county governments. 

Since the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) is built on the successful relationship 

between a regional library and the selective depository libraries each regional serves, it is important 

that the viewpoints of all depository libraries be considered as part of this report. It is up to the 

depository library community collectively to form a consensus on how to ensure a robust FDLP that 

serves all users well in the 21st Century. AALL is very supportive of the existing structure of 

regional and selective depository libraries because the system has worked very well. Even though 

some regionals may have space constraints due to the size of their tangible collections, there are no 

restrictions that we’re aware of to keep them from storing some materials remotely or entering into 

shared housing agreements with other participating libraries in their states. And with the new 

emphasis on electronic access over tangible distribution, we are reassured that the FDLP has a vital 

future because new libraries, including two law libraries, have recently joined the program. 

Our Concerns with Challenges to the FDLP 

One of the most important reasons why the current structure of regional and selective depositories 

is necessary is because our users need to be assured that the legal information they locate, use and 

rely upon is both official and authentic. Depository law libraries collect and provide access to these 

primary, authentic legal materials distributed to them in tangible formats through the FDLP. The 

integrity of these FDLP materials is not questioned because of their tangible form. This "tangible 

equals authentic" principle is reflected in retention requirements set forth for regionals in Chapter 12 

of the Federal Depository Library Handbook, a publication written by and for the FDLP community. 

According to that document, regionals are required to retain print and microfiche copies of FDLP 

materials because “[t]he principal responsibility of a regional depository library is to ensure the 

comprehensiveness and integrity of Federal depository resources...” (p. 139, emphasis added). 

In turn, selective libraries can rely upon the FDLP materials maintained by the regional libraries as a 

reliable, authentic source of the law. When the issue of shared regionals across state lines was first 

broadly discussed at the Spring 2006 Depository Library Council meeting in Seattle, many selective 

depository librarians expressed the need to be able to refer a user to a relatively close regional library 

in their state. This is especially important for the legal community who require access to official and 

authentic documents. 

The Internet could provide our patrons with easy electronic access to government documents as a 

substitute for the tangible materials, as long as those documents are certified as official and 

authentic. As you know, AALL has taken a national leadership role on the issue of digital 

authentication because the ability to authenticate online legal resources is especially important as 
3 

government moves to a more electronic environment. We are pleased that AALL’s Acting 

Washington Affairs Representative, Mary Alice Baish, recently had the opportunity to testify in 

support of full funding for GPO in FY 2009 before the House Appropriations Committee 

Legislative Branch Subcommittee. Her statement reflects our support for GPO’s move to a more 

electronic program and the enhanced capabilities that the Federal Digital System will bring, 

particularly in the area of digital authentication. All users of online government information need to 

be assured that the information they find is reliable and trustworthy. 

We are very pleased with the progress that GPO has made during the past year on digital 

authentication by implementing digital signatures to certain electronic documents on GPO 

Access, including its online collection of authenticated Public and Private Laws of the 110th

Congress, as well as GPO’s digitally signed version of the 2009 Budget of the United States Government. 

This establishes GPO as the trusted information disseminator for the Federal government by 

providing the assurance that these electronic documents have not been altered since GPO 

disseminated them. However, until all federal documents are similarly authenticated, we simply 

cannot yet rely on electronic resources as a substitute for a tangible collection. 

And while we also applaud the efforts of many regional and selective depository libraries who are 

involved in digitization projects, it is necessary to point out that the digital files resulting from nonGPO scanning of these legacy materials are not authentic. 

Our Commitment to a Strengthened FDLP 

In light of the Joint Committee on Printing’s decision on the proposed Kansas-Nebraska merger, we 

are very concerned about multi-state plans such as that being proposed by the Association of 

Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL). This coalition of research and state libraries across ten 

southeastern states, from Virginia to Louisiana, works to develop successful inter-institutional 

resource sharing and other collaborative efforts. Their proposal for collaborative collection 

management partnerships across state lines for the regionals in these states raises very serious 

questions, however. We fail to see how it will improve public access particularly given the public’s 

need to have ready access to official and authentic federal documents. ASERL members seem to 

also believe that the current network of regional depository libraries is overly redundant. We 

respectfully disagree. We believe that when GPO collects and compiles data from the regional 

libraries, you will find that the current system is working well. 

We recognize that even in tight budgetary times, it is important that regionals continue to serve their 

respective selectives. In order to do so, each regional should be encouraged to sufficiently staff its 

federal government documents section to provide both the assistance and expertise needed by its 

selectives and the public whom they serve. When the regional finds that its limitations are such that 

it may not be able to fully provide those services, then it is paramount that the regional work closely 
4 

with its selectives to develop a plan that will allow for the delivery of services. This approach would 

also be appropriate in providing access to material, especially the legacy material, held by regionals. 

Unfortunately, we rarely take the time to applaud the excellent leadership and services that most 

regionals provide to their selectives and indeed to all members of the public served within their 

regional system. That said, because of budget and staff constraints, some regionals have difficulty 

providing the full array of services that is required of them. In these situations where the system is 

not working, we need to explore other models that will improve public access to the communities 

served within their regional structure. 

One such approach when a regional is overly burdened is the model being developed in Indiana, 

where various depository libraries throughout the state are willing to share collection and service 

responsibilities based upon their expertise. This new collaboration for resource sharing was 

developed by the Indiana Networking for Documents and Information of Government 

Organizations (INDIGO). They are working on what they call the Indiana Light Archives 

Documents Project for federal documents and related services. The state’s selective depository 

libraries are meeting the challenge by taking parts of the regional library’s tangible collection through 

shared housing agreements and providing services to them. 

We do not advocate a one-size fits all approach to resolve the issue of how to strengthen public 

access when a regional library is overburdened. However, we do believe that other approaches may 

be developed that meet the current statutory requirements and enhance the federal government 

information needs of the users within each region. A multi-state approach would tend not to meet 

these criteria, particularly given the public’s need to have ready access to authentic government 

resources. 

In closing, we again commend you for seeking comments from the broad library community on the 

regional study requested by the JCP. We believe the study offers us all the opportunity to examine 

possible new ways of providing federal government information through the system of regional and 

selective depository libraries. Well-funded regionals with their dedicated staff have provided 

excellent leadership and services for many decades, and the selective libraries they serve rely on their 

support. 

We look forward to further discussions about how we can all work together to ease the burdens of 

the regionals that are having difficulty meeting their requirements, perhaps along the lines of the 

Indiana model or other shared housing agreements within the region. We do not support a model, 

such as that proposed by ASERL, for collaborative collection management partnerships across state 

lines. We are aware of efforts to seek a legislative fix to reduce the burdens on regional libraries. 

However, we are concerned about opening up Title 44 at this time, particularly when there is no 

consensus on what changes to the current structure would be acceptable and meet the goal of 

enhancing the public’s access to federal government information. 
AALL welcomes the opportunity to play a role in redefining the regional system and we look 

forward to continuing to work with you on this effort. Thank you very much. 

Sincerely, 

Ann T. Fessenden, President 

American Association of Law Libraries 

 

5 
 

May 26, 2008 

Cynthia Etkin 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

732 North Capitol Street NW 

Washington, DC 20401 

Re: American Library Association’s response to request for comments 

Dear Ms Etkin: 

On behalf of the American Library Association (ALA), I am writing in response to the 

Government Printing Office’s (GPO’s) request for comments as part of the study on the 

conditions of regional depository libraries. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and 

welcome the study as the first in a series of efforts to ensure the Federal Depository Library 

Program (FDLP) continues to provide no-fee public access to critical government information in 

the digital age. 

We recognize that many complex issues face FDLP library participants including: (1) 

space, budget, and staffing constraints; (2) provision of expert services; (3) deteriorating and 

uncatalogued print collections; (4) permanent public access to electronic government 

information; (5) technological change; and (6) collaboration on access to collections and 

services. To that end, we have included more detailed letters from two key units of ALA that 

deal with government documents – the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), 

and the Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT). These letters reflect a diversity of 

concerns, challenges, and ideas with respect to the current and future role of the FDLP. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments as you work to gather information on 

the state of regional libraries in the FDLP. Given the complexity of this program and the 

thousands of libraries and millions of users affected, we ask that you provide us more 

opportunity to elicit concrete suggestions. Through dialog and collaboration, we can work 

together to identify successful strategies for meeting the challenges of providing no-fee 

permanent public access to government information in the digital age. ALA looks forward to 

continuing this very important conversation as GPO completes the study and considers more 

effective means to ensure the public’s right to know. 

 

Sincerely, 

Lynne Bradley 

Director 

American Library Association Washington Office 

Attachments 

1615 New Hampshire Ave, NW 

First Floor 

Washington, DC 20009-2520 

USA 

Telephone 202 628 8410 

Fax 202 628 8419 

E-mail: alawash@alawash.org

http://www.alawash.org

ALAAmericanLibraryAssociation
DRAFT

Michele McKnelly,

Chair              

ALA Government Information Subcommittee  

May 8, 2008           TRANSMITTED VIA E‐MAIL

Dear Michele,

GODORT is pleased to see the Committee on Legislation (COL) and the Government Information

Subcommittee (GIS) taking the lead in coordinating an ALA‐wide response to the study requested by the

Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) on the “State of Regional Depositories in the Federal Depository

Library Program” (FDLP). GODORT leadership has worked with our Legislation Committee, The Federal

Documents Task Force and our membership to gather information in response to your questions. As you

might imagine when querying a group of depository librarians and government information

professionals there are as many views on the future of the Regional Depository Libraries as there are

librarians.   

1. Turning first to the ‘crisis in structure of the FDLP’ and the issue of selectives leaving the

program: it is difficult to extrapolate, from the many disparate issues facing Regionals, specific

crises that cut across the entire program. Many of the dynamic challenges affecting libraries in

general are faced also by the FDLP. Space, staffing, aging collections, increased operating costs

and dwindling budgets, to mention just a few, challenge the government information librarian

as surely as they do library administrators.  GODORT recognizes that faced with these challenges

there is the potential that some Regional libraries may elect to relinquish their status in the

FDLP if opportunities for new structures are not supported. We believe that GPO should make

every effort to ensure that Regionals have the support they need to stay in the program.    

In discussing selectives leaving the depository program the Subcommittee on Attrition and

Retention (SOAR) organized by the Depository Library Council (DLC) in 2002 expressly dealt with

the issue. i

Although it is several years old, the range of issues and responses identified in that

document remain relevant to this discussion.  GODORT believes it is important to not approach

the issue as a crisis, but as a challenge to be met by a new vision that embraces 21st century

collaborative solutions.  While it is certainly true that selectives have left the program it is also

true that new libraries have joined the program while other entire communities of users, such as

tribal colleges, are clamoring to be admitted. ii

Additionally, large selectives – those at 75% and higher ‐ face many of the same challenges as do

the Regionals but often with less support for their mission. If we are to maintain the excellent

level of service that the public has come to value from depository libraries, GODORT believes it  

Page C - 70
DRAFT

would be more appropriate for the Government Printing Office, in responding to the JCP’s

request, to look at the situation in both the Regional libraries and in the larger selective

depository libraries. iii

Overall, GODORT is less interested in the ‘cause and effect’ of the changing environment but

rather in ensuring a healthy environment for growth and cooperation in the FDLP so that the

Regionals and selectives can continue their partnership in providing no‐fee access to

government information.  

2. Provision of expert services remains a challenge as institutions streamline and downgrade

government information collections and departments. Simultaneous with this change is the

growing demand for knowledge leaders who can provide support for the users of e‐government

services.iv

  The FDLP is one such community of leaders that can provide this level of expertise

and assistance.  As ALA formulates a response to the study requested by the JCP GODORT

believes it is imperative that the depth of knowledge possessed by librarians in the FDLP is

acknowledged and that is communicated to the JCP and GPO that unless there are changes to

the system the public may lose access to these experts.  

3. Aging print collections are a looming slow fire in the depository community.  GODORT

recommends that all FDLP participants determine collaboratively how best to maintain our

tangible collections. This may mean looking at different methods for managing them than we

have in the past, including shared housing or off‐site storage for little used materials.  There is as

of yet no data to support a suggestion that shared housing or off‐site storage in any way hinders

access by users or the care of depository material when it is cataloged and appropriately

preserved. However we respond we must recognize that while the future of the program is

electronic, the tangible documents in our collections represent the public history of our nation

and that library administrators owe that material responsible stewardship.  ALA should

encourage GPO to continue its clear communication with depository library administrators to

this end.  

4. While geography is an important consideration when looking at how Regionals and selectives

interact,  for example states like Alaska, California and the Dakotas have all been ‘stretched’ to

be served by the Regional system, the relationship between the Regional and selective

depositories has always been as much about individual personalities as it has been the structure

of the FDLP. This does not obviate the responsibilities of Regional libraries to provide support to

their selectives. However, the dynamic challenges mentioned in point one above have made

demands on many libraries so that it is difficult, if not impossible, for Regional depository

librarians to provide the level of leadership that participation in the program requires. Exploring

new administrative structures is an appropriate response in such an environment.  The vision

document prepared by the Depository Library Council in 2006 is a good jumping off point for

such an effort.v

5. Has access by the public to no fee‐government information been diminished by pressures on the

Federal Depository Library Program? Certainly there have been many suggestions that this has

been the case but these are primarily anecdotal in nature. There has been no quantitative study

that conclusively demonstrates that diminished access to public information (excluding classified  

Page C - 71
DRAFT

and otherwise secure information) is directly attributable to changes in the FDLP. GODORT urges

the Government Printing Office to provide documentation of changes in access so as to better

demonstrate how or if service in FDLP institutions has indeed diminished.

As ALA prepares a response to the GPO study on the state of the regional libraries in the FDLP the

Government Documents Round Table urges that ALA’s approach be cautious and supportive. The

Government Printing Office and ALA have long been partners in the provision of government

information and we believe that it is important to not approach our Associations’ response with

preconceived notions of “crisis” or “lost access” before the final report is actually produced.  

Again, on behalf of GODORT I thank you for the opportunity to provide guidance to ALA.    We look

forward to continued participation in developing ALA’s response to the Government Printing Office

study.    

Bill Sleeman

GODORT Chair

Thurgood Marshall Law Library

The University of Maryland School of Law

501 West Fayette Street

Baltimore, MD. 21201

410‐706‐0783 (office)

bsleeman@law.umaryland.edu

                                                           

i

SOAR – Suggested Responses to Frequently Cited Reasons for Leaving the Depository Library System. 2002.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/council/soar‐suggestions.pdf

ii ALA CD#20.2 (2008), Resolution on Tribal College Library Membership in the Federal Depository Library Programs

(FDLP), which reads:  “That the American Library Association (ALA) supports the membership of tribal colleges in

the Federal Depository Library Program; and that the ALA works with the Government Printing Office (GPO) to

assist all tribal colleges interested in joining the FDLP.”

http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/governanceofficeb/council/councilactions/2008mwca.cfm

iii Selectives are also excluded from the expectation to retain all publications and to serve other FDLP libraries,

although most still do this. Nevertheless, the burden of participation in the FDLP on the larger selectives should not

be overlooked.  A complete discussion of the requirements for Selectives may be found at

http://www.fdlp.gov/handbook/index.html  

iv Bertot, John Carlo, Et al. Drafted: I want you to deliver E‐Government. 2006. Library Journal.

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6359866.html

v Depository Library Council. Knowledge will forever govern. 2006.

http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/council/dlcvision092906.pdf

Page C - 72
DRAFT

NOTE: Comments to be submitted via online form on GPO site, not on ACRL letter head. 

Dear Mr. Davis and Ms. Etkin, 

I am writing for the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of 

the American Library Association, to offer comments as you prepare your report for the 

Joint Committee on Printing. Of the 53 regional Federal Depository Libraries, almost two 

thirds are affiliated with academic institutions. As such, ACRL has a great interest in this 

issue. ACRL and ALA have supported shared regional depository libraries in the past. 

ACRL, on behalf of our 13,500 members, continues to do so in principle. 

We think the salient question at this point is, “What is the appropriate model for 

providing access to government information to 21st century audiences?” This is not only 

an issue as it relates to depository libraries and federal documents but to our collections 

in total. Providing access to information of all kinds is part of a larger shift in libraries in 

the 21st century. The broader library community increasingly engages in activities like 

consortial buying and digital delivery of collections as part of this shift. While we 

recognize that there are significant organizational, financial, space, and other challenges 

in operating a regional depository library, we think that employing cooperative models 

and practices could improve public access to Federal depository resources. 

We see the question around access to government information as a critical issue and are 

concerned about the timeline for the survey of regional depository libraries and the short 

comment period. This is a complex issue involving hundreds of organizational and 

institutional stakeholders. We would much rather have a thorough sense of the state of 

regional depositories, including partial depositories in order to offer more substantial 

comment, but the timeline has precluded this. 

We do recognize the nature of pressures experienced by regional depository libraries, in 

line with the stated purpose of the current study you are undertaking. They include: 

1. increasing pressure on physical space for collections 

2. increasing interest in providing services based on digital collections 

3. increasing need to balance processing and access to digital collections with 

processing, access to, and management of legacy paper collections 

4. the need for collaborative approaches to managing legacy paper collections across 

both regional and partial collections, including expedited "needs & offers" 

procedures that might underlie such efforts 

5. the overall situation about multi-state repository collections 

6. fiscal pressures on staff, facilities, and the transition to digital services 

ACRL believes that collaborative work supports libraries’ ongoing strategies for 

balancing digital and tangible resources from the government and from all other sources 

as well. We understand at the same time that many people in the library community are 

concerned about the long term quality of government information services, and ACRL is 

convinced that the quality of services associated with collaborative efforts may be even 

stronger. 

Page C - 73
DRAFT

In ACRL’s June 26, 2007, letter reacting to the guidelines for shared regional depository 

libraries, we noted: “Flexibility and simplicity are critical to the success of rethinking 

models for housing and delivering government information to our various constituents.” 

In the case of the University of Kansas and the University of Nebraska, they are 

constrained by the interpretation of the current statute. We support the solution they 

proposed, believing regional Federal Depository Libraries can develop effective models 

for cooperation and future collaboration that serve their users well. 

ACRL is a proponent of reconsidering Title 44 so that it ensures excellent access to 

government information while allowing for innovations as libraries work to provide this 

service. Regional depository libraries are self-funded and voluntary participants in the 

Federal Depository Library Program. They play a critical role in providing public access 

to government information, and we support allowing them flexibility to collaborate, 

innovate, and experiment in order to thrive. 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide comment as you conduct your study 

on the condition of and factors influencing the success of regional Federal Depository 

Libraries. We urge you to consider any information obtained through this current study 

period as only a first step and to continue exploring the issues in more depth over the next 

several months. 

Sincerely, 

Julie Todaro 

ACRL President, 2007-2008 

Page C - 74
From: kmalenfant@ala.org

Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1:46 PM

Subject: Regional Depositories Study Comments

Page 1 of 2

Form Submission Results...

Your Name: Julie Todaro, Pamela Bluh, & Sara Kelly Johns

Your Email Address: kmalenfant@ala.org

Library Type: Other

I am responding on behalf of 

a: Library Association

Comments:

May 16, 2008 

Note: This is an updated version of comments submitted on Tuesday, May 12, as an additional 

division of ALA has signed on in support. The content remains the same. 

Dear Mr. Davis and Ms. Etkin, 

I am writing for the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of the 

American Library Association, to offer comments as you prepare your report for the Joint 

Committee on Printing. Of the 53 regional Federal Depository Libraries, almost two thirds are 

affiliated with academic institutions. As such, ACRL has a great interest in this issue. ACRL and 

ALA have supported shared regional depository libraries in the past. ACRL, on behalf of our 

13,500 members, continues to do so in principle. 

We think the salient question at this point is, “What is the appropriate model for providing access to 

government information to 21st century audiences?” This is not only an issue as it relates to 

depository libraries and federal documents but to our collections in total. Providing access to 

information of all kinds is part of a larger shift in libraries in the 21st century. The broader library 

community increasingly engages in activities like consortial buying and digital delivery of 

collections as part of this shift. While we recognize that there are significant organizational, 

financial, space, and other challenges in operating a regional depository library, we think that 

employing cooperative models and practices could improve public access to Federal depository 

resources. 

We see the question around access to government information as a critical issue and are 

concerned about the timeline for the survey of regional depository libraries and the short comment 

period. This is a complex issue involving hundreds of organizational and institutional stakeholders. 

We would much rather have a thorough sense of the state of regional depositories, including partial 

depositories in order to offer more substantial comment, but the timeline has precluded this. 

We do recognize the nature of pressures experienced by regional depository libraries, in line with 

the stated purpose of the current study you are undertaking. They include: 

1. increasing pressure on physical space for collections 

2. increasing interest in providing services based on digital collections 

3. increasing need to balance processing and access to digital collections with processing, access 

to, and management of legacy paper collections 

4. the need for collaborative approaches to managing legacy paper collections across both 

regional and partial collections, including expedited "needs & offers" procedures that might underlie 

such efforts 

5. the overall situation about multi-state repository collections 

6. fiscal pressures on staff, facilities, and the transition to digital services 

ACRL believes that collaborative work supports libraries’ ongoing strategies for balancing digital 

and tangible resources from the government and from all other sources as well. We understand at 

the same time that many people in the library community are concerned about the long term quality 

of government information services, and ACRL is convinced that the quality of services associated 

with collaborative efforts may be even stronger. 
In ACRL’s June 26, 2007, letter reacting to the guidelines for shared regional depository libraries, 

we noted: “Flexibility and simplicity are critical to the success of rethinking models for housing and 

delivering government information to our various constituents.” In the case of the University of 

Kansas and the University of Nebraska, they are constrained by the interpretation of the current 

statute. We support the solution they proposed, believing regional Federal Depository Libraries can 

develop effective models for cooperation and future collaboration that serve their users well. 

ACRL is a proponent of reconsidering Title 44 so that it ensures excellent access to government 

information while allowing for innovations as libraries work to provide this service. Regional 

depository libraries are self-funded and voluntary participants in the Federal Depository Library 

Program. They play a critical role in providing public access to government information, and we 

support allowing them flexibility to collaborate, innovate, and experiment in order to thrive. 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide comment as you conduct your study on the 

condition of and factors influencing the success of regional Federal Depository Libraries. We urge 

you to consider any information obtained through this current study period as only a first step and 

to continue exploring the issues in more depth over the next several months. 

Sincerely, 

Julie Todaro 

ACRL President, 2007-2008 

Co-signed, 

Pamela Bluh 

ALCTS President, 2007-2008 

(The Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) is the national association 

for nearly 5,000 information providers who work in collections and technical services, such as 

acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, preservation and continuing resources in digital 

and print formats. ALCTS is a division of the American Library Association.) 

and 

Sara Kelly Johns 

AASL President, 2007-2008 

(The American Association of School Librarians (AASL), a division of the American Library 

Association, promotes the improvement and extension of library media services in elementary and 

secondary schools as a means of strengthening the total education program. Its mission is to 

advocate excellence, facilitate change and develop leaders in the school library media field.)

Upload Comments: No file selected for upload

Page 2 of 2
21 Dupont Circle

Washington, DC 20036

202 296 2296 telephone

202 872 0884 fax

http://www.arl.org/

May 12, 2008

Mr. Richard G. Davis

Superintendent of Documents

Director of Library Services and 

Content Management

U.S. Government Printing Office

Ms. Cynthia Etkin

Sr. Program Planning Specialist

Office of the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

732 North Capitol Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20401 

Dear Mr. Davis and Ms. Etkin,

This letter is submitted on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries 

(ARL) regarding the GPO request for information on the conditions of regional 

Federal Depository Libraries (FDLs). ARL is pleased to provide input to GPO’s 

effort to better understand the environment within which these libraries operate. 

Twenty-three of the 52 regional FDLs are members of ARL. In addition, the 

majority of U.S. ARL members are selective FDLs. As a consequence, ARL and its 

members have extensive knowledge and experience in regional and selective 

federal depository issues thus are well positioned to speak to the issues raised by 

the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP). 

Soliciting input from the community, evaluating and analyzing data and 

information concerning the changes in library practices, services, technology 

trends and user information needs within an extremely short time frame presents 

a significant challenge to GPO in completing this study. Given the complexity of 

these issues, ARL hopes that GPO will continue to collect data concerning 

regional FDLs so that current information is available to GPO, the JCP and others. 

These will be helpful as all stakeholders consider possible changes to the FDLP 

structure. 

The Depository Library Act of 1962 established the authority for regional 

FDLs. Library and information services have changed dramatically since that 

time. The introduction of digital technologies and the Internet have transformed 

libraries. These technologies have allowed libraries to experiment and develop 

new services, and importantly, these advances allow libraries to engage in 

extensive collaboration. Resource sharing programs, sharing of expertise, and 

cooperative efforts are the hallmark of the library community. Within the FDLP, 

libraries have participated in in-state and multi-state cooperative initiatives. The 
first shared regional federal depository library was established in 1968 with 

others following in subsequent years. There are now eight multi-state regional 

federal depositories and widespread cooperation via selective housing 

agreements. For example, in Tennessee, FDLs across the state engage in extensive 

selective housing agreements and in South Carolina, Clemson and the University 

of South Carolina (USC) have an agreement with the USC Law Library. Such 

agreements permit libraries to direct resources to selected clientele, better manage 

space, and acquire needed information. 

Regional FDLs seek to build on these successful collaborations for a number 

of reasons. First, the size of these collections places ever increasing pressures on 

these libraries. Selective housing agreements have relieved some, but by no 

means all, of the pressures on FDLs. The use of the tangible collections is 

diminishing because users prefer electronic access and because most regional 

libraries lack complete online access to pre-1976 materials. FDLs, in most cases, 

cannot utilize remote storage facilities for these documents as they lack cataloging 

records. As more users seek government information in digital formats, FDLs 

face new fiscal pressures in maintaining the tangible collections while at the same 

time, investing in staff, technologies and new digital services. ARL believes that 

resources devoted to maintaining 52 redundant regional legacy collections could 

be better used by supporting improved access and preservation services for print 

and digital collections. There would be enormous benefits and enhanced public 

access through utilization of effective digital services in lieu of maintaining 52 

redundant, not fully accessible legacy collections.

There are several key criteria that ARL believes are essential components of 

successful collaborations between and among regional FDLs. 

• Flexibility: in order to be pertinent to the diversity of interests, regional 

FDLs should be given greater latitude in the management of their 

collections. This would spur new innovative service approaches and

permit these libraries to manage their collection in the most effective and 

efficient manner.

• Access: improved bibliographic access to these legacy collections would 

vastly increase public access to these collections and also relieve some 

space pressures.

• Preservation: FDLs with GPO need to develop and implement a 

preservation strategy for the tangible collections. New cooperative 

preservation ventures are needed as maintaining 52 redundant 

collections is not a viable preservation strategy. At the same time, 

exploring preservation strategies for the growing digital collections 

should be undertaken given the fragility of digital resources.

The conclusions of the Congressional Research Service memorandum, "GPO 

Authority Over Regional Depository Libraries," call into question long standing 

Memorandum of Understanding(s) (MOUs) and collaborative arrangements 

amongst and between FDLs. Indeed, if taken to its logical conclusion, all selective 
housing agreements and shared and multi-state regional FDLs would not be valid 

as the memorandum states --...that each RDL, in additional to fulfilling the 

requirements for depository libraries, must "retain at least one copy" of all 

Government publications..." We encourage GPO to see the necessity of 

maintaining and building upon existing cooperative initiatives in order for the 

FDLP to continue to serve the public. ARL believes that the program must 

support greater resource sharing and cooperative ventures such as the KansasNebraska shared regional proposal in order to be meaningful and fiscally 

achievable in the years ahead.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please let me know if 

there is additional information that I can provide

Sincerely,

Associate Executive Director, 

Federal Relations and Information Policy
AS S O C I A T I O N O F S O U T H E A S T E R N RE S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S

1438 WE S T P E ACHT R E E ST R E E T , N.W., SUI T E 200

AT L ANTA , GEO RGI A 30309-2955

V O I C E : 404.892.0943 T O L L - F R E E : 800.999.8558 F AX : 404.892.787 9

WE B : HT T P :// W WW . AS ER L . O RG

May 13, 2008 

Richard G. Davis, Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Mail Stop: IDCC 

732 N. Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401 

RE: ASERL Response to GPO’s Request for Information on the Condition of Regional Depositories 

Dear Mr. Davis: 

I am happy to provide the following feedback to your request for public comment on the conditions 

facing Federal Regional Depository Libraries. 

As you know, approximately a year ago the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) 

launched a program within our membership to explore possible options for combining strengths within 

the Regionals in the Southeast to allow for improved access and services to the public in a manner that 

would improve sustainability in the long term. 

Our exploratory program takes advantage of the experiences of long-standing in-state and multistate/territory Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) collaborations within ASERL and other areas 

of the country. These include the shared Regional process used in South Carolina, and the Regional 

services provided to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico by the University of Florida. There are also 

numerous other examples of multi-state/territory FDLP programs that are successfully operating today, 

such as Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia; Washington-Alaska; Maine-New HampshireVermont; Connecticut-Rhode Island; Minnesota-South Dakota, and Colorado-Wyoming. We believe 

these shared systems provide important guidance for successful and sustainable operational models for 

the future. 

For us it is clear that today, federal Regional depository libraries – individually and collectively – face 

great challenges to their ability to deliver effectively a high level of service to the federal Selective 

depository libraries and the public in their regions. Collaboration is key to strengthening the ties among 

Regionals, and between Regionals and the Selectives they serve. Formal collaboration among FDLP 
libraries – within single states, and among multiple states – is vital to the future success of the FDLP 

program as together we respond to the rapidly-changing environment for libraries and information 

services. Congress and the Government Printing Office (GPO) must encourage and support these 

collaborations. Specifically, we believe the following four areas to be of key importance in supporting 

more collaborative Regional depository relationships: 

Access: Support collaborative efforts to catalog Regional depository library collections. 

No Regional depository collection is fully cataloged to the item level with holdings indicated in the 

national database. This lack of cataloging significantly hinders the ability of the American public to

identify and access government publications, thereby defeating much of the purpose of the FDLP. 

Centrally coordinated, comprehensive cataloging services would greatly strengthen the FDLP by 

improving public discovery of otherwise-unidentifiable materials. 

Regionals are currently attempting to collaborate by sharing information on retrospective cataloging 

projects in their institutions, but they would greatly benefit from a renewed emphasis on cataloging of 

these older materials by the federal government. Comprehensive cataloging of Regional depository 

library collections would also aid the work prescribed in Title 44 Section 1912 – “assistance for 

depository libraries in the disposal of unwanted Government publications” – thus allowing Regionals 

and Selectives to use online catalogs to improve resource sharing activities and streamline the disposal of 

unwanted duplicate copies. 

Preservation: Support collaborative efforts to develop an appropriate amount of redundancy in both 

tangible and electronic collections. 

The goal of the FDLP is to provide no-fee access to current and historic government information, 

regardless of format, yet there is no distributed preservation strategy in place for the born-digital 

materials that increasingly make up the FDLP collection. To ensure that today's electronic government 

publications are freely available in the future, the GPO should collaborate with FDLP libraries to 

implement a distributed preservation strategy for electronic materials. 

On the other hand, Congress and the GPO have attempted to ensure the long-term survival of tangible 

government information by distributing multiple copies of all printed or reformatted materials to each of 

the 53 Regional depository libraries and prescribing that they be retained. However, having a single 

strategy – wide distribution of multiple copies – will not guarantee preservation of print materials. We 

have been able by serendipity to keep usable copies of most government publications, but it is critical 

that GPO collaborate with FDLP libraries to provide a more comprehensive, efficient, and formalized 

shared preservation strategy for government information. 

Flexibility: Support continued flexibility for Regionals to manage their collections. 

Regional depository libraries must have flexibility in managing their collections. Current technology

allows for free and easy information sharing among libraries anywhere in the world. We strongly 

believe GPO must similarly allow FDLP libraries the option of exploring collaborative collection 

management partnerships across state and territory lines. 

Also, as noted above, the current network of Regional depository libraries is overly redundant. 

Increasing numbers of federal publications are accessible online from anywhere, lessening the need for

public access to tangible collections. We have more print copies of individual government publications 

than we need either for accessibility or for preservation. Some of the expense used to maintain these

many print copies would be better spent providing better cataloging or preservation activities for the

items we retain. 
This need for flexibility also includes allowing for the continued use of preservation re-formatting to 

rescue and make accessible older materials. This process is used by many libraries for other, non-FDLP

materials, some of which are quite rare. Regionals need to manage their federal depository collections in 

the same way. 

Standards: Support collaborative efforts to define standards of service for Regional depository 

libraries. 

There is no standard for evaluating a Regional depository’s services. In many cases, services and access 

to Regional depository resources are dependent on individual librarians and other staff, leading to 

inconsistencies across institutions as staff and administrators come and go. Positions continue to blur as 

Regional depository coordinators are increasingly expected to perform other duties that are unrelated to 

depository operations. This makes education extremely important – both for new Regional depository 

coordinators and for Regional depository library administrators. Minimum standards should be 

developed, with input from the GPO, Regionals, and Selectives, and should be outlined in official FDLP

documentation. GPO should also regularly host orientation sessions for new Regional depository 

librarians to introduce new staff to the issues they will face during their tenure. 

We realize that participants in the FDLP are self-funded and voluntary, which makes it difficult to 

impose standards. However, Regional depository libraries and GPO should work toward consistent 

service across states, so Selectives can know what to expect from their Regionals. 

Summary 

In closing, ASERL libraries are and have been strong and very active supporters of the FDLP program. 

We clearly support the goals and all-American values espoused by Title 44. However, we believe that 

this same legislation which restructured the FDLP program – written more than 40 years ago – does not 

account for the vast service improvements permitted by current-day technologies and the very strong 

multi-state partnerships that exist between libraries today. We urge GPO to explore avenues that allow 

FDLP libraries the flexibility to manage their collections in ways that are sustainable given today's 

technological and financial realities and also improve public access to federal publications. 

With thanks for your time and consideration of our input. 

Best regards, 

John Burger 

Executive Director 
Alliance Depository Librarians 

April 25, 2008 

James F. Williams, 111 

Dean of Libraries 

University of Colorado-Boulder 

184 UCB 

Boulder, Colorado 80309-0 1 84 

Dear Dean Williams: 

We, as members of the selective federal depository cornmunity of Colorado, believe that it is the 

responsibility of all depository libraries in the state of Colorado to ensure, to the best of their 

abilities, that Colorado citizens continue to have access to US government information now and 

in the future. A strong Regional Depository Library (RDL) is crucial to this task. 

The RDL at the University of Colorado at Boulder is one of the strongest RDLs in the nation, 

providing excellent support for selective depository librarians on an ongoing basis as well as 

through special initiatives such as the IMLS grant "Government Information for the 21 st 

Century." The selective depository community of Colorado desires that these strengths continue. 

The Report to the Congressional Joint Committee on Printing on the current state of regional 

depository libraries, due in June 2008, provides an opportunity for assessment of RDI, activities 

and selective depository librarians encourage a thoughtful discussion of the responses to the 

report. A positive outcome can only benefit the future mission of Colorado depository libraries 

and the Federal Depository Library Program as a whole. 

Among the services provided by the RDL to the selectives, several deserve highlighting: 

Community of Experts: In nlany ways the RDL serves as the local voice of the Government 

Printing Office (GPO), providiiig interpretations, explanations, and updates of policies and 

regulations. Under the RDL's leadership, the Government Publications Interest Group (GoPIG) 

presents opportunitics for depository librarians and staff to exchange ideas, share best practices 

and knowledge about collection strengtl~s and areas of expertisc. 

Training: For inany years the RDL has coordinated training on important resources and issues 

through forums such as the nioi~thly GoPIG meetings. the COGOPUB-L listserv. and the above 

mentioned "Government Information for the 2 1 st Century" grant, which extends training 

opportunities to non-documents librarians. Selective depository librarians have been encouraged 


APPENDIX D: GUIDELINES 

Establishing Shared Regional Depository Libraries, August 28, 2007 

DRAFT
DRAFT

Guidelines

 August 28, 2007

Establishing Shared Regional Depository Libraries 

The provisions of chapter 19 of Title 44, U.S.C., prescribe a structure for the Federal Depository 

Library Program (FDLP) consisting of regional and selective libraries, and set the conditions for the 

operation of the Program as administered by GPO. 

Within this statutory framework, different models of sharing resources and responsibilities between 

regional and selective libraries within the states they serve have been implemented over the years, 

with GPO approval. These include different models of intra-state sharing between regional and 

selective libraries, and for sharing of some services between regional depository libraries in one 

state and selective depository libraries in an adjacent or near-by state where no regional library 

exists. 

In recent years, technological innovations and the online information environment have made it 

possible for a number of depository libraries to participate in multi-state collaborations for rapid 

interlibrary loan and other services. Technological innovation and the online environment have also 

made it possible to develop models for sharing resources and responsibilities between regional 

depositories in different states and the selective libraries they support. These guidelines have been 

developed to assist libraries in planning for single state and inter-state shared regional libraries. 

Both intra-state and inter-state shared regional models can offer practical and economical means to 

improve public access while achieving operational efficiencies for the participating libraries. These 

guidelines encourage libraries to use an open and collaborative planning process and to ensure that 

proposals submitted to GPO for approval are developed with the expectation of maintaining or 

improving public access to the depository collections. Proposals for shared regional collections and 

services within a single state can be approved by GPO. Proposals for shared regional collections 

and services involving two or more states will require approval of the Joint Committee on Printing 

because they involve the sharing of resources and responsibilities outside the jurisdictions the 

libraries were originally designated to serve. 

Any arrangement for the sharing of the resources and responsibilities of regional depository 

libraries must be delineated in a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by 

representatives of the participating institutions. While GPO is not a signatory of the agreement, the 

MOU must be shared with and reviewed by Superintendent of Documents prior to signing and 

implementation. This is to make sure there are no conflicts between the provisions of the MOU and 
DRAFT

Title 44 of the United States Code and other FDLP policies. The GPO review also will ensure that 

all regional obligations for access, collections, and services will continue under the new agreement. 

A copy of the signed MOU should be transmitted to GPO. If the arrangement is intra-state, the 

participating regionals must notify the congressional delegation(s) of their state(s) of the new 

arrangement. If the arrangement is inter-state, the regionals must seek designation in accordance 

with 44 U.S.C. §1912. Once a letter from the Senators is received, GPO will request formal 

approval from the Joint Committee on Printing for the MOU to be implemented. The Designation 

Handbook for Federal Depository Libraries can provide guidance. It is on the FDLP Desktop at 

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/desig.html> and it was distributed to depository 

libraries as GP 3.29:D 44/3. 

Guidelines

The following guidelines outline specific areas that need to be addressed in order to facilitate the 

process of establishing a successful shared regional. As new regional agreements are implemented 

and reviewed, additional guidelines and best practices will be added. 

COMMUNICATION

 Consult with selective depository libraries in the state(s) and assure their concerns are 

addressed prior to signing an MOU. 

 Keep the selectives in the participating state(s) informed through regular communications 

during the transition and implementation. 

 Confer with and keep GPO abreast of plans and implementation schedules and activities. 

 Obtain the support of the administrations from all participating libraries. 

 Obtain the support of the state library commission or comparable authority. 

 Review state plan(s) and revise accordingly. 

COLLECTIONS

 Identify which regional is responsible for what part of the collections (date and SuDoc 

ranges). 

 Specify where regional collections will be housed. 

 Include responsibility of archiving and long-term security of the collection, as covered in 

the Instructions to Depository Libraries 

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/instructions/index.html>.

 Address a contingency plan for maintaining the regional collection(s) should the MOU be 

terminated or modified by one or more of the parties. 

ACCESS & SERVICES

 Address how this agreement will maintain or, preferably, improve service to the public, 

including access to the tangible collection. 

 Address how selectives, the public, and others will identify regional holdings (e.g., shared 

catalog, holdings of libraries participating in the MOU reflected in all their catalogs). 
DRAFT

 Provide information as to how, where, and when depository resources can be accessed and 

obtained by the user. 

 Address how participating institutions will retrieve materials from the regional collection 

and deliver to users (e.g., interlibrary loan, document delivery). 

 Determine how services for the public and support services for selective depositories will be 

conducted (e.g., reference assistance, disposition lists, training). 

MOU MUST INCLUDE: 

 Assurance that the agreement will maintain or, preferably, improve public access and 

service, and the steps that will be taken to measure this activity. 

 Clear statement indicating the allocation of responsibilities for collections and services 

among the libraries participating in the MOU. 

 Clear statement indicating what services selective depositories will receive from each 

library participating in the MOU. 

 Clear statement that all regional requirements/guidelines of the FDLP continue to be in 

effect. 

 Provision for regular reviews of the arrangement that includes feedback from selective 

depository libraries. 

 Procedures for modifying or terminating the agreement. 

 Provisions for disposition or transfer of materials in the event of termination, or significant 

modification, of the MOU that alter responsibilities for the collection. 

 Contact information for the regional documents coordinators. 

 Signatures of the library directors, from all libraries participating in the MOU.