[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39202-39207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19469]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION


Electronic Records Work Group Draft Report; Comments Requested

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice contains a working draft of the Electronic Records 
Work Group's proposed report to the Archivist outlining the Work 
Group's recommendations and the effort that went into developing the 
recommendations and implementation strategy. This draft has been 
modified slightly from the June draft that was posted on the Web and 
sent to agencies for review. This draft reflects the Work Group's 
decisions to use the term ``electronic source record'' to describe the 
records created using office automation applications and to place the 
discussion of program and administrative records, formerly in draft 
Appendix B, in the introductions to draft Appendixes C and D where they 
are most pertinent. For purposes of this review, we have not changed 
the Appendix designations that were used in the June draft and have, 
therefore, reserved Appendix B for a discussion in the final report of 
the public and Federal comments received on the draft products.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent electronically to the e-mail address 
<<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#432431307173032231202b716d2d2231226d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9aebbbafbf989a8bbaaa1fbe7a7a8bba8e7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>>. We ask that lengthy attachments be sent in 
ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/5.2, or MS Word 6.0 format. If you do not have 
access to e-mail, comments may be mailed to Electronic Records Work 
Group (NPOL), Room 4100, 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001, 
or faxed to 301-713-7270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller at 301-713-7110, ext. 
229.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft report appears at the end of this 
notice.

    Dated: July 16, 1998.
Lewis J. Bellardo,
Deputy Archivist of the United States.

Draft Electronic Records Work Group Report to the Archivist of the 
United States

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
Work Group Approach
Recommendations of the Electronic Records Work Group
Rejected Options
Future Steps
Appendix A--Electronic Records Work Group membership
Appendix B--[Reserved]
Appendix C--Proposal for developing agency records schedules that 
include office automation records
Appendix D--Proposal to revise the entire GRS to cover all formats 
of the administrative records included therein
Appendix E--Proposed General Records Schedule, Information 
Technology Records

Executive Summary

    The Electronic Records Work Group (Work Group) is an interagency 
group formed by the Archivist of the United States on November 21, 
1997, to review the 1995 version of General Records Schedule (GRS) 20, 
which was declared null and void by the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia. (That ruling is on appeal.) Specifically, the 
Work Group was asked to identify appropriate areas for revision, 
explore alternatives for authorizing disposition of electronic records, 
identify methods and techniques that are available with current 
technology to manage and provide access to electronic records, and 
recommend practical solutions for the scheduling and disposition of 
electronic records. The Archivist also gave the Work Group several 
guiding principles and policies, including: program records should not 
be scheduled in the GRS, electronic records should be scheduled as 
series, and solutions must be workable.
    The Work Group membership was drawn from staff of the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and other Federal agencies 
with records management and/or electronic records expertise under the 
oversight of Deputy Archivist Lewis Bellardo. Michael Miller, the 
Director of NARA's Modern Records Programs, serves as the group leader. 
In addition, electronic records management experts from state archives 
and records programs, the National Archives of Canada, academia, and 
records management consulting firms serve as consultants to the Work 
Group on a pro bono basis.
    In conducting its review and developing the recommendations 
contained in this report, the Work Group aggressively sought input from 
Federal agencies, other interested

[[Page 39203]]

individuals and groups, and the general public. In addition to the 
public meetings held on December 19, 1997, and January 29, April 7, and 
May 18, 1998, NARA maintained a web page devoted to the work of the 
Electronic Records Work Group (http://www.nara.gov/records/grs20/); 
published public notices in the Federal Register; sent memos to Federal 
agency records officers asking for their comments at various points in 
the process; solicited comments from subscribers to the Archives 
Listserv and Records Management Listserv; and invited comments from 
professional organizations, such as the American Historical Association 
(AHA), Organization of American Historians (OAH), Society of American 
Archivists (SAA), National Association of Government Archives and 
Records Administrators (NAGARA), Association of Records Managers and 
Administrators International (ARMA), and the National Coordinating 
Committee for the Promotion of History, and from other individuals with 
an interest or expertise in electronic records.
    By March 1998 the group had drafted a number of options to be 
explored to replace GRS 20 disposition authorities, including 
authorities for the deletion of program and administrative electronic 
mail and word processing records, and for system maintenance and 
operations records. The group also explored options for electronic 
maintenance of electronic source records (records that remain in word 
processing and electronic mail and other office automation systems 
after a record has been produced for incorporation into an agency 
recordkeeping system) on an interim basis prior to the installation of 
proper electronic recordkeeping capability. After carefully considering 
the public and consultant comments on the preliminary options, the Work 
Group determined that there was only one feasible alternative approach 
to GRS 20, and that was to schedule the records at the series level.
    The two other options initially proposed as possible approaches for 
managing electronic source records generated with electronic mail and 
word processing software were found to have significant flaws. Both 
options (to establish a uniform minimum retention period or to develop 
retention standards based on an individual's position in the agency's 
hierarchy) failed to meet requirements for the proper maintenance of 
records. Neither provided for proper organization or categorization of 
records to facilitate access. In both cases, disposition appeared to be 
based on factors other than business needs. The group could not 
identify supplemental measures that could be taken in conjunction with 
either of these options to make them useful.
    The Work Group, therefore, recommends to the Archivist of the 
United States a three-part approach for scheduling the electronic 
source records that previously were authorized for disposal under GRS 
20, items 13, 14, and 15. The Work Group's recommendations also address 
other concerns with the 1995 edition of GRS 20, i.e., authorization for 
the disposition of electronic source records produced with other office 
automation systems such as presentation software and electronic 
calendaring software, and authorization for the disposal of electronic 
records that correspond to the records covered in GRS 1-16, 18 and 23.
    <rt-triang> First, agencies must schedule their program and unique 
administrative records in all formats. As part of its report, the Work 
Group proposes an implementation strategy to assist Federal agencies 
and NARA in accomplishing this task.
    <rt-triang> Second, the Work Group recommends that NARA modify 
General Records Schedules (GRS) 1-16, 18, and 23 to authorize the 
deletion of electronic source records, including those generated with 
office automation systems, that correspond to administrative records 
covered by those GRS, after a recordkeeping copy has been produced.
    <rt-triang> Third, the Work Group recommends that NARA develop a 
new General Records Schedule that covers only systems administration 
(or systems management) and operations records, such as files related 
to system use and maintenance, backup tapes, and other records (e.g., 
system user access records) used in managing information systems 
throughout their life cycle. This new GRS would cover records in all 
media.

The Work Group originally conducted a preliminary review of issues 
facing agencies that want to move toward electronic recordkeeping, but 
determined that working simultaneously on the scheduling approach and 
the electronic recordkeeping approach was not feasible given the 
deadlines and the complexity of electronic recordkeeping issues that 
need to be studied. The Work Group recommends that the Archivist 
establish a follow-on group that continues to work on electronic 
recordkeeping. This follow-on group should recommend guidance on 
electronic recordkeeping for Federal agencies.

Introduction

    The Archivist of the United States established an interagency 
Electronic Records Work Group on November 21, 1997. In his charge to 
the Work Group, the Archivist asked the group to:
    <rt-triang> Review the current version of General Records Schedule 
(GRS) 20;
    <rt-triang> Identify appropriate areas for revision;
    <rt-triang> Explore alternatives for authorizing disposition of 
electronic records;
    <rt-triang> Identify methods and techniques that are available with 
current technology to manage and provide access to electronic records; 
and
    <rt-triang> Recommend practical solutions for the scheduling and 
disposition of electronic records.
    The Work Group was asked to develop and weigh advantages of various 
options and assess the practicality and feasibility of each in light of 
the availability of electronic records management tools and other 
resources. The Archivist asked the Work Group to keep in mind the 
following working assumptions in performing its work:
    <rt-triang> General records schedules should focus on 
administrative ``housekeeping'' records, not program records, and there 
should be guidance in place to distinguish between them.
    <rt-triang> Records may be transferred from one medium to another; 
however, key information about those records must be preserved as part 
of the transfer process.
    <rt-triang> Electronic records should be scheduled as series, not 
classes of media.
    <rt-triang> Solutions to electronic records challenges must be 
workable and be something agencies can and will use.

    The Work Group membership was drawn from NARA staff and 
representatives of other Federal agencies with records management and/
or electronic records expertise under the oversight of Deputy Archivist 
Lewis Bellardo. Michael Miller, the Director of NARA's Modern Records 
Programs, serves as the group leader. In addition, electronic records 
management experts from state archives and records programs, the 
National Archives of Canada, academia, and records management 
consulting firms serve as consultants to the Work Group on a pro bono 
basis. A list of the Work Group members and consultants is provided in 
Appendix A to this report.
    Throughout this report, the term ``electronic source record'' has 
been used to describe the electronic record that resides on an agency's 
electronic mail, word processing, or other office

[[Page 39204]]

automation systems, i.e., the ``copy'' that formerly was authorized for 
disposal by GRS 20 after a recordkeeping copy was produced. This report 
addresses the disposition of the electronic records which are the 
sources of the records filed in the agency's recordkeeping system. 
Therefore these records are designated as ``electronic source 
records.'' Agencies need to recognize that records created using word 
processing, e-mail and other software on office automation systems must 
be scheduled according to the same requirements which apply to all 
records. NARA will authorize the disposal of electronic source records 
in office automation systems only when copies of these records have 
been captured in a recordkeeping system.
    A main thrust of this report is to provide guidance and techniques 
to agencies for scheduling electronic source records that are created 
using word processing, electronic mail, and other end-user software. 
These records typically are stored in desktop and laptop computer 
systems and in networked servers. In the modern Federal office 
environment, most staff members are provided with generic software 
tools, such as word processing and e-mail, which they use to generate 
electronic records related to their work, regardless of the nature of 
the work. These records need to be filed in a recordkeeping system so 
that they will be retrievable with other related records such as 
attachments, the corresponding incoming or outgoing record, and, if 
part of a case file, the forms and other records that comprise that 
file. The complete files, and individual records within them, need to 
be accessible to other staff members who need them in the course of 
their work and in response to inquiries from the public. Failure to 
place electronic records generated as electronic mail messages, word 
processing files, and other office automation products in a 
recordkeeping system will result in files which are incomplete or 
unreliable. Consequently, these electronic source records must be 
copied to a recordkeeping system established by the agency for 
maintenance, use, and disposition.
    However, even after these records are placed in a recordkeeping 
system, a record remains on the originating system. These electronic 
source records, like other Federal records, can be destroyed (deleted 
from the office automation system) only with NARA's authorization. The 
Work Group proposes that NARA revise the GRS to provide governmentwide 
authorization for the disposition of electronic source records used to 
create the types of records covered by GRS 1-16, 18, and 23. Agencies 
must obtain authorization for disposition of all other electronic 
source records by submitting a schedule (Standard Form 115) to NARA.
    The Work Group considered using terms other than ``electronic 
source record'' but found them problematical. Some readers saw 
``electronic copy'' as implying nonrecord status. The term ``version'' 
is often used to distinguish between a paper record and the same record 
in electronic form. However, ``version'' is frequently used to describe 
a record that is an iteration of an earlier or later record. Hence, 
``version control'' may be a feature of a document management or 
electronic recordkeeping system, to distinguish between the first 
record produced and later variants of the same record.
    Conversely, the Work Group chose not to use the term ``duplicate'' 
because that term implies an exact match which may not exist. The 
electronic source record that resides in an individual's word 
processing directory or electronic mail box would be a duplicate of the 
record in the recordkeeping system only if the recordkeeping system 
were electronic and if all of the metadata produced by the word 
processing or electronic mail utility were transferred to the 
recordkeeping system. Because so many agencies are still maintaining 
paper files as their recordkeeping systems, use of the term 
``duplicate'' would be inappropriate.

Work Group Approach

    In conducting its review and developing the recommendation and 
products contained in this report, the Work Group made special efforts 
to engage the Federal community and the public in discussion of 
possible alternatives to the 1995 General Records Schedule 20, and to 
keep them informed of the Work Group's activities. A GRS 20 web page on 
NARA's Internet web site at <http://www.nara.gov/records/grs20/>, and a 
special e-mail address (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1176636223215170637279233f7f7063703f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0978283c2c0b091829398c2de9e918291de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>) was established. Posted 
on that web page were documents for public comment, meeting notices and 
agendas, summaries of public meetings, and other background materials 
relating to the Work Group and the Public Citizen v. Carlin litigation. 
Notices of public meetings and information about documents for public 
comment were published in the Federal Register. Information and 
requests for comment also were provided to Federal agency records 
officers through NARA memos and to subscribers of the Archives Listserv 
and Records Management Listserv through electronic messages.
    The Work Group's first public meeting was held on December 19, 
1997, at NARA's Archives II facility in College Park, MD, with one 
member and several consultants participating by teleconference. The 
purpose of the meeting was to bring the members of the Electronic 
Records Work Group and consultants together to outline the tasks and to 
answer questions concerning the logistics of the Work Group. The Work 
Group and consultants received a set of detailed preliminary issues 
proposed for discussion and other background materials. The list of 
preliminary issues was posted on the GRS 20 Page and also published for 
public comment in the Federal Register on December 24. Comments were 
received from Work Group members and consultants and a Federal agency 
contractor by the January 9, 1998, deadline. In an effort to obtain 
wider input on the list of issues and options the Work Group should 
consider, a second public meeting was held on January 29, 1998, at the 
National Archives Building in Washington, DC. More than 70 Federal 
agency staff and interested members of the public attended. Two Federal 
employees provided formal remarks, and a number of individuals, most 
from Federal agencies, made comments from the audience.
    Immediately following the public meeting on January 29 and 
continuing on February 9, 1998, the NARA members and Federal members of 
the Electronic Records Work Group held working sessions at the National 
Archives Building in Washington, DC, to discuss alternatives for GRS 
20. The members discussed the framework in which they were working, 
ranging from the goals of the group to the current status of electronic 
records management in the Federal government. The members also 
discussed the comments submitted by members of the public and 
brainstormed on possible alternatives to GRS 20. From these comments 
and ideas, the Work Group developed three possible short-term 
approaches for scheduling electronic records for further analysis and 
review. These were described in the March 12, 1998, paper ``Preliminary 
Options for Replacing GRS 20.'' The Work Group's consultants, who had 
reviewed a draft of the paper, were asked to provide their views on 
enabling requirements and related issues for specific options, and to 
comment on any other aspect of the paper. Work Group members also 
developed comments on specific options.
    The Preliminary Options paper laid out three options. The first 
option, based on a traditional approach to

[[Page 39205]]

scheduling records by series, had three complementary sections for 
scheduling program and administrative records, revising GRS 20 to cover 
only systems records, and revising the remaining GRS to provide 
disposal authority for source records not needed for recordkeeping. The 
second and third options offered alternative interim approaches for 
handling the disposition of electronic source records that remain on 
electronic mail and word processing systems. Option 2 involved saving 
electronic source records for a specific minimum period of time and 
option 3 proposed saving the electronic source records created or 
received by individuals holding specific positions within an 
organization.
    Public input on the options paper and suggestions for additional 
approaches were sought in a variety of ways. The paper was posted on 
the GRS 20 Page as <http://www.nara.gov/records/grs20/opt312.html> on 
March 14, and a notice announcing the availability of the paper and 
requesting comments was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 
1998. NARA sent a memo to Federal agency records officers and 
information management officials on March 13 (NWM 06-98) inviting 
comments on the paper. Announcements were sent to the Archives Listserv 
and Records Management Listserv, and messages were sent by e-mail or 
fax to individuals interested in electronic records issues and to 
professional organizations, including the American Historical 
Association (AHA), Organization of American Historians (OAH), Society 
of American Archivists (SAA), National Association of Government 
Archivists and Records Administrators (NAGARA), Association of Records 
Managers and Administrators International (ARMA), and the National 
Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. Comments were 
requested by March 31.
    Public comments were received from eight individuals and the Small 
Agency Council Records Officers Committee. None suggested additional 
approaches although several commented on aspects of the entire GRS and 
on GRS 20 coverage. Option 1 was generally preferred.
    Most of the Work Group's consultants submitted comments on all of 
the options and issues. No other short term options were identified. 
Several comments offered other approaches to appraising records (a 
systems or macro approach, the Canadian model, the Pittsburgh Project 
``warrant'' concept). Given the time frame that the Work Group had to 
develop its recommendations, these approaches were not pursued; 
however, they deserve further review later. The consultants found 
options 2 and 3 problematic.
    Copies of all of the comments received were circulated to the 
Federal members of the Work Group and to the consultants prior to an 
all-day public meeting on April 7 at the Office of Thrift Supervision 
Amphitheater in Washington, DC. All but two Work Group members attended 
the meeting, as did five of the 8 consultants. The meeting was called 
specifically to receive comments from the ERWG's consultants on the 
March 12, 1998, Options Paper, but the meeting was opened to the public 
and approximately ten persons observed all or part of the meeting. Most 
of the consultant comments and discussion focused on Option 1, and they 
agreed that options 2 and 3 lacked merit. No additional options were 
identified.
    The Work Group met in a working session on April 17 to evaluate 
further the written comments and discussions at the April 7 meeting and 
to make assignments for developing products to implement Option 1. 
Several consultants were asked to contribute to those products and 
other consultant and agency/public comments were incorporated in the 
approaches where feasible. A fourth public meeting was held on May 18, 
1998, at the National Archives Building in Washington, DC, to brief 
Federal agencies and the public on Work Group's progress and to obtain 
public comments and questions. In addition to the Federal Register 
notice and memo to records officers and IRM officials announcing the 
meeting, invitations were sent to the Chief Information Officers (CIO) 
Council, plaintiffs in the Public Citizen versus Carlin litigation, and 
other organizations and individuals. More than 200 people attended the 
meeting and provided a number of comments and questions.
    As the Work Group discussed in the May 18 public meeting, the 
report and its appendixes were sent to Federal agencies for comment in 
June and a copy of the report, without the appendixes, was posted on 
the GRS 20 Page at that time. The Federal members of the Work Group met 
on July 13 to discuss changes and clarifications needed in the report 
and appendixes that would be published in the Federal Register for 
public and formal Federal agency comment the week of July 20. The Work 
Group and its consultants will review the comments received and prepare 
a final report and implementation plan to the Archivist of the United 
States in time for his review and approval before September 30, 1998.

Recommendations of the Electronic Records Work Group

    The Electronic Records Work Group recommends to the Archivist of 
the United States that NARA take the following actions to replace the 
1995 General Records Schedule 20:
    1. NARA should instruct agencies to schedule their program and 
unique administrative records in all formats.
    On March 10, 1998, NARA issued such instructions in NARA Bulletin 
98-02, Disposition of Electronic Records, for new and revised series 
that are submitted to NARA for approval. NARA should issue instructions 
for scheduling the electronic source records generated with office 
automation systems that were authorized for disposal under the 1995 GRS 
20.
    If the scheduling process to replace the disposition authority 
formerly provided by GRS 20 is to move ahead expeditiously, it is 
essential that the process must both minimize the burden on Federal 
agencies as much as possible and continue to provide the public an 
opportunity to comment on the proposed schedules through the usual 
Federal Register process. In carrying out the proposed scheduling 
process, agencies must perform a series-based review of their 
schedules, NARA must appraise proposed dispositions on a series basis, 
and the public must have the opportunity to comment on proposed 
dispositions on a series basis. However, the Work Group does not 
believe that it is necessary, at this time, for agencies to submit 
individual schedule items for these electronic source records series by 
series. As agency records schedules are revised or amended, the 
disposition authorities for these electronic source records will be 
integrated into the agency disposition manual at the series level.
    The Work Group has developed Appendix C to facilitate 
implementation of this recommendation. Appendix C proposes guidance to 
agencies on how to develop records disposition schedules to replace the 
dispositions formerly provided by GRS 20 and outlines in a general 
manner how those proposed schedules will be processed by NARA.
    2. NARA should modify General Records Schedules (GRS) 1-16, 18, and 
23 to authorize the deletion of source records corresponding to the 
administrative records covered by those GRS that are not needed for 
recordkeeping purposes, after a recordkeeping copy has been produced.

[[Page 39206]]

    Proposed language and a discussion of the recommendation is 
provided in Appendix D, along with definitions of ``program records'' 
and ``administrative records.'' The definitions should be added to the 
general records management definitions in NARA regulations at 36 CFR 
1220.14, and where appropriate in other NARA records management 
guidance.
    3. NARA should revise GRS 20 disposition authorities to cover only 
systems administration (or systems management) and operations records, 
such as files related to system use and maintenance; backup tapes; and 
other records (e.g., system user access records) used in managing 
information systems throughout their life cycle. The new schedule 
should cover only administrative records, but should cover them in all 
media.
    A proposed draft general records schedule is provided in Appendix 
E. This draft has been modeled after the New York State Archives and 
Records Administration (SARA) General Administrative Schedule's section 
on Electronic Data Processing, but adapted to reflect the mandatory 
nature of the General Records Schedules. (The New York General 
Administrative Schedule is advisory and provides minimum retention 
periods.) The New York SARA approach was developed with the assistance 
of the State government data processing community. The Work Group 
emphasizes that this draft revised general records schedule will need 
to be reviewed carefully by Federal agency CIO's and their information 
technology (IT) organizations to ensure that it accurately describes 
Federal IT records and includes only temporary administrative records 
that can be scheduled by a common disposition authority in a GRS.

Rejected Options

    In early deliberations, the Electronic Records Work Group 
considered two other options for maintaining electronic source records 
used to generate some or all program records.
    Those options, numbers 2 and 3 in the Preliminary Options Paper 
dated March 12, 1998, were:
    <bullet> Establish a uniform minimum retention period for 
electronic records currently covered by GRS 20, items 13 and 14
    <bullet> Develop retention standards for electronic records 
currently covered by GRS 20, items 13 and 14, based on an individual's 
position in agency hierarchy
    These options were proposed as possible approaches for maintaining 
electronic source records of all or some of the most important agency 
program records created or maintained on e-mail and word processing 
systems. In discussing these two options, Work Group members came to 
the conclusion that they were significantly flawed. Both options failed 
to meet requirements for the proper maintenance of records. Neither 
provided for proper organization or categorization of records to 
facilitate access. In both cases, disposition appeared to be based on 
factors other than business needs. (Business needs refers to an 
agency's need to conduct its business, maintain a record of its 
essential activities and decisions for its own use, support oversight 
and audit of those activities, and permit appropriate public access.) 
The Work Group could not identify supplemental measures that could be 
taken in conjunction with either of these options to make them useful.
    A significant concern with both approaches was that they might be 
viewed by agencies and the public as a satisfactory interim way to 
manage records electronically until the agencies have fully functioning 
electronic recordkeeping systems. Such electronic collections of mail 
and word processing records are incomplete, without proper 
recordkeeping organization, and unindexed. Moreover, they lack the 
context of the related documentation filed in the recordkeeping system. 
Access to such collections is limited to full text search, which has 
the dual drawbacks of finding many irrelevant documents and missing key 
documents that may not contain the word(s) used in the query.
    An additional concern with option 2 was that some agencies may 
believe that this option could be implemented by retaining backup tapes 
for a minimum period of time. As stated in NARA regulations (36 CFR 
1234.24(c)) and guidance (the 1995 Agency Recordkeeping Requirements: A 
Management Guide), backup tapes should not be used for recordkeeping 
purposes for a variety of reasons. One compelling reason is that 
records on backup tapes are not readily accessible to agency staff 
members. While necessary for disaster recovery, backup tapes are not 
useful for day-to-day agency operations.
    The proposed option 3, to retain electronic source records 
generated with mail and word processing systems based on organizational 
position, was a variation of rejected option 2 and seemed to be based 
on archaic archival and records management theory. Work Group members 
and other NARA staff believe that setting retention periods based on 
hierarchical placement would not produce useful results. At one time, 
appraisal theory assumed that records of high level officials were 
generally more valuable than records in lower level offices, as 
significant program decisions are reached at the higher levels. Over 
many years, NARA has found that in many agencies much of the 
documentation of policy development and justification is maintained at 
lower-level program offices of an agency. Currently, appraisal of 
Federal records is conducted by assessing the documentation patterns in 
agencies and identifying the most valuable records based on function 
and recordkeeping practices, as well as content.
    Finally, Work Group members recommended against these options 
because implementation of either would drain records and information 
management resources from more productive efforts to control agency 
records properly, including long-term plans to move toward electronic 
recordkeeping.
    In conclusion, the Electronic Records Work Group, after careful 
deliberation, rejected options 2 and 3 in the Preliminary Options Paper 
dated March 12, 1998, as unworthy to be included in the recommendations 
to the Archivist.

Future Steps

    This report of the Electronic Records Work Group addresses the 
recordkeeping practices of most agencies, which are still primarily 
paper-based. However, business needs and technology advances will lead 
agencies to electronic recordkeeping over time. The many Federal 
initiatives for electronic commerce and the reliance on computer 
technology to create the records that document government business are 
examples of the forces moving most agencies in this direction. NARA 
must provide guidance to agencies on sound policies and techniques for 
managing electronic records and for implementing electronic 
recordkeeping systems.
    The Work Group recommends that the Archivist establish a follow-on 
group to look at the electronic recordkeeping issue and to make 
recommendations in that area. The follow-on group should begin as soon 
as possible and build on the work done by this Work Group. The Work 
Group suggests that the Archivist should set a relatively short time 
frame for submitting these electronic recordkeeping recommendations.

[[Page 39207]]

Appendix A: Electronic Records Work Group Membership

Members--National Archives And Records Administration

Lewis J. Bellardo, Deputy Archivist of the United States
Michael L. Miller, Director, Modern Records Programs
Nancy Allard, Policy and Communications Staff
Mark Giguere, Modern Records Programs
Jean Keeting, Modern Records Programs
Miriam Nisbet, Special Counsel for Information Policy
Susan Sallaway, Information Resources Policy and Projects Division
Kenneth Thibodeau, Director, Electronic Records Programs

Members--Other Federal Agencies

Edward Barrese, Records Officer, Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation
Maya Bernstein, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget
Elizabeth Behal, Departmental Records Officer, U. S. Department of 
Agriculture
Christopher L. Olsen, Chief, Records Classification and Management, 
Records Classification and Management Group, Office of Information 
Management, Central Intelligence Agency
Dan Hocking, Computer Scientist, Army Research Laboratory
Eleanor Melamed, Department of Energy
Alan Proctor, CIO Council Liaison, Department of the Treasury
Catherine Teti, Director for Records Management and Information 
Policy, Office of Thrift Supervision

Non-Federal Expert Consultants

Rick Barry, Barry Associates
Luciana Duranti, University of British Columbia
Bruce Evans, Nuclear Information and Records Management Association 
(NIRMA)
Margaret L. Hedstrom, University of Michigan
James Henderson, State Archivist, Maine
Alan Kowlowitz, New York State Archives and Records Administration
John McDonald, National Archives of Canada
Charles Robb, Kentucky Department for Library and Archives
Robert Williams, Cohasset Associates

Appendix B [Reserved]

Appendix C--Proposal for Developing Agency Records Schedules That 
Include Office Automation Records

    Note: See the second document published in this Part V of the 
Federal Register.

Appendix D--Proposal To Revise the Entire GRS TO Cover All Formats 
of the Administrative Records Included Therein

    Note: See the third document published in this Part V of the 
Federal Register.

Appendix E--Proposed General Records Sechedule, Information 
Technology Records

    Note: See the fourth document published in this Part V of the 
Federal Register.

[FR Doc. 98-19469 Filed 7-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>