Since James was a day early with his BOTM announcement, I'll be a day early with my first post. It's easy, because I did not write this one.

This message is posted on behalf of Jerry Baldwin, a transportation librarian.
For further questions, Jerry can be reached at:
jerry.baldwin@dot.state.mn.us

Transportation librarians, most of whom are employed in government agencies within the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), state DOTs or transit agencies are seeking support in attempting to develop library services in a field that has long neglected them. Within USDOT, the newly formed Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA, at http://www.rita.dot.gov ) has responsibility for the National Transportation Library (NTL, at http://ntl.bts.gov ).

RITA has drafted a Strategic Research, Development and Technology Plan [PDF] and is seeking comments on the plan. I have submitted comments on the draft regarding its failure to address library and information issues.

We would appreciate any additional comments, especially from anyone familiar with government library services and networks and their role in research programs. Instructions for submitting comments are in the July 12 Federal Register [71 FR 39394].

Note that comments are due by August 9.

I'm a day early with the announcement for our blogger-of-the-month for August, but that balances out for last month when I was a little late ;-) I'm pleased to announce that Peggy Garvin will be our BOTM for August. (For more on Peggy, see her biography). Peggy's had a long career with government information in Washington DC, both in the private sector and with the Congressional Research Service. We look forward to reading what's on Peggy radar this month.

I also want give a big THANKS!!! to Jessamyn West who was a real trooper in being our BOTM for both June AND July. Who else but Jessamyn could have made the connection betweeen food recycling and govt information or would create a contest over at librarian.net to come up with ideas for FGI blog posts?!

As always, check in the center column for Peggy's blog posts this month. And feel free to leave comments or contact us at admin AT freegovinfo DOT info if you'd be interested in being BOTM for FGI.

This post, all earlier postings in this series, and my "not a lawyer" disclaimer can be found at http://freegovinfo.info/title44 or through our library under Nonlawyer's Journey through Title 44.

Now that you have discovered that I am not infallible, which I hope you realized before now from the weekly disclaimer, let us turn to the next section of the Sales program law, Sec. 1702. Superintendent of Documents; sale of documents

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

TITLE 44--PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS

CHAPTER 17--DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

Sec. 1702. Superintendent of Documents; sale of documents

The Public Printer shall appoint a competent person to act as Superintendent of Documents who shall be under the control of the Public Printer.
When an officer of the Government having in his charge documents published for sale desires to be relieved of them, he may turn them over to the Superintendent of Documents, who shall receive and sell them under this section. Moneys received from the sale of documents shall be returned to the Public Printer on the first day of each month and be covered into the Treasury monthly.
The Superintendent of Documents shall also report monthly to the Public Printer the number of documents received by him and the disposition made of them. He shall have general supervision of the distribution of all public documents, and to his custody shall be committed all documents subject to distribution, excepting those printed for the special official use of the executive departments, which shall be delivered to the departments, and those printed for the use of the two Houses of Congress, which shall be delivered to the Senate Service Department and House of Representatives Publications Distribution Service and distributed or delivered ready for distribution to Members upon their order by the superintendents of the Senate Service Department and House Publications Distribution Service, respectively.

(Pub. L. 90-620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1279.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., Secs. 71, 73 (part) (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, Sec. 61, 28 Stat. 610; June 25, 1910, ch. 384, Sec. 1, 36 Stat. 770; Aug. 7, 1946, ch. 770, Sec. 1(62), 60 Stat. 871).
This section incorporates only part of former section 73. The balance will be found in section 308 of the revision.
``House of Representatives Publications Distribution Service'' is substituted for ``House Folding Room'' because of the change of name under authority of Public Law 88-652.

Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 4102 of this title; title 28 section 594.

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

The main thing I want you take from this section and our prior consideration of 44 USC ch. 19 is that the Superintendent of Documents is in charge of two potentially mutually exclusive programs. On the one hand this section of the law puts her in charge of the sales of public documents. In Chapter 19 of Title 44, she is named as the head of the Federal Depository Library Program, which mandates free public access to government information through the depository library system. Taken together, the law requires the Superintendent of Documents to provide free access to government information products while finding effective ways to sell them.

One view, understandably held by current Superintendent of Documents Judy Russell, is that the Depository and Sales programs are complementary. As she stated in her justified correction of my last installment:

By providing a means for individuals and organizations to purchase copies of Federal government publications, the GPO Sales Program complements free public access through tangible depository collections and free online access. It will continue to serve the public by providing an alternative to using tangible Federal publications in libraries or downloading/printing copies from the Internet.

Prior to the Internet age, I believe the programs were complementary. If you wanted to view a government document but were unwilling or unable to pay for it, you could go to one of the nation's Federal Depository Libraries. If you wanted copies of government documents for your own use, or faster than a library could receive and process them, then you could walk into a GPO Bookstore or order documents by mail. In the early 1990s, I worked in the library of the Los Angeles office of the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers. As an acquisitions clerk, when I needed to get a government document fast, all I had to do was walk several blocks to the Los Angeles Government Printing Office (GPO) book store. It was great. They were well stocked and the staff were always friendly and professional.

In age of paper, the sales program and the depository system did different things. For my lawyers at O'Melveny, it wouldn't have made sense to find a depository and borrow the document. For someone interested in a part of a single report, it wouldn't make sense to buy the whole thing when they could copy a page at a depository library.

In an Internet age, I can see at least two potential major conflicts between the sales program and the depository program. First is that if GPO ever wants to sell electronic information products, they will have no alternative but to restrict depository access to that product. Otherwise, why would you buy a subscription to that product? Some of the ways that free access could be crippled but still "provided" are:

1. Limit access to the information product to the physical depository library, thus forcing people to walk into a building if they want free access.
2. Provide a simultaneous user license to allow depositories to provide remote access to a few users.
3. Provide a DRM crippled version of an information product for free and a fee licensed version for greater functionality.

For a few products NOT sold by GPO, the future is now. Stat-USA and publications from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Online Document Library are two databases that GPO has been able to obtain free access for depositories on the condition that access must take place within the bricks and mortar of the depository library and only a few people at a time may access the product. Unsurprisingly, since it might diminish subscriptions, neither the Stat-USA site nor the NCDC site informs you that free access through depository libraries is available. If you're a regular citizen, you'd get the impression that you would need to shell out several hundred dollars for access to either site. A very high barrier when you just want to know the rainfall in Des Moines for 1999.

As far as I'm aware (and I hope GPO staff will correct me if I'm wrong), there is currently no electronic product directly produced by GPO that is being sold to the public. But this could change. It's all a matter of policy and I see nothing in the law to stop sales of electronic information as long as some kind of free access is provided, even if it is inconvenient to citizen end users.

The second potential conflict that I see between the sales program and the depository program is tangible products being restricted to sales products and libraries forced to link to an electronic product, whether or not it is the proper format for users. We almost saw an example of this with the recent publication of:

American Military History, V. 1: The United States Army and the Forging of a Nation, 1775-1917

American Military History, V. 2: The United States Army in a Global Era, 1917-2003 (Casebound-Paper)

Paper copies of these two volumes were initially offered for sale, but not made available through the depository program except in online format. This may have been done through a defensible reading of SOD 301 - Superintendent of Documents Policy Statement, which states in part:

3. When the product is available both online and in a tangible format, the standard practice will be to disseminate the online version to depository libraries. At the time an online publication is identified for inclusion in the FDLP, it is captured and stored in the GPO electronic archive, unless GPO has an interagency agreement for permanent public access to the material. A tangible product will be distributed only if the online version is:
a. Incomplete. For example:
i. Online products that contain only selected or abstracted portions of the content provided in its entirety in the tangible product, or
ii. Kits comprised of mixed media tangible products where only a portion of the title is online.
b. Not recognized by the publishing agency as the controlling official version of a publication. That is, the publication is placed online for informational purposes and when discrepancies exist between the tangible and online versions, the tangible version takes precedence and is viewed as the controlling official version.1
c. Not easily identifiable as an official publication. For example, this can occur when the electronic version is on a non-verifiable Government or unofficial web site.
d. Very difficult to use, thus impeding access to data or content. For example this can occur when the product design imposes technological barriers to usage.
e. Not cost-effective. The costs associated with disseminating the online product exceed those for the tangible product. For example, this situation may arise with fee-based online services.
f. Fee-based, and created, all or in part, through the use of non-appropriated funds. For example, this can occur when the publishing agency designates the product as cooperative as provided in 44 U.S.C. Sec. 1903.

Although a defensible reading of SOD 301, it was a disappointment as one could argue that long books are in fact difficult to use in online format, especially if it is a PDF document being delivered over a slow connection. Some of the discussion about this document on govdoc-l noted that there was another part of SOD 301 that could have authorized tangible distribution (emphasis mine):

4. If a product is disseminated to depository libraries online and a tangible format is available, the tangible product will also be distributed if the tangible product meets special conditions or needs, i.e., when:
a. There is a legal requirement to distribute the product in tangible format, e.g., Journals of the House and Senate;
b. The tangible product is of significant reference value to most types of FDLP libraries, as may be the case with certain compilations, legal resources, permanent legal records or products of historical importance;
c. The tangible product is intended to serve a special needs population. For example, this could occur when the publication is in Braille or large print;
d. The commonly accepted medium of the user community is tangible format. For example, this could apply to maps and/or charts; or
e. The product is essential to the conduct of Government. GPO has identified a list of "Essential Titles for Public Use in Paper or Other Tangible Format" http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/estitles.html. When those titles are published in tangible format they will be made available for selection by depository libraries in that format.
i. If an agency ceases to publish an Essential Title in tangible format in favor of online dissemination, GPO will request electronic files suitable for printing from the publishing agency and its authorization to reproduce and distribute the title to depository libraries.

I think most depository librarians would agree that a two volume history of the US Army up to 2003 would definitely fall under 4(b) of SOD 301. In the end, it looks like GPO agreed with the community and obtained more physical copies to distribute to selecting libraries after considerable outcry on govdoc-l.

But a process like the one above insures only that items the community immediately notices for sale will get into the program in tangible format, even when a printed book may be a much better format, particularly for older users who are interested in history.

Next time we will skip over a few provisions of 44 USC ch. 17 and consider sec 1706, which allows private parties to have short print runs of documents done by GPO.

FGI wishes to extend HUGE thanks to Christine Gray of the University of Idaho Library for providing a large number of photos to use as cover art on our Best Titles Ever! page. If you haven't visited our page in the past week, it's worth another look.

In hopes of getting yet more covers of these public domain, yet weird and/or intriguing titles, I have established the Best. Titles. Ever. photo group on Flickr. If you've got photos to contribute and you're a Flickr member, please post them there. If you're not a Flickr member, but want to contribute please e-mail those covers to me at dnlcornwall AT alaska.net.

Even with Christine's mighty contribution, we are still lacking several covers I hope one of you can fill:

• ALONE: Facts about Mental Health and Mental Illness was revised to:

  YOU ARE NOT ALONE: Facts about Mental Health and Mental Illness

  [HE 20.8102:Al7/985]

  "One of my favorite titles is from the National Institute of Mental Health, 1985. The document had a printing error in the title and was ordered destroyed by the Superintendent of Documents. "This error seriously detracts from the point that the publisher was trying to make."

  Find "Alone" in a library
  Find "You are not alone" in a library

• Kill or get killed : riot control techniques, manhandling, and close combat, for police and the military. U.S. Marine Corps [D 214.9/6:12-80] with illustrations! Find in a library

  (James notes that it was such a hot title that someone actually published it privately -- in the same year! Check out the OCLC records: 25298518 (US doc) 3328029 (paladin press). It looks like they were published at the same time, or at least in the same year.)

• Let potatoes fight. [Y3.F73/2: WGC/ w49]
• Virtual Cement and Concrete Testing Laboratory Consortium, Annual Report. [C 13.58/4:]. Lori says: "Virtual cement and concrete? A virtual testing laboratory? A virtual consortium? Who knows?
  Find in a library
• Wake up America: a national sleep alert. [Y3.2: SL2/SL2] Find in a library

With few exceptions, federal government records and publications (which are a form of record) are in the public domain and can be used without fear of the copyright police.

Digital cameras have become relatively inexpensive and easy to use and photo sharing sites like Flickr are able to hold many images. This means we now live in a world where individuals, some of them librarians have the means to do very fast, though not necesarily high quality, digitization of government documents.

The next time you, your library or organization notices you have a document that would contribute to a hot topic, why not take some quick images and post it to the web like I've done with the 1977 Army publication Your Conduct in Combat? Putting the page images on Flickr also potentialy opens up this publication to people who wouldn't go to a documents web site, let alone a physical depository.

I'm NOT recommending this approach for preservation or even medium term access since documents done in this way aren't full text searchable and in some cases (see inside front cover) don't seem to photograph properly. But I think doing things like this could be a marketing tool for your depository or an aid in online discussions you might be having. And who knows, maybe it would help get you support for properly digitizing large volumes of materials, once your funders get a glimpse of the treasures you have.

And assuming I'm not the first person to hit on this idea, I'd love to hear other examples of DIY personal digitization of government documents. We probably won't devote a whole page to it since we're busy with the best. titles. ever. page, but we at FGI are always interested in new things being done with government information. It's yours and it's copyright free - now use it!

One clear benefit of having government information in electronic format is the ability to quickly and easily tie government documents to other material. With the large number of news stories involving government activities or government resources, tying government documents to news media seems like a natural.

Two state libraries that I know of are taking this natural step:

• New Mexico News Plus
• Documents in the News (Washington State Library)

New Mexico appears to highlight documents while Washington highlights the news stories. Both look like good approaches to me and I hope both institutions get a lot of thanks and praise for their creativity!

While I know of a few universities who provide this kind of service, these are the first I've seen from State libraries. Anyone else have an example?

The Center for Technology in Government released this new report based on a survey of all fifty states:

Preserving State Government Digital Information: A Baseline Report
By Theresa A. Pardo, G. Brian Burke, and Hyuckbin Kwon.

According to the press release, the authors identify six major barriers to the sucessful preservation of state government digital data:

1. Capability for preserving state government digital information is low.
2. There is no consistent approach to addressing “at-risk” information.
3. Authority for setting standards and responsibility for providing digital preservation services is dispersed.
4. Executive, legislative, and judicial agencies operate parallel digital preservation efforts.
5. Digital preservation and Enterprise Architecture initiatives are not well-connected.
6. Efforts to develop strategic digital preservation programs are hampered by problem focused practices and funding and staffing models.

I look forward to reading the entire paper and might have some more to say about it. If you've read the paper, please leave a comment or drop us a line.

In addition to the paper, the CTG staff also published a set of state profiles that includes information on specific projects. Hopefully in the coming weeks we'll be able to highlight some states whose initiatives seem especially promising.

In my last installment of Nonlawyer's Journey through Title 44, I stated:

"In an age of paper, the Sales Program helped provide some of the funding needed to make publications freely available to the public through Federal Depository Libraries."

I was wrong about this. Thankfully Superintendent of Documents Judy Russell caught wind of this entry and sent me the comment below:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell, Judith C. (SuDoc)"
To: "'Discussion of Government Document Issues'"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:05 AM
Subject: RE: New Discussions at FGI: July 24, 2006

In his most recent analysis of Title 44, Dan Cornwall states: "In an age of paper, the Sales Program helped provide some of the funding needed to make publications freely available to the public through Federal Depository Libraries."

The GPO Sales Program is by statute a self-sustaining program. Revenue from the Sales Program has never been used to fund the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), which receives its funding from annual Congressional appropriations.

By providing a means for individuals and organizations to purchase copies of Federal government publications, the GPO Sales Program complements free public access through tangible depository collections and free online access. It will continue to serve the public by providing an alternative to using tangible Federal publications in libraries or downloading/printing copies from the Internet.

Judy Russell

Judith C. Russell (jrussell@gpo.gov)
Managing Director, Information Dissemination (Superintendent of Documents)
U.S. Government Printing Office
Phone: 202-512-0571
Fax: 202-512-1434

Judy also made a comment on the mistaken entry which I've now incorporated into my commentary as an update. I do regret the error and hope others will be as willing and quick as Judy to correct mistakes as they come up.

Thanks Judy!

Another unusual venue that net neutrality popped up in today was on show 76 of the Celtic Music News Podcast during an interview with Newfoundland musician Jim Fidler. His short remarks on how the end of Net Neutrality would doom musical creativity and political diversity show up around the 15 minute mark. Be warned that a good chunk of the interview is NOT work safe if profanity isn't smiled upon at your place of work.

Net Neutrality. It's not just a good idea, it SHOULD BE the law.

Update: July 25, 2006 to reflect correct spelling of Mr. Fidler's province. Thanks to the anonymous alert reader.

People across the country are beginning to understand what is at stake with preserving net neutrality. The July 24, 2006 edition of American Catholic Radio has an interview with Michael Copps, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission starting roughly at the 20 minute mark. He talks about the need to avoid Internet toll booths and how the loss of network neutrality would hurt minority non-commercial voices including Catholic media. Also some good discussion of how media consolidation has made it harder to hear local voices and new music.

Net Neutrality is sometimes presented as a liberal issue, but the reality is that it cuts across ideology, and based on the above interview, religious lines as well.