    [First Report to the Public Printer 1972-1976]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    ﻿Depository Library Council
    First report to the
    Public Printer
    1972-1976
    September 30,1976
    Issued by the Superintendent of Documents
    For the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer
    U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 :1978
    Supt. of Docs, cataloging in publication data:
    United States. Depository Library Council to the Public Printer.
    Report to the Public Printer. 1st- 1972/76-
    Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
    v. 26 cm. annual
    Vols. for 1972/6- issued by the Superintendent of Documents for the Council.
    Supt. of Docs, no.: GP 1.35:
    1. Libraries, Depository—United States. 2. United States. Depository Library Council to the Public Printer.
    JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING
    CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
    September 30, 1976 1
    Frank Thompson
    Representative from New Jersey
    Chairman
    Howard W. Cannon
    Senator from Nevada
    Vice Chairman
    John Brademas
    Representative from Indiana
    William L. Dickinson
    Representative from Alabama
    James B. Allen
    Senator from Alabama
    Mark 0. Hatfield
    Senator from Oregon
    Denver Dickerson, Staff Director
    Rosemary Cribben, Assistant Staff Director
    Public Printer and Staff
    Thomas F. McCormick
    Public Printer
    John J. Boyle
    Deputy Public Printer
    Walter C. DeVaughn
    Assistant Public Printer (Management and Administration)
    Council Members
    Peter J. Paulson, Chairperson
    D. Clifton Brock*
    Carper W. Buckley*
    Clifford P. Crowers*
    Y. T. Feng
    Jane L. Hammond
    Charles G. LaHood
    Margaret T. Lane
    Carl A. LaBarre
    Assistant Public Printer
    (Superintendent of Documents)
    John D. Livsey
    Director
    (Library and Statutory Distribution Service)
    James C. MacCampbell Anthony W. Miele Catharine J. Reynolds Maryan E. Reynolds* Joseph F. Shubert Ruth S. Smith Maryellen Trautman*
    1 See Appendix H for membership and staff directors 1972-76.
    * Term ended June 30, 1976.
    Hi
    FOREWORD
    The depository library program has operated under various federal statutes and in various forms for more than a century. The principle, now well established in law, of congressional designation of selective and regional depository libraries, has made the system truly national in character and scope.
    Chapter 19 of Title 44 of the U.S. Code provides the legal mandate for designated libraries in the United States to receive certain Government publications for the use of the general public. Currently, the depository library program distributes more than 2500 classes of Government publications to a broad spectrum of libraries. The 1203 designated depositories include college and university libraries, public and special libraries, and the libraries of Federal and State Governments.
    The comprehensive subject matter of Government publications distributed through the depository library program acknowledges and satisfies the informational needs of individuals of vastly different social conditions, educational attainments and intellectual ability.
    It is a pleasure to acknowledge the sound advice and practical assistance the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents have received during the past years from the members of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer.
    Council members have given generously of their time and thought in the critical examination of the philosophical and operational basis of the depository library program. Their recommendations have moved from the tentative and conjectural to specific guidelines designed to give the program greater scope and effectiveness.
    Most important of all, progress has been made in developing a better understanding of the responsibilities and opportunities shared by the Government Printing Office and the library community in making the publications of the Federal Government more easily accessible to the citizens of our country.
    T. F. McCormick
    Public Printer
    CONTENTS
    Page
    v	FOREWORD
    vii CONTENTS
    1	INTRODUCTION
    3	FIRST REPORT
    (1972-1976)
    The Depository Library Council Organization and Mission Standards and Guidelines Bibliographical Control GPO Performance Inspection Micropublishing Law Conclusion
    11 APPENDIX A
    (Membership of the Council, Officers, and Committees)
    Members Officers Committees
    14 APPENDIX B (Charter and Bylaws)
    Charter Bylaws
    16 APPENDIX C
    (Proposed Standards and Guidelines) Minimum Standards
    Proposed Guidelines (10/23/75)
    22 APPENDIX D
    (Committee Reports)
    Bibliographic Control Committee October 23, 1975
    Committee on Documents Office Information Tools February 6-8, 1974 (Bibliographic Control; Microforms) October 30, 1974
    Depository Law Committee October 23, 1975
    GPO Operations Committee April 23, 1976
    Inspection Committee October 30, 1974 October 24, 1975
    Micrographics Committee October 23, 1975
    Standards Committee June 7, 1974
    Page
    37
    October 1, 1974
    December 30, 1974 (Proposed Changes to the Minimum Standards and Guidelines for the Depository Library System Which Require Legislative and Administrative Action)*
    APPENDIX E
    (Reports from GPO to Council & Related Communications)
    Standards and Recommended Changes
    November 7, 1974 (Standards Committee to Superintendent of Documents)
    Proposed Government Printing Office Microform Pilot Project
    November 14, 1974 (Public Printer & Superintendent of Documents to Joint Committee on Printing)
    Proposed Guidelines for the Depository Library System
    November 20, 1974 (Superintendent of Documents to General Counsel)
    Bibliographic Control
    March 17, 1975 (Superintendent of Documents to Depository Library Council)
    Inspections
    March 17, 1975 (Superintendent of Documents to Depository Library Council)
    Micropublishing
    March 17, 1975 (Superintendent of Documents to Depository Library Council)
    Standards
    March 17, 1975 (Superintendent of Documents to Depository Library Council)
    Depository Library Council—Proposed Guidelines
    March 26, 1975 (General Counsel to Superintendent of Documents)
    Report on Depository Distribution Activities
    October 23, 1975 (Director, LSDS, to Depository Library Council)
    Government Printing Office’s OCLC Participation: A Progress Report
    April 22, 1976 (Chief, Classification & Cataloging, LSDS, to Depository Library Council)
    Report on the Depository Library Inspection Program: 1975-1976
    April 22, 1976 (Editor, PUBLIC DOCUMENTS HIGHLIGHTS, to Depository Library Council)
    Response to the Request for Comments on the Proposed Standards and Guidelines
    *See also: Proposed Standards and Guidelines adopted by Council, reproduced in APPENDIX C.
    vii
    Page
    Page
    October 21, 1976, (Editor, PUBLIC DOCUMENTS HIGHLIGHTS, to Depository Library Council)
    56 APPENDIX F
    (Reports and Papers by Council Members)
    The Public Documents Department Microfiche Information Retrieval System
    May 16, 1974 (Catharine J. Reynolds)
    A Policy of Resource Sharing Throughout the Entire Depository System
    June 13, 1975 (Catharine J. Reynolds)
    A National Depository System
    October 24, 1975 (James C. MacCampbell)
    Standards for Depository Libraries, Goals and Roadblocks
    October 24, 1975 (Catharine J. Reynolds)
    Bibliographic Control of Government Documents— A National Concern
    April 23, 1976 (Ruth S. Smith)
    69
    APPENDIX G
    (Press Releases, Memoranda, etc.)
    Federal Depository Library Group Meets at GPO
    February 9, 1973
    Memorandum to Thomas F. McCormick from Advisory Council June 28, 1973
    Thomas F. McCormick
    June 28, 1973
    72
    APPENDIX H
    (Joint Committee on Printing)
    Members and Staff Directors, 1972-1976
    viii
    INTRODUCTION
    This brief introduction is intended as an expression of gratitude. As current Chairperson of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, I am especially grateful to my predecessor, Ralph E. McCoy, under whose gentle leadership an open format for Council meetings was developed, allowing full participation by members and visitors alike. Over the years, the Council has benefited greatly from the participation of those depository librarians who have attended these meetings.
    I am also grateful to the Public Printer, Tom
    Albany, New York
    February 1977
    McCormick, his predecessors and staff, for their consistent responsiveness to the comments, questions, advice, and recommendations of Council.
    For preparing and revising several drafts of this report, I owe a special debt of gratitude to Margaret Lane.
    Most of all, my thanks to the other members of the Council, whose hard work, careful thought, and spirited discussions have made the Depository Library Council a productive agent for change.
    Peter J. Paulson
    1
    FIRST REPORT (1972-1976)
    THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY COUNCIL
    As a response to the increasing volume and importance of Government publications, and concurrent increase in the number of depository libraries, the Superintendent of Documents has for some years invited advice and recommendations from the library community on the effective implementation of the Depository Library Program.
    The Depository Library Council to the Public Printer was established in 1972 and held its first meeting in 1973. Its antecedents go back to 1963 when seven librarians were asked to serve on an advisory committee on depository libraries.1 The original advisory committee was formed at the recommendation of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration during its consideration of revised legislation on depository libraries.
    This first report of the Depository Library Council is derived principally from the minutes of the Council meetings. Background information from all the meetings is included, thus providing a complete record from the time the Council was established. Future reports will be issued annually in accordance with the Bylaws of the Council.
    One may perceive common themes of interest and concern in the minutes of the eight meetings the Council has held since February, 1973. Council’s deliberations have attempted to identify problem areas, make recommendations, and recognize progress in the Depository Library Program. The following reports of actions and activities are grouped around these common themes of interest and concern.
    ORGANIZATION AND MISSION
    The first meeting of the original fourteen members of the Council was held in Washington, D.C. This meeting, and the next three,
    1 For a brief description of this group, see: Carper W. Buckley, “Implementation of the Federal Depository Library Act of 1962,” in Library Trends, v. 15, no. 1, July 1966, pp. 30-31.
    were one-day sessions scheduled at the time of American Library Association (ALA) meetings. Subsequent meetings were two-day sessions, made possible by financial support from the Government Printing Office. Meetings were held:
    Washington, D.C., February 2,1973
    Las Vegas, Nevada, June 28,1973
    Chicago, Illinois, January 25,1974 New York, New York, July 6,1974 Washington, D.C., October 29-30, 1974 Storrs, Connecticut, April 14-15,1975 Washington, D.C., October 23-24,1975 Columbus, Ohio, April 22-23,1976
    Appointments to Council2 are made by the Public Printer who seeks recommendations from librarians at large, ALA, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Special Libraries Association, and, since its establishment, from the Council itself. In making recommendations to the Public Printer, the Council considers the Bylaw provision which requires that “At least five of the members of the Council shall be persons who work full time with Government documents in a depository library” and, in addition, strives to achieve a geographical and a type-of-library balance.
    The drafting of the Charter and Bylaws3 was one of the first tasks of the Council. These instruments were discussed at several meetings and finally adopted in January, 1975.
    The purpose of the Depository Library Council as stated in the Charter is “to provide advice on matters dealing with the Depository Library Program as provided” in the United States Code (USC). The Bylaws specify that this advice “will include but not be limited to classification, distribution, cataloging, indexing, storage, availability and utilization of materials and general administration of the Depository Library Program.”
    There are fifteen members of Council, serving three-year, staggered terms. The Bylaws
    2 See Appendix A for membership list and officers.
    3 See Appendix B.
    3
    require that five of these be working documents librarians. The Chairperson and ViceChairperson are appointed by the Public Printer on the recommendation of the Council. The Secretary is appointed by the Chairperson. At the first Council meeting after his appointment as Public Printer, Mr. McCormick expressed his desire that the Council have its own officers and that it operate freely without dictation from the Government Printing Office.
    The Council operates generally in accordance with the principles of the Federal Advisory Committee Act;4 thus, meetings have been open to the public since the January, 1974, meeting. Meetings are held twice each year. Advance notice of the time and place of each meeting is published in the Federal Register. Financial support from the Government Printing Office has made possible two-day meetings, independent of library association meetings.
    The Council reports to the Public Printer. Reports of the meetings and an annual report are required by the Bylaws.
    The Council accomplishes much of its work with the help of committees.5 The current structure, adopted at the October, 1975, meeting, includes four committees:
    Depository Libraries—which includes standards and inspection
    GPO Operations—which includes performance and bibliographic controls
    National System—which includes regional and depository law
    Micrographics—an ad hoc committee
    This structure is intended to reflect three levels of concern, with depository libraries as the underlying concept.
    STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
    One of the areas of concern to which much attention was devoted during several Council meetings is the performance of the depository libraries. Both the library commun
    4 The Federal Library Committee Act regulates agencies in the executive branch. The Public Printer voluntarily decided that the Depository Library Council, in the legislative branch, should follow the Act insofar as is possible.
    5 See Appendix D.
    ity and the Government Printing Office have long been aware that the level of performance and the recognition of responsibilities have varied widely in the individual depository libraries. The depository system functions only if all its parts function, one of the reasons that the law provides for inspection. It is, however, difficult to conduct inspections without standards and guidelines. The law, USC, Title 44, Chapter 19, provides only minimum standards.
    The necessity for standards was emphasized in Council discussions at its first meetings, and was recognized both by members of Council and by the staff of the Government Printing Office. The Council’s Committee on Standards was appointed January 25, 1974. Ms. Catharine Reynolds was named Chairperson, to serve with Maryellen Trautman and Margaret Lane.
    The Committee reported at the July, 1974, meeting with a draft of “Proposed Standards for the Depository Library System,” to which the Council devoted an entire day for an item by item discussion. The Committee was requested to redraft the proposal to separate the provisions mandated by the law from those which were merely proposed by the Committee. In October, 1974, a two-part report was presented, discussed and revised, and was adopted provisionally for a twelve month period beginning January 1, 1975. The part of the report which outlined the legal requirements was designated, “Proposed Minimum Standards for the Depository Library System.” 6 and the remainder (by far the longer document) “Proposed Guidelines for the Depository Library System.” 7
    The Committee was then charged with identifying changes which would be necessary in the law to implement the second document. The Committee’s list of those changes, titled, “Proposed Changes to the Minimum Standards and Guidelines for the Depository Library System which Require Legislative and Administrative Action,”8 was submitted to the Council and discussed fully at the April, 1975, meeting, and, as amended, adopted.
    In October, 1975, the Committee made recommendations, which were adopted by the
    6 See Appendix C.
    7 See Appendix C.
    8 See Appendix D.
    4
    Council, that the “Standards” and “Guidelines” (1) be published in Public Documents Highlights, (2) be included in the Annual Report, (3) be used by the inspectors provisionally for another year, and (4) be sent to other professional groups.
    By the time of the April, 1976, meeting, the “Standards” and “Guidelines” had been printed as a special supplement to Public Documents Highlights (December, 1975) ; distributed as directed by the Council, and some responses had been received. In general, the responses can be characterized as favorable, with helpful criticism on specific details. The majority of the responses focused on three points: (1) that at least 25 % of the available items on the “Classified List” be selected, (2) that all depositories provide a reasonable number of photocopies on request, and (3) that the depositories receive the 21 titles on the recommended list included as an appendix to the “Guidelines.” The Committee continued to solicit reaction and criticism until September, 1976.
    BIBLIOGRAPHICAL CONTROL
    Bibliographical control, which in layman’s terms translates as being able to find what you need, is a vital part of making Government publications available to the public and has been an agenda item at each of the Council meetings.
    The major bibliographic tool produced by the Government Printing Office is the Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications. At the time of the first meeting of the Council in February, 1973, a method of automating the Monthly Catalog was being explored. Since then, the Government Printing Office with the advice of the Council decided to join the Ohio College Library Center (OCLC) and, to prepare entries for the Monthly Catalog in MARC-format following Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. Meetings of the library community in the District of Columbia area were organized by Mrs. Ruth S. Smith, Chairperson of the Council’s Committee on GPO Operations, to discuss format and contents of the new Monthly Catalog and to provide input to the Government Printing Office from librarians who use the Catalog. Mrs. Smith’s Committee stressed the importance of a system of bibli
    ographic control which would be useful to all types of libraries and to others who rely on it for sales and for bibliographic information. In addition, the Committee emphasized the importance of compatibility with the emerging national plan for bibliographical control.
    The Government Printing Office announced at the April, 1976, meeting of the Council that a survey of the users of the Monthly Catalog, based on a random sample, was in the mail, and that the July issue of the Monthly Catalog would be in the new format. The July issue of the new Monthly Catalog demonstrated the value of this planning. The Monthly Catalog has been reformated, computerized, and its issuance is rapidly becoming current. Special features of the new Monthly Catalog are the new arrangement by Superintendent of Documents classification numbers; the individual entries by MARC-format, grouped under the governmental author; and the multiple indexes, including the new subject index based on the Library of Congress subject headings. The Library Division of the Government Printing Office and its catalogers should be commended for the smooth transition to the new format.
    Another aspect of bibliographic control in which the Council was able to make a substantial contribution through one of its members is with the GPO Publications Reference File. This is a microfiche record, arranged for multiple access, of publications in the Government Printing Office sales stock. At the second Council meeting, held in June, 1973, Ms. Catharine Reynolds volunteered to test this file and make a report. Her assessment of the potential value of this file to depository libraries is detailed in her report.9
    Among the several problems of bibliographic control which the Council has discussed with the Government Printing Office, one of the most important is the need to include more publications issued by the field offices, military bases, overseas plants, and by other Federal agencies on their own equipment. Popularly referred to as “non-GPO” because they are not produced at the main Government Printing Office in Washington, D.C., these publications should be listed in the Monthly Catalog. The Council recommended strongly that the Government Print
    0 See Appendix F.
    5
    ing Office make an effort to secure these publications for both distribution and listing. The Government Printing Office advised the Council in April, 1976, that it was working in three areas in the attempt to get more non-GPO publications. First, tele-communication with the 14 regional offices of the Government Printing Office has been established. Second, meetings are being arranged with the Federal agencies in the District of Columbia. Ms. Hoduski, on the staff of the Joint Committee on Printing, is cooperating in this endeavor by going to the agencies as an “advance person.” And third, the Government Printing Office has been attempting to establish an understanding with the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The arrangement with NTIS is that the Government Printing Office will “ride” NTIS orders for all publications “of wide-spread interest.” Council stated its opposition to the provision in the proposed copyright law which would authorize the Department of Commerce to copyright NTIS publications, as detrimental to the public interest.
    Other topics relating to bibliographic control which have been discussed at the Council meetings include in-depth indexing of the Monthly Catalog, development of a thesaurus of subject terms and key words, cumulating both the listings in the Monthly Catalog and the index, printing of Superintendent of Documents numbers on publications, and the use of Cataloging in Publication (CIP), international identification numbers (ISBN and ISSN), parallel tables, etc. This listing of topics is included here not so much to record the status of the proposals and suggestions made to the Government Printing Office as to indicate the scope of the ideas presented. Not all the suggestions can be implemented now, particularly when the efforts of the Library Division at the Government Printing Office are concentrated on the production of the new, computerized Catalog.
    At its April, 1975, meeting, the Council adopted a motion to express to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) concern that a national policy on Government publications be developed to establish eligibility for distribution to depository libraries, and to insure the accessibility, as well as availability of Government publications to all citizens.
    GPO PERFORMANCE
    This section of this Report is included to group together those matters at the Government Printing Office in which the Council is concerned: including professional personnel, the physical facilities, the newsletter, and other communications with the depository libraries. The Government Printing Office staff has made reports to the Council at every meeting. These reports, some of which were in written form (and are included in Appendix E), gave the Council a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the functions of the Superintendent of Documents.
    When the Council held its organization meeting in February, 1973, the positions of Public Printer and Superintendent of Documents were filled by acting administrators. The turnover in personnel at GPO necessarily imposed a learning period on the new officials and a period of establishing new relationships with the members of the Council. At the first meeting, Mr. William Tonner was named GPO liaison to the Council, and by the time his position changed at GPO, the Council was well enough acquainted with the GPO staff to make direct contacts with the appropriate staff member. Since his assignment as Director of the Library and Statutory Distribution Service, an area touching many library concerns, John D. Livsey has functioned informally as liaison to the Council.
    When Mr. McCormick became Public Printer, a reorganization provided that the Documents Division report directly to him, and the Superintendent of Documents was given the title, Assistant Public Printer (Superintendent of Documents). The position of Superintendent of Documents during the period covered by this Report has been held by:
    Roland E. Darling—retired July 1, 1973 Wellington H. Lewis—named Assistant
    Public Printer (Superintendent of Documents) June 24, 1973
    Carl A. LaBarre—named Assistant Public Printer (Superintendent of Documents) July 20, 1975.
    A Council recommendation made at its January, 1974, meeting that more of the librarians at the Government Printing Office be encouraged to participate in professional meetings, workshops, and training sessions, has been
    6
    implemented by the Public Printer. The participation of Norman N. Barbee in the ALA Government Documents Round Table (GO-DORT) meetings has come to be anticipated and has been recognized by a resolution of appreciation. The Council notes with approval the participation of GPO staff at recent meetings, sometimes at their own expense, and reiterates its recommendation that such participation should be encouraged and that GPO should pay travel expenses insofar as possible. Also of special interest to librarians, with whom she has had a particularly close relationship, was the retirement of former Library Administrator Edna Kanely in March, 1973. Miss Kanely has continued to attend Council meetings, as well as other library meetings, since her retirement.
    When the first Council meeting was held, tours of the 5th and 7th floors of the GPO building on North Capitol Street illustrated forcefully the crowded conditions under which the GPO staff was working. The tours included both the Depository Library Mailing Section and the Public Documents Department Library. The Council was told that GPO’s biggest problem was space—not the number of libraries served or the number of publications handled. The “backlog” which was such a problem in 1975 was created during the time of the search for space and the move.
    TheYnove to Alexandria was made during September through November, 1974. At its October, 1975, meeting, most of the members of the Council toured the Library and Statutory Distribution facilities in Alexandria.
    One of the first tasks undertaken by the Council was work on the Instructions to Depositories. GPO announced at the first Council meeting that the Instructions had been re-written ; and the Council asked that copies be sent to all Council members for comment before publication. Council appointed a committee, with Bernadine Hoduski as Chairperson, to coordinate the replies of the members of the Council. The new Instructions were distributed to the depository libraries in October, 1974.
    The idea of providing a medium for the exchange of information between GPO and the depository libraries was proposed to the GPO at the first Council meeting. Council suggested to the GPO staff that it is important to know what GPO is doing, and that more detailed in
    formation than is possible to put on the shipping lists is desirable. The Public Printer responded positively and the first issue of Public Documents Highlights, a newsletter for documents librarians, was published in May, 1973. Seventeen numbers (the publication was irregularly issued at first) have been issued through September, 1976. Quarterly, and then bimonthly, publication has been made by GPO. Highlights has included articles by GPO personnel on the operation of the Depository Library Program, news notes on staff and administrative changes, including biographical notes, telephone numbers, organizational charts, etc., a question and answer section, an information exchange, a special needs section to obtain missing documents, reports on the meetings of the Depository Library Council, etc. The “Standards” and “Guidelines” for depository libraries were published as a special supplement to the December, 1975, issue of Highlights. Pictures and graphics add to the attractive appearance of the publication.
    Council monitored the status of the Superintendent of Documents collection of Government publications which had been transferred to the National Archives in January, 1972, and stressed the importance of having this collection available for public use at the earliest possible date.
    Another example of the support being given by the Government Printing Office to depository libraries is the series of meetings for regional depositories inaugurated by the Government Printing Office at the suggestion of the Council. Two meetings have been held thus far:
    July 13, 1974, in New York City, attended by 26 librarians
    July 5, 1975, in San Francisco, attended by 28 librarians.
    INSPECTION
    Significant and measurable improvement has been made in the program of inspection of depository libraries by the Government Printing Office since the establishment of the Council. These advances have been both quantitative and qualitative.
    Inspection of depository libraries by GPO is specifically required by USC 44:1910, “The Superintendent of Documents shall make first
    7
    hand investigation of conditions for which need is indicated and include the results of investigations in his annual report.” The first paragraph of § 1909 provides, “... The designated depository libraries shall report to the Superintendent of Documents at least every two years concerning their condition.”
    At the Council’s first meeting, a GPO spokesperson reported that visits to sixty or seventy libraries had been made. At the second meeting of the Council, the visiting of the depository libraries and the biennial questionnaire were recognized as interrelated by the GPO representative who said, “I don’t think we will ever have the capability of visiting every depository library within every one or two year cycle . . . So, I think we are still going to have to utilize the questionnaire to a great degree.” He reported that eighty to one hundred libraries had been visited in fiscal year 1973, usually in connection with visits to bookstores or other programs. The goal of visiting at least every regional depository was expressed by Mr. Darling, Acting Superintendent of Documents, who reported that interviews were being held for the position of inspector, and who recommended that the incoming Superintendent of Documents should set higher goals for the inspection program.
    Discussion at the same Council meeting indicated that the Government Printing Office was seeking questions for the biennial questionnaire which would reveal quality of service. The 1971 questionnaire was the first prepared for a computer tabulation; and copies of the print-out of the 1971 data were made available to the Council at the June, 1973, meeting.
    A GPO spokesperson emphasized that the authority to take away depository status is vested by law, but that the law provides very few standards on the functioning of depository libraries. The Council concurred, commenting that revocation of depository privileges, except in extreme cases, is premature without a set of standards. The discussion ranged broadly, covering inspection by visits, the biennial questionnaire, and the idea that the regional depository might inspect the depository libraries within its area.
    At its January, 1974, meeting, the Council recommended that the results of the responses to the biennial questionnaires be furnished to
    the appropriate regional depository; and at the following meeting, Council appointed a committee to study alternative methods of inspection and to make recommendations for immediate action. At the October, 1974, meeting of the Council, the Committee report was given, discussed, and amended. Council voted that the Superintendent of Documents utilize several items (numbers 2, 4, and 6 of the Addendum to the October, 1974, report) in the inspection program. Number 2 specifies the members of the evaluation team—someone from a regional depository or a designated representative, a representative of GPO, and a representative from the same type of library—and includes special provisions for states without a regional depository. Number 4 provides that regional depositories should be subject to evaluation and specifies the members of a team. Number 6 provides that “Planning and implementation of this program, and the development of evaluation forms, should be the responsibility of a committee consisting of GPO staff, regional depositories, and depository libraries.”
    At the October, 1975, meeting of the Council, it was announced that a second inspector had been hired at GPO, Daniel R. MacGilvray, who would also be editor of Public Documents Highlights. The first full-time inspector, Helen Holt, had been working at GPO since July, 1974, and had been visiting libraries since December, 1974.
    At the October, 1975, meeting, Ms. Holt reported that all regionals were being informed of the inspection schedules, but that few were able to send someone to accompany an inspector. The Committee report for that meeting commended the GPO in hiring the additional inspector. The Council adopted a motion, after a discussion of the difficulties libraries face in providing statistics, and of the response of special libraries to the requirements that service be given to the general public, that the inspection forms used by the inspectors be utilized in such a way as to determine the problems being encountered in attempting to implement the “Standards” and “Guidelines.”
    At the April, 1976, meeting, the Government Printing Office provided the Council with a comprehensive report commenting on depository libraries today (published in Highlights, June, 1976, at request of Council). This noted that
    although recent years have witnessed a general upgrading of depository libraries, depository library inspectors are now observing the impact of a drying up of funds. The report emphasizes that depository libraries today are undergoing considerable stress, and that all need every assistance that the depository library inspection program can provide. The report indicates the positive attitude adopted by the inspectors and says that suggestions are made in a spirit of helpfulness, rather than fault-finding. Depository inspection statistics showing 323 inspections in 1975 (regular inspections started in January, 1975), and 246 in fiscal year 1976, are tabulated by state.
    MICROPUBLISHING
    Micropublishing was not included as a separate item on the Council’s agenda until the meeting of January, 1974. A micro-program was proposed by Mr. Nick Spence, Public Printer, in 1970, but was not implemented before his untimely death in January, 1972. Consideration was deferred until the new Public Printer could evaluate it. At the January, 1974, meeting, the GPO made a report to the Council, including the information that John D. Livsey had been appointed to direct the program, that a questionnaire was being sent to depository librarians requesting specific information on publications that they would like to receive in microtext, and that a pilot project was being planned with selected documents and selected libraries. A Committee on Microforms was appointed, consisting of Charles G. LaHood, Chairperson, Clifford P. Crowers, and Eileen Cook.
    At the following meeting, in July, 1974, Mr. Livsey reported that the request for the pilot program was with the Joint Committee on Printing. A Committee to evaluate the technical quality of the film (including Mr. LaHood from the Council) had been appointed. Other members of that Committee, also designated an Advisory Council to the Public Printer, were from industry and from federal libraries.
    At the October, 1974, meeting, Council heard a micropublishing presentation by Mr. Zur-kowski, Executive Director of the Information Industry Association. Council was advised that the latest formal request to the Joint Committee
    on Printing was waiting for the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Micro-publishing before being forwarded to the Joint Committee. Council recommended that its endorsement of the micropublishing proposal be conveyed to the Joint Committee on Printing.
    Mr. Livsey reported to the Council, on behalf of the Microforms Committee, that a letter was signed January 9, 1975, giving GPO permission to proceed with the micrographics project. By April, 1976, the 30 libraries participating in the pilot program had received both the silver halide and diazo copies of the Code of Federal Regulations, the document selected for the project. Early responses from the libraries reported poor indexing (a problem inherent in the hard-copy index), but GPO advised the Council that additional indexing was being undertaken.
    Also at the April meeting, the Committee proposed, and the Council adopted the suggestion that Mr. Livsey prepare a fairly comprehensive users’ manual to include: microform philosophy, use of key, technical differences between silver halide and diazo, recommended methods for handling and storage of film, selection of the right equipment and use of equipment, and a bibliography. Council also adopted a resolution encouraging the Superintendent of Documents to proceed with the microform project as planned, and to expand the program to include non-GPO publications not available for distribution in hard copy.
    LAW
    Although the laws governing the depository libraries and the administration of the Depository Library Program were discussed at early meetings of the Council, it was not until 1975 that specific proposals were made to the Public Printer for amending the law.
    In April, 1975, the Standards Committee presented a report titled, “Proposed Changes to the Minimum Standards and Guidelines for the Depository Library System which Require Legislative and Administrative Action,” which was discussed, amended, and adopted. For its Committee meeting in October, 1975, the Depository Law Committee reviewed this report, identified those portions which required amendment of
    9
    Title 44, USC, and requested a statement from the Public Printer on his position.
    These were: (1) amendment of Section 1912 of Title 44 to provide a second hard copy or microform to regional depository libraries; (2) amendment of Section 1905 to require notification of the head of the library authority of the state, and the head of the regional depository, if any, when a new depository library designation is being sought; (3) amendment of Section 1909 to change “number of books . . . ten thousand” to “25,000 titles;” and, (4) amendment of Section 1912 to provide financial support for regional libraries.
    The Public Printer responded promptly, saying, “The Superintendent of Documents and I are in agreement that the proposed changes would strengthen the Depository Library Program.” Ballot by mail of the Council members during the interval between the October, 1975, and April, 1976, meetings, recommended a fifth amendment to the Public Printer. This, an amendment of Section 1905, would eliminate the optional endorsement by other depositories in the Congressional district in favor of review and approval by the state library authority and by the regional depository. The Public Printer reported to Council at the April, 1976, meeting that the GPO legal counsel was considering the proposed changes and that they would be sent to the Joint Committee on Printing.
    At the April, 1976, meeting, the Committee on a National System was charged with preparing specifications for a pilot project on activities which a regional depository might undertake to assist the Government Printing Office in its inspections.
    The Depository Law Committee, and later the Committee on a National System, have maintained a continuing interest in the work of ALA’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Depository Library Program.
    CONCLUSION
    The foregoing report has been assembled from transcripts and minutes of the Council meetings, reports and papers filed with the Council, and recollections of the original members. For historical purposes, the record of the actions and activities includes many references to specific meetings. An overview reveals certain highlights.
    Most significant, perhaps, has been the creation and functioning of the Council itself. Providing an effective interface between the Government Printing Office and the library world, its vitality has been due in no small measure to the interest, support, and responsiveness of the Public Printer. The policy of open meetings has provided an added dimension to this interchange.
    The improvements in the Monthly Catalog, and the commitment of the Government Printing Office to adhere to national bibliographic standards, and to participate in a computerized library network, are of major importance.
    The new Instructions, with more detail, more information, and a new format, the establishment of a meaningful inspection program, the development of the “Standards” and “Guidelines,” and the regional meetings of depository librarians have also been highlights.
    The beginnings of the micrographics program, the proposed changes in the depository law, the new Government Printing Office Publications Reference File, and the publication Highlights have been significant steps forward.
    The changes in the Depository Library Program in the past four years can be credited to many influences: the Public Printer and his staff, the Council, the Government Documents Round Table of the American Library Association, and the documents committees of the professional library associations. The Depository Library Council is pleased to have had a part in this effort.
    10
    appendix a
    Membership of the Council, Officers, and Committees
    MEMBERS
    Mr. D. Clifton Brock, Jr.
    Associate Librarian
    University of North Carolina
    Chapel Hill, North Carolina
    January 1973-June 1976
    Mr. Carper W. Buckley
    Superintendent of Documents
    (1953-1970) Retired
    January 1973-June 1976
    Miss Eileen D. Cooke
    Director, Washington Office
    American Library Association
    Washington, D.C.
    January 1973-December 197 4
    Mr. Clifford P. Crowers
    Assistant Head, Public Documents Department
    Free Library of Philadelphia
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    January 1973-June 1976
    Mr. Albert M. Donley
    Associate Director
    University Libraries
    Northeastern University
    Boston, Massachusetts
    January 1971>—December 197 Jf-
    Ms. Y. T. Feng
    Assistant Director
    Research Library Services
    Boston Public Library
    Boston, Massachusetts
    April 1975-September 1978
    Miss Jane Hammond
    Librarian
    Cornell Law Library
    Ithaca, New York
    April 1975-September 1978
    Ms. Bernadine E. Hoduski
    Librarian
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Region VII
    Kansas City, Missouri
    January 1973-December 1975
    Mr. Charles G. LaHood
    Chief, Photoduplication Service
    The Library of Congress
    Washington, D.C.
    January 1973-June 1977
    Mrs. Katherine LaichI
    President, American Library Association
    School of Library Science
    University of Southern California
    Los Angeles, California
    January 1973-Jzme 1973
    Mrs. Margaret T. Lane
    Recorder of Documents
    Louisiana Secretary of State’s Office
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    January 1973- June 1977
    Miss Jean E. LowrieI
    President, American Library Association
    Western Michigan University
    Kalamazoo, Michigan
    June 1973-June 197-k
    Mr. James C. MacCampbell
    Director of Libraries
    University of Maine
    Orono, Maine
    April 1975-September 1978
    Mr. Ralph E. McCoy
    Dean of Library Affairs
    Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
    Carbondale, Illinois
    January 1973-December 1974-
    t Honorary member.
    11
    Mr. Anthony W. Miele
    Director
    Alabama Public Library Services
    Montgomery, Alabama
    April 1975-September 1978
    Mr. Peter J. Paulson
    Director, New York State Library
    The University of the State of New York
    The State Education Department
    Albany, New York
    January 1973-June 1977
    Miss Catharine J. Reynolds
    Head, Government Documents Department
    University of Colorado Libraries
    Boulder, Colorado
    January 1973-June 1977
    Mrs. Maryan E. Reynolds
    State Librarian
    Washington State Library
    Olympia, Washington
    January 1973-June 1976
    Mr. Joseph F. Shubert
    State Librarian
    State Library of Ohio
    Columbus, Ohio
    July 1974-June 1977
    Mrs. Ruth S. Smith
    Manager, Technical Information Services
    Institute for Defense Analyses
    Arlington, Virginia
    April 1975-September 1978
    Ms. Maryellen Trautman
    Documents Librarian
    Oklahoma Department of Libraries
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    January 1973-June 1976
    OFFICERS
    Peter J. Paulson
    Chairperson
    Elected April 14, 1974
    Margaret T. Lane
    Vice-Chairperson
    Elected April 14, 1974
    Y. T. Feng
    Secretary
    Appointed April 14, 1974
    D. Clifton Brock, Jr. Temporary Chairperson February 2, 1973-June 28, 1973
    Ralph E. McCoy
    Chairperson
    June 28, 1973-April 14, 1974
    COMMITTEES
    COMMITTEE ON GPO OPERATIONS, appointed December 1975 Ruth S. Smith*
    Y. T. Feng
    Margaret T. Lane
    Maryan E. Reynolds
    Earlier committees include: COMMITTEE ON SPACE NEEDS OF THE DOCUMENTS OFFICE, appointed March 1973.
    Peter J. Paulson*
    Carper W. Buckley Charles G. LaHood Eileen D. Cooke, advisory capacity
    COMMITTEE OF DOCUMENTS OFFICE INFORMATION TOOLS, appointed March 1973 Bernadine E. Hoduski* Clifford P. Crowers Catharine J. Reynolds Maryan E. Reynolds
    (Referred to in Council Minutes as Committee on Bibliographic Control and Bibliographic Control Committee)
    COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE BOOKLET OF INSTRUCTIONS TO DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES, appointed January 25, 1974 Bernadine E. Hoduski* Maryellen Trautman
    COMMITTEE ON BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL, appointed April 14,1975 Ruth S. Smith*
    Y. T. Feng
    Maryan E. Reynolds
    COMMITTEE ON DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES, appointed December 1975 Catherine J. Reynolds* Carper W. Buckley
    Clifford P. Crowers
    Jane Hammond
    * Indicates chairperson.
    12
    Earlier committees include:
    standards committee, appointed January
    25, 1974
    Catharine J. Reynolds*
    Maryellen Trautman
    Margaret T. Lane
    inspections COMMITTEE, to be appointed, minutes July 6, 1974
    Peter J. Paulson* (served as chairperson
    until April 14,1975)
    Clifford P. Crowers* (became chairperson
    April 14, 1975)
    Albert M. Donley
    James C. MacCampbell (appointed April 14, 1975)
    COMMITTEE ON A NATIONAL SYSTEM, appointed December 1975
    James C. MacCampbell*
    Joseph F. Shubert
    Maryellen Trautman
    Earlier committees include:
    COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION, appointed March 5, 1973
    Ralph McCoy*
    D. Clifton Brock, Jr.
    Maryellen Trautman
    Jean Lowrie
    Eileen D. Cook, advisory capacity
    DEPOSITORY LAW committee, appointed April
    14, 1975
    Joseph F. Shubert*
    Y. T. Feng
    Jane Hammond
    COMMITTEE ON MICROGRAPHICS, appointed December 1975
    Charles G. LaHood*
    D. Clifton Brock, Jr.
    Anthony W. Miele
    Earlier committees include:
    COMMITTEE ON microforms, appointed Jan-
    uary 25, 1974
    Charles G. LaHood*
    Eileen D. Cooke
    Clifford P. Crowers
    MICROGRAPHICS COMMITTEE, appointed April
    14, 1975
    Charles G. LaHood*
    D. Clifton Brock, Jr.
    Anthony W. Miele
    Catharine J. Reynolds
    13
    APPENDIX B
    Charter and Bylaws
    CHARTER
    Adopted October 29, 1974
    Article I.—Name. The official designation of the group established for depository library advice shall be called “The Depository Library Council to the Public Printer.”
    Article II.—Objectives. The purpose of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer is to provide advice on matters dealing with the Depository Library Program as provided in Title 44, U.S.C. The Council will limit its work and recommendations to support of this Depository Library Program.
    Article III.	—Time. The Council will meet at least twice a year to carry out its objectives.
    Article IV.	—Report. The Council will report to the Public Printer of the United States.
    Article V.	—Support. The Government Printing Office will provide the necessary financial support for the Library Council as determined by the Public Printer.
    Article VI.—Duties. The Council will advise the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents on matters relating to the Depository Library Program which is outlined in Chapter 19, Title 44, U.S.C. This will include but not be limited to classification, distribution, cataloging, indexing, storage, availability and utilization of depository material and general administration of the Depository Library Program.
    Article VII.—Meeting. The estimated number of meetings of the Council is a minimum of two each year, approximately six months apart.
    Article VIII.—Operation. The Council, though not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, will generally operate in accordance with the Act but subject to modifications by the Public Printer. The Council will expire on January 1, 1975, unless renewed in writing by the Public Printer prior to that date.
    Article IX.—Amendments. The Charter
    may be amended by majority vote of the Council at a duly constituted meeting.
    Article X.—This Charter is filed November 1974.
    BYLAWS
    Adopted October 29, 1974
    Article I.—Name. The name of this organization shall be the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer.
    Article II.—Purpose. The purpose of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer shall be to advise the Public Printer and the Assistant Public Printer (Superintendent of Documents) on matters dealing with the Depository Library Program, specifically:
    a.	Needs of depository libraries relative to Government publications.
    b.	Cataloging and indexing of documents.
    c.	Shipping and handling publications.
    d.	Availability of publications to patrons and the public.
    e.	General administration of the program.
    Article III.—Membership.
    Section 1.	—General Membership. The Membership of the Depository Library Council shall consist of not more than 15 members of the Library community appointed by the Public Printer. The Public Printer and the Assistant Public Printer (Superintendent of Documents) are ex officio members.
    Section 2.	—Membership Makeup. At least five of the members of the Council shall be persons who work full time with Government documents in a depository library.
    Section 3.	—Term of Office. The members shall serve three years; five retiring each year and five entering each year, and members may be reappointed for a second term.
    Section 4.	—Vacancies. Vacancies on the Council will be filled from persons recommended
    14
    by the formal library associations and regional librarians.
    Section 5.	—Alternates. A member of the Council may designate a non-voting alternate to serve as an observer in his absence.
    Article IV.—Officers of the Council.
    Section 1.—Officers. The Officers of the Council shall be a Chairman, Vice Chairman and a Secretary. Term of office of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary shall be two years. The incumbents of these offices may succeed themselves in office for no longer than two additional terms.
    Section 2.—Selection of Officers. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman will be nominated by the Council and confirmed by the Public Printer. The Secretary will be appointed by the Chairman.
    Article V.—Duties of the Officers.
    Section 1.	—Chairman. The Chairman shall preside over meetings of the Council. He will have the duty of organizing the Council. He shall appoint such committees as necessary to carry out the duties of the Council. He shall serve as direct liaison between the Council and the Public Printer.
    Section 2.	—Vice Chairman. The Vice Chairman shall perform all acts and duties ordinarily required of the Chairman in the absence of the Chairman. Should the Chairman and Vice Chairman be absent from any meeting, the Council shall select from their number a person to act as Chairman for that particular meeting.
    Section 3.	—The Secretary. The Secretary shall arrange for preparation of records of meetings and proceedings. The Secretary shall further handle all official correspondence of the Council and each notice of meetings and keep all other records of the Council.
    Article VI.—Meetings.
    Section 1.	—Regular meetings. There will be at least two meetings, one during or just fol
    lowing a semi-annual meeting of the ALA and the second when and where designated by the Public Printer.
    Section 2.	—Additional meetings. The Chairman may call additional meetings upon the written request of the Public Printer or a written request of eight or more members of the Council.
    Section 3.	—Notice of meetings. Notice of meetings shall be mailed to the membership at least 30 days before the date of each meeting, and notice will be published in the Federal Register.
    Section 4.	—Open meetings. Meetings of the Council will be open to the public.
    Article VII.—Reports.
    Section 1.—Reports of meetings. The Secretary will prepare a report of each meeting for the signature of the Chairman and the Public Printer. A synopsis of the action taken by the Council at the meeting will be included.
    Section 2.—Annual reports. The Chairman shall present to the Public Printer an annual written report of the activities of the Council-Such reports shall be published and disseminated to the Council as soon as approved by the Public Printer. A copy of such approved Annual Report shall be forwarded to all Depository Libraries and be filed with the National Archives and Records Service. This report will be listed in the Monthly Catalog and will be available for purchase.
    Article VIII.'-—Rules of Order. The rules contained in the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern the meetings of the Council in all cases to which they can be applied and are not inconsistent with the charter or special rules of the Public Printer.
    Article IX.—Amendments. These Bylaws may be amended by majority vote of the Council at a duly constituted meeting.
    15
    APPENDIX C
    Proposed Standards and Guidelines
    MINIMUM STANDARDS
    The objective of the depository library system is to make U.S. Government publications readily accessible for use by the general public and to insure their continued availability in the future.
    The Depository Library Program
    1.	The Superintendent of Documents will be responsible for distribution of documents to depository libraries in accordance with the provisions of Title 44 of the United States Code.
    2.	The Superintendent of Documents will provide a comprehensive system of catalogs, bibliographies and indexes to U.S. Government publications.
    3.	There should be at least one selective depository accessible to the public in each Congressional district. The designated library shall have the interest, resources and ability to provide custody of the documents and public service. The library must contain at least 10,000 books other than government publications.
    4.	Each depository shall select and maintain a collection responsive to the needs of the users in the geographic area it serves and promote their use by the general public.
    The Depository Library
    5.	The collection in a depository library shall be organized to insure quick and easy access by library users. The library will promptly open shipments and claim publications selected but not received.
    6.	The collection shall be maintained in as good physical condition as the other collections in the library.
    7.	Each depository library will assign sufficient staff to select, organize and provide reference service to the collection.
    8.	Each depository will provide sufficient space of a quality which conforms to ALA standards for the type of library.
    9.	The depository will be open to the public for free use of depository publications.
    10.	Each depository library will cooperate with the instructions issued by the Superintendent of Documents, respond promptly to the Biennial Survey and to other communications from the Public Documents Office.
    Interlibrary Cooperation
    11.	All depository libraries shall be considered part of a national system to make Government documents available.
    12.	All selective depositories should be served by a regional depository. The regional depository libraries will 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.
    Submitted by:
    The Committee on Standards Depository Library Council to the Public Printer
    PROPOSED GUIDELINES (10/23/75)
    1.	Objectives of the Depository Library System.
    1-1 The purpose of depository libraries is to make U.S. Government publications easily accessible to users and to insure their continued availability in the future.
    16
    1-21
    2.	Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office.
    2-1 Obtain new Federal publications and forward free of expense to depository libraries as expeditiously as possible.
    2-21 2
    2-3 Provide all numbers of series in the List of Classes of United States Government Publications Available for Selection by Depository Libraries, including those numbers not printed at the Government Printing Office. (See also proposed changes l.b.)
    2-4 Actively gather and distribute in paper or micro-format all unrestricted Federal publications of reference value not printed at the Government Printing Office.
    2-5 Provide samples and/or annotations for new titles offered to depositories, and return cards for selection purposes.
    2-6 Subdivide item numbers as necessary to insure that libraries need receive only wanted documents.
    2-7 Supply shipping lists containing item numbers, titles of documents, classification numbers and order information with each day’s shipment of depository selections.
    2-8 Supply forms for claiming.
    2-9 Offer choice of format, paper, microform or other format; however, the GPO with consultation with the depository, should have the option of providing only one format when the nature of the material warrants it.
    2-10 Provide a comprehensive system of catalogs, bibliographies and indexes to Federal publications. (See Proposed Changes 2.b, 11/7/74)
    2-11 Provide a standard classification system for Federal documents and related aids such as lists of subject headings.
    2-12 Provide assistance to libraries on problems of using the Sudocs system of classification.
    2-13 Maintain a library to become the National Depository Library.
    2-14 Issue instructions for the selection, claiming, retention, withdrawal and other activities related to depository libraries.
    2-15 Provide additional funds for the evaluation of depository libraries through ques
    tionnaires, surveys, and inspections at intervals considered necessary by the Superintendent of Documents, to insure compliance with the depository law.
    2-16 After advance notice to the library concerned, investigate unsatisfactory conditions in depository libraries by personal visits. (See Proposed Changes l.c, 11/7/74)
    2-17 Provide written notice to a library about unsatisfactory conditions, and if not corrected within six months, delete the library from the list of depositories.
    2-18 Announce new policies and changes on a regular basis to all depositories.
    2-19 Cooperate with publication projects which contribute to use of Federal documents.
    2-20 Consult with an Advisory Council on matters related to depository libraries, including the development of standards.
    2-21 Collect, compile, analyze and report statistics on a regular basis.
    § 2-221
    3.	Designation of new depository libraries.
    3-1 There may be up to two depositories in each Congressional district, designated by representatives, two at large designated by Senators, and other depository libraries specifically provided for in the depository law.
    3-2 The library shall be open for free use of the general public, except as provided in U.S. Code, Title 44.
    3-3 The library shall have the interest, resources and ability to provide custody of the documents and public service.
    3-4 Minimum size of library. The library should possess at least 10,000 books other than Government publications. (See Proposed Changes 3.b, 11/7/74)
    3-52
    3-6 Hours of service. Documents collections should be open the same hours as other major parts of the library, when the library is open for full range of services.
    3-7 When there is a vacancy in a Congressional district, the fact should be made known to the state library authority, the state professional associations and the depositories within the region.
    3-8 Eligible libraries shall apply to the
    1 Reserved for new material.
    2 Deleted. See Proposed Changes 11/7/74 § 1 a.
    1	Reserved for new material.
    2	Deleted.
    17
    state library authority for evaluation and recommendation. The library must be prepared to offer statistics on the size and character of its collection, population served, budget, and if an academic library, the size of the student body, and need for research materials.
    3-9 The evaluation must relate to community interests and indicate staff, space and budget to be allocated to the collection and the number, scope and character of the items to be selected. The State library authority shall consult with the librarians of other depositories in the Congressional district and the regional depository, if any, representatives from the professional association will make a recommendation based on location in relation to other depositories, the need for an additional depository and the ability of the library to provide custody and service. (See Proposed Changes 3.a, 11/7/74)
    3-101
    4.	Collections.
    4-1 Each depository library should maintain a basic reference collection available for immediate use consisting of all titles in Appendix A (attached).
    4-2 Each library will acquire and maintain the basic catalogs, guides and indexes, retrospective and current, considered essential to the reference use of the collection. This should include selected non-governmental reference tools. {Appendix B, to be compiled) .
    4-3 Each depository will select frequently used and potentially useful materials appropriate to the objectives of the library.
    4-4 Each depository will select materials responsive to the needs of the users in the Congressional district it serves. (See Proposed Changes 4.6,11/7/74)
    4-5 Selection of at least 25 % of the available items on the Classified List is suggested as the minimum number necessary to undertake the role of depository library. (See Proposed Changes 4.a, 11/7/74)
    4-6 Coordinate selections with other depositories in the district.
    4-71
    5.	Organization of collection.
    5-1 The library will check all daily shipping lists to insure that items selected are received, and if not, promptly claimed.
    5-2 Each publication in the shipment should be marked with the word “depository” and the date of the Shipping List according to the Instructions to Depository Libraries, Revised July 1974.
    5-3 The library will record its accessions.
    5-4 The minimum record for a depository library should be a shelf list which shows the library’s holdings and the call numbers or locations where they may be found.
    5-5 A standard classification system should be adopted for precise identification and location of materials requested by library users.
    5-6 The classification adopted shall be optional with library; however, it is recommended that libraries which integrate their documents should maintain a shelf list by Sudocs number showing disposition of the publication.
    5-7 Any document should be available for public use within 10 days after receipt.
    5-8 Maintain statistics of the collection, needed for the Biennial Survey.
    5-91
    6.	Maintenance of the collection.
    6-1 Collections should be maintained in good physical condition as other library materials.
    6-22
    6-32
    6-4 Lost materials should be replaced if possible.
    6-5 Unneeded publications should be made available to other libraries.
    6-6 All publications should be retained for a period of at least five years before requesting permission from the regional library for disposal.
    6-71
    7.	Staffing.
    7-1 One person shall be designated by the library to coordinate activities and to act as liaison with the Superintendent of Documents in all matters relating to depository libraries.	—-
    7-2 This person shall be responsible for:
    1 Reserved for new material.
    1 Reserved for new material.
    18
    a)	selection, receipt and claiming of depository distributions
    b)	replies to correspondence and surveys from the Public Documents Department
    c)	interpret the Depository Program to the administrator of the library
    d)	performance and/or supervision of stated aspects of service, or in an integrated collection, a knowledge of to whom responsibilities are delegated.
    (1)	organization for use
    (2)	maintain records of the collection
    (3)	physical maintenance of the collection
    (4)	establish withdrawal procedures
    (5)	maintain reader services
    (6)	promote use of collection
    (7)	prepare budgets
    (8)	submit reports	_
    7-3 The liaison person should be a professionally qualified librarian with a minimum of two years library experience.
    7-4 The liaison person should be directly responsible to the administrative level of the library.
    7-5 Additional professional staff should be added depending on the size and scope of the library and the methods of organization of the collection.
    7-6 Professional staff will be assisted by support staff in a proportion of 1 to 3, and no greater than 1 to 5.
    7-7 Librarians and such support staff as indicated by their responsibilities will keep up to date on new developments through participation in professional societies, attendance at document workshops and professional readings.
    7-81
    8.	Space standards shall conform to ALA standards for type of library.
    8-1 Space for the depository operation should be of the same quality as other areas of the library. It should be attractive, comfortable and have acceptable levels of lighting, temperature, ventilation and noise control. It should be functional, flexible and expansible.
    8-2 The space should contain well planned areas for services provided, reference, circulation, loan and other public serv
    ice activities as well as adequate space for the processing of new materials and housing of the collection.
    8-3 It should include private work areas for staff members and the administrator.
    8-4 All parts of the collection should be readily accessible, preferably open shelf, but in all circumstances, should be located so that materials may be retrieved in a reasonable period of time.
    8-5 If documents are maintained in a separate division of the library, the space provided should be conveniently located to encourage use of the materials.
    8-6 The library should abide by the recommended standards for handicapped users.
    8-7 Tables and/or carrels should be provided for in-library use of documents.
    8—8 Microform readers and reader/ printers for the principal types of microforms should be provided.
    8-9 Microform storage should be located in the documents area.
    8-101
    9.	Services to users requiring Government information is the main objective of the depository system.
    9-1 The depository will be open to the public for free use of depository publications.
    9-2 In each depository library, there should be recognized focal points for inquiries about Government publications. At this point it should be possible to find out:
    a)	Resources in the collection, including specific titles.
    b)	Location of wanted publications in the library.
    c)	Answers to reference questions or a referral to a source or place where answers can be found.
    d)	Guidance on the use of the collection, including the principal available reference sources, catalogs, abstracts, indexes and other aids.
    e)	Availability of additional resources in the region.
    f)	Assistance in borrowing documents from a regional or other libraries.
    g)	User privileges for other libraries, educational agencies, culturally deprived,
    1 Reserved for new material.
    1 Reserved for new material.
    19
    disadvantaged, handicapped, retired users and the community at large.
    9-3 The library will have the option of establishing circulation policies for use of materials outside the library.
    9-4 The library will provide facilities for using materials within the library, including copying facilities and equipment for reading microforms.
    9-5 The library will publicize the depository collection through displays and announcements of significant new titles.
    9-6 The library will provide to all users the same reference and research services offered to its normal clientele.
    9-71
    10.	Cooperation with the GPO.
    10-1 Staff will familiarize themselves with the depository instructions and abide by their conditions.
    10-2 Claims will be submitted within stated time limits.
    10-3 Use correct address when corresponding with the GPO.
    10-4 Promptly return all questions, surveys submitted by the Superintendent of Documents.
    10-51
    11.	Interlibrary Cooperation.
    11-1 All depository libraries will be considered as part of a network of libraries consisting of selective, regional, and national. (See Proposed Changes ll.a, 11/7/74)
    11-2 Selective depositories will cooperate in building up the collections of the regional depositories.
    11-3 Selective depositories will cooperate with the redistribution of documents not needed in their own organizations.
    11-4 All depository libraries will cooperate in reporting to the Superintendent of Documents new Federal documents not listed in the Monthly Catalog.
    11-5 All depository libraries will cooperate in the development of tools for the identification and location of documents in other libraries
    11-6 Depository libraries borrowing documents from other libraries will verify bibliographic information as completely as possible.
    1 Reserved for new material.
    11-7 All depository libraries will provide material on interlibrary loan at least for the regional depository. (See Proposed Changes ll.b, 11/7/74)
    11-8 All depository libraries will provide a reasonable number of photocopies on request.
    11-91
    12.	Regional depository.
    12-1 Eligibility to become a regional depository library:
    a)	There may be not more than two regional depositories in one state. A regional library may serve two or more states, or regional status may be shared by more than one library. (See Proposed Changes 12.a-b, 11/7/74)
    b)	A regional library must be an existing depository.
    c)	A regional depository should be conveniently located to serve the largest number of people possible.
    d)	The library selected for regional status should have an adequate retrospective collection, space, personnel and a continuing basis of financial support sufficient to fulfill the obligations of a regional depository.
    e)	The selection of a regional depository should be agreed upon by the state library authority and all depository libraries within the region.
    12-2 Obligations of regional libraries:
    a)	Receive and maintain permanently all Federal Government publications in either printed or microform as provided in the depository instructions.
    b)	Attempt to complete their retrospective collections of major serials, annuals and other research materials by means of gift, exchange or purchase, including microforms.
    c)	Screen all lists of documents withdrawn from selective depositories to insure their future availability in the region.
    d)	Acquire additional copies where necessary.
    e)	Assist selective depositories with reference questions, interlibrary loans and photocopies.
    1 Reserved for new material.
    20
    f)	Grant permission to selective depositories to dispose of unwanted documents according to the Instructions to Depository Libraries.
    g)	Provide guidelines to selective depositories for preparing disposal lists of unwanted documents.
    h)	Contribute to the effectiveness of the depository network through workshops, training sessions and consultive services within their region.
    12-31
    Appendix A
    Budget of the United States
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
    Census Bureau Catalog
    Census of Housing (for State of Depository only)
    Census of Population (for State of Depository only)
    Code of Federal Regulations
    Congressional Directory
    Congressional District Data Book
    Congressional Record
    County-City Data Book
    Federal Register
    Monthly Catalog
    Numerical Lists and Schedule of Volumes
    Slip Laws (public)
    Statistical Abstract
    Statutes at Large
    Subject Bibliographies
    Supreme Court Reports
    United States Code
    United States Government Manual
    Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents
    21
    APPENDIX D
    Committee Reports
    Bibliographic Control Committee
    October 23,1975
    To: Depository Library Council to the Public
    Printer
    From: Committee on Bibliographic Control
    Subject: Bibliographic control
    Members of the present Committee on Bibliographic control were appointed on April 15, 1975, at Storrs, Conn. We met briefly and selected topics to be reviewed before the October Council meeting, as follows:
    (a)	Scope of the committee (Smith)
    (b)	Previous committe recommendations and GPO actions
    (c)	Content of the Monthly Catalog (Reynolds)
    (d)	Production of the MC on MARC tape (Reynolds)
    (e)	Experiences of others regarding OCLC, Bibnet, etc. (Feng)
    (f)	Non-GPO announcement (Smith)
    A report follows.
    SCOPE
    The purpose of this committee is to recommend ways of improving bibliographic control of documents which are sponsored, produced and distributed by or for the United States Government.
    Specifically, the committee will attempt to identify and evaluate sources and means of announcement, methods of recording bibliographic data, and ways in which GPO might improve its bibliographic processing and services.
    The committee will coordinate its efforts with other groups which are looking into prob
    lems of bibliographic control, whenever feasible. These groups include the Advisory Group on National Bibliographic Control, the Special Libraries Association Government Information Services Committee, and the American Library Association Government Documents Round Table.
    PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS AND GPO RESPONSE
    In February, 1974, the Subcommittee on Documents Informational Tools made recommendations on bibliographic control, as follows:
    1.	ISBN (numbers) be used instead of GPO stock numbers.
    2.	SuDocs numbers be printed on the verso of the title page, or cover, or, in the case of microform, in the header line.
    3.	A divided index be included in the Monthly Catalog and improvements be made, as follows:
    a.	Author index: Include up to two personal authors, translators, etc. Have separate listings for main agency and sub-agency.
    b.	Subject index: Acquire a cumulated thesaurus of terms, keywords, subjects used in past and present. Make it available to depositories. Include adequate cross references.
    c.	Title index: Cite titles consistently as they appear on the title page or cover. For monographs, include title and subtitle and popular names. For series, include title and subtitle.
    d.	Accession numbers index (new) : List SuDocs numbers with cross references to stock numbers, and vice versa.
    e.	Separate the Monthly Catalog into two sections: Listings (cumulated annually) and Index (cumulated monthly).
    The Sub-Committee also recommended that the following header information be included on microfiche: SuDocs number, main agency,
    22
    sub-agency, title (series title and number), personal author, date, and item number. Also, that Cataloging-in-Publication (CIP) information be provided.
    In October, 1974, in addition to the above, the Sub-Committee on Documents Office Tools recommended that all informational material produced at the expense of the government should be brought under bibliographic control. In order to accomplish this and make it possible for government publications to be part of the international bibliographic control system, the committee recommended that SuDocs do the cataloging for all federal documents in the MARC format and issue these MARC computer tapes as part of the MARC program.
    The Assistant Public Printer (Superintendent of Documents) responded in March, 1975, as follows:
    MARC format: We are looking into the possibility of using MARC format and joining FLECC (Federal Libraries Experimental Cooperative Cataloging.)
    ISBN (numbers): Once the order processing function is mechanized, the use of ISBN numbers will be considered.
    Imprinting SuDocs number: The classification number is being printed in reprinted publications and inside some new publications.
    Author index: We will follow the guidelines of the Federal Library Committee when we go to MARC format and will include more personal authors. Consideration will be given to future expansion. . . . We need to study the cost. . . .
    Thesaurus: This is not on the computer, but, if we ever put it in the computer, we will consider printing it.
    Subject index: We are revising the SuDocs subject authority list to make subjects and cross references more consistent.
    Title index: We will continue to cite titles and subtitles of series and monographs.
    Accession number index: Additional indexes will be considered when we implement the guidelines for MARC format.
    CONTENT OF THE MONTHLY CATALOG
    The Monthly Catalog should contain a listing by SuDocs number.
    Presently, the Monthly Catalog does not contain corporate authors as defined by cataloging rules.
    The Washington State publications catalog, which lists author, title and subject, might be used as a good example.
    PRODUCTION OF THE MC ON MARC TAPE
    Production of the Monthly Catalog using the MARC format should be done in such a way that networks or libraries can subscribe to and use the tapes.
    The Washington State library will be on-line in October and it will be possible for a terminal in the Depository Center to enter the data into the computer from which the Monthly Catalog can be printed. The information also can be submitted on MTST tapes (as Alaska has done) and thus entered into the computer. Full MARC tagging is a requirement. This is the only way the data can be manipulated to provide the kind of catalog needed.
    The Committee is concerned that the Public Printer will utilize a data base that does not provide full MARC tagging and a program that is designed to provide no more than cataloging data and/or cards.
    Anything done for libraries in the way of bibliographic information should:
    a.	Be useful to all.
    b.	Observe standards.
    1)	MARC format (not just “compatible”).
    2)	Cataloging rules.
    3)	Filing rules.
    c.	Have quality control (e.g., only one entry for the same item or, in the case of retrospective data, identify as the same with variations identified).
    OCLC, BALLOTS AND BIBNET FOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL
    OCLC (Ohio College Library Center): Initially, as its name implies, a centrally developed service for college libraries in Ohio, it was and basically remains an on-line catalog card and union holding system. Presently, it has more than 300 user-libraries, nearly four fifths of which are outside Ohio.
    23
    Like all major systems, it utilizes MARC data, but also inputs a variety of so-called MARC compatible catalog information from participating member libraries. Consequently, cataloging standards and quality control vary. OCLC bibliographical data base contains approximately 450,000 LC MARC and 600,000 local user input records. It has been further estimated that approximately 50,000 LC MARC records have not been included in the OCLC data base. Primarily a catalog card system, OCLC offers author and title and LC number search keys but no additional reference search access, although it is working towards expanded subject access and searching.
    BALLOTS (Bibliographic Automation of Large Library Operations using a Time-sharing System): This is an on-line interactive library automation system that supports the acquisition, cataloging, on-line reference, union catalog search and management functions of large university (Stanford University) libraries’ technical processing operations. Its data base includes 230,000 LC MARC, 170,000 Stanford input, and anticipated 700,000 local input from 9 libraries from the University of California, plus another 270,000 LC MARC records not presently maintained by BALLOTS.
    Present trends seem to indicate that BALLOTS will develop to be a major ‘regional’ technical services network with far-reaching national implications. It has wide-range reference access capacity and offers in-house technical services functions as order search, invoice preparation, and acquisition fund allocation. But some of these added features do not apply to our present concern, i.e., bibliographical control of government documents and a viable data base for the Monthly Catalog.
    BIBNET (Bibliographic Network): Developed by Information Dynamics Corp., BIBNET has a data base of 500,000 LC MARC records, full MARC or LC based, and has wide range subject reference search capacities. It offers a national service, although its clientele has been limited to fairly modest-sized libraries. Presently it is working on special law library-based index access, and produces information on microfiche. Unlike OCLC and BALLOTS, this is a private commercial enterprise.
    Recommendation: As already stated, anything contemplated for the Monthly Catalog
    24
    should be useful to all, observe standards, and maintain quality control. Therefore, whatever network or system GPO ultimately decides to join or develop, it must be readily accessible nationally. But we need to ask ourselves first, what do we want from this automated Monthly Catalog? The first and foremost objective is bibliographic control, and the ancillary function would be subject reference access. Therefore, its data base must be extensive and its search access multiple. Quality control and standards would indicate the need to adopt full MARC rather than MARC compatible, and national accessibility precludes limited regional systems.
    The Monthly Catalog, limited as it is, remains the major bibliographical record of U.S. government publications. As such, it is the logical base upon which to build an automated control system and reference network. It must, therefore, seek the best possible vehicle to fulfill its role.
    NON-GPO ANNOUNCEMENT
    The Government Printing Office does not index and announce all Federal government publications. These publications also are announced by (a) government information services, other than GPO, (b) national libraries, (c) issuing agencies themselves, and (d) non-profit or commercial sources. Some documents, such as those issued through field offices of agencies, often are not announced nationally at all. On balance, it would appear that more documents are announced outside GPO than are announced by GPO. For example, the National Technical Information Service claims to add 12 times as many new titles as the GPO, each year. “Customer Memo” in NT IS Will Improve Your Bottom Line, Springfield, Va. NTIS, n.d. NTIS-PR-231. Distributed September 1975.)
    The announcement media of these various sources differ in many ways. They range from one-alphabet agency lists to complicated data bases with multiple access points. Indexing is done according to COSATI guidelines for technical reports, the Anglo-American cataloging rules, and/or some other rules tailored to a specific agency or mission. Both COSATI and MARC formats for the interchange of bibliographic information on magnetic tape are used. Some of these announcement media are avail
    able only to users with need-to-know. Most, however, are available to the public, either without charge or for a fee.
    Various groups now are working to create standards that will facilitate the orderly development of a national network. The Committee recommends that GPO follow the standards adopted by these groups and study carefully the results of current surveys being conducted by staff members of the Joint Committee on Printing, the Advisory Group on National Bibliographic Control (jointly supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Commission on Libraries and Information Sciences, and the Council on Library Resources), and the SLA Government Information Services Committee (in conjunction with the Committee on Information Hang-ups, Washington, D.C.).
    In conclusion, the Committee would like to emphasize that GPO must make sure its system for bibliographic control is (a) designed to be useful to libraries and (b) is completely compatible with the emerging national plan.
    R. S. Smith, Chairperson Y. T. Feng
    M. E. Reynolds
    Committee on Documents Office Informational Tools
    February 6,197 U
    To: Advisory Council to the Public Printer on Depository Libraries
    From: Subcommittee on Documents Office Informational Tools
    Subject: Bibliographic control
    All informational material produced at the expense of the government should be brought under bibliographic control. In order to accomplish this and make it possible for government publications to be part of the international control system, we recommend that ISBN’s (numbers) be used instead of GPO stock numbers.
    We further recommend that the Superintendent of Documents number be printed on the verso of the title page or on the cover (if there is no title page). It should also be printed on the microform copy of the publication in the header line.
    We commend the Superintendent of Documents on including a divided index in the Monthly Catalog. But we would like to suggest the following improvements:
    INDEX
    A.	AUTHOR INDEX
    1.	Personal author. Expand this to include up to two personal authors, translators, actual authors of translated works, committee chairmen, editors, directors and producers of audio-visual material.
    2.	Corporate author. Have separate listing for main agency and sub-agency {e.g. Library of Congress and Copyright Office).
    B.	SUBJECT INDEX
    1.	Need a cumulated thesaurus of terms, keywords, subjects used in the past and current Monthly Catalogs. This has already been done by Carrollton Press in its cumulation of the Monthly Catalog Indexes. Every effort should be made to acquire this cumulation and the data base as the beginning of an automated thesaurus.
    2.	Make the thesaurus available to the depositories.
    3.	Include adequate, consistent cross references.
    C.	TITLE INDEX
    (Cite titles consistently as they appear on the title page or cover.)
    1.	Monographs include title and subtitle and popular name.
    2.	Series include title and subtitle.
    D.	ACCESSION NUMBERS INDEX (NEW)
    1.	Superintendent of Documents classification numbers (with cross reference to stock number).
    2.	Stock numbers (with cross reference to Superintendent of Documents number).
    E.	separate the Monthly Catalog into two SECTIONS
    1.	Listings (cumulate once a year).
    2.	Index (cumulate monthly).
    Submitted by:	Bernadine Hoduski
    Catharine Reynolds Clifford Crowers Maryan E. Reynolds
    25
    February 8,197
    October 30,1971t
    To: Advisory Council to the Public Printer on Depository Libraries
    From : Subcommittee on Documents Office Informational Tools
    Subject: Microforms
    This committee hopes that the following recommendations will be incorporated into the report of the Committee on Microforms:
    1.	Bibliographic control of the microforms is very important. This includes physically identifying the microforms so they can be used in conjunction with the paper collection. This means including the following information in the headers: Superintendent of Documents classification number, U.S. main agency, subagency, title, (series title and number), personal author, date, item number.
    2.	“Cataloging in Publication” should be provided.
    3.	The integrity of the depository microform collection should be maintained .There should be assurance that no titles, parts of series, issues of periodicals, etc., are left out of the collection.
    4.	Transmittals, errata sheets, revised editions should be filed with the main publication or better yet revised fiche should be issued including the new information.
    5.	There should be a consistent plan in assigning documents to a fiche. Wherever possible there should be only one document to a fiche. This is important for filing and retrieval ease.
    6.	Indexes to publications should be issued in dual-media (paper and microfiche).
    7.	Replacement policies need to be established.
    8.	How promptly will micropublications be distributed? In those series where the time lag will destroy the usefulness of the publication if it isn’t available quickly, the publications should be issued in dual-media.
    9.	Consideration should be given to filming retrospective collections, especially certain hard to obtain journals and series.
    Submitted by:	Bernadine Hoduski
    Catharine Reynolds Clifford Crowers Maryan E. Reynolds
    To: Advisory Council to the Public Printer on Depository Libraries
    From : Subcommittee on Documents Office Informational Tools
    Subject: Bibliographic control
    All informational material produced at the expense of the government should be brought under bibliographic control. In order to accomplish this and make it possible for government publications to be part of the international bibliographic control system, we recommend that:
    1.	The Superintendent of Documents Office do the cataloging for all federal documents in the MARC format and issue these MARC computer tapes as part of the MARC program. (In order to implement this, a task force composed of representatives of the Advisory Council to the Public Printer on Depository Libraries, the Government Printing Office and the Library of Congress should be established to begin work immediately.)
    2.	ISBN numbers should be assigned to all federal documents. This number would replace the present SuDoc stock number.
    3.	The SuDoc class number should be printed on the verso of the title page or on the cover of all federal publications. It should also be printed on the microform copy of the publication in the header line.
    We commend the Superintendent of Document on including a divided index in the Monthly Catalog. We would like to suggest the following improvements:
    INDEX
    A.	AUTHOR INDEX
    1.	Personal author. Expand this to include up to two personal authors, translators, actual authors of translated works, special committee and commission chairman, editors, directors and producers of audio-visual material.
    2.	Corporate author. Have separate listing for main agency and sub-agency (e.g. Library of Congress and Copyright Office).
    B.	SUBJECT INDEX
    1.	Include adequate, consistent cross references.
    2.	Provide a thesarus of subject terms used by the SuDoc Office in paper format and in computer tape format.
    26
    C.	TITLE INDEX
    (Cite titles consistently as they appear on the title page or cover.)
    1.	Monographs—include title and subtitle and popular name.
    2.	Series—include title and subtitle and series number.
    D.	ACCESSION NUMBERS INDEX (NEW)
    1.	Superintendent of Documents classification numbers (with cross reference to stock number or ISBN number).
    2.	Stock numbers or ISBN number (with cross reference to Superintendent of Documents number).
    E.	separate the Monthly Catalog into two SECTIONS
    1.	Listings (cumulate once a year).
    2.	Index (cumulate monthly).
    Submitted by:	Bernadine Hoduski
    Catharine Reynolds Clifford Crowers Maryan E. Reynolds
    Depository Law Committee
    Report of the Depository Law Committee of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer
    October 23,1975
    The Committee reviewed the “Proposed Changes to the Minimum Standards and Guidelines for the Depository Library System Which Require Legislative and Administrative Action” as it appeared in the draft Annual Report of the Council, FY 1975. We draw attention to corrections which are needed in that document before it is published, based upon our review of the Council Minutes of April 14, 1975, and the copies of the Standards Committee document furnished by Catharine Reynolds and Jane Hammond.
    The Committee identified an omission in p. 6 of the Council Minutes, 2nd session, April 14, 1975, by which Council discussion and action on points 11b and 12a were not recorded.
    Therefore the Committee recommends that the Council confirm that the corrected document “Proposed Changes . . .” as reviewed October 23, 1975, is that recommended by the Council on April 14,1975. A copy of the corrected document is attached to this report.
    The Committee further reviewed the “Proposed Changes . . .” as approved April 14, 1975, and identified those recommendations which we believe require amendment of Title 44, as opposed to those which require only appropriations or administrative action. Those which we believe require amendments are:
    Amendment 1—(recommendation la) “second copy—microform or paper” . . . Sec. 1912 of Title 44. We also note this has fiscal implications.
    Amendment 2 (recommendation 3a) insert “. . . head of the regional depositories”
    ... Sec. 1905
    Amendment 3 (recommendation 3b) “minimum of 25,000 volumes” ... Sec. 1909, paragraph 2
    Amendment 4 (recommendation 12b) “financial support for regionals”
    This requires appropriation but would also require authorizing legislation.
    . .. Sec. 1912
    Amendments (recommendation 11)
    The Committee notes this recommendation is still under discussion inasmuch as it is an agenda item for October 24.
    We believe the next step is for the Public Printer to provide the Council with a statement of his position on the amendments 1-4 as identified above.
    In order for this Committee to complete this phase of its work by January 1976, we trust that the Public Printer can provide the Council with such a statement by December 31,1975.
    The Committee believes that the work presently assigned to it could be handled by the proposed “Committee on a National System” as suggested by the Council Chairperson.
    Jane Hammond
    Y. T. Feng
    Joseph F. Shubert, Chairperson
    27
    PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
    MINIMUM STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY SYSTEM WHICH REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
    (Numbers correspond to standards numbers.)
    1.	Distribution of Documents
    a)	The number of copies of GPO imprints purchased for distribution to depository libraries is equal to the number of libraries which select that item from the List of Classes . . . (44 U.S. Code 1903). Most regional depositories are large libraries serving large numbers of library users on-site as well as providing interlibrary loan service to selective depositories within the region. It is recommended that regional depositories be entitled to a second copy, either in microform or paper copy, if desired.
    b)	The cost of printing and binding of non-GPO publications is borne by the components responsible for their issuance (44 U.S Code 1903). The Committee feels this restricts their availability to the depository program. It is recommended that appropriations be provided to enable the Superintendent of Documents to obtain non-GPO Government publications.
    c)	The Superintendent of Documents is charged with the responsibility of investigating depositories (44 U.S. Code 1909). It is re-ommended that the Superintendent of Documents should receive adequate funding to conduct an inspection program of depository libraries biennially.
    2.	Catalogs, Bibliographies and Indexes
    to U.S. Government Publications
    a)	Bibliographic tools cited in Title 44 include a Comprehensive Index (44 U.S. Code 1710), a Catalog of Government Publications (44 U.S. Code 1711), and a Classified List (44 U.S. Code 1904).
    b)	The comprehensive index referred to in section 1710 was the Documents Catalog which ceased with the 1940 coverage, and to some extent was replaced by the reorganized Month
    ly Catalog. It is recommended that financial support be given to the Superintendent of Documents to increase the coverage in the Monthly Catalog, improve the indexing, provide periodic cumulations and speed up publication, thereof.
    3.	Designation of Depository Libraries
    a)	It is possible for a new depository to be designated by a Congressman or Senator without the knowledge of the regional depository, which may be in the best position to know if there is a need for an additional depository and where it should be located. It is recommended that 44 U.S. Code 1905 include the words: “and head of the library authority of the State and the heads of regional depositories, if any.”
    b)	The law specifies that a library must contain 10,000 books other than Government publications to be a depository library. The Committee considers a library of this size to have insufficient resources to support a depository library. The term ‘book’ is misleading, since it could indicate multiple copies of the same book. The Committee recommends 25,000 titles other than Government publications as the basic minimum size to be eligible to become a depository library.
    4.	Collections
    a)	Appropriations may not be used to supply depository libraries documents, books, or other items not requested by them (44 U.S. Code 1913). This restriction tends to nullify the intent of the depository law which is to make Government publications available to the public. The law implies needs beyond those of the individual institution which serves as the depository. For example, a law library occupying a depository designation may be interested in acquiring only legal materials. Library users in the area may need access to other materials, such as the Census.
    b)	The present law makes no requirements as to number or type of document selected by the individual depository. While recognizing that to receive all depository items would place
    28
    an undue burden on the small library, the Committee believes that it is reasonable to require a depository to accept a minimum of the selections available to depositories. This would include a basic list, revised annually, recommended by the committee of depository librarians and additional titles selected by the depository to satisfy the needs of the community.
    5-10. These standards refer to custody and serve for depository materials. They are covered in general terms in 44 U.S. Code 1909 and specifically in Instuctions to Depositories (July 1,1974).
    11.	National System
    At present this system consists of selective depositories and regional depositories. It is recommended that provision should be made for a National Depository Library at the head of the system. In the January 22, 1974, report of the ALA Ad Hoc Committee on the Depository Library System. 8 of 9 recommendations refer to a National Depository Library.
    12.	Regional Depositories
    a)	Only 38 states are served by one or more regional depositories. Regional status is voluntary. Selective depositories not served by a regional depository are unable to discard unwanted documents or to depend on a regional for reference questions, interlibrary loan, photoduplication or assistance in the organization of their collections. The Superintendent of Documents lacks the assistance of the regional librarians for information about conditions of local depositories or for participating in inspections and their follow-up.
    b)	To assure the regional depositories are better able to serve selective depositories, it is recommended that limited financial szipport be sought to defray direct costs incurred by a regional depository for responsibilities beyond those of a selective depository.
    Recommended by the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer April 14, 1975
    GPO Operations Committee
    Depository Library Council to the Public
    Printer
    Committee on GPO Operations Report
    April 23,1976
    The Committee on GPO Operations, established by the Council at its October 1975 meeting in Washington, began work in January. As part of its charge to look into bibliographic control and GPO performance, it took over the work of the former Committee on Bibliographic Control.
    The Committee established the following goals:
    (1)	Maintain an awareness of GPO’s activities, compile a list of continuing operational concerns, and evaluate GPO’s performance on specific items through interviews with the GPO staff and GPO reports at Council meetings.
    (2)	Provide opportunities, whenever feasible, for an interchange between GPO staff and users of GPO services, in order to determine user needs for Federal government document services.
    (3)	Review activities of other groups working on related projects, especially bibliographic control.
    (4)	Prepare reports to the Council, and to the community at large when the potential effect of the latter will be to further the work of the committee.
    Progress toward achieving these goals was as follows:
    GPO Performance. A list of continuing operational concerns will be compiled, after GPO reports at the April Council meeting.
    User Feedback. The Committee sponsored a one-day “Ad hoc meeting on the Monthly Catalog”, December 9, 1975, at the Institute for Defense Analyses, Arlington, Va. The purpose was to discuss the potential for reformatting the bibliographic citation as it appears in the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications, in view of the input of cataloging information to OCLC in MARC format.
    Thirty-one attendees included three staff members from GPO, three people from the Fed
    29
    eral Library Committee, two from the Advisory Group on National Bibliographic Control, and representative librarians from academic, public and special libraries, some of which were depositories. The attendees, all from the greater Washington area, also represented associations such as The American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, American Society for Information Science, Federation of Information Users, and Special Libraries Association. Specific recommendations were made in regard to essential elements required in the Monthly Catalog by various types of users.
    A “Follow-up on the New Monthly Catalog” meeting was held at the same place in April 1976. Invited to attend were the attendees of the first meeting, members of the Committee on Information Hang-ups (Washington, D.C.) and representatives of selected large Federal libraries. They provided feedback on the new MC format, as described by GPO staff.
    Other Group Activities. The Committee continued communication with groups looking into the problems associated with national bibliographic control and/or GPO operations, such as The Advisory Group on National Bibliographic Control, the SLA Government Information Services Committee, and the ALA Government Documents Round Table Task Force on Federal Documents. Such groups have been holding meetings, conducting surveys and compiling reports. In general, they have been cooperative in exchanging information about these activities with this Committee.
    Reports. An article, “About GPO and The Depository Library Council,” which describes recent meetings of the Council and the Bibliographic Control Committee, was submitted to Special Libraries magazine. The article is scheduled for publication in July.
    A discussion paper, “Bibliographic Control— A National Concern,” was prepared for presentation on April 23, 1976, at the Council meeting in Columbus, Ohio. This discussion paper is enclosed.
    Ruth S. Smith, Chairman Y. T. Feng M. Lane
    M. E. Reynolds
    Inspection Committee
    Advisory Council to the Public Printer Inspection Committee Report
    October 30,197
    Purpose: To recommend to the Council criteria for evaluation of depositories that are based upon Title 44 and the regulations of the GPO to insure proper selection and management of depository libraries.
    Objective: To develop a standard procedure for assessing the effectiveness of the selection process and the depository libraries; and to correlate these procedures with recognized existing evaluation criteria for other institutions, i.e., regional accrediting associations for Schools and Colleges, the Standards of the Association of College and Reference Libraries, HEW— OE statistics (revised), and those of the Council’s Standards Committee.
    EVALUATION CRITERIA
    1.	The Council in cooperation with the GPO should bring into being an Association of Regional and Depository Libraries that is self-governing to maintain the necessary standards for the selection, and evaluation of depository libraries.
    a.	Membership signifies compliance with standards and procedures of the Association.
    (1)	A member is recommended to the Public Printer after a self evaluation is made and an on-site appraisal is made of staff, facilities, collection and services.
    b.	Membership is open to public, college, university, governmental and special depositories.
    c.	An evaluation committee shall be composed of the Regional Depository librarian (or a designated representative), a depository librarian from the same type of library (e.g, public, school, or academic), and a depository librarian to evaluate the community served.
    2.	Qualitative Criteria Standards
    a. Objectives of the depository within the institution, community, or facility.
    (1)	Effectiveness of the support for the depository.
    30
    (2)	Professional Staff
    (3)	Clientele served
    (4)	Services
    (5)	Physical Plant
    (6)	Relationship to Regional and other depositories
    b.	Collections
    (1)	Holdings, particularly those relevant to proposed or available depository items
    (2)	Microform equivalents
    (a) Equipment availability
    (3)	Current acquisitions
    c.	Classification/cataloging
    (1)	The use of standard DC, LC or SUDOCS organization to insure ready access to the depository collection (s).
    d.	Personnel
    (1)	The availability of a qualified librarian, supportive staff, and part-time assistants.
    (2)	The community structure should indicate the personnel needs of the depository library.
    e.	Service
    (1)	The availability of depository collections should be made known to the clientele by community involvement, instruction, mass media, hours of service, circulation.
    (2)	Photocopying services
    (3)	ILL services
    (4)	Reference services
    f.	Physical Plant
    (1)	Adequate square feet, lighting and ventilation
    (2)	Appropriate shelving for bound and unbound, and cabinets for microform
    (3)	Seating
    (4)	Staff facilities
    g.	Administration/Management
    (1)	Policy
    (2)	Procedural manuals
    (a)	Flow charts
    (b)	Position descriptions
    (3)	Cost analysis
    (a) Cost benefit analysis
    (4)	Self evaluation
    h.	Financing
    (1)	Expenditures for direct and indirect support services.
    (2)	A total of 5 percent of the total facility budget.
    i.	Statistics
    (1)	Holdings
    (a)	Monographs
    (b)	Separates
    (c)	Serials
    (d)	Microform
    1.)	Film 35,16 MM
    2.)	Film Cartridge 16 M
    3.)	Fiche (size)
    (2)	Reference use
    (3)	Circulation
    (4)	Photo duplication
    (5)	Fiche duplication
    (6)	ILL
    (7)	Bibliographic searches
    (8)	Claims
    (9)	Cooperative acquisitions
    j.	Standards for type of depository
    (1)	Public Libraries—size
    (2)	College Libraries
    (3)	University Libraries
    (4)	Governmental depositories
    (5)	Special depositories
    3.	The Inspection
    a.	Notification
    (1)	Self evaluation—statistics
    (2)	Letter of intent six months in advance
    b.	Previous evaluation study
    c.	Staff interviews
    (1)	Obj ective
    (2)	Constructive
    (3)	Evaluate .
    (4)	Problem—Recommendations
    d.	Community interviews
    (1)	Service
    (2)	Availability of staff
    (3)	Availability of collection
    (4)	Problems—Recommendations
    4.	Report
    a.	Statistical
    b.	Interpretations—conclusions
    c.	Approval—Disapproval with alternatives
    d.	Confidentiality
    e.	Written report
    (1)	Copies to all concerned
    5.	Submit to GPO within 10 days
    a.	Evaluation—appraisal by Inspection Team Approval—Disapproval
    31
    b.	Review—GPO Inspection Staff
    c.	Appeal—Hearing
    d.	GPO Determination
    e.	Re-evaluation for five years
    6.	Provision to drop depository status
    7.	Summary
    The final draft of criteria for inspection/ evaluation should include the work of the Standards Committee of the Council; the necessary changes in Title 44; the inclusion of Standard Statistical Methodology of HEW-OE; and the procedures used by regional accrediting associations for schools, colleges and universities and the Association of Colleges and Research Libraries Standards.
    Respectfully submitted, Clifford Crowers Albert Donley
    Peter Paulson, Chairperson
    Advisory Council to the Public Printer Inspection Committee
    Addendum to October 1974 Report
    1.	The committee recommends evaluation at least every five years.
    2.	The evaluation team should consist of someone from a regional depository or a designated representative, a representative of GPO, and a representative from the same type of library. In states which do not have a regional depository GPO will ask the state library authority to designate a representative, and GPO will select the third member from another depository library.
    3.	Initial implementation by GPO should be through the regional depositories. Regional depositories should be encouraged by GPO to utilize formal or informal associations, existing or new, to provide assistance and guidance to the depository libraries between evaluations.
    4.	Regional depositories should be subject to evaluation. The team should consist of one representative of GPO, someone from another regional depository, and someone from a depository library within the region.
    5.	The Joint Committee on Printing should be asked to make funding available for travel expenses, and to support the regional depository aspects of this program.
    6.	Planning for implementation of this program, and the development of evaluation forms, should be the responsibility of a committee consisting of GPO staff, regional depositories, and depository libraries.
    Committee on Inspection
    Report to the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer
    October 24,1975
    The full committee met at 1 PM, October 24, 1975: Carper W. Buckley, James C. MacCamp-bell, Clifford P. Crowers (Chair). Also present from the Government Printing Office staff: Helen Holt, Dan MacGilvray.
    1.	Since lack of inspection of depository libraries was one of the first matters to which the council addressed itself upon its activation, the committee express to the council its great satisfaction with the progress made by GPO in hiring an additional staff member and in having made 386 inspections this year. The committee also expresses its pleasure with the quality of the inspectors, Ms. Holt and Mr. MacGilvray.
    2.	The committee noted that some of the statistics asked to be kept by depository libraries are impossible for some to comply with. These suggested statistics are being used on a trial basis during 1975. The committee recommends that the Committee on Standards review this matter in order to develop recommendations for keeping statistics that are useful but possible, keeping in mind the statistics required by the Office of Education.
    3.	The committee recommends that Regional Depositories should be informed that they may obtain copies of the inspection reports made of selective depositories under their jurisdiction but that they be not automatically furnished. It is desirable to keep the reports confidential but Mr. MacCampbell, for instance, did not know he was entitled to see reports on libraries in his area.
    4.	The committee recommends that the Superintendent of Documents notify depositories by letter those standards now required and of those proposed by the council for adoption. While these were published in the January 1975
    32
    issue of Documents to the People, this is not official notification.
    5.	Since inspection will be made upon the basis of the proposed standards, when finally adopted or authorized by changes in the depository law, as appropriate, the committee recommends that the Committee on Standards consider carefully whether all of the proposed standards or recommendations for changes in the depository law fit all depository libraries. An example of this is the possible designation of law libraries as depositories and whether it is the intent of Congress that the same stipulations apply equally to them as do to other depositories with a more general, public function. The question is not about law libraries per se but the concern that we do not develop standards which cannot be complied with practically.
    6.	Since the quality and performance of the selective depositories could be improved by greater assistance from the regionals in the form of visits, workshops, and the like, the committee recommends that the Government Printing Office explore whether it is possible to provide some funding for this purpose for regionals under the existing law as stated in 44 USC 1909.
    Respectfully submitted:
    Clifford P. Crowers, Chairman
    Micrographics Committee
    Report of the Micrographics Committee Depository Library Council to the Public
    Printer
    October 23,1975
    Temporary Chairman—J. D. Livsey
    Members Present—Mr. Anthony W. Miele and
    Mr. Clifton Brock
    A progress report on the status of the Government Printing Office Microform Pilot Project was provided Committee members. First shipments of film from the contractor are excellent in quality with all technical specification requirements being met. Shipments to participating libraries expected to begin in November.
    A discussion on the microform activities of other Federal agencies in Washington was also provided.
    Reasons for shipment of the 8th Edition of the Library of Congress Szibject Headings were also discussed.
    There being no further business before the Committee the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
    Respectfully submitted, J. D. Livsey
    Standards Committee
    June 7,1974
    To: Advisory Council to the Public Printer on Depository Libraries
    From: Subcommittee on Standards
    Subject: Depository library standards
    The need for more stringent standards for depository libraries has been frequently expressed. Standards are necessary to determine if a library is able to fulfill its commitment as a depository library, inform the would-be depository on the responsibilities involved, and serve as guidelines for improved performance by existing depositories.
    The Subcommittee on Standards has approached the problem in the following ways:
    1.	Sought suggestions from other libraries through letters of inquiry and news notes in professional literature.
    2.	Surveyed literature on library standards.
    3.	Drawn up lists of topics for standards based on suggestions submitted.
    4.	Drafted standards.
    5.	Reviewed standards with other members of the Subcommittee prior to discussion by the Advisory Council.
    The drafting of standards for depository libraries is a complex task since a depository library may be a public, college, university, state or special library or the library of a government agency. Depositories vary in size, gover-ance and financial support. Standards must be high enough to stimulate needed improvements
    33
    in the Depository system but not so rigid that some areas, where no library is strong enough to undertake the responsibility, would be unserved.
    The working draft accompanying this report is intended only as a beginning step. It requires evaluation by librarians of diversified backgrounds. Some recommendations will require further amplification and additional subjects should be proposed. The draft begins with a statement of goals to dispel the notion that the purpose of a depository is to get documents free. Space has been left at the end of each section for additions.
    Acceptance of standards would necessarily be voluntary because the depository law is sometimes highly specific albeit unrealistic, i.e. the requirement of only 10,000 volumes other than government publications, and sometimes too general, i.e. the statement ‘making documents available.’ When acceptable standards have been developed, the logical step will be to seek revision of the depository law to insure that future designations are awarded only to well qualified libraries.
    Once conferred, depository status cannot be taken away without gross negligence by the library or voluntary relinquishment. It is essential for libraries to have protection from arbitrary removal of the designation from one library to another as political fortunes change. It is unlikely, however, that present small depositories, i.e. those selecting fewer than 25% of available items, would be willing to forego their status unless there would be an alternative method of acquiring free publications. An earlier proposal would create a third class of depositories, libraries which would receive an annual, no-strings credit at the GPO for purchase of wanted government publications. This proposal should be considered with studies preparatory to new legislation.
    Submitted by:
    Catharine J. Reynolds Margaret Lane Maryellen Trautman
    34
    Draft Proposal
    Basic List of U.S. Publications
    Required for Depository Libraries
    Monthly Catalog
    Price Lists
    Numerical Lists and Schedule of Volumes
    U.S. Code
    Statutes at Large
    Slip Laws (public)
    Code of Federal Regulations
    Federal Register
    Congressional Record
    Congressional Directory
    U.S. Government Organization Manual
    Statistical Abstract
    Congressional District Data Book
    County-City Data Book
    Census of Population (for state of depository only)
    Census of Housing (for state of depository only)
    Census Bureau Catalog
    Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents
    Budget of the U.S.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
    Supreme Court Reports
    ******
    Reluctantly left off list... to be added??
    State Department Bulletin
    Monthly Checklist of State Publications
    U.S. Treaties and International Agreement Series
    Vital Statistics
    Consumer Price Index
    Digest of Public General Bills
    Government Reports Announcements
    October 1,1974 To: Depository Library Council to the Public
    Printer
    From : Catharine J. Reynolds, Chairman Committee on Standards
    Subject : Depository Library Standards
    Enclosed are the following:
    1. Working draft [no. 1] of the Proposed Standards for the Depository Library System, June 1, 1974, as amended by the Council July 6, 1974. Paragraph numbering of the original draft has been retained for the present to facilitate comparison.
    2. Working draft no. 2, to be discussed during the meeting of October 29-30, 1974. Please read and be prepared to comment.
    It is the personal opinion of your Standards Committee chairman, that a stripped down version will not provide the weight nor incentive for depositories to upgrade their operations. One possible solution is to accept the more general version and to attach the original draft standards, renamed Guidelines for Depository Libraries. Though voluntary, the guidelines would be of assistance to librarians, who must spell out to their administrators and/or financial support agencies what is needed for adequate performance as a depository library. Another possibility is a third version of the Standards midway between the two drafts.
    It is my understanding that time is to be scheduled at the October meeting for both Committee and Council work on the Standards.
    Please bring both drafts and your comments to Washington.
    PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
    MINIMUM STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY SYSTEM WHICH REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
    (Numbers correspond to standards numbers).
    1.	Distribution of Documents
    a)	The number of copies of GPO imprints purchased for distribution to depository libraries is equal to the number of libraries which select that Item from the List of Classes . . . (44 U.S. Code 1903). Most regional depositories are large libraries serving large numbers of library users on-site as well as providing interlibrary loan service to selective depositories within the region. It is recommended that regional depositories be entitled to a second copy if desired.
    b)	The cost of printing and binding of non-GPO publications is borne by the components responsible for their issuance (44 U.S. Code 1903). The Committee feels this restricts their availability to the depository program. It is recommended that appropriations be provided to the Superintendent of Documents for purchase of non-GPO government publications.
    c)	The Superintendent of Documents is charged with the responsibility of investigating depositories (44 U.S. Code 1909). It is recommended that the Superintendent of Documents should receive adequate funding to conduct an inspection program of depository libraries biennially.
    2.	Catalogs, Bibliographies and Indexes to U.S. Government Publications
    a)	Bibliographic tools cited in Title 44 include a Comprehensive Index (44 U.S. Code 1710), a Consolidated index to congressional publications and a Classified List (44 U.S. Code 1904).
    b)	The comprehensive index referred to in section 1710 was the Document Catalog which ceased with the 1940 coverage, and to some extent was replaced by the reorganized Monthly Catalog. It is recommended that financial support be given to the Superintendent of Documents to increase the coverage in the Monthly Catalog, improve the indexing, provide periodic cumulations and speed up publication.
    3.	Designation of Depository Libraries
    a)	It is possible for a new depository to be designated by a Congressman or Senator without the knowledge of the regional depository, which may be in the best position to know if there is a need for an additional depository and where it should be located. It is recommended that 44 U.S. Code 1905 include the words ‘head of the library authority of the state and regional depository.’
    b)	The law specifies that a library must contain 10,000 books other than government publications to be a depository library. The Committee considers a library of this size to have insufficient resources to support a depository library. The term ‘book’ is misleading, since it could indicate multiple copies of the same book. The Committee recommends 25,000 titles other than government publications as the basic minimum size to be eligible to become or remain a depository library.
    4.	Collections
    a)	Appropriations may not be used to supply depository libraries documents, books, or
    35
    other items not requested by them (44 U.S. Code 1913). This restriction tends to nullify the intent of the depository law which is to make government publications available to the public. The law implies needs beyond those of the individual institution which serves as the depository. For example, a law library occupying a depository designation may be interested in acquiring only legal materials. Library users in the area may need access to other materials, such as the Census.
    b)	The present law makes no requirements as to number or type of document selected by the individual depository. While recognizing that to receive all depository items would place an undue burden on the small library, the Committee believes that it is reasonable to require a depository to accept a minimum of the selections available to depositories. This would include a basic list, revised annually, recommended by a committee of depository librarians and additional titles selected by the depository to satisfy the needs of the community.
    5—10. These standards refer to custody and service for depository materials. They are covered in general terms in 44 U.S. Code 1909 and specifically in Instructions to Depository Li-baries (July 1, 1974).
    11.	National System
    a)	At present this system consists of selective depositories and regional depositories. Provision should be made for a National Depository Library at the head of the system. In the January 22, 1974 report of the ALA Ad Hoc Committee on the Depository Library Sys
    tem, 8 of 9 recommendations refer to a National Depository Library.
    b)	Documents distributed to depository libraries remain the property of the U.S. Government, and should be freely shared among members of the depository library system, at least for on-site use. Regional libraries have the responsibility of serving selective depositories.
    12.	Regional Depositories
    a)	Only 38 states are served by one or more regional depositories. Regional status is voluntary. Selective depositories in states not served by a regional depository are unable to discard unwanted documents, or to depend on a regional for reference questions, interlibrary loan, photoduplication or assistance in the organization of their collections. The Superintendent of Documents lacks the assistance of the regional librarian for information about conditions of local depositories or for participating in inspections and their followup.
    b)	To encourage the establishment of regional depositories to serve each state, it is recommended that limited financial support be sought to defray direct costs incurred by a regional depository for responsibilities beyond those of a selected depository. Anticipated costs would be for duplication and postage for disposal lists, and travel expenses to visit selective depositories in the region.
    Catherine J. Reynolds
    Chairman, Standards Committee November 7, 1974
    Slightly revised Dec. 30, 1974
    36
    APPENDIX E
    Reports from GPO to Council & Related Communications
    November 7,1974 Mr. Wellington H. Lewis Superintendent of Documents
    U.S. Government Printing Office
    P.O. Box 1533
    Washington, D.C. 20402
    Dear Mr. Lewis,
    Enclosed are the standards and recommended changes which require legislative or administrative change. The Standards Committee would appreciate the comments of the GPO Counsel.
    Also enclosed is a copy of the proposed voluntary Guidelines with a few changes added at the meeting. Section 2 is concerned with the office of the Superintendent of Documents. You will recall that Ms. Cribbens of the JCP was interested in the inclusion of standards for it. With one main exception, the guidelines are essentially what you are doing now, and the intent is that you will keep on doing it.
    Mr. McCormick expressed concern about statement 2-13, the provision for a National Depository Library. The former Library of the Superintendent of Documents, now at the National Archives, was considered by most depository librarians to be the National Depository Library, the most complete of all depositories. The concern of librarians is revealed by the report of the ALA Ad Hoc Committee on the Depository Library System (attached) / the report of a special committee to inquire into the transfer of the SuDocs library to the National Archives, and the comments of individuals. Whether this library occupies space at the GPO or the National Archives is less important than that such a library be maintained. The GPO would be expected to cooperate with the li-
    1 See Appendix F.
    brary’s administration as to operations and collections for the benefit of the depository library system.
    It would be helpful to have the GPO legal Counsel look at this material. The Inspection Committee cannot go ahead with its work until minimum standards and guidelines for evaluation have been agreed upon. The draft Inspection Committee report presented on October 30th was concerned more with eligibility for depository status than measuring the performance of an existing depository.
    Work on the standards has been very slow and uphill all the way. My feeling is that standards should be a practical, working tool to define responsibilities and measure results. One of the observers at the Standards Committee meeting was Sarah Wallace, Publications Office at the Library of Congress. It was the first time I had met her and I was impressed by her unobtrusive yet helpful suggestions for working standards. This is the kind of contribution the Depository Council can use to achieve some reasonable, intermediate goals.
    Sincerely,
    Catharine J. Reynolds
    Head, Government Documents Division University of Colorado
    November 14,1974
    Chairman, Joint Committee on Printing
    United States Senate Post Office
    Washington, D.C. 20510
    Dear Mr. Chairman:
    The Government Printing Office has completed planning and investigative efforts neces
    37
    sary to undertake a microform pilot program in support of the Depository Library community. It is requested authority be granted to undertake such a pilot program to explore the advisability and practicality of further Government Printing Office microform activity. It is estimated the program will cost $25,000 and is to be funded through the Depository Library Program of the Superintendent of Documents Salaries and Expenses Appropriation.
    As the test vehicle in the pilot project, it is planned to convert the Code of Federal Regulations to a standard 98 frame nominal 24:1 reduction ratio microfiche format for distribution to some twenty Depository Libraries for a period of four months.
    Purpose of the pilot program will be to explore the adequacy of indexing and bibliographic controls, quality of film manufacture through commercial procurement sources, speed of production and distribution, and the advisability of continued film conversion efforts. The program will include an economic analysis which will be provided the Joint Committee on Printing with the overall results of the project.
    The preliminary planning for this program has been reviewed and concurred in by a diversified group of librarians, industry representatives and Federal authorities. The Depository Library Advisory Council to this Office has unanimously endorsed the proposed pilot program, finding the technical and bibliographic content of the summary correct.
    The legitimate concerns of the Information Industry Association about certain aspects of the proposed pilot program have been recognized by this Office through several meetings with Information Industry representatives. They have been assured that we do not intend to develop an in-house capability, but will contract for the services needed in the program. Though the Information Industry does regard the conversion of the Code of Federal Regulations as a viable test vehicle, they have advised me that the successful conversion of that single series of publications should not be regarded as the sole measurement for possible future conversion efforts. Every consideration and courtesy will be afforded Information Industry representatives both in the evaluation of the pilot
    project and the possible conversion of future titles.
    Full details of the requested pilot project have been included as an enclosure to this letter request.
    Sincerely yours,
    T. F. McCormick
    Public Printer
    Proposed Government Printing Office
    Microform Pilot Project
    By: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PRINTER (SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS)
    Background Information
    The entry of the Government Printing Office into the field of micropublishing was first proposed by the late Public Printer, A. N. Spence, on August 6, 1970, when he requested “approval for the Government Printing Office to enter the field of micropublishing and to offer filmed documents to customers either in addition to or in lieu of printing.” Following that letter the Public Printer was given authority to establish a Government Printing Office Micropublishing Advisory Committee. The Committee was composed of ten experts in the field from Government and Industry. The Committee identified specific areas requiring resolution, obtained industry cooperation in conducting physical tests involving filming of Government Printing Office documents, and investigated techniques using single and two-step reduction ratios at 24, 32 and 48:1. The Committee then drew statistical analyses, developed cost figures, and developed and directed a questionnaire to all Federal Depository Libraries. Based upon its study and on positive results from the survey of the depository libraries (75 percent replying indicated an interest in receiving some documents in microform), the Committee recommended that the basic concept of the Government Printing Office entering the micropublishing field was clearly warranted. On October 12, 1971, the report of the Advisory
    38
    Committee was submitted to the Joint Committee on Printing and in his letter of transmittal the Public Printer expressed his concurrence with the Committee’s findings and accordingly requested approval of the Joint Committee on Printing “to proceed with plans for the Government Printing Office to implement the planned micropublishing program.”
    On August 17, 1973, Public Printer McCormick proposed four additional steps in the development of an implementation plan:
    a.	Screen the depository libraries for in-terest/utility for specific categories of publications in microform.
    b.	Evaluate the returns from the depository libraries to determine if there is a sufficient requirement for microform production.
    c.	After this evaluation, request permission of the Joint Committee on Printing for a small sample of publications to be produced in microform by commercial contract for distribution by the Government Printing Office.
    d.	After this pilot procedure, and if it proves satisfactory, plan for the expansion of the program to other depository categories.
    1974 Depository Library
    Microform Preference Survey
    In late February 1974, 1,138 survey questionnaires were mailed to Depository Libraries. The forms consisted of 102 pages providing line entries of 2,812 individual categories of documentation shipped to depository libraries by the Superintendent of Documents. The forms contained two non-photo blue boxes in front of each publication category. The individual boxes were marked “P” and “F” indicating film or paper. Librarians were asked to mark one of the two boxes for each category of publication they are currently receiving. Two complete copies of the survey were mailed to each depository library. One copy was to be marked and returned to the Superintendent of Documents while the second copy was to be retained by the Library for their own reference. A completed response from a Regional Depository Library was provided the Joint Committee on Printing for information purposes in late June, 1974.
    Each individual set of reports contained a unique serial number so that when the optical character recognition run was undertaken the individual depository library number would be matched against the serial number of the report.
    On March 6, 1974, 18 responses had been received. An early analysis of those responses indicated the following: Eight of the 18 libraries indicated no film preferences or 44% response for microfilm. The early pattern of preferences indicated the following most popular items: (1) Congressional Record, (2) Federal Register, (3) Watergate Hearings, (4) Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, (5) agricultural information, and (6) educational material.
    By March 19, 202 responses were on hand with the earlier trends holding. Thirty-one percent response was achieved by March 25 with 354 responses received. The original 30 day reporting deadline established in the covering letter was extended since many libraries requested additional time. This was granted in all cases with the reporting deadline extended to a full 90 days. By April 8, 60.2% response had been recorded with 686 questionnaires received. On June 17, 949 responses were received for a percentage factor of 82.8.
    In mid-April a 100% sampling on the on-hand responses from the Regional Depositories and a 10% sampling of the Selected Depository Library responses was undertaken manually. Of the 32 responses from the Regional Libraries it was indicated 87.5 percent or 29 of the reporting libraries desired a microform in about 25% of the material shipped. The 80 Selected Depository responses indicated 27 % of all their material would be preferred in a microformat.
    Programming necessary to complete the computer manipulation of the final data was undertaken by Data Systems Service. Superintendent of Documents memorandum to Data Systems dated May 16, 1974, asked that final reports be made available by June 17. This date was later delayed to August 1.
    Physical processing of the OCR questionnaires was begun in late July. A full 138 manhours of scan time was scheduled to complete the run at the Treasury Department during third shift operations. More than 20 million
    39
    characters were ultimately computer processed resulting in the final statistical reports.
    Final reports indicate a high degree of preference for microforms by the various categories of depository libraries:
    Government__________________19%
    Regional ___________________35%
    Selected____________________32%
    Average_____________________29.6%
    The earlier preferences for specific categories cited have held true through the completed reports. Congressional, educational, agricultural and bound documentation of all kinds lead in microform preference by the depository library community.
    The findings of this second survey has substantiated the results of the first survey undertaken two years ago and clearly demonstrates the desires of the depository libraries for some distribution in microform.
    Pilot Project Vehicle-
    Code of Federal Regulations
    The third step in the plan submitted by the Public Printer to the Joint Committee on Printing on August 17, 1973, called for the conversion of a small sample of documentation to be produced in microform. That sample would be used as a pilot project vehicle. In attempting to identify a category of publication most suitable for conversion telephone contact was made with depository libraries seeking their advice and guidance in selecting such material. It was determined the Code of Federal Regulations would be an ideal test vehicle.
    The Code of Federal Regulations consists of 119 volumes, contains 63,000 pages, weighs 144 pounds and is more than 8V2 feet long. Twenty-five percent of the file is updated and reprinted on a quarterly basis resulting in a complete new issue each year.
    Contact with the Office of the Federal Register was made regarding the potential conversion of the file to a microfiche format. The proposed pilot project met with enthusiasm. Mr. Fred Emery, Director of the Office of the Federal Register; Mr. Ernie Galdi, Deputy Director of the Office of the Federal Register; and Mr. Robert E. Lewis, Director of the Executive Agency Office of the Federal Register
    offered every assistance in conversion of the Code to a microfiche format to provide a quality product for the Depository Library system.
    With the support and concurrence of the Office of the Federal Register a major step was completed in advancing the proposed micropublishing pilot project.
    Film Format and Film Classes
    As found in the Biennial Depository Library Survey of 1972 the preponderence of equipment and librarian preference for film products is the standard 98 frame nominal 24:1 reduction ratio microfiche format. This is an adopted national industry standard which superseded the format CO ASTI 20:1 60 frame format. This requirement for 24:1 reduction ratio microfiche product was further borne out in an independent survey conducted by the American Library Association Government Documents Roundtable Task Force. That report, compiled by Mr. G. W. Stanbery, found that only 6% of the entire library community could handle reduction ratios in a microfiche format over 30:1.
    The film format used for the pilot project will be the standard 98 frame 24:1 nominal reduction ratio microfiche format. Two types of films will be generated and distributed to those libraries taking part in the test.
    The first material is called the camera master or first generation silver halide original. From that original intermediate production copies will be made. This is called the second generation intermediate. It will also be silver halide material. Third generation silver halide distribution copies will be generated from the intermediates for distribution to the library community. The library receiving such material has the option of generating additional distribution duplicates from that material or can maintain the silver in permanent archival storage. The second group of material to be shipped will be third generation patron use copies. They will not be of archival quality. They will further have a color strip on the back of the eye-legible header area to increase the contrast of the material normally placed there.
    Upon completion of the intermediate film generation the original camera masters will be transferred to the National Archives and Records Service for permanent record storage.
    40
    It is not intended that the unit record film format (microfiche) be the sole format generated should future expansion of the program be undertaken. It is highly likely that some documentation, like the soil survey series, would be far more efficiently used in a 35mm roll format.
    Indexing Techniques
    One of the earliest questions regarding the proposed program from the library community was the degree and type of indexing system which was to be used. Since the conventional microfiche is ideally suited for x/y coordinate image placement such images also allow for identifying data within each image by specifically citing fiche/frame coordinates in an index or table of contents.
    It is intended existing tables of contents and index pages of documents will be converted from conventional chapter/page numbering to a specific fiche/frame locator system. A sample of such indexing follows:
    CONTENTS
    Page	Fische/Frame
    Highlights of Trends in
    Output Per Man-Hour _________________1	1/A11
    Methods and Data_______________________5	1/B1
    Tables:
    1.	Selected industries, SIC Codes, 1972 employment, and average annual rates of change in output per man-hour, 1947-72 and 1960-72 _________________________________3	1/A13
    MINING INDUSTRIES
    2.	Iron mining, crude ore (SIC 101): output per man-hour and output
    per employee_________________7	1/B3
    3.	Iron mining, crude ore (SIC 101): output, man-hours, and employment ____________________________8	1/B4
    4.	Iron mining, crude ore (SIC 101) : output per man-hour and output per employee_____________________9	1/B5
    5.	Iron mining, crude ore (SIC 101): output, man-hours, and employment ____________________________10	1/B6
    6.	Copper mining, crude ore (SIC 102): output per man-hour and
    output per employee___________11	1/B7
    7.	Copper mining, crude ore (SIC 102): output, man-hours, and employment ________________________12	1/B8
    The first number in the fiche/frame indexing system refers to the fiche number within a
    set. The following letter and number refers to the specific frame within the fiche. The fiche/ frame numbering will in all cases be an additional system. No attempt will be made to remove the conventional page/chapter numbers from the publication. This will assure that when hardcopy blowbacks are made from the fiche, a logical sequence of indexing will remain intact.
    The indexing system cited above has been presented to members of the American Library Association Micropublishing Committee, the Government Documents Roundtable Micropublishing Task Force, the Depository Library Council of the Public Printer, the Regional Depository Library Workshop, and the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.
    Massive data base material converted to a film format will be accompanied by a primary hard copy lookup system consisting of tables of contents and index pages which have been reprinted.
    Bibliographic Control
    The primary bibliographic control element will be the Monthly Catalog published by the Superintendent of Documents. A code line entry will be appended those items converted to a microformat. Use of such coding will not be undertaken during the Pilot Program. Sample entries will be forwarded librarians of such coding for review and comment. A sample entry follows:
    04767 Combined statement of receipts, expenditures and balances of United States Government, fiscal year, 1973. [1973]. iv + [1] + 614 p. 4°. ([Fiscal Service, Document 326.1]) *Paper, $10.50 S/N 4808-00006. Item 928. * Microfiche, $2.80 (S/N 4808-00006-MF)
    The General Information pages of the Monthly Catalog will carry a paragraph specifically indicating the availability and format of the microfiche offered by the Superintendent of Documents. Ordering information will also be provided.
    A second bibliographic control element will be established by reporting in the National Register of Microform Masters. Each microfiche title will be registered as a Master Preservation Microform with reports addressed to
    41
    the NATIONAL REGISTER OF MICROFORM MASTERS, Catalog Publications Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 20540. The master microforms will be permanently stored in the National Archives and Records Service with intermediate copies retained by the Superintendent of Documents.
    A third bibliographic control element will ultimately be exercised through publication of Superintendent of Documents Selected Lists emphasizing the availability of titles specifically formatted in a microfiche mode.
    Use of the Superintendent of Documents Monthly Catalog as the primary bibliographic control element will eventually provide for computer manipulation of microfiche titles resulting in annual or semi-annual compilation for library use.
    Microfiche Header Area Presentation
    Further bibliographic control will be established by utilizing the American National Standards Institute Z39 Sub-Committee 33 proposed standard for eye-readable bibliographic information in the header area of the microfiche. The Sub-Committee is chaired by Mr. Joseph H. Howard, Serial Records Division, Library of Congress. Other members include Henry C. Frey, Bell Laboratories; Walter A. Kee, Atomic Energy Commission; Hubert E. Sauter, Defense Documentation Center; Elizabeth L. Tate, Library of Congress; and John D. Livsey, Microform Program Manager, Government Printing Office.
    The Superintendent of Documents expects to use a machine readable type font in the header area of all microfiche (OCR “B”). This font will provide the potential for direct data entry by librarians as well as the potential for future automated retrieval means. This concept has been discussed and concurred in by authorities at Bell Laboratories (Mr. Hank Frey), the 3M Company (Mr. Robert Robbins), Zytron Incorporated (Mr. Al Tauber), Eastman-Kodak (Mr. John Luke), Microfilming Corporation of America (Mr. Maynard Short), and Information Handling Service (Mr. Paul Slattery).
    Government Documents librarians have long expressed a desire that the Government Printing Office include the Superintendent of Docu
    42
    ments classfication number on all documentation. Such action has not been undertaken since classification is normally completed after basic printing has been accomplished. Conversion to a microfiche format will provide for this capability thereby satisfying the desires of the library community.
    The eye-legible information carried in the header area of each microfiche will contain the Superintendent of Documents classification number in the upper left-hand corner. Directly below that will appear the nine digit unique Government Printing Office stock number and below that the abbreviation GPO/SUPTDOCS. The center portion of the fiche header will be dedicated to the long title of the publication, personal author if appropriate and the agency responsible for the intellectual content of the publication. Serial publications would also carry appropriate volume and issue numbers in consonance with the provisions of the proposed ANSI standard. The right hand corner of the header area will contain the fiche number within the set and directly below that the recommended blowback ratio. In the case of the proposed GPO pilot program the figure will be 24x.
    A sample microfiche header entry follows: (not to scale and does not include the proposed ANSI standard punctuation)
    GS 4.108:5/974 Title 5, Administrative Per- 1 of 6 2203-90131/MF sonnel, Code of Federal 24x GPO/SUPTDOCS Regulations, Revised Jan. 1, 1974/Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration
    Pilot Project Test Objectives
    Use of a microform for the storage and retrieval of information has long been recognized as an efficient and economical medium. The primary purposes of the requested pilot program is to explore and document the following:
    a.	Determine the adequacy of bibliographic controls.
    b.	Determine the adequacy of indexing.
    c.	Determine Depository librarian/user acceptance of the microform product.
    d.	Examine production quality procured through commercial sources.
    e.	Examine the adequacy of packaging.
    f.	Examine and compare the speed of film production and distribution to that of conventional hardcopy documentation.
    g.	Examine the adviseability and practicality of continued Government Printing Office activity in the field of micropublishing.
    h.	Develop an economic analysis.
    i.	Seek depository librarian inputs to improve system.
    j.	Analysis of all inputs to develop final recommendation and report to the Joint Committee on Printing.
    Test Objective Evaluation and Review Participants
    In addition to the active participation of those librarians listed in this summary report the following agencies, commercial firms, organizations and individuals will provide input evaluation of the pilot project material:
    Joint Committee on Printing
    American Library Association Micropublishing Committee
    Government Documents Roundtable Micropublishing Task Force
    National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
    Federal Government Micrographics Council
    Depository Library Council of the Public Printer
    Office of the Federal Register
    Microfilming Corporation of America
    Information Handling Service Eastman-Kodak Company
    Members of the Public Printer’s Micropublishing Advisory Council
    National Bureau of Standards
    National Microfilm Association Technical Director
    Mr. Allen B. Veaner, Assistant Director of University Libraries, Stanford University, Editor-in-Chief, Microform Review
    Mr. Bill Powers, Director, Cook County Law Library, Chicago
    Government Printing Office Testing Laboratories
    Xerox University Microfilms
    Kalvar Corporation
    Scott-Graphics Incorporated
    Commercial Procurement Intentions
    The Government Printing Office does not intend to establish in-house microform production capabilities. All such activities shall be directed toward experienced commercial procurement sources. Development of the procurement specification shall be undertaken by members of the Public Printer’s Micropublishing Advisory Council with full review before publication by those individuals and organizations competent to judge the content of such commercial procurement specifications for a microform product.
    Such specifications will incorporate existing industry, military and national standards with respect to filming, processing, packaging and shipment of the film product.
    Contractual activity will be conducted through the facilities of the Government Printing Office on a competitive bid basis.
    Micropublishing Advisory Council
    In early March, 1974, it was deemed adviseable to reconstitute the Public Printer’s Microform Advisory Council. A review of previous membership of the Council was undertaken. Since this phase of the proposed micropublishing program would involve discussion of commercial procurement of the film product it was necessary to change the composition of the Council to embrace only Government representation. Commercial representation would have placed those individuals in a position of “conflict of interest.” Membership of the Council is now composed of the following:
    Dr. Lee Burchinal, Head, Office of Science Information Service, National Science Foundation
    Mr. George Bernstein, Naval Supply Systems Command
    Mr. Peter Urbach, Deputy Director, National Technical Information Service
    Mr. Charles LaHood, Chief, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress.
    System Benefits
    The majority of the economic benefits of conversion of Government Printing Office documentation to a microformat will accrue to the
    Government Printing Office. The primary hard dollar savings across the wide spectrum of activity will be the estimated 30% reduction in production costs, the 85% reduction in mailing costs, and the decrease in total storage area required to house distribution stocks. Depository libraries would also achieve some cost reduction in not having to independently film older collections to maintain shelf space and guarantee availability of research documentation. As an example of the production cost reductions expected from the proposed pilot program it is estimated that if one-sixth of the total distribution list of the entire Code of Federal Regulations would accept the microfiche product more than $300,000 would be saved the first year.
    Conversion of documentation to a film format will provide that the Superintendent of Documents would never again be in an “out-of-print” condition on any title converted to film. By maintaining second generation film the Government Printing Office would have the option of generating additional distribution film duplicates on demand, producing short-run offset projection plates and reprinting or going directly to a microfilm enlarger-printer to produce limited paper copy requirements.
    Of all the systems benefits expected in the program the two most important are response to the desires of the depository library system and the expected increase in availability of government documentation to the general public.
    At the conclusion of the pilot program a full economic analysis will be developed and forwarded the Joint Committee on Printing.
    Test Libraries
    Mr. Dennis Richards Documents Librarian University of Montana Library Missoula, Montana 59801
    Mrs. Judith Tolchin
    Government Documents Librarian University of California, Los Angeles University Library 405 Hilgard Avenue
    Los Angeles, California 90024
    Ms. Catharine Reynolds Government Documents Librarian University of Colorado Libraries Norlin Library
    Boulder, Colorado 80302
    Mr. Derek Milson
    Government Documents Librarian University of Alabama Libraries Amelia Gayle Gorgas Library Box S
    University, Alabama 35486
    Mrs. Nancy Cline
    Government Documents Librarian Pennsylvania State University Fred Lewis Pattee Library
    University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
    Mr. Ridley Kessler BASS-Div Documents University of North Carolina Libraries Louis Round Wilson Library Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
    Mrs. Mary Dale Palsson Government Documents Librarian University of Arizona Library Tucson, Arizona 85721
    Ms. Sue Shulze
    Government Documents Librarian University of Northern Colorado Greeley, Colorado 80631
    Mrs. Carole Bodine
    Government Documents Librarian North Dakota State University Library Fargo, North Dakota 58102
    Mrs. Judy Violette
    Government Documents Librarian Indiana-Purdue Regional Campus Library 2101 Coliseum Blvd., East
    Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805
    Mr. Albert M. Donley
    Associate Librarian
    Northeastern University Robert G. Dodge Library 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02115
    Mrs. Martha Eger
    Documents Librarian
    Michigan State Library 735 East Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913
    44
    Ms. Lily Way
    Government Documents Librarian University of Idaho Library
    Moscow, Idaho 83843
    Mr. Walter Newsome
    Government Documents Librarian
    University of Virginia
    Aiderman Library
    Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
    Mr. Bill LaBissoniere
    Government Documents Librarian University of Minnesota 0. Meredith Wilson Library Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
    Mr. Bill Stanbery
    Director
    Geauga County Public Library
    Chardon, Ohio 44024
    Mrs. Sandra Korn
    Chief, Government Documents Department The Stanford University Libraries Stanford, California 94305
    Mr. Clyde Hordusky
    Government Documents Librarian
    State Library of Ohio 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215
    Mr. John Geschwindt
    Government Documents Librarian
    State Library of Pennsylvania Department of Education
    Walnut Street & Commonwealth Ave.
    Box 1601
    Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126
    Mrs. Carolyn W. Kohler
    Government Documents Libririan University of Iowa Libraries
    Iowa City, Iowa 52240
    Mr. Anthony W. Miele
    Assistant Director for
    Technical Services
    Office of the Secretary of State Illinois State Library
    Springfield, Illinois 62756
    Mr. Michael Gabriel
    Government Publications and Serials Mankato State College
    Mankato, Minnesota 56001
    Industry and Library Community Activities
    A review of work accomplished in the microform program in the past four years indicated strong concern by the Information Industry Association about the Government Printing Office entry into the microform field. The primary source of criticism appeared to come from Mr. Paul Zurkowski, President, Information Industry Association, and Mr. James Adler of Congressional Information Service.
    Three visits were made to Mr. Adler’s office by the Program Manager in May and June of 1974. A complete review of the proposed program was presented to Mr. Adler to determine his specific concerns about GPO’s entry into microform conversion. The disagreement appears to come from the potential competition GPO may offer in the conversion of public domain documentation to a film format. Although GPO material would be commercially procured, Mr. Zurkowski and Mr. Adler still expressed concern that GPO entry into this field would in some instances be contrary to the public interest. This concern stems from the possibility that with GPO offering microform documentation already offered by private firms, the Government might be construed as competing with the private sector thus harming the relatively new Information Industry. Obviously this is not the intent of the Government Printing Office.
    In the past, these gentlemen have expressed concern about the Government Printing Office entry into the microform field on the basis that the then proposed project did not include adequate bibliographic control elements and competent indexing techniques, that sufficient library community participation was lacking, that the proposed project would infringe on the commercial microform markets and that members of the industry would be forced out of business. The current proposal takes cognizance of these matters. The products will be commercially procured, extensive bibliographic control and indexing considerations have been made and the widest and fullest participation of the library community is expected.
    Comments, ideas, suggestions and guidance in the development of this program have been actively solicited by the Government Printing Office from as wide a group of sources as pos
    sible. The scope and direction of the program has been presented to the American Library-Association Micropublishing Committee, to the Government Documents Roundtable members, to the Depository Library Advisory Council to the Public Printer, to Federal organizations, to library workshops and other interested parties. There has been only encouragement and a desire to assist from all these organizations. No objections have been raised.
    In an attempt to resolve some of the previous misunderstandings, the following briefings and addresses were given:
    Briefed industry representatives, at their request, on the proposed program. These included: Xerox, Kodak, Stromberg-Datagra-phix, Gould, 3M, Scott-Graphics, IBM, National Capitol Systems, Computer Micrographics International, and Xerox University Microfilm (March-June 1974).
    Addressed the American Library Association Micropublishing Committee, the Government Documents Roundtable Micropublishing Task Force, the Advisory Council to the Public Printer (Library), and the Regional Depository Librarian’s Workshop (July 1974).
    Provided internal GPO microform program briefings to the Public Printer’s expanded staff and to the Procurement, Planning and Purchase Divisions (March 1974).
    Arranged Microform training seminar for senior GPO executives. Provided by Kodak (August 1974).
    Participated as micrographics seminar leader at the Southeastern Library Association meeting in Richmond (October 1974).
    Briefed members of the Electonic/Micro-publishing Committee of the Joint Committee on Printing (September 1974).
    Scheduled to provide similar briefing and seminars at five locations in the next five months.
    In addition to the meetings with the Program Manager and Messrs. Zurkowski and Adler, the Public Printer and the Assistant Public Printer (Superintendent of Documents) have subsequently met on three occasions with these gentlemen in order to work out areas of possible conflict. As a result of these meetings, the following broad criteria have been agreed upon
    with respect to future GPO microform conversions assuming a successful pilot program:
    1.	The basic objectives of the proposed Government Printing Office microform program are to provide microform documentation in an effective, efficient and economical manner to the Depository Libraries and to the general public. The Government Printing Office cannot pursue any microform project which is contrary to the public interest or contrary to Title 44, U.S.C., or the regulations issued thereunder.
    2.	Items considered for microform conversion would be based upon the accepted principle that materials generally best suited to a microform are collections of a certain size range, reference value and degree of similarity. It must be borne in mind that agency decisions on the conversion of documentation to a microformat must be taken into consideration by the Government Printing Office as required by law.
    3.	Because of the need for appropriate bibliographic control, particularly where microforms are concerned, conversion efforts would be limited to those collections for which adequate external control is provided by means of an existing Government-produced index in hard copy.
    4.	It is the intention of the Government Printing Office to provide microform documentation in an orderly phased manner spanning an undetermined length of time. Collections to be considered for conversion would be subjected to a technical review process. Early notification of the intentions of the Government Printing Office would be provided to the Information Industry Association and other interested parties to permit the raising of potential objections should the view of public interest be in conflict. Such objections would be submitted to the Micropublishing Advisory Council for review and recommendations. Final decision on matters involving apparent conflict of public interest and a proposed GPO microform project not resolved through this review process would, of course, rest with the Joint Committee on Printing. In developing specifics to implement these broad criteria, it is the Government Printing Office plan to expand the
    Micropublishing Advisory Council to include appropriate membership from the Depository Library Community and the Information Industry Association.
    A copy of this letter request and program summary have been mailed to the President of the Information Industry Association for his information.
    Depository Library Program Comments
    The following information provides selected comments from Depository Libraries in letters enclosed in the preference survey returns.
    KANSAS CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY
    “We plan to receive a great many documents in microform, and are happy that it will solve pressing problems, such as storage, for us.”
    UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY (WEST
    POINT)
    “Our microfiche/microfilm collection is extensive and growing, and we have no problem with student acceptance of microforms. As with other libraries, our problem is insufficient space. We look forward to the implementing of a GPO microform program.”
    CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE, HAYWARD
    “We have surveyed various units of the library and, in a general way, we are able to report a receptive response to receipt of select depository material in a microfiche format.”
    SAINT LOUIS PUBLIC LIBRARY
    “We are faced with a space problem and consequently we have not been able to shelve most of our depository collection in a public area. Microcopy could greatly improve our service by allowing us to do this.”
    THE FREE PUBLIC LIBRARY OF ELIZABETH,
    NEW JERSEY
    “As you will be able to tell from our completed survey, we feel that the choice of microform or paper copy would improve the depository system. We would take many of the documents in microform.”
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ “We are very enthused about the microfiche project and since it is a relatively new trend
    we are therefore carefully considering all aspects of your proposal.”
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
    “If the publications were available from the Government Printing Office we would select one form as depository and purchase the second copy.”
    EASTERN MONTANA COLLEGE
    “I feel that there are many documents which could well be retained in microform, thus producing a great saving in space requirements. The opportunity given us to express our opinion in each case is appreciated.”
    BOATWRIGHT MEMORIAL LIBRARY
    “It is our belief that the microform mode will meet most of our user requirements and will serve to forstall pressing space problems.”
    NORTH DAKOTA STATE LIBRARY
    “We believe that the cost factor in the selection, organization and preservation of federal documents requires libraries to utilize microfiche whenever possible.”
    PUBLIC LIBRARY OF CHARLOTTE AND
    MECKLENBURG COUNTY
    “I hope that the results of the report will be decisive enough to encourage you to move into the field of microform.”
    UNIVERSITY OF NORTH COLORADO
    “This library hopes to become a complete United States depository library.”
    EAST STROUDSBURG STATE COLLEGE
    “I hope that depository libraries will soon have the option of receiving microfiche copy. Your work toward that goal is greatly appreciated.”
    NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY
    “We are pleased to see the Government Printing Office moving forward in this field.”
    ILLINOIS WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
    “My library is very much interested in receiving a majority of its depository documents in microfiche since this will expedite handling and lead to more efficient use of available shelf space without jeopardizing patron use or convenience.”
    THE ARTHUR A. HOUGHTON, JR. LIBRARY
    “We are absolutely in favor of bringing in documents in microform.”
    47
    THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
    “Delighted as we are with the possibility of receiving depository items in microfiche, the decision in many instances is extremely difficult. This, indeed, is a space saver, an insurance against mutilation, a tremendous savings in bindings.”
    TRINITY UNIVERSITY
    “We are also interested in the possibility of receiving current journals in hard copy during the year and then buying the entire volume in fiche at the end of the year.”
    SACRAMENTO CITY-COUNTY LIBRARY
    “We are looking forward to the day when documents on microfiche will be available.”
    OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY
    “I am delighted that the Government Printing Office is exploring the possibility of offering documents to depository libraries both in microfiche and paper copies.”
    STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO “We are thoroughly in favor of the proposal to make these distributions in microfiche to the maximum extent possible. It should not only be a large saving for the Government, but should make it possible for service to the public by depository libraries to be much better than has been the case in the past.”
    SHREVE MEMORIAL LIBRARY
    “However, we do feel that making documents available in either hard copy or microfiche is an excellent idea especially in view of the space problem which documents often create. We would be interested in receiving several other classes of documents in microfiche form should this program be undertaken.”
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS,
    ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
    “This library is in favor of putting the Congressional Record, the Code of Federal Regulations and the quasi-judicial agencies’ decisions on microform for distribution to the depository libraries.”
    REGIONAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
    Library	Si	Film elections	Paper Selections
    University of Alabama (12) Arizona Department of	373	2439
    Library and Archives (22)	1080	1732
    University of Arizona Library (23)	1010	1802
    California State Library (40)	328	2484
    Denver Public Library (71)	718	2094
    Connecticut State Library (75)	60	2752
    University of Florida Libraries (103)	192	2620
    University of Idaho Library (135)	1849	963
    Illinois State Library (140)	26	2786
    Indiana State Library (170)	0	2812
    University of Iowa Library (189A) University of Kentucky	1311	1501
    (King) Library (208) Louisiana State University	661	2151
    Library (222)	222	2590
    Louisiana Technical University Library (230) University of Maryland,	0	2812
    McKeldin Library (242)	88	2724
    Boston Public Library (268A)	0	2812
    Michigan State Library (273)	1273	1539
    Detroit Public Library (275) University of Minnesota,	26	2786
    Wilson Library (295) University of Montana	1246	1566
    Library (341)	1124	1688
    University of Nevada Library (353)	9	2803
    Newark Public Library (376)	936	1876
    University of New Mexico (383)	1176	1636
    New Mexico State Library (386) University of North Carolina	682	2130
    Library (447) North Dakota State University	1036	1776
    Library (455)	1591	1221
    Ohio State Library (460)	734	2078
    State Library of Pennsylvania (508)	1182	1630
    Texas State Library (591)	233	2579
    Texas Tech University Library (614) University of Virginia,	646	2166
    Aiderman Library (640) Wisconsin State Historical	1486	1326
    Library (668)	67	2745
    Milwaukee Public Library (670)	0	0*
    * Non-responsive.
    4 12.a 12.b
    55
    APPENDIX F
    Reports and Papers by Council Members
    THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT MICROFICHE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
    Prominent among the needs of documents librarians is a way of providing immediate access to current Federal publications without the necessity of searching myriad issues of the Monthly Catalog, Selected List, Price Lists, Shipping Lists, Previews and other possible aids.
    The Public Documents Department Microfiche Information Retrieval System is a significant new finger-tip tool for the speedy identification of current sales publications of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The Retrieval System, commonly referred to as the Reference File, consists of approximately 500 microfiche which provide a single alphanumeric access to the records of new publications by stock number, Sudocs classification number, title, personal author and keywords. Since each microfiche contains an average of 345 records, the entire file is equivalent to a catalog of more than 172,000 cards. The file is regenerated every six weeks, with supplements at two week intervals. The supplements, which are cumulative, are filed at the end of the Reference File and are color coded by date.
    To use the file it is essential to have a microfiche reader at arm’s length together with the complete file and its supplement. Depending on the data element known, the appropriate microfiche is selected by an eye-readable line across the top of the microfiche which is used as the filing word. This is the first word or number of the first entry on the microfiche. The microfiche is then placed on the reader to view the wanted record. Records are arranged in column order, 10 columns across, each entry headed by a key phrase, followed by the bibliographic data necessary to purchase the publica
    tion or to locate it in a library. The last frame on each microfiche is an index key which lists the access term for each frame of approximately five entries. The index key shows at a glance the relative position of a record on the microfiche. The complete entry can then be consulted to obtain the information needed and the microfiche replaced in the file.
    The Reference File is kept in order by the card number in the upper right hand corner of each microfiche, an essential feature since the eye-readable line shows only the first entry.
    All records for a single publication contain the same bibliographic data, including a note on availability at the GPO. Descriptive information includes size, paging, and other data as in the Monthly Catalog. Inclusion of the depository item number is helpful to libraries. Once a record is located it is not usually necessary to refer to another entry. Records of items for which stock is not available are retained in the File for an unspecified time as a reference aid.
    As with all new reference tools, some features must be known and understood at the outset before the tool can be used successfully. In the Reference File the principal hurdle to surmount is that classification numbers, when used as filing terms, are keypunched without punctuation symbols and shilling marks, so that two numbers may be listed in reverse of shelflist order, e.g. A1.104: is listed before Al.10:965. Fortunately classification numbers within the text of a record are punctuated in the customary way. The absence of punctuation is not too much of a problem for departmental publications, but less experienced users will find classification numbers for Congressional publications difficult to interpret, e.g. Y3 W58 3 2 2 ST8, especially if there is an error in spacing or keypunching. Consulting a sequence of numbers is further complicated by the fact that the computer reads the numbers as deci
    50
    mals, so that successive parts of a series are not listed in the expected order. The entry Congressional Record parts 10, 15, 2, 24 and 3 is easy enough to scan, but multi-part titles such as the Code of Federal Regulations are unwieldy.
    In addition, the characters in a computer typeface are not easy to read, e.g. the letter G may be mistaken for a C. Aside from this problem, the printing of Cutter numbers as all Capitals or the converting of Roman numerals to Arabic numerals is satisfactory.
    In a library where many prospective users of the Reference File will not have frequent opportunities to become accustomed to its arrangement, it would be preferable to use the same punctuation and number order as in the Monthly Catalog.
    The arrangement of the Reference File consists of a list of stock numbers, titles which begin with numbers and a merged list of titles, keywords, personal authors and classification numbers in one alphabet.
    The list of stock numbers which proceeds the alphabetical portion of the file is an approach which at first appears less useful for a library than a sales outlet, however when the stock number of a publication is known, it is the fastest way to find the Sudocs classification number needed to locate a document within a library collection, to verify its availability at the GPO and to find the up-to-date price when ordering an additional copy. The stock number is useful for tracking down publications announced in some GPO flyers which include stock numbers but not the Sudocs number. It is the first place to look to obtain the classification number of a Federal publication with a stock number received by the library other than as a depository. The stock number approach is much easier than a subject search of the indexes to the Monthly Catalog, partly because a number is a precise, unique identification, and also because it may prove necessary to consult only one entry to obtain the necessary information.
    Stock numbers are a comparatively recent innovation at the GPO, but eventually all sales publications will be identified by these numbers.
    The list of stock numbers is followed by the titles of publications which begin with dates or numbers, such as 1970 Census of Population or 200 million Americans. In using this approach, it must be kept in mind that related titles which
    omit the date will be found under other headings. Senate and House reports and documents are included in this section under the number of the Congress and session, series, document number and part, if applicable.
    Next after this section is the merged alphabetical file which is the largest part of the Reference File.
    When the stock number is not known, the merged alphabetical section is consulted by whatever term of reference is known about the publications, Sudocs number, title, personal author or keyword. The file word (or number) being alphabetized is called the key phrase and is super-imposed at the top of each record. Entries in this section are alphabetized word by word rather than letter by letter, e.g. “water supply” before “watershed.” The key phrase is not always repeated if there are successive entries under a single file word. Since key words are not fully equivalent to subject indexing, terms such as bibliography or maps, which in the Monthly Catalog are used as subject headings, are included only when part of a title. Fortunately many titles contain a clue to the contents of a publication, a characteristic which makes the Reference File usable for locating subject materials. The merging of titles and keywords is particularly useful when the title or subject of a publication is imperfectly recalled, since similar words are brought together in one location.
    Because of the time lag in compiling and publishing the Monthly Catalog, sometimes the only way a new publication is successfully retrieved is through the memory of a staff member working with incoming documents. The Reference File and its supplement now serve as a means of bibliographic access prior to the receipt of the Monthly Catalog.
    Entries by the Sudocs classification numbers are found at the beginning of each letter of the alphabet. The advantage of merging classification numbers with titles and keywords is not apparent. Since a numerical list is usually consulted deliberately, it would be much easier and faster to use a list of classification numbers printed separately in shelf list order. This is a feature needed also in the Monthly Catalog. Numbers as access terms should be entered consistently to eliminate the necessity of referring to more than one entry, e.g. OE7311106 or
    57
    DHEW publ. OE7311106, when it is not known which form of entry was used.
    The Reference File provides a convenient way to check if there has been a recent addition to an irregular series such as the USGS Water Supply Papers. This is particularly important since the Government Printing Office does not accept standing orders to irregular serials, and recent changes in price regulations makes this service less attractive to dealers.
    There are no entries for corporate bodies except as part of a title, e.g.: Department of State Bulletin; but an acceptable substitute is to consult the Agency’s Sudocs classification number, a device which brings together the available publications of that agency.
    Periodicals are listed with their current subscription rates. These were previously listed only once a year in the February issue of the Monthly Catalog, or in Price List 36, Government Periodicals and Subscription Service. Price increases for other publications can be verified in the Reference File, including older publications in stock which have been repriced.
    Since the Reference File has been produced successfully in a merged sequence it is perplexing to note that the new computer produced index to the Monthly Catalog has three separate indexes, and no numerical list of any kind.
    The most serious difficulty encountered in using the Reference File is the exclusion of publications. Inclusion is determined largely on the basis of availability and some items remain in stock much longer than more recent publications, so that date of publication is not a guide. When a publication is not found it is not always possible to predict whether it is an out-of-print GPO sales item or one available only from another source. This is particularly frustrating for Congressional publications printed at the GPO, some of which are priced as sales publications, and others available only from the Congressional Committee responsible for their publication. Although it would not be feasible to include all Federal publications in the Reference File, it would be helpful to include all those printed at the GPO. For other publications, it would be assumed necessary to search the Monthly Catalog, which the Reference File is intended to augment rather than supplant.
    From a subject point of view, the fact that the coverage of the Reference File is more
    limited than the Monthly Catalog is less disturbing than would be predicted. Most major or popular publications referred to in the mass media are sales publications, and it is easier to pick out the key reports from a smaller range of titles. Many library users are satisfied with the selection available from the GPO, and the researcher requiring exhaustive information from all sources can be directed first to the Monthly Catalog.
    Naturally the librarian would like as many publications as feasible included in the Reference File.
    The problem of out-of-print publications can best be resolved by retaining the record in the Reference File for a specified length of time, at least until the next annual cumulative index to the Monthly Catalog is published. The notation “exhausted” should stipulate whether the publication is temporarily or permanently out-of-stock. Since the library using the Reference File primarily as a reference tool has probably already acquired the publication, the note is needed only when ordering an additional or replacement copy.
    Aside from the problem of non-inclusion, the most failures in searching were caused by careless and inconsistent keypunching. In manual filing, a mispelled word or inverted letters might pass unnoticed. In a machine sorted file, the addition or omission of a single letter at the beginning or ending of a word, or an unintentional space in the middle of a classification number will result in more than one sequence, e.g. “soils survey” instead of “soil survey” produces a second file apart from the principal one. Words such as series which are abbreviated in one entry and spelled out in another, alter the sequence in which two issues of the same title are listed. Occasionally an unexplained group of publications is found listed apart from the expected location. Sometimes two entries have been incorrectly merged. Title entries vary, depending of whether the title page or cover title is used. Contrary to usual library practice, the article “The” is sometimes keypunched as the first word of a title. Worst of all are careless mistakes. The title WEIGHT BROTHERS NATIONAL MEMORIAL can be successfully interpreted by anyone knowing a little history, but is such keypunching excusable?
    58
    In criticizing the excessive rate of error, it should be kept in mind that the Reference File evaluated is an experimental edition intended for internal use, each generation of the File to be totally replaced after six weeks. The cost of creating a letter perfect file must be weighed against a less than perfect but usable and quickly available tool. It is assumed that errors will be reduced as the document management system is perfected and before the Reference File would be offered on a subscription basis to other libraries.
    The Reference File is a useful adjunct to the Monthly Catalog for the critical period prior to publication of the annual cumulative index. There is no similar tool. Staff members of all levels of experience found it a great time saver, since it is frequently possible to locate a specific title by consulting a single cumulative source rather than successive issues of the Monthly Catalog. If the wanted publication is not found, little time has been lost in the search. Bibliographic information for new publications is available at an earlier date. The Reference File also provides a numerical approach not presently available. The microfiche format is not a barrier. The staff soon found out that using a catalog on microfiche is actually faster than fumbling with a card catalog, since the screen shows a number of entries simultaneously, and a slight push on the film carrier makes the next group visable. Some initial awkwardness in extracting the microfiche from the File was relieved by adding alphabetical guide cards.
    As a potential subscription item in depository libraries, several facts about the Reference File must be considered.
    1.	It must be generated frequently. Without the input of new data, its value deteriorates rapidly. The present schedule of six weeks, with biweekly cumulative supplements is probably adequate.
    2.	Prompt delivery to the library is a necessity. Questions begin the moment a publication is mentioned in the news media, and a library is more receptive to and more willing to pay for a new tool which increases its efficiency.
    3.	Costs must be within reason. The Reference File is a temporary working tool, hence must be regarded as a service which replaces staff time. The cost of production and delivery of approximately 5000 microfiche each year
    may discourage potential buyers. An additional cost is incurred by the necessity of committing a microfiche reader for the exclusive use of the File. It is essential that a microfiche reader be kept in the Reference area available for immediate use.
    4.	The File has been developed for a particular purpose, the control of current, in-stock sales publications. It extends but does not replace existing tools. It is still necessary to continue and improve the Monthly Catalog, and to encourage the development of long term indexes such as the Cumulative Subject Index to the Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications, 1900-1971.
    A final decision for purchase must rest with the individual library based on its need for rapid retrieval of current GPO sales publications. There is no question that a polished version of the Reference File would serve this need. Libraries with limited funding, where use of the collection is largely retrospective, would probably save their dollars to buy reference tools for long term needs.
    Catharine J. Reynolds University of Colorado May 16, 1974
    To: Depository Library Council to the Public Printer
    From: Catharine J. Reynolds, Chairman, Standards Committee
    Date: June 13,1975.
    The Council adopted the Proposed Changes to the Minimum Standards (12/30/74 as amended 4/15/75) with exception of Section 11, paragraph b which related to a national network.
    This paragraph was intended to support a policy of resource sharing throughout the entire depository system. It is also the most difficult section of the proposed changes to explain. The present depository law has the concept of movement up the ladder, i.e. the selective depository goes to the regional depository for assistance. But what happens when the regional cannot satisfy the borrowing needs of the selective depositories within its area? Some relatively new regionals, for example, Nebraska State Library Commission (Regional 1972) have not yet had time to ac
    59
    quire substantial retrospective holdings. To whom should the regional refer a selective depository for borrowing the wanted publication not in its own collection ?
    Possible alternatives are a continued upward movement through the system by creation of additional steps on the ladder, e.g. establishment of super-regionals and/or a national depository ; the other, a lateral movement through creation of a lending network among all existing depository libraries.
    At present there is no national or super-regional system of depository libraries; establishment of one or the other would take time. An existing foundation for a national library is the former Library of the Superintendent of Documents, recently transferred to the National Archives. This is probably the most comprehensive collection of U.S. government publications in existance. However, it consists mainly of single copies of each publication, and probably should remain archival in character rather than become a national lending library for Federal documents. A possible solution would be to microfilm the most useful segments of this collection for loan and/or sale. Unfortunately this solution would be in conflict with the announced GPO policy not to film retrospective collections. Some form of national depository should be considered as part of the long range plan.
    Establishment of super-regional depositories presents other serious problems, beginning with the choice of libraries to undertake the more extensive responsibilities. One consideration would undoubtedly be methods of financing. Most regionals are supported by state funds, a few by local funds, and their governing authorities would not necessarily feel any strong committment to serve libraries beyond their legal jurisdiction. To extend these boundaries would require interstate agreements with or without Federal funding. These difficulties are surmountable, for example, the tri-state regional group served by the University of Maine, but an even more critical requirement exists: the library so selected must have a truly superior retrospective collection to function effectively as a super-regional responsible for lending. Libraries best suited to serve as super-regionals because of their extensive collections may have heavy local and institutional needs, consequently be reluctant to spare materials for
    lending to a remote location. Reliance on volunteer libraries is not always satisfactory. Funding by the Federal government might stimulate a library to step forward, but could also result in competition for designation based on greed rather than capacity to serve as a super-regional.
    Creation of super-regionals would also confuse the role of the present regionals. What would be their role? Would the present regionals forgo the responsibility of building their own retrospective collections? What about the advisory or inspection role? Would the value of the closer-to-home regional with its more intimate knowledge of the local situation be lost? Would the regional resent possible Federal support of a super-regional, while receiving no funds for their own costly efforts assisting the selective depositories in the discard of unwanted documents ?
    Disposal of documents, reference and the inspection roles are potentially the activities of regionals requiring the largest expenditures of staff time and funds in contrast to inter-library loan which can usually be absorbed into existing services. To whom should these responsibilities be assigned?
    The most feasible alternative for providing a larger lending base would be the creation of a lending network among all existing depositories regardless of location or type of depository. This is a perfectly reasonable solution, since all documents distributed to depositories remain the property of the U.S. Government. The present law neither provides for nor forbids such a network. The depository law provides for interlibrary loan by regional depositories with the region served (44 USC 1912). The July 1974 Instructions to Depository Libraries specifies that regionals lend to both depository and non-depository libraries (p. 8 sec. 2 par. 4), a suggestion without the force of law, and already questioned by individual regionals.
    A lending network would not necessarily involve a central collection. It could be a location file, utilizing the holdings of all depository libraries. Some of this information is already available in Public Documents Department files. A commercial publisher has produced a union catalog of selections.
    Essential features of a national lending network would be:
    60
    1.	An ongoing source of support.
    2.	A permanent headquarters.
    3.	A source of input, principally by depository libraries.
    4.	A data base of both depository and nondepository Federal publications.
    5.	A method of communication.
    6.	Standard forms for reporting, borrowing, etc.
    7.	A keypunch operation to convert information into data base.
    8.	Computer time.
    9.	Plans for preparation and publication of a national union catalog of Federal government publications. This catalog could be based on the shelflist of the Library of the Superintendent of Documents expanded to include publications not previously included.
    A NATIONAL DEPOSITORY SYSTEM
    When one thinks of a national depository for United States Government publications, he visualizes a vast monolithic entity which has a copy of everything ever published by the United States Government. Surely such a library has great possibilities for archival security of these materials as well as for a sure source of diffi-cult-to-find publications for users of these materials all over the Country. Such a library, however, does not seem to this writer to be an essential factor of the Depository System when other considerations are evaluated.
    At the present time there are forty-four regional depositories in the United States. The law provides for many more whenever the library community of a state or its patrons wish to establish them. Therefore, the spread of regional depositories is, or can be, very broad, encompassing satisfactorily the needs of the population of the Country. Unfortunately, these existing regional depositories are comparatively new since most of them were established in the early 1960s. It is for this reason that there is no assurance of the completeness of the retrospective holdings of any of these depositories. Many of them were established in libraries which had maintained strong holdings in government publications for many years. Others had wholly inadequate retrospective holdings. One approach for archival security
    would be to make a concerted effort both locally and nationally to make each of the regional depositories as complete as possible. This can be done by pooling the holdings of the present selective depositories in each region thus developing the completeness of the regional library. An alternative to pooling the holdings of hard-copy materials is the development of a wide-ranging microfilm effort so that each regional depository can be assured of complete holdings on film. One phase of this effort already has been launched by the National Agricultural Library in its project for filming all the Agricultural Extension Station publications over the next few years. New England Agricultural Extension Stations through their libraries already are embarked on this, effort. Thus, it will be possible, eventually, for every regional depository in the country to have these publications available to their patrons on film. Microfilming, while extremely expensive, must be viewed in the light of saving space which is far greater in terms of cost than is the microfilming process. For old, little-used materials, their use is likely to be more convenient and certainly the film medium is more durable. Maintaining these publications in their original form is expensive and in some cases impossible.
    The objective of complete holdings, both retrospective and current, of the publications of the United States Government so that equal access is available to all citizens can best be achieved by expanding the concept which already is in operation. That concept is, of course, the regional library system. A larger utilization of regions crossing state boundaries is essential to this effort. There is really nothing sacred about two regional depositories in each state. In most states two such collections are entirely unnecessary. Other kinds of boundaries may have considerably greater relevance than state boundaries, in spite of the fact that traditional reliance on these political divisions is very hard to overcome. Such areas may well be developed by population requirements. Heavy concentrations of population need more complex means of service than do sparsely-settled areas.
    Already in operation for nearly ten years is the Tri-State Regional Depository in northern New England. This depository serves the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont and
    61
    is located at the University of Maine. These three rural states have a population of less than three million people in a vast, sparsely-populated geographical area. None of the three states alone has the financial capability for handling a regional depository library nor is such a library necessary in each state. This kind of arrangement can be worked out by other states or can be designed with other geographical boundaries less well-defined than state boundaries.
    The Tri-State Regional Depository is approaching completeness since major selective depository libraries in the region for years have been weeding their collections and transferring great quantities of material to the Regional. This is the phase of the Regional operation which should receive financial aid. Absorbing these collections and housing them is an overwhelming drain on any library.
    Some motivation must be provided, however to achieve a truly “national” system of depository libraries. The present regional depository is a very expensive institution, indeed. The costs of personnel and space in these inflationary days are highly vulnerable commodities when academic or municipal administrators begin to scrutinize budgets. It is very hard to justify extensive services outside the area where tax funds originate. The answer must be some additional financial support from the federal government for what is, after all, a federal institution: the regional depository. This additional financial support ought to be shared in some way with the region. It need not be totally supported by federal funds. Already, of course, the federal government provides the materials. This is a major cost of the regional depository. A solution may be that the area served by the regional depository should pay, in some manner, for the service it receives. In any event, the federal government must mandate the financial support which these depositories must have in order to develop and to improve the service they are intended to provide.
    If the existing regional depositories were encouraged to develop complete holdings and new depositories were established where they are needed, the objectives of a true “national depository” could be achieved. Every selective
    depository should have access to, and assistance from, a regional. This can be achieved by the multi-state or larger-region concept. The Congress, through the agency of the Government Printing Office, must take the initiative for this development. This approach to national service will be far more effective than a great centralized national depository for federal government publications.
    James C. MacCampbell
    October 2J>, 1975
    STANDARDS FOR DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES, GOALS AND ROADBLOCKS
    By Catharine J. Reynolds
    The objectives of the Federal depository system are to make government publications freely accessible to the general public and to insure their continued availability in the future. How well these goals have been achieved by individual depositories is a matter for conjecture, because until recently there were few attempts to evaluate performance, to censure the delinquent library or to institute criteria for the guidance of the individual depository library. What is certain is that there have been many complaints about the depository system, complaints which cannot be satisfied simply by increasing the number of depositories. The answer is the development of standards to increase the effectiveness of the present depository libraries.
    What can standards do for us ? They can:
    1.	Clearly state the objectives of the depository law.
    2.	Inform the would-be depository on the responsibilities involved.
    3.	Determine if a prospective depository has the resources to become a depository library.
    4.	Insure that depository status is conferred only on libraries able to provide continuing support for their committment.
    5.	Serve as guidelines for administration of the individual depository library.
    6.	Provide an incentive to upgrade the performance of existing depository libraries.
    62
    7.	Spell out to the administrative authority of the library the obligations of a depository including an adequate budget allocation for its support.
    8.	Provide an inspection tool for the Government Printing Office.
    9.	Provide clout to enforce the law and to eliminate the undeserving depository.
    10.	Provide for continuing performance evaluation of depository libraries.
    11.	Remind the GPO of its own obligations to carry out the provisions of the depository law.
    In response to the suggestions of organizations such as the ALA Ad Hoc Committee on the Depository Library System, a Standards Committee has been established by the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer to draft standards for depository libraries.
    The task of formulating standards has turned out to be both complex and lengthy, since a depository library may be a public, college, university, state, special library or the library of a government agency, each answerable to its own type of library standards. Depositories vary in size, governance and financial support. Standards must be high enough to stimulate needed improvements in the depository system, yet not so rigid that some areas of the country, where no library would be strong enough to undertake the responsibility, would be unserved.
    The Standards Committee first sought suggestions from document librarians, surveyed the existing literature on library standards, compiled a list of proposed standards, and after reviewing them in the Committee, presented a first draft to the Depository Council for its consideration.
    The first draft was received with a considerable lack of harmony. Members of the Council come from varied backgrounds, each with a different viewpoint. Directors of libraries do not like to be told how to run their libraries. Librarians responsible for managing a depository want reinforcement of their claim to adequate support for their operations. The GPO is interested in enforceable standards which can be used as a yardstick for inspection of depository
    libraries. The biggest roadblock of all is the depository act itself, which though sometimes vague also contains highly specific statements such as the size a library must be to become eligible.
    The problem has been resolved by dividing the proposed standards into two separate documents, a brief list of standards enforceable under present law, and a set of guidelines which spell out desirable goals. The first group would be mandatory, the second voluntary. Both documents are printed in full in the January 1975 issue of Documents to the People.
    It is obvious to everyone that the mandatory group is essentially a restatement of the present law, and can do little to upgrade the depository system. It is now necessary to identify elements within both groups which can be refashioned through legislative or administrative action. A third document containing some of these suggestions was discussed at the April 14, 1975 meeting of the Depository Council.
    Briefly, the document stresses changes in eligibility requirements and collection responsibilities, encourages the establishment of regional depositories and provides for a national depository. It recommends funds for biennial inspections, the purchase of non-GPO Federal government publications for distribution to depositories, an increase in the coverage of the Monthly Catalog and improvement of its indexing.
    The first step for improving any system is to recognize the need for change. The next steps are to identify desirable changes and finally to seek the assistance of concerned groups with the power to initiate change. Strong standards will help, not hinder the future of the depository system.
    BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL
    OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS— A NATIONAL CONCERN
    More and more in the Washington area one hears about bibliographic control—the art of describing publications so they can be identified, located and obtained. It commands major attention as an important element in national planning. Interest further has been stimulated
    63
    by the revision of the Freedom of Information Act, which requires that all agencies of the Federal Government make available to the public an index of their publications. Without firm standards and guidelines for bibliographic control in this fluidly emerging situation, the springing-up of more and more “incompatible” systems is real cause for concern.
    Within the Federal Government itself, there are shared-cataloging experiments, report literature networks, and numerous individual indexing systems. We find the “overkill” of duplicate cataloging, on one hand, and documents “lost” through the holes in bibliographic control, on the other.
    The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science declares that “. . . . unless common bibliographic standards are agreed upon . . . the nation will face a form of information chaos within the next few years.” (1)
    Clearly, the challenge to the Federal Government is to get its own house in order, to account for all Federal publications produced by or for the Government, and be the solid cornerstone of the national plan for libraries and information services. This will require a gathering together of the strung-out parts into a cohesive, interactive, cost-effective network of bibliographic control.
    Getting a Handle on the Problem
    The diversity of bibliographic systems within the Federal Government, and the duplication of cataloging, still captures only the “main stream” documents. “Non-mainstream” documents often elude national announcement.
    Diversity of Systems. The Government Printing Office (GPO) is one of the major indexers and distributors of Federal Government documents. In the past, they have maintained up to six bibliographic control systems simultaneously, one of which produced the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications. Recently, GPO began inputting bibliographic information to the Ohio College Library Center (OCLC) using the MARC II format for bibliographic content, with the intent of producing the Monthly Catalog (and perhaps other lists) from the MARC tapes.
    OCLC serves well over 600 terminals around the country, including at least 41 Federal
    64
    agency libraries through the Federal Library Experimental Cooperative Cataloging (FL-ECC) program. Although complaints have been heard about the deterioration of its services due to rapid growth, OCLC now claims that with the recent installation of a new dual computer system such service shortcomings as lagging response time and the temporary shutdown of terminals have been overcome. (2) Whether, indeed, this facility will be able to handle the truly enormous bibliographic record of GPO (to say nothing of the Federal Government as a whole) is yet to be tested.
    Similar other shared-cataloging networks also receive bibligraphic data on some Government documents—through the input of participating libraries.
    In addition to shared-cataloging networks, there are bibliographic networks of Government technical reports. For example, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) has over 140 “source clients”: Federal Department, Executive and Congressional agencies, commissions, offices, services, bureaus and administrations. These source clients have contractual arrangements with NTIS to distribute their documents. NTIS maintains a bibliographic data base of all these publications.
    NTIS and a number of other report literature sources, such as the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) and the Defense Documentation Center (DDC), use the COSATI format (or a variation of it) for report literature in cataloging documents. This differs from the MARC II format, mainly in the name authority (the way corporate authors are described) and in the subject entries (specific descriptors or key words rather than general subject headings.)
    Some report literature data bases are available only to authorized users, through Government-owned networks such as NASA’s RECON and DDC’s Defense DRT&E On-line System. Others, such as the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s ENDEX (Environmental Data Index) and OASIS (Oceanic and Atmospheric Scientific Information System) are available through Government referral centers and libraries. Still others can be reached through commercial regional dissemination centers, such as the Knowledge Availability Systems Center at the University
    of Pittsburgh, which processes NASA tapes and others to perform searches on demand (for a fee, of course).
    Some Government data bases are available to the public through commercial services, to be searched on-line from a remote terminal by the user. For example, the NTIS data base can be searched through Lockheed’s DIALOG Service or the System Development Corporation’s ORBIT Service.
    It is possible for a specific Government document to find its way into several of these data bases. Within the Government itself, there is an overlap in coverage between DDC and NTIS, between NTIS and GPO, between GPO and LC, and so on.
    Duplication of Cataloging. “Main stream” Publications—those which are announced at least once nationally—often are cataloged and announced a number of times: by the agency itself (in a publications list and in the library catalog), by GPO (or DDC in the case of security classified documents), by NTIS, by a national library and other Government libraries, by depositories, and in some cases, by Government-supported information analysis centers. A growing number of these same documents are processed by LC in the Cataloging-in-Pub-lication (CIP) program and in the MARC tapes. All this is at Government expense.
    As with duplication of effort elsewhere, inconsistencies and errors creep in. The intellectual effort spent in duplicate cataloging, and in verifying the conflicting bibliographic data, is costly.
    N on-Mainstream Documents. A conservative estimate is that 50 % of the Federal documents published are not main stream publications. In one way or another they manage to elude national announcement. They are not sent to GPO or NTIS and are not widely advertised. Yet, these publications generally are available to anyone who knows how to ask for them. Such documents include:
    a)	Documents considered to be of limited general interest, such as publications of the Cancer Institute;
    b)	Documents printed in-house because they are needed quickly. A conservative estimate is that this accounts for 10 to 15% of an agency’s output;
    c)	Additions to a series, new revisions or
    updates, which are not announced. These often are just published and distributed to an established list;
    d)	Publications of a contractor or grantee published by private publishers. Sometimes (but not always) a manuscript is furnished the sponsoring agency, who decides whether or not to list it. There is no way of knowing how many of these do or do not get into the system;
    e)	Publications of an agency’s regional offices actively engaged in running programs and producing information. These may be printed through GPO, or GSA plants, or private publishers. Many by-pass the usual channels which control announcement and distribution;
    f)	Publications originally intended for inhouse distribution only; and
    g)	Promotional brochures, leaflets, etc. and publications such as press releases or summary minutes of open meetings of advisory groups.
    Small wonder there is growing concern over bibliographic control.
    User Feedback. User groups have been providing feedback to Government sources in an effort to clarify their needs for bibliographic access.
    The Special Libraries Association Government Information Services Committee (SLA/ GISC), working with the Committee on Information Hang-ups (Washington, D.C.), prepared a questionnaire, “GPO Users Survey.” It was mailed to a random sample of librarians: Members of SLA, ALA and the American Association of Law Libraries. Among other things, the survey asked for information on uses of bibliographic sources for Government documents, including the Monthly Catalog. Responses will be tabulated in May and a summary published in Special Libraries, probably in the Fall. (3)
    The American Library Association Government Documents Round Table (ALA/GO-DORT) Federal Documents Task Force Work Group on Bibliographic Control discussed the proposed revision of the Monthly Catalog at the January ALA MidWinter Conference in Chicago. The proceedings of this meeting is scheduled for publication in Documents to the People (DttP) in May; A five-year summary
    65
    of this Work Group’s activities is to appear in June. This group also is concerned about non-GPO publications which escape depository distribution (and/or the “bibliographic net of the Monthly Catalog”) and the availability to depository libraries of the Reference File (“a useful bibliographic tool”) used primarily in the sales program. (4)
    The GPO Operations Committee (and its predecessor, Bibliographic Control Committee) of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer sponsored two meetings in Arlington, VA, to obtain user feedback on the proposed new format for the Monthly Catalog produced from MARC tapes. The first, an “Ad Hoc Meeting on the Monthly Catalog,” held December 9, 1975, brought together thirty one attendees: from GPO, the Federal Library Committee, the Advisory Group on National Bibliographic Control, and representative librarians from both large and small academic, public, and special libraries. They pinpointed the basic uses of the Monthly Catalog as (a) an acquisitions tool and (b) a search tool. They also compiled a list of specific items that each entry must include. (5) The second meeting, “Follow-up on the New Monthly Catalog,” held April 8, 1976, assembled the same group, plus members of the Committee on Information Hang-ups and representatives from a number of large Federal libraries in the Washington area. Milton MeGee, Chief of GPO’s Classification and Cataloging Branch, introduced “The New Monthly Catalog: Draft Sample No. 2” (Library Division, GPO, April 8, 1976.) It incorporated many of the suggestions made at the first meeting and was generally well received.
    National Concern. Lawrence G. Livingston (Council on Library Resources) talked about “Developments in National Bibliographic Controls” at an open meeting of the Federal Library Committee, held in Washington in November. He said the NCLIS planning document calls for the building of a network on the basis of existing facilities. He pointed out that uniformity cannot be dictated, so it is necessary to plan in terms of compatibility and take into consideration the individual differences of diverse systems. He also said the achievement of a national network will involve the bibliographic format, and thus both national and
    international standards. He added that an essential requirement for planning national bibliographic control is guidance from those involved at the national level, and the Library of Congress is playing a key role. (6)
    The National Commission Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) in its report says:
    “Unless a coordinated program is established on a nationwide level, expenditures, facilities, and efforts will be unnecessarily duplicated, and interconnection will become increasingly difficult as local, state and multistate systems develop without benefit of a common purpose and a common approach.” (7)
    Working Toward Solutions
    Quality Control. Various groups are working to establish standards for bibliographic control. Among these are the following:
    The Advisory Group on National Bibliographic Control (sponsored by the National Science Foundation, NCLIS, and the Council on Library Resources) has two working parties of its own and, recently, established a subcommittee on serials holdings statements under the aegis of the ANSI Z-39 (American National Standards Institute.) The latter effort is expected to result in a standard. (8) The two working parties have met. The Working Party on Bibliographic Name Authority Files has nothing to report as yet. (9) The Working Party on Journal Articles and Technical Reports completed a first draft of data element definitions and representations, based on the UNISIST Reference Manual, the MARC format for serials, the ANSI X39.2 standard, the International Standard Bibliographic Descriptions for Serials, the CONSER Project, a draft of ANSI Z39.4, and others. A matrix of data elements was developed to determine those in common, as a working tool. They hope to have a draft suitable for review by the Advisory Group and others within the next few months. (10)
    The Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) program at the National Bureau of Standards sets standards for automation formats rather than bibliographic content. They deal with quality and dimensions of punched cards or tape, recording of dates, country codes,
    66
    ways to express time, etc. Approximately thirty such standards have been generated so far. When a FIPS is adopted, it becomes mandatory for Government agencies to use it, or seek a waiver. At the present time, FIPS is considering adopting the ANSI Z39.2, Bibliographic Information Interchange on Magnetic Tape. This already is being used by most Federal agencies that disseminate data bases via magnetic tape. LC (with the MARC format) uses it for books. DDC and NTIS (with the COS-ATI-type format) use it for technical reports. The use of this standard merely requires provision of additional routines (computer programs) to convert to and from the internal tape formats. (11)
    Capturing the Data. Gradually, more non-GPO items are finding their way into the Monthly Catalog. Members of the Joint Committee on Printing staff have been visiting various agencies and reminding the publications staffs of the need to comply with the Depository Library Act. The Library of Congress Exchange and Gift Division has been channeling more non-GPO items to the GPO for listing.
    As more libraries participate in shared-cataloging activities, and input information on Federal documents to connecting networks, one can assume that more “out of the mainstream” Federal documents will be identified.
    However, there should be a more systematic way of gathering bibliographic data on Federal Government documents.
    Looking to the Future
    Federal Government publications are an important national resource. As a part of the national plan, they must be made available to information users through an easily accessible system of identification and delivery.
    Federal Documents Network. The framework of a unique Federal Documents Network exists: National libraries (including LC’s MARC Development Office), National issuing sources (publications sections and libraries), National information services (GPO et al), depository libraries, and Government contractors.
    What is needed is a Government shared-cataloging system (FEDNET)—an OCLC-type operation—which would provide a vehicle for connecting all the disparate parts of the Fed
    eral Government documents system into an interactive and cost-effective network. Each unit could maintain its individuality and still benefit from the cooperative effort.
    Input at Source. The first recording of bibliographic data would be done early in the publication cycle, preferably at the time of publication is first conceived. This data would be input by the issuing agency’s publications section. Some agencies do this now: The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has an on-line Departmental Publication Management Information System (DPMIS) ; Information is input and searches are made from a remote terminal in DPMIS; The data base itself is stored in a commercial computer in the Midwest.
    Quality Control. The basic bibliographic entry would be revised at time of publication. In order to control the quality of this input, responsibility for final cataloging would be designated to one of the following: the agency itself (library), a national library (such as LC), an information service (such as GPO), or other (such as commercial services). For corporate author and subject entries, both the MARC format and the alternative COSATI format would be indicated. Then, once the basic bibliographic information is on-line, unique information required by participants in the network can be added.
    Benefits. A Federal Documents Network, with an on-line bibliographic data base, would have many benefits.
    It would be available to the entire Government community, as a working tool. In this way, it would help to capture the data, develop procedures for quality control, and establish national standards. It also would be cost-effective for the Government, because it would reduce the present duplication of Federally supported cataloging and could eliminate the need for elaborate management information systems now in operation within various agencies. Further, printed indexes could be produced from the data base tapes for the various Government agencies and services.
    It would be available to all libraries and individual users, as a referral or search service. In this way it would benefit the general public. As a one-stop source of information, it would be a clearinghouse of information about Federal Government publications which would save
    67
    uncounted hours on the part of reference librarians all over the country. It also would serve as a union Jist of depository library items.
    It would be an important resource in the national plan. Further, and at long last, it would achieve that ultimate goal: better bibliographic control of our Federal Government documents.
    Ruth S. Smith April 23, 1976
    REFERENCES
    (1)	TOWARD A NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES: GOALS FOR ACTION. Prepared by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Washington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. p. 32
    (2)	“OCLC Expands Service; Lifts Terminal Mori-torium” Library Journal, vol. 101, no. 7, p. 851, April 1, 1976.
    (3)	Discussions with Mary Lou Knobbe (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D. C. ), Chairman, SLA/GISC.
    (4)	Letter from LeRoy C. Schwarzkopf (University of Maryland, College Park, MD), Coordinator, Federal Documents Task Force, ALA/GODORT, dated March 11, 1976.
    (5)	These elements were named as essential in the Monthly Catalog:
    As an acquisitions tool, it should include in each record—
    (a)	Basic bibliographic information (as in
    MARC II)
    (b)	Availability information.
    (c)	Identification as a depository item, with number.
    (d)	Identification as a sales item, with price.
    (e)	Cataloging authority.
    (f)	SuDocs classification number.
    (g)	Library of Congress and Dewey numbers, ISBN.
    (h)	Federal stock number.
    (i)	Paper copy or microfiche.
    (j)	Report series number or other identification number.
    As a search tool, it should include in each record—
    (a)	Library of Congress headings.
    (b)	Specialized thesaurus terms oriented to originator.
    (c)	KWIC or augmented KWOC indexing.
    (d)	Even if the indexing is simplified in individual issues of the MC, in-depth indexing should be included in the data base for machine searches and should appear in an annual printed cumulation.
    (6)	“Summary of Federal Library Committee Meeting No. 102, November 19, 1975” FLC Newsletter (Federal Library Committee), No. 91, p. 1-2, February 1976.
    (7)	TOWARD A NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES: GOALS FOR ACTION. Prepared by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Washington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. p. ix.
    (8)	Letter from Paul B. Lagueux (Council on Library Resources, Washington, D.C.), Executive Secretary, Advisory Group on National Bibliographic Control, dated March 8, 1976.
    (9)	Letter from Ann T. Curran (Boston Public Library, Boston, MA), Chairperson, Working Party on Bibliographic Name Authority Files, dated March 10, 1976.
    (10)	Letter from Margaret K. Park (University of Georgia, Athens, GA), Chairman, Working Party on Formats for Journal Articles and Technical Reports, dated March 8, 1976. Also, discussions with Paul Lagueux.
    (11)	Discussions with Madeline Henderson, Chief, Computer Information Section, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.
    68
    APPENDIX G
    Press releases, Memoranda, etc.
    FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY ADVISORY GROUP MEETS AT GPO
    The U.S. Government Printing Office has announced the formation of a Federal Depository Library Advisory Group. The group, composed of 14 highly qualified members of the library profession, has been established to advise and assist the Public Printer of the United States and the Superintendent of Documents in their administration of the nationwide Federal Depository Library program. Meeting for the first time on February 2, 1973, at the Government Printing Office in Washington, D.C., the group was given a briefing on the purpose and operation of the program and received an insight into some of the areas where their expertise as users could be most helpful.
    The Federal Depository Library Program is established to make Government publications available for free use by the general public. Over 1,100 libraries across the United States have been designated by Members of Congress or by special provisions of law as Federal Depository Libraries. Of these, 39 Regional Depositories receive copies of all publications printed through the U.S. Government Printing Office and the remainder take titles selected for their particular needs. Over 12 million publications are distributed to these libraries annually, and by this means, the public is offered access to the results of Federal research and study contained in Government publications.
    The newly formed Advisory Group met with GPO officials for over two hours and visited the Depository Library Mailing Section which makes distribution to the system. Discussion centered around the areas of: instructions to Depository Libraries; proposed legislation; the Monthly Catalog including improvements in delivery, indexing, and automation plans; and plans for Depository Library inspection visits.
    Members will now organize to study particular areas where they can provide assistance. Another meeting of the full group with representatives of the Superintendent of Documents is tentatively planned to coincide with the annual American Library Association Conference in Las Vegas in June.
    Welcoming the group to the GPO and expressing his appreciation for their attendance, Mr. Leonard T. Golden, Acting Deputy Public Printer of the United States said, “This program is very important to us and there is legislation pending that could greatly increase the number of Federal Depository Libraries during fiscal year 1974. With this expansion of the program in view, we determined that it would be in our best interest, and we hope in yours also, to establish a professional Advisory Group to the Public Printer on the Depository Library program. We certainly appreciate the enthusiastic and helpful response received from each of you. I believe that with this spirit of cooperation, and through the interchange of information, we can do much to improve our Depository program.”
    Serving as members of the Advisory Group are:
    Mr. D. Clifton Brock, Jr., Librarian University of North Carolina
    Mr. Clifford P. Crowers, Assistant Head Public Documents Department
    The Free Library of Philadelphia
    Ms. Bernadine E. Hoduski Librarian
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Kansas City, Missouri
    Mr. Charles G. LaHood, Chief Photoduplication Service The Library of Congress Washington, D.C.
    69
    Miss Jean E. Lowrie, Director Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Honorary Member
    Mr. Ralph E. McCoy
    Dean of Library Affairs
    Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
    Mr. Peter J. Paulson, Director
    The University of the State of New York Albany, New York
    Miss Catharine J. Reynolds, Head Government Documents Department University of Colorado Libraries
    Boulder, Colorado
    Mrs. Carolyn Else,* Director Pierce County Library System Takoma, Washington
    Miss Katherine Laich, President American Library Association School of Library Science
    University of Southern California
    Honorary Member
    Mrs. Maryellen T. Trautman
    Regional Depository Librarian U.S. Government Documents The Oklahoma Department of Libraries
    Mr. Carper W. Buckley Superintendent of Documents (1953-1970) RETIRED
    Miss Eileen D. Cooke, Director Washington Office
    American Library Association
    Miss Maryan E. Reynolds State Librarian
    Washington State Library
    Olympia, Washington
    Mrs. Margaret T. Lane Recorder of Documents Secretary of State’s Office Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    * Mrs. Else represented Miss Maryan E. Reynolds at the meeting.
    June 28,1973
    To: Thomas F. McCormick
    From: The Advisory Council to the Public
    Printer for Depository Libraries
    It is always a gamble trying to get overscheduled people together, but be assured that those missing today had prior commitments and are not at the tables I Thank you for arranging this meeting and providing us this opportunity to discuss our mutual concerns.
    Although this is our first meeting with you, we feel that we “know” you; we’ve seen your picture and read your words. We are pleased that you “have a great empathy for the library community”—we have great empathy for the Government Printing Office and the Depository Library Program.
    We have been gratified by the response to the suggestions of the February 1973 Advisory Council meeting. We were especially pleased with Public Document Highlights, the work on the Instructions to Depository Libraries and and the helpful attendance of Government Printing Office personnel (Barbee, McFarlane, Tonner, True, and others) at U.S. documents workshops and meetings. It’s exciting for us, as librarians in the boondocks (defined as any place outside of D.C.) to discover that GPO really exists and that someone cares.
    The efforts of Norman Barbee in answering the questions of both this Council and the library community are greatly appreciated. He is an effective spokesman and representative of the Government Printing Office. It is great to find a person in responsibility who not only has enthusiasm, dedication and interest but who also cares about the depository libraries.
    We would like to present the following suggestions for your consideration:
    1.	Expanded space and facilities for the Depository Library program in the proposed building and planning study.
    2.	A permanent, full time, professional librarian (with authority to act on requests for assistance) to serve as liason between the Government Printing Office and the Depository Libraries.
    3.	Reestablishment of a permanent historical documents collection within the Documents Department Library for the use of
    70
    both librarians and researchers.
    4.	Compilation and publication of the subject heading list used in the preparation of the Monthly Catalog.
    5.	Implementation of a comprehensive Cataloging In Publication program.
    6.	A scheduled meeting at least once a year, in D.C., of the Advisory Council prior to ALA.
    THOMAS F. McCORMICK
    The Honorable Thomas Francis McCormick, 16th Public Printer of the United States, was born in Gardner, Massachusetts, on February 20, 1929. He attended elementary and high schools in his home town. He graduated from Holy Cross College, Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1950, receiving a B.S. in Business Administration “cum laude.”
    In June 1950, Mr. McCormick entered the U.S. Navy as a commissioned officer and served until July 1953, being released from active duty as a Lieutenant (j.g.).
    Mr. McCormick’s career in private business has all been with the General Electric Company which he joined in October 1953 as a Financial Management trainee. He was successively promoted to Manager, Accounting Operation, Advertising and Sales Promotion Department; Traveling Auditor; Manager, Business Analy
    sis and Budgets, Corporate Staff; Manager, Appropriations Analysis Operation; and Financial Analysis, Industrial and Information Group. In this latter position, he served as Administrative Assistant to the Group Vice President.
    In December 1967, General Electric promoted Mr. McCormick to the position of General Manager of the Maqua Company, a large printing firm owned by General Electric. Mr. McCormick was the chief executive at Maqua from 1967 until 1972, when General Electric decided to sell the company.
    While at Maqua, Mr. McCormick joined the Printing Industry Association of East-Central New York and through active participation in their affairs earned a place on their Board of Directors.
    In 1972, Mr. McCormick again moved up the corporate ladder to Manager, Power Generation Strategy Development. In this position, he was responsible for the development and integration of long range plans for G.E.’s Power Generation Business—the world’s largest.
    On January 16, 1973, Mr. McCormick was nominated to be Public Printer by President Nixon and confirmed by the United States Senate on February 8, 1973.
    Mr. McCormick is married to the former Beverly Acey of Norfolk, Virginia, and they have two sons, Stephen, 17, and Harold, 16, and two daughters, Laura, 13, and Ann, 11.
    71
    APPENDIX H
    Joint Committee on Printing
    Members 1972-1976
    James B. Allen, Senator from Alabama 1972-1976
    John Brademas, Representative from Indiana 1972-1976
    Howard W. Cannon, Senator from Nevada Chairman: 1973, 1975;
    Vice Chairman: 1974, 1976
    Samuel L. Devine, Representative from Ohio 1972
    William L. Dickinson, Representative from Alabama 1973-1976
    Robert P. Griffin, Senator from Michigan 1972
    Mark 0. Hatfield, Senator from Oregon 1975-1976
    Wayne L. Hayes, Representative from Ohio Chairman: 1972, 1974, 1976;
    Vice Chairman: 1973, 1975
    B. Everett Jordan, Senator from North Carolina Vice Chairman: 1972
    Hugh Scott, Senator from Pennsylvania 1973-1974
    Staff Directors
    Rosemary S. Cribben, 1974, 1976
    Denver Dickerson, 1975 John F. Haley, 1972-1973
    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978-258*365
    72