Date:         Tue, 30 Jun 1992 18:19:13 EDT
From:         James P Love <[email protected]>
Subject: File 8--OMB A130 REVISION

Taxpayer Assets Project
Information Policy Note
June 23, 1992

THE APRIL 29, 1992 PROPOSED REVISION TO OMB CIRCULAR A-130.


                   SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

-    Important policy advisory for all federal agencies
    concerning the management of federal information resources.

-    Proposed Revision is an improvement over the existing A-130,
    but needs considerable work.  Your comments are needed.

-    Public comments due by August 27, 1992

-    Comments can be filed at any time before the deadline by
    email.  Send to (Internet):  [email protected]


                         INTRODUCTION

On April 29, 1992 OMB published a notice in the Federal Register
asking for public comments on proposed revisions of its OMB
Circular A-130.  This important circular is a policy advisory
from OMB to all federal agencies concerning the management of
government information resources.

Since it was first issued in 1985 A-130 has been a controversial
document.  In its earlier versions A-130 was used to eliminate or
raise prices on many free publications, and to promote the
privatization of the dissemination of government information.

The April 29, 1992 draft is a major improvement from the 1985
circular or any of the previous attempts to revise it.  There are
also a number of problems with A-130.


                           GOOD NEWS

The best new features of the Circular are its decreased emphasis
on privatization, the much more generous mandate to use computer
technologies to disseminate government information (its ok for a
government agency to "add value"), and OMB's very good statement
on pricing of government information (no more than the cost of
dissemination).

                           BAD NEWS

DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

OMB contends that federal agencies do not have to give electronic
information products and services to the federal depository
library program.  There are 1,400 federal depository libraries,
including most major research libraries.  They provide free
access to thousands of federal publications.  By law all federal
agencies are required to provide copies of paper productions to
this program, which was organized in the middle of the 19th
century.  OMB's proposal, which may not be legal, is a major
change of philosophy, and it should be criticized strongly.  We
don't need a technological sunset of this important program which
provides universal access to federal information resources.


               WHAT'S MISSING FROM THE CIRCULAR

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

A surprisingly large number of agencies have contracts with
private firms to carry out data processing or information
dissemination tasks, when the contractor is also a potential
competing outlet for the information.  The conflicts of interest,
both real and potential, are huge, and of great importance.
Consider the following examples:

    SEC's Insider trading data.  The SEC hires InvestNet to data
    punch its insider trading reports.  InvestNet provides a
    copy of its work to the National Archives, missing the field
    of the shareholder's address.  This makes the government's
    copy of the data worthless for many users.  InvestNet then
    the public sells access to the complete data for very high
    fees.

    SEC's EDGAR system.  The SEC hires Mead Data Central to
    disseminate the electronic records for EDGAR.  Meanwhile,
    Mead wants to sell the public access to those same records.
    The result is one of the most restrictive systems for public
    access that one could imagine.

    LANDSAT.  GM and GE are given a monopoly on the sale of
    LANDSAT data.  Forget GM's conflict of interest in making
    data on air pollution and climate available to environmental
    groups.  GM, through its Hughes subsidiary, wants to force
    people to buy its value added services, "enhancing" the
    LANDSAT data, before its disseminated.

    JURIS.  The Department of Justice hires Westlaw to key punch
    federal court decisions.  Westlaw, of course, is one of two
    commercial sources (with Mead Data Central) of legal
    information online.  West provides the government with its
    headnotes, which West copyrights.  West then can exercise a
    copyright over the entire database, which otherwise consists
    of the LAW itself.  West has used this to prevent the public
    from having access to the JURIS online system and from
    preventing potential competitors from obtaining the records
    under FOIA.

There are dozens of other cases of conflicts of interest.  OMB
should address this issue in A-130.


PUBLIC NOTICE

OMB is still acting as though the only reason for public notice
is if there is a major decision on the creation or termination of
an information product or service.  We believe the public should
have regular opportunities to comment on agency policies and
practices.  For example, since JURIS has never been available to
the public, there hasn't been any public notice.  Or, the SEC's
public notice of EDGAR was years and years ago, before anyone
knew what it was really going to do.  What if the public wants
something new that doesn't exist, or wants to criticize an agency
choice of standards?   Some of the most important issues concern
the types of incremental adjustments that agencies need to make.

We support the extensive public comment provisions that are
described in Representative Owens' Improvement of Information
Access Act (IIA Act, HR 3459).  Let's do it right in A-130, and
pay more attention to data users problems.


NTIS

Ever since Congress required NTIS to operate without taxpayer
funds (funded entirely on user fees), it has used electronic
products and services to subsidize its money losing paper
products.  Agencies now sell electronic products through NTIS,
splitting fees.  The records are no longer available through
FOIA, and A-130's policy on pricing (no more than dissemination
costs) is completely undermined.  NTIS charges huge prices for
its data in electronic formats.  (As much as $1,000 or more for a
single real of magnetic tape).  This loophole is causing immense
problems, and should be addressed in A-130.


STANDARDS

If the three most important things about information in a
networked environment are standards, standards, and standards,
then A-130 should talk more about standards.  And when you talk
about standards, you have to talk about *regular* public comment.
Users have to be involved.  Again, we support the Owens bill (HR
3459) approach on this.

                          CONCLUSION

Omb Circular A-130 is a pivotal federal document, and it will be
important to file your comments by the August 27, 1992 deadline.
OMB is making this very easy by allowing comments to be filed by
email any time before the deadline, at [email protected].

For more information, contact OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs.

Information Policy Branch          internet:  [email protected]
Office of Information and          voice:  202/395-3785
 Regulatory Affairs
OMB
Room 3235
New Executive Office Building
Washington, DC  20503

============================================================
James Love                         voice:     609/683-0534
Director, Taxpayer                 fax:       202/234-5176
Assets Project                     internet:  [email protected]
P.O. Box 19367
Washington, DC  20036%

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.