Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1992 11:44:21 CST From: Cayman Zahn Subject: File 4--PRA and Owens Bill ((Your readers might be interested in the following that came across the nets)) ++++ Original Message ++++ >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 16:23:42 EST >From: James P Love >Subject: PRA and Owens Bill A number of persons have asked me how the Owens Bill (HR 3459) and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) relate to each other. From our point of view, they represent competing approaches to federal information policy. Not only do these bills accomplish different things, but it is highly unlikely that both bills will be acted on by Congress. THE PRA The sections of the PRA that deal with the dissemination of government information largely reflect IIA's vision of federal information policy. 1. Agency mandates to disseminate information are qualified by the existence of private sector "equivalent" products and services. 2. The law limits agency prices for information "products," which vendors buy, but not "services," which would include such things as online access to government information systems. 3. While the PRA would benefit data users and vendors by prohibiting royalties on government information, it may also prohibit agencies from limiting the prices vendors charge for access to services such as CENDATA or the FEC database. 4. The PRA only requires public notice when agencies start or terminate "significant" new information products and services. These are when privatization issues are important. There are no provisions for public notice to review an existing policy to see if it is adequate in light of changing technologies, or to raise hundreds of user concerns over things like standards for file formats, query command structures, user interfaces, indexes or other important features of information dissemination programs. 5. The PRA strengthens OMB's role in setting federal information policy. OMB has a long record of promoting the privatization of federal information resources. THE OWENS BILL The Owens bill was drafted from the point of view of data users. 1. Agency have an unambiguous mandate to disseminate information using modern technologies. Not only is the intent as expressed in the findings quite good, but the bill specifically mentions such things as the use of national computer networks. 2. Agency prices are limited for goods _and_ services. 3. The Owens bill bans agency royalties or fees for the redissemination of information, but it doesn't place other restrictions on federal agencies. 4. The public notice sections of the Owens bill are extensive, and they address, on an annual basis, issues such as standards for file formats, query command structures, user interfaces, and indexes, as well as agency product lines, prices, outlets, and a number of other things. 5. OMB will be constrained by the Owens bill, since the bill carefully sets out agency mandates to disseminate information, but OMB isn't given powers to make federal information policy. NIST and NARA are asked to become more involved in federal information policy. POLITICS OF THE TWO BILLS 1. IIA wants a bill that addresses the pricing of government information. Vendors are disturbed by the recent attempts to place royalties on the redisseminate of ocean tariff information. Both bills would address this issue. 2. The IIA has told its membership that the Owens bill is consistent with IIA principles. 3. The PRA probably can't pass without the support of the library community. 4. IIA is asking the library community to cut a deal on the PRA. 5. The PRA is a political tar baby, because it gets into many unrelated subjects, such as OMB's authority to review agency regulations before they are published, or the authority of agencies to require firms to disclose health warnings to third parties. The heavy hitters in those disputes don't care about the information dissemination parts of the bill, and federal information policy ends up being lost in the public debates. We have opposed the passage of the PRA and we have supported the passage of the Owens bill. We don't think OMB has much to recommend it as a maker of federal information policy. If you disagree, ask yourself this questions: Who else in the federal government would want OMB to set policy? Do education groups want OMB to set education policy? Do scientists want OMB to set science policy? OMB is primarily staffed by accounting and management types who have little background or commitment to the development and use information resources or technologies. Why put them in the drivers seat? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ James Love, Director VOICE: 609-683-0534 Taxpayer Assets Project FAX: 202-234-5176 7-Z Magie, Faculty Road bitnet: Love@pucc.bitnet Princeton, NJ 08540 internet: Love@pucc.princeton.edu Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253