Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 18:19:13 EDT From: James P Love 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): omba130@nist.gov 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 omba130@nist.gov. For more information, contact OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Information Policy Branch internet: ombA130@nist.gov 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: love@essential.org P.O. Box 19367 Washington, DC 20036% Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253