[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39202-39207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19469]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Electronic Records Work Group Draft Report; Comments Requested
AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice contains a working draft of the Electronic Records
Work Group's proposed report to the Archivist outlining the Work
Group's recommendations and the effort that went into developing the
recommendations and implementation strategy. This draft has been
modified slightly from the June draft that was posted on the Web and
sent to agencies for review. This draft reflects the Work Group's
decisions to use the term ``electronic source record'' to describe the
records created using office automation applications and to place the
discussion of program and administrative records, formerly in draft
Appendix B, in the introductions to draft Appendixes C and D where they
are most pertinent. For purposes of this review, we have not changed
the Appendix designations that were used in the June draft and have,
therefore, reserved Appendix B for a discussion in the final report of
the public and Federal comments received on the draft products.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent electronically to the e-mail address
grs20@arch2.nara.gov>. We ask that lengthy attachments be sent in
ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/5.2, or MS Word 6.0 format. If you do not have
access to e-mail, comments may be mailed to Electronic Records Work
Group (NPOL), Room 4100, 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001,
or faxed to 301-713-7270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller at 301-713-7110, ext.
229.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft report appears at the end of this
notice.
Dated: July 16, 1998.
Lewis J. Bellardo,
Deputy Archivist of the United States.
Draft Electronic Records Work Group Report to the Archivist of the
United States
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Work Group Approach
Recommendations of the Electronic Records Work Group
Rejected Options
Future Steps
Appendix A--Electronic Records Work Group membership
Appendix B--[Reserved]
Appendix C--Proposal for developing agency records schedules that
include office automation records
Appendix D--Proposal to revise the entire GRS to cover all formats
of the administrative records included therein
Appendix E--Proposed General Records Schedule, Information
Technology Records
Executive Summary
The Electronic Records Work Group (Work Group) is an interagency
group formed by the Archivist of the United States on November 21,
1997, to review the 1995 version of General Records Schedule (GRS) 20,
which was declared null and void by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia. (That ruling is on appeal.) Specifically, the
Work Group was asked to identify appropriate areas for revision,
explore alternatives for authorizing disposition of electronic records,
identify methods and techniques that are available with current
technology to manage and provide access to electronic records, and
recommend practical solutions for the scheduling and disposition of
electronic records. The Archivist also gave the Work Group several
guiding principles and policies, including: program records should not
be scheduled in the GRS, electronic records should be scheduled as
series, and solutions must be workable.
The Work Group membership was drawn from staff of the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and other Federal agencies
with records management and/or electronic records expertise under the
oversight of Deputy Archivist Lewis Bellardo. Michael Miller, the
Director of NARA's Modern Records Programs, serves as the group leader.
In addition, electronic records management experts from state archives
and records programs, the National Archives of Canada, academia, and
records management consulting firms serve as consultants to the Work
Group on a pro bono basis.
In conducting its review and developing the recommendations
contained in this report, the Work Group aggressively sought input from
Federal agencies, other interested
[[Page 39203]]
individuals and groups, and the general public. In addition to the
public meetings held on December 19, 1997, and January 29, April 7, and
May 18, 1998, NARA maintained a web page devoted to the work of the
Electronic Records Work Group (http://www.nara.gov/records/grs20/);
published public notices in the Federal Register; sent memos to Federal
agency records officers asking for their comments at various points in
the process; solicited comments from subscribers to the Archives
Listserv and Records Management Listserv; and invited comments from
professional organizations, such as the American Historical Association
(AHA), Organization of American Historians (OAH), Society of American
Archivists (SAA), National Association of Government Archives and
Records Administrators (NAGARA), Association of Records Managers and
Administrators International (ARMA), and the National Coordinating
Committee for the Promotion of History, and from other individuals with
an interest or expertise in electronic records.
By March 1998 the group had drafted a number of options to be
explored to replace GRS 20 disposition authorities, including
authorities for the deletion of program and administrative electronic
mail and word processing records, and for system maintenance and
operations records. The group also explored options for electronic
maintenance of electronic source records (records that remain in word
processing and electronic mail and other office automation systems
after a record has been produced for incorporation into an agency
recordkeeping system) on an interim basis prior to the installation of
proper electronic recordkeeping capability. After carefully considering
the public and consultant comments on the preliminary options, the Work
Group determined that there was only one feasible alternative approach
to GRS 20, and that was to schedule the records at the series level.
The two other options initially proposed as possible approaches for
managing electronic source records generated with electronic mail and
word processing software were found to have significant flaws. Both
options (to establish a uniform minimum retention period or to develop
retention standards based on an individual's position in the agency's
hierarchy) failed to meet requirements for the proper maintenance of
records. Neither provided for proper organization or categorization of
records to facilitate access. In both cases, disposition appeared to be
based on factors other than business needs. The group could not
identify supplemental measures that could be taken in conjunction with
either of these options to make them useful.
The Work Group, therefore, recommends to the Archivist of the
United States a three-part approach for scheduling the electronic
source records that previously were authorized for disposal under GRS
20, items 13, 14, and 15. The Work Group's recommendations also address
other concerns with the 1995 edition of GRS 20, i.e., authorization for
the disposition of electronic source records produced with other office
automation systems such as presentation software and electronic
calendaring software, and authorization for the disposal of electronic
records that correspond to the records covered in GRS 1-16, 18 and 23.
First, agencies must schedule their program and unique
administrative records in all formats. As part of its report, the Work
Group proposes an implementation strategy to assist Federal agencies
and NARA in accomplishing this task.
Second, the Work Group recommends that NARA modify
General Records Schedules (GRS) 1-16, 18, and 23 to authorize the
deletion of electronic source records, including those generated with
office automation systems, that correspond to administrative records
covered by those GRS, after a recordkeeping copy has been produced.
Third, the Work Group recommends that NARA develop a
new General Records Schedule that covers only systems administration
(or systems management) and operations records, such as files related
to system use and maintenance, backup tapes, and other records (e.g.,
system user access records) used in managing information systems
throughout their life cycle. This new GRS would cover records in all
media.
The Work Group originally conducted a preliminary review of issues
facing agencies that want to move toward electronic recordkeeping, but
determined that working simultaneously on the scheduling approach and
the electronic recordkeeping approach was not feasible given the
deadlines and the complexity of electronic recordkeeping issues that
need to be studied. The Work Group recommends that the Archivist
establish a follow-on group that continues to work on electronic
recordkeeping. This follow-on group should recommend guidance on
electronic recordkeeping for Federal agencies.
Introduction
The Archivist of the United States established an interagency
Electronic Records Work Group on November 21, 1997. In his charge to
the Work Group, the Archivist asked the group to:
Review the current version of General Records Schedule
(GRS) 20;
Identify appropriate areas for revision;
Explore alternatives for authorizing disposition of
electronic records;
Identify methods and techniques that are available with
current technology to manage and provide access to electronic records;
and
Recommend practical solutions for the scheduling and
disposition of electronic records.
The Work Group was asked to develop and weigh advantages of various
options and assess the practicality and feasibility of each in light of
the availability of electronic records management tools and other
resources. The Archivist asked the Work Group to keep in mind the
following working assumptions in performing its work:
General records schedules should focus on
administrative ``housekeeping'' records, not program records, and there
should be guidance in place to distinguish between them.
Records may be transferred from one medium to another;
however, key information about those records must be preserved as part
of the transfer process.
Electronic records should be scheduled as series, not
classes of media.
Solutions to electronic records challenges must be
workable and be something agencies can and will use.
The Work Group membership was drawn from NARA staff and
representatives of other Federal agencies with records management and/
or electronic records expertise under the oversight of Deputy Archivist
Lewis Bellardo. Michael Miller, the Director of NARA's Modern Records
Programs, serves as the group leader. In addition, electronic records
management experts from state archives and records programs, the
National Archives of Canada, academia, and records management
consulting firms serve as consultants to the Work Group on a pro bono
basis. A list of the Work Group members and consultants is provided in
Appendix A to this report.
Throughout this report, the term ``electronic source record'' has
been used to describe the electronic record that resides on an agency's
electronic mail, word processing, or other office
[[Page 39204]]
automation systems, i.e., the ``copy'' that formerly was authorized for
disposal by GRS 20 after a recordkeeping copy was produced. This report
addresses the disposition of the electronic records which are the
sources of the records filed in the agency's recordkeeping system.
Therefore these records are designated as ``electronic source
records.'' Agencies need to recognize that records created using word
processing, e-mail and other software on office automation systems must
be scheduled according to the same requirements which apply to all
records. NARA will authorize the disposal of electronic source records
in office automation systems only when copies of these records have
been captured in a recordkeeping system.
A main thrust of this report is to provide guidance and techniques
to agencies for scheduling electronic source records that are created
using word processing, electronic mail, and other end-user software.
These records typically are stored in desktop and laptop computer
systems and in networked servers. In the modern Federal office
environment, most staff members are provided with generic software
tools, such as word processing and e-mail, which they use to generate
electronic records related to their work, regardless of the nature of
the work. These records need to be filed in a recordkeeping system so
that they will be retrievable with other related records such as
attachments, the corresponding incoming or outgoing record, and, if
part of a case file, the forms and other records that comprise that
file. The complete files, and individual records within them, need to
be accessible to other staff members who need them in the course of
their work and in response to inquiries from the public. Failure to
place electronic records generated as electronic mail messages, word
processing files, and other office automation products in a
recordkeeping system will result in files which are incomplete or
unreliable. Consequently, these electronic source records must be
copied to a recordkeeping system established by the agency for
maintenance, use, and disposition.
However, even after these records are placed in a recordkeeping
system, a record remains on the originating system. These electronic
source records, like other Federal records, can be destroyed (deleted
from the office automation system) only with NARA's authorization. The
Work Group proposes that NARA revise the GRS to provide governmentwide
authorization for the disposition of electronic source records used to
create the types of records covered by GRS 1-16, 18, and 23. Agencies
must obtain authorization for disposition of all other electronic
source records by submitting a schedule (Standard Form 115) to NARA.
The Work Group considered using terms other than ``electronic
source record'' but found them problematical. Some readers saw
``electronic copy'' as implying nonrecord status. The term ``version''
is often used to distinguish between a paper record and the same record
in electronic form. However, ``version'' is frequently used to describe
a record that is an iteration of an earlier or later record. Hence,
``version control'' may be a feature of a document management or
electronic recordkeeping system, to distinguish between the first
record produced and later variants of the same record.
Conversely, the Work Group chose not to use the term ``duplicate''
because that term implies an exact match which may not exist. The
electronic source record that resides in an individual's word
processing directory or electronic mail box would be a duplicate of the
record in the recordkeeping system only if the recordkeeping system
were electronic and if all of the metadata produced by the word
processing or electronic mail utility were transferred to the
recordkeeping system. Because so many agencies are still maintaining
paper files as their recordkeeping systems, use of the term
``duplicate'' would be inappropriate.
Work Group Approach
In conducting its review and developing the recommendation and
products contained in this report, the Work Group made special efforts
to engage the Federal community and the public in discussion of
possible alternatives to the 1995 General Records Schedule 20, and to
keep them informed of the Work Group's activities. A GRS 20 web page on
NARA's Internet web site at http://www.nara.gov/records/grs20/>, and a
special e-mail address (grs20@arch2.nara.gov) was established. Posted
on that web page were documents for public comment, meeting notices and
agendas, summaries of public meetings, and other background materials
relating to the Work Group and the Public Citizen v. Carlin litigation.
Notices of public meetings and information about documents for public
comment were published in the Federal Register. Information and
requests for comment also were provided to Federal agency records
officers through NARA memos and to subscribers of the Archives Listserv
and Records Management Listserv through electronic messages.
The Work Group's first public meeting was held on December 19,
1997, at NARA's Archives II facility in College Park, MD, with one
member and several consultants participating by teleconference. The
purpose of the meeting was to bring the members of the Electronic
Records Work Group and consultants together to outline the tasks and to
answer questions concerning the logistics of the Work Group. The Work
Group and consultants received a set of detailed preliminary issues
proposed for discussion and other background materials. The list of
preliminary issues was posted on the GRS 20 Page and also published for
public comment in the Federal Register on December 24. Comments were
received from Work Group members and consultants and a Federal agency
contractor by the January 9, 1998, deadline. In an effort to obtain
wider input on the list of issues and options the Work Group should
consider, a second public meeting was held on January 29, 1998, at the
National Archives Building in Washington, DC. More than 70 Federal
agency staff and interested members of the public attended. Two Federal
employees provided formal remarks, and a number of individuals, most
from Federal agencies, made comments from the audience.
Immediately following the public meeting on January 29 and
continuing on February 9, 1998, the NARA members and Federal members of
the Electronic Records Work Group held working sessions at the National
Archives Building in Washington, DC, to discuss alternatives for GRS
20. The members discussed the framework in which they were working,
ranging from the goals of the group to the current status of electronic
records management in the Federal government. The members also
discussed the comments submitted by members of the public and
brainstormed on possible alternatives to GRS 20. From these comments
and ideas, the Work Group developed three possible short-term
approaches for scheduling electronic records for further analysis and
review. These were described in the March 12, 1998, paper ``Preliminary
Options for Replacing GRS 20.'' The Work Group's consultants, who had
reviewed a draft of the paper, were asked to provide their views on
enabling requirements and related issues for specific options, and to
comment on any other aspect of the paper. Work Group members also
developed comments on specific options.
The Preliminary Options paper laid out three options. The first
option, based on a traditional approach to
[[Page 39205]]
scheduling records by series, had three complementary sections for
scheduling program and administrative records, revising GRS 20 to cover
only systems records, and revising the remaining GRS to provide
disposal authority for source records not needed for recordkeeping. The
second and third options offered alternative interim approaches for
handling the disposition of electronic source records that remain on
electronic mail and word processing systems. Option 2 involved saving
electronic source records for a specific minimum period of time and
option 3 proposed saving the electronic source records created or
received by individuals holding specific positions within an
organization.
Public input on the options paper and suggestions for additional
approaches were sought in a variety of ways. The paper was posted on
the GRS 20 Page as http://www.nara.gov/records/grs20/opt312.html> on
March 14, and a notice announcing the availability of the paper and
requesting comments was published in the Federal Register on March 19,
1998. NARA sent a memo to Federal agency records officers and
information management officials on March 13 (NWM 06-98) inviting
comments on the paper. Announcements were sent to the Archives Listserv
and Records Management Listserv, and messages were sent by e-mail or
fax to individuals interested in electronic records issues and to
professional organizations, including the American Historical
Association (AHA), Organization of American Historians (OAH), Society
of American Archivists (SAA), National Association of Government
Archivists and Records Administrators (NAGARA), Association of Records
Managers and Administrators International (ARMA), and the National
Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. Comments were
requested by March 31.
Public comments were received from eight individuals and the Small
Agency Council Records Officers Committee. None suggested additional
approaches although several commented on aspects of the entire GRS and
on GRS 20 coverage. Option 1 was generally preferred.
Most of the Work Group's consultants submitted comments on all of
the options and issues. No other short term options were identified.
Several comments offered other approaches to appraising records (a
systems or macro approach, the Canadian model, the Pittsburgh Project
``warrant'' concept). Given the time frame that the Work Group had to
develop its recommendations, these approaches were not pursued;
however, they deserve further review later. The consultants found
options 2 and 3 problematic.
Copies of all of the comments received were circulated to the
Federal members of the Work Group and to the consultants prior to an
all-day public meeting on April 7 at the Office of Thrift Supervision
Amphitheater in Washington, DC. All but two Work Group members attended
the meeting, as did five of the 8 consultants. The meeting was called
specifically to receive comments from the ERWG's consultants on the
March 12, 1998, Options Paper, but the meeting was opened to the public
and approximately ten persons observed all or part of the meeting. Most
of the consultant comments and discussion focused on Option 1, and they
agreed that options 2 and 3 lacked merit. No additional options were
identified.
The Work Group met in a working session on April 17 to evaluate
further the written comments and discussions at the April 7 meeting and
to make assignments for developing products to implement Option 1.
Several consultants were asked to contribute to those products and
other consultant and agency/public comments were incorporated in the
approaches where feasible. A fourth public meeting was held on May 18,
1998, at the National Archives Building in Washington, DC, to brief
Federal agencies and the public on Work Group's progress and to obtain
public comments and questions. In addition to the Federal Register
notice and memo to records officers and IRM officials announcing the
meeting, invitations were sent to the Chief Information Officers (CIO)
Council, plaintiffs in the Public Citizen versus Carlin litigation, and
other organizations and individuals. More than 200 people attended the
meeting and provided a number of comments and questions.
As the Work Group discussed in the May 18 public meeting, the
report and its appendixes were sent to Federal agencies for comment in
June and a copy of the report, without the appendixes, was posted on
the GRS 20 Page at that time. The Federal members of the Work Group met
on July 13 to discuss changes and clarifications needed in the report
and appendixes that would be published in the Federal Register for
public and formal Federal agency comment the week of July 20. The Work
Group and its consultants will review the comments received and prepare
a final report and implementation plan to the Archivist of the United
States in time for his review and approval before September 30, 1998.
Recommendations of the Electronic Records Work Group
The Electronic Records Work Group recommends to the Archivist of
the United States that NARA take the following actions to replace the
1995 General Records Schedule 20:
1. NARA should instruct agencies to schedule their program and
unique administrative records in all formats.
On March 10, 1998, NARA issued such instructions in NARA Bulletin
98-02, Disposition of Electronic Records, for new and revised series
that are submitted to NARA for approval. NARA should issue instructions
for scheduling the electronic source records generated with office
automation systems that were authorized for disposal under the 1995 GRS
20.
If the scheduling process to replace the disposition authority
formerly provided by GRS 20 is to move ahead expeditiously, it is
essential that the process must both minimize the burden on Federal
agencies as much as possible and continue to provide the public an
opportunity to comment on the proposed schedules through the usual
Federal Register process. In carrying out the proposed scheduling
process, agencies must perform a series-based review of their
schedules, NARA must appraise proposed dispositions on a series basis,
and the public must have the opportunity to comment on proposed
dispositions on a series basis. However, the Work Group does not
believe that it is necessary, at this time, for agencies to submit
individual schedule items for these electronic source records series by
series. As agency records schedules are revised or amended, the
disposition authorities for these electronic source records will be
integrated into the agency disposition manual at the series level.
The Work Group has developed Appendix C to facilitate
implementation of this recommendation. Appendix C proposes guidance to
agencies on how to develop records disposition schedules to replace the
dispositions formerly provided by GRS 20 and outlines in a general
manner how those proposed schedules will be processed by NARA.
2. NARA should modify General Records Schedules (GRS) 1-16, 18, and
23 to authorize the deletion of source records corresponding to the
administrative records covered by those GRS that are not needed for
recordkeeping purposes, after a recordkeeping copy has been produced.
[[Page 39206]]
Proposed language and a discussion of the recommendation is
provided in Appendix D, along with definitions of ``program records''
and ``administrative records.'' The definitions should be added to the
general records management definitions in NARA regulations at 36 CFR
1220.14, and where appropriate in other NARA records management
guidance.
3. NARA should revise GRS 20 disposition authorities to cover only
systems administration (or systems management) and operations records,
such as files related to system use and maintenance; backup tapes; and
other records (e.g., system user access records) used in managing
information systems throughout their life cycle. The new schedule
should cover only administrative records, but should cover them in all
media.
A proposed draft general records schedule is provided in Appendix
E. This draft has been modeled after the New York State Archives and
Records Administration (SARA) General Administrative Schedule's section
on Electronic Data Processing, but adapted to reflect the mandatory
nature of the General Records Schedules. (The New York General
Administrative Schedule is advisory and provides minimum retention
periods.) The New York SARA approach was developed with the assistance
of the State government data processing community. The Work Group
emphasizes that this draft revised general records schedule will need
to be reviewed carefully by Federal agency CIO's and their information
technology (IT) organizations to ensure that it accurately describes
Federal IT records and includes only temporary administrative records
that can be scheduled by a common disposition authority in a GRS.
Rejected Options
In early deliberations, the Electronic Records Work Group
considered two other options for maintaining electronic source records
used to generate some or all program records.
Those options, numbers 2 and 3 in the Preliminary Options Paper
dated March 12, 1998, were:
Establish a uniform minimum retention period for
electronic records currently covered by GRS 20, items 13 and 14
Develop retention standards for electronic records
currently covered by GRS 20, items 13 and 14, based on an individual's
position in agency hierarchy
These options were proposed as possible approaches for maintaining
electronic source records of all or some of the most important agency
program records created or maintained on e-mail and word processing
systems. In discussing these two options, Work Group members came to
the conclusion that they were significantly flawed. Both options failed
to meet requirements for the proper maintenance of records. Neither
provided for proper organization or categorization of records to
facilitate access. In both cases, disposition appeared to be based on
factors other than business needs. (Business needs refers to an
agency's need to conduct its business, maintain a record of its
essential activities and decisions for its own use, support oversight
and audit of those activities, and permit appropriate public access.)
The Work Group could not identify supplemental measures that could be
taken in conjunction with either of these options to make them useful.
A significant concern with both approaches was that they might be
viewed by agencies and the public as a satisfactory interim way to
manage records electronically until the agencies have fully functioning
electronic recordkeeping systems. Such electronic collections of mail
and word processing records are incomplete, without proper
recordkeeping organization, and unindexed. Moreover, they lack the
context of the related documentation filed in the recordkeeping system.
Access to such collections is limited to full text search, which has
the dual drawbacks of finding many irrelevant documents and missing key
documents that may not contain the word(s) used in the query.
An additional concern with option 2 was that some agencies may
believe that this option could be implemented by retaining backup tapes
for a minimum period of time. As stated in NARA regulations (36 CFR
1234.24(c)) and guidance (the 1995 Agency Recordkeeping Requirements: A
Management Guide), backup tapes should not be used for recordkeeping
purposes for a variety of reasons. One compelling reason is that
records on backup tapes are not readily accessible to agency staff
members. While necessary for disaster recovery, backup tapes are not
useful for day-to-day agency operations.
The proposed option 3, to retain electronic source records
generated with mail and word processing systems based on organizational
position, was a variation of rejected option 2 and seemed to be based
on archaic archival and records management theory. Work Group members
and other NARA staff believe that setting retention periods based on
hierarchical placement would not produce useful results. At one time,
appraisal theory assumed that records of high level officials were
generally more valuable than records in lower level offices, as
significant program decisions are reached at the higher levels. Over
many years, NARA has found that in many agencies much of the
documentation of policy development and justification is maintained at
lower-level program offices of an agency. Currently, appraisal of
Federal records is conducted by assessing the documentation patterns in
agencies and identifying the most valuable records based on function
and recordkeeping practices, as well as content.
Finally, Work Group members recommended against these options
because implementation of either would drain records and information
management resources from more productive efforts to control agency
records properly, including long-term plans to move toward electronic
recordkeeping.
In conclusion, the Electronic Records Work Group, after careful
deliberation, rejected options 2 and 3 in the Preliminary Options Paper
dated March 12, 1998, as unworthy to be included in the recommendations
to the Archivist.
Future Steps
This report of the Electronic Records Work Group addresses the
recordkeeping practices of most agencies, which are still primarily
paper-based. However, business needs and technology advances will lead
agencies to electronic recordkeeping over time. The many Federal
initiatives for electronic commerce and the reliance on computer
technology to create the records that document government business are
examples of the forces moving most agencies in this direction. NARA
must provide guidance to agencies on sound policies and techniques for
managing electronic records and for implementing electronic
recordkeeping systems.
The Work Group recommends that the Archivist establish a follow-on
group to look at the electronic recordkeeping issue and to make
recommendations in that area. The follow-on group should begin as soon
as possible and build on the work done by this Work Group. The Work
Group suggests that the Archivist should set a relatively short time
frame for submitting these electronic recordkeeping recommendations.
[[Page 39207]]
Appendix A: Electronic Records Work Group Membership
Members--National Archives And Records Administration
Lewis J. Bellardo, Deputy Archivist of the United States
Michael L. Miller, Director, Modern Records Programs
Nancy Allard, Policy and Communications Staff
Mark Giguere, Modern Records Programs
Jean Keeting, Modern Records Programs
Miriam Nisbet, Special Counsel for Information Policy
Susan Sallaway, Information Resources Policy and Projects Division
Kenneth Thibodeau, Director, Electronic Records Programs
Members--Other Federal Agencies
Edward Barrese, Records Officer, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation
Maya Bernstein, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget
Elizabeth Behal, Departmental Records Officer, U. S. Department of
Agriculture
Christopher L. Olsen, Chief, Records Classification and Management,
Records Classification and Management Group, Office of Information
Management, Central Intelligence Agency
Dan Hocking, Computer Scientist, Army Research Laboratory
Eleanor Melamed, Department of Energy
Alan Proctor, CIO Council Liaison, Department of the Treasury
Catherine Teti, Director for Records Management and Information
Policy, Office of Thrift Supervision
Non-Federal Expert Consultants
Rick Barry, Barry Associates
Luciana Duranti, University of British Columbia
Bruce Evans, Nuclear Information and Records Management Association
(NIRMA)
Margaret L. Hedstrom, University of Michigan
James Henderson, State Archivist, Maine
Alan Kowlowitz, New York State Archives and Records Administration
John McDonald, National Archives of Canada
Charles Robb, Kentucky Department for Library and Archives
Robert Williams, Cohasset Associates
Appendix B [Reserved]
Appendix C--Proposal for Developing Agency Records Schedules That
Include Office Automation Records
Note: See the second document published in this Part V of the
Federal Register.
Appendix D--Proposal To Revise the Entire GRS TO Cover All Formats
of the Administrative Records Included Therein
Note: See the third document published in this Part V of the
Federal Register.
Appendix E--Proposed General Records Sechedule, Information
Technology Records
Note: See the fourth document published in this Part V of the
Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 98-19469 Filed 7-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
