Dr. HOLLOMON. Section 4 in my view is new. We have not that responsibility, and I believe that it is new. Mr. VIVIAN. This allows the Secretary to provide criteria for the publication by anybody else of standard reference data? Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. Mr. VIVIAN. Anybody else? Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. Mr. VIVIAN. You can prohibit the issuance of material by the Department of Defense? Dr. HOLLOMON. No. The only thing we can say is it has to go through a process if it is to have that stamp. Mr. VIVIAN. If it is to have a standard reference label? Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. Mr. VIVIAN. That label is a definition now which has a copyright context to it? Dr. HOLLOMON. It has some of the characteristics of a copyright. Mr. VIVIAN. In other words, the words "Standard Reference Data" cannot ever be used? Dr. HOLLOMON. No, the stamp, an imprint, an imprint designed for cognitive purposes. Mr. VIVIAN. What is the next new section? Dr. HOLLOMON. The next new section is section 5. It has to do with the degree of recovery. Mr. VIVIAN. It seems to me section 5 does not have to do with the degree of recovery. The first part of section 5 through line 16 deals with whether or not you have to go through the Government Printing Office. Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. Mr. VIVIAN. You presume it will still go through the Government Printing Office and still get a different recovery? Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes. Mr. VIVIAN. There are two requirements here? Dr. HOLLOMON. Exactly. Mr. VIVIAN. The two don't have to be necessarily together? Dr. HOLLOMON. That is right. And this authority gives us authority to contract. Mr. VIVIAN. Why is it necessary to change the laws relating to the Government Printing Office? Why should you go outside the Government Printing Office? Dr. HOLLOMON. There are two aspects of the problem. One is the question of recovering user charges. Mr. VIVIAN. I want to avoid that question right now. Dr. HOLLOMON. That is one of them. Mr. VIVIAN. Yes, sir. Dr. HOLLOMON. I can't avoid it and answer your question. That is one of the reasons. Mr. VIVIAN. Yes. Dr. HOLLOMON. The second reason is that we believe, as I tried to answer Mr. Mosher, that it is appropriate in some instances and can be more effective to permit private publication of such compilations. Mr. VIVIAN. Why isn't that true of the thousands of other things the Government prints? For example, how about agricultural pamphlets? Dr. HOLLOMON. Mr. Vivian, I will try to answer a question with respect to these compilations. Mr. VIVIAN. But the question is not only relevant to these publications. Dr. HOLLOMON. I understand that. I am not trying to avoid the question. I have some feelings about these other matters, but I am not an expert in these other publications. Mr. CONABLE. Nor is the Department of Agriculture within the proper cognizance of this act. Dr. HOLLOMON. You may have some views on this, and it may be a very interesting question, but we believe there is a special reasonlet's take the case that Dr. Astin spoke of. Suppose there is needed supplementary data to a particular private publication. If we wanted to make a supplement in the field, wouldn't it be appropriate to go to that publisher to see whether or not an appropriate arrangement could be made to issue a supplement through his standard distribution channels? Mr. VIVIAN. It seems to me the question of whether all Government publications should go through the Government Printing Office at all is itself a question, because there are pretty stringent laws already existing requiring that they be published through the Government Printing Office. Mr. DADDARIO. If you would yield, the example you have given, Dr. Hollomon, the means to get that done seems already to be available to you. Dr. HOLLOMON. HOW? Mr. FELTON. Under contract. Dr. HOLLOMON. If we did all that work under contract, that would But if the work happened to be done in the Bureau of Stand be so. ards Mr. FELTON. I thought most of this work was going to be done outof-house by experts in the field. Dr. HOLLOMON. Both. We intend to do both. It depends on whether we have the expertise. Other Government agencies can do likewise. For example, AEC does certain publications that meet their criteria and some are printed privately at this time. Mr. DADDARIO. I would like to say something for Mr. Vivian. I think his questions are excellent-help us put our thoughts together. He indicated yesterday a very strong support for the basic purposes of this bill. There is no antagonism. Dr. HOLLOMON. I understand that. I don't mean to try to avoid the issue. I only say I don't think I should testify here on the general problems associated with all the things that the Government Printing Office does. Mr. MILLER. If the gentleman may yield, he may not know it but another committee is taking great exception to this bill because it has charge of printing says it is nothing but a printing bill. This is far from a printing bill. They are the committee that can put the type together, talk about what kind of ink should be used and where they should get the paper. Since the contents are beyond that committee, the bill is in our committee. Dr. HOLLOMON. There is another presently modest, and perhaps crucial, part of this particular section which I think will become increas ingly important. That has to do with the problem of computer tapes, and also the service that one would render with a computer, for example, from a central data bank. I think in 10 years that much of the kind of data discussed here will be on tapes that will be in central computer banks, and I don't think these necessarily ought to be operated by the Government. This doesn't go to the printing problem now, this goes to the particular kind of service. It seems to me we ought to make such arrangements with private parties. Mr. DADDARIO. You are not really talking about printing at all in this bill, but about how to compile, publish, and pay for it. Mr. MILLER. It is the substance, not how the material is put in the book which we are talking about. Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. It is the problem of how do we devise the best mechanism to get this data with two characteristics which we want. One is that the user has some confidence that an appropriate evaluation procedure has been followed. The second is that he can get the data at a reasonable price. Mr. DADDARIO. However, we are talking about today and not 10 years from now, and Mr. Vivian's questions are pertinent. Mr. VIVIAN. I am not personally concerned about the question whether it is printed in the Government Printing Office or not. My concern is to show that the two sections are not necessarily together. The law says if it is printed and distributed by the Government Printing Office, the Government can charge up to 150 percent of the total cost of the printing, as I recollect, as a fixed limitation on cost. Dr. HOLLOMON. But it goes to where the funds go. Mr. VIVIAN. The funds go back to the Treasury, which happens to be the place I believe it should go and which is why I don't want this section in here. Section 6, I think we will agree is the ability of Commerce to establish a trademark. Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes. Mr. VIVIAN. Is there any other place in the Federal Government where trademarks are defined and used? I am informed that Smoky the Bear is a symbol. Dr. HOLLOMON. It is. Mr. VIVIAN. If there are such in existence, I will not question it. The answer is "Yes"? Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes, there also is a prohibition to using the words, "Federal Bureau of Investigation," or the initials "F.B.I." Mr. VIVIAN. There exists a legal precedent? Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes. Mr. DADDARIO. Can we fill the record out more? Mr. VIVIAN. Sections 7 and 8 are the important sections of the bill. These I think are the ones that create for you a basically new authority, principally section 7(b), which you have already indicated you would change. Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes, and would clarify the intent. Mr. VIVIAN. Is there any objection to publishing the data compilation or is it to the publishing of the mark? Dr. HOLLOMON. The bill would prohibit the publishing of data compilations using the mark. Mr. VIVIAN. In other words, the data can be republished by anybody as long as the mark is not appended? Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. That is all this bill says. Mr. VIVIAN. Section 8 relates to a provision for penalties. Are there normally provisions of law by which a Secretary of a Department can send a man a bill and say, "Pay me a hundred dollars"? Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes. Mr. VIVIAN. Is this well established? Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes. I have five precedents for that kind of penalty. Mr. VIVIAN. In other words, the whole procedure for penalty as enforced by the Secretary is Dr. HOLLOMON. Has precedent. Mr. VIVIAN. And the court provisions, section 9, are consistent with other provisions and other law relating to section 8? Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes. And we will submit those for the record. Mr. DADDARIO. Without objection, they may be submitted. (The information requested is as follows:) The committee has requested that it be furnished information pertaining to statutory precedents for the authority which would be granted under the bill relating to the adoption of a symbol or mark by the Secretary, the imposition of civil penalties for its unauthorized use, and obtaining an injunction to prevent and restrain violations of the Act. In our view, there are a great many statutory precedents for the authority requested. Among the more commonly known statutes are 18 U.S.C. 709 relating to false advertising or misuse of names to indicate a Federal agency. That statute contains a prohibition pertaining to the use of the words "Federal Bureau of Investigation" or the initials "F.B.I." without the permission of the Director of the FBI. The statute is typical of those listed in Chapter 33 of Title 18, United States Code concerning misuse of emblems, insignia and names. Other statutory precedents on this point include 15 U.S.C. 1261-1273 relating to the labeling of hazardous substances; 21 U.S.C. 71-96 relating to the inspection and labeling of meat and meat products; 21 U.S.C. 301 and 321–392 relating to the requirements for, labeling of foods, drugs and cosmetics; 21 U.S.C. 457 relating to requirements for labeling of poultry products in interstate commerce; and 27 U.S.C. 201-212 relating to certificates for label approval of alcoholic beverages. There are also statutory precedents for the authority prescribed in section 8 of the bill regarding civil penalties and the compromising of such penalties by the Secretary. Precedents for civil penalties are found in 45 U.S.C. 26(h) relating to railroads; 49 U.S.C. 322(h) relating to motor carriers, and 49 U.S.C. 1471 and 1473 relating to aircraft. Compromising authority exists in 49 U.S.C. 1471 and 1473. These authorities are also implemented by regulations in 14 CFR 13.15 and 14 CFR 302.800 et seq. Statutory precedents for injunctions, which would be authorized under section 9 of the bill, may be found in 15 U.S.C. 1267 relating to hazardous substances; 21 U.S.C. 332 relating to foods, drugs and cosmetics; 49 U.S.C. 322(b) relating to motor carriers and 49 U.S.C. 1487 relating to aircraft. The latest example of such authority may be found in S. 3005, The Traffic Safety Act of 1966, which was passed by the Senate on June 24, 1966. Mr. VIVIAN. I happen to object to these provisions, but I gather that they are not formally in precedent trouble. Dr. HOLLOMON. NO. Mr. VIVIAN. Let me come back to another series of questions. What are the costs that you anticipate recovering when you charge for fees? For example, do you intend to charge for the research cost required to establish the data? Dr. HOLLOMON. No. Mr. VIVIAN. None? Dr. HOLLOMON. No. Mr. VIVIAN. Do you intend to include evaluation cost, whatever that may be? Ďr. HOLLOMON. Under some circumstances. I tried to answer this earlier. Mr. VIVIAN. How do you differentiate between research and evaluation? Dr. HOLLOMON. I think there is a sort of fundamental difference. In one case you go back to the laboratory and redo the number. That is what I thought you meant by research. Mr. VIVIAN. In other words, you would never be going back to the laboratory? Dr. HOLLOMON. Not from this standpoint. The Bureau of Standards does that, but not under this bill. It does that in any event at the present time. It frequently establishes numbers that are not otherwise established. One of the difficulties we have is to know which numbers are missing. This provides a mechanism of knowing which numbers are missing, but the activity to obtain new numbers would not be authorized under this particular bill. We already have the authority to do so. Mr. VIVIAN. You don't need that authority? Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. Furthermore, this bill doesn't go to the question. Mr. VIVIAN. Under evaluation, do you include people who read technical documents, visit and investigate and do all the things required to getting a competence in numbers but not generating new numbers? Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. Mr. VIVIAN. Have you any concept at all how much that would cost? Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes; we have made an estimate. Mr. VIVIAN. You have issued three standard reference publications, in NBS-2, NBS-3, and NBS-4. The costs were something like 35 cents, 45 cents, and $2.50 from GPO. If you had had this bill and it was in effect, what would the costs have been of those documents? Dr. HOLLOMON. I don't know, frankly. Dr. ASTIN. I frankly can't give it to you now. Mr. DADDARIO. Could you make some estimate of that? Dr. HOLLOMON. We could make a judgment and tell you what our judgment would be if this bill had been appropriate at that time. (The information requested is as follows:) PROPOSED PRICES FOR NSRDS PUBLICATIONS The table that follows lists by title each of the three data compilations that have been published to date as a part of the National Standard Reference Data System. For each of these publications there is shown an estimate of the maximum total sales that can be expected, and the current price which the Government Printing Office charges for the publication. In addition, there is shown a maximum and a minimum sales price that might have been charge for these publications had they been published under the authority provided in H.R. 15638. If the estimated quantity was sold at the minimum proposed price, it would be possible for NBS to recover all editorial and copy preparation costs as well as printing costs now paid to GPO. At the maximum proposed price, the cost of technical effort going into the compilation and evaluation of the data would also |