PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1980,

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00890R000300010022-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 4, 2003
• Sequence Number: 22
• Publication Date: June 30, 1981
• Content Type: MF

-Approved FO lease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008 6 000300010022-2
OGC Has Reviewed 111-
OGC 81-05487
30 June 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Administration
FROM: Stanley Sporkin
General Counsel
SUBJECT: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
1. In December 1980, then-President Carter signed into law
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511. The
effective date of the Act is 1 April 1981. Attached for your
information is an analysis of that Act prepared by this Office
for use by relevant Agency components.
2. As indicated by the length of the analysis, the Act
itself is quite lengthy and detailed. Its more important
provisions may be summarized as follows. The Act vests certain
powers in the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and
imposes reciprocal duties upon all agencies of the federal
government. Essentially, the Director, OMB's powers are of an
oversight nature in the areas of general information policy,
information collection, records management, privacy protection
and automatic data processing and telecommunications. The main
purpose of the Act is to alter the federal agency regulatory
scheme so as to invest the Director, OMB, with some degree of
authority over the promulgation of regulations which seek to
obtain information from the public at large.
3. Although the Agency is generally subject to the Act, the
Agency will not be substantially affected by it since the Agency
has relatively little involvement in the areas addressed by the
Act. Further, there are two extremely important areas in which
the Agency may be said to be completely exempt from the Act:
"collection of information" and "automatic data processing and
telecommunications equipment." To the extent that the Agency is
effected by the Act, however, most of the effects will occur
within your Directorate.
4. Finally, the powers which the Act vests in the Office of
Management and Budget are made subject to this Agency's duty to
protect intelligence sources and methods and other Agency
information. The Act also provides for a review by OMB of
certain Agency information systems but, again, this is subject to
the Agency's duty to protect sources and methods.
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 Approved Fo elease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84130084911110
000300010022-2
5. I would also note that the actual extent of the OMB's
power will depend on the regulations which are adopted under the
Act and how OMB chooses to enforce those regulations. Any
problems which may be presented by the Act would be minimized
through our involvement in these two areas.
6. Finally, I note that Section 3506(b) of the Act requires
the agency head to appoint an individual to oversee the agency's
responsibilities under the Act and also requires that individual
to be the individual who has responsibility for the delegation of
procurement authority from the General Services Administration
under the Brooks Act. Since most of the Agency's powers and
duties under the Act will be exercised by components of the
Directorate of Administration, it seems most appropriate that the
occupant of a DDA position be named as designee.
7. The Agency (in the person of former Director Bush) has
received a delegation of procurement authority from GSA under the
Brooks Act and that delegation, in turn, has been delegated to
the Director of the Office of Logistics (O/L). Since the person
designated under Section 3506(b) would have a wide variety of
powers and duties, however, most of which go beyond just
procurement, no one position under the Deputy Director for
Administration (DDA), including the D/O/L, would seem to have the
capacity to manage the designation. In view of this, it seems
that you, as DDA, would be the best person for the designation.
Your position as Deputy Director meets the requirement of Section
3506(b) that designee have direct access to the agency head.
Further, the requirement that the designee have an agency's
Brooks Act delegation may be met by appropriate redelegation of
this authority by the DCI from the D/O/L to you. You, of course,
could make suitable redelegations of powers and duties as
appropriate. Therefore, on the assumption that the Director may
wish to designate you as responsible under Section 3506(b), I
have prepared the necesesary papers for his signature. You may
wish to contact him directly to discuss the matter. Please
remember that pursuant to the Act, this designation must be made
on or before 1 July 1981.
STATI
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 Approv4For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84W890R000300010022-2
OGC 81-05486
30 June 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR: Legislative Counsel
Special Support Assistant, DDA
Director, Office of Information Services, DDA
Information Handling Systems Architect, DDA
Chief, Information Management Staff, DDO
Records Management Officer, NFAC
Chief of Support, DDS&T
Director, Office of Data Processing
FROM: Stanley Sporkin
General Counsel
"SUBJECT: Analysis of-the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
1. This memorandum is to advise-you concerning the effects
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub.L. No. 96-511, upon
the Agency and those portions of its operations which fall within
the jurisdiction of your Office. In order that the specific
effects might be more easily determined, I ask that you direct
your attention to the request for information made in Part V
below.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Paperwork Reduction Act amends Title 44 of the
United States Code by adding a new Chapter, Chapter 35. Section
3504 of the Act (Authority and functions of the Director) vests
the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with certain
powers vis a vis the various federal agencies in the areas of:
information policy, subsection (b); information collection,
subsection (c); statistical policy, subsection (d); records
management, subsection (e); privacy, subsection (f); automatic
data processing and telecommunications, subsection (g); and other
miscellaneous related duties. Section 3506 of the Act (Federal
agency responsibilities) imposes reciprocal duties upon the
various federal agencies: compliance with policies, principles,
standards and guidelines prescribed by the Director, OMB,
subsection (a); designation of senior agency official responsible
for compliance, subsection (b); inventory of information systems
and review of information management activities, subsection
(c)(1); avoidance of system overlap, subsection (c)(2);
assessment of paperwork burden of proposed legislation,
subsection (c)(3); and assignment of Brooks Act delegation to
agency official designated in subsection (b).
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 Approved For1lease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008p00300010022-2
The Agency fits within the definition of "agency" as
contained in Section 3502(1). Hence, as a general rule, it falls
within the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, it is required to
assume the duties placed upon federal agencies by Section 3506
and to comply with exercises of authority by the Director, OMB,
under Section 3504.
Tla~ in_purposeof the Act, however, is to insert the
Dir_ector..-OMB,-into--the-proces-s_ whereby federal`_aggnci.es=iissue
reguu1ations requiring-th:e. provision___gf__ information_ to them by_~the
genPra? public. Since the Agency_is not_inv_olved inthe_ssuance
Guch?--e.ulat,ions-,;ia_ will-not. be-- greatly. affected by, the_
Act. Further, the Act contains a number of provions discussed
FOIABr be ow, which will limit its effect on the Agency.
OGC
The actual extent of the powers and duties of the
Director, OMB, and their effect upon the Agency will depend upon
the rules, regulations, policies and standards promulgated under
Section 3504. Hence, detailed analysis of the powers and duties
must await the actual promulgation of rules, etc. At the time of
their promulgation, this office, in conjunction with the Agency
official appointed under Section 3506 of the Act, will review
them in detail to determine their effect upon the Agency. Should
you have any questions concerning a specific rule, etc., please
contact this Office.
II. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION
There are two extremely important exceptions to the
above-noted general rule of Agency coverage under the Act. The
first is in the area of collection of information and the second
is in the area of automatic data processing.
"Collection of information" is defined by Section
3502(4) as follows:
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 'Approved FoVlease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008 000300010022-2
(4) the term 'collection of information'
means the obtaining or soliciting of facts
or opinions by an agency through the use of
written report forms, application forms,
schedules, questionnaires, reporting or
recordkeeping requirements, or other
similar methods of calling for either--
(A) answers to identical questions posed
to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping
requirements imposed on, ten or more
persons, other than agencies, instrumen-
talities, or employees of the United
States-;.. or-.-.
(B)._ answers_to___ques.tions_. posed to agencies,
instrumentalities or employees of the
United States which are to be used for
general-statistical purposes;
As noted above, Section 3504(c) vests the Director with
certain powers regarding "collection of information" by federal
agencies. A reciprocal duty is imposed upon federal agencies by
Section 3506. Sections 3507, 3508, 3509, 3510, 3511 and 3504(h)
establish a system whereby the Director is inserted into and
controls, to a certain extent, theprocess. of a federal agency's
collection of information.
Section 3518 of the Act, however,'provides a number of
exceptions to these provisions. Subsection (c)(1)(D) of Section
3518 provides:
(c)(1)...(T)his chapter (Chapter 35) does
not apply to the collection of information
(D) during the conduct of intelligence
activities as defined in section 4-206 of
Executive Order 12036, issued January 24,
1978 or successor orders or during the
conduct of cryptologic activities that are
communications security activities.
(emphasis added)
In contrast to the language of Section 3518 (c)(l)(D),
however, Section 4-206 of Executive order 12036, in fact, does
not define the term "intelligence activities." Instead, it
defines the term "intelligence" and it defines that term as
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000300010022-2
 'Approved Fo lease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B00$ 000300010022-2
"foreign intelligence and counterintelligence." Given this
ambiguity, resort must be had to the legislative history of the
Act to determine what the Congress intended to be the scope of
the exceptioin created by the use of the phrase "intelligence
activities."
When it was originally introduced as H.R. 6410, the Act
did not contain this exception for "intelligence activities."
The phrase was added subsequently by the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate. The language of.the
1% At first glance, the phrase--'intelligence activities"
might be thought of- -as- encompassing- those activities
described.- by subsection-. (D_) as= "cryptologic- activities....
that---are-communications security activities." As noted
in the text, however, section 4-206 of the Executive
Order doer not define "intelligence activities;"
instead, it defines "intelligence." Moreover, a literal
reading of the definitions of the terms "foreign
intelligence and counterintelligence," terms which the
Executive Order uses to define the term "intelligence,"
would appear to exclude "personnel, physical, document,
or communication security programs" from the scope of
the term "intelligence." Therefore, it could be argued
that a specific exemption in the Act for "cryptologic
activities that are communications security activities"
was necessary to insure that such "communications
security" activities would not be covered by the Act.
If this argument were accepted, the lack of a specific
exemption for "personnel, physical, document ...
security programs" would strongly imply that activities
related to such programs are covered by the Act.
However, the ambiguity in the scope of the exemptions
for both "intelligence activities" and "cryptologic
activities" is sufficient enough to require an
examination of the pertinent legislative history. An
examination of that history indicates that Congress
intended "intelligence activities" to be construed
broadly and that.Congress did not intend by creating a
specific exemption for "cryptologic activities," to
narrow the scope of activities exempted by the
"intelligence activities" exemption. By use of the
,phrase "cryptologic activities" that are communications
security activites, Congress intended to create an
exemption, in addition to any other exemption, for the
activities of the National Security Agency.
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 Approved Forlease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008,000300010022-2
exception was suggested by the Secretary of Defense and the
Acting Director of Central Intelligence in letters to Senators
Jackson and Chiles. In their letters, the Acting Director and
the Secretary expressed concern that without these amendments,
H.R. 6410 could have an adverse effect upon the nation's
intelligence effort and suggested that in order to avoid this,
the Committee adopt amendatory language, inter alia, creating an
exception for "intelligence activities."
In its report, the Committee stated as follows in regard
to these concerns.
The Committee unanimously adopted every
amendment recommended by-the Secretary and
Director..-- The_.r_ecommended___report language
aracur_a e-l_y-- depicts the- Committee' s intent
behind the---amendments:
The Committee wants to make clear it
intends that the Paperwork Reduction Act
not affect adversely intelligence or
national security missions. The recom-
mendations of the Secretary of Defense and
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
were incorporated into.S. 1411 and its
accompanying Committee report to ensure
that the scope of the Brooks Act is not
expanded and national security and intel-
ligence missions are not adversely affected
by provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act. S. Rep. No. 96-930 19.
The Committee's actions in this regard are reflected in
its amendments to the bill and in that portion of Part VII of the
Report which analyzes Section 3518. S. Rep. supra, 56.
After reviewing all of the above, it is my opinion that
the Congress, in using the phrase "intelligence activities" in
Section 3518(c)(1)(D), intended to exclude from the requirements,
placed by the Act upon the "collection of information" those
activities by agencies in the intelligence community which are
related to the collection of information concerning activities
such as foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, covert action
and security activities". This broad reading is strongly
supported by the above-quoted language of the Senate Committee
report. Further, nothing can be found in the legislative history
which suggests Congress intended a narrower reading.
2 / Had the Congress intended to create a narrower excep-
tion, perhaps it would have used the word "intelligence"
in place of the phrase "intelligence activities."
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 Approved Fo0lease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B0080000300010022-2
Accordingly, insofar as the Agency engages in "collection of
information" activities as defined in Section 3502(4), these
activities are all exempt from the restrictions otherwise imposed
by the Act since they are "related to the collection of
information concerning activities such as foreign intelligence,
counterintelligence, covert action and security activities."
Further, in view of this exemption, the Agency is also exempt
from those other sections of the Act which establish the
information collection system and prescribe how it shall
function. These sections include: Section 3504(h) (rulemaking
system for rules involving collection of information); Section
3507 (Public information collection activities--submission to
Director; approval and delegation); Section 3508 (Determination
of necessity for- information;.-,:hearing-)-;`Section 3509 (Designation
of-central collection agency I; Section 3510- (Cooperation of
agencies- in making information=-- available) and r-Section 3511
(Establishment and operation. of Federal-Information Locator
System).
It would seem, in fact, that to the extent the Agency
engages in any activities involving the "collection of
information," they are all "related to the collection of
information concerning activities such as foreign intelligence,
counterintelligence, covert action and security activities" and,
hence, would be exempt. from the provisions of the Act. If,
however, there exists a specific collection activity which you
believe is not related to the collection of information
concerning activiies such as foreign intelligence,
counterintelligence, covert actin and security-activities,
please bring it to my attention.
Section 3512 of the Act provides that no person shall be
subject. to any penalty for failing to maintain or
provide information to any agency if the information
collection request involved was made after December 31,
1981 and does not display a current control number
assigned. by the Director or fails to state that such
request is not subject to the Act. As noted above, due
to the exception created by Section 3518(c)(1)(D),
virtually no collection of information by the Agency
would be subject to the Act. Further, to the best of my
knowledge, there are no Agency forms for which a person
is subject to a penalty under law for failure to
complete. Hence, this provision has a negligible effect
on the Agency.
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000300010022-2
 Approved Fo0lease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84130089000300010022-2
III. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
As noted above, Section 3504(g) vests the Director with
various powers regarding the use of automatic data processing and
telecommunications equipment by federal agencies. Section 3506
imposes reciprocal duties upon federal agencies.
Section 3502(2) of the Act, however, creates an excep-
tion to these provisions as follows:
"(2) the terms 'automatic data processing,'
''automatic data processing equipment' and
'telecommunications' do not include any
data processing or telecommunications
system or equipment:,. the- function,
operation- or- ors=e---of= wY~zc =-
"(A) involves intelligence activities; (or)
"(E) is critical to the direct fulfillment
of military or intelligence missions,
provided that this exclusion shall not
include automatic data processing or tele-
communications equipment used for routine
administrative and business applications
such as payroll, finance, logistics and
personnel management (emphasis added);
As regards subsection (2)(A), the term "intelligence
activities" is not defined by the Act, and, as noted above,
Executive Order 12036 defines "intelligence," not "intelligence
activities." Hence, it is again appropriate to resort to the
Act's legislative history in order to determine meaning of the
phrase "intelligence activities" and the scope of the exclusion
created thereby.
This provision was not contained in H.R. 6410 as origin-
ally introduced nor was it in the version of S. 1411 as reported
to the full Senate by. the Committee on Governmental Affairs. It
was inserted in the bill by way of amendment on the Senate
floor. At the time of the amendment's introduction, the
principal sponsors, Senators Jackson and Chiles, discussed, on
the Senate floor, the purpose behind the amendment. 126
Congressional Record, S. 14688 (1980).
A review of that discussion indicates that the purpose
of the amendment was to create an exception to the Act's
7
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 Approved Folease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008000300010022-2
procedures for agencies in the intelligence community. This
exception was created, inter alia, to safeguard information
concerning this equipment from unauthorized disclosure.
Given the above, it is my opinion that in using the
phrase "intelligence activities" in Section 3502(2)(A), the
Congress intended to create an exception to the Act's procedures
for ADP equipment, the function, operation or use of which
involves activities related to the collection of information
concerning activities such as foreign intelligence,
counterintelligence, covert action and security activities. This
interpretation is consistent with the meaning assigned to the
phrase as used in Section 3518(c)(1)(D) (discussed above in Part
II) as well as with the announced Congressional intention of
protecting intelligence community.. ADP equipment information from
unauthorized disclosure. Ac.cordingly,-.insofar as-the Agency has
"automati.c.. data. processing: equipment,-..the function, operation or
use - of- which involves activities related to the collection of
information concerning activities such as foreign intelligence,
counterintelligence, covert action and security activities", that
equipment and information concerning it is excluded from coverage
by the Act. This exemption would include an exemption for any
such equipment from coverage by any rules, regulations, policies
or procedures promulgated by the OMB pursuant to the authority of
the Director, OMB as contained in Section 3504(g) of the Act.
It wou fact, the function, operation or
use of alL_o.r~su stars ally- all -of ?-the-Age?ncy_!-s_AD.P .e.qu pmen~
involves activities r._e_1a.ted_to-_the,-collection of information
concerning active ies such as.-foreign intelligence,
dat'eeri-ntefl ge ice, covert action and -security-- activities.
Hence, a or su s an is y.a_1.1_-of_this, equipment, wou fit
wi?hin theexemption created by__S_ection._35-05_(-2.) . If, howeve
youave qustions concerning a particular ADP system, please
contact me-2
Despite the above conclusion, the Agency remains subject
to the Federal Information Processing Standards Publica-
tions (FIPS.PUBS)=for ADP equipment which are
promulgated by the Department of Commerce pursuant to
the Section 111 of the Federal Property and Administra-
tive Services Act, 40 U.S.C. ?759, referred to as the
Brooks Act, and to Executive order 11717. The Paperwork
Reduction Act contains a number of provisions which make
it clear that the passage of that Act in no way affected
the provisions of the Brooks Act. This conclusion is
also supported by extensive portions of the legislative
history of the Paperwork Reduction Act. I also note
that the Act does not increase or decrease the authority
of the Director, OMB in this area.
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 'Approved Fo.lease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008000300010022-2
As regards subsection (2)(E), the exemption created
thereby appears to refer to those systems and equipment which are
not usually used for military or intelligence missions but which
may be called upon, from time to time, to perform such
missions. It provides that in such instances if the function,
operation or use of the system or equipment is critical to the
direct fulfillment of such a mission, then that system is exempt
from the ADP provisions of the Act. While it is not clear from
the language of the Act or the legislative history, it appears
that this exemption was directed at "intelligence- related
activities," i.e., those specialized intelligence activities
conducted by offices within the Department of Defense for the
collection of specialized intelligence through reconnaissance
programs. Cf. Executive Order 12036, Section 1-1203. In any
event-,-however, as noted--above, all-Agency-ADP- is, in-fact, used
for "intelligence activities" and thus would fall within the
exception- created by subsection- (.2-): (A...)..--. Hence, no resort- to
subsection (2)(E) would be required,
IV. DESIGNATION OF SENIOR AGENCY OFFICIAL FOR COMPLIANCE
Subsection (b) of Section 3506 provides that the head of.
each agency shall designate, no later than July 1, 1981 (three
months after the Act's effective date of April 1, 1981), a senior
official to carry out the agency's responsibilities under the
Act. This official must report directly to the agency head and,
if the agency has received a delegation of authority under
Section ill of the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949, 4.0 U.S.C. ?759, known as the Brooks Act, the
official mast be responsible for acquisitions made under that
delegation.
Accordingly, no later than July 1, 1981, the Director of
Central Intelligence must appoint an Agency employee to assume
the duties established by Section 3506(b). Further, as you know,
the-Agency currently is operating under a Brooks Act delegation---
from the General Services Administration. This delegation was
made to the Director and he, in turn, delegated it to Director,
Office of Logistics. Accordingly, in making his appointment, the
Director of Central Intelligence either must appoint Director,
Office of Logistics, to the position or, if he chooses to appoint
another individual, he must simultaneously reassign
,responsibility for the Brooks Act delegation to, that
individual. The Director of Central Intelligence is being
advised of this by separate memorandum.
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 Approved Folease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008000300010022-2
V. PARTICULAR AGENCY DUTIES
As noted above, the actual scope of Agency duties under
the Act will depend upon the substance of the rules promulgated
by the Director, OMB. Section 3506, however, imposes several
duties upon the Agency independent of any promulgations by the
Director, OMB. Those are: to systematically inventory its major
information systems; to periodically review. its information
management activities, including planning, budgeting, organizing,
directing, training, promoting, controlling and oth9r activities
involving the use and dissemination of information; to ensure
information systems do not overlap; and, to develop procedures
for assessing the paperwork and reporting burden of proposed
legislation affecting the Agency.
These requirements- seem= to=be---consistent: with--sound
management practices and would appear-to-impose-little in the way
of additional administrative burden. Further it would seem.that
the Agency already may have procedures which could be viewed as
meeting these obligations. In order to determine what, if
anything, additionally needs to be done under this Section,
however, I would ask that each addressee provide this Office with
information concerning what current procedures of his office
could bE said to meet these obligations. We will then proceed,
in conjunction with the official appointed under Section 3506(b),
to determine at, if any, additional steps need to be taken.
VI. - SELECTIVE REVIEW AND ASSIGNMENT OF TASKS
Section 3504(b)(5), of the'Act?vests the Director with
the power to evaluate "agency information management practices to
determine compliance of such practices with the policies,
principles, standards, and guidelines promulgated by the
Director." Subsection (a) of Section 3504 provides, however,
that the Director's authority under Section 3504 "shall be
exercised consistent with applicable law." Hence, as noted in
the Introduction, in exercising this authority vis a vis the
Agency, the Director-must do so .in a manner which is consistent
with both the statutory responsibility of the Director of Central
Intelligence tcs protect sources and methods of intelligence and
the statutory exemption from disclosure of information relating
to Agency personnel.
5/ These duties are also imposed in regard to the
collection of information. The Agency is not subject to this
aspect of these duties, however, due to the exception created by
Section 3518(c)(1)(D). See Part II, above.
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : e 9-RDP84B00890R000300010022-2
 'Approved Fo.lease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008 000300010022-2
To implement his evaluation authority, Section 3513 of
the Act requires that the Director, OMB, selectively review, at
least once every three years, the information management
activities of each agency for the purpose of evaluating their
adequacy and efficiency with particular regard to compliance with
Section 3506. It further states that the results of these
reviews shall be provided to the Congress and, thereafter, that
the agency involved shall transmit to the Congress a response to
that report.
I note the following in regard to the exercise of this
review power. Since this selective review is an exercise of the
Director's more general power contained in Section 3504 to
evaluate agency prac.tices,.._it. is .theref.ore subject to the
condition,- placed upon the: : exercis:e_ of. that- power by
subsection (a) of Section--3504, that-it be exercised consistent
with applicable laws. The "applicable law," in the instance of a
selective review, would be the aforementioned statutory duty of
the Director to protect sources, methods, and Agency personnel
information from disclosure. Further, as regards the provision
of the results of the review to Congress as called for by
subsection (b) of Section 3513, an additional "applicable law"
would be Senate Resolution 400 (94th Congress) and House
Resolution 658 (95th Congress), which inter'alia, establish 'a
special relationship between the Agency and its congressional
oversight committee. Hence, the provision of the results of this
review to Congress would have to be in a manner consistent with
.these resolutions. At the time this Agency is made the subject
of'a selective review, this Office will work with the OMB to
ensure the review is conducted and subsequently handled in the
manner consistent with these provisions.
Section 3505(2)(A) concerns audits of major information
systems. Under this section, the Director, OMB, is charged with
establishing, within a year after 1 April 1981, standards and
requirements for agency audits of major information systems under
an agency's jurisdiction. In addition to providing guidance
relating to the conduct of audits by individual agencies of major
information systems under their jurisdiction, the.Director, OMB,
is also required by Section 3505(2)(A) to assign responsibility
for the conduct of Government-wide or multiagency audits,
presumably to an agency with the expertise and capability to
conduct br6adscale audits, such 'as the General Accounting
Office. However, Section 3505(2)(A) explicitly provides that
major information systems used for the conduct of."intelligence
activities," as defined in section 4-206 of Executive Order
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 'Approved Fo.lease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008 000300010022-2
12036, shall not be included in any Government-wide or
multiagency audit conducted by any agency pursuant to an OMB
assignment.6 Again, as in Sections 3518(c)(1)(D) and 3502(2)(A),
the phrase "intelligence activities" is used and, again, as in
those sections, the phrase does not coincide with a term actually
defined in Executive order 12036.
It is my opinion that the phrase "intelligence
activities" may be interpreted as meaning "activities related to
the collection of information concerning activities such as
foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, covert action and
security activities". This interpretation is consistent with the
meaning'assigned to the phrase as used in Sections 3518(c)(1)(D)
..and.35 02(2)(A) (see Parts II and-III abovel and is strongly
s_upport.ed_ in_ the legislative history-- of- the--,Act. Hence, the
caveat regarding assignability which'is set forth in Section 3505
(2)- (A) applies to major information systems-used for--the conduct
of activities related to the collection of information concerning
activities such as foreign intelligence, counterintelligence,
covert action and security activities.
Since virtually all of the Agency's systems appear to be
used for the conduct of activities related to the collection of
information concerning activities such as foreign intelligence,
counterintelligence, covert action and security activities, the
caveat on assignability would exempt all Agency systems from
inclusion in any Government-wide or multiagency audit assigned by
OMBunder Section 3505(2)(A). Thus,.while the Agency must follow
the general standards and requirements promulgated by OMB as
guidance for the conduct of individual agency audits, the Agency
is exempt from any Government-wide or multiagency audits
conducted pursuant to any assignment made by OMB under Section
3505(2)(A). Please note that this exemption from OMB assigned }}~
audits does note affect in any way the authority of the Director, it
OMB, under Sections 3505(b)(5) and 3513, to evaluate major
information systems through selective review on a Government-wide
or individual agency basis.
6/
It should also be noted
that under Section 3519
of the
Act and the Budget and
Accounting
Act of
1921,
as
amended by the General
Accounting
Office
Act of
1980,
P.L. 96-226,. the Director, OMB, would be precluded from
releasing Agency information, gained in the course of a
review under Section 3513 to the General Accounting
Office in an audit by that office of the OMB.
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 . F -Approved Fo0lease 2003/12/19: CIA-RDP84B008V 000300010022-2
I hope that the above will answer all questions you may have
concerning the Act. I ,look forward to receiving your responses
in regard to Part V. Should you have any questions, feel free to
f my staff.
contact me o
IF
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
 STAT Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2
Approved For Release 2003/12/19 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000300010022-2