DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE, GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY, 11-12 AUGUST 1981

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 3, 2008
• Sequence Number: 22
• Publication Date: October 13, 1981
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
ie asst i.cation Review Division
Information and Privacy Division
SUBJECT: Declassification Review Conference,
Gerald R. Ford Library,
11-12 August 1981
1. The annual gathering of representatives of the Presidential Libraries
and the National Archives and Record:; Service (NARS) and of certain agencies in
the Intelligence Community by invitation, was held this year at the Gerald R. Ford
Library, Mn Arbor, Michigan, on 11-LZ August. A list of those in attendance is
provided in Attachment 1.
2. The sessions opened with the presentation by Steve Garfinkel, Director
ISOO (see Attachment 2), who provided some background on ISOO, then launched into
the origin of Executive Order 12065 .end subsequently into coverage of meetings
held to date which have sought changes in the Executive Order. (It was interesting
to note that Mr. Garfinkel said 12065.was started by President Ford and was not
really President Carter's. F _j NSA, took exception to this by stating that
it was all Carter's in keeping a campaign promise for more openness in government.)
He noted that the individual agencies in the Intelligence Community had not
responded to ISOO's original call for comments on a 12065 revision because of the
Community's desire to draft and submit a coordinated response. He questioned the
optimism of those involved in this effort, especially of this Agency's OGC in its
declaration that it would have a version ready for the President's signature within
30 days. He expressed serious doubts that the drafting committee would be able to
make that timetable, noting that the product of that committee would then have to
be coordinated with all other agencies involved in the handling of classified
material. He advised of the general shift in philosophy being made; i.e., 12065
stressed openness first and security second, whereas current drafts were reversing
that order. There had also been cries initially for doing away with systematic
review (SR), but these had subsided, and he felt that there would be some form of
SR, probably resting in the processing of records accomplished at NARS. He also
felt that there would perhaps be a change in the requirement for review at the end
of 20 years, changing it to 30 years. JSOO, he advised, feels that a "floating
period" would be more appropriate; i.e., some formula accounting for the age of
State Dept. review
completed
NLC Review
Completed.
A !?RD.?!iiifr rn A rnttr uurrrniv r 4 emra naiv.,
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
 Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
iwol
the document plus indications of public interest. Also any arbitrary declassification
date such as the six-year term, the General Declassification Schedule term, etc.,
would be dropped. While speaking o' the 6-year declassification date, he made note
of a present danger that exists in considering that the 6-year classification term
provided by the current Executive Order allows for a classification review at the
end of that term. He stressed that no such classification review exists; at the
end of 6 years, the document is automatically declassified and legal approaches to
these documents could result in their immediate release. As discussion and questions
followed Mr. Garfinkel's presentation, I warned of a hidden pitfall in dropping
back to the 30-year review period; i_.e., if we were to adhere strictly to the 30th
anniversary of these documents before undertaking the review, it would mean that,
as far as this Agency is concerned, we would have to close down our current system-
atic program, and then start up again at the appropriate date, by that time having
lost all our momentum, experience, and expertise that we currently have available.
Brenda Reger, NSC, noted that there were current attempts to put in the revision
of the order directives that would undo previous weaknesses such as the automatic
declassification at the end of 6 years, but DOD was taking a position against some
of these moves.
3. Brenda Reger then talked about special arrangements which we had set up
with the Libraries for handling the review of intelligence material from the
White House such as the OCB, PSB, WASAG, and minutes of meetings. Previously
these documents had been sent first to NSC and then State Department, etc., but it
was found the CIA was consistently the most conservative and the most likely to
withhold; therefore, the procedure has been changed to send these documents first
to the CIA rather than to NSC or any of the others. If denied by CIA, the document
goes back to the Library. She stated they did not handle DOD materials in the
same way since they did not involve the same kinds of problems, but she did not
clarify that further. She advised that, if there were several requesters for the
same document under mandatory review., NSC will record the request under the name
of the first requester regardless of the total number of requesters. She indicated
that this was the only way they could handle these requests administratively.
4. Alan Thompson then discussed the declassification review of foreign
relations information. He commenced with a history of the work accomplished
between NARS and State to develop guidance. He made note of the establishment of
the Classification/Declassification Center in State and their attempts to write
new guidance covering the period 1950-54 based on a review of material pulled for
the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series and developed according
to categories and countries rather than international incidents. He noted that
the withdrawals by NARS' people on the first tests of this new guidance were very
small -- less than one percent in some cases. He thought that, overall, withdrawals
might range anywhere from five to twenty percent depending upon the area concerned.
He advised that this guidance is very specific, five to ten pages per country, so
that the production of the guidance takes a long time and the review process based
on the guidance also requires considerable time because that guidance must be referred
to page by page for specific names, incidents, etc. They were estimating a review
rate of 30-50 pages per hour and thus something on the order of 188 man years to
review Record Group 59. They were still trying to devise how to undertake the review
-- whether first to review the material of most interest or to confine requesters to
A M1N!STRA T I - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
 Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
IiL* 4i I AIf'E. - IiiItIINAI. M%MT
so many pages per request, and indeed there was a major question of whether they
could take on the review at all considering the manpower expenditures indicated
above and the cuts they weracing. There was also a question about who would
undertake FOIA responses while the material is undergoing review; i.e., State
before the official accessioning of the material or NARS after the accessioning,
which decision depended upon whether the processing would take place before or
after the accessioning. They had also considered the possibility of holding all
the material from release to the public until a certain date, perhaps 1 January 1985,
which would then give them three years to review the material. Mr. Thompson noted
that it would take excellent people to accomplish this review, really an elite group,
at no more compensation than the regular reviewers which, of course, would be an
administrative problem.
5. Steve Garfinkel then asked Alan: Considering State's claimed inability to
develop classification guidelines, couldn't it develop such guidelines out of the
declassification guidance that it was working on. Mr. Thompson replied that he
thought they could. I added that I thought so as well and described briefly some
of our efforts at developing classification guidelines. NSA, noted STAT
that they have 11 guidelines in general on cryptology and guidelines on specific
subjects. The suggestion then was made that perhaps t4mt the libraries could benefit
from having in their possession the classified guidelines developed by the various
agencies to help them in their review of minutes of meetings, notes, etc, which
obviously contain sensitive information but which are not stamped with any classi-
fication. There ensued a discussion-of the determination of the length of time for
classification as opposed to the level, which lead me to try to explain to them
why that is often difficult to determine; for example, a document which describes
a source may not cease to be classified on the death of the source since we have to
be concerned _a5-out possible reprisals against his family should the fact of his
role be published.
6. and I were then called upon to discuss the declassification
review of CiA-originated information. commenced with a description of the STAT
mandatory review process and the problems attendant thereto. He discussed the
computer logging and tracking system employed by IPD, and followed with a description
of the DECAL system whereby IPD maintains an index of previously released documents
both to save time and to be consistent on re-reviews. He explained that delays
were caused by the overwhelming number of FOIA/PA and EO requests received by the
Agency. He stated how important it was to be sure that all information is properly
received and coordinated with other agencies that may have an interest and noted
that sometimes when we refer to another agency, they will in turn refer to still
another agency. He concluded by giving the number of outstanding requests from
each library. The library representatives seemed to be impressed with the fact
that we were on top of the requests even though we were slow in responding. I
followed by raising the issue of sending teams of CRD reviewers to the libraries
to assist them on the spot with any questions or review problems they might have.
The response to that suggestion was generally favorable. Following that discussion,
both of us fielded general questions on the handling of intelligence materials.
7. Following lunch and a brief tour of the Ford Library, NSA, STAT
talked about the declassification review and handling of crypto ogic in ormation.
M1 1STRATW E - lt'TFUNAI.. USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
 Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85BOO236ROO0100110022-8
noted that they have developed specific guidelines for the declassifi-
cation of cryptologic information in line with overall policy published in
January 1980. They have fairly well completed guidelines for WW II material and
are now working on the pre-WW II period. He finds that they are usually able to
handle the few mandatory review requests they receive in a few weeks' time since
they have not yet gained the notoriety of some other agencies.
8. Alan Thompson followed with a discussion of the declassification review
of NATO (including SEATO, CENTO), SHAPE, and Joint Command-originated information.
He said that there was, no doubt, some question about where to go for guidance on
disbanded organizations. He advised that the referral should be based on the kind
of material at hand; e.g., for intelligence material, refer to CIA and for military
information, to DOD. He told the story about NATO in which plans were being developed
for a declassification program when a member of NATO (specific function not recalled)
indicated to the assembly that declassification had been going on for years and
presented the assembly with a one-to-two-inch list of documents which had been de-
classified. No one in the assembly was aware of the program. The list indicated
that these documents were to be declassified by January 1974 if there were no
response from the several governments and since no one had ever seen the list,
there is a serious question about what documents might have slipped by. The
problem is compounded by the fact that they seem to be unable to match the documents
on the list with the records system in Brussels. In closing his presentation, he STAT
advised that Joint Command material is strictly U.S. material and it should be
referred to the Joint Chiefs of Staff_
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL. USE ONLY
J
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85BOO236ROO0100110022-8
 Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
yawl.. Y UY 1 ^ 1n ^ . ^ iW ^ i i t re s l a ssa ~ s.r .~.
10. The second day opened with a general discussion of the progress of the
libraries in mandatory review (MR) (see attachment 3). In their verbal reports,
the representatives of the libraries also cited statistics on systematic review (SR)
activities in those cases in which the library had entered into that activity.
11. The Truman Library (NLT) reported 33 MR cases from August 1980 to August 1981,
totaling 901 pages. Mr. Clark notes: that they had also reviewed 9600 pages from the
White House central files under SR (mostly 1945-49 material) using the various
agencies' guidelines and FRUS, and were able to declassify approximately 80 percent.
They will next review the confidential records from the central files of which they
estimate they can declassify about 25 percent. CIA has less than 5 percent of the
classified records in NLT.
12. The Eisenhower Library (NLE) has an MR backlog of about 40-50 cases. The
level of research against their files is high, especially on national security topics.
They are also undertaking SR, excluding State and NSC documents for which they have
no guidelines. They have reviewed and declassified about 500 documents consisting
of 2500 pages and have tabbed about 300 documents of 4,000 pages. They claim to
have a difficulty in reviewing for declassification materials concerning missiles
and nuclear subjects. They are also having difficulty determining the classifi-
cation of unmarked documents.
13. Kennedy Library (NLK) reported that, in their MR activities, they are
adhering fairly tightly to the 25-items or 100-pages limit per requester. Last
year they received approximately 26 requests; this year there have been in excess of
50. They find they are able to keep up with the requests so there is no backlog and
they are able to submit a response within 20 days. There followed a discussion of
the 25/100 limit mentioned above. Mr. Garfinkel commented that it seemed to be an
equitable rule even though it was not established by the Executive Order and,
therefore, he figured it would stand up to judicial scrutiny. NLK noted that it
had a 12 year backlog before putting that limitation into effect and that the system
seems to be working with only very minor complaints. They noted, however, that
there is a problem with requesters resubmitting a request for clearance of the
document after the lapse of a year, which is allowable under current rules. They
estimated that perhaps 35 percent of the requests are resubmissions, some for the
third time. It was felt by some that one year was too soon to allow for resubmission,
it just tended to clog the system, and the question was raised as to what would be
a reasonable time. NSA suggested ten years. Five years was also proposed, but
objections were found to that length of time. Most seemed to agree on a term of
three years, if the document is less than 20 years old, with any denial in that case
being appealable to the Library Director. An adjunct of this problem was then
discussed and the suggestion was made that the name of the second and subsequent
requesters for a given document should he recorded along with the first requester
to provide the former with a basis for future appeals should the document be denied
to the first requester. There is a plan to write up this proposal and submit it to
the various agencies for their views. NLK also noted that it has about 500 FOIA
cases outstanding. They commented that the JCS returns its decision within 60 days
while others take longer. State and Defense are applying the B5 exemption to the
documents and, since the libraries cannot apply that exemption, they are coming
back to the agencies for another basis For exemption. There have been some complaints
from DOD that the libraries are releasing documents without consulting with that
ADMINISTRATIVE P INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
 Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
..i 41 9 111WIIIYX~a~ 1IIIL111W1L U%0U11LI
agency. It was emphasized that following the final review of a document by all agencies
concerned, the principal or custodial agency should be advised of the final action
taken by the library. The biggest problem to NLK is the special access requests
(Congressional Select Committees, DOD historians, and other agencies requests) which
are drawing heavily on their manpower. They noted in closing that they are not doing
any systematic review as yet.
14. Johnson Library (NLJ) reported that it has 500 MR cases outstanding and
has submitted about 1300 pages to various agencies for review. They are finding a
modest difference in the responses of the agencies now: last year 50 percent of
the documents were being declassified and 30 percent sanitized; now 30 percent are
being declassified and 50 percent are being sanitized. They don't know the reason
for this turnabout. They feel they would sink under the weight of the requests
if they are not allowed to apply the 25/100 rule. They noted that requesters are
particularly unhappy that they are not allowed to request unprocessed material and
they also noted that they are heavily burdened by demands of agency historians,
primarily DOD.
15. Joan Howard, who is responsible for the Nixon collection, advised that
they are still serving the John Erlichunan request. Most of it is CIA material and
most is being denied. They also have a. number of legal firms asking for Cabinet
Task Force material. All requests must be submitted to the Nixon lawyers for a
review for an invasion of privacy. They are receiving many requests for documents
from State Department now that Secretary Haig is there, and also a number of requests
from DOJ. Additionally there are a significant number of requests from H. R. Haldeman
and Ambassador Bunker. They noted t(iat the Nixon people are still very sensitive
about who is getting the documents, especially in the State Department.
16. The Ford Library reported that they have no major MR activity since it
doesn't apply to them until 1984, although it is possible now to request documents
originated by the various executive agencies.
17. Martin Elzy, who is in charge of the Carter collection, noted that their
national security files amount to nearly 1,000 cu. ft. He also noted that, according
to the Deed of Gift, if ex-President Carter chooses, he can restrict access to all
documents up to 20 years.
18. The program then turned to a discussion of inventorying Top Secret docu-
ments. Laura Kimberly, ISOO, advised that the GSA recommended Top Secret control
procedure is that the libraries should first get a handle on accountability, i.e.,
identify the collections which contain Top Secret or specially sensitive material,
particularly that which may be unmarked, then, as the second step, to inventory the
documents themselves. NLE noted that by the end of Fiscal 1982 they should have
all but 1,000 pages inventoried, NLK on the other hand estimates that it would take
10 man-years to inventory their Top Secret documents, and NLJ estimates 8 man-years
for them. A question was raised at that point: would the agencies want to review
the withdrawal sheets (pink slips) listing these TS, SCI, and other documents before
the sheets were published to insure that nothing was being revealed in the titles of
documents listed? These withdrawal sheets would include information from all agencies
in the same list. Both we and NSA indicated that we wanted very much to see these
APM V(T ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
 Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85BOO236ROO0100110022-8
h..1Mk MAI [if" - I 11I U1I AL 440 UfILI
withdrawal lists before they are made public. (We will need to determine who will
review the list -- IPD or CRD.)
19. John Fawcett then lead the discussion of access by agency historians to
unprocessed records. Reciprocal agreements for access to their material exists
between various agencies. (It was noted that this Agency has not been a party to
such agreements.) This access has unquestionably presented a terrible burden to
the libraries. Granting access to the unprocessed material requires the libraries
to go through the requested files ahead of the researcher to identify and remove
all material that is not covered by these agreements, that involves special clear-
ances, or that is restricted by the Deed of Gift. Then, after the researcher is
through, all these materials must be refiled. Letting the researcher have access
before the material has been processed, without first removing restricted material,
is a violation of security and the Deed of Gift. Restricting access to the
collections until the Top Secret material is inventoried and the donor restrictions
have been removed is the desirable procedure, but the researchers would probably
object strenuously to the delay. I expressed my concern regarding access by the
DOD historians and, in reference to their comment about access "by others," I
asked who these "others" were. They replied that this included some of the "old
boys" such as Ambassador Bunker, oversight and executive agency representatives
who are checking to ensure that procedures are being followed in controlling and
processing material, congressional investigators, etc. There is such intense
concern among the libraries about access to unprocessed material, the potential
violation of the Deed of Gift, and particularly the burden that the access by agency
researchers presents, that it was proposed that a meeting should be held with the
various agency historians to advise them that, if they want to continue this research,
the current availability of and potential reduction in the libraries' resources
(see below) is such that the agencies may have to pay for the resources necessary
to service the material, or access may have to be restricted to processed material
only. This proposal would first have to be cleared with the Deputy Assistant
Archivist for Presidential Libraries.. Dr. O'Neill.
20. As the program wound down, Alan Thompson noted that NLE and NLT are moving
ahead with their systematic review, but were hampered by lack of guidance. He felt
that they should be able to do more when the State Department's 1950-54 guidelines
are completely published. He then turned to the bad news -- the administration of
their classification review programs and the impact of the potential cuts they are
suffering. He noted that they have cut 21 slots this year out of the central program
at NARS without touching the libraries, but this reduced the central office's
capability to provide them with support; that they will probably be requested to cut
10 more slots in the next fiscal year, most of which will come out of the central
office again but perhaps one may come out of the libraries; and that 10 more must be
cut in the next fiscal year, of which almost certainly one will come out of the
libraries.
A INI TR T1VE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85BOO236ROO0100110022-8
 Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
i4UI li 1 DDR I I T L -J III I L.1111AL UAL L I
21. Mr. Thompson then turned to Mr. Garfinkel to address the last item on the
agenda -- NARS-executive agency cooperation in declassifying materials -- but time
had almost run out and Mr. Garfinkel felt that most of that which he had intended
to discuss had already been covered, and so the program was brought to a close.
STAT
Attachments:
List of conferees
Agenda
Mandatory review statistics
Distribution:
Orig - Liaison w/Presidential Libraries w/atts
1 - DIS w/atts
1 - C/IPD w/atts
1 - History Staff w/atts
1 - Chrono w/o atts
ADMINISTRATIVF - INTERNAl. USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
 r rIMMIQTDATUJ . !!J1 cHMM 11SF 11141Y
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
Li ,} ()f ,;onferees
Annual Presidential Libraries" Mandator Review Conference
Gerald R. Ford Lib-rarv, Ann Arlxur, Michigan
11 . Au ust 1981
Ford Library
,.Leanne Schauble
Dennis Daellenbac.h
Paul Conway
Bill McNitt
Sandy Raub
David Horrocks
Truman Library
Marry Clark
Eisenhower Library
David Iaight
Barbara Constable
1 an "I1io11upson (NN)
li )hn Fawcett (NL)
P, t Freedman
';-,eve Garfinkel
L,iura Kimberly
B'-enda Reger
v-n Sheffer
Kennedy Library
Suzanne Forbes
Martin McCann
G; ,A/Securi ty-
Johnson Library
David Humphrey,
.i na Lawson
Nixon Collection
Joan Howard
Carter Library
Martin Elzy
m Calloway
A IN!STRATIV - I TERN 1. USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
 Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100
DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
August 11 and 12, 1981
Tuesday, August 11.
9:00-9:30 Current and Future Status of E.O. 12065. Steven Garfinkel, ISOO.
9:30-10:00 Implementing the NSC Review Procedures on White House Originated
Documents. Brenda S. Reqer, NSC.
10:00-10:15 Break.
10:15-11:00 Declassification Review of Foreign Relations Information.
Alan Thompson, NND and Brenda S. Reger, NSC.
11:00-12:00 Declassification Review of CIA, Originated Information.
CIA.
12:00-1:00 Lunch.
1:00-2:00 Tours of Gerald R. Ford Library or Bentley Library. Library Staffs.
2:00-2:30 Declassification Review and Handling of Cryptologic information.
2:30-2:45 Break.
2:45-3:15
3:15-4:00
4:00-4:45
Declassification Review of NATO, SHAPE and Joint Command
Originated Information. Alan Thompson, NND.
Identification and Treatment of Foreign Government Information.
Alan Thompson, NND.
Open Discussion of First Day Topics.
Wednesday, August 12.
9:00-10:00 Mandatory Review - Results and Trends. Harry Clark - Truman,
David Haight - Eisenhower, Suzanne Forbes - Kennedy, David Humphrey -
Johnson, Joan Howard - Nixon, Dennis Daellenbach - Ford, Martin
Elzy - Carter.
10:00-10:15 Break.
10:15-10:45 Administration of the Mandatory Review Program - Budget, Personnel,
and Reporting. John Fawcett, NL and Alan Thompson, NND.
10:45-11:15 Inventory of Top Secret Documents. John Fawcett, NL and Laura
Kimberly, ISOO.
110022-8
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
 Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
Wednesday, August 12 (continued)
11:15-12:00 Systematic Review of Classified Information in Presidential
Libraries, etc. Alan Thompson, NND.
12:00-1:30 Lunch.
1:30-2:30 Tours of Bentley Library. or Gerald R. Ford Library. Library Staffs.
2:30-3:00 Access by Agency Historians (and others) to Unprocessed Records.
John Fawcett, NL.
3:00-4:00 NARS-Agency Cooperation in Declassification Matters. Steven
Garfinkel and all.
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
 Mandatory Review Statistics f Approved For Release 2008/01/03; CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8 -LTL NLE NLK NLJ, NLF
Oct-Dec 80
Jan-Mar 81
Apr-Jun 81.
1.
No. of new cases assigned:
246
251
185
2.
No. of cases closed:
312
240
151
3.
No. of cases pending:
2,162
2,140
2,175
4.
No. of pp. of classified does. submitted
by Libraries to agencies:
6,240
5.
No. of pp. of classified does. reviewed
by agencies and returned to Libraries:
1,775
3,757
4,023
7.
No. of cases at least 1 yr. .b'LLt less
than 2 yrs. overdue in agencies:
No. of cases at least 2 yrs. overdue
r. oge;1cies:
838
850
3.
devoted to i`iR aC~l`dl [ ie?s :
2 , 23 4
2,607
2,782
g 771
iL,. A. cCj cu LV eililil LL iaLc Li 2.:. r. tl.-p;. ilm
No. of telephone inquiries relating to ?'R: 99
I!ESULTS OF MkNDATORY REVIEW DURING THREE iliAF?=EP.S OF FY 1981
1. No. of pp. of classified dots.
declassified in full;
percentage of total pp. processed:
2. No. of pp. of classified does.
sanitized & released;
percentage of total pp. processed:
3. No. of pp. of classified does.
exempted in full;
percentage of total pp. processed:
1,701
(42%)
2,311
(48%)
1,679
(33%)
1,113
(28%)
1,389
(29%)
1,743
(35%)
1,180
(30%)
1,088
(23%)
1,630
(321)
Total
682 [591]
703 [655]
--- [2.096)
13,898 [12,5e3;
:,555 [9,7541
--- [737]
--- [865]
,623 [6,27Q
-~ A
328 [209]
5,691 (41%)
4yl
4,245 (31%)
C3,412 1
3,898 (28%) a 3-N
13,834
Approved For Release 2008/01/03: CIA-RDP85B00236R000100110022-8
t% 7C3-~