DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL MISADMINISTRATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 4, 2013
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: May 23, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
STAT
STAT
STAT
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
FROM:
7/el
Director of Information Servic .
1206 Ames
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DAT(
EXTENSION
NO.
DATE
OIS*86*362
-26 June-1986
awm
FORWARDED
OFFICER'S
? INITIALS
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw a line ?croft column after each comment.)
EO/DDA
7024 HDQS.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Ed:
As requested, we have reviewed
the OMB Privacy Act Guidance with
respect to the "Call Detail"
program.
Such guidance was necessitated
by the fact that records and record
systems created by virtVe of the
"Call Detail" program may be
subject to the Privacy Act and its
various strictures. In sum, the
guidance is good, clear, and
rational. Their particular
recommendation on page 18984, which
has been highlighted and bracketed,
will be implemented by the Office
of Information Services IF the
Agency goes forward with a "Call
Detail" program. If this should be
the case, the action Agency
component should be in touch with
us so that we can take the
necessary steps with respect to the
Privacy Act.
FORM 610 USE PREVIOUS
1-79 emnoNs
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
DA:C/OIS/IPD:LSSTRICKLAND: vg
Distribution:
Original & 1
4
1
- Addressee
- D/OIS
- LA/OIS
- C/OIS/IPD
- IPD SUBJECT: Legislation
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
I, 16982 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No: 100 / Friday, May 23, 1906 / Notices
Diagnostic Medical Misadministrution
The general abnormal occurrence
criterion notes that an event involving a
moderate or more severe impact on
public health or safety can be
considered an abnormal occurrence.
Date and Place?On December 9,
1985, a patient at Hospital Universitario,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, received 4.98
millicuries of iodine-131 instead of a 10
to 15 microcuries dose usually given for
a 24-hour thyroid uptake test.
Nature and Probable Consequences?
The patient arrived at the hospital's
Nuclear Medicine Division on December
9.1985, to receive iodine-131 for a 24- ?
hour thyroid test. The test was part of
the physician's plan to evaluate the
patient for hyperthyroidism. The usual
dose for such a diagnostic procedure at
the Nuclear Medicine Division is 10 to 15
microcuries. Instead, the technologist
mistakenly administered a dose of 4.98
millicuries which is the dose usually
given for whole body scans with iodine-
131.
The patient's referring physician was
notified of the misad.ministration. Based
on statements from the physician, the
patient was a likely candidate for
iodine-131 therapy for treatment of the
hyperthyroid condition; therefore. the
probable consequences for the patient
would be consistent with the projected
medical treatment.
Cause or Causes?As discussed
above, the reason for the
misadministration was due to an error
by the technologist.
Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence
Licensee?Review with the nuclear
medicine staff the protocol used for
hyperthyroid patients dosed with
radioiodine.
NRC?The incident and the licensee's
protocol will be reviewed during the
next NRC routine inspection.
Dated in Washington. DC. this 20th day of
May 1985.
Samuel P. Chillt.
Secretory of the Commission.
(FR Doc. 88-11888 Flied 5-22-88: 8:45 am)
IIMUJNO CCM 7i10-01-111
Public Service Company of New
Hampshire, at at.; Receipt of Add
Antitrust Information; Time for
Submission of Views on Antitrust
Matters
Public Service Company of New
Hampshire, et al., pursuant to
105 of the Atomic Energy Act. as
amended, has filed information
requested by the Attorney General for
antitrust review as required by 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix L This Information
concerns a proposed new owner, EUA
Power Corporation (EUA Power), In the
Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 located
In Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
The filing is precipitated by the
proposed transfer of ownership shares
of the Seabrook Station to EUA Power
presently held by the following owners:
Central Vermont Public Service
Corporation; Central Maine Power
Company; Bangor Hydro-Elechic
Company; and the Maine Public Service
Corporation.
The Notice of Receipt of Application
for Construction Permits and Facility
Licenses and Availability of Applicants'
Environmental Report Time for
Submission of Views on Antitrust
Matters was published in the Federal -
Register on August 9, 1973 (38 FR 21522).
The Notice of Receipt of Facility
'Operating Licenses was published in the
Federal Register on October 19,1981 (48
FR 51330).
- Copies of the instant filing and the -
documents listed above are available for
public examination and copying for a
fee at the Commission's Public
Document Room, 1717 H Street. NW.,
Washington, DC 20555 and at the Exeter
Public Library, Vont Street, Exeter, New
Hampshire 03883.
Any person who wishes to have views
on antitrust matters with respect to the
EUA Power Corporation presented to
the Attorney General for consideration
or who desires additional information
regarding the matters covered by this
notice, should submit such views or
requests for additional information to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555,
Attention: Director, Planning and
? Program Analysis Staff, Office of '
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, on or
before July 21,1988.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland. this 20th day
of May. 1988.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jesse L Punches,
-.? 'gram Analysis
Director,!'
ear Reactor Retgulation.
85-11852 Filed 5-22-85: 8:45 am,
INUJOIG COM 7141.41-1111
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET .
Privacy Act 01 1974; Proposed
Guidance on the Privacy Act
implications of "Call Detail" Programs ,
to Manage Employees' Use of the
Government's Telecommunications ?
Systems ?
AO Men Office of Managetnent and
Budget. ? ?
Arnow Notice and request for public
comment on Proposed Guidance
Implementing the Privacy Act of 1274.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to its
responsibilities in section 6 of the
Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L 93-679),
OMB has developed proposed guidance
on how the recordkeeping provisions of
that Act affect agencies' programs (so-
called "call detail programs") to collect
and use information relating to their
employees' use of long distance
telephone systems. This proposal:
? Describes the purposes of call detail
programs and explains how they work.
? Notes that call detail records that
contain only telephone numbers are not
Privacy Act records, but that when
linked With a name, they become
Privacy Act records.
? Notes that when agencies start
retrieving by reference to a linked
number or name, they are operating a
system of records.
? Urges agencies not to create
artificial filing and retrieval schemes to
avoid the Act.
? Suggests agencies establish an
agency-wide system in which to
maintain these records, and provides a
model notice for them to use.
? Discusses the disclosure provisions
of the Act as they would pertain to such
a call detail system. especially
emphasizing that intra-agency
disclosures for improper employee
surveillance purposes or to identify and
harass whistleblowers are not
sanctioned under section (b)(1).
Interested parties are invited to
provide comments on this proposal.
DATE: Comments must be received
before June 30,1986.
ADDRE8It Send comments to the Office
of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Room 3235 NEOB, Washington, DC
20503. -
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert N. Veeder, Information Policy
Branch, OIRA, 202-395-4814.
Proposed Guidance: .
1. Purpose.
This guidance is being offered in
conjunction with guidance on call
detailing published by the General
Services Administration. Whereas
GSA's guidance focuses on how to
create end operate such programs, this
document explains the ways in which
the Privacy Act of 1974 affects any
records generated during the course of
call detail programs.
Nothing in this guidance should be
construed to (a) authorize activities that
are not permitted by law; or (b) prohibit
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
ltederal Register / Vol. 51, No. 100 / Friday. May 23, 19813 / Notices 13983 ?
?mu..
activities expressly required to be
performed by law. Complying with these
Madeline., moreover, does not relieve ?
Federal agency of the obligation to
comply with the provisions of the
Privacy Act, including any provisions
not cited herein.
2. Scope.
These Guidelines apply to all agencies
subject to the Privacy Act of 2874 (5
U.S.C. 552a).
3. Effective Date.
These Guidelines are effective on the
date of their issuance.
4. Definitions.
For the purposes of these Guidelines:
? All the terms defined in the Privacy
Act of 1974 apply.
? "Call detail report"?This is the
Initial report of long-distance calls made
during a specified period. A call detail
report may be provided by a telephone
company, the General Services
Administration, or it may originate from
a PBX (Private Branch Exchange) on an
? agency's premises. No monitoring of
conversations takes place during the
collection of data for this report The
report may contain such technical
Information as the originating inunber,
destination number, destination city and
State, date and time of day a call was
made. the duzation of the call, and cost
of the call if made an commercial lines.
At this stage. a call detail report
contains no information directly "
Identifying the individuals making or
receiving calls.
? "Call Detail Information" or "Call
Detail Records." These are records
generated from call detail reports
through administrative, technical or
Investigative follow-up. In some cases
call detail information or records will
contain no individually identifiable
information and there for no Privacy Act
considerations will apply. In other
cases, the information and records will
be linked with Individuals and the
Privacy Act must be taken into .
consideration.
5. Background.
Rapid growth in automated data
processing and telecommunications
technologies has created new and
special problems relating to the Federal
Government's creation and maintenance
of information about individuals. At
times, the capabilities of these
technologies have appeared to tun
ahead of statutes designed to manage
this kind of information. particularly the
Privacy Act. An example is the
establishment of call detail programs to
help agencies control the costa of
- operating their long distance telephone
systems. Call detail programs develop
Information about how an agency's
telecommunications system is being
used. The information may come from a
number of sources. e.g.. from agency
installed or utilized devices to record
usage information (pen registers or
agency switching equipment); from
central agency managers such as the
General Services Administration or the
Defense Communications Agency: or
directly from the providers of
telecommunications services.
There are many different purposes for
call detail programs. Agency managers
may use call detail information to help
them choose more efficient and cost-
effective ways of communicating. The
Information may be used to make
decisions about acquiring hardware,
software,. or services, and to develop
management strategies for using existing
telecommunications capacity more
efficiently. One aspect of this latter use
maybe the development of programa to
Identify unofficial use of the agency's '
telephone system. To this end, call
detail programs work by collecting
Information about the use of agency
telephone systems and then attempting
.to assign responsibility for particular
calls to individual employees. Their two-
fold purpose is to deter use of the
system for unofficial purposes and to
recoup tor the government the cost of
unofficial calls.
Soon, the establishment of call detail
programs will become a government-
wide priority as part of a management
initiative on reducing the government's
administrative costs.
6. Privacy Act Implications.
a. Coil Detail Records as Privacy Act %
Records. -
The Privacy Act of 1974 is the primary
statute controlling the government's use
of information about individuals. Not all
Individually identifiable Information,
however, qualifies for the Act's -
protections. With but few exceptions.
only information that consists of
"records" as defined by the Act, and
? which is maintained by an agency in a
"system of records," triggers the Act's
? provisions. The Privacy Act defines a
' "record" as ? ? any item, collection
or grouping of information about an
Individual that is maintained by an
agency including, but not limited to, his
education, financial transactions, .
medical history, and criminal or
employment history and that contains
his name, or the identifying number.
symbol, or other identifying perticzdar
assigned to the individual, such as a
finger or voice print or a photograph
? ? ?
A "system or records" is?a group of
any such records from which
Information is retrieved by the name of
the individual or other identifying
particular.
As we have indicated in our original
Privacy Act implementing Guidelines (40
FR 28049, July 9, 1875), the mere
capability of retrieving records by an
identifying particular is not enough to
create a system of records; the agency
must actually be doing so.
The threshold question for call detail
information, then, is whether a
telephone number is a record within the
meaning of the Privacy Act. The answer
to this question depends upon how the
telephone number is maintained.
Standing alone, a telephone number,
is not a Privacy Act record. To achieve
the status of a Privacy Act record, a
telephone number must be maintained
in a way that links it to an individual's
name or some other identifying
particular such as a Social Security
Account Number.
When an agency assigns a specific
phone number to an employee and
maintains that information in a way that
the name and number are inseparably
connected, there is sufficient
Identification linkage that a Privacy Act
record is created. (It should be noted
that the Privacy Act does not require
?
that the record be unique to the
Individual, only that it be "about" him or
her and include his or her name or other
indentifying particular. Thus, a
telephone number could be shared by
several individuals and still meet the
Privacy Act "record" definition).
The initial call detail reports which
contain only technical information about
telephone usage do not consist of
records within the meaning of the
Privacy Act and they will therefore
never reach the level of a system of
records. Por many areas of
telecommunications management the
Information in call detail reports will
never become systems of records and
the Privacy Act will have no application.
When, however, call detail records
are ased in management programs
designed to control costs and determine
individual accountability for telephone
calls. Privacy Act considerations must
be addressed. In order to carry out these
kinds of call detail programs, agencies
will have to link numbers and names so
that they can determine who is
responsible for what call. It is at this
point, that the telephone number meets
the Privacy Act definition of a "record."
b. Call Detail Records in Privacy Act
Systems of Records.
The next question, then, is when do
files consisting of Privacy Act records
created by linking a telephone number
and an individual's name become a
system of records? This occurs when
agencies use the Privacy Act record as a
?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04 : CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04 : CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
18984 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 1980 / Notices
key to retrieve information from these
filer. ?
While It is important to remember that
not every data base containing cell
detail record! will be a Privacy Act
system of records, agencies are - ?
cautioned against creating artificial .
filing schemes merely to avoid the effect
of the Act when the establishment of a
system of records would be appropriate.
Since these records are dearly intended
to establish individual responsibility for
long distance telephone use, their use by
the agency could have serious financial
or disciplinary consequences for
individual employees By maintaining
these records in conformance with the
provisions of the Privacy Act. agencies
can make certain that legitimate
concerns about the implementation of
call detail programs (e.g., Improper use
of the records for surveillance or . ?
employee harassment, unfairnesii, and ?
record accuracy) are dealt with in a
procedural framework that was
designed to deal with such concerns.
Therefore, we recommend strongly
that agencies create an agency-wide
fJ Privacy Act system of records in which
? to maintaih call detail records that
contain information about individuali
and are used to determine
accountability for telephone usage.
? Such a system might contain the
following kinds of records: ?
? The initial call detail monthly listing
(in whatever form it is kept, e.g., on
paper, magnetic tape or diskettes);
? Locator information showing where
in the agency specific telephones are
located:
? Records relating to the
Identification of individual employees.
and (1) linking them with specific calling
numbers; (2) linking them with specific,
called numbers.
Notes that hot all Privacy Act records
generated as a result of call detail -
programs would become apart of this
system of records. Thus, investigative
records of the Office of the Inspector
General, personnel records reflecting
administrative or disciplinary actions,
finance and accounting records relating
to cost attribution and recoveries, and
the like, that are generated from call
detail programs might be filed in
appropriate existing systems and
subjected to their particular disclosure/
safeguarding provisions. In other
Instances. records (name and telephone
number, for example) may be common
to the call detail system and other-
systems. . .
To help the agencies in its ?
construction, we offer a model system
notice in Appendix L
'7111100C
. c. Disclosing from Coll Detail Records
Systems underSection.(b) of the ?
Privacy Act. -
The Privacy Act provides 12
exceptions to its basic requirement that
agencies must obtain the written
consent of the record subject before
disclosing information from a system of
records. The following exceptions are
the ones most relevant to the proposed
Call Detail system of records:
? Section (b)(1). "To those officers
end employees of the agency which
maintains the record who have a need ?
for the record in the performance of
their duties." This exception does not
contemplate unrestricted disclosures ?
within the agency. Intra-egency
disclosure of call detail records may be
made only when there is an official
need to know the information. The. '
following are examples of disclosures '
that (b)(1) would permit
?To Individual supervisors to
determine resporisibllity for specific
telephone calls.
?To employees of the agency to review
the call detail lists and Identify calls
made by the employee. Note that the
other option for this kind of disclosure
Is a routine use (Section (b)(3)).
Agencies that are concerned about
establishing that employee A has an
official need tolnow about the calls
made from employee B's telephone
may wish to adopt a routine use
authorizing the disclosures.
?To the employees of the Office of the
Inspector General who are conducting
. investigations into abuse of the ITS
system: ? ?
?To employees of the Office of Finance
and Accounting for processing of
reimbursements for personal calls or
for processing of administrative
offsets of pay pursuant to the
provisions of the Debt Collection Act
?To Freedom of Information Act
Officers and legal advisers.
Some examples of disclosures that
(b)(1) would not authorize are: ?
?To agency personnel to identify and
harass whistleblowers:
?To agency personnel who are merely
curious to know who is calling whom.
? Section (1,)(2). 'Required under
Section 552 of this title." Information ?
may be disclosed both inside and
outside the agency to the extent that the
disclosure would be required by the
Freedom of Information Act. Prior to the
ruling of the Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit in Bartel v. FAA, 725 F.2d
1403 (D.C. Cir. 1984). longstanding
agency practices and OMB
interpretation treated this section as
permitting agencies to initiate disclosure
of material that they would be
"required" to release under the FOIA.
Disclosure under this interpretation did
not depend on the existence of a FOLA
request for the records: the mere finding
that no FOIA exemption could apply ,
and that the agency would therefore
have no choice but to disclose, was
sufficient. In fact, agencies relied upon
this interpretation of the requirements of
section (b)(2) to make routine
disclosures of many documents,
especially those traditionally thought to
be in the public domain such as press
releases, final orders, telephone books,
and the like.
In Bartel, however, the court held that
an agency must have received an actual
FOIA request before disclosing pursuant
to section (b)(2). In that case, the
plaintiff, Bartel. brought a Privacy Act
action asserting that his supervisor had
gratuitously disclosed to three former
colleagues the fact that Bartel had
Improperly obtained copies of their
personnel records. The court interpreted
the standard for (b)(2) disclosures to
other than a conditional one, i.e., not
merely that the agency would have to
disclose if such a request were received.
but that the agency must have to do so
? because an actual FOIA request for the
records has been made. Under this
rub*, agency-initiated requests of FOIA
releasable material would be improper.
The court noted, however, that
material traditionally held to be in the
public domain might constitute an
exception to its FOIA-request-in-hand
Interpretation. In guidance issued in
May of 1985 (Memorandum from Robert
P. Bedell to Senior Agency Officials for
Information Resources Management,
Subject: Privacy Act Guidance?Update,
dated May 24, 1985) OMB suggested
(without agreeing with the ruling) that
agencies continue to make disclosure of
these kinds of records without having
received a FOIA request. We cautioned,
however, that agencies should be careful
about making gratuitous releases of
sensitive classes of Privacy Act records
without having received a request for
them.
?
Applying the Bartel ruling to call
detail information, there appear to be
three distinct categories of records .
which could be considered for release
under section (b)(2):
?Records which clearly fall into the
"public domain" category. We suggest
that these would be releasable either
at the agency's initiation or in
response to a FOIA request: The
former because they are of the
"traditionally released" class: the
latter, because no FOIA exemption
would prevent their disclosure. An
? example would be the names and
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 1988 .1 Notices 1298.5
oMce telephone numbers of agency
employees. These are generally
considered public information
(obviously there may be exceptions.
for invzstigative and intelligence
organizations), and the only
applicable FOIA exemption. (b)(8), the
personal privacy exemption, would
not apply. Thus, disclosures of an
employee's name and office telephone
number would be appropriate under
Privacy Act section (b)(2).
?Records which could be withheld ?
under an applicable FOIA exemption
and which, therefore, would not be ?
required to be released. These could
he, for example. records which
contain sensitive information relating
to ongoing investigative or personnel
matters such as records relating to the
investigation of an employee for
abuse of the agency's long distance '
telephone system. Such records could '
.reasonably be withheld under FOIA
exemption (b)(8) and, therefore, would
not be releasable under section (b)(2)
of the Privacy Act. An agency would
not release these kinds of records
? either at its own initiative or in
? response to a FOIA request. It should
be noted, however, that such records
might be released under other sections
of the Act, such as (b)(3), 'lot a
. routine use." or (b)(7) at the request of
the head of an agency for an .
authorized civil or criminal law
enforcement activity.
?Records for which no FOIA exemption
applies but which contain sensitive
information, records which reflect
the results of official actions taken as
a consequence of investigations of
abuses of the telephone system. We
suggest that agencies should be very
cautious about initiating disclosure of
these records without receiving a
FOIA request since they appear to be
of the category of records that
concerned the Bartel court. Evert with
a request, agencies will have to ?
determine that the interest of the
public in having the record clearly
outweighs the privacy interest of the
record subject in order to overcome ?
the applicability of FOIA exemption
(b)(8):
? Section (b)(3). "For a routine use."
See the routine use section of the model
system notice at Appendix I. A routine
use is a disclosure of information that
will be used for a purpose that is
compatible with the purpose for which
the information was originally collected.
The concept of compatibility ? . ?
comprises. both functionally equivalent
uses: . . .
?For example. routine use (57 in the
model notice would authorize ? ' ? ?
disclosure to the Department of
Justice to prosecute an egregious ?
abuser of an agency's long distance
telecommunications system. This
disclosure is functionally compatible
since one of the purposes of the
system is to Identify abusers and
subject them to administrative or legal
consequences. ? .
as well as other uses that are necessary
and proper:
?For example, routine use (2) in the
model notice authorizes disclosure to
representatives of the General ?
Services Administration or the
National Archives and Records *
Administration who are conducting
? records management inspections .
pursuant to a specific statutory
?
charter. Their purpose is hi no way
? functionally equivalent to the purpose
for which the system was established;
It Is, however, clearly necessary and
? proper.
? Section (b)(12). "To a consumer
reporting agency." This disclosure
exception was added to the origiunal 11
by the Debt Collection Act of 1982. It
authorizes agencies to disclose bad debt
Information to credit bureaus. Before
doing so, however, agencies must ?
complete a series of due process steps
designed to validate the debt and to
offer the individual the chance to repay
it (see OMB Guidelines on the Debt
Collection Act, published in the Federal
Register on April 11, 1983 (48 FR 15558).
It is possible that agencies will wish to
disclote information from call detail
systems of records documenting an
Individual's responsibility for unofficial .
long distance calls as part of the bad .
debt disclosure. For this reason. the
model system notice at Appendix!
contains a statement identifying the
system as one from Which such
disclosures can be made.
7. Contact Point for Guidance.
Refer any questions about this
guidance to Robert N. Veeder, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, 395-
4814.
Wendy I. Cram=
Administrator/or information and Regulatory
Affairs.
Appendix 1?Proposed Model System
Notice for Call Detail Records
This Is a proposed notice; agencies
should modify it as appropriate.
System Nome: . ?
Call Detall'Reconfs. ' -
System Location:
Records are stored at Maine of
Headquarters Office containing central
files) and at (insert component
locations).
Categories of Individuals Covered by
the System:
Agency employees who make long
distance calls and individuals who
received telephone calls placed from
agency telephones.
Categories of Records in the System:
Records relating to use of the agency
telephones to place long distance calls,
records indicating assignment of
telephone numbers to employees:
records relating to location of
telephones.
Authority for Maintenance of the
System:
?
(Cite appropriate agency
"housekeeping" statute authorizing the
agency head to create, collect and keep
such records as are necessary to
manage the agency).
Routine Uses of Records Maintained in
the System:
Records and data may be disclosed, ?
as is necessary, (1) to Members of
Congress to respond to inquiries made
on behalf of individual constituents that
are record subjects: (2) to
representatives of the General Services
Administration and the National ?
Archives and Records Administration
who are conducting records
management inspections under the
authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2908: (3)
In response to a request for discovery or
for the appearance of a witness, to the
extent that what is disclosed Is relevant
to the subject matter involved in a
pending judicial or administrative
proceeding; (4) in a proceeding before a
court or adjudicative body to the extent
that they are relevant and necessary to
the proceeding; (5) to an appropriate
Federal, State or local law enforcement
agency responsible for investigating,
prosecuting, or defending an action
where there is an indication of actual or
potential violation of any government
action; (8) to employees of the agency to
determine their individual responsibility
for telephone calls, but only to the
extent that such disclosures consist of
comprehensive lists of called and calling
numbers: (7) to respond to a Federal
agency's request made in connection
with the hiring or retention of an
employee, the letting of a contract or
Issuance of a grant, license or other
benefit by the requesting agency. but
only to the extent that the information
disclosed is relevant and necessary to
the requesting agency's decision on the
matter. (Agencies should refrain from
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
Declassified in Part Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04 : CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8
18908 ' Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 100 / Friday, May 23. 1986 / Notices
automatically applying all of their
blanket routine uses to this system).
Disclosures pu.'suant to 5 U.S.0
552o(b)(12):
Disclosures may be made from this
system to "consumer reporting
agencies" as defined in the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1881e(f)) or the
Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966
(31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)). ?
Policies and Practices for Storing.
Retrieving. Accessing. Retaining. and
Disposing of Records in System: ?
Storage:
(Describe agency methods of storage).
Retrievability:
Records are retrieved by employee
name or identification number, by name
of recipient of telephone call, by
telephone number.
?
Safeguards:
. (Describe methods for safeguarding).
Retention and Disposal:
Records are disposed of as provided
in National Archives and Records
Administration General Records -
Schedule 12.
System Manager(s) and Address(es): ?
(List central system manager and
component subsystem managers, if
appropriate). _
Notification Procedures:
(Explain notification procedures). ,
Record Access Procedures:
(Explain how individuals may obtain
access to their records).
Record Source Categories:
Telephone assignment records: call
detail listings; results of administrative
Inquiries relating to assignment of
responsibility for placement of specific
long distance calls. -
Systems Exempted from Certain
Provisions of the Act: None.
[FR Doe. 98-11833 Filed 5-22-88: 8:48 am
IMUJWI C001 3110-01-11
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
Excepted Service; Schedules A, B,
and C
AGENCY: Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This gives notice of positions
placed or revoked under Schedules A. B.
and C in the excepted service, as
required by civil service rule VI.
Exceptions from the Competitive
Service.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tracy Spencer, [phone].
SuPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIO/O The
Office of Personnel Management
published its lest monthly notice
updating appointing authorities ?
established or revoked under the
Excepted Service provisions of 5 CFR
Part 213 on May 2. 1986 (51 FR 16112).
Individual authorities established or
revoked under Schedule A. B or C
between April 1.1986. and April 30.
1988, appear in a listing below. Future
notices will be published on the fourth
Tuesday of each month, or as soon as
possible thereafter. A consolidated
listing of all authorities will be
published as of June 30 of each year.
Schedule A
No Schedule A exceptions were
established during April. However, the
following exceptions are revoked:
Department of State
Schedule A excepted appointing
authority for part-time or intermittent
gauge readers employed by the
International Boundary and Water
Commission, United States and Mexico.
was revoked because It 11 no longer ?
used. Effective April 16, 1986.
General Services Administration
The Schedule A excepted appointing
authority for custodians, guards. and
related employees engaged in the
custody and preservation of surplus
facilities pending their disposal was
revoked because it is no longer used.
Effective April 8, 1988. .
Schedule B
The following exception is
established:
Department of Treasury
Not to exceed 10 positions engaged in
functions mandated by Public Law 99-
190, the duties of which require
expertise and knowledge gained as a
present or former employee of the ? ?
Synthetic Fuels Corporation, as an
employee of an organization carrying
out projects or contracts for the
Corporation, or as an employee of a
Government agency involved in the
Synthetic Fuels Program. Appointments
under this authority may not exceed 4
years. Effective April 9.1986. .
Schedule C
The following exceptions are
established:
Department of Agriculture
One Staff Assistant to the Secretary.
Effective April 4, 1986.
One Confidential Assistant to the
Secretary. Effective April 4, 1988.
One Confidential Assistant to the
Secretary. Effective April 30, 1988.
Department of Commerce
One Confidential Assistant to the
Director, Minority Business
Development Agency. Effective April 4,
1988.
One Confidential Assistant to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration. Effective April 17. 1988.
One Special Assistant to the Deputy
Administrator, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Effective
April 18, 1988.
One Confidential Assistant to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science
and Electronics. International Trade
Administration. Effective April 21, 1986.
One Confidential Assistant to the
Special Assistant to the Deputy
Secretary. Effective April 25. 1988.
One Associate Director to the
Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Effective April 29, 1986.
Department of Defense
One Special Assistant to the
Ambassador and Political/Military .
Counselor. Effective April 30, 1988.
Deportment of Education
One Confidential Assistant to the
Under Secretary. Effective April 2, 1988.
One Special Assistant to the
Secretary's Regional Representative.
Effective April 14. 1986.
One Special Assistant to the Assistant
Secretary for Legislation. Effective April
17, 1986.
One Confidential Assistant to the
Special Assistant to the Chiefof Staff/
Counselor to the Secretary. Effective
April 23, 1988. ?
One Confidential Assistant to the
Chief of Staff/Counselor to the
Secretary. Effective April 28, 1988.
Department of Energy
One Research Assistant to the Special
Assistant to the Secretary. Effective
April 3, 1988.
One Private Secretary to a Member of
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. Effective April 15. 1988.
One Staff Assistant to the Director of
Communications. Office of
Congressional. intergovernmental and
Public Affairs. Effective April 23, 1988.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/04: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100050003-8