[104-10333-10011.pdf — page 59]
# 33346 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulationsregulations after considering publiccomment received in writing andthrough testimony at public hearingsconvened by the Review Board.EFFECTIVE DATE: Those interpretativaregulations 01o offective June 28, 1995.FON FURTHER INF OHMATION CONTACT:T Jorumy Gunn, Acting GeneralCounsel, Assassination Records ReviewBoard, 600 E Street, N.W., 2nd Floor,Washington, D.C. 20530, (202)724-0088, fax (202) 724-0457.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:## Background and Statutory AuthorityThe President John F. KennedyAssassination Records Collection Act of1992, 44 U.S.C. 2107 (as emended) (JFKAct), established the President John F.Kunnedy Assassination RecordsCollection JFK Assassination RecordsCollection) at the National Archives andKecords Adınınistration (NARA). Inestablishing a process fur publicdisclosure of all records relating to theassassination, Congress created anindependent Federal agency, theAssassination Records Review Board,that consists of live citizens appointedby the President and confirmed by theSenate in 1994. Under the JFK Act, theKaview Board is entpowered to decide"whether a record constitutes anassassination record" 44 U S.C2107.7(1)(2)(A). Congress intended thatthe Review Board "issue guidance toassist in articulating the scope oruniverse of assassination tecords."President John F KennedyAssassttiation Records Collection Act of1992, S. Rep. 102-328. 102d Cong. 2dS056. (1992) at 21. These finalinterpretive regulations, a proposedversion of which were published at 60FR 7506-7508 (Feb. 8. 1995). complywith that inandate.The Review Board's goal in issuingthis guidance is to implementcongressional intent that the JFKCollection contain "the mostcomprehensive disclosure of recordsrelated to the assassination of PresidentKennedy." S. Rep 102-328. supra at 18.The Board is also mindful of Congress'sinstruction that the Board apply a"broad and encompassing" workingdefinition of "assassination record" inurder to achieve the goal of assemblingthe fullost historical record on thistragic event in American history and onthe investigations that were undertakenin the assassination's aftermath. TheBoard recognizes that many agenciesbegan to oryantze and review recordsresponsive to the JFK Act even beforethe Board was appointed and began itswork. Nevertheless, the Board's au15 תthat this guidance will and in theultimate assembly and public disclosureof the fullest possible historical recordon this tragedy and on subsequentinvestigations and inquiries into it.The final interpretive regulations areintended to identify comprehensivelythe range of records reasonably relatedto the assassination of PresidentKennedy and investigations undertakenin its aftermath. The final interpretiveregulations are also intended to and inthe consistent, effective, and efficientimplementation of the JFK Act and toestablish procedures for includingassassination records in the JFKAssassination Records Collectionestablished by Congress and housed atNARA's facility in College Park,Maryland:## Notice and Comment ProcessThe Review Board sought publiccomment on its proposed interpretiveregulations and set a thirty-day period.which ended on March 10, 1995, for thepurpose of receiving written comments.The Review Board also heard testimonyat public hearings on aspects of theproposed interpretive regulations. Inaddition, the Review Board sent copiesof the proposed interpretive regulationsto agencies known to have an interest inand to be affected by the Review Board'swork, particularly those that eithercreated or now hold assassinationrecords, and to the appropnate oversightcommittees in Congress. The ReviewBoard also sent notices of the proposedinterpretive regulations and request forcomments to many organizations andindividuals who have demonstrated aninterest in the release of materials underthe JFK Act or who have engaged inresearch into the assassination ofPresident KennedyThe Review Board received writtencomments on the proposed interpretiveregulations from four Federal agencies,three state and local governmententities, and twenty-one privateIndividuals and organizations with aninterest in the Review Board's work.Federal agencies providing writtencomments include the Federal Bureau of many of which were incorporated intoInvestigation (FBI), the CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA), NARA, andthe Department of State State or localgovernment entities providing writtencomments include the Dallas (fexas)County Commissioner's Court, theDallas County Historical Foundation,and the City of Dallas RecordsManagement Division of the Office ofthe City SecretaryPrior to publication of the proposedinterpretive regulations, the ReviewBoard heard testimony at a publichearing held at the Raview Board'soffices on December 14, 1994, froinrepresentatives of NARA on thequestion of including artifacts in thescope of the term "assassinationrecord." After publication of theproposed interpretive regulations andbefore expiration of the commentperiod, the Review Board heardtestimony at a public hearing on March7. 1995, from the FBI and from severalindividuals and representatives ofprivate organizations on their viewsregarding the text of the proposedinterpretive regulations. Copies of allwritten comments received andtranscripts of public testimony on theproposed interpretive regulations wereplaced in the public reading room at theReview Board's offices and madeavailable for inspection and copying bythe public upon request.At a public meeting held on May 3.1995, for which notice was timelypublished in the Federal Registerpursuant to the provisions of theGovernment in the Sunshine Act, theReview Board considered a final drett ofthese interpretive regulations Thatdiscussion draft incorporated many ofthe comments received by the ReviewBoard on the proposed interpretiveregulations. The Review Boardunanimously voted to adopt the text ofthe discussion draft as its finalinterpretiva regulations. The approvedtext is, with a few minor corrections thatdo not change the substance, publishedhere.## Response to CommentsThe Review Board found very helpfulthe thoughtful and, in many cases, verydetailed cominents submitted on theproposed interpretive regulationsNearly all of the commentatorsexpressed support for what theycharacterized as the proposedinterpretive regulationscomprehensiveness and flexibility. Allcomments submitted were carefullystudied and considered by the ReviewBoard Submitters made bothsubstantive and technical suggestions.the interpretive regulations as issuedhere in final form. The summary belowincludes the principal substantivecomments received and the ReviewBoard's responses thereto.Comment. The proposed language of$1400 1(a) is unduly restrictive becausethe phrase "may have led to theassassination" requires at least apotential causal link to theassassination Moreover, determingwhether there is a causal hnk wouldrequire the Review Board to evaluate thevalidity of competing accounts of what