FOUNDING CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF WASHINGTON, D. C., INC., Plaintiff,
                                       v.
                  NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY et al., Defendants.
                              Civ. A. No. 76-1494.
               United States District Court, District of Columbia.
                                  May 19, 1980.
  Freedom of Information Act suit was brought against National Security Agency.
 The District Court, John Lewis Smith, Jr., J., held that: (1) documents were
 exempt from disclosure under Act, and (2) Agency's search for other responsive
 documents was adequate.
  Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.

 [1] RECORDS
 Where, although contents of documents might not have been sensitive, affidavit
 established conclusively that functions and activities of National Security
 Agency that might be revealed by disclosure of documents included signals
 intelligence sources and methods still in active use, sources that were unique
 to signals intelligence community and not a matter of public knowledge and
 where affidavit demonstrated how disclosure would reveal processing
 capabilities of Agency, documents were exempt from disclosure under Freedom of
 Information Act.  5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b)(3);  National Security Act of 1947, s
 101 note, 50 U.S.C.A. s 402 note.

 [2] RECORDS
 Where National Security Agency explained in detailed fashion how it indexed
 signals intelligence materials and why it could not locate requested documents
 until provided with identifying serial numbers by Central Intelligence Agency
 and where thorough reading of entire record demonstrated that facts regarding
 Agency's capability in retrieving information were immaterial, Agency
 adequately explained apparent incongruity between its mission to collect
 information on particular subjects and its inability to retrieve such
 information once gathered and thus agency's search for certain documents was
 adequate under Freedom of Information Act.  5 U.S.C.A. s 552(b).
  *951 William Dobrovir, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
  Raymond M. Larizza, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
                                   MEMORANDUM

  JOHN LEWIS SMITH, Jr., District Judge.
  Plaintiff brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5
 U.S.C. s 552(b) (FOIA), seeking release of any documents concerning plaintiff's
 affiliated organizations or the subject matter of Scientology.  Defendant
 National Security Agency (NSA) identified sixteen responsive documents, but
 resisted disclosure on the basis of national security exemptions under FOIA.
 The Court of Appeals for the District *952 of Columbia Circuit reversed this
 Court's July 31, 1977, grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment and
 remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve two areas of concern.
 First, the remand required a more complete showing that disclosure of the
 sixteen items fits within Exemption 3, and second, it required NSA to
 demonstrate more fully that it had undertaken an adequate search for other
 relevant materials.  Defendant's motions for summary judgment and to dismiss
 the Director of NSA as an improper party were argued before the Court on April
 22, 1980, and on April 25 the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
 Director.  The Court deferred ruling on the motion for summary judgment until
 NSA might submit a more detailed affidavit in camera.  NSA thereafter submitted
 a thirty-six page document, classified "Top Secret," which is the affidavit of
 Mr. Roy R. Banner, Chief of the Policy Staff for NSA.
  NSA contends that all sixteen documents are exempt from disclosure in their
 entirety under Exemption 3, which provides that
   This section (requiring disclosure) does not apply to matters that are:
   specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . .  provided that such
 statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a
 manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular
 criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be
 withheld.  5 U.S.C. s 552(b)(3).
  The collateral statute upon which NSA relies is P.L. 86-36, section 6,
 providing that
   nothing in this Act or any law . . .  shall be construed to require the
 disclosure of the organization or any function of the National Security Agency,
 or any information with respect to the activities thereof, or of names, titles,
 salaries, or number of persons employed by such agency.  50 U.S.C. s 402
 note (1976).
  In its remand, the Court of Appeals upheld this Court's conclusion that
 section 6 provides authority for Exemption 3 withholding of documents falling
 within its provisions.
  (1) The documents at issue comprise material that is "the direct product of
 communications intelligence activities."  Banner Public Affidavit, P 14.  Even
 though the contents of the documents may not be sensitive, what their
 disclosure would reveal about agency functions not now publicly known compels
 nondisclosure.  The Boardman affidavit submitted in camera establishes
 conclusively that the "functions" and "activities" of NSA that might be
 revealed, P.L. 86-36, s 6, include signals intelligence sources and methods
 still in active use, sources that are unique to the signals intelligence
 community and not a matter of public knowledge.  The in camera affidavit,
 moreover, demonstrates how disclosure would reveal the processing capabilities
 of the Agency.  Such internal operations of NSA fall within the protection of
 section 6, which precludes the disclosure of any information concerning the
 "organization" of NSA.
  (2) The second issue raised by the Court of Appeals' remand is the adequacy
 of the Agency's search for other responsive documents.  The Court is satisfied
 that NSA has fully explained the apparent incongruity between its mission to
 collection information on particular subjects and its inability to retrieve
 such information once gathered.  NSA has, in detailed fashion, explained how it
 indexes signals intelligence materials and why it could not locate the
 requested documents until provided with identifying serial numbers by the CIA.
 Although plaintiff calls into issue certain facts regarding the Agency's
 capability in retrieving information, a thorough reading of the entire record,
 including the in camera submission, demonstrates that these facts are not
 material.  Any more public disclosure of the internal procedures of NSA and of
 the identity of the information at issue would compromise the secrecy required
 by section 6 of P.L. 86-36 to protect intelligence methods, sources, and
 activities.
  For the reasons set forth above, and it appearing to the Court that there are
 no genuine issues as to material facts in this *953 case, defendant's motion
 for summary judgment is granted.