U.S.C. § 654 (1958), was repealed by Pub.L. No. 86-626, 74 Stat. 472 (1960). As exempting statutes NSA also points to 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 798. The district court rested only on Pub.L. No. 86-36, which grants the broadest exemption of the three statutes; therefore it is the only exempting statute which we will consider here. 45 . 197 U.S.App.D.C. -, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 46 . Id., at-n. 46 of 197 U.S.App.D.C. at 829 n. 46 of 610 F.2d. 47 . 50 U.S.C. §§ 403(d)(3), 403g (1976). 48 . Phillippi v. Central Intelligence Agency, 178 U.S.App.D.C. at 243, 249, 50 n. 14, 546 F.2d 1009, 1015-16 n. 14 (1976); see Ray v. Turner, 190 U.S.App.D.C. at 299, 587 F.2d at 1196. But see Baker v. Central Intelligence Agency, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 401, 405-6, 580 F.2d 664, 668-69 (1978) (<HOLDING>). 49 . 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3) (1976). 50 . 50
holding that there is no need to consider exemption 6 separately if information was compiled for law enforcement purposes because exemption 7c constitutes broader protection so any information falling under exemption 6 is covered by exemption 7c holding that exemption under  403g extends beyond intelligence matters with security nexus holding one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption holding a debtors claim for loss of consortium to be entitled to an exemption under the oklahoma exemption statute and collecting other bankruptcy decisions recognizing a debtor spouses loss of consortium as the basis for allowing an exemption under federal and various state exemption statutes holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3