“Freedom of Information Act Appeal”

APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

ACT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE - NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND

TECHNOLOGY TO DENY PETITIONER A FEE WAIVER FOR

MATERIALS REQUESTED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION ACT

5 U.S.C.§ 552

FOIA Log #07-76

September 10, 2007

“As a matter of course, the Department of Justice

encourages agencies to provide a waiver of fees when both

requirements of the statutory standard are met, just as they

must deny a waiver of fees whenever one or both of those

requirements are not met.”1 The petitioner’s request for a

waiver of fees clearly meets both requirements of the

statutory standard.

Background
 The petitioner, upon suggestion by a New York Times

reporter, requested certain data from the National Institute

of Standards and Technology (hereinafter NIST).2 A

representative of NIST promptly responded by suggesting that

such data should be requested under the Freedom of

Information Act.3

On August 12, 2007, the petitioner sent a request for

information to NIST based on the template provided at their

website.4 Petitioner requested a waiver of fees associated

with the search and duplication of the responsive documents.

A fee waiver is appropriate because disclosure of the

requested information to petitioner is in the public

interest “because it is likely to contribute significantly

to public understanding of the operations or activities of

the government and is not primarily in [petitioner’s]

commercial interest.”5

Petitioner received a timely response from Freedom of

Information Act Officer (hereinafter FIAO), Catherine S.

Fletcher, dated August 15, 2007.6 In the response, the FIAO

denied petitioner’s request for a fee waiver, and stated

that petitioner would be provided with an estimate of fees

for the search and duplication of the responsive documents.7

Petitioner exercised his right to appeal in a timely

fashion in order that the Assistant General Counsel for

Administration (Office) receives it “within 30 calendar days

of the date of [the FIOA’s] response letter.”8

Legal Standard

Upon a request for records, each agency “shall make the

records promptly available to any person,” provided that the

requester “reasonably describes such records and [the

request] is made in accordance with published rules stating

the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be

followed.”9

“In order to carry out the provisions of this section,

each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice

and receipt of public comment, specifying the schedule of

fees applicable to the processing of requests under this

section and establishing procedures and guidelines for

determining when such fees should be waived or reduced.”10

Moreover, documents “shall be furnished without any

charge or at a charge reduced below the fees established

under the statute if disclosure of the information is in the

public interest because it is likely to contribute

significantly to public understanding of the operations or

activities of the government and is not primarily in the

commercial interest of the requester.”11

 Analysis

A fee waiver is appropriate in petitioner’s case

because “disclosure of the information is in the public

interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to

public understanding of the operations or activities of the

government and is not primarily in the commercial interest”

of the petitioner.12 The request reasonably describing the

records sought is as follows:

Photographs and applicable video (in jpeg, mpeg

or another format) of the south side upper and
lower lobby (inside and outside) of WTC Building
7 taken throughout the day on September 11,
2001. These would be the photos and video taken
in the immediate vicinity of the WTC Building 7
south side upper and lower entrances.

Photographs and applicable video of the “WTC

Division” triage area, which was active at 9:30
am on September 11, 2001.
http://www.dps.state.vt.us/homeland/fdnylessonsl
earned9-11.pdf

Photographs of the upper and lower south side

lobby areas (interior and exterior) of Building
7 after the collapse of WTC 2, then after the
collapse of WTC 1. Note that NIST described the
lobby area of WTC 7 after the collapse of WTC 1
as having “no heavy debris” with a “white dust
coating.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralF
ire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf
 Note regarding responsiveness to this request:
Photographs may be redacted as necessary and still
may be responsive to my request. Note that
photographs alone may be responsive if video is
not also available, and video alone may be
responsive if still photos (redacted or not) are
not available.

In order to help to determine my status to assess

fees, you should know that I am individual seeking
information for personal use and not for a
commercial use.

I request a waiver of all fees for this request.

Disclosure of the requested information to me is
in the public interest because it is likely to
contribute significantly to public understanding
of the operations or activities of the government
and is not primarily in my commercial interest. I
asked a reporter from the New York Times for
copies of the responsive photographs from the
Times archives if they were available. The
reporter stated that I should request the photos
from NIST. The photographs hold very significant
historical value.

Thank you for your consideration of this

request.13

In order to qualify for a fee waiver under the statute,

a two-prong test has been considered in deciding whether an

agency should grant such a request.14 The first prong

concerns the “public interest.” And the second prong

concerns the “commercial interest.”15

 The public interest prong is further divided into four

distinct categories in order to properly analyze a specific

fee waiver request. So in order to examine “whether

disclosure of the information is in the public interest

because it is likely to contribute significantly to public

understanding of government operations or activities”16 an

agency should examine these four factors:

(A) “The subject of the request: whether the subject of

the requested records concerns the operations or

activities of the government.”17

Here the threshold test as to whether “records

possessed by the agency directly concern government

operations or activities” is most often met.18 The

petitioner requests photographic and video data which

“specifically concerns identifiable operations” of the

federal government.19 WTC Building 7 was the site of an

emergency triage center, where local government, the

federal government, and private entities worked together

in rescue efforts of a sort never before experienced.

They worked in conjunction and under great pressure and

likely saved many lives in the process. Additionally, 7

World Trade Center was occupied by several offices of the

federal government, which were evacuated on September 11,

2001. Clearly, these factors meet the standard for the

threshold test .20

(B)”The informative value of the information disclosed:

whether the disclosure is likely to contribute to an

understanding of government operations or activities,”

which are “meaningfully informative.”21

The requested unreleased photographs and video data

have innate informative and meaningful qualities.22

September 11, 2001 was the most tragic, yet significant

day of the 21st century. September 11 was such a shocking

event that upon “close appraisal”23 the unreleased

information has “great potential” to contribute to an

understanding by the general public, especially since it

24
is not presently “in the public domain.” So disclosure

of the data will certainly add “to the public record.”25

Furthermore, petitioner has stated in the endnotes

(incorporated in this document and by reference) that

there is scant publicly available photographs and video

pertaining to the south side upper and lower lobby

(interior and close exterior) areas of 7 World Trade

Center. Furthermore, the requested data is likely to

contribute to an understanding of government operations

in and around the specific areas mentioned in

petitioner’s FOIA request.26

The next consideration under the public policy prong

considers:

(C)”The contribution to an understanding by the general

public of the subject likely to result from the

disclosure.”27

Here the petitioner “must have the ability and

intention to disseminate this information to the

public.”28 The petitioner is an attorney and certainly

does have the requisite “specialized knowledge” to

extract, synthesize, and effectively convey” the

information to the public.29 Additionally, the petitioner

requested the information from NIST upon the suggestion

of a New York Times reporter, as the data was apparently

not available in the archives of the New York Times.30

The final issue to consider under the public policy

prong of this analysis is:

 (D)“The significance of the contribution to public

understanding: whether the disclosure is likely to

contribute significantly to public understanding of the

government operations or activities.”31

Upon objective evaluation by the agency,

petitioner’s requested information (even redacted

portions and portions released which are not subject to

an exception) will significantly enhance the general

public’s understanding of the government’s operations and

activities.32 The public’s knowledge and understanding of

federal emergency operations on the south side of WTC 7

(Solomon Brothers Building), evacuations of federal

employees from the south side exits and lobbies of WTC 7,

corroborative activities between local, state and federal

emergency personnel in the south side area and lobbies of

WTC 7, and other federal emergency management activities

on the south side are only a few of the very important

factors to consider upon release of the requested

information.33 Moreover, the general public’s “level of

understanding” will be greatly enhanced compared to the

knowledge derived from presently available photographic

and video evidence.34

 Also, it is important to note that agencies are not to

make subjective judgments regarding the newsworthiness of

any requested information for which a fee waiver is

35
requested under this standard.

Now we will briefly consider the “commercial interest”

prong of the statute.36 Petitioner stated in his letter to

NIST that the request for information was not “primarily”

in requester’s “commercial interest.” Petitioner will

freely disseminate the requested information, and has no

commercial interest in the requested information from

that tragic day. Petitioner cannot be clearer about this

fact. Petitioner seeks neither to further a commercial

trade nor to profit from the requested data. Therefore,

this second prong is met under the statute.37

Conclusion

It is appropriate that petitioner be granted a fee

waiver for the requested information because it has been

shown that “disclosure of the information is in the

public interest because it is likely to contribute

significantly to public understanding of the operations

or activities of the government and is not primarily in

 the commercial interest of the requester.” Petitioner has

met the standards as set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552

(a)(4)(a)(iii) and 28 C.F.R. § 16.11 (k) (1999) as

considered by the FIAO in a letter dated August 15, 2007.

By:

/s/

Robert Moore

September 10, 2007

1 See, Stephen J. Markman, Assistant Attorney General, Office of

Legal Policy, New Fee Waiver Policy Guidance FOIA Update Vol.
VIII, No. 1, 1987 (April 2, 1987) available at
(www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_VIII_1/viii1page2.htm). See
also, 5 U.S.C. § 552, amended by Public Law No. 104-231, 110
Stat. 3048, Vol. XVII, No. 4 (1996), available at
(http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/) and
www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm), and 28
C.F.R § 16.11 (k) (1999), and C.F.R. Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations (e-CFR), Title 28: Judicial Administration PART 16—
PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION Subpart A—
Procedures for Disclosure of Records Under the Freedom of
Information Act § 16.11 Fees (current as of August 24,
2007)available at (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx).

2 Petitioner corresponded with a reporter from the New York

Times, who intimated that petitioner could ask NIST for certain
data.
3 Petitioner contacted Michael E. Newman
(michael.newman@nist.gov.). The “WTC Investigation Team”
graciously provided the FOIA website information and provided
some written information in lieu of a formal request.

4 See attached Exhibit A for petitioner’s FOIA request. See also

NIST website for request template, available at
(http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm#request).

5 5 U.S.C. § 552, available at (http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/).

See also, attached Exhibit B for the freedom of information
officer’s response to petitioner’s request.

6 See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(6)(A), available at

(http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/).

7 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a), supra note 5 generally. See also, 5 U.S.C.

§ 552 (a)(6)(F), where it states that an agency shall “make a
reasonable effort to estimate the volume of any requested
matter,” which is denied, and provide an estimate to the
requester. See also, see 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(6)(F)(b)(9), where it
states: “Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be
provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of
the portions which are exempt under this subsection.” The amount
of deletion should be indicated unless it would “harm an
interest” protected by an exemption in the subsection.

8 See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a).

9 See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(3)(A).

10 See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(A)(i).

11 See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(a)(iii), available at
(http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/).

12 See id.

13 See Exhibit A, supra note 4.

14 See Decision and Order of the Department of Energy, Case No.

VFA-0679, 28 DOE § 80,1778 (July 19, 2001), where a two-prong
test is used to define the “public interest.” The Department of
Energy is a vast resource for matters concerning fee waiver
requests. See also, Ruth Towle Murphy, 27 DOE § 80, 173 (1998).

15 See id. See also, Markman, supra note 1, and 5 U.S.C. §

552(a); 28 C.F.R § 16.11 (k) (1999) at note 1.

16 See Markman, supra note 1.

17 See id.

18 See id.

19 See id. See also, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a); 28 C.F.R § 16.11 (k)

(1999), supra note 1. See also, Richard J. Sheirer, Testimony of
the Former Commissioner of the New York City Office of Emergency
Management, Opening Remarks Before the National Commission On
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (May 18, 2004), where he
states: “The OEM watch command, which was located in the offices
of 7 World Trade Center, acted as the eyes and ears of the city.
Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, it monitored all
emergency services frequencies, New York State and National alert
systems, weather systems and local, national and international
news…” Sheirer further stated that triage was moved from the
North Tower lobby into the lobby of 7 World Trade Center, and
that representatives from SEMO and FEMA offered “the full extent
of the agency’s resources,” available at (http://www.9-
11commission.gov/hearings/hearing11/sheirer_statement.pdf). See
also , National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States, 9 HEROISM AND HORROR, 9.1 PREPAREDNESS AS OF SEPTEMBER
11, available at (http://www.9-
11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm), (presently managed by
the National Archives and Records Administration) for additional
responses by the federal government from 7 World Trade Center.
In the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks report, it
states the following with regard to the Office of Emergency
Management’s response and contact with federal personnel: “OEM
Initial Response: By 8:48, officials in OEM headquarters on the
23rd floor of 7 WTC-just to the north of the North Tower began to
activate the Emergency Operations Center by calling such agencies
as the FDNY, NYPD, Department of Health, and the Greater Hospital
Association and instructing them to send their designated
representatives to the OEM. In addition, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) was called and asked to send at least
five federal Urban Search and Rescue Teams (such teams are
located throughout the United States). At approximately 8:50, a
senior representative from the OEM arrived in the lobby of the
North Tower and began to act as the OEM field responder to the
incident. He soon was joined by several other OEM officials,
including the OEM Director.” Further references state: “OEM
Response After the South Tower was hit--OEM senior leadership
decided to remain in its "bunker" and continue conducting
operations, even though all civilians had been evacuated from 7
WTC. At approximately 9:30, a senior OEM official ordered the
evacuation of the facility, after a Secret Service agent in 7 WTC
advised him that additional commercial planes were not accounted
for.”
20 See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, supra note 19.
See also, FEMA 403, Chapter 5, for a list of tenants that
occupied 7 World Trade Center. Tenants included offices for the
DOD (Department of Defense), CIA (Central Intelligence Agency),
SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), U.S. Secret Service,
and several other federal, local and private entities, available
at (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf). See also,
Gary Cecchine, et al., Triage For Civil Support: Using Military
Medical Assets to Respond to Terrorist Attacks, National Defense
Research Institute and Rand Health, (Prepared for the Office of
the Secretary of Defense)(2004) available at
(http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG217/index.html).

21 Department of Energy, Case No. VFA-0679, 28 DOE § 80,1778,

supra note 14.

22 There are a very limited number of resources actually showing

the south side of WTC 7 throughout the day on September 11, 2001.
Moreover, no known interior lobby triage photos have been
released. The most widely available stills and video depict more
of a distant view of that particular structure. Since triage was
established in WTC 7, and the evacuation of federal employees
took place from that building, it is extremely important that the
general public gain an understanding of the government activities
in that vicinity—a knowledge and understanding that will be
vastly enhanced by the release of the requested information. The
existing archives display scant minutes of video. For example:
See, Internet Archive, ABC Sept. 11, 2001 11:59 am - 12:41 pm (30
minute mark)(September 11, 2001) available at
(http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109111159-1241. See also,
BBC Sept. 11, 2001 11:21 am - 12:02 pm (September 11, 2001) (22
minute mark) available at
(http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111121-1202), where
similar brief video clips show a man with a backpack running into
the dust covered lower south lobby of World Trade Center Building
7. A cameraperson captured the man as he sprinted up a dormant
escalator to the upper lobby of WTC 7 and spoke to another man
waiting there.

23 See Markman, supra note 1. See generally, 911 Commission

Report (2004) available at (http://www.9-
11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf), for a detailed
description of the events of that tragic day.

24 See Markman, supra note 1. See also, Blakley v. Department of

Justice, 549 F Supp. 1220, 1223 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d mem., 720
F.2D 215 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

25
See Markman, supra note 1. See also, Blakley supra note 24,
for reference to public domain.

26 See Exhibit A, supra note 4, and 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a); 28 C.F.R

§ 16.11 (k) (1999).

27 See Markman, supra note 1.

28 See id.

29 See Markman, supra note 1. Also, petitioner was editor-in-

chief of a law school publication, at RWU School of Law, known as
The Docket. The knowledge obtained as editor-in-chief and from
the subsequent practice of law is more than enough to satisfy the
“specialized knowledge” aspect of the statute. Note also, that
the ability to disseminate information to the general public is
not a difficult task at present. Of course, “representatives of
the news media” would readily be able to satisfy this “aspect of
the statutory requirement” according to the Accord FOIA Update,
Fall 1983, at 14. However, technology has changed dramatically
since 1983. Now millions of people worldwide can instantly access
data, which was initially disseminated to limited numbers of
individuals. See a supporting article from BBC News, YouTube hits
100m videos per day Internet video site YouTube has said its
users are now watching more than 100 million videos per day.
(Monday, 17 July 2006) available at
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5186618.stm), which
stated: “YouTube said that its videos account for 60% of all
videos watched online in the US. It has almost 20 million
visitors to the site each month, according to
Nielsen/NetRatings.”
Although, the New York Times and other print media may be
considered more appropriate venues for the release of the
requested data (and in fact a New York Times reporter intimated
that I ask NIST for certain information), it is inevitable that
Internet news sources and sources such as YouTube will be used to
disseminate the data to millions of the general public in a
matter of hours and days. In fact, ABC News has direct links to
YouTube and often airs its contents. See the ABC News website for
links and stories about many YouTube broadcasts available at
(http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=youtube&type=) and
generally at, http://abcnews.go.com. It is evident that the
standard of “ability and intention to disseminate” has changed
greatly since that standard was set forth in 10 CFR §
1004.9(a)(8)(i)(C)(1997).

30
See Petitioner supra note 2. See also, Cf. Glen Miller, 26 DOE
§ 80,147 at 80, 649 (1996), where the “contribution to the
general public likely to result from disclosure” aspect of the
statute was satisfied, when a reporter from the New York Times
“stated that the documents were newsworthy.” The New York Times
reporter in the present case stated the following to petitioner
in written correspondence: “I don't have photographs of the
lobby…Perhaps NIST has pictures…” The New York Times reporter
further stated the following after an inquiry regarding criminal
conduct: “You should ask NIST if what they're investigating
involves arson.” Although, such correspondence and interest shown
by the reporter does not guarantee that New York Times editors
will find such data newsworthy, certainly such correspondence
with petitioner goes beyond a requester who “intends merely to
disseminate information” to the media as stated in Markman, supra
note 1. Here the petitioner has had direct contact with a member
of the print media, among others, in order to freely and
specifically disseminate the requested information for FOIA
statutory purposes.

31 See Markman, supra note 1.

32 See Sheirer, supra note 19, where he states that the

evacuation of 7 World Trade Center commenced at approximately
9:30, “after a Secret Service agent in 7 WTC advised him [an OEM
official] that additional commercial planes were not accounted
for.”

33 See, Glenn Asaeda, M.D., Yale Disaster Medicine Conference,

World Trade Center Attack September 12-13, 2005, for reference to
triage areas in and around ground zero on September 11, 2001
including a triage center at WTC 7, available at
(http://www.yalenewhavenhealth.org/emergency/2005CONGRESS/Day1Tra
ck3/Asaeda.pdf). See also, Initial EMS Organization- Pre-
Collapse- 9:59 a.m., for reference to the WTC 7 Division triage
area, available at
(http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/mck_report/x14_ems_org_pre_coll
apse.pdf). See also, New York Times.com, Interview with EMS
Division Chief John Peruggia, where Peruggia explains the
conditions within the lobby of 7 World Trade Center and his
experiences within that structure upon his arrival on September
11, 2001, and explains the emergency operations on the south side
of WTC 7 in detail, available at
(http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPH
IC/Peruggia_John.txt). See also, Emergency Medical Service
Response on September 11, which mentions that a triage center was
set up at WTC 7 at about 9:30 a.m., available at
(http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/mck_report/ems_response.pdf).

34 See, Internet Archive, supra note 22, and see notes (regarding
the limited number of stills and videos presently available
depicting the upper and lower lobby areas of 7 World Trade Center
on September 11, 2001), supra note 22. See also, James M.
Williams, President of the Structural Engineers of Utah, SEAU
News, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers of Utah, Volume
VI, Issue II (October 2001), where Williams stated that the FBI
actually made decisions as to which photographs would be
broadcast to the public. Specifically, Mr. Williams stated: “As
of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and
molten steel was still running. What concrete wasn’t pulverized
into dust will continue to be removed for weeks to come. The
structural steel is being removed and shipped by barge to be
recycled.
All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were pre-
approved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not
released for public view,” available at
(http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf.). Note that the issue
of obtaining photographs and video of alleged running molten
metal beneath ground zero is an issue for a separate FOIA
request, and is not the subject of the present request.

35
See Memorandum of Timothy S. Elliot, Acting Associate
Solicitor-Division of General Law, Freedom of Information Act—Fee
Waiver Guidance, where it states: “The question of significance
is not an objective one. The legislative history and cases
interpreting the statute make clear that agencies are not to make
editorial judgments about the newsworthiness of requested
documents, available at (http://www.doi.gov/foia/feewaive.html).
See generally, U.S. Const. amend. I.

36
See Markman, supra note 1 and 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a); 28 C.F.R §
16.11 (k) (1999),supra note 1.

37
See Markman, supra note 1, where the New Fee Waiver Policy
Guidance states that: “A ‘commercial interest’ is one that
furthers a commercial trade or profit interest as those terms are
commonly understood.” Petitioner has no such interest. See
generally, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a); 28 C.F.R § 16.11 (k) (1999),supra
note 1.

Exhibit A

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Catherine S. Fletcher, FOIA & Privacy Act Officer
100 Bureau Drive, STOP 1710
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1710

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Ms. Catherine S. Fletcher:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552.

I request that a copy of the following documents be provided to me:

• Photographs and applicable video (in jpeg, mpeg or another format) of the south side upper and
lower lobby (inside and outside) of WTC Building 7 taken throughout the day on September 11,
2001. These would be the photos and video taken in the immediate vicinity of the WTC Building 7
south side upper and lower entrances.

• Photographs and applicable video of the “WTC Division” triage area, which was active at 9:30 am
on September 11, 2001. http://www.dps.state.vt.us/homeland/fdnylessonslearned9-11.pdf
 • Photographs of the upper and lower south side lobby areas (interior and exterior) of Building 7 after
the collapse of WTC 2, then after the collapse of WTC 1. Note that NIST described the lobby area
of WTC 7 after the collapse of WTC 1 as having “no heavy debris” with a “white dust coating.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf

• Note regarding responsiveness to this request: Photographs may be redacted as necessary

and still may be responsive to my request. Note that photographs alone may be responsive if video
was not also available, and video alone may be responsive if still photos (redacted or not) were not
available.

In order to help to determine my status to assess fees, you should know that I am an individual seeking
information for personal use and not for a commercial use.

I request a waiver of all fees for this request. Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public
interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of
the government and is not primarily in my commercial interest. I asked a reporter from the New York Times
for copies of the responsive photographs from the Times archives if they were available. The reporter stated
that I should request the photos from NIST. The photographs hold very significant historical value.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

/s/

Robert Moore

P.O. Box 16
Harmony, RI 02829

rkmoore@justice.com

attyremoore@cox.net

Exhibit B

(attached)