Historical Weapon Documents and Proposals

Martin Pfeiffer filed this request with the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration of the United States of America.
Tracking #

19-00232-EW

Due July 1, 2019
Est. Completion None
Status
Awaiting Response

Communications

From: Martin Pfeiffer

To Whom It May Concern:

1) This is a FOIA Request
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:

Title: Prospectus for a Study of a General Purpose Tactical Air Weapon
Author: Kleinecke, D.C.
Date Provided: 1957
OSTI identifier: 10150571
Sandia: SC-TM-100-57(18)

Title: Tx-5 Weapon Environmental Criteria
Date Provided: 1950
Research Org.: Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
OSTI Identifier: 10152519

Title: New Weapon Proposal: Towed Laydown Weapon
of release the weapon is given an upward component of velocity.
Authors: Claasen
Date: 1957
Research Org.: Sandia National Lab.
OSTI Identifier: 10150565
Report Number(s): SC-TM-131-57(51);

Title: Feasibility Report and Preliminary Design Proposal Transport and Loading of New Class A, Mk 21/36, New Class B and Class C Weapons into Strike and Transport Aircraft
Date: 1956
Research Org.: Sandia National Lab.
OSTI Identifier: 10153327
Report Number(s):
SC-3947(TR); ALSNL199700001479

Title: Report of the Lift Rocket Assisted Program Laydown Test Program for Large Weapons
Authors: Moses, C.W. ; Green, W.R.
Date: 1964
Research Org.: Sandia National Lab.
OSTI Identifier: 10153625

Please note that dates and other citation details are as provided by OSTI and should not be regarded as infallible for the purposes of record search.

As the FOIA requires please release all reasonably segregable portions of responsive records. If you withhold records or portions of records then please indicate under which exemption you claim to do so and provide me with my options for appeal. If you are not the proper agency for this request then I please forward this request to the proper agency and notify me that you have done so.

2) Fees and Fee Status
I am a PhD student at the University of New Mexico and the information requested is for academic and public education purposes, including my PhD dissertation project, and not primarily for commercial use. Furthermore, I will make responsive records available to the public via my academic publications and presentations as well as on social media and my blog. Please note that you can access my UNM student profile page at the following url: https://anthropology.unm.edu/people/grad-students/profile/martin-pfeiffer.html.

Therefore, as per Sack v. DOD (2016) I qualify for educational institution fee status and ask that you process my request accordingly. In your response please confirm that you will be processing my request under the educational institution fee status. I agree to pay fees up to $30 without additional notice. In the event that there are fees exceeding $30 then please inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request.

3) Record Delivery and Communications
I hereby request that all records generated by this request be delivered in electronic format via email or, if that is not possible, on CD-ROM if available. If you have any questions or information regarding this request then please do not hesitate to contact me, preferably via email. Please provide an email address through which I can contact you to discuss this request.

You may, and I request that you do so, engage in rolling release of responsive records.

I look forward to receiving your response within the twenty day statutory period. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and time in this matter.

Regards,
Martin Pfeiffer, MA
Scholar, National Security Studies Program
Graduate Assistant, Department of Anthropology
University of New Mexico

From: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration

Mr. Pfeiffer,

Please respond to the attached acknowledgement letter.

If we do not receive a response regarding your willingness to pay all fees by July 5, 2019 we will consider your request invalid and will close it with no further action.

Thank you and have a wonderful day.

V/R

Erica White
Government Information Specalist
Office of the General Counsel
National Nuclear Security Administration

From: Martin Pfeiffer

Ms. White,

1)
So that I may make an effective appeal I request to know on what grounds I was denied my requested fee status especially as it is the fee status I have been granted in the past. I would again refer us all to the 2017 Sack v. DOC decision which explicitly widens the educational/fee status category to include students, such as myself, doing school related research as I am.

2) If you refer to my original FOIA request you will please notice under the "FEES AND FEE STATUS" labeled-section a discussion of my willingness to pay fees. In what way is this deficient for perfecting my request?

3) I'm betting I can email my appeal in as per previous appeals. To whom and where shall I send that or should I just go right to the DOE OHA?

4) I consider this a response to your letter. Please respond by July 4th confirming your acceptance, or lack thereof, of this response. Please provided additional specific required info and my options for appeal.

Regards,
-marty-
Martin Pfeiffer

From: Martin Pfeiffer

Ms. White,

Apologies, I have located the appeal by email instructions. You may disregard that portion of my response.

Regards,
-marty-

From: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration

Mr. Pfeiffer,

The Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a Decision and Order Dated July 11, 2019 indicating that prior to a fee category determination, the agency must clarify your intended use of the records requested. Therefore, please clearly identify your intended use for the requested records in this FOIA matter. Please respond no later than July 19, 2019. If we do not receive a response from you by July 19, 2019, we will consider the lack of response as a withdrawal of your request, and it will be closed.

V/R

Erica White
Government Information Specalist
Office of the General Counsel
National Nuclear Security Administration

From: Martin Pfeiffer

Ms. White,

Find attached a copy of the appeal decision you reference for your convenience and further referral. This is not an acceptable response in light of that appeal decision and 10 C.F.R. 1004.2(c).

I have already stated my intended use of these materials in my request and, as a matter of patient courtesy, I will restate and slightly expand them here: as part of my PhD research and for analysis and dissemination through my social media, scholarly writing, journalistic writing, and inclusion in my free, publicly accessible archive of research materials. This means you have an option of alternately assignment me a category as a representative of the news media as I have the intent and ability to disseminate materials provided me widely by myself as well as the ability to acquire other publishing outlets. I will also refer you to Sack v. DOD (2016) regarding assignment to the educational institution fee status.

As indicated in the appeal you reference (included here for your convenience) as per 10 C.F.R. 1004.2(c)--as well, I would add, as the 8th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution because Due Process matters!--if you wish to challenge my claims of how these documents will be used (and the associated fee status I requested) then you will provide me with the basis for your challenge or your specific questions so that I may answer your challenge and questions properly.

You are not allowed to endlessly demand I justify my fee status when I have made a prima facie case for it without offering to me the grounds on which you are considering denying it and I am more than confident that OHA will agree as per the appeal decision you reference (included here for your convenience). I strongly considered simply appealing this response directly to OHA and moving forward this will be my response to any further communications from you that fail (yet again) to follow statute and policy.

Therefore: either inform me that this message meets your requirements and grant me my requested fee status or provide me with the information necessary for me to clarify my use of these records to your satisfaction. If you are unable or unwilling to do either of these things then inform me of that as well as my options for appeal at which point I will begin those procedures.

You will pardon the shortness of this letter. I have made clear in other communications how I regard these continued and repeated failures to properly follow NNSA/DOE policy and FOIA statute.

I am,
-marty-
Martin Pfeiffer

From: Martin Pfeiffer

Ms. White,

Find attached a copy of the appeal decision you reference for your convenience and further referral. This is not an acceptable response in light of that appeal decision and 10 C.F.R. 1004.2(c).

I have already stated my intended use of these materials in my request and, as a matter of patient courtesy, I will restate and slightly expand them here: as part of my PhD research and for analysis and dissemination through my social media, scholarly writing, journalistic writing, and inclusion in my free, publicly accessible archive of research materials. This means you have an option of alternately assignment me a category as a representative of the news media as I have the intent and ability to disseminate materials provided me widely by myself as well as the ability to acquire other publishing outlets. I will also refer you to Sack v. DOD (2016) regarding assignment to the educational institution fee status.

As indicated in the appeal you reference (included here for your convenience) as per 10 C.F.R. 1004.2(c)--as well, I would add, as the 8th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution because Due Process matters!--if you wish to challenge my claims of how these documents will be used (and the associated fee status I requested) then you will provide me with the basis for your challenge or your specific questions so that I may answer your challenge and questions properly.

You are not allowed to endlessly demand I justify my fee status when I have made a prima facie case for it without offering to me the grounds on which you are considering denying it and I am more than confident that OHA will agree as per the appeal decision you reference (included here for your convenience). I strongly considered simply appealing this response directly to OHA and moving forward this will be my response to any further communications from you that fail (yet again) to follow statute and policy.

Therefore: either inform me that this message meets your requirements and grant me my requested fee status or provide me with the information necessary for me to clarify my use of these records to your satisfaction. If you are unable or unwilling to do either of these things then inform me of that as well as my options for appeal at which point I will begin those procedures.

You will pardon the shortness of this letter. I have made clear in other communications how I regard these continued and repeated failures to properly follow NNSA/DOE policy and FOIA statute.

I am,
-marty-
Martin Pfeiffer

From: Martin Pfeiffer

Ms. White,

My apologies for any confusion. I intended to refer to the 5th and 14th not the 8th amendment.

I am,
-marty-
Martin Pfeiffer

From: Martin Pfeiffer

Ms. White,

I am informing you that I have filed an appeal with the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals regarding your message to me (July 12, 2019) which you sent in response to the decision rendered by OHA in Case Nos. FlA-19-0020-23.

I am,

Martin Pfeiffer

From: Martin Pfeiffer

Ms. White,

The Office of Hearing and Appeals has declined to consider your most recent message an action which I can appeal at this time.

I maintain that you have not provided me the necessary information required to adequately respond to your questions about my fee status. As such, I am unable to provide a concise and cogent response. Therefore, in response to your most recent message, you will find attached a copy of the appeal I attempted to file with OHA regarding your most recent message. It includes a lengthy discussion of my fee status and use of records. Refer to that discussion--including my description of my Patreon--as the best good-faith response possible given your failure to provide me details regarding your concerns and what you feel should be clarified.

I consider this matter--of clarifying my intent for the use of documents in this request--closed unless you are willing to provide specific and detailed questions and concerns about my use of records in this request.

Therefore, I once again point out that I meet all of the criteria for assignment of my requested fee status of educational institution (or alternately media) and I insist you grant me one of those statuses accordingly. If you are unwilling or unable to do so then notify me as soon as possible along with a detailed justification for doing so and my options for appeal.

I am,

Martin Pfeiffer

Files

pages

Close