DIMITROVA, ALEXENIA; CIA DOC'S ON TODOR ZHIVKOV'S OVERTHROW IN NOV 1989 AND ALL EVENTS RELATED TO IT

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0001383824
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: June 24, 2015
• Document Release Date: March 11, 2011
• Case Number: F-2010-01608
• Publication Date: November 8, 2006

(b)(3)
(b)(6)
;4,ffours
09/1lO v-em 8" 200.6
Alexenia Dimitrova
Journalist
24 Hours Daily
70 Graf Ignatiev Str.
Sofia, Bulgaria 1142
Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Scott Koch
FOIA and Privacy Coordinator
Washington, DC 20505
USA
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
,keF-el?.eNCe T- 2,00:7-- 00f02
Sirs:
I hereby appeal the erroneous CIA initial determination that I must
assume responsibility for $150 of search and review fees for each
of my pending Freedom of Information Act requests (please see the
attached correspondence), and I ask that this initial determination
be reexamined in light of the additional information provided below.
1) I am a legitimate accredited award winning journalist who has
been extensively published in print news and books throughout the
world and disseminated in the United States, and under CIA
regulations and the FOIA statute my requests qualify under the
news media fee category.
According to my curriculum vitae (CV) narrative:
Alexenia Dimitrova is a Bulgarian journalist and author with more
than 21 years of experience. She works in the second largest daily
in Bulgaria [24 Hours (24 chasa)]. Her favorite topics are secret
 archives of the Cold War era, shadow affairs and corruption, money
laundering, suspicious ownership and property, and secret
societies. Recently she has profiled finding lost people all over the
world and reuniting them. For her series of publications about
missing persons which started in July 2002, and still continues, she
received Chernorizets Hrabar (the most prestigious award for
investigative journalism in Bulgaria) in November 2004. She had
been nominated for the same award in 2003.
Dimitrova has published more than 4,000 stories in 40 media in
Bulgaria, the USA, Russia, and Great Britain. Her book The Iron
Fist - Inside the Bulgarian and American Secret Archives was
published in March 2005 in London and in English by Artnik
Publishing. The same book (under the title The War of the Spies)
was published in Bulgaria in October 2005.
Dimitrova graduated from Sofia University in 1986 and has
specializations on journalism in the World Press Institute, St. Paul,
MN, and the University of Missouri, Columbia, (USA), Reuters
(Great Britain), European Center for Journalism (Netherlands), and
Danish School of Journalism in Archus. Mrs. Dimitrova is licensed
lecturer in journalistic investigations in Bulgaria within the
framework of SouthEast European Network for Professionalism in
the Media. She is also was local trainer for the BBC on investigative
journalism during a 3 year project implementing the Self regulation
and the Code of Ethics of Bulgarian Media. She is one of the 12
members of the Press Complaint Commission in Bulgaria.
She has been invited to speak at seminars and other events of
investigative journalism in Bulgaria, Denmark, Croatia, Netherlands,
Austria, Moldavia, Armenia, Slovenia, Germany, Bosnia, Albania,
Azerbaijan, and Turkey.
She is a member of the union of Bulgarian journalists, the
Investigative Journalists Association; International Federation of
Journalists (IFJ); and is a founding member of South East
European Media Organization (SEEMO)
Parenthetically, I have reason to believe that a copy of my recent
book: The Iron Fist - Inside the Bulgarian and American Secret
Archives (2005), is within the holdings of your agency library, and
thus is felt to be a useful addition to the holdings therein.
While the CIA may have felt it was important to narrow the news
media category for certain agency policy reasons, clearly my work
 demonstrates that granting me news media categorization would
not defeat those policy objectives.
My published work to date represents precisely the type of news
media reporting anticipated in the CIA regulatory definition. My
work is of a variety that has had a substantial impact on the
American public's understanding of the operations or activities of
the United States Government with regard to interaction with
Bulgaria and other eastern bloc countries during the Cold War.
2) The CIA limitation of the news media fee category to U.S. news
media is contrary to the law.
According to the CIA FOIA regulations on the CIA's website, the
CIA amended its regulations to ensure foreign news media would
be entitled to preferential fee status. Thus, the CIA Interim Rule
published in the federal register: ([Federal Register: June 16, 1997
(Volume 62, Number 115)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 32479-
32500] states:
(b) The section entitled "Definitions" is amended to include
additional terms common to the processing of FOIA requests and to
expand the definition of news media to include foreign media
having a substantial impact on the American public's understanding
of the operations or activities of the United States Government; see
Southam News v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 674 F.
Supp. 881, 882 (D.D.C. 1987) and 32 CFR 1900.02;
The definition itself does not limit news media status to U.S. news
media. It says:
(3) Representative of the news media means a request from an
individual actively gathering news for an entity that is organized and
operated to publish and broadcast news to the American public and
pursuant to their news dissemination function and not their
commercial interests; the term news means information which
concerns current events, would be of current interest to the general
public, would enhance the public understanding of the operations or
activities of the U.S. Government, and is in fact disseminated to a
significant element of the public at minimal cost; freelance
journalists are included in this definition if they can demonstrate a
solid basis for expecting publication through such an organization,
even though not actually employed by it; a publication contract or
prior publication record is relevant to such status; (32 CFR Sec.
 1900.02)
The current CIA practice is contrary to the text, the legislative
intent, the CIA regulations, the Justice Department interpretation,
and the spirit of the FOIA statute, all of which recognize that a
legitimate foreign journalist serves the same function in informing
the public of the activities of government as a legitimate domestic
journalist. Furthermore, there is no doubt that news reporting in
other countries also is conveyed to the American public by primary
transmission (over the internet) and by secondary transmission (as
news reporting is observed and followed up by other members of
the press). The CIA interpretation might even be interpreted to
suggest that a member of the Canadian or British or French or
German press would not be recognized under the "news media" fee
category.
The CIA initial determination of my fee category patronizingly
suggests that important information on the activities of Eastern
European Soviet bloc nations during the Cold War would be of no
interest or importance to Americans. I suggest the polar opposite -
that nothing is of greater importance to an American audience of
the Cold War era activities within these territories. It is a matter of
straightforward U.S. government policy to encourage the opening of
foreign secret archives to learn more about repressive policies
during the Soviet era, so that this information can be made
available through publication to citizens of all countries.
The CIA regulation, if scrutinized in federal court, would at minimum
be questioned by the court as to its congruency with the FOIA
statute.
The FOIA statute, the OMB fee guidelines and the Justice
Department guidance are clear that foreign news media requesters
are not treated differently than domestic news media requesters
provided that the requesting organization "gathers information of
potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills
to turn the raw materials into a distinct work and distributes that
work to an audience."
The following discussion is derived from the FOIA Guide published
by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Under the FOIA statute, the second level of fees limits charges to
document duplication costs only, "when records are not sought for
commercial use and the request is made by an educational or
noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or
 scientific research; or a representative of the news media." 5 U.S.C.
? 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
FOIA requesters falling into one or more of these three
subcategories of requesters under the 1986 FOIA amendments
enjoy a complete "exemption" from the assessment of search and
review fees. See 132 Cong. Rec. S14,298 (daily ed. Sept. 30,
1986) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (referring to requesters within the
second level of fees as receiving the benefits of "the most favorable
fee provision").
Their requests, like those made by any FOIA requester, still must
"reasonably describe" the records sought in order to not impose
upon an agency "'an unreasonably burdensome search."' AFGE v.
United States Dep't of Commerce, 907 F.2d 203, 209 (D.C. Cir.
1990) (quoting Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
In addition to the words of the statute, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Fee Guidelines are also binding authority,
according to the U.S. Department of Justice and longstanding CIA
practice.
The definition of a "representative of the news media" refers to any
person actively gathering information of current interest to the
public for an organization that is organized and operated to publish
or broadcast news to the general public. See OMB Fee Guidelines,
52 Fed. Reg. at 10,018.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
elaborated upon this definition, holding that "a representative of the
news media is, in essence, a person or entity that gathers
information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its
editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and
distributes that work to an audience." Nat'l Sec. Archive v.
Department of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1387 (DC Cir. 1989); see
also Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOD, 241 F. Supp. 2d 5, 14 (D.D.C.
2003) (explaining that the fact that an entity distributes its
publication "via Internet to subscribers' email addresses does not
change the [news media] analysis").
In reaching its decision, the D.C. Circuit relied in large part on the
legislative history of the 1986 FOIA amendments, See Nat'l Sec.
Archive, 880 F.2d at 1385-87, not finding the term "representative
of the news media ... self-evident [in] what [it] covers." See id. at
1385; see also 132 Cong. Rec. H9464 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1986)
(statement of Rep. English) (referring to "written explanatory
 materials that would have been included in a committee report" and
that acknowledge that "no definition of 'news media' has been
included in the [1986 FOIA amendments]").
In more recent years, however, perhaps partly due to the passage
of the Electronic FOIA amendments, Pub. L. No. 104-231, 110 Stat.
3048, in conjunction with the ushering in of the "Information Age,"
D.C. Technical Assistance Ora. v. HUD, 85 F. Supp. 2d 46, 49
(D.D.C. 2000) (commenting on changes wrought by "Information
Age"), there has been renewed interest in the question of what
constitutes a "representative of the news media" both in the FOIA
context Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr., 241 F. Supp. 2d at 14 n.7
(explaining that while plaintiff qualified as a news media entity, "the
Court is not convinced that a website is, by itself, sufficient to
qualify a FOIA requester as a 'representative of the news media,"'
and reasoning that virtually all organizations and many individuals
in the metropolitan area have Web sites, "but certainly all are not
entitled to news media status for fee determinations").
The D.C. Circuit did make clear at the time of its decision in
National Security Archive, however, that the term "representative of
the news media" excludes "'private libraries" or 'private
repositories"' of government records, or middlemen such as
"'information vendors [or] data brokers,"' who request records for
use by others. This fee category, though, includes freelance
journalists, when they can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting
the information disclosed to be published by a news organization.
It is well settled that a request from a representative of the news
media that supports a news-dissemination function "shall not be
considered to be a request that is for a commercial use." A request
from a representative of the news media that does not support its
news-dissemination function, however, should not be accorded the
favored fee treatment of this subcategory.
Further, a request that is made to support an endeavor that merely
makes the information received available to the public (or others) is
not sufficient to qualify it for placement in this fee category.
Under the FOIA, once a requester has gathered information of
interest to the public it must, in some manner, "use its editorial skills
to turn the raw materials into a distinct work" in order to qualify as a
representative of the news media. National Security Archive v. Dept
of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1989); cf. Elec. Privacy
Info. Ctr. v. Dep't of Defense, 241 F. Supp. 2d 5, 12 (D. DC 2002)
("Labels and titles alone ... do not govern" the qualification for
 media status; rather, "the organization's substantive activities
control."). In the first case to construe this subcategory of
requesters, the requester's status was not in dispute but rather
where the news organization performed its media function. There
the court held that even a foreign news service may qualify as a
representative of the news media. Southam News v. INS, 674 F.
Supp. 881, 892 (D.D.C. 1987).
For these reasons, I believe that my public records requests,
narrowly tailored to obtain records to which I will apply my
experienced editorial skills to create a distinct work which I will
disseminate to the public through the news organization for which I
work, and which have both an international audience and a U.S.
audience due to the subject matter, fall easily within the definition of
news media requests for purposes of the FOIA statute as well as
the narrower definition in the CIA regulations. To deny my fee
categorization in the news media fee category would not only
create a barrier and hurdle to my requests to counter the spirit and
intent of the FOIA statute, but would defeat the very intent and
purpose of the CIA regulatory policy regarding news media fee
categorization described above. For this reason, I ask that my
requests be properly categorized as from a "representative of the
news media" and that no search and review fees be appended to
my requests which would moot the need for the arbitrary $150 per
request fee. Z77)
Respectfully,
cc: Meredith Fuch, General Cou sel
The National Security Arc e
 Ms. Alexenia Dimitrova
24 Hours Daily
70 Graf Ignatiev Str.
Sofia, BULGARIA 1142
Reference: F-2007-00102
Dear Ms. Dimitrova:
The office of the Information and Privacy Coordinator has received your 20
September, 2006, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for:
"All CIA documents about Todor Zhivkov's overthrow in November
1989 and all the events related to it."
We have assigned your request the reference number above. Please use this number when
corresponding with us so that we can identify it easily.
Please note that our research indicates this current request is a duplication of a
previous one submitted by you in November 2005 (F-2006-00143), which was closed due
to your failure to commit, to fees.
We uphold our previous decision to you in F-2006-00143, under the Agency FOIA
regulations outline under Part 1900 of Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
to deny your request for a fee waiver as the information you seek is not likely to contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the United States
Government.
You may appeal this decision, in my care, within 45 days from the date of this
letter. Should you choose to appeal the denial of your request for a fee waiver, you are
encouraged to provide an explanation supporting your appeal. Agency regulations also
specify that if the Agency has started to process a request, the Agency may only accept an
appeal of a fee waiver denial if the requester agrees to be responsible for the cost in the
event of an adverse administrative or judicial decision.
Please note that we also uphold our decision to place you into the "commercial" fee
category due to your status as a reporter for a Bulgarian newspaper, not an entity that is
organized and operated to publish and broadcast news to the American public; a
prerequisite factor in determining fee status in this category. This means that you will be
responsible for the full direct costs for searching, reviewing and duplicating responsive
records.
 Search fees for each item in a request are usually about US $150. The additional
review fees, however, will depend upon the number of documents located as a result of the
search, and the copying fees will depend upon the number of releasable documents, if any
exist.
In accordance with Section (a) of the schedule (enclosed), search fees are
assessable even if no records are found or, if found, we determine that they are not
releaseable. This means you will be charged even if our search results are negative or if it
is determined that no information is releasable under the FOIA.
Before we can begin processing your request we must receive your commitment
to pay fees incurred under the conditions stated herein. Meanwhile, we will hold your
request in abeyance for 60 days from the date of this letter awaiting your reply.
Scott Koch
Information and Privacy Coordinator
Enclosure
 (b)(3)