Comment on FR Doc # E7-18052

I respectfully oppose the Department of Energy?s (DOE) proposed rules that will expand the amount of information that the DOE can keep out of the public realm by expanding the parameters it follows in declaring information ?unclassified controlled nuclear information? (UCNI). I acknowledge the fact that nuclear information is sensitive and potentially poses a serious threat to the health and safety of Americans. However, expanding the scope of the DOE?s power to keep sensitive (but non-classifiable) information out of the public realm in a rule-making context potentially infringes on the public?s right to accountable and open government in a democracy and, if enacted, should be decided by Congress. For instance, the DOE proposes to make information about past nuclear practices secret: practices ?that were once conducted or used in support of such programs and that could be conducted or used again in the future to support the national security.? Yet, non-classifiable information on past practices might be useful to citizens in assessing and critiquing the performance of the DOE in prior circumstances. This worry about keeping more information secret is compounded by another proposed change. Indeed, under the new rules governing the ?widely disseminated in the public? test, the DOE can classify information that has once been in the public realm but that is now no longer possible to be found through a ?reasonable? search. Essentially re-classifying information that is already in the public domain is counterproductive. A potential terrorist will likely have the time and motivation to find the open source material; however, local police or civil authorities do not have the same fanatical focus on one purpose and making such information harder to find might make them less likely to respond to an accident in an appropriate manner. The United States was founded on the suspicion of government. The current changes to the DOE?s power to declare information UCNI provide DOE bureaucrats wider powers to keep information out of the public realm, furthering eroding the power of an informed citizenry to serve as a check on the government. If such changes are indeed necessary, the Congress must make such a change through a publicly debated process.