Comment on FR Doc # E7-18052

Emily A. Puhl Department of Energy Office of Classification HS-91/Germantown Building 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585-1290 Emily.Puhl@hq.doe.gov Attn: RIN 1992-AA35, ?Identification and Protection of Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI)? Dear Ms. Puhl, The following are comments on the U.S. Department of Energy?s (DOE) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing for amending regulations adopted pursuant to ?148 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), which prohibit the unauthorized dissemination of certain ?Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information? (UNCI). Given the public?s heightened concerns about nuclear security, DOE?s intent to ?describe more precisely? the information that may be identified as UCNI is timely. In the post-9/11 era, the DOE is right to examine how it manages sensitive information about its atomic energy defense programs under ?148. The need for reevaluating this and other aspects of nuclear security was confirmed as recently as this week, as news surfaced that at least 5 of our nation?s 11 nuclear bomb factories and laboratories are behind in security improvements mandated by Congress. Accordingly, I offer the following constructive comments on DOE?s proposed amendments to its ?148 regulations. ? A.1. New Definitions: ?Production Facility? and ?Utilization Facility?: Adding definitions for facilities that ever produced or ever used ?special nuclear material? seems to create a helpful distinction, particularly against storage facilities such as Yucca Mountain and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Given the public?s concerns about storage, however, DOE may consider explaining how information about storage facilities is treated, since ?UCNI controls cannot apply to them.? I presume storage information is safeguarded under other sections, perhaps information exempt from UCNI by ?1017.11, e.g. ?147 for commercial and other non-DOE nuclear facilities. Nevertheless, a brief explanation would be helpful to lay readers and allay widely-held concerns. ? A.3. Clarification of the Concept of ?Widely Disseminated in the Public Domain?: The stated intent of the revision is to allow UCNI classification for documents that were widely disseminated in the past, but are no longer available in the ?public domain.? DOE may consider providing more examples of what is meant by a ?reasonable search.? ? B.1. Designated Officials: DOE appears to be consolidating discretion regarding the ?adverse effects test? in the Secretary ?or his or her designee? to avoid past confusion about whether a ?Controlling Official? or ?Reviewing Official? could apply this test. As presently described, it is not clear whether the responsibilities of the ?Controlling Official? have always been the Secretary?s, and this change merely eliminates duplicative titles, or whether the ?Controlling Official? position has been eliminated ? and new authority has been transferred to the Secretary. Clarification here would be helpful. ? B.4. Requesting a Deviation: DOE has proposed a ?new ?1017.5? to create a process by which any person may request a deviation for ?any requirements in these regulations.? Given the possible implications of granting a ?variance,? ?waiver,? or ?exception? (?1017.5(a)(1-3)), DOE provides surprisingly sparse explanation of (1) how this process is new or different from earlier approaches to deviations (on which DOE says nothing) and (2) how DOE evaluates such requests (the new regulation provides only that ?The Office of Classification?s decision must be made in 30 days.?) Thank you for considering my comments, and for providing the public to participate in the formulation of an effective ?148 program. Sincerely, Jacek Pruski