The explosion in the use by federal agencies of Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) designations to withhold information since the 9/11 terrorist attacks has resulted in uneven policies across agencies and unnecessary restrictions on public access to information, according to a recent American Bar Association report. Such problems have manifested themselves in Connecticut, where state officials are trying to access, and make public, safety information pertaining to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant, in order to determine and reduce any risk to the public posed by the plant. The American Bar Association (ABA) report noted several problems with the implementation of SBU. First, SBU categories have been too vaguely defined by the administration and are too unevenly implemented across government agencies. Second, government agencies often incorrectly cite SBU as being automatically exempt from requests under laws governing public disclosure, particularly the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In March 2002, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card issued a memorandum to federal agencies urging them to withhold sensitive information from public disclosure, but it failed to adequately define the procedures for categorizing information as SBU. A 2003 Congressional Research Services report on SBU states, "There is no uniformity in Federal agency definitions, or rules to implement safeguards for 'sensitive but unclassified' information." Indeed, as noted in Openthegovernment.org's 2005 Secrecy Report Card, there are currently at least 50 different versions of SBU categories being used by various federal agencies. The ABA found that this lack of uniformity "contributes to confusion regarding whether information should be withheld under FOIA," and that many government agencies have taken the position that SBU information is automatically exempt from FOIA, leading to "excessive withholding of information that should be disclosed under FOIA." Though not incorrectly advising agencies that SBU information is automatically exempt from FOIA, the Bush administration has urged agencies to attempt to use FOIA exemptions for SBU information. The ABA recommends that the administration clarify this position to prevent agencies from continuing to mistakenly restrict access to important information. This assumption of nondisclosure for SBU currently being played out in Connecticut. Soon after the Card memo, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) categorized a great deal of information as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII), a category of SBU information. FERC removed all information categorized as CEII from the agency's website, and the agency has flatly stated that all CEII is exempt from FOIA. A separate procedure for the commission to consider limited release of CEII information on a "need to know" basis was established. However, the new procedure does not allow information to become public, requiring agreements of non-disclosure from users before allowing access. The FERC policy sparked controversy when Connecticut's State Attorney General recently attempted to access information regarding a proposed LNG plant. The State of Connecticut wishes to review the design and safety plans of the Broadwater LNG plant in order to determine whether it should be built and whether it would endanger the health and safety of the residents of Connecticut. FERC has denied the state's request claiming that such information is not publicly releasable because it is sensitive but unclassified. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal states that his office "will aggressively fight this at every forum possible - piercing Broadwater's shroud of secrecy that so clearly demonstrates the danger of this project. The FERC secrecy order belies its contention that there are no terrorist or security concerns - and we will explore ways to force greater disclosure." FERC contends that it has, unlike other agencies, provided additional mechanisms to access such information. The agency, however, appears to be overlooking the fact that no automatic exemption from FOIA exists for CEII. Open government advocates contend that information on the potential health and safety risks from a new facility should obviously be provided to surrounding communities and that, in this case in particular, the government has no right to withhold it.