On March 25, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stopped accepting comments on its ideas for limiting public access to "critical energy infrastructure information" (CEII). FERC first released an initial policy statement addressing this issue in October 2000, and followed it up with a January 16 Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in the Federal Register. The Notice of Inquiry sought public input on possible regulatory changes that would allow the agency to restrict unfettered general public access to CEII, but still permit those with a "need-to-know access to such information. The FERC Notice also indicated that until the agency takes final action on this issue, companies could self-identify CEII information that the agency will keep confidential. The Notice also referenced a non-public index, entitled Overview of Previously Public Documents and Candidates for Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, that described the documents likely to be covered by this rule change. To view the appendix the public had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and any comments submitted with reference to the appendix would be considered confidential. According to FERC's docket records, 40 people signed agreements of non-disclosure in order to read the non-public appendix, the majority of which were power company and industry representatives. According to FERC’s docket, 49 comments were submitted on the Notice of Inquiry on behalf of 59 entities (some comments were on behalf of multiple organizations). Power companies and their associations dominated the process, submitting 29 comments, of which 5 were non-public because of signing the non-disclosure agreement. (Edison Electric Institute and Mid American Energy Company each submitted a non-public and a public comment; the other three were mixed with portions of their comments being public). The docket also revealed that government offices and agencies, primarily utility commissions, also had a fair level of participation with 7 comments. Only 6 public interest organizations, including OMB Watch, made comments. Additionally, a handful of non-power companies and private citizens submitted comments in this process. While a majority of the comments, due primarily to the predominance of industry comments, were supportive of FERC’s efforts, there were numerous commenters that either completely objected to FERC’s actions or at least raised serious concerns. American Superconductor Corporation, for example, advocates possibly increasing information dissemination, noting, "efforts to suppress this information will not make the system stronger, or less vulnerable." The company states, "the grid must have much greater flexibility, capacity and "intelligence,'" and that "one useful approach is to publish more information about the state of the grid." In its comments, the Utilities Commission for New Smyrna Beach, Florida raises its "significant reservations concerning the practicality, efficacy and legality" of FERC’s proposals. New Smyrna concludes that CEII information is "already so broadly disseminated that restrictions of the type proposed in the NOI would be unlikely to provide significant additional security to U.S. energy infrastructure." Indeed even PJM Interconnection, a company responsible for the operation and control of the bulk electric power system throughout major portions of five Mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia, urges FERC to only restrict disclosure "when it would increase the threat materially." View the Docket of comments online.