RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SEP 232005
Commonwealth Edison Company,
)
PollutionSTATE
OFControlILLINOIS
Board
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCB No. 04-215
v.
)
(Trade Secret Appeal)
)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Ann Alexander
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Assistant Attorney General and
100 West Randolph
Environmental Counsel
Suite 11-500
188 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Suite 2000
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Brad Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of
the Pollution Control Board Commonwealth Edison Company’s Motion to Stay
PCB
04-215,
a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
Roshna Balasubramanian
Dated: September 23, 2005
Byron F. Taylor
Roshna Balasubramanian
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Bank One Plaza
10 S. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312)853-7000
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STATE
SEP
OF
232005
ILLINOIS
Commonwealth Edison Company,
)
Pollution Control Board
)
Petitioner,
)
)
)
PCB No. 04-215
v.
)
(Trade Secret Appeal)
)
)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY’S
MOTION TO STAY PCB 04-215
Pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin Code
§
101.5 14, Commonwealth Edison Company (“CornEd”)
respectfully submits this Motion to Stay PCB 04-215 and hereby states as follows:
1. On January 30, 2004, CornEd submitted excerpts from a Continuing Property Record
(“CPR”) and Generating Availability Data System (“GADs”) data related to six coal-fired
generating stations formerly owned by ComEd to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (“USEPA”) in response to a Clean Air Act
§
114 Information Request (“Information
Request”). ComEd conspicuously marked the materials “confidential business information.”
ComEd submitted a courtesy copy to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”).
2. By letter dated February 26, 2004, EPA requested that CornEd submit a statement of
justification describing why the excerpts from the CPR and the GADs data are trade secrets.
IEPA requested this substantiation because ofa Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request it
received from the Sierra Club seeking release of ComEd’s responses to the InforrnationRequest.
3. On March 11, 2004, in response to EPA’s request, CornEd submitted its statement of
justification pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 130.
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
4. On April 28, 2004, IEPA denied ComEd’s trade secret claims and stated, without
explanation, that the company’s Information Request responses were not exempt from disclosure
under 35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 130.
5.
On June 2, 2004, ComEd filed a petition for review ofthe IEPA’s denial oftrade
secret protection to excerpts from the CPR and GADs data. The Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”) accepted the petition for hearing, and ComEd’s appeal, PCB
04-215,
is currently
before the Board. To date, the Board has ruled on certain procedural motions but has not yet
engaged in a substantive review of IEPA’s ruling and ofCornEd’s trade secret claims.
6. On June 30, 2005, ComEd received a letter from USEPA requesting ComEd to
provide the agency with information supporting its claims that the CPR and GADs data were
confidential information exempt from disclosure under the federal FOIA
(5
U.S.C.
§
552
~q.)
and 40 C.F.R.
§
2.201 et ~çq. At that time, ComEd learned that on May 20, 2004, just three
months after Sierra Club had submitted a FOIA request to EPA seeking access to ComEd’s
Information Request responses, Sierra Club had filed an identical request with USEPA.
7. By letter dated August
5,
2005, ComEd submitted to USEPA a substantiation of its
confidentiality claims.
8. Presently, both the Board and USEPA simultaneously are engaged in proceedings
involving the same party in interest (ComEd), the same FOIA requestor (Sierra Club), and
substantially similar determinations of confidentialitywith respect to the CPR and GADs data.
The facts and claims at issue in the state and federal proceedings are closely related.
9. Moreover, the applicable legal standards governing both the Board’s trade secret
determination and the federal confidentiality determination are substantially similar. The Board
has in other instances looked to federal determinations of confidentialityunder the federal FOIA
2
when interpreting its own trade secret provisions under 35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 130. ~
Monsanto v. Illinois EPA et al., PCB 85-19 (1985); Outboard Marine Corp. v. Illinois EPA et al.,
PCB 84-26 (1984).
10. Pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin. Code
§
101.514, ComEd hereby requests that the Board
stay PCB 04-15 pending resolution ofthe federal CBI determination process. The Board may
appropriately grant a stay ofits own proceeding to avoid inefficient allocations ofresources and
“potentially wasting administrative resources.” Midwest Generation EME, LLC v. Illinois EPA,
PCB 04-185 (2005).
11. Granting a stay in this case would avoid the costly and inefficient allocation of
resources that is necessarily resulting from duplicative proceedings; avoid practical difficulties
that might arise from contrary FOIA determinations by state and federal agencies; and allow the
Board to be informed by a closely related federal determination,
12. ComEd has filed contemporaneously with this motion a Status Report and a
Memorandum in Support of Commonwealth Edison Company’s Motion to Stay PCB 04-215.
3
WHEREFORE, ComEd respectfully requests that, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adrnin. Code
§
101.514, its Motion to StayPCB 04-215 be granted.
September 23, 2005
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
lOS. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 853-7000
Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison
Company
Respectfully submitted,
B~’ronTF. Taylor
Roshna Balasubrarnanian
4
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD STATE
SEP
OF
232005
ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
Commonwealth Edison Company
)
Petitioner,
)
)
)
PCB No. 04-215
v.
)
(Trade Secret Appeal)
)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
)
Respondent
)
)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY’S MOTION TO STAY PCB O4~215
Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”), by and through its attorneys,
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of its
Motion to Stay PCB 04-2 15.
I. FACTS
In 2003, ComEd received a Clean AirAct
§
114 Request for Information
(“Information Request”) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”).
The Information Request sought information regarding six coal-fired generating stations owned
by ComEd until 1999 and currently owned by Midwest Generation EME, LLC.1 In the response
ComEd submitted to USEPA on January 30, 2004, ComEd included certain financial and
business data, marked conspicuously as “confidential business information” (“CBI”), that
included excerpts from a Continuing Property Record (“CPR”) and four years of Generating
Availability Data System (“GAD5”) data (collectively, the “Confidential Articles”). The CPR
excerpts are compilations CornEd prepared of detailed financial information relating to
‘The six electric generating stations named in the Information Request were: Crawford, Joliet, will County,
Waukegan, Fisk, and Powerton.
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
expenditures and investments at the six stations. The CPR identified additions and transfers
worth $100,000 ormore that had taken place at each of the facilities over approximately 25
years. The GADs data compilations revealed information concerning planned outage hours,
forced outage hours, maintenance outage hours, and total unit deratcd hours for each generating
unit at each station. At USEPA’s suggestion, CornEd sent an identical copy ofits Information
Request responses to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”).
A. IEPA Denial ofTrade Secret Status
By letter dated February 26, 2004, EPA asked ComEd to provide a statement of
justification for its confidentiality claims following the agency’s receipt ofa Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”) Request from the Sierra Club for CornEd’s Information Request
responses. Specifically, IEPA stated that, pursuant to the requirements ofthe Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Illinois Act”), 415 ILCS
§
7, and
the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s (“IPCB’s” or the “Board’s”) implementing regulations,
codified at 35 Ill. Admin. Code
§
130.201 et ~çq.,ComEd must submit a “trade secret”
justification.2
On March 11, 2004, ComEd submitted a statement ofjustification pursuant to 35
Ill. Admin. Code Part 130, as requested by IEPA. In its statement, ComEd set forth the legal
requirements for trade secret status and argued that those requirements are satisfied.
Specifically, ComEd detailed its corporate policies governing the handling ofsensitive
information and set forth the measures used to protect the confidential CPR and GADs data,
ComEd’s justification discussed the competitive value ofthe information and informed IEPA
2
IEPA requested a trade secret justification despite CornEd’s labeling of the Confidential Articles as “confidential
business information.” As such, CornEd provided its justification pursuant to 35 III. Admin. Code Part 130.
2
that releasing its information would place CornEd at an economic disadvantage, since informed
observers and competitors could ascertain overall business strategies, alter bidding practices, and
infer operational plans from a review ofthese materials.
On April 28, 2004, IEPA denied CornEd’s trade secret claims and stated that the
Confidential Articles were, in the agency’s determination, not exempt from disclosure under the
Illinois Act. In its denial, the agency simply stated, tracking the regulations without explanation,
that CornEd failed to adequately demonstrate that the information had not been disseminated or
published, that the information has competitive value, and that the information was not
“emissions data.”
B. Petition to IPCB for Review ofIEPA Initial Determination
On June 2, 2004, ComEd timely petitioned the IPCB to review IEPA’s ruling and
reverse the negative trade secret determination, or alternatively, to remand the case for a
determination ofthe articles’ exemption from disclosure under the confidential business
information provisions of the Illinois FOTA
(5
ILCS
§
l40/7(l)(g)) and 2 Ill. Admin. Code Part
1828. In an order issued on June 17, 2004, the IPCB accepted for hearing the petition for review
and agreed to examine whether the Confidential Articles are in fact trade secrets and, therefore,
exempt from disclosure under the Illinois Act. The Board further granted CornEd’s request that
the hearing be conducted
in camera
and ordered IEPA to continue protecting the claimed
information as confidential during the Board’s review. The Board has ruled on certain
procedural motions but has not yet engaged in a substantive review of IEPA’s ruling and of
ComEd’s trade secret claims.
3
0
C. USEPA Proceeding
On May 20, 2004, just three months after Sierra Club had submitted a FOIA
request to IEPA seeking access to CornEd’s Information Request responses, Sierra Club filed a
similar request with USEPA. Both FOLk requests sought access to the same data. CornEd was
not made aware ofSierra Club’s federal FOIA request, however, until June 30, 2005, the date on
which CornEd received a USEPA request for substantiation ofits confidentiality claims.
Specifically, by letter dated June 29, 2005, USEPA requested that CornEd provide the agency
with supporting information related to its claims of confidentiality, pursuant to 40 C.F.R.
§
2.201
~4~çq., so that USEPA can make a determination as to whether it must provide copies of
CornEd’s responses to the FOIA requcstor. By letter dated August 5, 2005, CornEd submitted a
substantiation of its confidentiality claims under FOIA to USEPA. In particular, CornEd detailed
both its policies for keeping the CPR and GADs data confidential, and its legal and practical
explanations ofhow the information qualifies for protection. USEPA has not yet issued its
determination ofComEd’s CBI claims.
II.
ARGUMENT
Pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin. Code
§
101.5 14, CornEd moves this Board for a Stay
ofPCB 04-215 pending resolution ofthe federal CBI determination process. At this time, both
the IPCB and USEPA currently are engaged in proceedings involving the same party in interest,
the same FOTA requestor, and substantially similar determinations of confidentiality with respect
to a single submission of data. Granting a stay would (1) avoid the costly and inefficient
allocation ofresources that is necessarily resulting from duplicative proceedings; (2) avoid
4
practical difficulties that might arise from contrary FOIA determinations by state and federal
agencies; and (3) allow the Board to be informed by a closely related federal determination.
The Board may allow a stay where a substantially similar matter is
pending in a different forum, so as to avoid the practical difficulties and inefficiencies that result
from duplicative proceedings. See 35 Ill. Admin. Code
§
101.514; Midwest Generation EME.
LLC v. Illinois EPA, PCB No. 04-185 (2005)(stay granted at IPCB’s own motion to “avoid
potentially wasting administrative resources”). See also Village ofMapleton v. Cathy’s Tap, 313
Ill. App. 3d 264, 268 (3d Dist. 2000)(stay granted to cemove “the chance of conflicting
judgment” in contemporaneous,•similar federal proceeding). A duplicative proceeding is defined
as a matter “identical or substantially similar to one brought before the Boardvranvther forum.”
35 Ill. Admin. Code
§
101.202. Illinois courts have recognized that this rnultiplicity results in an
inefficient expenditure of resources for not only the forurns, but the parties, who must prepare for
both proceedings. Mapleton, 313 Ill. App. 3d at 268 (multiplicity oflitigation is a valid
consideration in granting motions to stay).
A substantially sirnilar proceeding involving CornEd’s confidentiality claims is
currently under way at the federal level. Since August
5,
2005, the date on which CornEd
submitted its substantiation letter, USEPA has been engaged in an analysis oftheconfrdentiality
of ComEd’s CPR excerpts and GADs data. This evaluation was prompted by Sierra Club’s
FOIA request, identical to the one sent to IEPA, for CornEd’s Information Request responses.
The Confidential Articles at issue in both the IPCB and the USEPA proceedingsareidenticaL In
fact, the documents reviewed by IEPA, and on appeal, by the Board, are photocopies ofthe
responses ComEd submitted to USEPA pursuant to the
§
114 Information Request.
5
Not only do the state and federal proceedings share factual commonality, the
applicable legal standards governing both confidentiality determinations are substantially similar.
See Monstanto v. Illinois EPA et al., PCB 85-19 (l985)(citing federal judicial interpretations of
the federal FOLk in support ofruling under 35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 120); Outboard Marine
Corp. v. Illinois EPA et al., PCB 84-26 (1984)(”The Board notes that its broad construction of
standing under 35 Ill. Code Part 120 comports with the federal courts’ interpretation of
standing under the federal “Freedom of Information Act”
(5 USC 552, as amended)”).
See also
Cooper v. Illinois Dep’t ofthe Lottery et al.. 640 N.E.2d 1299, 1303 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist.
1 994)(citing federal FOIA caselaw in trade secret analysis under Illinois FOIA). Both the
Board’s trade secret regulations, codified at 35 Ill. Adrnin. Code Part 130, and similar trade
secret provisions in the Illinois Freedom of Information Act,
5
ILCS
§
140/7(l)(g), are
frequently interpreted by the Board and by Illinois courts with reference to federal analyses of
analogous federal FOIA standards. Id. In Monsanto and Outboard Marine Corp., for example,
the IPCB considered federal cases interpreting the federal FOIA as guides during its own
analyses ofthe trade secret provisions promulgated under
§
7 ofthe Illinois Act. Similarly,
Illinois courts have routinely held that “case law construing the federal statute should be used in
Illinois to interpret the Illinois FOIA.”3 ~
Cooper, 640 N.E.2d at 1303; Roulette v. Dep’t of
Central Mgmt. Services, 490 N.E.2d 60, 64(111. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1986). Achieving “consistent
construction” between determinations ofconfidentiality at the state and federal levels in this case
would be facilitated by a stay, which would allow the IPCB to be informed bythe federal
confidentiality determination during its own analysis. Stated differently, failure to grant a stay
Indeed, the Illinois FOIA exempts from disclosure “information specifically prohibited from disclosure by
federal or State law o rules or regulations adopted under federal or State law.” 5 ILCS
§
14O/7(I)(a)~$~~
2 III.
Admin. Code
§
1828.202(a)(l)(A).
6
will result in two adjudicatory bodies undertaking similar reviews ofthe facts, the record, and the
applicable law, without the benefit ofthe other’s precedent.
An additional pragmatic consideration counsels in favor ofstaying PCB 04-2
15.
A stay ofthe Board proceedings avoids the serious, practical difficulties that could arise from
contrary determinations by the two forums. Contrary determinations could result in the release
of CornEd’s confidential information at the federal level but not at the state level, or vice versa.
Such an outcome not only places ComEd at risk ofcompetitive disadvantage, it provides
incentive for FOIA requestors to circumvent one agency’s confidentiality determinations by
simply directing their requests to another agency. Principles ofcornity caution against contrary
determinations, at least where a stay ofone proceeding remains possible. See ~
Mather
Investment Properties, L.L.C. v. Ill. State Trapshooters, PCB No. 04-29 (2005). Although
CornEd does not contend that the Board would be bound by USEPA’s or a federal court’s
determination, principles of comity encourage the Board to consider that determination.
Further, the Board need not relinquish jurisdiction by granting a stay. See ~
Pearl v. Bicoastal Corp. et al., PCB No. 96-265 (1 997)(Board retained jurisdiction over claims
but consented to parties’ request for stay to await developments in state remediation program and
to await federal court determination of whether that court would exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims also at issue in the Board proceeding, even though federal
complaint was later-filed). Rather, a stay affords the Board an opportunity to consider the
federal determination during its analysis and would permit the Board to issue a fully informed
decision. Just as confidentiality determinations among various state agencies, including IEPA
7
and IDNR, are coordinated pursuant to state regulations, see c~.g,35 Ill. Admin. Code
§
132.2 16,
similar coordination ofstate and federal determinations
*
*
*
makes sense.4
WHEREFORE, CornEd respectfully requests that, pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin.
Code
§
101.514, the IPCB grant CornEd’s Motion to Stay PCB 04-2 15 pending resolution ofthe
federal CBI determination process.
Respectfully submitted,
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
By:
____________________________
Byron F. Taylor
Roshna Balasubramanian
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
10 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 853-7000
Attorneys for Commonwealth
Edison Company
September 23, 2005
435 Ill.
Admin. Code
§
130.402 further provides that
Any information accorded confidential treatment may be disclosed or transmitted to other officers,
or authorized representatives of this State or ofthe United States concerned with or for the
purposes of carrying out the Enviroiimental Protection Act or the federal environmental statutes
and regulations; provided, however, that such infonnation shall be identified as confidential by the
Board, as the case may be 415 ILCS 5/7(e)1. (emphasis added).
8
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Commonwealth Edison Company,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
)
PCB No. 04-215
v.
)
(Trade Secret Appeal)
)
)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
STATUS REPORT
Now comes Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”) and files a Status Report in
conformance with the requirements of 35 Ill. Admin Code
§
101.5 14.
1. On January 30, 2004, CornEd submitted excerpts from a Continuing Property Record
(“CPR”) and Generating Availability Data System (“GAD5”) data related to six coal-fired
generating stations formerly owned by ComEd to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (“USEPA”) in response to a Clean Air Act
§
114 Information Request (“Information
Request”). CornEd conspicuously marked the materials “confidential business information.”
ComEd submitted a courtesy copy to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”).
2. By letter dated February 26, 2004, EPA requested that ComEd submit a statement of
justification describing why the excerpts from the CPR and the GADs data are trade secrets. On
March 11, 2004, in response to IEPA’s request, CornEd submitted its statement ofjustification
pursuant to 35 III. Admin. Code Part 130.
3. On April 28, 2004, IEPA denied ComEd’s trade secret claims and stated, without
explanation, that the company’s Information Request responses were not exempt from disclosure
under 35 III. Admin. Code Part 130.
4. On June 2, 2004, CornEd filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board” or
“IPCB”) a petition for review of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s (“IEPA’s”)
denial ofCornEd’s trade secret claims. In its petition, ComEd requested the Board to reverse
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
EPA’s trade secret determination or, alternatively, to remand the case for a determination ofthe
articles’ confidentiality under the confidential business information provisions ofthe Illinois
Freedom ofInformation Act
(“FOIA”)(5
ILCS
§
140/7(1)(g)) and 2111. Admin. Code Part 1828.
5. On June 17, 2004, the Board accepted the petition for hearing. ComEd’s appeal of
IEPA’s trade secret determination is docketed as PCB 04-215. This appeal has been assigned to
IPCB Hearing Officer Bradley P. Halloran. To date in the matter ofPCB 04-215, the Board has
ruled on certain procedural motions but has not yet engaged in a substantive review of IEPA’s
trade secret determination and ofComEd’s confidentiality claims.
6. Also in its June 17, 2004 Order, the Board requested the parties to address whether
consolidation ofPCB 04-215 and a factually related proceeding, docketed at PCB 04-2 16, was
appropriate. PCB 04-216 involves a review of IEPA’s denial oftrade secret claims, asserted
with respect to the same CPR at issue in PCB 04-215, by the six coal-fired generating stations’
current owner, Midwest Generation EME, LLC (“Midwest Generation”).
7. On July 26, 2004, pursuant to the Board’s Order, the parties filed the following
motions: EPA filed a motion recommending consolidation of PCB 04-215 and PCB 04-216;
both ComEd and Midwest Generation filed motions opposing consolidation.
8. On July 7, 2005, the Board issued an Order declining to consolidate PCB 04-215 and
PCB 04-216.
9. A second procedural matter on which the Board has ruled involves Sierra Club’s
Motion to Intervene in PCB 04-215, filed June 21, 2004. Sierra Club claimed an interest in the
proceedings because it had filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOLk”) request seeking access
to CornEd’s Information Request responses at issue in PCB 04-215. On July 7,2004, CornEd
filed a motion opposing Sierra Club’s request to intervene and suggested that Sierra Club be
allowed to participate by filing an amicus briefor submitting public comments. On August 18,
2005, the Board issued an order denying Sierra Club’s Motion to Intervene but permitting Sierra
Club to present oral and written statements during IPCB hearings and file amicus curiae briefs
and public comments in the case.
10. Following a status teleconference on July 29, 2005, the parties filed a proposed
discovery schedule with IPCB on August 4, 2005.
11. On August
25,
2005, the IPCB Hearing Officer entered an Order detailing a discovery
schedule that commences with initial document requests and initial interrogatories served on or
2
before October 27, 2005 and ends with responses to final document requests and final
interrogatories served on or before March 27, 2006.
12. A brief status teleconference with the IPCB Hearing Officer took place on September
22, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
By:__________________________
Byron F. Taylor
Roshna Balasubramanian
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
10 S. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 853-7000
Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison
Company
September 23, 2005
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached Notice ofFiling and
Commonwealth Edison Company’s Motion to Stay PCB 04-215 by U.S. mail on this 23~day of
September, 2005 upon the following persons:
Ann Alexander
Assistant Attorney General and
Environmental Counsel
188 West Randolph Street
SUite 2000
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Brad Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Roshna Balasubrarnanian
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
