RE
CE I VE D
D
F V R
0/lilT
F
E
P A
KrM
CLEPK’S OFFICE
JUN
~i
4
2000
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
June 12, 2000
Pollution
Control
Board
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
Dear Ms. Gunn:
In the Matter
of:
Revision ofthe illinois Pollution Control Board’s
Procedural Rules:
35
Illinois Administrative
Code 101-130
Docket Number R00-20
Thank you for allowing Devro-Teepak,
Inc. to comment on the first notice ofthe Board’s
proposed Revision of the Board’s Procedural Rules:
35 ILL. Adm. Code 101-130.
It is
apparent from the wording of the proposed regulation the Board is interested in easing
their trade secret determination burden at the expense ofthe private property rights of
Illinois businesses.
Below will be comments on particular sections ofthe proposal.
1.
Section 130.200(a)
“The owner ofan article may claim that the article is a trade
secret only
...
at the time the owner submits the article to the agency.”
Why?
That certainly is the time when most claims are made, but why should it
be the only time?
Solely for the alleged concern for time sensitive
determinations, IPCB will require the claim and thejustification.
Most Illinois
businesses have no idea these changes are being proposed, and more and more
information is being required through permit applications, reporting
requirements, and responses to agency requests.
An article that
is supplied
without a claim should be able to be claimed prior to its becoming general
public knowledge.
Devro-Teepak understands the desire for expediency on the part ofthe IPCB,
but the effort to speed up the process should not produce a procedure where
Illinois businesses can accidentally lose their personal property rights.
2.
Section
130.200(b)(3)
“Any person wishing to have an article considered as
a
trade secret must file
...
a statement ofjustification.”
The proposed procedural wording seems to be setting up the disqualification of
a trade secret claim if the justification is not made in a timely manner and is
Devro~Teepak,Inc
915
N,
Michigan,
Danville.
IL 61832
Tel: 217446.6460
Fax: 217.4422617
..
Dorothy Gunn
-
2-
June
12, 2000
considered deficient.
The old procedure
(35
IAC
120.2
15)
worked well
in
identifying when a justification would be required.
This is being dropped for
the sake ofexpediency.
Justifications are not needed and should not be required
in all cases.
Where time sensitive situations require them the IEPA, DNR, and
IPCB should identify this requirement and spell out what is necessary to reply.
3.
Section
130.200(b)(2)
“Any person wishing to have an article considered as a
trade secretmust file
...
a copy ofthe article marked as provided in Section
130.302.”
This section would now set up a third specifically required way for an Illinois
business to mark information that they wish to keep confidential.
It must be
marked either “Trade Secret”, “Confidential”, or ‘Public Record
-
Claimed
Exempt”.
Articles sent simultaneously to the U.S. EPA may have to be marked
differently.
It is easy to conceive ofa situation where truly confidential
information could be marked incorrectly.
It would then be considered
disclosed.
This is not right.
The old regulation
(35
IAC
120.230) deemed that a
justification would be acceptable ifthe owner “substantially” complied.
That
term has been dropped from the proposal making the requirement more exacting
and the denial easier.
4.
Section 130.220
Status ofArticle Determined or Claimed to be a Trade Secret
Before the Effective Date ofThis Part
How are we to know what articles that were claimed to be a trade secret were
not determined before the effective data ofthis Part?
Can we make a generic claim to
cover all
claimed articles?
How will IPCB make this requirement known to
all whom have made such
claims to
IPCB, IEPA, and DNR.
Respectfully submitted,
John W. Webster, Manager
Regulatory Affairs
JWW/jsg