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

    Back to top