GENERAL54783 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F. Mr. David Shelton, Director February 24, 1981 Page Eight inspection. As the CMLR staff has access to even confidential information in its permit review function, such written requests should, and presumably would be initiated from some outside source. It would appear that at this stage and time some review of confidential data claims might commence once such written request was filed. It is this writer's opinion that a "completeness" letter determination stage has absolutely, no beating on this matter of confidential data claims. It should be noted that Rule 2.07.4(4)(a) appears contradictory and without legal authority when it refers to "data and/or other information if it is determined by the Division to be confidential according to 2.07.5." Rule 2.07.5, as written and based on its cited statutory authority, does not clearly provide authority for a discretionary determination by the CMLR staff of the appropriateness of confidential data claims. The authority in §34-33-110(4), which refers explicitly to an exception to disclosure of coal seam data, cannot be read and applied without regard to the applicability of §29- 72-104(3)(a)(IV) of the Colorado Open Records Act. Thus, once the operator files a MRP application or written request for confidential treatment under authority of §24-72-104(3)(a}(IV) of the Colorado Open Records Act, this desigantion of confidential data cannot be contradicted during the initial "completeness" review process. Once a written request is received by the CMLR for disclosure of a claimed confidential matter, only then might an inquiry be conducted into the appropriateness of the confidentiality claim. I would presume that an analysis of applicable state law and common law determinations of privileged or confidential data would then be reviewed against the assertions of legal authority and facts presented by the applicant. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of §24-72- 204 of the Colorado Open Records Acts sets forth the procedures for the CMLR to respond to such written requests for public disclosure, including the rights and remedies available to the requestor and to the official custodian of any public record. I apologize for the length of this letter, but the precedential nature of this matter and the lack of clarity in the Colorado statutes required the lenyth and depth of _ this analysis. As noted above, I would he pleased to meet ' with you and Lew Woods to discuss this matter further. I would be happy to supply you with any further research or factual data if you deem it necessary to support our claim.