entitled to protection as trade secrets in administrative proceedings below e p a itself found that the information of helen's had requested under way in this case would not reveal any trade secrets that should have been  discretionary rather than mandatory and must be nearly construed unless another statute such as the trade secret secrets act requires an agency to keep certain information confidential but the trade secrets act further provides th information is not confidential if it's disclosure is authorized by law such is the case with the with the information that is subject to the public disclosure provision of section three hundred eighty of the clean water act so there's no conflict observed over time there's only a mandate that agencies we hold information under forty when there is a separate statute that that requires that in with respect exemption for it's the trade secrets act which does include the exemption for the the it does permit disclosure is when authorized by law  at the when looking at the overall interplay of of the statutes here and e v a s own regulations recognize that for you see that far two point two zero eight  states that the agency shall not withhold the document as confidential if another statute requires its disclosure and so in looking at the overall then speak here one has to look not only of oil but also to the trade secrets act and also unless he is disclosure would divulge methods or processes in title to protection as trade secrets this is why we've described this case as a share on step one case your honor because the there is no way to read the stats to fifty nine buys terms in vision some conflict and it says in cases of cot for it read the conflict in favor of four unless the subsequent statute expressly repealed that so how can i get around that here in our mission your honor is there is no need to find a conflict because when one looks at liberty to tell them they have to will disclose just because it's a discretionary step that's to vote when considered alongside section three b which has the language shall be available to the public and considering that exemption for is only mandatory to the extent that the trade secrets act requires that information be withheld in the trade secrets act specifically cars out disclosures that are authorized by law those three statutes acting together the only way to read them consistently would be to would be to find that the queen that additional information is required to be disclosed under the clean water act then would then an agency would have th discretion to withhold under exemption for disclosure a case where the i r s was seeking to withhold information on the grounds that a separate provision of the tax code who authorized an agency to withhold information when it when the i r s found that it w seriously impair tax ministration and in that case this court properly held that because foreign oil expressly prohibits agencies withholding information except when it's done through the  in this case e t a properly with held under exemption for up before a confidential business information received from businesses in response to a survey conducted in connection with revising its steam electric power turn would hamper reviews ability to protect human health and the environment the parties appear to agree that the exemption for the freedom of information act and the clean water action be read in harmony lies in what that harmony should be how those two statutes should be interpreted and of course the appellant's of pivoted somewhat the their argument from the district court in which they very clearly argued that exemption for of be released under both statutes however as this court knows when looking at a statute to try and determine how to interpret it you go to the familiar principles shop around to look at the statute and under the first  bolten's methods or process he's entitled to protection as trade secrets and if the information is therefore consider confidential according to the purposes of the trade secret sam there is nothing that is claiming or unambiguous about that language for example the term trade secrets this court found in the public citizen health research group case was certainly not unambiguous the court had to define the term there and in that case this court noted that the term trade secrets has often been given a widely used interpretation found under the restatement of toured seven zero seven where trade secrets has been interpreted to include all that's correct your honor that definition is definitely broader than the definition of trade secrets that this court found applied to the free movement from ation act in the public citizen health research group case because the core noted that the definition in the restatement of torts was fraud or but said that because exemption for the for area had separate language dealing with confident with confidentiality that for purposes of the four year the trade secret of the term trade secrets had to be more narrow and this court emphasized twice in that case that its decision was limited to exemptions for that it was not purporting to define trade secrets with respect to any other statutes but only exemption or and only because exemption or had this separate language that deals with confidential business information so how to reconcile these two statutes the clean water act and exemption for of the fo not just but not just exemption for but actually all of the exemptions in the freedom of information act which will notice one thing that the appellant's never address is it if you adopt their interpretation of the be that all information unless it constitutes a narrow definition of trade secret has to be disclosed that means information subject to the privacy act that would be withheld under exemption six and seven  interpretation of section three o eight b that information goes you can assert exemption seventy seven c six seven a any of the other exemptions of the four yo on your appellants interpretation stablish its role for how it was going to designate information as confidential business information and it looked at the clean water act and the clean air act and it considered it a connection with the freedom of information act and said there it only makes sense to read these two consistently because again if you have confidential business information that is gathered outside of three away and it would be withheld under exemption for under house interpretation that very same that congress clearly worked out effluent data in three o eight b and said that has to be really so that is a congressional and terminations that employment data cannot be considered confidential business information i would say that's the only difference between section three o eight b and exemption for of the four a a it is that congressional determination on a very specific type of information in one far fifty nine serves their so school statutes may not be held supersede except to the extent that it does so express soit why expressly does it have to refer to for you itself or the foyer provision itself to constitute expressly it does not on this court i believe has held that as you also can look to see whether or not there are procedures that have been put in place that indicate that there was an intent to supersede the boy i think you had you have to look at the statutory language each particular statue  in the context but here because congress it with respect to affluent data which of course is not at issue in this case but with respect to affluent data congress identified that is information still the companies can't consider that to be confidential business information so it's not a matter of there being a conflict are carving something out that just won't can't be considered confidential business information so it could be withheld under exemption for of the  well so that's the way you read those two statutes in harmony but either way again because the statute you are right there is harmony though it just seems to me and i understand why you require disclosure but it doesn't supersede expressways so you're saying you know it has no impact well they were choir disclosure except on for example confidential business and friendship that several thing that's it becomes meaningless the fact that you simply can read it in harmony i mean it is a separate statute dealing with display and it's got a separate section dealing with disclosure of information so the fact that yet it says there is one category of information that has to be disclose the only way of making confidentiality determinations e p a needs information from businesses in order to carry out its statutory duties under the clean water act it needs businesses to give information that businesses consider to be confidential confidential but the e p a needs in order to make us determinations regarding the appropriate effluent guidelines for example were guarding permits that are given to companies in terms of the amount of death once they can discharge  needs that information and in this survey where they were seeking information from companies they were able to get more information than the companies were wired to give and some instances would shed light on the information that they got which confidential business information and it can be withheld under exemption for so there's no interpretation of exemption for i think that's at issue here  so that's where the interpretation comes in is to instead does section three away be somehow give appellants greater rights to access to information then exemption for so it's really an interpretation of section  that you have for anything to be interpreted is that issue of you're an e t a it's reasonable interpretation that the purposes of section three away are to be served by having an interpretation that trade secrets language to be in the very same context would not be considered confidential i mean the interpretation this court interpreted trade secrets under the boy and he did that in order to assure that it would be able to have access to the information that it needs in order to carry out the statutory duties under the pla just closure under exemption or is not discretionary you cannot release dr exemption or information that's protected by the trade secrets that this court has held those statutes or are co extensive and the government is actually precluded from releasing information under exemption for those protected by the trade secrets that  case your honor i believe that that that is mentioning critical mass in the national parks case oskin these this court several cases dealing with exemptions or and how initial business information should be it's the protected privacy information would still need to be up held under this analysis so if the information has to be disclosed under three avoid be in isolation and the agency serves we don't want to disclose it under three o eight b because it falls within one of the for you exemptions section five exemptions seven what have you what is your position our position would be that at that point where there is if there is protected privacy there was a separate statute requiring disclosure of some of the names of not understanding the theory by which we could be that in the next case though if we ruled for you in this if it e p a were received a exemption six in the privacy act to withhold to withhold that information that exemption six information while disclosing any information that's required to disclose under section three be in the difference then with exemption for from exemption six is that exemption for is made mandatory only to the extent that the trade secrets act requires that information be withheld and the trade secrets act includes the mission disclosure when authorized by law and so statutory obligations such as the privacy act that mandates that a private information be withheld those statutes would still operate and those essentially don't have what about an exemption seven see kind of situation nurse seven situation i don't have a specific to get here but if another statute prohibits to school oh sure that's one thing but if it's just an exemption which by definition are usually discretionary those will be overridden by your interpretation of three always be and that's fine we just have to be  information would still be protected under exemption for right into hypotheticals to be fair you don't have a phone call that i was asking you is probably unlikely to arise very often i would imagine but in any event what about the idea that trade secrets in the clean here clearly intended there to be a direct link between the commercially valuable method or process and and and the allocation the requirement that he may not make that available to the public is very different situation from the much broader universe that's protected by by evaluate in determining whether documents are confidential and may be withheld is whether another statute requires her disclosure  they were holding other information we didn't clear the argument about section three zero eight the compelling a p a to disclose the information in an administrative appeals letter we submitted to the days when we didn't clued in the administrative proceedings before the agency