2025-10-22 Appellants Exhibit 20_Aluli v. Lewin

Home

air quality standards for H2S. Such "rulemaking" is clearly not in compliance with the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act. DOH argues that rulemaking requirements are not applicable because the conditions only apply to True's permit, and that the conditions do not affect any future applications for air pollution permits. DOH's argument logically means that it can set different rules and standards for each permit application and that it has an unbridled discretion in issuing permits. [W]here the subject matter of a quasi-judicial adjudication encompasses concerns that transcend those of individual litigants and implicates matters of administrative policy, rulemaking procedures should be followed. [] These procedural requirements ensure fairness by providing public notice, an opportunity for all interested parties to be heard, full factual development and the opportunity for continuing comment on the proposed action before a final determination is made. 613 Corp.v. New Jersey Div. of State Lottery, 210 N.J.Super. 485, 498-499, 510 A.2d 103, no (1986). II. Setting emission standards for air pollutants does not involve merely a scientific assessment,but a balancing of interests. See Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus, 439 F.2d 584, 594 (D.C.Cir. 1971).Air quality is an integral part of the quality of life and the public should have input in the Matter. The language of HRS § 342B-32 provides for permit issuance in accordance with rules which indicates that the legislature envisioned public input into these matters. Issuance of the permit which allowed True to emit certain amounts of H2S into the air had "a prospective and public impact that transcended] the immediate interests of the actual parties whose rights were purportedly adjudicated in [the permit] proceedings." Crema v. New Jersey Dept of Envtl. Protection, 94 N.J. 286, 301-02, 463 A.2d 910, 918 (1983). When an agency is accorded unbridled discretion in issuing permits as here, the affected public cannot fairly anticipate or address the procedure as there is no specific provision in the statute or regulations which describe the determination process. The public and interested parties are without any firm knowledge of the factors that the agency would deem relevant and influential in its ultimate decision. The public has been afforded no meaningful opportunity to shape these criteria which affect their interest. APPELLANT EXHIBIT 20, pg. 3 of 6