Laserfiche WebLink
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, i7o, 92 S. Ct. 839, 847, 31 L. Ed. 2d no <br /> (1972). <br /> IV. <br /> HRS § 342B-32 authorizes issuance of a permit in accordance with rules. Rules are <br /> necessary to ensure fairness and to minimize unbridled use of discretion of an agency. <br /> In the absence of rules governing the standards of emissions of H2S into the air, DOH was <br /> required to refuse the issuance of the ATC permit to True pursuant to HRS § 342B-32• <br /> The order of the circuit court is reversed and this case is remanded for the issuance of <br /> injunctive relief ordering True to stop any action based on the ATC permit which allows <br /> construction that would emit H2S into the air, and for the issuance of an order requiring <br /> DOH to promulgate rules consistent with this opinion governing H2S emissions into the <br /> air. <br /> NOTES <br /> r] Associate Justice Hayashi, who heard oral argument and who signed the opinion in this <br /> case, retired from the court on March 29, 1992. See HRS § 602-10 (1985). <br /> [i] At the time True submitted its application, HRS § 342-22 (1985)was in effect. In <br /> pertinent part, it provided: <br /> In addition to any other power or duty prescribed by law in this part, the director shall <br /> prevent, control, and abate air pollution in the State. In the discharge of this duty, the <br /> director may: <br /> (3) Require private persons or agencies or governmental agencies engaged or desiring to <br /> engage in operations which result or may result in air pollution to secure a permit prior to <br /> installation or operation or continued operation. The director shall refuse to issue the <br /> permit unless it appears that the operations would be in compliance with the rules and <br /> regulations of the department and the state ambient air quality standards. <br /> § 342-22 was repealed in 1989 and replaced by§ 342B-32 which was in effect when the <br /> permit was finally issued. For purposes of this appeal, there are no substantive differences <br /> in the two sections. <br /> APPELLANT EXHIBIT 20, pg. 5 of 6 <br />