72 N.Y.2d 137 (1988)
When a state agency proposes regulations formalizing existing standards, discloses the scientific basis for the standards, and allows for meaningful public comment, it complies with statutory requirements for notice and an opportunity to be heard, even if raw data underlying the regulations is not made publicly available.
Summary
The Industrial Liaison Committee challenged amendments to New York’s water quality standards, arguing that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) violated the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) by failing to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment. The DEC had proposed regulations formalizing specific scientific standards for water quality that were already in use. The Court of Appeals held that the DEC satisfied statutory requirements because it provided sufficient notice, disclosed the scientific basis for the adopted standards, and allowed a meaningful opportunity for public comment. The court emphasized that SAPA requires only “substantial compliance,” which was met in this case.
Facts
The Industrial Liaison Committee, representing industrial dischargers, challenged the DEC’s amendments to water quality standards in 6 NYCRR parts 701 and 702. Before the amendments, the DEC used numerical criteria from a Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) to set effluent discharge limits in permits. The DEC proposed formal regulations reflecting the TOGS methodology and planned to issue the TOGS criteria as an appendix. The DEC held public meetings and provided notice of the proposed rule-making, including information on obtaining copies of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), proposed amendments, Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The DEC also provided “fact sheets” with background data for the numerical water quality standards on 95 substances and withdrew substances without fact sheets or with standards varying significantly from their fact sheets.
Procedural History
The Industrial Liaison Committee filed an Article 78 proceeding to annul the DEC’s amendments. The Supreme Court rejected the Committee’s claims and dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Department of Environmental Conservation violated the State Administrative Procedure Act, State Environmental Quality Review Act, or the Environmental Conservation Law by failing to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard during the promulgation of amendments to water quality standards.
Holding
No, because the Department provided sufficient notice, disclosed the scientific basis for the adopted standards, and allowed a meaningful opportunity for public comment, thus complying with the statutory prerequisites.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated that compliance with SAPA is a matter of statutory interpretation subject to de novo review, not deference to agency expertise. The Court found that the DEC provided adequate notice by publishing the proposed amendments more than five weeks before the first public hearing, alerting the public to the nature of the revisions, and providing synopses of the RIS, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and proposed amendments. The Court highlighted that the last set of fact sheets was made available more than a month before the close of the hearing comment period. This notice complied with the State Administrative Procedure Act requirements and was adequate to provide a timely opportunity for meaningful comment.
The court also addressed the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). It found that the RIS adequately provided a statement indicating the projected costs because it set forth the additional expenditures required by the amendments. The Department explained that the economic impact of the introduction of TOGS arose before economic impact analysis was mandated; therefore, the decision not to discuss the impacts at the time of regulatory enactment was permissible. The court noted that ECL 17-0301(4) requires public hearings upon due notice, which the DEC provided. The court cited Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 422, stating that nothing requires an agency to make the raw data upon which its environmental impact statement is based available to the public. The DEC made the fact sheets available and only promulgated regulations for which it had allowed at least five weeks to comment, which supported broad disclosure.
The court concluded that the Department took a hard look at the need for the numerical standards and their purpose, explained the methodology employed, the benefits the standards would produce, and the alternatives to the methods used. The court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, emphasizing that the Department satisfied the governing statutes based on ordinary rules of judicial review and statutory interpretation.