We see no reason to exalt form over substance and require the Department to reiterate the public's comments when it has provided JCAR with copies of the original comments. It is undisputed that JCAR received plaintiffs' comments. Thus, JCAR was advised of plaintiffs' opposition to the proposed rule and the alternatives plaintiffs suggested. Consequently, we agree with the trial court that the Department did not violate section 220.600 in this respect. The Department contends that its analysis was sufficient, given the uncomplicated nature of this rule.
Courts apply the same rules in interpreting administrative regulations as in construing statutes.
265 Ill. App. Thus, we first consider the language of the regulation. If it is clear, we need not look to other aids for construction. Generally, a reviewing court affords substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations. Here, we are called upon to interpret not one of the Department's own rules but instead a rule that outlines the procedures the Department had to follow to promulgate one of its rules.