In R.L. Polk & Co. v. Ryan, 296 Ill. App. 3d 132, 230 Ill. Dec. 749, 694 N.E.2d 1027 (1998), the plaintiff challenged the Secretary of State's compliance with sections 5--30(b) and 5--40(c) of the Act (5 ILCS 100/5--30(b), 5-40(c) (West 1996)), which require an agency to: (1) give small businesses a chance to participate in the rulemaking process; (2) file a final regulatory flexibility analysis with its second notice. Polk, 296 Ill. App. 3d at 145. Under the Act, the analysis must summarize issues raised by small businesses during the first notice period, describe action taken on any alternatives to the proposed rule suggested by small businesses, and give reasons for rejecting any suggested alternatives. 5 ILCS 100/5--40(c) (West 1996). In holding that the Secretary did comply with the applicable portions of the Act, the court noted that the plaintiff "had ample opportunity to and did participate in the rulemaking process. Although the Secretary might have done more, he did what was necessary under the rulemaking statutes to promulgate this rule." Polk, 296 Ill. App. 3d at 145-46.