Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): dyed or otherwise marked as a control on numbers permitted on a lease in accordance with the annual operating plan. 9 . Op. at 143. 10 . See, e.g., Kachemak Bay Watch, 935 P.2d 816; Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, 921 P.2d 1134 (Alaska 1996); Gilbert v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 803 P.2d 391 (Alaska 1990); State v. Northern Bus Co., 693 P.2d 319 (Alaska 1984); Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Coop. Ass’n v. State, 628 P.2d 897 (Alaska 1981); State v. Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Ass’n, 583 P.2d 854 (Alaska 1978). 11 . See Gilbert, 803 P.2d at 396-97 (concluding that agency policy limiting fishery before escapement goals were met was regulation because it modified commercial fishery limits); Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Coop., 628 P.2d at 905-06, 905 n. 20 (<HOLDING>); Tanana Valley Sportsmen’s Ass’n, 583 P.2d at 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that when an agency promulgates a regulation that is intended to preempt state law the regulation should not be disturbed unless there is evidence that it is contrary to congressional intent (B) holding that agency classification was regulation subject to apa because it intended to regulate future conduct affecting fishery rights by establishing salmon use priority (C) holding that ojrdinarily when a regulation is not promulgated in compliance with the apa the regulation is invalid however when equity demands the regulation can be left in place while the agency follows the necessary procedures citation omitted (D) holding that a judgment establishing a partys exclusive light to use a trade name was not subject to collateral attack (E) holding that verbal requirement of need not contained in hunting regulation was addition of substance and thus regulation under apa
Output (English): holding that a judgment establishing a partys exclusive light to use a trade name was not subject to collateral attack