Opinion ID: 1119218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: validity of the injunction

Text: As part of its final judgment, the lower court permanently enjoined Brown from engaging in certain practices prohibited by the administrative regulations promulgated under ULSPA, 3 AAC 20.010-20.390. [29] Brown claims that this part of the injunction is invalid because the regulations were not adopted in accord with statutory notice requirements. [30] We disagree. AS 34.55.020(a) [31] authorizes the Department of Commerce to prescribe regulations as are necessary to accomplish ULSPA's purpose, and states that such regulations shall be adopted in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, AS 44.62.010-44.62.650. AS 44.62.190 requires that notice of proposed agency action be given at least thirty days before regulations are adopted. The content of such notice is governed by AS 44.62.200, which, among other things, requires that the notice contain an informative summary of the proposed subject of agency action. AS 44.62.200(a)(3). It is this requirement that Brown claims was not complied with here. The challenged regulations were adopted after publication of the following notice: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Department of Commerce ... proposes to adopt regulations in Title 3 of the Administrative Code to implement AS 34.55 Uniform Land Sales Practices Act as follows: Article 1. General Provisions Article 2. Filing Procedures Article 3. Unfair Acts and Practices Article 4. Advertising and Promotion Plans Article 5. Protection of Purchasers Article 6. Severability Brown contends that this notice was insufficient to convey any meaningful description of the proposed agency action. AS 44.62.100(a) establishes a rebuttable presumption that the procedural requirements for the promulgation of administrative regulations have been satisfied. When a regulation is challenged for failure to comply with these requirements, the violation must be substantial before the regulation will be declared invalid. AS 44.62.300; Kingery v. Chapple, 504 P.2d 831, 834 (Alaska 1972). We think that Brown has failed to show a violation of the informative summary requirement substantial enough to overcome the statutory presumption of validity. The contents of the above summary gave members of the public sufficient information to decide whether their interests could be affected by the agency action and thus whether to make their views known to the agency. [32] Accordingly, that portion of the trial court's judgment permanently enjoining Brown from violating the administrative regulations implementing ULSPA is affirmed.