Opinion ID: 2454108
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: We defer to DNR's longstanding interpretation.

Text: The key to our decision is the standard of review. We conclude that the statute is ambiguous and provides no direct answer whether retroactive contract pricing is permitted. We have recognized that an agency's interpretation of a law within its area of jurisdiction can help resolve lingering ambiguity. [28] We therefore defer to DNR's interpretation that both the 1986 amendments' use of the word prospective and the Alaska Land Act's purpose of maximizing revenue prohibit it from approving retroactive contract pricing and we therefore conclude that it has a reasonable basis in the statute. We are especially inclined to defer when an agency's statutory interpretation is longstanding. DNR has been applying its interpretation for at least a decade. In multiple cases, we have recognized the special deference that is due to longstanding agency statutory interpretations. In Bullock v. State, we afforded a Department of Revenue interpretation great weight because it was long-standing and continuous. [29] In Bartley v. State, we also emphasized how deference was due when the agency's interpretation is longstanding. [30] In Premera v. State, we explained that we apply a more deferential standard of review where an agency action is longstanding and continuous. [31] Since DNR's interpretation has been longstanding and continuous, we apply this deferential standard of review and conclude that DNR's interpretation is reasonable.