Opinion ID: 1405962
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is a decisional document required when the CFEC adopts regulations?

Text: To determine if a particular procedure is required when an agency promulgates a regulation, we consult the Administrative Procedure Act. Chevron U.S.A., 663 P.2d at 927; AS 44.62.010 et seq. Johns admits that the APA does not specifically require a decisional statement when an agency promulgates a regulation, but nonetheless argues that we should impose such a rule. We have adopted a rule that agency decisions, in exercise of their adjudicative powers, must be accompanied by written findings and a decisional document. Phillips v. Houston Contracting, Inc., 732 P.2d 544, 547 (Alaska 1987); City of Nome v. Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska, 707 P.2d 870, 875 (Alaska 1985); Ship Creek Hyd. Syn. v. State Dep't of Transp. and Pub. Facilities, 685 P.2d 715, 718 (Alaska 1984); Kenai Peninsula Borough v. Ryherd, 628 P.2d 557 (Alaska 1981). We have suggested but not imposed this requirement in a non-adjudicative context. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. State, 665 P.2d 544 (Alaska 1983) (timber sale). Although a good case can be made for a decisional document requirement when a regulation is passed or amended, [2] the comprehensiveness and detail of the Administrative Procedure Act on this subject tends to indicate that judicial imposition of such a requirement would be counterindicated. [3] However, when an agency promulgates a regulation, the record should at least explain the reasons for the agency's action. [4] This is necessary so that we can meaningfully fulfill our statutory and constitutional review functions. Where the Administrative Procedure Act is followed, such a record is likely to exist  especially if the agency position is expressed at the hearing required under AS 44.62.210(a). In this case, we find that the extensive agency record is sufficient for us to determine the basis for the CFEC's action. Because a decisional statement is not required when an agency issues a regulation, and because the record in this case adequately explains the reasons for the CFEC's actions, the trial court did not err in concluding that the CFEC had acted properly. [5]