Opinion ID: 1119416
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Decisional Document

Text: UCM asserts that DNR's decision was a regulation, as defined by AS 44.62.640(a)(3), [23] and consequently had to be issued in compliance with the rulemaking provisions of the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to be valid. AS 38.05.020(b)(1). Because it was not issued in compliance with the APA, UCM argues that DNR's decision is invalid. The State counters that DNR's decision was not a regulation, but was a decision involving the implementation of its own regulations. In State v. Northern Bus Co., 693 P.2d 319, 320 (Alaska 1984), the Department of Education issued a directive that a school bus contract be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder. We held that this directive reflected the agency's interpretation of its applicable regulation. Id. at 323. We concluded that DOE's interpretation of its own regulation does not fall within the APA's definition of `regulation,' and therefore DOE was not required to follow APA-mandated procedures in issuing its directive to the Board. Id. In this case, DNR issued a decision that UCM had erroneously calculated its adjusted gross value, based on the definition of that term contained in 11 AAC 85.225 (1996). This decision reflects the agency's interpretation of its own validly promulgated regulation. Based on our holding in Northern Bus, we find that DNR's decision regarding UCM's calculation of adjusted gross value was not a regulation within the meaning of the APA, and that DNR was not required to follow the procedures of the APA in issuing its decision. [24]
UCM asserts that DNR's decision was invalid because it was not supported by a decisional document. The State counters that a formal decisional document is not required as DNR's decision is adequately documented in the record. We have long held that `agency decisions, in exercise of their adjudicative powers, must be accompanied by written findings and a decisional document.' Messerli, 768 P.2d at 1118 (quoting Johns v. Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 758 P.2d 1256, 1260 (Alaska 1988)). We have also strongly suggested that non-adjudicative decisions of an agency must also be supported by an adequate decisional document. Id. (citing Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. State, 665 P.2d 544, 549 (Alaska 1983)). However, this documentation need not occur in a formal, unified decisional document, as long as the record clearly reflects the reasoning underlying the agency's decisions. Id. In this case, DNR did not issue a formal decisional document in determining that UCM had miscalculated its adjusted gross value. However, the communications between DNR and UCM clearly reflect the reasoning underlying DNR's decision. UCM was repeatedly informed that its calculations of adjusted gross value were erroneous, as they contained deductions not authorized under 11 AAC 85.225 (1996). We also find that the record reveals a careful and reasoned administrative deliberation by DNR in determining the meaning of gross value as provided in 11 AAC 82.225. [25] Messerli, 768 P.2d at 1118. Consequently, we hold that DNR's decision was adequately documented, and that UCM's argument regarding the lack of a decisional document is meritless.