Opinion ID: 1119416
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was DNR's decision a regulation?

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]