Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 44.62.030 (2026)
Consistency between regulation and statute
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 44.62.030. Consistency between regulation and statute.
Article 2. Submission, Filing, and Publication of Regulations.
If, by express or implied terms of a statute, a state agency has authority to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, a regulation adopted is not valid or effective unless consistent with the statute and reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of the statute.
If, by express or implied terms of a statute, a state agency has authority to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, a regulation adopted is not valid or effective unless consistent with the statute and reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of the statute.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1993).
State, Dep't of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Div. v. Cosio, 858 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1993). “AS 44.62.030 states: If, by express or implied terms of a statute, a state agency has authority to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, a regulation adopted is not valid or effective unless consistent with…”
Bartley v. State, Dep't of Admin., Teachers' Ret. Bd., 110 P.3d 1254 (Alaska 2005). “022 and AS 44.62.030. The Administrative Procedure Act provision that the Bartleys claim has been violated, AS 44.”
State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647 (Alaska 2014). “96 Other passages in the 95 When interpreting an ambiguous regulation, we give it an interpretation that avoids putting the regulation into conflict with its enabling statute.”
Richard Roberge v. ASRC Constr. Holding Co. & Arctic Slope Reg'l Corp., 503 P.3d 102 (Alaska 2022). “” (quoting former AS 44.62.030 (1967))); AS 44.62.030 (“[A] regulation is not valid or effective unless consistent with the statute .”
State v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 723 P.2d 76 (Alaska 1986). “Regulations promulgated by an executive department must be authorized by statute.”
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. LeResche, 663 P.2d 923 (Alaska 1983). “180, one of the statutes that authorized their adoption, and thus must be declared invalid pursuant to AS 44.62.030. See note 6 supra. However, we find no such inconsistency.”
Beran v. State, 705 P.2d 1280 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “020 and AS 44.62.030. [7] Alaska Statute 11.81.220 provides: *1287 No conduct constitutes an offense unless it is made an offense (1) by this title; (2) by a statute outside this title; or (3) by a regulation authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute.”
O'callaghan v. Rue, 996 P.2d 88 (Alaska 2000). “2d 923, 927 (Alaska 1983); see also AS 44.62.030 (providing that "a regulation adopted is not valid or effective unless consistent with the statute and reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of the statute”).”
Vail v. Coffman Engineers, Inc., 778 P.2d 211 (Alaska 1989). “2d 76, 78 (Alaska 1986); AS 44.62.030. A regulation is consistent with a statute if it bears a reasonable relationship to the statutory objective.”
Horowitz v. Alaska Bar Ass'n, 609 P.2d 39 (Alaska 1980). “AS 44.62.030 provides: Consistency between regulation and statute.”
Trs. for Alaska, Alaska Ctr. for the Env't v. Gorsuch, 835 P.2d 1239 (Alaska 1992). “AS 44.62.030. The portions of ASCMCRA cited by Trustees do not on their face require that a single permit cover the entire mine operation and related facilities.”
Union Oil Co. of California v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 574 P.2d 1266 (Alaska 1978). “Union argues that the 90-day period for submission of data is unreasonable, and that it is not necessary to the effectuation of the discovery royalty statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.