Laserfiche WebLink
II. Argument <br />.. . <br />A. The MLRB's interpretation of the Rules related to local <br />permitting is unsupported by the plain language of the Rules and need not be <br />given deference by this Court. <br />Questions of statutory construction are reviewed de novo, as they are <br />questions of law "even with deference to the agency's interpretation." Envirotest <br />Systems, Corp. v. Colo. Dept. of Revenue, 109 P.3d 142, 145 (Colo. 2005); Wash. <br />County Bd. of Equalization v. Petrov Dev. Co., 109 P.3d 146, 150 (Colo. 2005). <br />This Court "may consider and defer to an agency's interpretation of its own <br />enabling statute and regulations the agency has promulgated," but is "not bound by <br />the agency's interpretation." Bd. of County Commis of County of San Miguel v. <br />Colo. Public Utilities Comm'n, 157 P.3d 1083, 1088 (Colo. 2007)(emphasis <br />added); see also Colo. Dept of Revenue v. Garner, 66 P.3d 106, 109 (Colo. <br />2003)("We are not required to accept the enforcement agency's interpretation of a <br />statute, but we give it careful consideration.") <br />If the statutory and regulatory language "unambiguously sets forth the <br />legislative purpose," this Court need not apply additional rules of statutory <br />construction, such as resorting to legislative history or employing tools of statutory <br />construction, to determine the meaning. Mishkin v. Young, 107 P.3d 393, 396-97 <br />(Colo. 2005). <br />2 <br />