Opinion ID: 2514086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Income dependence

Text: Basargin was awarded 6 points for income dependence in 1972. He argues that his partnership with a gear license holder constitutes special circumstances under 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2), and that he should be allowed to present evidence that, he argues, would entitle him to up to an additional 4 points. The CFEC responds that this partnership status was already taken into account in awarding Basargin the maximum of 6 points for income dependence in the 1972 fishery. The court agrees with the CFEC that neither additional points nor a remand for additional hearing is necessary in this matter. As Basargin points out, the supreme court has interpreted special circumstances under 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2) to be broader than the unavoidable circumstances under 20 AAC 05.630(a)(5). See Russo, 833 P.2d at 9-10. However, the CFEC already took Basargin's circumstances into account in awarding him 6 points for economic dependence. As with evidence of the circumstances of Basargin's participation in the fishery, Basargin was on notice of the existence and relevance of any special circumstances that might have existed regarding his income dependence. Despite this notice, the evidence presented to the CFEC by Basargin indicated that he had not fished Prince William Sound at all prior to 1972, and had fished in 1972 as a partner with a gear license holder. Assuming for purposes of this discussion that Basargin is correct in interpreting 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2) as requiring consideration of an applicant's overall circumstances without regards to the stated maximum points for 1971 and 1972, Basargin has not presented such evidence of overall circumstances. Instead, he has presented evidence, presumably accurate, that provides substantial evidence for the CFEC's award of 6 points for dependence on the Prince William Sound fishery. Accordingly, his argument regarding economic dependence is without merit.