Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49423 

[FR Doc. 2011–20191 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 680 

[Docket No. 0812081573–1423–02] 

RIN 0648–AX47 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization 

Program 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations 

implementing Amendment 30 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crabs (FMP). This proposed rule would 

amend the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands 

Crab Rationalization Program (CR 

Program) to modify procedures for 

producing and submitting documents 

that are required under the Arbitration 

System to resolve price, delivery, and 

other disputes between harvesters and 

processors. This action is necessary to 

improve the quality and timeliness of 

market information used to conduct 

arbitration proceedings. This action is 

intended to promote the goals and 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, the FMP, and other applicable law. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than September 9, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Assistant 

Regional Administrator, Sustainable 

Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may 

submit comments, identified by ‘‘RIN 

0648–AX47,’’ by any one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Fax: (907) 586–7557. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

portable document file (pdf) formats 

only. 

Copies of Amendment 30, the 

Regulatory Impact Review/Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/ 

IRFA) and the categorical exclusion 

prepared for this action—as well as the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

prepared for the CR Program—may be 

obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region 

at the address above or from the Alaska 

Region Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. NMFS 

determined that this proposed action 

was categorically excluded from the 

need to prepare an environmental 

assessment under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS Alaska 

Region by e-mail to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Forrest R. Bowers, 907–586–7240. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The king 

and Tanner crab fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) are 

managed under the FMP. The FMP was 

prepared by the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP 

implemented the CR Program. 

Regulations implementing the FMP, 

including the CR Program, are located at 

50 CFR part 680. 

Background 

Under the CR Program, NMFS issued 

quota share (QS) to persons based on 

their qualifying harvest histories in the 

BSAI crab fisheries during a specific 

time period. Each year, the QS issued to 

a person yields an amount of individual 

fishing quota (IFQ), which is a permit 

providing an exclusive harvesting 

privilege for a specific amount of raw 

crab pounds, in a specific crab fishery, 

in a given season. The size of each 

annual IFQ allocation is based on the 

amount of QS held by a person in 

relation to the total QS pool in a crab 

fishery. For example, a person holding 

QS equaling 1 percent of the QS pool in 

a crab fishery would receive IFQ to 

harvest 1 percent of the annual total 

allowable catch (TAC) in that crab 

fishery. Catcher processor license 

holders were allocated catcher processor 

vessel owner (CPO) QS for their history 

as catcher processors; and catcher vessel 

license holders were issued catcher 

vessel owner (CVO) QS based on their 

history as a catcher vessel. 

Under the CR Program, 97 percent of 

the initial allocation of QS was issued 

to vessel owners as CPO or CVO QS; the 

remaining 3 percent was issued to 

vessel captains and crew as CPC or CVC 

QS based on their harvest histories as 

crew members onboard crab fishing 

vessels. Ninety percent of the annual 

CVO IFQ is issued as A shares, or Class 

A IFQ, which are subject to landing 

requirements in specific geographic 

regions, and must be delivered to a 

processor holding unused individual 

processor quota (IPQ). The remaining 10 

percent of the annual CVO IFQ is issued 

as B shares, or Class B IFQ, which may 

be delivered to any processor and are 

not subject to regionalization. CPO, 

CPC, and CVC IFQ are not subject to 

regionalization and are not required to 

be matched with a processor holding 

IPQ. 

NMFS also issued processor quota 

shares (PQS) to processors based on 

their qualifying processing histories in 

the BSAI crab fisheries during a specific 

time period. These PQS yield annual 

IPQ, which represent a privilege to 

receive a certain amount of crab 

harvested with Class A IFQ. IPQ are 

issued in an amount equivalent to the 

Class A IFQ, creating a one-to-one 

correspondence between Class A IFQ 

and IPQ. Prior to the start of a crab 

fishing season, Class A IFQ and IPQ 

holders match their shares with one 

another, thereby determining their 

markets for the coming year. These 

matches may be modified during the 

crab season, but both parties must 

consent to any modifications. 

Arbitration System 

The CR Program requires holders of 

Class A IFQ to deliver their catch to 

processors holding IPQ for a specific 

crab fishery within a specific geographic 

region. Potential disputes among 

harvesters and processors during price 

and delivery negotiations can occur, and 

the share matching requirements can 

exacerbate these disputes. To fairly 

address potential price and delivery 

disputes that may arise between Class A 

IFQ holders and IPQ holders, the CR 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49424 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Program includes an arbitration system. 

Disputes are most likely to occur in 

cases where the Class A IFQ holder is 

not affiliated with an IPQ holder 

through common ownership or control 

and the IPQ holder will not consent to 

modification of the preseason share 

matching, thereby allowing the IPQ 

holder to dictate prices or other 

conditions without the ability of the 

Class A IFQ holder to move to an 

alternative market. Class A IFQ holders 

who are unaffiliated, or independent, of 

IPQ holders are commonly known as 

unaffiliated Class A IFQ holders. 

Conversely, Class A IFQ holders who 

are affiliated with IPQ holders through 

common ownership and control are 

known as affiliated Class A IFQ holders. 

Affiliated Class A IFQ holders are not 

eligible to use the arbitration system to 

settle price or other disputes. Affiliated 

Class A IFQ holders do not require an 

arbitration system, because they are 

integrated with IPQ holders and do not 

have distinct and potentially adversarial 

negotiating positions as may be the case 

with unaffiliated Class A IFQ and IPQ 

holders. 

The arbitration system allows 

unaffiliated Class A IFQ holders to 

initiate an arbitration proceeding in the 

event of a dispute to allow an 

independent third party to provide a 

review of harvester and processor 

negotiation positions and provide an 

independent and binding resolution to 

issues under dispute. Regulations 

describing the arbitration system are 

found at 50 CFR 680.20. An extensive 

discussion of the components of the 

arbitration system is found in the 

preambles to the proposed rule 

(September 1, 2004; 69 FR 53397) and 

final rule (March 2, 2005; 70 FR 10174) 

that implemented the CR Program, as 

well as in the final EIS prepared for the 

Program, and is not reiterated here (see 

ADDRESSES). 

To facilitate arbitration proceedings, 

the arbitration system establishes a 

series of contractual requirements that 

CVO QS, PQS, Class A IFQ, and IPQ 

holders must meet that dictate how the 

arbitration system will function. 

Regulations require that all unaffiliated 

CVO QS and Class A IFQ holders join 

an Arbitration Organization (AO). 

Similarly, affiliated CVO QS and Class 

A IFQ holders are required to join a 

separate AO. PQS and IPQ holders are 

required to join a third AO. Regulations 

further require that these three AOs 

enter into a series of contracts that will 

allow the arbitration system to function. 

Although affiliated Class A IFQ and IPQ 

holders must join AOs, the primary role 

of the arbitration system is to facilitate 

negotiations among the unaffiliated 

Class A IFQ and IPQ holders. Therefore, 

this proposed rule would primarily 

affect unaffiliated Class A IFQ and IPQ 

holders. For clarity in this proposed 

rule, the AO representing unaffiliated 

CVO QS and Class A IFQ holders will 

be called the unaffiliated Class A IFQ 

arbitration organization, the AO 

representing affiliated CVO QS and 

Class A IFQ holders will be called the 

affiliated Class A IFQ arbitration 

organization, and the AO representing 

PQS and IPQ holders will be called the 

IPQ arbitration organization. 

Under the arbitration system, all AOs 

must establish contracts to hire an 

independent third-party data provider, 

who will provide up-to-date information 

on matches between Class A IFQ and 

IPQ holders for crab deliveries and 

contracts to hire independent experts to 

facilitate arbitration proceedings. Only 

the unaffiliated Class A IFQ AOs and 

the IPQ AOs can enter into contracts to 

hire: (1) A market analyst, who provides 

a pre-season market report of likely 

market conditions for each crab fishery 

to aid in price negotiations and 

arbitrations; (2) a formula arbitrator, 

who prepares a non-binding price 

formula that describes the historic 

division of first whole-sale values 

among harvesters and processors that 

can be used in price negotiations and 

arbitrations; and (3) a contract arbitrator, 

who reviews the positions of the parties 

during an arbitration proceeding and 

issues a binding decision based on a 

last-best offer form of arbitration. 

Under current regulations, contracts 

with the market analyst, formula 

arbitrator, and contract arbitrator must 

be established by June 1 and can only 

be established by the mutual agreement 

of unaffiliated Class A IFQ AOs and IPQ 

AOs. ‘‘Mutual agreement,’’ as defined in 

50 CFR 680.2, requires the consent and 

agreement of unaffiliated Class A IFQ 

AOs that represent an amount of 

unaffiliated Class A IFQ equal to more 

than 50 percent of all the unaffiliated 

Class A IFQ in a fishery, and IPQ AOs 

that represent an amount of IPQ equal 

to more than 50 percent of all the IPQ 

in a fishery based upon the Annual 

Arbitration Organization Reports. This 

mutual agreement requirement is 

intended to ensure that the majority of 

the unaffiliated Class A IFQ and IPQ 

holders reach agreement on the 

contracts that will provide necessary 

services for the functioning of the 

arbitration system, but avoid the 

potential that the process could be 

compromised by the inability of all 

unaffiliated Class A IFQ or IPQ holders 

to reach unanimity on the contracts. 

During an arbitration proceeding, the 

contract arbitrator is required to 

consider the market report and the nonbinding price formula when considering 

the offers provided by the parties to the 

arbitration proceeding. Because the 

market report and the non-binding price 

formula play a central role in the 

decision-making process of the contract 

arbitrator, the information used in their 

preparation and the timing of their 

production can affect their utility and 

importance. 

Need for Proposed Action 

As the CR Program has progressed, it 

has become clear to the unaffiliated 

Class A IFQ and IPQ holders—as well 

as to the market analyst, the formula 

arbitrator, and the contract arbitrator— 

that certain aspects of the existing 

requirements for the timing and content 

of the market report and non-binding 

price formula limit the effectiveness of 

the arbitration system. This proposed 

rule would modify four aspects of the 

arbitration system to improve its 

effectiveness by: (1) Allowing AOs to 

mutually agree to establish contracts 

that would forgo the preparation of 

market reports and non-binding price 

formulas if a CR Program crab fishery is 

unlikely to (and does not) open; (2) 

modifying the timeline for release of the 

non-binding price formula for the 

western Aleutian Islands golden king 

crab (WAG) and eastern Aleutian 

Islands golden king crab (EAG) fisheries; 

(3) modifying the information used in 

the market report and allowing AOs to 

mutually agree to modify the timing for 

release of the market report in each CR 

Program fishery; and (4) clarifying the 

authority of the AOs, market analyst, 

formula arbitrator, contract arbitrators, 

and third-party data provider to adopt 

additional arbitration system procedures 

that are not in conflict with arbitration 

system regulations. The need for and 

effect of each of these proposed actions 

are described in greater detail below. 

Action 1: Allow AOs To Forgo 

Preparation of Market Reports and NonBinding Price Formulas if a Crab Fishery 

Is Unlikely To and Does Not Open 

This proposed action would allow 

AOs representing unaffiliated Class A 

IFQ holders and IPQ holders to 

mutually agree that when a crab fishery 

is unlikely to open, neither a market 

report nor a non-binding formula would 

be prepared for the fishery. If mutual 

agreement is reached, the proposed 

action would require the AOs 

representing unaffiliated Class A IFQ 

holders and IPQ holders to include 

provisions in the contracts with the 

market analyst and formula arbitrator 

that would reflect the mutual agreement 

of the AOs to forgo preparation of a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49425 

market report and non-binding price 

formula for the fishery; require 

preparation of the market report and 

non-binding price formula in the event 

that an opening is later announced for 

the fishery; and specify a timeline for 

the production of the market report and 

non-binding price formula, which must 

occur before June 30. 

This proposed action would allow the 

AOs, and, by extension, the unaffiliated 

Class A IFQ and IPQ holders who are 

members of the AOs and who pay the 

costs for producing these reports, the 

option to forgo incurring expenses 

associated with the production of those 

reports when it appears unlikely that a 

fishery will open. The potential cost 

savings to the AOs could range from a 

few thousand to several tens of 

thousands of dollars. Additional details 

on the potential cost savings are 

provided in the analysis prepared for 

this proposed action. 

Status of stocks for CR Program crab 

fisheries is assessed annually and it is 

possible that some CR Program crab 

fisheries will not open in a given year. 

For example, during the first five years 

of the CR Program, the western Aleutian 

Islands red king crab and Pribilof 

Islands red and blue king crab fisheries 

have failed to open, and the Saint 

Matthew Island blue king crab fishery 

has only been open during the 2009– 

2010 and 2010–2011 fishing seasons. 

Regardless of whether a fishery is 

scheduled to open, regulations at 50 

CFR 680.20(e)(4)(ii) require that the 

market report and non-binding price 

formula must be prepared for each crab 

fishery no later than 50 days before the 

opening date for the first crab fishing 

season for that crab QS fishery. Because 

most crab fisheries have an October 15 

season opening date, most of the market 

reports and non-binding price formulas 

must be produced by August 26 each 

year. However, in most cases, the State 

of Alaska does not announce whether a 

CR Program crab fishery will be open or 

closed until October 1. 

The proposed action would allow the 

AOs to mutually agree to forgo the 

production of the market report and 

non-binding price formula if a fishery is 

unlikely to and does not open. This 

agreement would be required to be 

included in the contract the AOs 

establish with the market analyst and 

formula arbitrator. If the AOs mutually 

agree to include this provision in their 

contract with the market analyst and the 

formula arbitrator, the contract would 

also have to require the production of 

the market report and non-binding price 

formula in the event that a fishery 

previously not anticipated to open does 

actually open. The proposed regulations 

at §§ 680.20 (f) and (g) would leave the 

details about the timeline for producing 

these reports in the event of a fishery 

opening to the mutual agreement of the 

AOs, only requiring that the market 

report and non-binding price formula be 

produced prior to June 30. The mutual 

agreement to forgo the issuance of a 

market report would need to be 

incorporated into the contract with the 

market analyst. 

Regulations at § 680.20(e)(5) require 

that the AOs provide NMFS with the 

names of the persons serving as the 

market analyst and provide copies of the 

contracts with the market analyst and 

formula arbitrator no later than June 1 

of each year. Therefore, the contract 

with the market analyst and formula 

arbitrator, including any terms that 

would allow forgoing the production of 

a market report and non-binding price 

formula for a fishery, would need to be 

incorporated in the contract between the 

AOs and the market analyst no later 

than June 1. If the AOs could not reach 

mutual agreement on these terms by 

June 1, then the existing regulatory 

requirements to produce a market report 

and non-binding price formula no later 

than 50 days before a fishery opening 

would apply. 

As discussed above, because most 

fisheries have an October 15 opening 

date, this would require most market 

reports to be produced no later than 

August 26. The Council recommended 

this approach so that AOs unable to 

reach mutual agreement on whether to 

forgo production of market reports and 

non-binding price formula would have 

sufficient time to comply with the 50- 

day requirements at § 680.20 for their 

production. 

The Council determined, and NMFS 

agrees, that production of a market 

report for fisheries unlikely to open is 

unnecessary and presents a financial 

burden to fishery participants. 

Elimination of the requirement to 

produce a market report for fisheries 

unlikely to open presents a minor risk 

that participants in a fishery will have 

inadequate information to inform price 

negotiations in the event that a fishery 

unexpectedly opens; however, NMFS 

agrees with the Council that this risk is 

mitigated by the requirement that AOs 

develop a contingency plan for 

describing how a market report will be 

produced when a fishery unexpectedly 

opens or when AOs disagree concerning 

whether a fishery will open. 

Action 2: Modify the Timing for Release 

of the Aleutian Islands Golden King 

Crab Fishery Non-Binding Price 

Formula 

Under current State regulations, the 

EAG and WAG fisheries open on August 

15 of each year. This opening date 

means that the non-binding price 

formula developed for both fisheries 

must be released no later than June 26, 

as current regulations require that the 

formula be released at least 50 days 

prior to the opening date for these 

fisheries. However, the opening date for 

the EAG and WAG fisheries prevents 

the formula arbitrator from using the 

most current information from the 

Commercial Operators Annual Report 

(COAR), which is a key source of 

information on wholesale prices used in 

the non-binding price formula. COAR 

documents are typically not available 

until early July; therefore, data from the 

preceding season is not incorporated in 

the non-binding price formula. 

Testimony to the Council from the 

formula arbitrator, the unaffiliated Class 

A IFQ and IPQ AOs, and participants in 

these fisheries indicate that delaying the 

issuance of the non-binding price 

formula until the most recent COAR is 

available would provide more 

informative and useful reports for price 

negotiations. 

This proposed action would amend 

the existing regulations at § 680.20(g) to 

require the non-binding price formula 

be released at least 30 days prior to the 

start of these fisheries to provide the 

formula arbitrator time to incorporate 

data from the most recent COAR. 

Fishery participants testifying to the 

Council indicated that producing the 

non-binding price formula at least 30 

days prior to the start of the fisheries, 

rather than at least 50 days prior to the 

start of the fisheries, would not be 

expected to adversely affect price 

negotiations. Participants in the 

fisheries noted that a more complete 

and current non-binding price formula 

using COAR data from the most recent 

EAG and WAG fisheries would 

outweigh any potential disadvantage of 

a slightly shorter period of time to 

review the non-binding price formula 

before fishing begins. The Council 

determined and NMFS agrees that this 

proposed action would provide the 

affected fishing industry with the most 

recent data for use in the non-binding 

price formula while providing as much 

lead time as possible before the start of 

the fisheries for consideration of the 

non-binding price formula in any 

potential negotiations. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49426 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Action 3: Modify the Information Used 

and Timing for Release of the Market 

Report 

Existing regulations at § 680.20(f) 

require that the market report be 

released no later than 50 days prior to 

the opening of a fishery and that it 

cannot be supplemented with additional 

information once released. Existing 

regulations permit the inclusion of 

publicly available information, as well 

as data from proprietary sources in the 

market report. The CR Program 

established the 50-day release date and 

prohibition on subsequent supplements 

to the market report to reduce the risk 

that the market report could contain 

proprietary data released during a 

fishing season. Any such data could 

unduly influence the results of the 

market report by creating incentives for 

processors or harvesters to present data 

that cannot be reviewed publicly and 

have that data incorporated in a manner 

that would influence the results of the 

market report for the benefit of one 

party, thereby increasing the risk of 

tainting the market report with 

information that could be used for 

anticompetitive purposes. 

To address these concerns, 

regulations at § 680.20(f)(2)(v) require 

that any price information contained in 

the market report: (1) Include only data 

that is based on information regarding 

activities occurring more than three 

months prior to the generation of the 

market report; (2) include only statistics 

for which there are at least five 

providers reporting data upon which 

each statistic is based and for which no 

single provider’s data represents more 

than 25 percent of a weighted basis of 

that statistic; and (3) be sufficiently 

aggregated such that any information 

disseminated in the market report 

would not identify specific price 

information by an individual provider 

of information. These provisions are 

intended to prevent the use of private 

information in the report that could 

skew the conclusions reached by the 

market analyst in a manner that might 

benefit a specific private interest and 

could therefore be anticompetitive. 

While these requirements limit the 

potential for a harvester or processor to 

submit data for his or her benefit, these 

requirements also limit the usefulness of 

the market report because much of the 

data contained in the report are no 

longer indicative of market conditions 

by the time the market report is 

released. Furthermore, aggregation of 

data across five or more sources may not 

always be possible in the small market 

of crab producers, limiting the 

availability of data from private sources 

for any market report. Because of these 

concerns, representatives of the 

unaffiliated Class A IFQ and IPQ AOs 

recommended several changes to the 

market report. 

The AOs recommended that, by at 

least 50 days prior to a fishery opening, 

the AOs representing the unaffiliated 

Class A IFQ and IPQ holders should be 

permitted to mutually agree to the 

timeline for release of the market report, 

and that these AOs could mutually 

agree to allow supplements to the 

market report at any time prior to June 

30. Additionally, the AOs recommended 

that the market report use only publicly 

available information and that the AOs 

be provided discretion in 

recommending contents of the market 

report. The Council agreed that the 

current requirement for market reports 

to be complete at least 50 days prior to 

the season prevents inclusion of the 

most current and relevant pricing 

information and that the prohibition on 

supplements to the report prevents 

subsequent report modification to 

provide useful market information 

inseason or after completion of the 

initial report. The Council concurred 

with the AOs that market reports would 

be more timely and informative if those 

reports can be produced and 

supplemented at any time and 

recommended that the market report 

contain only publicly available 

information to reduce the risk that any 

information provided by a private 

source could taint the market report for 

anticompetitive purposes. For the 

purposes of this proposed action, 

publicly available information means 

data and information published in a 

manner that makes them available, 

either for a fee or at no cost, to the 

public at large. The Council also 

recommended allowing the AOs to 

negotiate the timing of release of the 

market report and the inclusion of any 

supplements to enhance the timeliness, 

accuracy, and usefulness of the market 

report. 

NMFS agrees with the Council that 

the flexibility afforded by this proposed 

action should allow AOs to provide the 

most useful, timely information to 

participants in need of market 

information for price negotiations. This 

proposed action presents some risk that 

majority QS and PQS holders could 

assert their position in the AOs to 

provide a market report that is not 

particularly beneficial to holders of 

relatively small amounts of QS or PQS, 

and who may be likely to derive the 

greatest benefit from the market reports. 

The Council and NMFS find the risk to 

be minor and that the benefits of the 

proposed action outweigh this slight 

and unlikely risk. 

To be consistent with the Council’s 

recommendations, this proposed action 

would amend regulations at § 680.20(f) 

to remove the ability for IFQ and IPQ 

holders to submit proprietary data for 

inclusion in the market report, require 

that the information that the market 

analyst considers be publicly available, 

and allow AOs to mutually agree to 

negotiate the content and the timing for 

release of the market report. As with 

Action 1, while the proposed 

regulations would allow the AOs to 

mutually agree to a date for release of 

the market report, regulations would 

require release of the market report prior 

to June 30. NMFS also proposes to 

amend regulations at § 680.20(f) to 

clarify that if the AOs cannot mutually 

agree to the contents, timing for release, 

or a provision addressing whether any 

supplements for the market report will 

be permitted, the market report would 

have to be released 50 days prior to the 

start of a crab fishery, and supplements 

to the market report would not be 

permitted. This would ensure that a 

market report will be prepared for each 

fishery if the AOs cannot reach mutual 

agreement. The Council recommended 

that existing requirements should apply 

if mutual agreement is not possible to 

ensure that all parties have some market 

report available for consideration during 

price negotiations even if the data in 

that report may not be as current as that 

available later in the year. 

Action 4: Clarify the Authority of the 

AOs, Market Analyst, Formula 

Arbitrator, Contract Arbitrators, and 

Third-Party Data Provider 

The arbitration program established 

by the CR Program requires AOs to enter 

into a series of contracts with 

harvesters, processors, market analysts, 

arbitrators, and, if desirable, a thirdparty data provider. Regulations require 

each of these contracts to contain 

several specific provisions. However, 

the regulations do not specify all aspects 

of the arbitration system. For example, 

regulations at §§ 680.20(f) and (g) do not 

provide specific details about how the 

market reports and non-binding price 

formula documents should be released, 

how specific data-quality issues within 

these documents should be considered 

and addressed, or how new information 

should be incorporated. Because the 

regulations are specific on certain 

requirements and silent as to other 

aspects, arbitration administrators (i.e., 

the AO representatives, contract 

arbitrators, formula arbitrators, market 

analysts, and third party data providers) 

have questioned their authority to agree 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49427 

to provisions or develop procedures that 

could improve the arbitration program 

but that are not explicitly contained in 

regulation. Absent a regulation that 

clearly specifies this authority, it could 

be argued that these actions are beyond 

the scope of an arbitration 

administrator’s powers. 

As a result, arbitration administrators 

have expressed some concern that 

potential liability could influence 

decisionmaking. For example, if an 

arbitrator is concerned that a participant 

may litigate if the arbitrator makes a 

certain finding, the arbitrator’s 

independence could be compromised. 

Likewise, arbitration organizations 

might choose not to make changes in the 

arbitration structure that are agreed to 

by participants in both harvesting and 

processing sectors, but are not 

addressed by the regulations, if they fear 

potential lawsuits related to those 

changes. At the extreme, the threat of 

liability could make it difficult to find 

persons willing to perform arbitration 

services. 

Although not specifically stated in the 

regulations originally developed to 

implement the CR Program, a review of 

the EIS prepared for the CR Program 

supports the conclusion that the 

Council intended for arbitration 

administrators to have the discretion to 

adapt the arbitration system to address 

perceived problems in program 

administration. Specifically, the EIS 

notes that administration of the 

arbitration system ‘‘would be 

undertaken primarily by industry, 

avoiding government involvement in 

the price setting process and providing 

greater flexibility to adopt agreed to 

modifications without government 

action.’’ 

This flexibility was viewed by the 

Council and NMFS as necessary to 

avoid time consuming and costly 

processes of the Council and NMFS to 

amend the program through the 

standard regulatory process. The 

Council believed that broader 

administrative authority by the 

arbitration administrators would 

improve the efficiency of administration 

of the arbitration system. Although 

many industry participants have argued 

that the arbitration administrators have 

broad authority to adopt provisions to 

improve the operations of the arbitration 

system, absent a regulation clearly 

specifying this authority, it could be 

argued that these actions are beyond the 

scope of their powers. 

For these reasons, the Council 

recommended that the regulations be 

modified to specifically state that 

arbitration administrators have the 

authority to establish procedures and 

make administrative decisions 

concerning the arbitration program that 

are in addition to those requirements 

specified in regulation, provided those 

actions are not in conflict with any of 

the regulatory requirements. NMFS 

agrees with the Council’s 

recommendations and proposes this 

additional clarification in a new 

paragraph at § 680.20(i). This proposed 

clarification of authority is intended to 

remove any inhibitions of arbitration 

administrators to adopt procedures and 

make decisions that would improve the 

operation of the arbitration system. 

Expected Effects of the Proposed Action 

The RIR describes the predicted 

effects of the proposed action on 

harvesters, processors, arbitration 

administrators, communities, 

management and enforcement, 

consumers, and the nation. Only the 

effects of the proposed action on 

harvesters, processors, and arbitration 

administrators are described here. 

Overall, this action would be expected 

to slightly reduce the costs for 

harvesters and processors to comply 

with the arbitration system 

requirements by eliminating the 

requirements that market reports and 

non-binding price formulas be prepared 

for fisheries that are not open for 

fishing, provide a more timely and 

useful non-binding price formula for the 

eastern and western Aleutian Islands 

golden king crab fisheries, provide more 

timely and useful market reports that 

may be used during price negotiations 

between harvesters and processors, and 

provide additional flexibility and clarity 

for the arbitration administrators when 

establishing policies and procedures not 

detailed in the regulations. 

A minor overall net benefit to the 

Nation is likely to arise from this 

proposed action. Action 1 is likely to 

decrease costs, Actions 2 and 3 are 

likely to improve the quality and timing 

of information provided to participants 

in the arbitration system, and Action 4 

is likely to provide additional clarity for 

arbitration administrators. Overall, this 

proposed action would most benefit 

unaffiliated Class A IFQ and IPQ 

holders participating in the arbitration 

system. 

Summary of Regulatory Changes 

This action proposes the following 

changes to the existing regulatory text at 

50 CFR part 680: 

• Modify § 680.20(f)(1) to permit AOs 

by mutual agreement to include a 

provision in the contract with the 

market analyst to forgo the production 

of a market report if a crab fishery is not 

anticipated to open for fishing. If such 

a provision is included in the contract 

with the market analyst, the contract 

must also contain provisions to require 

the market analyst to produce a market 

report before June 30 in the event that 

the fishery that was not anticipated to 

open does subsequently open for 

fishing. In the absence of such an 

agreement and contract provisions, a 

market report would be required to be 

produced for that crab fishery no later 

than 50 days before the start of a crab 

fishery; 

• Modify § 680.20(f)(2) to require that 

a market report contain only publicly 

available data, and that the AOs could, 

by mutual agreement, include a 

provision in their contract with the 

market analyst that would permit the 

production of supplemental reports for 

a fishery. The contract with the market 

analyst would have to specify the terms 

under which supplements to the market 

report would be produced if such a 

provision is included in the contract; 

• Modify § 680.20(f)(4) to permit AOs, 

by mutual agreement, to include a 

provision in the contract with the 

market analyst that would allow the 

production of the market report for a 

crab fishery on a schedule that differs 

from the regulatory requirement to 

produce a market report not later than 

50 days before the start of a crab fishery. 

If such a provision is included, the 

contract with the market analyst would 

have to specify the terms under which 

a market report would be produced and 

would have to require the release of the 

market report prior to the close of the 

fishery. In the absence of such an 

agreement by the AOs, the contract with 

the market analyst would require the 

production of a market report no later 

than 50 days before the start of a crab 

fishery; 

• Modify § 680.20(f)(4)(ii) to specify 

that the Market Analyst is providing the 

Market Report. This modification was 

not a part of the Council’s action on 

Amendment 30, but this proposed 

regulatory amendment is an appropriate 

opportunity to correct the lack of 

specificity in this paragraph; 

• Modify § 680.20(g)(1) to permit 

AOs, by mutual agreement, to include a 

provision in the contract with the 

formula arbitrator to forgo the 

production of a non-binding price 

formula if a crab fishery is not 

anticipated to open for fishing. If such 

a provision is included, the contract 

must also contain provisions that would 

require the formula arbitrator to produce 

a non-binding price formula before June 

30 in the event that a fishery that was 

not anticipated to open does 

subsequently open for fishing. In the 

absence of such an agreement and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49428 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

contract provisions, a non-binding price 

formula would be required to be 

produced for that crab fishery no later 

than 50 days before the start of a crab 

fishery; 

• Modify § 680.20(g)(2) to require that 

the non-binding price formula produced 

for the western Aleutian Islands golden 

king crab fishery and the eastern 

Aleutian Islands golden king crab 

fishery be produced no later than 30 

days prior to the start of those crab 

fisheries; and 

• Add paragraph (i) to § 680.20 to 

clarify that arbitration administrators 

may establish procedures, policies, and 

make administrative decisions 

concerning the administration of the 

arbitration system that are in addition to 

regulatory requirements, provided those 

procedures, policies, or administrative 

decisions are not otherwise in conflict 

with any requirement contained in the 

arbitration system regulations. 

Classification 

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that 

this proposed rule is consistent with 

Amendment 30, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, and other applicable laws, subject 

to further consideration after public 

comment. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An IRFA was prepared that describes 

the economic impact this proposed rule, 

if adopted, would have on small 

entities. Copies of the RIR/IRFA 

prepared for this proposed rule are 

available from NMFS. The RIR/IRFA 

prepared for this proposed rule 

incorporates by reference an extensive 

RIR/FRFA prepared for Amendments 18 

and 19 to the FMP that detailed the 

impacts of the CR Program on small 

entities. 

The IRFA for this proposed action 

describes the action, why this action is 

being proposed, the objectives and legal 

basis for the proposed rule, the type and 

number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule would apply, and the 

projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule. It also identifies any 

overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting 

Federal rules and describes any 

significant alternatives to the proposed 

rule that accomplish the stated 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and other applicable statutes, and that 

would minimize any significant adverse 

economic impact of the proposed rule 

on small entities. The description of the 

proposed action, its purpose, and its 

legal basis are described in the preamble 

and are not repeated here. 

Under each of these actions, holders 

of CVO QS and holders of PQS would 

be regulated in the contracts that they 

must establish as a condition of 

receiving Class A IFQ and IPQ, 

respectively. The holders of these shares 

are the entities that are directly 

regulated by this action. Of the 

estimated 221 QS holders in the 

fisheries, 210 are estimated to be small 

entities. Of the estimated 25 PQS 

holders, 17 are estimated to be small 

entities. 

All of the directly regulated persons 

would be expected to benefit from this 

action relative to the status quo 

alternative because the proposed action 

is expected to reduce the costs of 

compliance with the arbitration system, 

provide more timely and useful market 

reports and non-binding price formulas 

for use in negotiations, and provide 

clarity concerning the administration of 

the arbitration system. 

Among the two alternatives 

considered for each of the four proposed 

actions, the Council and NMFS 

determined that the proposed actions 

would best minimize potential adverse 

economic impacts on the directly 

regulated entities. Action 1 Alternative 

1, the status quo alternative, would 

continue to require that a market report 

and non-binding price formula be 

prepared for a crab fishery that is closed 

to fishing. Alternative 2, the proposed 

action, would provide the AOs with the 

discretion not to produce a market 

report and non-binding price formula if 

a fishery does not open, thereby 

reducing costs to the quota holders 

directly regulated. 

No additional alternatives were 

analyzed because both a market report 

and non-binding price formula are 

prepared or they are not, and an 

additional alternative would not be 

necessary or appropriate to address the 

proposed action. Alternatives that 

would rely on preliminary notice from 

State of Alaska fishery managers of 

intent to close a fishery, after which 

arbitration organizations would not be 

required to contract for a market report 

or non-binding formula for that fishery 

were considered and not analyzed. The 

need for formal notice from fishery 

managers could be misinterpreted and 

disruptive to planning for fishing in the 

upcoming fishing season. Additionally, 

alternatives that would create a strict 

timeframe for applying the exemption, 

as well as for producing the market 

report and non-binding formula were 

considered and not analyzed. These 

alternatives are believed to be overly 

restrictive and administratively 

burdensome, limiting the ability of 

arbitration organizations to 

appropriately respond to changes in 

circumstances in providing the reports 

and formulas. 

Action 2 Alternative 1, the status quo 

alternative, would continue to require 

that a non-binding price formula for the 

eastern and western Aleutian Islands 

golden king crab fisheries be prepared at 

least 50 days prior to the fishery 

openings. Alternative 2, the proposed 

action, would require that a non-binding 

price formula be prepared at least 30 

days prior to the fishery opening, 

thereby ensuring that relevant price 

information can be incorporated in the 

non-binding price formula. 

No additional alternatives were 

considered because the AOs and 

formula arbitrator stated that a 

minimum of 30 days between the 

release of the non-binding price formula 

and the start of the season is required to 

provide harvesters and processors with 

the time necessary to review the nonbinding price formula, and an 

additional alternative would not be 

necessary or appropriate to address the 

proposed action. 

Action 3 Alternative 1, the status quo 

alternative, would continue to require 

that market reports be released at least 

50 days prior to the opening of a fishery, 

that they not be supplemented with 

additional information once released, 

and that they be based on publicly 

available information, as well as data 

from proprietary sources within certain 

parameters described in the preamble. 

Alternative 2, the proposed action, 

would provide the AOs with the 

discretion to mutually agree to negotiate 

the timing for release of a market report 

and to include any supplements to help 

provide a timely, accurate, and more 

useful product. Alternative 2 also would 

require that the information that the 

market analyst considers be publicly 

available. 

No additional alternatives were 

analyzed because Alternative 2 provides 

the AOs with the discretion to 

determine the timing of the report and 

the need to produce supplements if 

required. An alternative that would fix 

a specific date for the production of a 

market report and any supplements, or 

that required the use of proprietary data, 

would fail to address the purpose of this 

proposed action, which is to provide a 

timely and complete report as needed 

by the participants in the arbitration 

system. These alternatives were 

believed to be overly prescriptive, 

limiting the ability of arbitration 

organizations to agree to terms for the 

production of market reports that would 

be most useful and informative to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49429 

fishery participants. In addition, an 

alternative to remove the requirement 

for any market report was also 

considered, but not analyzed. The 

market report is thought to provide 

beneficial baseline market information 

for negotiations. In addition, small, 

independent participants in the program 

are thought to derive benefit from 

information in the market report which 

might otherwise be costly for them to 

gather. As a consequence, the 

alternative to remove the market report 

requirement was determined to be 

inconsistent with the basic program 

objectives for price arbitration in the CR 

Program fisheries. 

Action 4 Alternative 1, the status quo 

alternative, would not provide any 

additional clarity to arbitration 

administrators on their ability to 

establish policies and procedures not 

specifically described in existing 

regulations at § 680.20. Alternative 2, 

the proposed action, would clarify that 

AOs can establish procedures and make 

administrative decisions concerning the 

arbitration program that are not 

explicitly specified in the regulations 

provided those actions are not in 

conflict with any requirement contained 

in the arbitration system regulations. 

An alternative that would grant 

immunity to arbitration administrators 

for their actions taken in the 

administration of the arbitration system 

was considered, but not analyzed. 

Regulations that grant arbitral immunity 

would effectively restrict the ability of 

courts to adjudicate certain actions 

against specific persons. While there are 

clear benefits to arbitration systems 

from arbitral immunity, and courts have 

applied arbitral immunity for arbitrators 

and arbitration organizations, it is 

uncertain whether the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act authorizes NMFS to 

promulgate regulations that grant such 

immunity. The Council stated its belief 

that the preferred alternative (by 

clarifying the scope of authority of 

arbitration administrators) would 

strengthen any argument that common 

law or other immunity should be 

extended to any acts taken to administer 

the arbitration program (including the 

development of arbitration procedures). 

The proposed actions in this rule 

would modify existing recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements, but do not 

propose any additional recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements. 

Specifically, the proposed actions 

would modify the timing, preparation, 

and release of information used in the 

market reports and non-binding price 

formulas. The analysis revealed no 

Federal rules that would conflict with, 

overlap, or be duplicated by the 

alternatives under consideration. 

This proposed rule contains a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

submitted to OMB for approval under 

OMB Control No. 0648–0516. Public 

reporting burden for the market report is 

estimated to average four hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Public comment is sought regarding: 

Whether this proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the burden estimate; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Send comments 

on these or any other aspects of the 

collection of information to NMFS 

Alaska Region (the address is available 

in the ADDRESSES section), and e-mail to 

OIRA Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680 

Alaska, Fisheries. 

Dated: August 3, 2011. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF 

THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 

OFF ALASKA 

1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 680 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109– 

241; Pub. L. 109–479. 

2. In § 680.20, 

a. Revise paragraphs (e)(4)(i), (e)(4)(ii), 

and (f)(1); 

b. Revise paragraphs (f)(2) 

introductory text, and paragraphs 

(f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii), and remove 

paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) through (v); 

c. Redesignate paragraphs (f)(2)(vi) 

through (f)(2)(viii) as paragraphs 

(f)(2)(iii) through (f)(2)(v) respectively, 

and revise newly redesignated 

paragraph (f)(2)(v); 

d. Revise paragraphs (f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), 

and (g)(1); 

e. Revise paragraph (g)(2)(viii)(B); and 

f. Add new paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 680.20 Arbitration system. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) For each crab fishing year, QS 

holders who are members of Arbitration 

QS/IFQ Arbitration Organization(s) and 

PQS holders who are members of PQS/ 

IPQ Arbitration Organization(s), by 

mutual agreement, will select one 

Market Analyst, one Formula Arbitrator, 

and Contract Arbitrator(s) for each crab 

QS fishery. The number of Contract 

Arbitrators selected for each fishery will 

be subject to the mutual agreement of 

those Arbitration Organizations. The 

selection of the Market Analyst and the 

Formula Arbitrator must occur in time 

to ensure the Market Report and nonbinding price formula are produced 

within the time line established in 

paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (g)(2)(viii)(B) of 

this section. 

(ii) The Arbitration Organizations 

representing Arbitration QS holders and 

PQS holders in a crab fishery shall 

establish by mutual agreement the 

contractual obligations of the Market 

Analyst, Formula Arbitrator, and 

Contract Arbitrator(s) for each fishery. 

The contractual obligations of the 

Market Analyst, the formula Arbitrator 

and Contract Arbitrators will be 

enforced by the parties to the contract. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(f)(1)(ii) of this section: 

(i) The Arbitration QS/IFQ Arbitration 

Organizations and the PQS/IPQ 

Arbitration Organizations shall establish 

a contract with the Market Analyst to 

produce a Market Report for each crab 

QS fishery. The terms of this contract 

must specify that the Market Analyst 

must produce a Market Report that shall 

provide an analysis of the market for 

products of that fishery. 

(ii) The Arbitration QS/IFQ 

Arbitration Organizations and the PQS/ 

IPQ Arbitration Organizations may, by 

mutual agreement, include a provision 

in the contract with the Market Analyst 

to forgo production of a Market Report 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49430 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

for a crab QS fishery if the Arbitration 

QS/IFQ Arbitration Organizations and 

the PQS/IPQ Arbitration Organizations 

anticipate that the crab QS fishery will 

not open for fishing during a crab 

fishing year. If such a provision is 

included in the contract with the Market 

Analyst, the Arbitration QS/IFQ 

Arbitration Organizations and the PQS/ 

IPQ Arbitration Organizations must 

include a provision in the contract with 

the Market Analyst to produce a Market 

Report not later than June 30 for the 

crab QS fishery that was expected to 

remain closed but subsequently opens 

for fishing during the crab fishing year. 

(2) The contract with the Market 

Analyst must specify that: 

(i) The Market Analyst will base the 

Market Report on a survey of the market 

for crab products produced by the 

fishery. 

(ii) The Market Analyst will note 

generally the sources from which he or 

she gathered information. The Market 

Report must include only publicly 

available data and information. Data and 

information will be considered publicly 

available if they are published in a 

manner that makes them available, 

either for a fee or at no cost, to the 

public at large. 

* * * * * 

(v) The Market Analyst must not issue 

interim or supplemental reports for any 

crab QS fishery unless the Arbitration 

QS/IFQ Arbitration Organizations and 

the PQS/IPQ Arbitration Organizations, 

by mutual agreement, include a 

provision in the contract with the 

Market Analyst for the production of 

interim or supplemental reports for a 

crab QS fishery. If the Arbitration QS/ 

IFQ Arbitration Organizations and the 

PQS/IPQ Arbitration Organizations have 

a mutual agreement to produce interim 

or supplemental reports, the contract 

with the Market Analyst must specify 

the terms and conditions under which 

those interim or supplemental reports 

will be produced. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) In all subsequent years and except 

as provided in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this 

section, the Market Report for each crab 

QS fishery must be produced not later 

than 50 days prior to the first crab 

fishing season for that crab QS fishery, 

unless the Arbitration QS/IFQ 

Arbitration Organizations and the PQS/ 

IPQ Arbitration Organizations, by 

mutual agreement, include a provision 

in the contract with the Market Analyst 

to establish a different date for 

production of the Market Report for that 

crab QS fishery. 

(ii) The contract with the Market 

Analyst must specify that the Market 

Analyst will provide the Market Report 

in that crab fishing year to: 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(g)(1)(ii) of this section: 

(i) The Arbitration QS/IFQ Arbitration 

Organizations and the PQS/IPQ 

Arbitration Organizations shall establish 

a contract with the Formula Arbitrator 

to produce a Non-Binding Price 

Formula for each crab QS fishery. 

(ii) The Arbitration QS/IFQ 

Arbitration Organizations and the PQS/ 

IPQ Arbitration Organizations may, by 

mutual agreement, include a provision 

in the contract with the Formula 

Arbitrator to forgo production of a NonBinding Price Formula for a crab QS 

fishery if the Arbitration QS/IFQ 

Arbitration Organizations and the PQS/ 

IPQ Arbitration Organizations anticipate 

that the crab QS fishery will not open 

for fishing during a crab fishing year. If 

such a provision is included in the 

contract with the Formula Arbitrator, 

the Arbitration QS/IFQ Arbitration 

Organizations and the PQS/IPQ 

Arbitration Organizations must include 

a provision in the contract with the 

Formula Arbitrator to produce a NonBinding Price Formula not later than 

June 30 for the crab QS fishery that was 

expected to remain closed but 

subsequently opens for fishing during 

the crab fishing year. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(B) In all subsequent years and except 

as provided in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this 

section, the Non-Binding Price Formula 

must be produced not later than 50 days 

prior to the first crab fishing season for 

that crab QS fishery, except that the 

Non-Binding Price Formulas for the 

western Aleutian Islands golden king 

crab fishery and the eastern Aleutian 

Islands golden king crab fishery must be 

produced not later than 30 days prior to 

the first crab fishing season for those 

crab QS fisheries. 

* * * * * 

(i) Other Procedures, Policies, and 

Decisions. 

The arbitration organizations, market 

analysts, arbitrators, or third party data 

providers are authorized to adopt 

arbitration system procedures, including 

additional provisions in the various 

contracts, provided those procedures are 

not inconsistent with any other 

provision in the regulations. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–20187 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS