Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18457 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(i) If only light corrosion is found, remove 

the corrosion and treat the main spar 

cap angles with corrosion inhibitor;.

Before further flight after each inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD. Continue with the repetitive inspections required 

in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD.

Follow Burl’s Aircraft, LLC Mandatory Service 

Bulletin No. 15AC06–08–10, dated June 8, 

2010; and FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 

43.13–1B, Change 1, Chapter 6. AC 43.13– 

1B can be found at http://rgl.faa.gov/. Contact Burl’s Aircraft, LLC in paragraph (i) of 

this AD for a replacement scheme and incorporate the replacement scheme. 

(ii) If cracks, intergranular exfoliation, or 

moderate or severe corrosion is found, 

replace the affected main spar cap angles in their entirety as a single piece. 

Splicing of the main spar cap angles is 

not permitted.

(6) Only install main spar cap angles that have 

been inspected and are free of cracks, intergranular exfoliation, or moderate or severe 

corrosion.

As of the effective date of this AD ................... Not applicable. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g)(1) The Manager, Anchorage Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

Related Information 

(h) For more information about this AD, 

contact Eric Wright, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Anchorage ACO, 222 W. 7th Ave., #14, 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513; telephone: (907) 

271–2648; fax: (907) 271–6365; e-mail: 

eric.wright@faa.gov. 

(i) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Burl’s Aircraft, LLC, P.O. 

Box 671487, Chugiak, Alaska 99567–1487; 

telephone: (907) 688–3715; fax (907) 688– 

5031; e-mail burl@biginalaska.com; Internet: 

http://www.burlac.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. 

For information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 

28, 2011. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7878 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

25 CFR Chapter III 

Regulatory Review Schedule; Tribal 

Consultation 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Regulatory Review 

Schedule. 

SUMMARY: On November 18, 2010, the 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

(NIGC) issued a Notice of Inquiry and 

Notice of Consultation advising the 

public that the NIGC was conducting a 

comprehensive review of all regulations 

promulgated to implement the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The 

review identified in the Notice of 

Inquiry and Notice of Consultation was 

also prepared in order to submit the 

NIGC’s Semi-Annual Regulatory Review 

to the Federal Register in April 2011 as 

set forth in Executive Order 12866 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. The NIGC held 

eight consultations during January and 

February 2011 and invited written 

comments to be submitted by February 

12, 2011. Comments received and 

transcripts of the consultations are 

available on the NIGC Web site. The 

NIGC reviewed all comments received 

and created this comprehensive 

regulatory review agenda schedule 

based on the input received. 

DATES: See Consultation Schedule for 

Review, Section III under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below, for 

a master schedule of dates, locations, 

and subjects of consultation meetings. 

See sections IV–VIII under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for 

dates and locations of consultations on 

particular subjects. 

ADDRESSES: Testimony and comments 

sent by electronic mail or delivered by 

hand are strongly encouraged. 

Electronic submissions should be 

directed to reg.review@nigc.gov. See File 

Formats and Required Information for 

Submitting Comments under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, section 

IIC, below, for instructions. Submissions 

delivered by hand should be brought to 

the consultations. See Consultation 

Schedule for Review, section III under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below, for 

a master schedule of dates, locations, 

and subjects of consultation meetings. 

See sections IV–VIII under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for 

dates and locations of consultations on 

particular subjects. Submissions sent by 

regular mail should be addressed to Lael 

Echo-Hawk, Counselor to the Chair, 

National Indian Gaming Commission, 

1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, 

Washington, DC 20005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lael 

Echo-Hawk, National Indian Gaming 

Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 

9100, Washington, DC 20005. 

Telephone: 202/632–7009; e-mail: 

reg.review@nigc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(IGRA or Act), Public Law 100–497, 25 

U.S.C. 2701 et seq., was signed into law 

on October 17, 1988. The purposes of 

IGRA include providing a statutory 

basis for the operation of gaming by 

Indian Tribes as a means of promoting 

tribal economic development, selfsufficiency, and strong tribal 

governments; ensuring that the Indian 

tribe is the primary beneficiary of the 

gaming operation; and declaring that the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18458 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

establishment of independent federal 

regulatory authority for gaming on 

Indian lands, the establishment of 

federal standards for gaming on Indian 

lands, and the establishment of a 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

are necessary to meet congressional 

concerns regarding gaming and to 

protect such gaming as a means of 

generating tribal revenue. 25 U.S.C. 

2702. 

The IGRA authorizes the NIGC to 

promulgate such regulations and 

guidelines as it deems appropriate to 

implement the provisions of the Act. 25 

U.S.C. 2706(b)(10). On November 12, 

2010, the Commission issued a Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI) requesting comment on 

which of its regulations were most in 

need of revision, in what order the 

Commission should review its 

regulations, and the process NIGC 

should utilize to make revisions. The 

Notice of Inquiry was published in the 

Federal Register on November 18, 2010. 

75 FR 70680. 

As the Commission previously 

explained, the regulatory review 

facilitates effective implementation of 

IGRA and coincides with Executive 

Order 12866 entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ providing for 

Federal entities to identify agency 

statements of regulatory priorities and 

additional information about the most 

significant regulatory activities planned 

for the coming year. 

On January 18, 2011, President 

Obama issued Executive Order 13563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review. Executive Order 13563 sets 

forth the general principle that 

regulatory systems ‘‘must identify and 

use the best, most innovative, and least 

burdensome tools for achieving 

regulatory ends.’’ This Executive Order 

further provides that agencies tailor 

‘‘regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations[.]’’ Further, 

agencies must ‘‘to the extent feasible, 

specify performance objectives, rather 

than specifying the behavior or manner 

of compliance that regulated entities 

must adopt[.]’’ In the spirit of this 

Executive Order and Executive Order 

13175 regarding consultation with 

Indian Tribal Governments, the NIGC 

provides this comprehensive regulatory 

review agenda. The agenda is a product 

of extensive tribal consultation and 

extensive public comment. 

II. Process for Review 

A. Groups 

Based on both public comments and 

tribal consultations, the Commission 

has decided to organize its regulatory 

review into five separate groupings. The 

Commission will organize its 

consultations with Tribes according to 

these groupings. The regulations in each 

group will be reviewed separately from 

the regulations in the other groups, and 

specific regulations in each group may 

proceed through the regulatory review 

process independently from the other 

regulations in a particular group. 

1. Group 1 will include a review of: 

(a) A Buy Indian Act regulation; 

(b) 25 CFR part 523—Review and 

Approval of Existing Ordinances or 

Resolutions; 

(c) 25 CFR part 514—Fees; 

(d) 25 CFR part 559—Facility License 

Notifications, Renewals, and 

Submissions; and 

(e) 25 CFR part 542—Minimum 

Internal Control Standards for Class III 

Gaming. 

2. Group 2 will include a review of: 

(a) 25 CFR part 573—Enforcement; 

and 

(b) Regulations concerning 

proceedings before the Commission, 

including 25 CFR part 519—Service, 25 

CFR part 524—Appeals, 25 CFR part 

539—Appeals, and 25 CFR part 577— 

Appeals Before the Commission. 

3. Group 3 will include a review of: 

(a) 25 CFR part 543—Minimum 

Internal Control Standards for Class II 

Gaming; and 

(b) 25 CFR part 547—Minimum 

Technical Standards for Gaming 

Equipment Used with the Play of Class 

II Games. 

4. Group 4 will include a review of: 

(a) 25 CFR part 556—Background 

Investigations for Primary Management 

Officials and Key Employees; 

(b) 25 CFR part 558—Gaming Licenses 

for Key Employees and Primary 

Management Officials; 

(c) 25 CFR part 556—Background 

Investigations for Primary Management 

Officials and Key Employees, ‘‘Pilot 

Program.’’; 

(d) 25 CFR part 571—Monitoring and 

Investigations; 

(e) 25 CFR part 531—Collateral 

Agreements; 

(f) 25 CFR part 537—Background 

Investigations for Persons or Entities 

With a Financial Interest in, or Having 

Management Responsibility for, a 

Management Contract; and 

(g) 25 CFR part 502—Definitions. 

5. Group 5 will include a review of: 

(a) 25 CFR part 518—Self Regulation 

of Class II Gaming; 

(b) A Sole Proprietary Interest 

regulation; and 

(c) 25 CFR part 542, Minimum 

Internal Control Standards for Class III 

Gaming. 

B. Review Phases 

Each group of regulations will be 

addressed in the three phases listed 

below. The purpose of the three phases 

is to facilitate meaningful consultation 

with Tribes, consistent with Executive 

Order 13175, prior to promulgating any 

revisions, amendments, or new rules. 

While Tribal Advisory Committees 

(TAC) have been utilized by the NIGC 

in the past, NIGC received comments 

from Tribes expressing their view that 

the TAC process was not a substitute for 

tribal consultation. 

In response to comments received on 

the NOI, the Commission has 

established the tribal consultation 

schedule below. The NIGC will attempt 

to provide significant means for tribal 

input through tribal consultation 

meetings and broad, transparent 

opportunities to submit written 

comments at every phase before the 

Notice of Final Rule is published. 

1. Drafting Phase. Consistent with 

Executive Order 13175, the Commission 

will endeavor to include Tribes in the 

drafting phase of any new or amended 

rule. The purpose of the drafting phase 

is to ensure tribal participation early in 

the drafting of any rule with tribal 

implications. The drafting phase will 

begin with either a preliminary draft 

based on previous comments received 

by NIGC, preliminary proposed 

amendments to a current regulation, or 

preliminary proposals provided by 

Tribes or tribal organizations. The 

drafting phase will include tribal 

consultation meetings and an 

opportunity for the public to submit 

written comments. Following 

completion of the drafting phase, the 

Commission anticipates that generally it 

will proceed to issuing a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will 

be published in the Federal Register. 

2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Phase. The NIGC will draft a NPRM. 

The Commission anticipates that a 

preamble to a NPRM will summarize 

comments received during the drafting 

phase and include a discussion of the 

substantive provisions of the proposed 

rule. The Commission anticipates that 

for any NPRM it will endeavor to 

provide a public comment period of 

approximately 60 days and will consult 

with Tribes during that period on the 

proposed rule. After the close of the 

comment period, a Notice of Final Rule 

will be prepared and published in the 

Federal Register. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18459 

3. Notice of Final Rule Phase. The 

Commission will draft a Final Rule 

based on all comments received during 

the NPRM phase. The preamble to the 

final rule will summarize comments 

received and include a discussion of the 

substantive provisions of the final rule. 

Generally, the Commission anticipates 

that final rules will become effective 45 

days after publication. 

C. File Formats and Required 

Information for Submitting Comments 

If submitting by electronic mail: send 

to reg.review@nigc.gov a message 

containing the name of the person 

making the submission, his or her title 

and organization (if the submission of 

an organization), mailing address, 

telephone number, fax number (if any), 

and e-mail address. The document itself 

must be sent as an attachment and must 

be in a single file and in recent, if not 

current, versions of: (1) Adobe Portable 

Document File (PDF) format (preferred); 

or (2) Microsoft Word file formats. 

If submitting by print only: anyone 

who is unable to submit a comment in 

electronic form should submit an 

original and two paper copies by hand 

or by mail to the appropriate address 

listed above. Use of surface mail is 

strongly discouraged owing to the 

uncertainty of timely delivery. 

III. Consultation Schedule for Review 

Subject to future changes, NIGC will 

hold tribal consultations on the 

following dates as set forth in more 

detail below. The Commission has 

attempted to schedule consultations in 

every region and to hold those 

consultations either before or after other 

events widely attended by tribal 

officials. The purpose of scheduling 

consultations in this manner is both to 

encourage participation of tribal 

officials and to conserve tribal resources 

by reducing the amount of travel of 

participants. 

For additional information on 

consultation locations and times, please 

refer to the Web site of the National 

Indian Gaming Commission, http:// 

www.nigc.gov. Please RSVP at 

consultation.rsvp@nigc.gov. 

Please note that the Commission 

intends to post all written comments 

received during the regulatory review 

process on the Tribal Consultation Web 

page of the NIGC Web site located at 

http://www.nigc.gov. 

Consultation date Event Location Regulation 

group(s) 

Apr. 28, 2011 ......... Oklahoma Tribal Gaming Regulators Association 

Spring Conference.

Choctaw Casino Resort, Durant, OK ......................... 1 

May 2, 2011 ........... Tribal Self-Governance Conference ........................... Spa Resort Casino, Palm Springs, CA ...................... 1 

May 5, 2011 ........... Southern Gaming Summit & Bingo World Conference.Mississippi Coast Coliseum & Convention Ctr., Biloxi, MS.1 

May 16, 2011 ......... Great Plains/Rocky Mountains/Midwest Tradeshow 

& Conference.

Mystic Lake Casino and Resort, Prior Lake, MN ...... 1, 2 

May 20, 2011 ......... ATNI Mid Year Conference ........................................ Coeur d’Alene Resort & Casino, Plummer, ID .......... 1, 2 

June 8, 2011 .......... Indian Bingo and Class II Summit ............................. Mystic Lake Casino and Resort, Prior Lake, MN ...... 2, 3, 4 

June 13, 2011 ........ NCAI Mid Year Conference ....................................... Hyatt Regency, Milwaukee, WI .................................. 3, 4 

June 21–22, 2011 .. CNIGA Membership Meeting ..................................... Harrah’s Rincon Hotel & Casino, Valley Center, CA 1, 2, 3, 4 

July 14–15, 2011 ... Northwest Indian Gaming Expo ................................. Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip, WA ............................ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

July 20–21, 2011 ... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ................................. Hyatt Regency Tamaya Resort, Santa Ana Pueblo, 

NM.

3, 4, 5 

July 28–29, 2011 ... NIGC Consultation—Northeast .................................. DOI South Auditorium, Washington, DC .................... 3, 4, 5 

Aug. 18–19, 2011 .. Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association Conference ... Tulsa, OK ................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 5 

Aug. 25–26, 2011 .. NIGC Consultation—Southwest ................................. Wild Horse Resort Casino, Scottsdale, AZ ................ 2, 3, 5 

Sept. 7–8, 2011 ..... NIGC Consultation—United Tribes International 

Powwow.

Radisson Hotel, Bismarck, ND ................................... 2, 3, 4, 5 

Sept. 15–16, 2011 National Tribal Gaming Commissioner/Regulator Association Fall Meeting.Chuckchansi Gold Resort & Casino, Coarsegold, CA 2, 3, 4, 5 

Sept. 19–20, 2011 NIGC Regional Training ............................................. Sky Ute Casino Resort, Ignacio, CO ......................... 3, 4, 5 

Sept. 29–30, 2011 NIGC Consultation—Northeast .................................. Turning Stone Resort & Casino, Verona, NY ............ 3, 5 

Oct. 6–7, 2011 ....... G2E—National ............................................................ Sands Expo and Convention Ctr., Las Vegas, NV .... 3, 4, 5 

Oct./Nov. 2011 ....... USET Annual Meeting ................................................ Mississippi Choctaw, MS ........................................... 3, 4, 5 

Nov. 3–4, 2011 ...... NCAI Annual Conference ........................................... Portland, OR ............................................................... 3, 5 

Nov. 14–15, 2011 .. NIGC Consultation—California ................................... Spa Resort Casino, Palm Springs, CA ...................... 5 

Nov. 17–18, 2011 .. NIGC Consultation—Southwest ................................. Fort McDowell Casino, Scottsdale, AZ ...................... 5 

Nov. 30–Dec. 1, 

2011.

NIGC Consultation—Oklahoma ................................. Downstream Casino Resort, Miami, OK .................... 5 

Dec. 5–6, 2011 ...... NIGC Consultation—Northwest .................................. Clearwater Casino Resort, Suquamish, WA .............. 5 

Dec. 8–9, 2011 ...... NIGC Consultation—Great Plains .............................. Turtle Creek Casino & Hotel, Williamsburg, MI ......... 5 

Dec. 12–13, 2011 .. NIGC Consultation—Northeast .................................. DOI South Auditorium, Washington, DC .................... 5 

Jan. 11–12, 2012 ... NIGC Consultation—Eastern ..................................... Wind Creek Casino, Atmore, AL ................................ 3 

Jan. 18–19, 2012 ... NIGC Consultation—Great Plains .............................. Crowne Plaza, Billings, MT ........................................ 3 

Jan. 23–24, 2012 ... NIGC Consultation—California ................................... Win-River Casino, Redding, CA ................................. 3 

Jan. 26–27, 2012 ... NIGC Consultation—Northwest .................................. 7 Feathers Casino, Canyonville, OR ......................... 3 

Jan. 30–31, 2012 ... NIGC Consultation—Oklahoma ................................. Cherokee Hard Rock, Tulsa, OK ............................... 3 

Feb. 2–3, 2012 ...... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ................................. Isleta Hard Rock Casino Resort, Albuquerque, NM .. 3 

Feb. 7–8, 2012 ...... NIGC Consultation—Great Plains .............................. Radisson Hotel, Rapid City, SD ................................. 3 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18460 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

IV. Group One: Part 514—Fees; Part 

523—Review and Approval of Existing 

Ordinances or Resolutions; Part 559— 

Facility License Notifications, 

Renewals, and Submissions; Part 542— 

Class III Minimum Internal Controls; 

Buy Indian Act 

A. Part 514—Fees 

1. Should the Commission consider 

revising Part 514 to base fees on the 

Tribe’s gaming operation’s fiscal year? 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider revising this Part to base fees 

on the Tribe’s gaming operation’s fiscal 

year. Some comments indicated that 

this was a low priority. Other comments 

were generally supportive of the 

Commission considering this change, 

noting that a calculation based on 

audited financial statements for the 

fiscal year would be more convenient. 

Commentators did note that if the 

Commission reviewed Part 514, any 

amendments should provide for an 

adequate transition period. Other 

comments suggested that the 

Commission consider a flexible 

approach by which each tribe could 

determine whether to calculate fees on 

a fiscal or calendar year. 

The Commission understands that it 

may be difficult to calculate fees based 

on the calendar year, which may lead to 

frequent audit adjustments. The 

Commission strives to be cognizant of 

and sensitive to the practical issues 

raised by any potential amendments to 

this Part, including additional costs and 

the need to provide for an adequate 

transition period. However, the 

Commission believes that review of the 

Part is appropriate and has the potential 

to reduce the number of audit 

adjustments. The Commission will 

review this Part during the Group One 

period. 

2. Should this Part define Gross Gaming 

Revenue consistent with Generally 

Accepted Accounting Principles for the 

purposes of calculating the fees? 

Additionally, the NOI asked whether 

the Commission should consider adding 

to Part 514 a definition of gross gaming 

revenue consistent with the GAAP 

definition of this term. Some public 

comments suggested that a revision 

would promote consistency and 

uniformity. Other comments questioned 

whether the NIGC could define gross 

gaming revenue given that IGRA defines 

the term. 

The Commission believes that further 

review of this regulation is appropriate. 

An amendment consistent with IGRA 

could promote consistency and 

uniformity, which may result in greater 

efficiency. The Commission will review 

this Part during the Group One period. 

3. Should this Part include a section on 

the fingerprinting processing fees? 

The NOI asked whether the 

Commission should consider amending 

this Part to include fingerprint 

processing fees and whether to provide 

for a review of the costs on an annual 

basis and adjust the fingerprint 

processing fee accordingly. 

Additionally, the NOI asked whether 

the Commission should consider 

providing that fees collected for 

processing fingerprints should be 

included in the total revenue collected 

by the Commission that is subject to 

statutory limitation. Comments 

supported the inclusion of the 

fingerprinting fees in the calculation of 

gross revenues. Other comments 

suggested that fingerprinting costs be 

paid by those Tribes that use the service 

rather than by the general fees paid by 

Tribes. Other comments suggested that 

the Commission provide a public 

accounting of how the fees are 

expended by the Commission. Some 

comments suggested including the 

fingerprinting fees as part of the annual 

fees while other comments suggested 

that the fees be separate from the annual 

fees collected from Tribes. Those 

commentators who recommended 

keeping the fees separate explained that 

the fingerprinting fees were generally an 

expense paid by gaming commissions 

rather than gaming operations. Other 

Tribes suggested that the Commission 

consider the revision if including 

fingerprinting fees resulted in a lower 

annual fee. Finally, several comments 

suggested the issuance of a bulletin 

instead of a regulation to address this 

issue. 

The Commission believes that further 

review of this proposed regulation is 

appropriate. Amendments to this Part 

could provide greater clarity to the 

process and potentially could result 

greater efficiency and in cost savings. 

This issue will be reviewed during the 

Group One period. 

4. Should the Commission consider a 

late payment system in lieu of a Notice 

of Violation for Tribes submitting their 

fees to the NIGC late? 

Finally, the NOI requested comment 

on whether the Commission should 

consider a late payment system in lieu 

of a Notice of Violation (NOV) for 

addressing fees submitted late to the 

NIGC. Public comments uniformly 

supported the Commission reviewing 

this approach. Many commentators 

observed that issuing a NOV is a serious 

measure that may overly penalize Tribes 

for late submission of their fees. 

Commentators noted that a NOV can 

cause a financial hardship to Tribes by 

lowering a Tribe’s bond rating and 

damage its business reputation. Some 

comments recommended an automatic 

additional percentage as a late payment 

penalty or a development of a schedule 

of fines or penalties based on passage of 

time or the number late payments. 

Tribes commented that NOVs should 

continue to be utilized for frequent or 

repeat violators in order to prevent 

abuse of the system. Another 

commentator suggested that an NOV 

only be issued after a specified number 

of missed payments or dollar amount, if 

there is gross negligence, or the Tribe 

has publicly stated its intention not to 

pay the NIGC. This commentator 

suggested that an NOV should be 

considered only after negotiations with 

the Tribes have failed. Many 

commentators noted that any approach 

should be flexible and include due 

process so that a Tribe can cure any 

purported late payment before the NIGC 

issues either a ticket or NOV. 

The Commission believes that further 

review of the potential regulatory 

amendment is appropriate. A NOV is a 

serious action issued to address 

significant violations of IGRA. A late 

payment system may be appropriate to 

address infrequent situations wherein a 

tribe submits fees late to the NIGC. This 

issue will be considered by the 

Commission during the Group One 

period. 

B. Part 523—Review and Approval of 

Existing Ordinances or Resolutions 

Comments received in response to the 

NOI suggest repealing this regulation as 

obsolete. The regulation applies only to 

gaming ordinances enacted by Tribes 

prior to January 22, 1993, and not 

submitted to the Chairwoman. During 

the Group One period, the Commission 

will consider repealing this Part. 

C. Part 542—Class III Minimum Internal 

Control Standards 

The NOI requested comment 

regarding Class III Minimum Internal 

Control Standards (MICS). The public 

was asked to comment on how this 

issue should be addressed, particularly 

in light of the decision in the Colorado 

River Indian Tribes v. National Indian 

Gaming Commission. Some comments 

suggested that Part 542 should be 

replaced by a set of recommended 

guidelines. Comments explained that 

many tribal gaming regulatory 

authorities rely on Part 542 to set the 

base of their minimum internal control 

standards. Other comments explained 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18461 

that some Tribes have adopted the 

Federal rule verbatim. Some comments 

stated that some Tribes have drafted 

their own internal control standards. 

Additionally, commentators noted that 

some state compacts incorporate part 

542 by reference. Some comments 

explained that some Tribes amended 

their gaming ordinance authorizing the 

NIGC to regulate and enforce part 542 in 

their gaming operations. Other 

commentators explained that in 

California, their state compacts have 

been effectively revised to provide for 

Federal oversight to the extent specified 

in the agreements. 

A number of Tribes commented that 

the NIGC does not have the authority to 

enforce Class III MICS. A majority of 

Tribes that submitted comments 

suggested that the NIGC issue MICS as 

guidance. Some Tribes suggested 

addressing the enforcement of Class III 

MICS through the self-regulation 

process. Other comments suggested 

applying a different fee rate for those 

Tribes that have amended their tribal 

gaming ordinance such that the NIGC 

can regulate and enforce Part 542. Some 

Tribes recommended keeping the Class 

III MICS in regulation form and 

convening a new Tribal Advisory 

Committee to update the current 

regulation. Other Tribes recommended 

repeal of Part 542. Many of the 

comments received by NIGC stated that 

this was a high priority. 

Review of this Part is a high priority 

of the Commission. NIGC recognizes 

that this is a complex and important 

issue that impacts Tribes differently 

across the country. During the Group 

One period, NIGC will continue to 

evaluate and develop solutions for 

addressing Class III MICS in a manner 

consistent with IGRA that does not 

create a regulatory void. 

D. Part 559—Facility License 

Notifications, Renewals, and 

Submissions 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider revising this Part. Many Tribes 

commented that the process by which 

the regulation was adopted did not 

allow sufficient time for meaningful 

tribal consultation. Some commentators 

stated that Environmental Public Health 

and Safety (EPHS) matters and facility 

licenses should be left to the authority 

and jurisdiction of the Tribes. Some 

Tribes stated that in addition to tribal 

regulations and compact provisions, 

other federal and tribal agencies already 

regulate EPHS issues. Some comments 

also recommended reviewing § 502.22— 

‘‘Construction and maintenance of the 

gaming facility, and the operation of 

that gaming is conducted in a manner 

which adequately protects the 

environment and the public health and 

safety’’ as part of this review. 

Some comments questioned the 

necessity of providing Indian lands 

information considering that other 

Federal agencies already have this 

information and that requiring Tribes to 

re-submit documentation was 

duplicative and unnecessary. Some 

comments stated that the 120-day notice 

period was arbitrary and that NIGC 

should have consulted on the time 

frame before implementing the 

regulation. Some commentators stated 

that the regulation should provide some 

flexibility regarding the 120-day notice 

period. Some comments expressed 

concern that the regulation could 

potentially limit the authority of tribal 

gaming commissions. Other comments 

noted that the regulation helped raise 

the importance of those issues at the 

tribal level and benefited the Tribe. 

Based on the many comments 

requesting that this regulation be 

reviewed, the NIGC will use the Group 

One period to review this Part and 

§ 502.22 ‘‘Construction and maintenance 

of the gaming facility, and the operation 

of that gaming is conducted in a manner 

which adequately protects the 

environment and the public health and 

safety.’’ 

E. Buy Indian Act Regulation 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider adopting a regulation which 

would require the NIGC to give 

preference to qualified Indian-owned 

businesses when purchasing goods or 

services as defined by the ‘‘Buy Indian 

Act,’’ 25 U.S.C. 47. The Buy Indian Act 

provides authority to set aside 

procurement contracts for qualified 

Indian-owned businesses. While many 

comments support consideration of this 

change, a number of comments 

suggested that utilizing an internal 

policy or process would be equally 

effective. 

The Commission believes that a 

regulation on this issue may promote 

long term and consistent application by 

the agency. During the Group One 

period, the Commission will review a 

potential regulation. 

Subject to future changes, NIGC will 

hold tribal consultations on Group One 

regulations on the following dates as set 

forth in more detail below. The 

Commission has attempted to schedule 

consultations in every region and to 

hold those consultations either before or 

after other events widely attended by 

tribal officials. The purpose of 

scheduling consultations in this manner 

is both to encourage participation of 

tribal officials and to conserve tribal 

resources by reducing the amount of 

travel of participants. 

GROUP 1 

Date Event Location 

Apr. 28, 2011 ................. Oklahoma Tribal Gaming Regulators Association Spring 

Conference.

Choctaw Casino Resort, Durant, OK. 

May 2, 2011 ................... Tribal Self-Governance Conference ................................... Spa Resort Casino, Palm Springs, CA. 

May 5, 2011 ................... Southern Gaming Summit & Bingo World Conference ..... Mississippi Coast Coliseum & Convention Ctr., Biloxi, 

MS. 

May 16, 2011 ................. Great Plains/Rocky Mountains/Midwest Tradeshow & 

Conference.

Mystic Lake Casino and Resort, Prior Lake, MN. 

May 20, 2011 ................. ATNI Mid Year Conference ................................................ Coeur d’Alene Resort & Casino, Plummer, ID. 

June 21–22, 2011 .......... CNIGA Membership Meeting ............................................. Harrah’s Rincon Hotel & Casino, Valley Center, CA. 

July 14–15, 2011 ........... Northwest Indian Gaming Expo ......................................... Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip, WA. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18462 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

V. Group Two: Part 573—Enforcement; 

Proceedings Before the Commission, 

Including Part 519—Service, Part 524— 

Appeals [of disapproval of a gaming 

ordinance, resolution or amendment], 

Part 539—Appeals [of approval or 

disapproval of a management contract 

or amendment], and Part 577—Appeals 

Before the Commission 

A. Enforcement 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider promulgating a regulation 

authorizing the withdrawal of an NOV 

after it has been issued. Some Tribes 

stated that because there was no 

prohibition against withdrawing an 

NOV, the regulation was unnecessary. 

Other comments stated that while the 

Chairwoman retains authority to 

withdraw an NOV, a specific regulation 

outlining the process and circumstances 

for the withdrawal was appropriate. 

Some comments stated that only the 

entire Commission should withdraw an 

NOV. 

Many comments stated that the 

issuance of an NOV can potentially have 

serious negative economic impact on 

the Tribe. These comments 

recommended the NIGC institute a 

compliance model before utilizing a 

punitive approach. Such an approach 

would provide for tribal regulatory 

agencies to take enforcement action in 

the first instance and provide a notice 

and opportunity to cure before NIGC 

action is taken. Tribes also 

recommended that NOVs be 

automatically expunged after a specified 

number of years and removed from the 

Web site or, in the alternative, 

identifying information should be 

removed from NOVs on the Web site. 

The Commission agrees that under no 

circumstance should an NOV be a 

surprise to Tribes. This Commission 

established Assistance, Compliance, and 

Enforcement as its policy for regulating 

Tribes and agrees that a regulation 

identifying the process for ensuring 

compliance would benefit the industry. 

The Commission will be reviewing this 

potential regulation during the Group 2 

period. 

B. Proceedings Before the Commission 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider more comprehensive and 

detailed procedural rules for 

proceedings before the Commission. 

Some Tribes expressed a concern that a 

more formal process may be more 

burdensome, costly, and delay the 

process for review. Other comments 

recommended that more detail would 

provide greater certainty for Tribes. 

Some comments recommended that the 

Chairwoman should be prohibited from 

participating in appeals of agency 

actions issued by the Chairwoman. 

Those comments noted that the 

underlying principle of these procedural 

rules should be the guarantee of due 

process. Many comments requested 

concise, streamlined rules in order to 

protect all parties and recommended 

reviewing the appeals process utilized 

by other federal agencies for guidance. 

Included in the comments received by 

Tribes regarding proceedings before the 

Commission were a number of 

comments requesting clarification on 

submission and approval of gaming 

ordinances and amendments. Some 

Tribes expressed concern about the 

length of time it takes for approval of an 

ordinance and requested further clarity 

on how the Commission contacts Tribes 

if there are questions concerning a 

proposed ordinance. 

The Commission recognizes the 

perception that the current process may 

not provide clarity to Tribes when 

appealing the Chairwoman’s actions. 

The Commission will review these 

regulations during the Group Two 

period. 

Subject to future changes, NIGC will 

hold tribal consultations on Group Two 

regulations on the following dates as set 

forth in more detail below. The 

Commission has attempted to schedule 

consultations in every region and to 

hold those consultations either before or 

after other events widely attended by 

tribal officials. The purpose of 

scheduling consultations in this manner 

is both to encourage participation of 

tribal officials and to conserve tribal 

resources by reducing the amount of 

travel of participants. 

GROUP 2 

Date Event Location 

May 16, 2011 ........................... Great Plains/Rocky Mountains/Midwest Tradeshow & Conference Mystic Lake Casino and Resort, Prior 

Lake, MN. 

May 20, 2011 ........................... ATNI Mid Year Conference ............................................................... Coeur d’Alene Resort & Casino Plummer, 

ID. 

June 8, 2011 ............................ Indian Bingo and Class II Summit .................................................... Mystic Lake Casino and Resort, Prior 

Lake, MN. 

June 21–22, 2011 .................... CNIGA Membership Meeting ............................................................ Harrah’s Rincon Hotel & Casino, Valley 

Center, CA. 

July 14–15, 2011 ...................... Northwest Indian Gaming Expo ........................................................ Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip, WA. 

Aug. 18–19, 2011 ..................... Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association Conference .......................... Tulsa, OK. 

Aug. 25–26, 2011 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ........................................................ Wild Horse Resort Casino, Scottsdale, 

AZ. 

Sept. 7–8, 2011 ........................ NIGC Consultation—United Tribes International Powwow ............... Radisson Hotel, Bismarck, ND. 

Sept. 15–16, 2011 .................... National Tribal Gaming Commissioner/Regulator Association Fall 

Meeting.

Chuckchansi Gold Resort & Casino, 

Coarsegold, CA. 

VI. Group Three: Part 543—Minimum 

Internal Control Standards for Class II 

Gaming; Part 547—Minimum Technical 

Standards for Gaming Equipment Used 

with the Play of Class II Games 

The NOI also requested comment on 

the Class II Minimum Internal Control 

Standards (MICS) and Minimum 

Technical Standards. Specifically, the 

NOI requested comment on how to 

proceed with revisions to these Parts. 

While the Technical Standards were 

revised in 2008, the NOI noted that 

Tribes had requested additional 

updates. 

The Commission received many 

comments requesting the review and 

update of both the Class II MICS and 

Class II Technical Standards. Comments 

emphasized the importance of Class II 

gaming and the need to ensure that the 

regulations address changes in 

technology. Some comments 

recommended a Tribal Advisory 

Committee be formed with 

representation from a broad group of 

interests, including Tribes, 

manufacturers, and testing laboratories. 

Other comments suggested the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18463 

regulations be revised utilizing a 

negotiated rulemaking process. Finally, 

some commentators stated that 

electronic gambling machines are public 

health hazards and that the technical 

standards should distinguish between 

harmful and less harmful games. These 

comments stated that NIGC should 

require the industry to demonstrate that 

Class II games are in fact safe. 

Based on the comments received, the 

Commission anticipates that it will 

review this Part during the Group Three 

period. Class II MICS and Technical 

Standards are important to both Tribes 

and the public. 

Subject to future changes, NIGC will 

hold tribal consultations on Group 

Three regulations on the following dates 

as set forth in more detail below. The 

Commission has attempted to schedule 

consultations in every region and to 

hold those consultations either before or 

after other events widely attended by 

tribal officials. The purpose of 

scheduling consultations in this manner 

is both to encourage participation of 

tribal officials and to conserve tribal 

resources by reducing the amount of 

travel of participants. 

GROUP 3 

Date Event Location 

June 8, 2011 ............................ Indian Bingo and Class II Summit .................................................... Mystic Lake Casino and Resort, Prior 

Lake, MN. 

June 13, 2011 .......................... NCAI Mid Year Conference .............................................................. Hyatt Regency, Milwaukee, WI. 

June 21–22, 2011 .................... CNIGA Membership Meeting ............................................................ Harrah’s Rincon Hotel & Casino, Valley 

Center, CA. 

July 14–15, 2011 ...................... Northwest Indian Gaming Expo ........................................................ Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip, WA. 

July 20–21, 2011 ...................... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ........................................................ Hyatt Regency Tamaya Resort, Santa 

Ana Pueblo, NM. 

July 28–29, 2011 ...................... NIGC Consultation—Northeast ......................................................... DOI South Auditorium, Washington, DC. 

Aug. 18–19, 2011 ..................... Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association Conference .......................... Tulsa, OK. 

Aug. 25–26, 2011 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ........................................................ Wild Horse Resort Casino, Scottsdale, 

AZ. 

Sept. 7–8, 2011 ........................ NIGC Consultation—United Tribes International Powwow ............... Radisson Hotel, Bismarck, ND. 

Sept. 15–16, 2011 .................... National Tribal Gaming Commissioner/Regulator Association Fall 

Meeting.

Chuckchansi Gold Resort & Casino, 

Coarsegold, CA. 

Sept. 19–20, 2011 .................... NIGC Regional Training .................................................................... Sky Ute Casino Resort, Ignacio, CO. 

Sept. 29–30, 2011 .................... NIGC Consultation—Northeast ......................................................... Turning Stone Resort & Casino, Verona, 

NY. 

Oct. 6–7, 2011 .......................... G2E—National .................................................................................. Sands Expo and Convention Ctr., Las 

Vegas, NV. 

Oct./Nov. 2011 ......................... USET Annual Meeting ...................................................................... Mississippi Choctaw, MS. 

Nov. 3–4, 2011 ......................... NCAI Annual Conference .................................................................. Portland, OR. 

Jan. 11–12, 2012 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Eastern ............................................................ Wind Creek Casino, Atmore, AL. 

Jan. 18–19, 2012 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Great Plains ..................................................... Crowne Plaza, Billings, MT. 

Jan. 23–24, 2012 ..................... NIGC Consultation—California ......................................................... Win-River Casino, Redding, CA. 

Jan. 26–27, 2012 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Northwest ........................................................ 7 Feathers Casino, Canyonville, OR. 

Jan. 30–31, 2012 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Oklahoma ........................................................ Cherokee Hard Rock, Tulsa, OK. 

Feb. 2–3, 2012 ......................... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ........................................................ Isleta Hard Rock Casino Resort, Albuquerque, NM. 

Feb. 7–8, 2012 ......................... NIGC Consultation—Great Plains ..................................................... Radisson Hotel, Rapid City, SD. 

VII. Group Four: Part 556—Background 

Investigations for Primary Management 

Officials and Key Employees; Part 

558—Gaming Licenses for Key 

Employees and Primary Management 

Officials; Part 556—Formalizing the 

‘‘Pilot Program’’; Part 571—Monitoring 

and Investigations; Part 531—Collateral 

Agreements; Part 537—Background 

Investigations for Persons or Entities 

With a Financial Interest in, or Having 

Management Responsibility for, a 

Management Contract; and Part 502— 

Definitions 

A. Background Investigations and Pilot 

Program 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider formalizing through regulation 

a long-standing ‘‘pilot program’’ under 

which participating Tribes provide 

NIGC with concise information 

pertaining to employees licensed or 

denied a license in lieu of the process 

outlined in Part 556. Comments were 

submitted supporting the Commission’s 

consideration of amending the 

regulation to incorporate the pilot 

program. One Tribe stated that the pilot 

program should be formalized so long as 

no changes are made to the current 

program. Some Tribes commented that 

most Tribes already participate in the 

program. 

Additionally, the NOI requested 

comment on whether the NIGC should 

process fingerprint cards for nonprimary management officials or nonkey employees. Many comments 

supported increased access to 

fingerprint and background information 

for additional employees but expressed 

that this not be mandated by the NIGC. 

Some commentators requested that this 

should include vendors and contractors 

as well. Additionally, many comments 

requested that the NIGC provide tribal 

gaming commissions access to licensing 

information via an online database or 

expansion of the TBIS database. 

The Commission agrees that the ‘‘pilot 

program’’ is widely participated in by a 

large number of gaming Tribes and that 

access to background information is 

important to shield Tribes from 

organized crime and other corrupting 

influences. Based on the comments 

received, the Commission intends to 

review these regulations during the 

Group Four period. 

B. Management Contracts 

1. Collateral Agreements 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider approving collateral 

agreements to a management contract. 

Some comments asserted that collateral 

agreements are outside the scope of 

NIGC authority and requiring 

submission and approval of those 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18464 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

agreements would second-guess tribal 

business decisions. One commentator 

stated that the NIGC should not expand 

authority over non-management 

business relationships of the Tribe. 

Additionally, some comments expressed 

concern that requiring the approval of 

non-management collateral agreements 

would affect their relationships with 

current or potential business partners, 

discourage private investment in Indian 

Country, and potentially call into 

question the validity of previously 

executed agreements. These 

commentators recommended the NIGC 

only review and approve those 

agreements containing management 

provisions. Another commentator 

suggested that the review and approval 

of collateral agreements would greatly 

reduce the risks to both Tribes and 

would-be management contractors, thus 

reducing overreaching by third parties. 

Other comments supported the review 

and approval of collateral agreements by 

the NIGC. Those Tribes stated that it is 

the NIGC’s trust responsibility to ensure 

that such agreements do not violate the 

sole proprietary interest provisions of 

IGRA. Other Tribes suggested that the 

NIGC be available to review and 

approve collateral agreements solely at 

the request of the Tribe. One 

commentator suggested drafting a 

regulation that specifies the maximum 

amount of revenue that could be 

included in collateral agreements. 

Based on the comments received in 

response to the NOI, the Commission 

intends to review this regulation during 

the Group Four period. 

2. Background Information for Persons 

or Entities With a Financial Interest in, 

or Having Management Responsibility 

for, a Management Contract 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider amending this regulation to 

specify that a contractor should be 

required to submit background 

information when the contract is only 

for Class III gaming. Some Tribes stated 

that the NIGC has no authority over 

Class III gaming and thus no authority 

over Class III management contractors. 

Other Tribes stated that IGRA 

specifically grants the NIGC the 

authority to complete background 

investigations on Class II and Class III 

management contractors. One Tribe 

stated that because background 

investigations are a requirement of the 

tribal-state compact, requiring an 

additional background investigation is 

duplicative, burdensome, and 

overreaching. Other comments 

recommended that in addition to the 

clarification, the NIGC should clarify 

submission requirements for Class II 

and Class III background investigations 

and streamline the background 

investigation process to allow for 

expedited review of individuals and 

entities holding a gaming license in 

other tribal and state jurisdictions. 

The Commission agrees that this issue 

has been the point of confusion for 

Tribes and the public. The Commission 

intends to review this regulation during 

the Group Four period. 

C. Inspection and Access to Records 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether there was a need to clarify 

Commission access to records located 

off-site, including at sites maintained or 

owned by third parties. One comment 

stated that this section should be 

revised to explicitly deny the NIGC 

access to Class III records. Some 

comments stated that the NIGC has the 

right to access all records of the Tribal 

gaming enterprise, regardless of 

location. Other comments stated that 

NIGC should only request records 

within its statutory authority. Another 

comment suggested that the regulation 

be amended to require Tribes to 

maintain all records on site. 

The Commission acknowledges the 

need to clarify Commission access to 

records located off-site, including at 

sites maintained and owned by third 

parties. The Commission intends to 

review this regulation during the Group 

Four period. 

D. Definitions—Net Revenues— 

management fee 

The NOI asked whether the 

Commission should consider whether 

the definition of Net revenues— 

management fee should be defined to be 

consistent with the General Accepted 

Accounting Principles (GAAP) when 

determining the management fee. Many 

comments stated that if this definition 

was amended, it would need to be 

consistent with the statutory definition 

of Net Revenue contained in IGRA, 25 

U.S.C. 2703(9). Other comments stated 

that it should be defined consistent with 

industry standards such as GAAP. One 

comment noted that a clearer definition 

would have hastened the resolution of 

a dispute with their state over the 

definition of net win and net revenue. 

Another comment stated that the 2008 

regulatory change to the definition of 

Net revenue does not comply with IGRA 

and needs to be revised to ensure it is 

consistent with the statutory definition. 

Based on the comments that the 

definition could be clearer and that 

there may be some benefit to a 

definition consistent with GAAP, the 

Commission intends to review this 

definition during Group Four 

consultation and comment period. 

Subject to future changes, NIGC will 

hold tribal consultations on Group Four 

regulations on the following dates as set 

forth in more detail below. The 

Commission has attempted to schedule 

consultations in every region and to 

hold those consultations either before or 

after other events widely attended by 

tribal officials. The purpose of 

scheduling consultations in this manner 

is both to encourage participation of 

tribal officials and to conserve tribal 

resources by reducing the amount of 

travel of participants. 

GROUP 4 

Date Event Location 

June 8, 2011 ............................ Indian Bingo and Class II Summit .................................................... Mystic Lake Casino and Resort, Prior 

Lake, MN. 

June 13, 2011 .......................... NCAI Mid Year Conference .............................................................. Hyatt Regency, Milwaukee, WI. 

June 21–22, 2011 .................... CNIGA Membership Meeting ............................................................ Harrah’s Rincon Hotel & Casino, Valley 

Center, CA. 

July 14–15, 2011 ...................... Northwest Indian Gaming Expo ........................................................ Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip, WA. 

July 20–21, 2011 ...................... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ........................................................ Hyatt Regency Tamaya Resort, Santa 

Ana Pueblo, NM. 

July 28–29, 2011 ...................... NIGC Consultation—Northeast ......................................................... DOI South Auditorium, Washington, DC. 

Aug. 18–19, 2011 ..................... Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association Conference .......................... Tulsa, OK. 

Aug. 25–26, 2011 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ........................................................ Wild Horse Resort Casino, Scottsdale, 

AZ. 

Sept. 7–8, 2011 ........................ NIGC Consultation—United Tribes International Powwow ............... Radisson Hotel, Bismarck, ND. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18465 

GROUP 4 

Date Event Location 

Sept. 15–16, 2011 .................... National Tribal Gaming Commissioner/Regulator Association Fall 

Meeting.

Chuckchansi Gold Resort & Casino, 

Coarsegold, CA. 

Sept. 19–20, 2011 .................... NIGC Regional Training .................................................................... Sky Ute Casino Resort, Ignacio, CO. 

Oct. 6–7, 2011 .......................... G2E—National .................................................................................. Sands Expo and Convention Ctr., Las 

Vegas, NV. 

Oct./Nov. 2011 ......................... USET Annual Meeting ...................................................................... Mississippi Choctaw, MS. 

VIII. Group Five: Part 518—Self 

Regulation of Class II Gaming; 

proposed new Sole Proprietary Interest 

regulation; and implementation 

through regulation of Class III MICS 

options 

A. Self Regulation of Class II Gaming 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider amending the process for 

obtaining a self-regulation certification. 

The Commission has heard that the 

administrative burden of completing the 

process significantly outweighs the 

benefits obtained from self regulation. 

Comments received from the NOI state 

that this regulation is not performing the 

function set forth in IGRA. Comments 

stated that the submission requirements 

are duplicative and unduly burdensome 

and the petition and annual reporting 

requirement undermine the purpose of 

self-regulating. One comment 

recommended that high standards 

should be maintained, and the benefits 

and recognition for self regulating 

Tribes should be higher. A Tribe noted 

that self regulation is a hallmark of 

tribal sovereignty. 

The Commission agrees that this 

regulation is under-utilized by Tribes. 

Of over 220 gaming Tribes, only two 

Tribes have gone through the selfregulation certification process 

successfully. Due to the interest 

expressed in revising this regulation, the 

Commission intends to review this 

regulation during the Group Five 

period. 

B. Sole Proprietary Interest 

The NOI requested comments on 

whether the Commission should 

consider a regulation defining sole 

proprietary interest and providing a 

process through which a Tribe may 

request the NIGC to conduct a review 

and make a determination. Many Tribes 

and other interested parties have 

approached the NIGC requesting a 

determination regarding whether a 

single agreement, or a combination of 

agreements, violate IGRA’s sole 

proprietary interest requirement. The 

comments received in response to the 

NOI reflect the complexity of this issue. 

Some comments state that the 

Commission should promulgate a 

regulation that would provide for 

review only at the request of a tribe. 

Other comments state that the 

percentages contained in IGRA serve to 

define what percentage might violate 

the Act’s sole proprietary interest 

provision. One tribe suggested that if 

Sole Proprietary Interest is to be 

defined, then so should Primary 

Beneficiary. Some comments stated that 

a clear definition of sole proprietary 

interest may provide stability and access 

to financing. Other comments suggested 

that a definition might limit tribal 

access to capital. Some comments 

suggested that this determination be 

best left to the courts to decide. 

The Commission acknowledges the 

comments regarding defining Sole 

Proprietary Interest through a 

regulation. Given the importance of this 

issue and IGRA’s mandate that Tribes 

maintain the sole proprietary interest, 

the Commission intends to review this 

issue during the Group Five period. 

C. Class III MICS Implementation 

Based on the comments received 

during the Group One period, the 

Commision will address 

implementation of changes to Class III 

MICS during the Group Five period. 

Subject to future changes, NIGC will 

hold tribal consultations on Group Five 

regulations on the following dates as set 

forth in more detail below. The 

Commission has attempted to schedule 

consultations in every region and to 

hold those consultations either before or 

after other events widely attended by 

tribal officials. The purpose of 

scheduling consultations in this manner 

is both to encourage participation of 

tribal officials and to conserve tribal 

resources by reducing the amount of 

travel of participants. 

GROUP 5 

Date Event Location 

July 14–15, 2011 ...................... Northwest Indian Gaming Expo ........................................................ Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip, WA. 

July 20–21, 2011 ...................... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ........................................................ Hyatt Regency Tamaya Resort, Santa 

Ana Pueblo, NM. 

July 28–29, 2011 ...................... NIGC Consultation—Northeast ......................................................... DOI South Auditorium, Washington, DC. 

Aug. 18–19, 2011 ..................... Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association Conference .......................... Tulsa, OK. 

Aug. 25–26, 2011 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ........................................................ Wild Horse Resort Casino, Scottsdale, 

AZ. 

Sept. 7–8, 2011 ........................ NIGC Consultation—United Tribes International Powwow ............... Radisson Hotel, Bismarck, ND. 

Sept. 15–16, 2011 .................... National Tribal Gaming Commissioner/Regulator Association Fall 

Meeting.

Chuckchansi Gold Resort & Casino, 

Coarsegold, CA. 

Sept. 19–20, 2011 .................... NIGC Regional Training .................................................................... Sky Ute Casino Resort, Ignacio, CO. 

Sept. 29–30, 2011 .................... NIGC Consultation—Northeast ......................................................... Turning Stone Resort & Casino, Verona, 

NY. 

Oct. 6–7, 2011 .......................... G2E—National .................................................................................. Sands Expo and Convention Ctr., Las 

Vegas, NV. 

Oct./Nov. 2011 ......................... USET Annual Meeting ...................................................................... Mississippi Choctaw, MS. 

Nov. 3–4, 2011 ......................... NCAI Annual Conference .................................................................. Portland, OR. 

Nov. 14–15, 2011 ..................... NIGC Consultation—California ......................................................... Spa Resort Casino, Palm Springs, CA. 

Nov. 17–18, 2011 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Southwest ........................................................ Fort McDowell Casino, Scottsdale, AZ. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18466 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

GROUP 5 

Date Event Location 

Nov. 30–Dec. 1, 2011 .............. NIGC Consultation—Oklahoma ........................................................ Downstream Casino Resort, Miami, OK. 

Dec. 5–6, 2011 ......................... NIGC Consultation—Northwest ........................................................ Clearwater Casino Resort, Suquamish, 

WA. 

Dec. 8–9, 2011 ......................... NIGC Consultation—Great Plains ..................................................... Turtle Creek Casino & Hotel, Williamsburg, MI. 

Dec. 12–13, 2011 ..................... NIGC Consultation—Northeast ......................................................... DOI South Auditorium, Washington, DC. 

IX. Regulations That the Commission 

Does Not Anticipate Revising 

A. Part 502—Net Revenues—Allowable 

Uses. 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider a definition for the term Net 

Revenues—allowable uses. Many Tribes 

commented that this approach would 

intrude on tribal sovereignty, that tribal 

budgeting is an inherent tribal 

governmental function, and that such an 

approach could interfere with internal 

tribal matters. Further, tribal 

commentators noted that IGRA has a 

clear definition of Net Revenues and 

asserted that the NIGC does not have 

authority to change this definition. An 

accounting firm commented that no 

single formulaic approach should be 

applied to all Tribes. A few comments 

from the public stated that if NIGC were 

to promulgate a definition it should 

only do so after extensive review, 

consultation, and comment. Some 

comments supported promulgation of a 

definition, arguing that doing so could 

ensure Tribes consider the financial 

integrity of the gaming operation before 

funding other tribal programs. 

After review of all the comments 

submitted, the Commission does not 

anticipate promulgating a definition of 

net revenues—allowable uses at this 

time. The Commission acknowledges 

the concerns articulated by the public 

and will examine alternatives consistent 

with IGRA that minimize intrusions on 

tribal sovereignty and internal tribal 

matters. 

B. Part 502—Management Contract 

Definition 

The NOI also requested comment on 

whether to expand the definition of 

Management Contract to include 

contracts that pay a fee based on a 

percentage of gaming revenues. The 

comments received from the public 

expressed concern that an expanded 

definition would inappropriately inhibit 

the ability of Tribes to enter into 

contracts, increase the administrative 

burden on the NIGC, and infringe upon 

tribal sovereignty. The public also 

commented that an expanded definition 

may be counter to IGRA’s purpose of 

promoting tribal economic 

development, self-sufficiency, and 

strong tribal governments. Finally, many 

commentators noted that only contracts 

containing actual management 

provisions should be subject to the 

management contract approval process. 

Regarding whether the Commission 

should consider promulgating a 

definition of acceptable compensation 

to a manager contractor, some Tribes 

commented that it would be beneficial 

for the Commission to consider issuing 

guidance on compensation and the 

upper limits on management fees. Some 

Tribes commented that a definition 

would intrude on business decisions of 

the Tribe. Another Tribe noted that 

amending the definition to establish a 

maximum fee might be appropriate, if 

enforced only against the company, not 

the Tribe. However, most comments 

suggested that NIGC should not revise 

this definition. 

The Commission notes that IGRA 

establishes a maximum fee for 

management contractors. Based on a 

review of the public’s comments, the 

Commission does not anticipate 

expanding the definition at this time. 

The Commission acknowledges the 

concerns articulated by the public and 

will examine alternatives consistent 

with IGRA that minimize intrusions on 

tribal sovereignty and promote the 

purposes of IGRA. 

C. Part 533—Approval of Management 

Contracts 

The NOI sought comment on whether 

to consider amending the trustee 

standard in Part 533 by adding two 

grounds for possible disapproval in 

§ 533.6(b). One potential basis for 

disapproval would be because the 

management contract was not submitted 

in accordance with the submission 

requirements of 25 CFR part 533. The 

second potential basis for disapproval 

would be because the management 

contract does not contain the regulatory 

requirements for approval pursuant to 

25 CFR part 531. Many comments 

received from Tribes were generally 

supportive of the Commission reviewing 

this part of the regulation. Some Tribes 

commented that if the Commission 

reviewed this part of the regulation and 

ultimately amended it as described, it 

could result in the disapproval of a 

management contract for technical 

reasons that could have been easily 

remedied. 

The Commission does not anticipate 

amending Part 533 at this time. NIGC 

will continue to assist Tribes and 

potential management companies with 

the regulatory process set forth in IGRA 

and Part 533 to ensure full compliance 

with IGRA. 

X. Other Regulations or Policies 

A. Tribal Advisory Committee 

The NOI requested comment on 

whether a policy or regulation should be 

developed identifying when a Tribal 

Advisory Committee (TAC) will be 

formed to provide input and advice to 

the NIGC, and if so, how the Committee 

members should be selected. 

Additionally, the NOI asked if cost 

should be a factor when considering 

whether to form a TAC. 

In response to this request, Tribes 

commented that while TACs can be an 

effective way to communicate with 

Tribes, a TAC is not a substitute for 

tribal consultation as set forth in 

Executive Order 13175. Commentators 

indicated that cost is a valid 

consideration and that the expense of 

proceeding with a TAC is justified only 

if all views are considered by the 

Commission. Tribes also commented 

that the rules governing TACs can be 

unclear, resulting in confusion and 

uncertainty about the TAC process. 

Commentators also noted that the use of 

TAC has the potential to unnecessarily 

extend the time it takes to draft a rule. 

Other comments received in response 

to the NOI noted that a TAC has the 

potential to provide useful input and 

perspective to the Commission 

particularly on topics that broadly 

impact Indian gaming. Additionally, 

comments advised that a TAC should be 

flexible in order to meet the specific 

needs of the NIGC and the Tribes. Tribes 

advised the NIGC to create a policy that 

is flexible and allows TACs to be 

utilized on a case-by-case basis. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18467 

The Commission recognizes the 

concern expressed in comments 

regarding the use of TACs. Additionally, 

the Commission also recognizes the 

potential benefit of a TAC, particularly 

when addressing a complex or technical 

regulation. While the Commission 

agrees with those comments suggesting 

a regulation may not be necessary, the 

Commission will consider drafting a 

policy guiding the development of a 

TAC, member selection, and meeting 

rules. The Commission anticipates that 

a TAC policy will be developed during 

2011. The process for developing a TAC 

policy will be consistent with the 

NIGC’s Tribal Consultation policy. 

B. Communication Policy 

The NOI asked whether the NIGC 

should consider developing a regulation 

or include as part of a regulation a 

process for determining how it 

communicates with Tribes. The NOI 

noted that NIGC communicates directly 

with the Tribal Gaming Regulatory 

Agency (TGRA) or Tribal Gaming 

Commission (TGC) as well as directly 

with the tribal government. The NOI 

asked whether the NIGC should 

consider promulgating a regulation or 

policy establishing a default method of 

communication unless otherwise 

directed by tribal resolution. 

Many comments recommended that 

the Commission should not consider 

adopting a universal standard for 

communicating with Tribes. Tribes 

noted the variety in government 

structures and methods used by Tribes 

when taking official action. However, 

Tribes also noted the need for more 

effective communication with all 

affected parties, including the elected 

government officials, TGC, TGRA and 

the gaming operation. While the 

Commission agrees with those 

comments suggesting a regulation may 

not be necessary, the Commission will 

consider drafting a policy guiding how 

the Commission communicates with 

Tribes, their gaming regulatory bodies, 

and the gaming operation. This 

Commission anticipates that a policy 

will be developed over the course of the 

regulatory review process outlined 

above. The process for developing a 

Communication policy will be 

consistent with NIGC’s Tribal 

Consultation policy. 

C. Other Regulations 

During this review process, the 

Commission attempted to identify those 

regulations identified by Tribes and/or 

the Commission in most need of review. 

However, the Commission reserves the 

right to review other regulations if 

needed throughout this review process. 

Review of regulations not specifically 

identified in this Notice will be 

reviewed utilizing the process described 

in Section IIB of this Notice. 

Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10); E.O. 

13175. 

Dated: March 30, 2011, Washington, DC. 

Tracie L. Stevens, 

Chairwoman. 

Steffani A. Cochran, 

Vice-Chairwoman. 

Daniel J. Little, 

Associate Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7912 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Part 104 

RIN 1219–AB73 

Pattern of Violations 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) is extending 

the comment period on the proposed 

rule addressing Pattern of Violations 

(POV). This extension gives commenters 

additional time to review and comment 

on the proposed rule. 

DATES: All comments must be received 

or postmarked by midnight Eastern 

Daylight Savings Time on April 18, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of 

the following methods. Comments must 

be identified with ‘‘RIN 1219–AB73’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Electronic mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. 

• Facsimile: 202–693–9441. 

• Regular Mail or Courier: MSHA, 

Office of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209– 

3939. Courier must sign in at the 

receptionist’s desk on the 21st floor. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roslyn B. Fontaine, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Division, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

MSHA, at fontaine.roslyn@dol.gov (email); 202–693–9440 (voice); or 202– 

693–9441 (facsimile). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Information 

View Public Comments: MSHA will 

post all comments on the Internet 

without change, including any personal 

information provided. Access comments 

electronically at http://www.msha.gov/ 

REGS/Comments/2011-2255/POV.asp or 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Review 

comments in person at MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

at the address in the ADDRESSES section 

above. 

E-mail notification: To subscribe to 

receive e-mail notification when the 

Agency publishes rulemaking 

documents in the Federal Register, go 

to: http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/ 

subscribe.aspx. 

Extension of Comment Period and 

Request for Comments 

On February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5719), 

MSHA published a proposed rule on 

Pattern of Violations (POV). In response 

to requests from interested parties, 

MSHA is extending the comment period 

from April 4, 2011, to April 18, 2011. 

MSHA solicits comments from the 

mining community on all aspects of the 

proposed rule. The proposed rule is 

available on MSHA’s Web site at 

http://www.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/ 

PROPOSED/2011PROP/2011-2255.pdf. 

Dated: March 30, 2011. 

Joseph A. Main, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7975 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 938 

[SATS No. PA–156–FOR; Docket ID: OSM 

2010–0004] 

Pennsylvania Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the public 

comment period related to an 

amendment to the Pennsylvania 

regulatory program (the ‘‘Pennsylvania 

program’’) under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). The amendment is 

in response to fourteen required 

program amendments and the remining 

financial guarantee program. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS