7646 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

10See Allegheny, 964 F.3d at 16. 

11See id. 

12 Id. at 9. 

directed the parties to address the 

foundational question of the 

Commission’s legal authority to issue a 

rule mandating such a stay. I strongly 

encourage parties to address this 

question in their briefs, even though it 

was not specifically mentioned in the 

majority’s order. 

8. The Commission’s failure to 

address the substance of the rehearing 

requests might be understandable if the 

order directing briefing had been issued 

earlier. Indeed, the Court in Allegheny 

suggested that it might be permissible 

for the Commission to provide for such 

supplemental briefing.10 However, that 

suggestion was offered in the context of 

the Court’s discussion of a potential 

Commission order issued in connection 

with a timely ruling on rehearing within 

thirty days after a rehearing request.11

Here, we are simply failing to perform 

our duties. 

9. Finally, lest any reader of today’s 

order overlook it, let’s pause for a 

moment to consider the irony of what 

the Commission contemplates here. In 

the very same proceeding in which the 

Commission promulgated a rule 

specifically aimed at alleviating 

concerns that its tolling orders served 

only to ‘‘buy [the Commission] more 

time to act on a rehearing application 

and stall judicial review,’’ 12 the 

Commission attempts to buy more time 

by ordering further procedure after the 

statutory deadline to act on rehearing 

has passed and as judicial review is 

imminent, absent any modification in 

the meantime of the rule under review. 

I for one will be interested to see 

whether the D.C. Circuit countenances 

this action any more than it accepted 

the Commission’s use of tolling orders 

for the very same purpose. Time will 

tell. 

For these reasons, I respectfully 

dissent. 

James P. Danly, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02063 Filed 1–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

25 CFR Part 575 

Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary 

Penalty To Reflect Inflation 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 

2015 (the Act) and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

guidance, the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC or Commission) is 

amending its civil monetary penalty 

rule to reflect an annual adjustment for 

inflation in order to improve the 

penalty’s effectiveness and maintain its 

deterrent effect. The Act provides that 

the new penalty level must apply to 

penalties assessed after the effective 

date of the increase, including when the 

penalties whose associated violation 

predate the increase. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 1, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Armando J. Acosta, Senior Attorney, 

Office of General Counsel, National 

Indian Gaming Commission, at (202) 

632–7003; fax (202) 632–7066 (not tollfree numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On November 2, 2015, the President 

signed into law the Federal Civil 

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 

Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of 

Pub. L. 114–74). Beginning in 2017, the 

Act requires agencies to make annual 

inflationary adjustments to their civil 

monetary penalties by January 15th of 

each year, in accordance with annual 

OMB guidance. 

II. Calculation of Annual Adjustment 

In December of every year, OMB 

issues guidance to agencies to calculate 

the annual adjustment. According to 

OMB, the cost-of-living adjustment 

multiplier for 2021 is 1.01182, based on 

the Consumer Price Index for the month 

of October 2020, not seasonally 

adjusted. 

Pursuant to this guidance, the 

Commission has calculated the annual 

adjustment level of the civil monetary 

penalty contained in 25 CFR 575.4 

(‘‘The Chairman may assess a civil fine, 

not to exceed $53,524 per violation, 

against a tribe, management contractor, 

or individual operating Indian gaming 

for each notice of violation . . .’’). The 

2021 adjusted level of the civil 

monetary penalty is $54,157 ($53,524 × 

1.01182). 

III. Regulatory Matters 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This final rule is not a significant rule 

under Executive Order 12866. 

(1) This rule will not have an effect of 

$100 million or more on the economy or 

will not adversely affect, in a material 

way, the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or state, local, or 

tribal governments or communities. 

(2) This rule will not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency. 

(3) This rule does not involve 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights or obligations of 

recipients. 

(4) This regulatory change does not 

raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Commission certifies that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

because the rule makes annual 

adjustments for inflation. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This final rule is not a major rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act. It will not result in the 

expenditure by state, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year. The rule will not result 

in a major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, state, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will 

this rule have significant adverse effects 

on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises 

to compete with foreign-based 

enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This final rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate of more than $100 

million per year on state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

rule also does not have a significant or 

unique effect on state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, a statement containing the 

information required by the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) is not required. 

Takings 

Under the criteria in Executive Order 

12630, this final rule does not affect 

individual property rights protected by 

the Fifth Amendment nor does it 

involve a compensable ‘‘taking.’’ Thus, 

a takings implication assessment is not 

required. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 7647 

Federalism 

Under the criteria in Executive Order 

13132, this final rule has no substantial 

direct effect on the states, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This final rule complies with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12988. 

Specifically, this rule has been reviewed 

to eliminate errors and ambiguity and 

written to minimize litigation. It is 

written in clear language and contains 

clear legal standards. 

Consultation With Indian Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments, Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), the 

Commission has determined that 

consultations with Indian gaming tribes 

is not practicable, as Congress has 

mandated that annual civil penalty 

adjustments in the Act be implemented 

no later than January 15th of each year. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule does not affect any 

information collections under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This final rule does not constitute a 

major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. 

Information Quality Act 

In developing this final rule, the 

Commission did not conduct or use a 

study, experiment, or survey requiring 

peer review under the Information 

Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554). 

Effects on the Energy Supply 

This final rule is not a significant 

energy action under the definition in 

Executive Order 13211. A Statement of 

Energy Effects is not required. 

Clarity of This Regulation 

The Commission is required by 

Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and 

by the Presidential Memorandum of 

June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule that 

the Commission publishes must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

Required Determinations Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

In accordance with the Act, agencies 

are to annually adjust civil monetary 

penalties without providing an 

opportunity for notice and comment, 

and without a delay in its effective date. 

Therefore, the Commission is not 

required to complete a notice and 

comment process prior to promulgation. 

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 575 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Gaming, Indian lands, 

Penalties. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Commission amends 25 

CFR part 575 as follows: 

PART 575—CIVIL FINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 575 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2705(a), 2706, 2713, 

2715; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 

599. 

§ 575.4 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend the introductory text of 

§ 575.4 by removing ‘‘$53,524’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘$54,157’’. 

Dated: January 15, 2021. 

E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, 

Chairman. 

Kathryn Isom-Clause, 

Vice Chair. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01413 Filed 1–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket Number USCG–2019–0028] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage; Galveston Harbor, Bolivar 

Roads Channel, Galveston, TX 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a 48-hour time limit in 

Anchorage Area (B) in Bolivar Roads 

near Galveston, Texas. Anchorage areas 

(A) and (C) in the Bolivar Roads 

Channel already have a 48-hour time 

limit, but anchorage (B) did not. This 

resulted in vessels remaining in 

anchorage (B) for extended periods, 

blocking other vessels with pressing 

logistical needs, adversely affecting 

commerce and impacting navigational 

safety. Except when stress of weather 

makes sailing impractical or hazardous, 

this rule will prohibit vessels from 

anchoring in anchorage area (B) for 

more than 48 hours unless expressly 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Houston-Galveston. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 3, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2019– 

0028 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Lieutenant Commander Sarah 

Rousseau or Lieutenant Junior Grade 

Ryan Gilbert, Sector Houston-Galveston 

Waterways Management Division, U.S. 

Coast Guard; telephone 281–464–4736/ 

5800, email HoustonWWM@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

HSC Lone Star Harbor Safety Committee 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VTS Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service 

Houston/Galveston 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

On October 11, 2018, the Texas Lone 

Star Harbor Safety Committee requested 

a regulatory change to the Galveston 

Harbor Bolivar Roads Anchorage area 

(B). The HSC submitted a 

recommendation to the Sector HoustonGalveston Captain of the Port that 

Anchorage area (B) be regulated under 

the same 48-hour time limit as the 

adjacent Anchorage areas (A) and (C). 

The HSC developed a working group, 

the Anchorage Working Group, to assess 

the optimal ways to use the anchorage 

to facilitate safety and efficiency within 

the port. 

On January 28, 2020, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (85 FR 

4919) that proposed to establish a 48- 

hour time limit in Anchorage Area (B) 

in Bolivar Roads near Galveston, Texas. 

The purpose of the propose rule was to 

align the Galveston Harbor Bolivar 

Roads Anchorage area (B) to the 

adjacent anchorages. This action is 

necessary to address port congestion