70680 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 

Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Clinical 

Trials Review. 

Date: December 2, 2010. 

Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 

Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. 

Contact Person: Charles H Washabaugh, 

Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review 

Branch, National Institute of Arthritis, 

Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National 

Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd, 

Room 824, MSC 4872, Bethesda, MD 20817. 

301–594–4952. washabac@mail.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: National Institute of 

Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 

Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Small 

Grants Research Review. 

Date: December 8, 2010. 

Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, One 

Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy 

Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Virtual 

Meeting.) 

Contact Person: Eric H. Brown, Scientific 

Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, 

National Institute of Arthritis, 

Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National 

Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd, 

Room 824, MSC 4872, Bethesda, MD 20817. 

(301) 594–4955. browneri@mail.nih.gov. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, 

Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, 

National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

Jennifer S. Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29091 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Request for Information 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice and request for 

comments; Extension of an existing 

collection of information: 1651–0023. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, CBP invites the general public 

and other Federal agencies to comment 

on an information collection 

requirement concerning: Request for 

Information (CBP Form 28). This request 

for comment is being made pursuant to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before January 18, 2011, 

to be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and 

Rulings, Office of International Trade, 

799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20229–1177. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to Tracey Denning, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

International Trade, 799 9th Street, 

NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229– 

1177, at 202–325–0265. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 

44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments 

should address: (a) Whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimates of the burden of the 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or the use of other forms of 

information technology; and (e) the 

annual costs burden to respondents or 

record keepers from the collection of 

information (a total capital/startup costs 

and operations and maintenance costs). 

The comments that are submitted will 

be summarized and included in the CBP 

request for Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval. All comments 

will become a matter of public record. 

In this document CBP is soliciting 

comments concerning the following 

information collection: 

Title: Request for Information. 

OMB Number: 1651–0023. 

Form Number: CBP Form 28. 

Abstract: Under 19 U.S.C. 1500 and 

1401a, Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) is responsible for appraising 

imported merchandise by ascertaining 

its value, classifying merchandise under 

the tariff schedule, and assessing a rate 

and amount of duty to be paid. On 

occasions when the invoice or other 

documentation does not provide 

sufficient information for appraisement 

or classification, the CBP Officer 

requests additional information through 

the use of CBP Form 28, ‘‘Request for 

Information’’. This form is completed by 

CBP personnel requesting additional 

information and the importers, or their 

agents, respond in the format of their 

choice. CBP Form 28 is provided for by 

19 CFR 151.11. A copy of this form and 

instructions are available at http:// 

forms.cbp.gov/pdf/CBP_Form_28.pdf. 

Current Actions: This submission is 

being made to extend the expiration 

date with no change to the burden hours 

or to CBP Form 28. 

Type of Review: Extension (without 

change). 

Affected Public: Businesses. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

60,000. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 

hour. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 60,000. 

Dated: November 15, 2010. 

Tracey Denning, 

Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29085 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Inquiry and Request for 

Information; Notice of Consultation 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry; notice of 

Tribal consultations. 

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

13175. 

SUMMARY: This Notice of Inquiry and 

Notice of Consultation advises the 

public that the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC) is conducting a 

comprehensive review of all regulations 

promulgated to implement the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 

U.S.C. 2701 et seq. The Commission is 

taking a fresh look at its rules in order 

to determine whether amendments are 

necessary to more effectively implement 

IGRA’s policies of protecting Indian 

gaming as a means of generating Tribal 

revenue, ensuring that gaming is 

conducted fairly and honestly by both 

the operator and players, and ensuring 

that Tribes are the primary beneficiaries 

of gaming operations. The Commission’s 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70681 

challenge is to adapt its rules to ensure 

that they promote these values into the 

future. This review is also being 

prepared in order to submit the NIGC’s 

Semi-Annual Regulatory Review to the 

Federal Register in April 2011 as 

required by Executive Order 12866 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In compliance 

with Executive Order 13,175 entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ the NIGC 

will hold eight consultations during 

January and February 2011. This Notice 

of Inquiry invites comments and 

information that will assist the NIGC in 

understanding the need for revising any 

or all of the regulations outlined below. 

The consultations and public comments 

requested in this Notice are intended to 

assist the NIGC with completion of the 

review and in establishing priorities. 

Following completion of the 

consultation and written comment 

period, the NIGC will review all 

comments received and create a 

comprehensive regulatory review 

agenda schedule. The public comment 

period ends February 12, 2011. The 

regulatory review agenda will be 

released in April 2011 and will include 

a summary explaining why the NIGC 

agreed or disagreed with the comments 

received and why the regulatory review 

agenda took its final form. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

February 11, 2011. See Consultation 

Meetings, Dates and Locations under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for 

the dates, times, and locations of 

consultation meetings. 

ADDRESSES: Testimony and comments 

sent by electronic mail or delivered by 

hand are strongly encouraged. 

Electronic submissions should be 

uploaded on the NIGC Web site, 

http: 

//www.nigc.gov, or e-mailed to 

reg.review@nigc.gov. See Electronic 

Submissions, File Formats And 

Required Information under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for 

instructions. Testimony and comments 

delivered by hand should be brought to 

the consultations. See Consultation 

Meetings, Dates and Locations under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for 

the dates, times, and locations of 

consultation meetings. 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. Consultation Meetings, Dates and 

Locations 

Eight Tribal consultations will be held 

on the following dates, times and 

locations. Every attempt was made to 

hold a consultation in each region and 

to coordinate with other established 

meetings when establishing this 

consultation schedule. Please RSVP to 

consultation.rsvp@nigc.gov. 

Week 1 

January 11, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. at the U.S. Grant Hotel, 326 

Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101. 

January 12, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. at the Cache Creek Casino Resort, 

14455 Highway 16, Brooks, CA 95606. 

January 14, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. at the Little Creek Resort, 91 W. 

State Rout 108, Shelton, WA 98584. 

Week 2 

January 18, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Tamaya 

Resort and Spa, 1300 Tuyuna Trail, 

Santa Ana Pueblo, NM 87004. 

January 20, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. at the Riverwind Casino-Hotel, 

1544 West Highway 9, Norman OK 

73072). 

Week 3 

January 24, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. at the Department of the Interior— 

South Interior Auditorium, 1951 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20240. 

Week 4 

February 1, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. at the Best Western Ramkota Inn, 

2111 North La Crosse St., Rapid City, SD 

57701. 

February 3, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 

p.m. at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel 

& Casino, 1 Seminole Way, Hollywood, 

FL 33314. 

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. 

II. Electronic Submissions, File Formats 

And Required Information 

If submitting by Web site: Participant 

must complete a form containing the 

name of the person making the 

submission, his or her title and Tribe or 

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 submiting 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. 

Copies of the written comments 

received and any other material may be 

reviewed on the Tribal Consultation 

Web page of the NIGC Web site located 

at http://www.nigc.gov. 

III. Background 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(IGRA or Act) (Pub. L. 100–497), 25 

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

on October 17, 1988. The purpose of the 

IGRA was to provide a statutory basis 

for the operation of gaming by Indian 

Tribes as a means of promoting Tribal 

economic development, self-sufficiency, 

and strong Tribal governments; to 

provide a statutory basis for the 

regulation of gaming by an Indian Tribe 

adequate to shield it from organized 

crime and other corrupting influences; 

to ensure that the Indian Tribe is the 

primary beneficiary of the gaming 

operation; to ensure that gaming is 

conducted fairly and honestly by both 

the operator and players; and to declare 

that the 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). The undertaking of 

this review facilitates effective 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70682 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

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. 

Additionally, pursuant to the Regulatory 

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

agencies publish semiannual regulatory 

flexibility agendas in the Federal 

Register identifying those rules that may 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In the spirit of transparency and 

accountability set forth by the President 

of the United States, the NIGC wishes to 

provide a comprehensive regulatory 

review schedule and agenda created 

after meaningful consultation. 

Additionally, Executive Order 13175 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,’’ 

provides for the NIGC to engage in 

meaningful consultation with Tribal 

governments prior to taking an action 

that has Tribal implications. Through 

the development of a comprehensive 

regulatory review, and in meaningful 

consultation with Tribes, the NIGC 

hopes to identify those areas of the 

regulations that need revision, and in 

further consultation, to revise the 

regulations as necessary to serve the 

current needs of the Tribal gaming 

industry. 

Over the past several years, the NIGC 

has adopted, amended and attempted to 

amend a number of regulations, 

including a facility licensing regulation, 

Class II and Class III Minimum Internal 

Control Standards, and Class II 

Technical Standards. The current 

Commission understands that some 

interested parties believe that many of 

the NIGC’s regulations need updating or 

continued revisions. Consistent with 

Executive Order 13175, consultation 

should occur before revisions or 

amendments to regulations. In the past, 

consultation has often taken the form of 

a Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) 

used to assist the NIGC in drafting the 

regulations. However, neither the 

method of appointing members to the 

TAC nor the joint process of drafting 

regulations has been without 

controversy or costs. The Commission 

recognizes that in order for regulation 

review and revision to occur that 

benefits and protects the entire Tribal 

gaming industry, all points of view must 

be considered and a decision made 

based on all comments received by the 

Commission. The Commission seeks 

advice and input as to how that goal can 

best be accomplished. 

The Commission also requests 

comment on whether changes to Class II 

MICS, Class II Technical Standards and 

Class III MICS are necessary. Currently, 

the Commission is examining the Class 

II MICS regulations and how to address 

the Class III MICS in the wake of the 

Colorado River Indian Tribes decision. 

The Commission is seeking advice and 

input as to how to provide necessary 

updates to the regulations consistent 

with Federal law, Tribal sovereignty and 

Tribal expertise in the day-to-day 

operations. 

In sum, the NIGC requests comments 

about which regulations are most in 

need of revision, in what order of 

priority those regulations should be 

addressed and the process the NIGC 

should utilize to make revisions. 

IV. Regulations Which May Require 

Amendment or Revision 

A. Part 502—Definitions of This Chapter 

The NIGC is particularly interested in 

receiving comments on whether any of 

the definitions in part 502 are in need 

of revision and whether any additional 

definitions are necessary to protect 

gaming as a means of generating Tribal 

revenue. In particular, the NIGC is 

interested in receiving comment on 

whether the following terms need 

further clarification: 

(1) Net Revenues. Over the years, 

Tribes, CPAs, and others have raised the 

issue of whether there should be 

different definitions for Net Revenues 

when defining what the management fee 

will be based on pursuant to the IGRA, 

25 U.S.C. 2711; or determining net 

revenues to be used for the allowable 

purposes as defined by the IGRA. 25 

U.S.C. 2710(b). Should the Commission 

consider definitions for the following 

two terms: Net Revenues—management 

fee; and Net Revenues—allowable uses? 

(a) Net Revenues—management fee. 

General Accepted Accounting 

Principles (GAAP) define Net Income as 

‘‘Gross Revenues (less Complimentary 

Sales) subtracting Operating Expenses 

and Interest and Depreciation.’’ NIGC 

defines Net Revenue as ‘‘Net Income 

plus Management Fee,’’ which is used 

by the Commission as the base number 

to calculate the management fee when 

the fee is a percentage on net revenue. 

Should the language used in the 

Commission’s definition of Net 

Revenues be revised to be consistent 

with GAAP, i.e., ‘‘Net Income plus 

Management Fee’’? 

(b) Net Revenues—allowable uses. 

The IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(B), 

states ‘‘net revenues from any Tribal 

gaming are not to be used for purposes 

other than: (i) To fund Tribal 

government operations or programs; (ii) 

to provide for the general welfare of the 

Indian Tribe and its members; (iii) to 

promote Tribal economic development; 

(iv) to donate to charitable 

organizations; or (v) to help fund 

operations of local government 

agencies.’’ 

Tribes, Tribal gaming commissions, 

and CPAs have commented that prior to 

making any decisions for allowable uses 

of net revenues, the Tribal parties 

should first consider the cash flow of 

the gaming operation (i.e. deduct 

principal loan payments, deduct 

reserve, add depreciation). In addition, 

others have stated that Tribal parties 

should also consider the overall 

financial integrity of the gaming 

operation before funding other Tribal 

programs. 

Should the Commission consider 

adding a new definition for Net 

Revenues—allowable uses that is based 

on cash flow? For example, should the 

new definition be ‘‘Cash flow’’ equals 

‘‘Net Income plus depreciation minus 

principal loan payments and reserve 

fundings’’? Is there another calculation 

that this definition could be based on? 

The Commission is seeking advice 

and input from the Tribal gaming 

industry about these proposed 

definition revisions, if there are other 

definitions that need revisions, whether 

it should be a priority, and whether a 

Tribal Advisory Committee should be 

formed to make these change or if 

another process will be sufficient. 

(2) Management Contract. Should the 

definition of management contract be 

expanded to include any contract, such 

as slot lease agreements, that pays a fee 

based on a percentage of gaming 

revenues? 

Management contractors sometimes 

believe that the manager should be 

reimbursed for expenses in addition to 

earning a management fee or may be 

paid multiple fees for development, 

loans, marketing, and non-gaming 

management in addition to the gaming 

management fee. These accumulated 

payments may result in the manager 

receiving sums greater than cash flow to 

the Tribe. Should there be a definition 

regarding acceptable compensation to a 

manager contractor? 

The Commission is seeking comment 

about whether the Commission should 

consider amendments to existing 

definitions or whether additional 

definitions are necessary, how the 

Commission should prioritize its review 

of part 501 in the regulatory review 

process, and whether the Commission 

should utilize standard notice and 

comment rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70683 

Committee to assist in its regulatory 

review of this part, or another process. 

B. Part 514—Fees 

The NIGC is interested in receiving 

comments on whether part 514 is in 

need of revision. In particular, the 

Commission is interested in receiving 

comment on whether the Commission 

should consider revising this part to 

base fees on the gaming operation’s 

fiscal year. Currently, the fee is 

calculated based on the calendar year. 

The Commission understands that it 

may be difficult to accurately calculate 

fees based on the calendar year, which 

may lead to frequent audit adjustments. 

The Commission is asking for comment 

on whether this issue may be resolved 

by changing ‘‘calendar’’ to ‘‘fiscal’’ 

throughout part 514. Further, if this is 

a revision that the Commission should 

consider, the Commission is interested 

in receiving comment on how to 

implement the revision. For example, 

should the Commission consider a 

revision that would provide for 

implementation over the course of a 12 

to 18 month period with an option for 

the Tribe to determine when they will 

change their calculation during that 

time period? On what dates or by what 

schedule should the Commission set fee 

rates if this revision is implemented, 

given that Tribes have different fiscal 

years? Is this a revision that would be 

more efficient? Is this a revision that the 

Commission should prioritize? 

Should the Commission consider 

amending this part to define gross 

gaming revenue consistent with the 

GAAP definition of this term? Would 

amending this definition to industry 

standards make the fee easier to 

calculate and to reconcile? 

Should the Commission consider 

amending this part to include 

fingerprint processing fees? If so, how 

should the Commission consider 

including fingerprint processing fees? 

Should it specify that fees collected 

from gaming Tribes for processing 

fingerprints with the FBI are included in 

the total revenue collected by the 

Commission that is subject to statutory 

limitation? Should the Commission 

include a requirement for it to review 

fingerprint processing costs on an 

annual basis and, if necessary, adjust 

the fingerprint processing fee 

accordingly? 

Finally, should the Commission 

consider a late payment system in lieu 

of a Notice of Violation (NOV) for 

submitting fees late? In the past, when 

a Tribe paid their fees after the deadline, 

we understand that a NOV may have 

been issued to the Tribe. As a NOV 

could lead to closure of a gaming 

facility, the Commission questions 

whether an NOV is an appropriate 

response to a late fee submittal caused 

by a change in employees or other 

minor issue. Should the Commission 

consider adding a type of ‘‘ticket’’ 

system to part 514 so that an NOV 

would only be issued in instances of 

gross negligence or wanton behavior, or 

in a dollar amount that allowed the 

Tribe to reap an economic benefit from 

its failure to pay in a timely manner? 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on the above particular issues as well as 

other suggested revisions to this part, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of part 514 in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

C. Part 518—Self-Regulation of Class II 

The NIGC has heard that this 

regulation is overly burdensome to 

Tribes seeking to obtain certification 

and that the burden of completing the 

process significantly outweighs the 

benefits gained from self-regulation. The 

Commission is seeking comment on 

whether this part should be revised, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of part 518 in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

D. Part 523—Review and Approval of 

Existing Ordinances or Resolutions 

Should the Commission consider 

eliminating part 523 as obsolete? The 

regulation applies only to gaming 

ordinances enacted by Tribes prior to 

January 22, 1993, and not submitted to 

the Chairwoman. The Commission 

believes there may no longer be any 

such ordinances. The Commission is 

seeking comment on whether this part 

should be eliminated, how the 

Commission should prioritize its review 

of part 523 in the regulatory review 

process, and whether the Commission 

should utilize standard notice and 

comment rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory 

Committee to assist in its regulatory 

review of this part, or another process. 

E. Management Contracts 

(1) Part 531—Collateral Agreements 

Should the Commission consider 

whether it has authority to approve 

collateral agreements to a management 

contract? The current definition of 

management contract includes 

collateral agreements if they provide for 

the management of all or part of a 

gaming operation. The Commission has 

taken the position that although the 

collateral agreements must be 

submitted, the Commission only 

approves management contracts. Some 

Tribes have asked the Commission to 

review the management contract and the 

collateral agreements and to make a 

determination as to whether the 

cumulative effect of the agreements 

violate the sole proprietary provisions of 

the IGRA. For example, while the 

gaming management contract may only 

require a payment of 5% of the net 

gaming revenue, combined with the 

provisions of the collateral agreements, 

the Tribe may be paying in excess of 

80% of gross gaming revenue which 

results in a net loss for the Tribe. 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether this part should be revised, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of part 531 in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

(2) Part 533—Approval of Management 

Contracts 

This part outlines the submission 

requirements for management contracts. 

While the Commission has disapproved 

management contracts for a variety of 

reasons including the trustee standard, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether an amendment would clarify 

the trustee standard by adding the 

following two grounds for possible 

disapproval under § 533.6(b): The 

management contract was not submitted 

in accordance with the submission 

requirements of 25 CFR part 533, or the 

management contract does not contain 

the regulatory requirements for approval 

pursuant to 25 CFR part 531. 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether this part should be revised, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of part 533 in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

(3) Part 537—Background Investigations 

for Persons or Entities With a Financial 

Interest in, or Having Management 

Responsibility for, a Management 

Contract 

This part addresses the background 

investigation submission requirements 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70684 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

for the management contractor. 

Although minor revisions were made in 

2009, there appears to be some 

confusion about whether the contractor 

should be required to submit the Class 

II background information when the 

contract is only for Class III gaming. 

IGRA does specify approval of Class II 

and Class III management contracts as a 

power of the Chairwoman. 25 U.S.C. 

2705(a)(4). 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether this part should be revised, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of part 537 in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

F. Proceedings Before the Commission 

The NIGC is considering amending 

the regulations that govern appeals of 

the Chairwoman’s actions on 

ordinances, management contracts, 

notices of violations, civil fine 

assessments, and closure orders. 25 CFR 

part 519; 25 CFR part 524; 25 CFR part 

539; 25 CFR part 577. Except for some 

minor changes in 2009, these parts 

remain unchanged from their original 

adoption in 1993. 

Should the Commission consider 

more comprehensive and detailed 

procedural rules, especially in areas 

such as motion practice, that are largely 

unaddressed by the present rules? The 

Commission seeks advice and comment 

on service of process and computation 

of time; intervention by third parties; 

motion practice and briefings; and the 

nature of written submissions in 

enforcement appeals. We also would 

like comment regarding whether a 

Tribal Advisory Committee should be 

formed to make the change or if another 

process will be sufficient. 

G. MICS & Technical Standards 

(1) Part 542—Class III Minimum 

Internal Control Standards 

The Commission is seeking comment 

regarding Class III Minimum Internal 

Control Standards (MICS). It has been 

suggested that the rule should be struck 

and replaced by a set of recommended 

guidelines. Comment is requested from 

the Tribal gaming community and other 

interested parties regarding whether the 

NIGC’s Class III MICS have a positive 

impact on the industry, and, if changed 

to a guideline, what, if any, impact that 

might have on Tribal gaming? Many 

Tribal gaming regulatory authorities 

have relied on the regulation to define 

the foundation of their minimum 

internal control standards, others have 

merely adopted the Federal rule 

verbatim, while yet others have drafted 

their own internal control standards. If 

the regulation is struck, how would 

such action impact the Tribal regulators 

and operators? 

Additionally, several State compacts 

incorporate the Class III MICS by 

reference. If the regulation was struck, 

how would these agreements be 

affected, if at all? Some Tribes have 

amended their gaming ordinance 

recognizing the authority of NIGC to 

regulate Class III MICS and enforce 

them. Their State compacts have also 

been revised recognizing Federal 

oversight as supplanting that of the 

State to the extent specified in the 

agreements. If the regulation was struck, 

what would the effect be on those 

Tribes? 

If the Class III MICS are revised but 

not placed into a regulation, how should 

NIGC publish them to the industry? Do 

we involve a Tribal Advisory Committee 

(TAC) to participate in the revision 

process? Does that TAC need to be 

composed of different members than the 

Class II MICS TAC? How should the 

members be selected? What process 

should NIGC utilize to make revisions? 

The Commission needs input from the 

Tribal gaming community on this very 

important issue. 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether this part should be revised, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of this part in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

(2) Part 543—Class II Minimum Internal 

Control Standards 

The NIGC is currently in the process 

of revising the Class II MICS. However, 

the process has come under significant 

scrutiny and objection by the Tribal 

gaming industry. While we have heard 

from the industry that the regulations 

need revision, there have also been 

many concerns about the process 

utilized to make the revisions. The 

Commission is dedicated to making the 

necessary updates through a process 

that is inclusive of all interested parties’ 

concerns and suggestions. 

A proposed regulation has been 

drafted, but questions have arisen 

regarding the clarity and interpretation 

of certain sections. Although the 

applicability of the rule may be limited, 

the Commission wants to ensure that it 

be viable and clear to the Tribal gaming 

industry. Accordingly, we are seeking 

comment on how to proceed. Should 

Tribal gaming regulatory authorities be 

provided an opportunity to provide 

comment on the proposed rule before 

public meetings? Should comment be 

sought from accounting practitioners? 

Should a TAC be assembled to provide 

advice to the NIGC in the administration 

of the rule once adopted? We would 

appreciate your thoughts on this idea. 

Finally, the Commission is seeking 

comment on the process of Class II 

MICS revisions. Should we start with 

the current proposed draft? Should we 

establish a TAC to participate? If so, 

how should the members be selected? 

What will the revision process be? The 

Commission needs input from the Tribal 

gaming community on this very 

important issue. 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether this part should be revised, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of this part in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

(3) Part 547—Minimum Technical 

Standards for Gaming Equipment Used 

With the Play of Class II Games 

This part was recently revised 

through a joint Tribal-NIGC working 

group. While it has been in effect for a 

short time, the Commission has received 

comments that the part should be 

further revised. Should NIGC start with 

the current proposed draft? Should we 

establish a Tribal Advisory Committee 

to participate? If so, how should the 

members be selected? What will the 

revision process be? The Commission 

needs input from the Tribal gaming 

community on this very important 

issue. 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether this part should be revised, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of this part in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

H. Backgrounds and Licensing 

(1) Part 556—Background Investigations 

for Licensing 

In 1997, the NIGC began a pilot 

program which allowed it to effectively 

perform its duties of regulating 

background investigations in a more 

timely fashion while reducing the 

amount of paperwork submitted and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70685 

maintained, and accordingly reducing 

associated costs. Today, a majority of 

the Tribes participate in the pilot 

program. Under the program, the 

Commission allows Tribes to send in a 

list of employees they either licensed or 

denied a license along with a one-page 

Notification of Results (NOR). The 

Commission requests comment on 

whether the pilot program should be 

formalized into regulations. 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether regulations should be 

promulgated to formalize the pilot 

program, how the Commission should 

prioritize this issue in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review, or another 

process. 

(2) Fingerprinting for Non-Primary 

Management Officials or Key Employees 

Currently, the NIGC reviews 

fingerprint cards submitted by Tribes for 

Primary Management Officials or Key 

Employees. However, some Tribes have 

requested the ability to be able to submit 

fingerprint cards to the NIGC for 

vendors, consultants, and other nonemployees that have access to the 

gaming operations. Under 25 U.S.C. 

2706(b)(3), the Commission may 

conduct or cause to be conducted such 

background investigations as may be 

necessary. Should the Commission 

adopt regulations that would allow 

Tribes, at their option, to submit 

fingerprint cards to the Commission for 

vendors, consultants, and other nonemployees that have access to the 

gaming operations? 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether regulations should be 

promulgated to clarify this issue, how 

the Commission should prioritize this 

issue in the regulatory review process, 

and whether the Commission should 

utilize standard notice and comment 

rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory 

Committee to assist in its regulatory 

review, or another process. 

I. Part 559—Facility License 

Notifications, Renewals, and 

Submissions 

This part was recently adopted by the 

Commission. However, the NIGC has 

received many comments concerning 

the substance of this regulation from 

Tribes. 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether this part should be revised, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of this part in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

J. Sections 571.1–571.7—Inspection and 

Access 

Under IGRA, the Commission may 

access and examine all papers, books, 

and records regarding gross revenues of 

Class II gaming conducted on Indian 

lands and any other matters necessary to 

carry out the duties of the Commission. 

However, at times the Commission or 

Tribe has been denied access to those 

records. 

Should the Commission revise its 

regulations in §§ 571.5 and 571.6 to 

clarify Commission access to records at 

off-site locations, including at sites 

maintained or owned by third parties? 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether this part should be revised, 

how the Commission should prioritize 

its review of this part in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the 

Commission should utilize standard 

notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in 

its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

K. Part 573—Enforcement 

Should NIGC promulgate a regulation 

concerning withdrawal of a Notice of 

Violation (NOV) after it has been 

issued? The Commission is looking for 

advice and input regarding whether this 

is an appropriate issue for a regulation 

and if so, under what conditions or 

circumstances the NOV could be 

withdrawn? Would it be appropriate to 

allow the NOV to be withdrawn solely 

at the discretion of the Chairperson? 

The Commission is seeking comment on 

this issue, how the Commission should 

prioritize it in the regulatory review 

process, and whether the Commission 

should utilize standard notice and 

comment rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory 

Committee to assist it, or another 

process. 

V. Potential New Regulations 

A. Tribal Advisory Committee 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should develop a regulation 

or policy identifying when a Tribal 

Advisory Committee (TAC) will be 

formed to provide input and advice to 

the NIGC and, if so, how Committee 

members should be selected. Should the 

cost of the TAC be a factor when 

considering whether to form a TAC? 

The Commission is seeking comment on 

whether the Commission should 

consider a regulation on this issue, how 

the Commission should prioritize it in 

the regulatory review process, and 

whether the Commission should utilize 

standard notice and comment 

rulemaking, a TAC to assist in its 

regulatory review of this part, or another 

process. 

B. Sole Proprietary Interest Regulation 

Many Tribes and 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 

IGRA requires that the Tribe have sole 

proprietary interest in the gaming 

operation. Should the Commission 

consider a regulation identifying when 

the sole proprietary interest provision is 

violated and providing a process 

whereby at the Tribe’s request the NIGC 

will review the documents and made a 

determination? 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether the Commission should 

consider a regulation on this issue, how 

the Commission should prioritize it in 

the regulatory review process, and 

whether the Commission should utilize 

standard notice and comment 

rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory 

Committee to assist in its regulatory 

review of this part, or another process. 

C. Communication Policy or Regulation 

Identifying When and How the NIGC 

Communicates With Tribes 

Should the NIGC develop a regulation 

or include as part of a regulation a 

process for determining how it 

communicates with Tribes? The NIGC 

has a government-to-government 

relationship with federally recognized 

Tribes. However, given the nature of the 

NIGC’s responsibilities, often the NIGC 

staff communicates primarily with the 

Tribal Gaming Commission (TGC) or 

Tribal Gaming Regulatory Agency 

(TGRA). While in many instances this 

means of communication is appropriate 

and works well, there are also times 

when the NIGC communicates directly 

with Tribal governments on issues 

related to broad policy changes or 

compliance issues such as a Notice of 

Violation. How should the NIGC 

communicate with Tribes and TGCs if 

those entities are at odds with each 

other on a particular issue? Should the 

NIGC consider requiring a resolution 

from the elected Tribal council setting 

forth which entity communicates the 

NIGC? Should such a resolution be 

submitted with the annual fees or audit? 

Is this approach unduly burdensome? 

Alternatively, should NIGC promulgate 

a regulation or policy establishing a 

default method of formal 

communication unless otherwise 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70686 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

directed by a resolution? The NIGC 

recognizes the many differences in 

Tribal government structures. However, 

would a universal standard for 

communication that can then be 

modified by each Tribe if they so choose 

promote more effective regulatory 

communication? 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on whether the Commission should 

consider a regulation on this issue, how 

the Commission should prioritize it in 

the regulatory review process, and 

whether the Commission should utilize 

standard notice and comment 

rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory 

Committee to assist in its regulatory 

review of this part, or another process. 

Further, the NIGC invites comment on 

whether to define the types of 

communication that occur between the 

NIGC and the Tribe and Tribal agencies. 

For example, a letter from the 

Chairperson regarding upcoming Tribal 

consultations, proposed broad policy 

changes or Notice of Violation could be 

considered a form of ‘‘formal 

communication.’’ Additionally, a letter 

from a Tribal chairperson requesting a 

meeting or a request from the Tribe for 

the NIGC to perform an audit could also 

be ‘‘formal communication.’’ However, 

the NIGC understands that 

communications between the NIGC and 

the Tribe, TGC, and TGRA may not be 

occurring in a uniform manner and 

wants to provide clarity for all the 

parties. The NIGC welcomes any 

comment or suggestions regarding 

whether the clarification is needed and 

if it should be formalized into a 

regulation or policy. 

D. Buy Indian Act Regulation 

The Commission is considering 

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. As an agency with regulatory 

responsibilities wholly related to Tribes, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether it is appropriate to promulgate 

such a regulation. The Commission is 

seeking advice and input from the 

Tribal gaming industry about this issue, 

and whether a Tribal Advisory 

Committee should be formed to make 

the change or if another process will be 

sufficient. 

VI. Other Regulations 

A. Part 501—Purpose and Scope 

The NIGC does not believe this 

regulation is currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to this part. 

B. Part 503—Commission Information 

Collection Requirements Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act: OMB Control 

Numbers and Expiration Dates 

The NIGC does not believe this 

regulation is currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to this part. 

C. Part 513—Debt Collection 

The NIGC does not believe this 

regulation is currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to this part. 

D. Part 515—Privacy Act Procedures 

The NIGC does not believe this 

regulation is currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to this part. 

E. Part 517—Freedom of Information 

Act Procedures 

The NIGC does not believe this 

regulation is currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to this part. 

F. Part 522—Submission of Gaming 

Ordinance or Resolution 

The NIGC does not believe these 

regulations are currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to this part. 

G. Part 531—Content of Management 

Contacts 

The NIGC does not believe this 

regulation is currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to this part. 

H. Part 535—Post Approval Procedures 

The NIGC does not believe this 

regulation is currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to this part. 

I. Sections 571.8–571.11—Subpoenas 

and Depositions 

The NIGC does not believe these 

regulations are currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to these 

sections. 

J. Sections 571.12–571.14—Annual 

Audits 

The NIGC does not believe these 

regulations are currently in need of 

revision. However, we are interested in 

hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to these 

sections. 

K. Part 575—Civil Fines 

The NIGC does not believe these 

regulations are currently in need of 

revision. While the Commission was 

interested in seeing Tribal dollars paid 

as a fine for a regulation violation 

returned to the Tribes by funding the 

Commission activities, Federal law 

prohibits an agency from keeping fines 

received from entities it regulates, and 

fines are deposited in the U.S. Treasury. 

The view is that regulatory agencies 

would then have an incentive to issue 

violations. However, we are interested 

in hearing any comments or suggestions 

related to possible revisions to this part. 

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

Tracie L. Stevens, 

Chairwoman. 

Steffani A. Cochran, 

Vice-Chairwoman. 

Daniel J. Little, 

Associate Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29028 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Filing of Settlement 

Agreement Pursuant to 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) 

Notice is hereby given that on 

November 10, 2010, a proposed 

Settlement Agreement in In re Asarco, 

LLC, No. 05–21207 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) 

was filed with the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 

District of Texas. The Settlement 

Agreement resolves the Late 

Supplemental Proof of Claim by the 

United States on behalf of the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

and the United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, in the 

Asarco bankruptcy. The Late 

Supplemental Proof of Claim relates to 

the Blue Ledge Mine Site located in 

Siskiyou County, California, which lies 

three miles south of the Oregon border. 

The Settlement Agreement requires a 

payment of $2,400,000 to settle this 

matter. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of fifteen (15) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES