21394 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

objections are to be identified with the

docket number found in brackets in the

heading of this document and may be

accompanied by a supporting

memorandum or brief. The agency has

determined that comments or objections

should be submitted within 30 days

because this proposal has no effect on

currently marketed products.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 328

Drugs, Labeling, Alcohol.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that

21 CFR part 328 be amended as follows:

PART 328—OVER-THE-COUNTER

DRUG PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR

ORAL INGESTION THAT CONTAIN

ALCOHOL

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 328 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503,

505, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,

353, 355, 371).

2. Section 328.10 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph

(g) and by adding new paragraph (f) to

read as follows:

§ 328.10 Alcohol.

* * * * *

(f) Ipecac syrup is exempt from the

provisions of paragraph (d) of this

section.

* * * * *

Dated: May 1, 1996.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 96–11640 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 3500

[Docket No. FR–3780–N–07]

RIN 2502–AG40

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner; Mortgage Broker Fee

Disclosure Rule: Notice of Meeting of

Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory

Committee

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of committee meeting.

SUMMARY: The Department has

established a Negotiated Rulemaking

Advisory Committee to address certain

issues concerning indirect payments to

mortgage brokers and certain other

mortgage originators (retail lenders) and

volume-based compensation. The

committee, which consists of

representatives with a definable stake in

the outcome of a proposed rule, has

convened on 5 prior occasions in the

past 5 months. This notice announces

the time and place for the next meeting.

This meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The sixth meeting of the

committee will be held on May 20–21,

1996. On Monday, May 20, the meeting

will start at 9:00 a.m. and will end at

5:00 p.m., and on Tuesday, May 21, the

meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. and run

until approximately 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The next meeting of the

committee will be held in the

Headquarters of the American

Association of Retired Persons, 601 ‘‘E’’

Street, NW., Room 120, Floor 2–B,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David R. Williamson, Director, Office of

Consumer and Regulatory Affairs,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 451 7th Street, SW.,

Room 5241, Washington, DC 20410–

8000); telephone number: (202) 708–

4560 (this is not a toll-free number); email through Internet at david—r.—

williamson@hud.gov. For hearing- and

speech-impaired persons, this number

may be accessed via TDD by calling the

Federal Information Relay Service at 1–

800–877–8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 8, 1995 (60 FR 63008), HUD

published a notice announcing the

establishment and first meeting of the

Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory

Committee on Mortgage Broker

Disclosures, to discuss and negotiate a

proposed rule on the treatment under

RESPA, including disclosure

requirements, of payments to retail

lenders and of volume-based

compensation to mortgage brokers. The

committee convened in Washington,

DC, on December 13–14, 1995; January

18–19, 1996; February 22–23, 1996;

March 18–19, 1996; and April 8–9,

1996. The committee expects that the

upcoming meeting on May 20–21 will

be the last meeting for this rulemaking

effort.

This meeting is open to the public,

with limited seating available on a firstcome, first-served basis.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437g, 3535(d).

Dated: May 3, 1996.

James E. Schoenberger,

Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Housing Federal Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 96–11648 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–27–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Indian Gaming Commission

25 CFR Part 525

RIN 1076–AD67

Request for Comments on

Establishing Departmental Procedures

To Authorize Class III Gaming on

Indian Lands When a State Raises an

Eleventh Amendment Defense To Suit

Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory

Act

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming

Commission, Interior.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Interior seeks comments on its authority

under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

(IGRA), 25 U.S.C. Section 2710, to

promulgate ‘‘procedures’’ to authorize

Class III gaming on Indian lands when

a State raises an Eleventh Amendment

defense to an action brought against it

pursuant to Section ll of the Act, 25

U.S.C. Section 2710(d)(7), and on other

related matters. This advance notice is

the result of the Supreme Court decision

in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of

Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (1996).

DATES: Written public comment is

invited and will be considered in the

development of a proposed rule.

Comments on this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking must be received

no later than July 1, 1996, to be

considered.

ADDRESSES: Any comments concerning

this notice, including sections regarding

conformance with statutory and

regulatory authorities, may be sent to:

George Skibine, Director, Indian Gaming

Management Staff, 1849 C Street, N.W.,

MS–2070 MIB, Washington, D.C. 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Skibine, Director, Indian Gaming

Management Staff, (202) 219–4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Congress enacted IGRA to provide a

statutory basis for the operation and

regulation of Indian gaming and to

protect Indian gaming as a means of

generating revenue for tribal

governments. 25 U.S.C. Section 2702;
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21395

Seminole, at 1119. Since its passage in

1988, more than 140 compacts in more

than 20 States have been successfully

negotiated, entered into by States and

Tribes and approved by the Secretary.

Today, Indian gaming is a successful

industry generating significant

governmental revenue for Indian tribes,

which provides funding for essential

government services such as roads,

schools, and hospitals. Prior to

enactment of IGRA, States generally

were precluded from any regulation of

gaming on Indian reservations. See

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission

Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987). IGRA, by

offering States an opportunity to

participate with Indian tribes in

developing regulations for Indian

gaming, ‘‘extends to States a power

withheld from them by the

Constitution.’’ Seminole, at 1124.

IGRA requires an Indian Tribe that

wants to conduct casino type (‘‘Class

III’’) gaming on its Indian lands to

negotiate a ‘‘compact’’ of terms and

conditions for such gaming with the

State in which the Indian lands are

located. IGRA also provides that if the

State fails to bargain, or to do so in good

faith, the Tribe may sue the State in

Federal court to enforce the remedial

provisions provided by the statute.

Under these provisions, if a court found

a State not to be bargaining in good

faith, it would ‘‘order the State and the

Indian Tribe to conclude such a

compact within a 60-day period.’’ 25

U.S.C. Section 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii). If

thereafter a State and Tribe fail to

conclude a compact within this 60-day

period, they ‘‘shall each submit to a

mediator appointed by the court a

proposed compact that represents their

last best offer for a compact.’’ Id. Section

2710(d)(7)(B)(iv). The mediator shall

then ‘‘select from the two proposed

compacts the one which best comports

with the terms of this Act and any other

applicable Federal law and with the

findings and order of the court,’’ id., and

submit his or her selection to the State

and Tribe, id. Section 2710(d)(7)(B)(v).

If, within 60 days from the mediator’s

submission of his or her selection, the

State consents to a proposed compact,

such a compact authorizes Indian

gaming pursuant to IGRA. Id.

Section 2710(d)(7)(B)(vi). If the State

does not consent to a compact within 60

days of the mediator’s submission, the

Secretary of the Interior shall:

prescribe, in consultation with the Indian

tribe, procedures—

(I) which are consistent with the proposed

compact selected by the mediator under [25

U.S.C. Section 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv)], the

provisions of [the Act] and the relevant

provisions of the laws of the State, and

(II) under which class III gaming may be

conducted on the Indian lands over which

the Indian tribe has jurisdiction.

25 U.S.C. Section 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii). In

practice, only a handful of cases have

required resort to IGRA’s judicial

enforcement mechanism.

In Seminole Tribe of Florida v.

Florida, the Supreme Court affirmed a

decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court

of Appeals holding that Congress may

not abrogate State Eleventh Amendment

immunity under the Indian Commerce

Clause. The decision raises questions

about the process now to be followed by

Tribes who cannot secure State

cooperation in the compacting process.

The Supreme Court’s Seminole

decision does not affect the validity of

existing class III gaming compacts, but

it does require the United States to

consider the effect of a State’s refusal to

engage in remedial litigation designed to

oversee the compacting process. In its

decision below, the Eleventh Circuit

suggested that the compacting process

could proceed as prescribed by IGRA

(including litigation) so long as a State

did not assert its Eleventh Amendment

immunity. In light of IGRA’s

severability clause, the Eleventh Circuit

further expressed the view that if a State

pleads an Eleventh Amendment defense

and the suit is dismissed, the Tribe may

then notify the Secretary and the

Secretary may prescribe the terms of the

particular compact. The Supreme Court

expressly declined to consider the

validity of this part of the Eleventh

Circuit’s opinion, and Florida’s crosspetition for review of this issue was

denied by the Supreme Court. By

contrast, the Ninth Circuit, in its preSeminole decision rejecting an Eleventh

Amendment challenge, Spokane Tribe

of Indians v. Washington, 28 F.3d 991

(9th Cir. 1994), expressed disagreement

with the Eleventh Circuit’s views on

that issue. Id. at 997.

In these circumstances, and because

of the importance of the issues to the

Tribes, the States, and the general

public, the Department seeks comments

regarding the manner in which the

compacting provisions of IGRA may

operate following the Supreme Court’s

Seminole Tribe decision.

Subject Matter of Potential Rulemaking

The Department seeks comments on

the following specific issues, and on

other issues directly related to the

subject matter of this notice.

(1) The effect of the Supreme Court’s

decision in Seminole Tribe on the

operation of other provisions in 25

U.S.C. Section 2710(d)(7) when a State

does not waive its Eleventh Amendment

immunity to suit;

(2) Whether, and under what

circumstances, the Secretary of the

Interior is empowered to prescribe

‘‘procedures’’ for the conduct of Class III

gaming when a State interposes an

Eleventh Amendment defense to an

action pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Section

2710(d)(7)(B);

(3) What is an appropriate

administrative process for the

development of Secretarial procedures;

(4) What procedures should be

followed if a State interposes an

Eleventh Amendment defense to an

action filed under 25 U.S.C. Section

2710(d)(7)(B);

(5) What procedures can be, and

should be, utilized for determining legal

issues that may be in dispute, such as

the ‘‘scope of gaming’’ permitted under

State law. The scope of gaming issue

arises when a State takes the position

that it is not required to bargain with a

Tribe with respect to certain Class III

games because IGRA does not authorize

such games on the ground that such

games are not permitted by the State

‘‘for any purpose by any person,’’ see 25

U.S.C. Section 2710(d)(1)(B)1; and

(6) How any procedures promulgated

by the Secretary may, and should,

provide for appropriate regulation of

Indian gaming.

Public Review

Comments on this notice may be

submitted in writing to the address

identified at the beginning of this

rulemaking by July 1, 1996. Comments

received by that date will be considered

in the development of any proposed

rule.

Executive Order 12866

This advance notice of proposed

rulemaking has been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

Drafting Information

This Notice was drafted by the Office

of the Solicitor, 1849 C Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., 20240.

Dated: April 30, 1996.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 96–11287 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–02–P