Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6019 

(iv) Zilpaterol alone or in combination 

as in § 558.665. 

■ 3. In § 558.625, add paragraph 

(f)(2)(ix) to read as follows: 

§ 558.625 Tylosin. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ix) Zilpaterol alone or in combination 

as in § 558.665. 

■ 4. In § 558.665, revise paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 558.665 Zilpaterol. 

* * * * * 

(e) Conditions of use in cattle. It is 

administered in feed as follows: 

Zilpaterol in 

grams/ton 

Combination in 

grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor 

(1) 6.8 to provide 

60 to 90 mg/ 

head/day 

Cattle fed in confinement for slaughter: For 

increased rate of weight gain, improved 

feed efficiency, and increased carcass 

leanness in cattle fed in confinement for 

slaughter during the last 20 to 40 days 

on feed. 

Feed continuously as the sole ration during 

the last 20 to 40 days on feed. Withdrawal period: 3 days. 

057926 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) 6.8 to provide 

60 to 90 mg/ 

head/day 

Monensin 10 to 

40, plus tylosin 

8 to 10 

Cattle fed in confinement for slaughter: As 

in paragraph (e)(1) of this section; for 

prevention and control of coccidiosis due 

to Eimeria bovis and E. zuernii; and for 

reduction of incidence of liver abscesses 

caused by Fusobacterium necrophorum 

and Arcanobacterium (Actinomyces) 

pyogenes. 

As in paragraph (e)(1) of this section; see 

§§ 558.355(d) and 558.625(c) of this 

chapter. Monensin and tylosin as provided by No. 000986 in § 510.600(c) of 

this chapter. 

057926 

Dated: January 24, 2008. 

Bernadette Dunham, 

Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 

[FR Doc. E8–1903 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

25 CFR Parts 502, 522, 559 and 573 

RIN 3141–AA23 

Facility License Standards 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission (‘‘NIGC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The rule adds new sections 

and a new part to the Commission’s 

regulations that require tribes to adopt 

and enforce standards for facility 

licenses. These standards will help the 

Commission ensure that each place, 

facility or location where class II or 

class III gaming will occur is located on 

Indian lands eligible for gaming as 

required by the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act. The rules will ensure 

that gaming facilities are constructed, 

maintained and operated in a manner 

that adequately protects the 

environment and the public health and 

safety. 

DATES: Effective March 3, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Penny J. Coleman, Acting General 

Counsel, at 202–632–7003; fax 202–

632–7066 (not toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 17, 1988, Congress 

enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act (‘‘IGRA’’ or ‘‘Act’’), 25 U.S.C. 2701–

21, creating the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (‘‘NIGC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

and developing a comprehensive 

framework for the regulation of gaming 

on Indian lands. 25 U.S.C. 2702. The 

NIGC was granted, among other things, 

the authority to promulgate such 

regulations and guidelines as it deems 

appropriate to implement the provisions 

of IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10), as well 

as oversight and enforcement authority, 

including the authority to monitor tribal 

compliance with the Act, Commission 

regulations, and tribal gaming 

ordinances. 

First, the IGRA allows gaming on 

Indian lands pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 

2703(4), and it contains a general 

prohibition against gaming on lands 

acquired into trust by the United States 

for the benefit of the tribe after the Act’s 

effective date of October 17, 1988, 

unless one of several exceptions are 

met. 25 U.S.C. 2719. The Commission 

has jurisdiction only over gaming 

operations on Indian lands and 

therefore must establish that it has 

jurisdiction as a prerequisite to its 

monitoring, enforcement, and oversight 

duties. 25 U.S.C. 2702(3). 

Second, the NIGC needs to obtain 

information on a tribe’s environmental 

and public health and safety laws to 

oversee the implementation of approved 

tribal gaming ordinances. Before 

opening a gaming operation, a tribe 

must adopt an ordinance governing 

gaming activities on its Indian lands. 25 

U.S.C. 2710. The Act specifies a number 

of mandatory provisions to be contained 

in each tribal gaming ordinance and 

subjects such ordinances to the NIGC 

Chairman’s approval. Id. Approval by 

the Chairman is predicated on the 

inclusion of each of the Act’s specified 

mandatory provisions in the tribal 

gaming ordinance. Id. Among these is a 

requirement that the ordinance must 

contain a provision ensuring that ‘‘the 

construction and maintenance of the 

gaming operation, and the operation of 

that gaming is conducted in a manner 

that adequately protects the 

environment and the public health and 

safety.’’ 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(E). Since 

1993, when the Commission became 

operational, the Chairman has required 

each tribal gaming ordinance submitted 

for approval to include the express 

environmental and public health and 

safety statement set out in 25 U.S.C. 

2710(b)(2)(E). 

The Commission believes that tribes 

must have some form of basic laws in 

the following environmental and public 

health and safety areas: (1) Emergency 

preparedness, including but not limited 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6020 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

to fire suppression, law enforcement 

and security; (2) food and potable water; 

(3) construction and maintenance; (4) 

hazardous materials; and (5) sanitation 

(both solid waste and wastewater). 

Accordingly, in 2002, the Commission 

issued an interpretive rule to ensure the 

adequate protection of the environment, 

public health, and safety. 67 FR 46109, 

Jul. 12, 2002 (‘‘Interpretive Rule’’). 

The NIGC has conducted many 

environment and public health and 

safety inspections since the issuance of 

the Interpretive Rule and has worked 

with a consultant to allow the agency to 

gain expertise in this area. Through this 

inspection process, the NIGC has 

identified weaknesses in tribal laws or 

enforcement thereof and has worked 

with tribes to cure deficiencies. The 

Commission has also identified several 

deficiencies in the Interpretative Rule 

that will be corrected by the Facility 

License Standards. Namely, the 

Interpretive Rule does not assist the 

Commission in identifying what 

environmental and public health and 

safety laws apply to each gaming 

operation nor does it ensure that tribal 

gaming regulatory authorities are 

enforcing those laws. 

There is a need for a submission to 

the Commission of a certification by the 

tribe that it has enacted or identified 

laws applicable to its gaming operation 

and is in compliance with them together 

with a document listing those laws. This 

process will enable tribes and the 

Commission to identify problem areas 

where laws are needed so that the NIGC 

may offer technical advice and 

encourage adoption and enforcement of 

appropriate laws. The final Facility 

License Standards will not replace the 

Interpretive Rule but will work in 

conjunction with it. The final rule does 

not preclude the Chairman’s authority 

to take an enforcement action in the 

event imminent jeopardy exists at a 

tribal gaming facility. 

Regulatory Matters 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The rule will not have a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities as defined under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq. Moreover, Indian tribes are not 

considered to be small entities for the 

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

The rule does not have an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more. The rules will not cause a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, state or local government 

agencies or geographic regions and does 

not have a significant adverse effect on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Commission, as an independent 

regulatory agency within the 

Department of the Interior, is exempt 

from compliance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 

2 U.S.C. 658(1). Regardless, the rule 

does not impose an unfunded mandate 

on state, local, or tribal governments or 

on the private sector of more than $100 

million per year. Thus, it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the Commission has determined 

that the rule does not have significant 

takings implications. A takings 

implication assessment is not required. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of General Counsel has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meet the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Commission has determined that 

the rule does not constitute a major 

federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment and 

that no detailed statement is required 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et 

seq. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The following final Facility Licensing 

Standards require information 

collection under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, 

et seq., and are subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

General Comments to Final Facility 

License Standards 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed Facility 

License Standards (72 FR 59044) during 

the comment period that opened on 

October 18, 2007, and closed on 

December 3, 2007. During that comment 

period we received 81 comments: 70 

from tribal governments or tribal gaming 

commissions; 3 from citizens’

associations; 3 from gaming associations 

and 1 each from a governor’s 

association, a county, a private citizen, 

a state environmental agency, and a 

cardroom. Many of the comments were 

grouped based on the common topics 

addressed. The Commission carefully 

reviewed all comments and where 

appropriate revised the final rule to 

reflect those comments. The comments 

and the NIGC response follow. 

Comments Questioning NIGC Authority 

To Promulgate the Facility License 

Standards Under IGRA 

Many of the comments to the 

proposed Facility License Standards 

pertained to the Commission’s 

authority. We address the specific issues 

and Commission response below. 

Comments Regarding NIGC Authority 

Several commenters stated that the 

proposed rule improperly intrudes upon 

tribal sovereignty in the absence of a 

clearly expressed intent by Congress to 

do so and seeks to replace the tribe’s 

sovereign regulatory authority with 

NIGC’s authority. Stated variously, the 

proposed rule would compel the tribes 

to adopt NIGC’s facility licensing 

standards instead of the tribes’ own, or 

it would compel the tribes to enact 

positive law and then grant the NIGC 

the right to judge the adequacy of that 

law. 

The Commission disagrees with these 

characterizations of IGRA and of the 

proposed rule’s purpose and 

consequence. The Commission 

recognizes that tribes are the primary 

regulators of Indian gaming and has no 

intention or desire to intrude upon that 

vital role or to usurp tribal authority. 

Thus, in the general case, the rule only 

asks each tribe to identify and enforce 

the laws it has adopted to ensure the 

health and safety of the public and the 

environment, i.e., the laws or standards 

it has adopted in the areas of emergency 

preparedness, food and potable water, 

construction and maintenance, etc. 

There is no requirement that a tribe 

adopt and enforce any particular law. 

The Commission merely wishes to 

know, for example, whether a tribe has 

written its own fire code, whether it has 

adopted a county’s code, or whether a 

tribal-state compact provides for the 

application of a particular fire code. 

It is only in the unusual case where 

a tribe has adopted no, or obviously 

inadequate, health and safety standards 

that the rule would insist that the tribe 

adopt laws. That, however, places no 

obligation on the tribe that does not 

already exist. IGRA obligates each tribe, 

through its gaming ordinance, to ensure 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6021 

that the construction, maintenance, and 

operation of each tribal gaming facility 

is conducted in a manner that 

adequately protects the environment 

and the public health and safety. 25 

U.S.C. 2710(b)(1)(E). In short, the rule 

encroaches no further on tribal 

sovereignty than IGRA already has. 

Likewise, the Commission already 

‘‘judges’’ the adequacy of tribal health 

and safety standards. The Commission 

already has, and already exercises, 

oversight responsibility for health and 

safety at tribal gaming operations. As 

with all aspects of regulating Indian 

gaming, the primary responsibility 

belongs to the tribes, and the 

Commission plays only an oversight 

role under the Commission’s existing 

interpretive rule, 67 FR 46109. The 

adoption of the rule would make no 

change to this arrangement. 

Several commenters stated that the 

NIGC has no authority to require 

adoption of specific health and safety or 

operational standards because IGRA 

contains no such standards. 

Although IGRA does not enumerate 

specific health and safety requirements 

for gaming facilities, the Act requires 

that the construction, maintenance and 

operation of a gaming facility ‘‘is 

conducted in a manner which 

adequately protects the environment 

and the public health and safety.’’ 25 

U.S.C. 2710(b)(1)(E). Congress created 

the NIGC, 25 U.S.C. 2704(a), and gave it 

the specific authority to ‘‘promulgate 

such regulations and guidelines as it 

deems appropriate to implement the 

provisions of [IGRA].’’ 25 U.S.C. 

2706(b)(10). The Commission is doing 

so here. This rule mandates that tribes 

identify, and certify their enforcement 

of, the health and safety laws, 

resolutions, codes, policies, standards 

and/or procedures that apply to their 

gaming operations. Therefore, the rule 

implements the requirements of 25 

U.S.C. 2710(b)(1)(E). Further, when 

certain terms are used herein to describe 

applicable health and safety 

requirements, such as laws, resolutions, 

codes, policies, standards and/or 

procedures, the use of such term or 

terms is not meant to exclude all other 

terms of similar meaning. 

Several commenters stated that NIGC 

has no authority to attach specific 

requirements, such as a three-year 

renewal period, to issuing a facility 

license because IGRA contains no such 

requirements. Other commenters 

suggested that the three-year renewal 

period was arbitrary. 

The Commission agrees that IGRA 

does not specify any period of renewal 

or other conditions to the obligation to 

issue a facility license. The Commission 

disagrees, however, with the 

commenters’ conclusion that the 

Commission therefore lacks the 

authority to promulgate such 

requirements. The Commission also 

disagrees that the three-year renewal 

period is arbitrary, as it is a reasonable 

period to periodically review changes in 

tribal requirements and/or changes in 

physical circumstances at a gaming 

facility. 

IGRA obligates each tribe to license its 

gaming facilities: ‘‘A separate license 

issued by the Indian tribe shall be 

required for each place, facility or 

location on Indian lands at which Class 

II gaming is conducted.’’ 25 U.S.C. 

2710(b)(1). IGRA also obligates each 

tribe, through its gaming ordinance, to 

ensure that the construction, 

maintenance, and operation of each 

tribal gaming facility is conducted in a 

manner that adequately protects the 

environment and the public health and 

safety. 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1)(E). What 

exactly is required by each of these 

sections, or when it is required, 

however, Congress did not say. Congress 

has neither the institutional expertise 

nor the inclination to specify all 

regulatory details in this or any other 

organic statute for any regulatory 

agency. Accordingly, it creates 

regulatory agencies and gives to them 

the responsibility to fill in those gaps. 

Congress created the NIGC, 25 U.S.C. 

2704(a), and gave it the specific 

authority to ‘‘promulgate such 

regulations and guidelines as it deems 

appropriate to implement the provisions 

of this chapter [i.e., IGRA].’’ 25 U.S.C. 

2706(b)(10). The Commission has 

deemed it appropriate to implement the 

specific provisions set out in 25 U.S.C. 

2710(b)(1) and 2710(b)(1)(E). 

The rule does not require that each 

facility be licensed only every three 

years. Rather, the rule requires that a 

facility be licensed no less frequently 

than once every three years, proposed 

25 CFR 559.3, and the Commission 

observes that most tribes license their 

gaming facilities more frequently. The 

choice of a three-year renewal period is 

therefore consistent with, and largely 

encompasses, the tribes’ existing 

practices. The rule also requires that the 

tribe submit a list of applicable health 

and safety laws and certify its 

compliance with them. Proposed 25 

CFR 559.5. The Commission has 

deemed it appropriate to implement the 

specific provisions in 25 U.S.C. 

2710(b)(1) and 2710(b)(1)(E). 

By seeking to have tribes periodically 

license gaming facilities and identify the 

health and safety rules they enforce, the 

rule creates mechanisms by which the 

tribes and the Commission can ensure 

that gaming facilities are licensed and 

that their construction, maintenance 

and operation is ‘‘conducted in a 

manner which adequately protects the 

environment and the public health and 

safety.’’ 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1)(E). 

Several commenters stated that NIGC 

has no authority to require submissions 

of facility licenses, a list of all 

applicable health and safety laws and 

standards, or any documents other than 

those specifically identified in IGRA 

such as: (1) Annual audit reports; (2) 

proposed gaming ordinances; (3) notice 

of the issuance of a gaming license to 

key employees and primary 

management officials; and (4) an 

application for self-regulation. 

The Commission agrees that IGRA 

does not specifically identify the 

submissions required by the proposed 

rule. The Commission disagrees that the 

comment contains an exhaustive list of 

documents whose submission IGRA 

specifically requires. The comment 

omits, for example, the submission of 

management contracts for the 

Chairman’s review and approval. 25 

U.S.C. 2711. The Commission also 

disagrees with the commenters’

conclusion that the ability to require 

submission of information is limited to 

those specific submissions identified in 

IGRA. 

As to the submission of the facility 

license itself and the information about 

health and safety laws and compliance 

that must accompany it, IGRA, again, 

obligates each tribe to license its gaming 

facilities. 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1). IGRA 

also obligates each tribe, through its 

gaming ordinance, to ensure that the 

construction, maintenance, and 

operation of each tribal gaming facility 

is conducted in a manner that 

adequately protects the environment 

and the public health and safety. 25 

U.S.C. 2710(b)(1)(E). What exactly is 

required by each of these sections, 

however, Congress did not say. Congress 

has neither the institutional expertise 

nor the inclination to specify all 

regulatory details in this or any other 

organic statute for any regulatory 

agency. Accordingly, it creates 

regulatory agencies and gives to them 

the responsibility to fill in those gaps. 

Congress created the NIGC, 25 U.S.C. 

2704(a), and gave it the specific 

authority to ‘‘promulgate such 

regulations and guidelines as it deems 

appropriate to implement the provisions 

of this chapter [i.e., IGRA].’’ 25 U.S.C. 

2706(b)(10). The Commission has 

deemed it appropriate to implement the 

specific provisions set out in 25 U.S.C. 

2710(b)(1) and 2710(b)(1)(E). 

By seeking to have tribes periodically 

license gaming facilities and identify the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6022 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

health and safety rules they enforce, the 

rule creates mechanisms by which the 

tribes and the Commission can ensure 

that gaming facilities are licensed and 

that their construction, maintenance 

and operation is ‘‘conducted in a 

manner which adequately protects the 

environment and the public health and 

safety.’’ 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1)(E). 

That said, there is a second, sufficient 

source of authority within IGRA for the 

submission of facility licenses to the 

Commission. A facility license is a 

requirement of IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 

2710(b)(1), and the failure to issue a 

license is a violation of IGRA against 

which the NIGC Chairman may bring an 

enforcement action. 25 U.S.C. 2713. The 

Chairman, therefore, has the authority to 

request any facility license for any 

facility as part of a routine investigation. 

25 U.S.C. 2706(b). Rather than regularly 

making such a demand through the 

Commission’s enforcement staff, the 

proposed rule simply establishes an 

administrative process for the 

submission of facility licenses upon 

their issuance. 

Similarly, as to the submission of 

Indian lands information, IGRA requires 

that all gaming take place on ‘‘Indian 

lands.’’ See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(1), 

2710(d)(1). Gaming that does not take 

place on Indian lands is subject to all 

state and local gambling laws and 

federal laws apart from IGRA. The 

Chairman therefore has the authority to 

request Indian lands information for any 

facility as part of a routine investigation 

in order to establish whether gaming is, 

in fact, occurring under IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 

2706(b). Rather than regularly making 

such a demand through the 

Commission’s enforcement staff, the 

proposed rule simply establishes an 

administrative process for the 

submission of minimal Indian lands 

information before the opening of a new 

facility. 

A few commenters stated that 

requiring tribes to submit site-specific 

facility licenses to the NIGC for 

approval presumes the NIGC is 

mandated by IGRA to engage in sitespecific Indian lands determinations, 

but the Commission has no role in 

determining Indian lands. In previous 

litigation, the Commission has argued 

that it does not have a statutory duty to 

make pre-construction Indian lands 

determinations. 

The Commission disagrees with the 

characterization of the proposed rule 

and with the commenters’ assertion that 

the Commission has no role in 

determining Indian lands. 

The rule does not establish any 

mechanism or system whereby facility 

licenses are submitted to the 

Commission for approval. Rather, the 

rule simply requires that 120 days prior 

to the opening of a new facility, the tribe 

submit a notice that a facility license is 

under consideration to make the 

Commission aware of the impending 

opening. The rule also requires the 

submission of minimal information for 

determining Indian lands. Again, the 

location of a gaming facility on Indian 

lands is a necessary prerequisite to 

gaming under IGRA. The proposed rule 

requests some of the information 

necessary to make an Indian lands 

determination and was a change from a 

previous draft of the rule, which 

imposed an affirmative obligation on 

each tribe to make an Indian lands 

determination before opening a new 

facility. 

One commenter stated that the NIGC 

does not have the authority to make 

Indian lands determinations because 

IGRA plainly gives that authority to the 

Secretary of the Interior. 

The Commission disagrees. IGRA 

gives the ability to make Indian lands 

determinations both to the Secretary, for 

example, while taking land into trust, 

and to the Commission. Again, the 

location of a gaming facility on Indian 

lands is a necessary prerequisite to 

gaming under IGRA and to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction under IGRA. 

A reading of IGRA under which the 

Commission is unable to determine its 

own jurisdiction would undermine, if 

not make meaningless, the Chairman’s 

enforcement authority under 25 U.S.C. 

2713. 

A number of commenters stated that 

under the decisions in Colorado River 

Indian Tribes v. NIGC, the Commission 

does not have the authority to regulate 

class III gaming and that these 

regulations are an unauthorized 

rulemaking intended to encroach on 

class III gaming. 

The Commission respects and abides 

by the courts’ decisions in the Colorado 

River Indian Tribes v. National Indian 

Gaming Commission (‘‘CRIT’’) cases. 

The Commission disagrees, however, 

that the CRIT cases stand for the broad 

proposition that the NIGC lacks any 

authority over class III gaming. Rather, 

CRIT stands for the narrower 

propositions that (1) an administrative 

agency has only the authority Congress 

delegated to it and (2) that Congress did 

not grant the Commission authority to 

promulgate minimum internal control 

standards for class III gaming. The latter 

is not applicable here and the 

Commission, as stated at length above, 

believes that it does have the authority 

to promulgate these facility license 

standards. 

A few commenters stated that the 

NIGC may not issue these regulations 

because under the well-established 

canons of construction in federal Indian 

law, statutory ambiguities must be 

resolved in favor of the tribes. 

The Commission agrees that the 

Indian canon of construction holds that 

statutory ambiguities are to be resolved 

in favor of the tribes. The Commission 

disagrees, however, that the canon 

prohibits the Commission from adopting 

the rule. The Commission believes that 

the rule effectuates some of IGRA’s 

statutory requirements: the licensing of 

gaming facilities and the construction, 

maintenance and operation of those 

facilities so as to protect the 

environment and the public health and 

safety. Doing these things ensures not 

only the health of casino employees and 

patrons but the health of the Indian 

gaming industry itself. 

Assuming for the sake of argument 

that there are ambiguities in IGRA, the 

Commission believes that the rule 

resolves them in favor of the tribes. The 

commenters would have otherwise. In 

such a situation where there are 

competing views of what is ‘‘in favor of 

the tribes,’’ the canon will not bar the 

Commission’s decision. See, e.g., 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community v. Hope, 16 F.3d 261, 264 

n.6 (8th Cir. 1994). 

A few commenters stated that there is 

no authority to demand that a tribe 

perform information gathering for the 

Commission without a contract or 

compensation. Section 2710(b)(7) of 

IGRA plainly requires that if the 

Commission desires a tribal government 

to perform commission functions, then 

the Commission should contract to pay 

them. 

The Commission disagrees with this 

reading of 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(7). Nothing 

in this section requires the Commission 

to contract with tribes for compliance 

with Commission regulations. Rather, 

this section permits and recommends to 

the Commission that it contract with the 

tribes for enforcement of Commission 

regulations. 

Comments Regarding the Licensing 

Requirements of the Facility License 

Standards 

Some commenters stated that the 

requirements of the proposed rule are 

unnecessary because they duplicate 

existing Federal and tribal regulations. 

The Commission disagrees. The rule 

does not require the adoption of any 

particular health and safety rules or 

standards and thus cannot conflict with 

standards the tribe has adopted on its 

own that apply under a tribal-state 

compact, or that apply under federal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6023 

law. Even in a case where the proposed 

rule would mandate the adoption of a 

health and safety law—because none 

had been adopted, for example—no 

particular law is mandated. 

As for the submission of ‘‘Indian 

lands’’ information, the rule does not 

require the submission of information 

already in the possession of the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs and thus avoids 

unnecessary duplication. 

Some commenters stated that the 

NIGC has not demonstrated that the 

current system of licensing facilities is 

inadequate. 

The Commission believes that the rule 

fills two important regulatory needs. 

First, it allows the Commission to have 

advance notice of the opening of gaming 

facilities, and thus to have the ability to 

exercise its oversight regulatory 

authority appropriately and timely. 

Second, it helps ensure that adequate 

health and safety standards are 

maintained and complied with at all 

gaming facilities. 

One commenter sought clarification 

whether the tribal gaming regulatory 

authority is the entity that is responsible 

for implementing the rule, which only 

uses the word ‘‘tribe’’. 

The rule mirrors the language used in 

IGRA when it places regulatory 

responsibility on a ‘‘tribe.’’ Nothing, 

however, prohibits a tribe from vesting 

a tribal gaming regulatory authority with 

the responsibility to act in compliance 

with the proposed rule. 

A number of commenters 

recommended that the NIGC require 

tribal governments to certify the 

implementation of their public health 

and safety ordinances as part of the 

annual audit process. 

The Commission disagrees. The rule 

is designed to be minimally intrusive. It 

requires licensing of facilities no less 

frequently than once every three years. 

Making certification of enforcement of 

health and safety ordinances part of 

each tribe’s annual audit process would 

make three times the work and is more 

likely to be inconsistent with current 

licensing practices. 

One commenter requested that facility 

license submission be required not only 

for new facilities but also for substantial 

expansions of existing facilities 

(substantial being defined as either a 

25% increase in the number of class II/ 

III machines or an increase of more than 

150 machines). 

The Commission disagrees. This 

would be inconsistent with the purpose 

underlying notification to the 

Commission of new facilities. The 

notification allows the Commission to 

exercise its oversight regulatory 

responsibility for the new facility 

appropriately and timely. There is no 

such need for notification with existing 

facilities because the Commission has 

regular contact with, and is generally 

aware of the circumstances of, gaming 

facilities already in operation. 

One commenter believed that a copy 

of the tribe’s facility license submission 

should be sent to the governing boards 

of the county and any city immediately 

adjacent to or surrounding the facility as 

well as to the Governor of the state and 

allow those entities to provide 

comment. One commenter proposed 

that notice be provided to state 

Governors of tribal submissions 

concerning the opening and closing of 

gaming facilities. 

The Commission disagrees. Indian 

gaming is an expression of the sovereign 

right of Indian tribes to regulate their 

own affairs on their own land, separate 

and apart from the laws and 

requirements of the states or their 

political subdivisions. To the extent 

Congress wished the involvement of the 

states in Indian gaming, IGRA so 

provides, and the Commission does not 

believe it to be appropriate to add more. 

As facility licensing is a matter of 

gaming regulation, notification to the 

states may be provided for by tribal-state 

compact. 

One commenter requested that the 

rule distinguish between class II and 

class III in each subsection and that 

tribes be required to submit tribal-state 

compacts as part of their submission as 

evidence of compliance of state law as 

it relates to new facilities. 

The Commission disagrees. The 

requirements of the rule are applicable 

regardless of the class of gaming 

involved, and thus no distinction is 

necessary. Further, if a tribal-state 

compact provides for the application of 

particular health and safety laws, then 

identification of the compact and its 

requirements is sufficient. 

One commenter stated that it is 

unclear whether state or local 

governments or other entities could 

challenge tribes’ facility license notice 

and, thus, Indian lands determinations. 

The Commission does not intend to 

permit such a challenge. 

One commenter believed that the 

license submission should also state 

whether the land is trust land eligible 

for Indian gaming under IGRA and the 

basis for that assertion. 

The Commission disagrees. The 

submission of Indian lands information 

is required only for new facilities. If a 

tribe is opening a facility on land newly 

taken into trust, then the Department of 

the Interior will have made an Indian 

lands determination as part of the trust 

acquisition process. Requiring the 

information suggested here would be 

duplicative. 

Comments Regarding the Environment, 

Public Health and Safety 

Several commenters suggested that 

adopting the Facility License Standards 

would conflict with the Interpretative 

Rule previously issued by the NIGC that 

lays out a ‘‘limited and discrete 

responsibility’’ for the Commission in 

regulating the environment and public 

health and safety. 

The Commission agrees with the 

commenters that the Environment, 

Public Health and Safety Interpretative 

Rule (67 FR 46109) envisions a limited 

and discrete responsibility. The 

Interpretative Rule also highlighted, 

however, that this did not leave the 

Commission without authority or 

responsibility in this area as ‘‘IGRA 

explicitly accords the Commission a 

role in ensuring compliance with the 

environment, public health and safety 

provision of IGRA.’’ The Facility 

License Standards do not increase the 

NIGC’s limited role. They do not 

demand adoption of any particular 

health and safety rules; rather, the rule 

primarily requires tribes to make the 

NIGC aware of what health and safety 

rules apply. This compliments NIGC’s 

oversight role under 67 FR 46109. 

Several commenters noted that the 

requirements of the Facility License 

Standards are already addressed in 

some tribal-state compacts and that 

those tribes should be exempted from 

the reporting requirements in this rule. 

For those tribes whose tribal-state 

compacts identify those laws, 

resolutions, codes, policies or standards, 

other than federal laws that are required 

in the NIGC’s Facility License 

Standards, they can submit to the NIGC 

the location where that information can 

be found in their tribal-state compact. It 

should be noted, however, that tribalstate compacts are only required for 

class III gaming and the Facility License 

Standards apply to both class II and 

class III gaming facilities. 

Several comments related to the 

ability of the NIGC to carry out its duties 

under the Facility License Standards 

without creating a new bureaucracy 

within the Commission. 

The Commission disagrees. The NIGC 

already has existing personnel who 

conduct site visits to tribal gaming 

facilities under the Interpretative Rule 

and who handle environmental issues. 

Existing personnel will continue to 

work on these and other environmental 

issues that arise. 

Several comments related to the 

NIGC’s statement that it had conducted 

many site visits and inspections since 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6024 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

issuance of the Interpretative Rule 

which led to the NIGC identifying the 

deficiencies addressed by this rule. 

Commenters requested that the NIGC 

detail the results of those inspections to 

justify the necessity of the Facility 

License Standards. 

The NIGC has identified the following 

health and safety issues during site 

visits: lack of fire suppression systems; 

lack of fire or ambulance service; 

insanitary food storage and handling; 

and, storage of hazardous materials in 

locations with non-compatible 

chemicals. In its Facility License 

Standards, the Commission seeks to 

carry out its obligations under IGRA to 

ensure that gaming is occurring in a 

manner that adequately protects the 

environment and the public health and 

safety. 

Several commenters were unclear as 

to what the NIGC’s remedy would be for 

non-compliance with the Facility 

License Standards. 

The Chairman has the power to order 

temporary closure of a gaming facility 

for substantial violation of the 

provisions of 25 U.S.C. 2713. 

One commenter requested that the 

Facility License Standards be expanded 

to provide for independent audits by 

qualified, certified environmental/ 

engineering firms, according to a 

schedule established by the tribe and 

agreed upon by the Commission, with 

local governmental entities allowed to 

review the results of the audit. 

The Commission determined that 

adding this requirement to the Facility 

License Standards would be 

unnecessary as the NIGC’s site visits 

and the material requested to be 

submitted with the Facility License 

Standard would be sufficient for the 

NIGC to determine compliance with 

IGRA. 

Comments Regarding the Lands 

Information Required Under the Facility 

License Standards 

Several comments stated that the 

information required for a new gaming 

facility is onerous, duplicative and 

overly-burdensome. 

The Commission disagrees. In this 

final rule, the NIGC has significantly 

reduced the lands information tribes are 

required to submit with a new facility 

license. In the initial working drafts of 

the proposed rule, the NIGC required 

the lands information on both new and 

existing gaming facilities. In this final 

rule, the NIGC is only requiring 

qualifying land information for a facility 

license on new facilities. In addition, 

the final rule only requires the facility 

name, legal description, and BIA tract 

number for a new facility. Prior drafts 

required a great deal more: A legal 

analysis, copies of trust documents, 

copies of court decisions, executive 

orders, secretarial proclamations or 

other documentation regarding land 

ownership. The information required in 

the final rule represents the basic 

information necessary so that the NIGC 

can then determine whether additional 

lands documentation is required. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the NIGC will respond directly to 

inquiries from other governmental 

offices and Congress while public and 

state governments will be subject to the 

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552. 

The Commission complies with the 

Freedom of Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’), 

therefore, any requests for information 

submitted as part of the Facility License 

Standards requirements will be subject 

to FOIA and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 

U.S.C. 552a. With the exception of law 

enforcement agencies and requests from 

Congressional committees, which are 

exempt from FOIA, the NIGC treats all 

requests for information obtained as 

subject to FOIA. This includes requests 

from Congressional offices, state and 

federal offices, and the general public. 

Comments Regarding the Information 

Collection Burden 

One commenter suggested that the 

estimates provided by the NIGC 

regarding the amount required for 

information collection are far too low in 

the event a tribe does not have laws 

already in place in one or more of the 

areas identified as required by the 

Facility License Standards. 

The Commission’s estimate of 

approximately $5,000 to $10,000 is for 

those tribes who do not currently have 

laws in one of the areas enumerated in 

§ 559.5 of the rule. The Commission 

feels this estimate is reasonable for a 

tribe who must hire an attorney to assist 

in identification of those laws, codes, or 

standards that apply to its gaming 

facility. The Commission recognizes 

that there may be underlying expenses 

related to instituting an environmental, 

public health and safety program in the 

event a tribe identifies a deficiency in a 

certain area while complying with the 

Facility License Standards; however, the 

costs associated with these efforts 

would vary greatly depending on the 

size and location of the gaming facility 

and on the level of environmental, 

public health and safety standards 

already in place. 

One commenter suggested that the 

environment, public health and safety 

requirements in the Facility License 

Standards be tied to applicable federal 

laws (i.e., Clean Water Act, Safe 

Drinking Water Act, Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, etc.). 

The Commission disagrees. The 

purpose of the rule is to identify 

environment, public health and safety 

laws that apply that are not Federal 

laws. 

Comment Regarding Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

The commenter requested that 

‘‘burden’’ be struck through this section 

and replaced with ‘‘resources required 

for’’ and that ‘‘annual information 

burden’’ be replaced with ‘‘resources 

required to collect the information 

annually.’’

This language, however, is based on 

the language in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and is not the NIGC’s 

language. 

Comments Regarding the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Commission received a comment 

that contrary to the statement in the 

proposed rule that Indian tribes are not 

considered to be small entities for 

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, it may be that tribes are small 

entities for this purpose. The 

Commission disagrees. Indian tribes are 

not included in this definition. 5 U.S.C. 

601(5)(c). 

Comments Regarding NIGC 

Consultation in Connection With This 

Rule 

Several comments pertained to the 

level of consultation conducted in 

connection with the Facility License 

Standards stating that the NIGC did not 

conduct meaningful consultation and 

that the consultation conducted was in 

violation of the NIGC’s consultation 

policy. 

The NIGC published its Governmentto-Government Tribal Consultation 

Policy on March 24, 2004, 69 FR 16973. 

In that policy the Commission 

recognized the government-togovernment relationship that exists 

between the NIGC and federallyrecognized tribes and stated that the 

primary focus on the NIGC’s 

consultation policies would involve 

consulting with individual tribes and 

their recognized governmental leaders. 

The Commission’s consultation policy 

also calls for providing early 

notification to effected tribes of any 

regulatory policies prior to a final 

agency decision regarding their 

formulation or implementation. 

In keeping with its consultation 

policy, the NIGC sent its first working 

draft of the Facility License Standards to 

tribal leaders on May 12, 2006. That 

notice was also published on the NIGC 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6025 

Web site, http://www.nigc.gov, for 

public comment. The Commission also 

invited 309 tribes to meet with it in 

consultation on this rule and other 

gaming matters. Following notification 

of this first working draft, the NIGC 

received 56 written comments and held 

over 53 government-to-government 

consultation meetings with tribal 

leaders. 

Following written and oral comments 

from tribal leaders, the draft Facility 

License Standards were revised and sent 

to tribal leaders for comment on March 

21, 2007, with comments due on May 

15, 2007. The comment period was 

subsequently extended another 15 days 

to May 30, 2007. Again the Commission 

invited tribal leaders to provide 

comments and to meet with the 

Commission during tribal consultations. 

The Commission received 78 written 

comments and held over 60 separate 

consultation meetings to discuss this 

draft of the Facility License Standards 

and other gaming matters. 

The Facility License Standards were 

again revised based on input from tribal 

leaders and the public. The Commission 

published the proposed Facility License 

Standards on October 18, 2007, after 

holding more than 113 meetings with 

tribal leaders and careful consideration 

of the 134 comments received on the 

two prior drafts. 

In keeping with its consultation 

policy, the NIGC involved tribes early in 

the process of considering the Facility 

License Standards and tribes had the 

opportunity to provide written 

comments and to meet with the 

Commission over a lengthy period. The 

Commission carefully reviewed the 

comments received on the proposed 

rule and took those comments into 

consideration prior to making a final 

determination on the final Facility 

License Standards. 

Several commenters stated that the 

NIGC’s consultation process for this 

regulation fell short of prior agency 

consultations where tribal 

representatives were active participants 

not only in providing advice and input 

to the NIGC, but also in the drafting 

process itself. 

While the NIGC has chosen to utilize 

various rulemaking formats when 

formulating several Commission 

regulations, including tribal advisory 

committees, the NIGC consultation 

policy provides that the NIGC will 

utilize that form of rulemaking to the 

extent it deems practicable and 

appropriate. It is within the 

Commission’s discretion to determine 

the appropriate form of rulemaking for 

each regulation. The Commission 

determined that for purposes of such a 

narrow and limited rule such as the 

Facility License Standards, sharing early 

drafts and allowing for a lengthy period 

of comment and consultation would be 

the most comprehensive approach. 

Comments Regarding Extension of the 

Comment Period 

Many commenters requested that the 

NIGC extend the comment period in 

which to provide comments on the 

proposed rule. 

The NIGC received a total of 83 tribal 

comments on the proposed Facility 

License Standards. This was in addition 

to the 134 written comments received 

and considered on the prior working 

drafts of the rule and after meeting with 

over 113 tribal leaders in consultation 

on the proposed rule along with other 

Commission matters. 

The Commission allowed for a 45-day 

comment period on the proposed rule. 

In deciding not to grant an extension of 

the comment period, the Commission 

took into account the significant number 

of comments received on the proposed 

rule and on the two prior drafts, totaling 

over 215 written comments combined. 

In addition the consultation period for 

this rule was well over one and one-half 

years, from the first draft in May 2006 

to the publication of the proposed rule 

in October 2007. 

Comments Regarding NIGC Compliance 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act 

Several commenters suggested that 

the NIGC may have violated the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act (‘‘GPRA’’) by embarking on several 

rulemaking exercises without an overall 

plan in violation of Public Law 109–

221. 

The Commission agrees that Public 

Law 109–221, the Native American 

Technical Corrections Act of 2006, 

provides that the NIGC shall be subject 

to the GPRA. On September 30, 2007, 

the NIGC filed its performance and 

accountability report with the Office of 

Management and Budget. The 

Commission is currently seeking 

comments from tribes and all interested 

parties on the contents of this report. 

Comments Regarding Financing of New 

Tribal Gaming Facilities 

Several commenters were concerned 

that the Facility License Standards 

would have an impact on a tribe’s 

ability to secure financing for gaming 

development projects. 

The NIGC disagrees that requiring 

tribes to notify the Commission 120 

days prior to opening a new facility will 

interfere with financing opportunities 

for new gaming operations. The purpose 

of the regulation is to inform the NIGC 

prior to the opening of a new facility. 

The NIGC believes any financing 

difficulties posed by compliance with 

this rule will be less significant than if 

it is later determined that a new facility 

has been constructed on lands that do 

not meet the requirements for ‘‘Indian 

lands’’ under IGRA. Further, the Facility 

License Standards have no effect in 

those circumstances where a tribe has 

not yet obtained financing due to 

uncertainty regarding the status of the 

lands. 

Comments Regarding Specific Language 

One commenter suggested the 

addition of the word ‘‘standards’’

wherever the phrase ‘‘laws, resolutions, 

codes, policies, or procedures’’ appears 

in the regulation. The Commission 

agrees and has revised §§ 502.22 and 

559.5(b) accordingly. 

One commenter suggested that 

standards pertaining to the environment 

and the public health and safety may be 

included in Secretarial procedures. 

Accordingly, the Commission revised 

§ 502.22 to reflect this change from 

‘‘including standards negotiated under a 

tribal-state compact’’ to ‘‘including 

standards under a tribal-state compact 

or Secretarial procedures.’’

One commenter noted the use of the 

phrase ‘‘gaming operations’’ in 

§ 559.5(b) and correctly pointed out that 

the term should be ‘‘gaming facilities’’

as is used throughout the remainder of 

the regulation. This correction was 

made. 

One commenter noted the use of the 

phrase ‘‘gaming facilities, places or 

locations’’ as contradicting the statutory 

language of IGRA which uses the phrase 

‘‘gaming places, facilities or locations.’’

This correction was made in 

§ 559.5(b)(6). 

One commenter recommended that 

the Commission remove the phrase ‘‘as 

needed’’ following in §§ 552.2(i) and 

559.7. The commenter felt this phrase 

was redundant as the statement prior 

reflects that the Chairman may use his 

or her discretion to request lands or 

environmental and public health and 

safety information. The Commission 

agrees and made this correction in the 

final rule. 

One commenter noted that the title to 

§ 559.6 was inconsistent with the 

language in the body of the section and 

recommended the Commission add ‘‘or 

reopens’’ to the title to match the 

requirements set out in the section. The 

Commission agrees and this change was 

made. 

One commenter felt the proposed 

rules were unclear regarding the 

submission requirements to the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6026 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Commission. The Commission agreed 

that clarification could be added to 

ensure that tribes more clearly 

understood the requirements for initial 

and subsequent submissions of their 

facility licenses. The following changes 

were made in §§ 559.3, 559.4, and 559.5 

to reflect clarification of the submission 

requirements. Section 559.3 in the 

proposed rule read ‘‘[a]t least once every 

three years, a tribe shall issue a separate 

facility license to * * *.’’ In the final 

rule, this section was changed to ‘‘[a]t 

least once every three years after the 

initial issuance of a facility license, a 

tribe shall renew or reissue a separate 

facility license.’’ Section 559.4 

previously read ‘‘When must a tribe 

submit a copy of a facility license to the 

Chairman?’’ A tribe must submit to the 

Chairman a copy of each issued facility 

license within 30 days of issuance. This 

section is now clarified to read, ‘‘When 

must a tribe submit a copy of a newly 

issued or renewed license to the 

Chairman? A tribe must submit to the 

Chairman a copy of each newly issued 

or renewed facility license within 30 

days of issuance.’’ Section 559.5 also 

changed to clarify the submission 

requirement. This section previously 

read ‘‘What must a tribe submit to the 

Chairman with the copy of each facility 

license that has been issued?’’ It now 

reads, ‘‘What must a tribe submit to the 

Chairman with the copy of each facility 

license that has been issued or 

renewed?’’

Comments Regarding Part 502—

Definitions of This Chapter 

A few commenters objected to the 

insertion of the definition of 

‘‘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 ‘‘clarification’’ for 

2710(b)(2)(E) of IGRA without any 

explanation or foundation for the 

NIGC’s conclusion that this ‘‘definition’’

provides clarification. 

The Commission believes that this 

definition and the entire rule clarifies 

what the expectations are for tribes to 

verify that that they are maintaining 

their gaming facilities in a manner that 

adequately protects the environment, 

public health and safety. 

Another commenter objected to 

§ 502.22(f), ‘‘other environmental or 

public health and safety standards 

adopted by the tribe in light of climate, 

geography, and other local conditions 

and applicable to its gaming facilities, 

places or locations,’’ as being too broad 

a standard. 

The Commission retained subsection 

(f). The geographical and local 

conditions under which Indian gaming 

may occur vary greatly. This provision 

was included to capture the varying 

circumstances under which Indian 

gaming facilities may occur and allow 

for a tribe to address specific local and 

geographic conditions that may apply to 

its gaming facility. 

One commenter stated that the phrase 

‘‘the construction and maintenance of 

the gaming operation and the operation 

of the gaming is conducted in a manner 

which adequately protects the 

environment, public health and safety,’’

defies understanding. 

While the Commission agrees that this 

language is not a model of clarity, this 

language is taken directly from IGRA at 

25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(E). 

One commenter suggested 

consideration should be given to 

deleting the defined term proposed to be 

added as new § 502.22. The defined 

term is only used in the proposed 

regulations twice, at §§ 559.1(a) and 

559(a)(3). Both of those sections work 

well if the sentence is used in its plain 

meaning sense, rather than in its 

defined meaning sense. Also, it is 

unconventional for the definition 

section to include substantive 

provisions, such as the sentence in the 

proposed definition which states that 

the ‘‘laws * * * shall * * *.’’ Finally, 

including substantive provisions in the 

definitional section could lead to 

misunderstandings by readers who read 

part 559 and miss the fact that the thirty 

word sentence starting with the words 

‘‘Construction and maintenance * * *’’

is actually a defined term. Therefore, 

consideration should be given to 

simplifying the regulations by deleting 

the defined term and moving the 

substantive content contained in the 

proposed defined term to a location in 

§ 559.5. 

While this recommendation has its 

merits, the Commission ultimately 

decided to retain the definition. 

The same commenter suggested that if 

the defined term is retained, 

consideration should be given to 

modifying the text by including a 

reference to Secretarial procedures and 

standards. 

The Commission agrees to this 

recommendation. 

One commenter suggested that 

language be added which referenced the 

various federal environmental laws that 

tribes are required to follow. 

The Commission disagrees. The 

purpose of the rule is to identify 

environment, public health and safety 

laws that apply that are not federal laws. 

One commenter suggested § 502.22 

should be revised to add: ‘‘(f) If an 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

prepared for the gaming facility, then 

the laws, resolutions, codes, policies or 

procedures in this area shall cover at a 

minimum, the construction, operational 

and maintenance standards identified in 

the EIS as well as mitigation measures 

that address the environmental 

consequences of the facility.’’

The Commission disagrees that this 

change would be useful. 

One commenter suggested that the 

Commission revise § 502.22 by changing 

‘‘construction and maintenance of the 

gaming facility, and the operation of 

that gaming’’ to ‘‘construction and 

maintenance of the gaming facility, and 

the operation of class II or class III 

gaming.’’

The Commission disagrees. This 

language was taken directly from IGRA 

at 2710(b)(2)(E). 

One commenter requests the addition 

of new § 502.23 to read as follows: 

‘‘Facility license means a separate 

license issued by a tribe to each place, 

facility, or location on Indian lands 

where the tribe elects to allow class II 

or class III gaming.’’

No change is necessary, however, as 

this proposed language is identical to 

that of the rule. 

Comments Regarding Part 522—

Submission of Gaming Ordinance or 

Resolution 

One commenter suggested language 

that clarifies that the information 

required in § 522.2 is in addition to the 

requirements of §§ 559.2 and 559.5. 

The Commission disagrees as the 

submission requirement is already 

repeated in § 559.5. 

A commenter suggested that 

consideration should be given to adding 

the phrase ‘‘gaming eligibility’’ or 

‘‘gaming eligibility (for lands acquired 

after October 17, 1988)’’ to § 522.2 this 

and to § 559.7. 

The Commission disagrees that this 

recommendation would clarify the rule. 

A commenter suggested that 

consideration should be given to 

deleting the phrase ‘‘as needed’’ in this 

section to avoid disputes as to whether 

the documentation requested by the 

Chairman is ‘‘needed.’’

The Commission agrees to this 

change. 

Comments Regarding Part 559—Facility 

License Notifications, Renewals, and 

Submissions 

A commenter urged the Commission 

to revise the draft rule to distinguish 

between class II and class III gaming in 

each subsection. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6027 

The Commission has not made this 

revision. The requirements for 

submission of facility license remain the 

same whether gaming is occurring in a 

class II or class III gaming facility. 

One commenter suggested that since 

part 559 is presumably intended to 

apply to a ‘‘gaming operation’’ as that 

term is defined in § 502.10, 

consideration could be given to 

changing the phrase ‘‘the operation of 

class II or class III gaming’’ to ‘‘class II 

or class III gaming operation.’’

The Commission uses the reference to 

‘‘gaming places, facilities or locations’’

to remain consistent with IGRA. 

Another commenter recommended 

that part 559 should be clarified to 

determine whether the Commission 

intends to regulate (i) a tribe; (ii) place, 

facility or location; or (iii) both. 

No change was made as a result of 

this comment. The Commission believes 

it is clear from the language of IGRA 

that ‘‘a separate license issued by the 

Indian tribe shall be required for each 

place, facility, or location.’’

Comments Regarding § 599.1—What is 

the scope and purpose of this part? 

One commenter suggested that the 

phrase ‘‘the construction and 

maintenance of the gaming facility’’ be 

changed to ‘‘the gaming facility is 

constructed and maintained.’’

The Commission declined to make 

this change as the language is taken 

from IGRA at 2710(b)(2)(E). 

One commenter observed that § 559.1 

fails to require that the land must be 

under the jurisdiction of the tribe. 

Furthermore, the regulations do not 

detail the eligibility requirements for 

gaming on Indian lands, and make clear 

that the land must be under the 

jurisdiction of the tribe. 

The purpose of part 559 is to ensure 

that each facility where gaming is 

operated is located on Indian lands 

eligible for gaming pursuant to IGRA. 

IGRA sets out the eligibility 

requirements and jurisdictional 

requirements for gaming to occur on 

Indian lands. Consequently, no 

additional language is contemplated. 

One commenter observed that the 

regulation fails to require that the NIGC 

actually make a determination [on 

Indian lands] and fails to provide a 

process for such determination. 

Furthermore, the regulations as 

proposed apply only to new facilities 

when the same rules need to be applied 

to existing facilities. 

The Commission did not intend, 

under these rules, to develop a broad 

program for making Indian lands 

decisions. The Commission makes such 

decisions in the context of its 

enforcement actions and approval of 

management contracts and site-specific 

ordinances. 

One commenter recommended that 

the notice requirement include 

documentation that the tribe seeking a 

new facility license complies with the 

class III conditions necessary to engage 

in casino-style gambling. The 

commenter recommended that the tribe 

submit a valid state-tribal compact as 

evidence of compliance. 

No change was made as a result of 

this comment. The Commission has 

endeavored to take into consideration 

that various documentation may be 

available at other federal agencies (i.e., 

Department of the Interior) and has 

removed any duplicative submission 

requirements for documents that are 

available through other means. 

Several commenters requested that 

additional language be added requiring 

notification to surrounding local and 

state governmental entities when tribes 

submit notice to the Chairman that a 

facility license is under consideration 

for a new facility. 

The Commission disagrees. Indian 

gaming is an expression of the sovereign 

right of Indian tribes to regulate their 

own affairs on their own land, separate 

and apart from the laws and 

requirements of the states or their 

political subdivisions. To the extent 

Congress wished the involvement of the 

states in Indian gaming, IGRA so 

provides, and the Commission does not 

believe it to be appropriate to add more. 

As facility licensing is a matter of 

gaming regulation, notification to the 

states may be provided for by tribal-state 

compacts. 

One commenter suggested that that 

the proposed ‘‘charitable events’’

exception creates a loophole that 

swallows the notice requirement. 

Absent a reasonable numeric cap, a tribe 

could sponsor a string of charitable 

events lasting six days or less on a 

continuous basis without giving notice 

to the NIGC or, if class III gaming is 

involved, the state that a tribe issued a 

new facilities license. 

The Commission disagrees. The 

language of § 559.2(b) makes clear that 

this exception relates to the ‘‘occasional 

charitable event’’ and not to continuous 

gaming or class III gaming. 

Comment Regarding § 559.4—When 

must a tribe submit a copy of a facility 

license to the Chairman? 

One commenter requested additional 

language that requires notification to 

surrounding local and state 

governmental entities. 

The Commission disagrees. Indian 

gaming is an expression of the sovereign 

right of Indian tribes to regulate their 

own affairs on their own land, separate 

and apart from the laws and 

requirements of the states or their 

political subdivisions. To the extent 

Congress wished the involvement of the 

states in Indian gaming, IGRA so 

provides, and the Commission does not 

believe it to be appropriate to add more. 

As facility licensing is a matter of 

gaming regulation, notification to the 

states may be provided for by tribal-state 

compact. 

Comments Regarding § 559.5—What 

must a tribe submit to the Chairman 

with the copy of each facility license 

that has been issued? 

One commenter recommended that 

the NIGC require submission of 

applicable state or federal licenses or 

permits that demonstrate that a tribe is 

in compliance with federal or state 

environmental laws applicable to its 

gaming operation. 

The Commission disagrees. The NIGC 

has determined that for purposes of this 

rule, Tribes will supply a list of 

identified applicable laws and that it 

shall be within the Chairman’s 

discretion to request additional 

information if necessary. These state 

and federal licenses could be requested 

by the Chairman if a need for such 

documentation is deemed necessary. 

One commenter suggested deleting 

the term ‘‘identified’’ in § 559.5(a)(1) 

and replacing with ‘‘adopted, issued or 

agreed to’’ as any law or standard which 

the tribe has ‘‘identified’’ but has not 

adopted, issued or agreed to, is without 

legal effect or significance. 

The Commission declined to make 

this change as the term identified is a 

broader term which allows tribes to 

show that they are aware of the 

environment, public health and safety 

laws that apply to their facilities even if 

those laws may not have been 

specifically promulgated by the tribes 

themselves. 

One commenter suggested that in 

order to be consistent with the 

Interpretative Rule, the Commission 

should consider requiring the tribe to 

certify that it has established policies, 

procedures or systems for monitoring 

compliance. No change was made based 

on this suggestion. The Commission 

anticipates that the three-year renewal 

process for facility licensing will ensure 

that a system for ongoing monitoring is 

in place. 

One commenter recommended that 

clarification is needed in § 559.5(a)(3) to 

determine whether the regulation 

intends for the entity or thing which the 

tribe is to certify to be in compliance 

with various laws is (i) the tribe; (ii) the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6028 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

place, facility or location; (iii) the 

gaming operation; or (iv) some 

combination of the three. The language 

adopts the approach that the tribe 

certifies that both the gaming operation 

and the place, facility or location (but 

not the tribe) are in compliance with the 

identified laws. 

The rule mirrors the language used in 

IGRA when it places regulatory 

responsibility on a ‘‘tribe.’’ Nothing, 

however, prohibits a tribe from vesting 

a tribal gaming commission with the 

authority to act in compliance with the 

rule. 

One commenter suggested that 

consideration should be given to adding 

appropriate language to accommodate 

the possibility that, at the time of the 

tribe’s submission to the Commission, 

the gaming operation and or gaming 

place, facility or location is not in full 

compliance. The commenter 

recommended adding the phrase ‘‘or, if 

the tribe has identified any 

noncompliance, the tribe has taken 

appropriate action to ensure future 

compliance’’ to this section. 

The Commission agreed with this 

concept and changed this section to 

require that if a tribe is not in 

compliance with any or all of its 

environmental and public health and 

safety laws, resolutions, codes, policies, 

standards or procedures, the tribe will 

identify those with which it is not in 

compliance, and will adopt and submit 

its written plan for the specific action it 

will take, within a period not to exceed 

six months, required for compliance. At 

the successful completion of such 

written plan, or at the expiration of the 

period allowed for its completion, the 

tribe shall report the status thereof to 

the Commission. In the event that the 

tribe estimates that action for 

compliance will exceed six months, the 

Chairman must concur in such an 

extension of the time period, otherwise 

the tribe will be deemed noncompliant. 

The Chairman will take into 

consideration the consequences on the 

environment and the public health and 

safety, as well as mitigating measures 

the tribe may provide in the interim, in 

his or her consideration of requests for 

such an extension of the time period. 

One commenter pointed out the 

confusion in usage of the terms 

‘‘facilities’’ and ‘‘operations’’ with the 

correct term being ‘‘gaming facilities.’’

The Commission agreed with the 

commenter and changed the term to be 

consistent throughout the regulation. 

One commenter suggested that the 

language of § 559.5(b) as written is 

overbroad and unclear as to whether it 

requires only a list of items material to 

the topic, or requires detailed 

information of specific laws, 

resolutions, codes, policies, or 

procedures for each area. The 

commenter also requested that the 

Commission specify how much detail is 

required in the information to be 

submitted with the facility license. The 

commenter requested an option for the 

gaming operation to list the name of the 

applicable policy and procedure manual 

or to identify individual items that are 

material, and to allow an option to 

develop and submit a matrix in the form 

of a table or spreadsheet. 

The Commission recognizes that 

tribes may utilize varying internal 

methods for maintaining this 

information and refrained from 

specifying what form the list of 

applicable laws must take. This will 

allow each facility to submit the 

information in the form or format that 

is appropriate for each facility without 

the NIGC dictating a particular approach 

which may require increased resources 

at the tribal level. 

One commenter suggested that 

consideration should be given to adding 

the phrase ‘‘to the extent not already 

addressed by applicable federal laws, 

regulations and standards’’ to § 559.5(b). 

The Commission did not make this 

change. The language in this section 

already addresses the commenter’s 

concern with the phrase ‘‘other than 

federal laws.’’

One commenter suggested the 

Commission consider whether the 

topics of ‘‘fire suppression’’ and ‘‘law 

enforcement and security’’ in 

§ 559.5(b)(1) should be independent 

topics rather than subsets of ‘‘emergency 

preparedness.’’

The Commission determined that the 

topics are appropriately grouped and 

declined to make this change. 

One commenter pointed out that the 

phrase ‘‘facility, place or location’’ in 

§ 559.5(a)(6) differs from the statutory 

language of IGRA which reads ‘‘place, 

facility or location.’’

The Commission agreed with this 

comment and made the change. 

One commenter requested that the 

Commission include tribal regulation in 

its list of laws governing the gaming 

operation in § 559.5(a)(6). 

The Commission did not make this 

change because the term ‘‘laws’’ in this 

section is meant to include all laws 

applicable to the gaming operations, 

which includes tribal laws. 

One commenter requested that if a 

tribe’s environment, public health and 

safety laws are available in a public 

location, the tribe notify the 

Commission so the Commission can 

locate such items and as necessary can 

notify members of the public who make 

inquires. 

The Commission did not make this 

change in the language of the rule. Any 

information obtained from tribes in 

relation to this rule will be governed by 

the Freedom of Information Act. 

However, if the information provided by 

the tribe is available publically and the 

Commission has such information 

available, it could direct inquiries to the 

appropriate public site. 

Section 559.6—Does a tribe need to 

notify the Chairman if a facility license 

is terminated or not renewed or if a 

gaming place, facility, or location 

closes? 

One commenter recommended that 

that state Governors also receive 

notification of the termination or nonrenewal of a class III facility license by 

a tribe, or if such a gaming facility 

closes or reopens. 

The Commission disagrees. Indian 

gaming is an expression of the sovereign 

right of Indian tribes to regulate their 

own affairs on their own land, separate 

and apart from the laws and 

requirements of the states or their 

political subdivisions. To the extent 

Congress wished the involvement of the 

states in Indian gaming, IGRA so 

provides, and the Commission does not 

believe it to be appropriate to add more. 

As facility licensing is a matter of 

gaming regulation, notification to the 

states may be provided for by tribal-state 

compacts. 

One commenter recommended adding 

‘‘reopens’’ to the end of the title in 

§ 559.6. The language would read ‘‘Does 

a tribe need to notify the Chairman if a 

facility license is terminated or not 

renewed or if a gaming place, facility, or 

location closed or reopens?’’

The Commission agrees with this 

recommended change. 

Section 559.7—May the Chairman 

request Indian lands or environmental 

and public health and safety 

documentation regarding any gaming 

place, facility, or location where gaming 

will occur? 

Several commenters were concerned 

that the language in this section relating 

to the Chairman’s discretion in 

requesting additional documentation 

was too broad and allowed for too much 

interpretation on what to request on the 

part of the Chairman. 

The Commission has endeavored to 

require only the minimum obligation for 

documentation submission, but must 

reserve the right of the Chairman to 

request additional information in the 

event it is necessary to carry out his or 

her duties in ensuring that all gaming 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6029 

facilities are located on Indian lands 

and are operated in a manner that 

adequately protects the environment, 

public health and safety. 

One commenter requested language in 

this section to clarify that the ‘‘Tribe’’

and ‘‘Tribal Gaming Regulatory 

Authority are separate entities and it is 

the Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority 

who is responsible for enforcing the 

environment, public health and safety 

laws and for issuing the facility 

license.’’

The rule mirrors the language used in 

IGRA when it places regulatory 

responsibility on a ‘‘tribe.’’ Nothing, 

however, prohibits a tribe from vesting 

a tribal gaming commission with the 

authority to act in compliance with the 

rule. 

One commenter requested that the 

Commission delete the phrase ‘‘as 

needed’’ from § 559.7 or change to 

‘‘from time to time’’ so there is no 

dispute as to what is ‘‘needed.’’

The Commission agreed with 

commenter and removed ‘‘as needed’’

from this section. 

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Parts 502, 

522, 559, and 573 

Gambling, Indians—lands, Indians—

tribal government, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, amend 25 CFR Chapter III as 

follows: 

PART 502—DEFINITIONS OF THIS 

CHAPTER 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 502 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. 

■ 2. Add new § 502.22 to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

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 means a tribe has identified and 

enforces laws, resolutions, codes, 

policies, standards or procedures 

applicable to each gaming place, facility 

or location that protect the environment 

and the public health and safety, 

including standards under a tribal-state 

compact or Secretarial procedures. 

Laws, resolutions, codes, policies, 

standards or procedures in this area 

shall cover, at a minimum: 

(a) Emergency preparedness, 

including but not limited to fire 

suppression, law enforcement, and 

security; 

(b) Food and potable water; 

(c) Construction and maintenance; 

(d) Hazardous materials; 

(e) Sanitation (both solid waste and 

wastewater); and 

(f) Other environmental or public 

health and safety standards adopted by 

the tribe in light of climate, geography, 

and other local conditions and 

applicable to its gaming facilities, places 

or locations. 

■ 3. Add new § 502.23 to read as 

follows: 

§ 502.23 Facility license. 

Facility license means a separate 

license issued by a tribe to each place, 

facility, or location on Indian lands 

where the tribe elects to allow class II 

or III gaming. 

PART 522—SUBMISSION OF GAMING 

ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 522 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706, 2710, 2712. 

■ 5. Add new paragraph (i) to § 522.2 to 

read as follows: 

§ 522.2 Submission requirements. 

* * * * * 

(i) A tribe shall provide Indian lands 

or environmental and public health and 

safety documentation that the Chairman 

may in his or her discretion request as 

needed. 

■ 6. Add new part 559 to read as 

follows: 

PART 559—FACILITY LICENSE 

NOTIFICATIONS, RENEWALS, AND 

SUBMISSIONS 

Sec. 

559.1 What is the scope and purpose of this 

part? 

559.2 When must a tribe notify the 

Chairman that it is considering issuing a 

new facility license? 

559.3 How often must a facility license be 

renewed? 

559.4 When must a tribe submit a copy of 

a newly issued or renewed facility 

license to the Chairman? 

559.5 What must a tribe submit to the 

Chairman with the copy of each facility 

license that has been issued or renewed? 

559.6 Does a tribe need to notify the 

Chairman if a facility license is 

terminated or not renewed or if a gaming 

place, facility, or location closes or 

reopens? 

559.7 May the Chairman request Indian 

lands or environmental and public 

health and safety documentation 

regarding any gaming place, facility, or 

location where gaming will occur? 

559.8 May a tribe submit documents 

required by this part electronically? 

Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2701, 2702(3), 

2703(4), 2705, 2706, 2710 and 2719. 

§ 559.1 What is the scope and purpose of 

this part? 

(a) The purpose of this part is to 

ensure that each place, facility, or 

location where class II or III gaming will 

occur is located on Indian lands eligible 

for gaming and that the 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 

pursuant to the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act. 

(b) Each gaming place, facility, or 

location conducting class II or III 

gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act or on which a tribe 

intends to conduct class II or III gaming 

pursuant to the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act is subject to the 

requirements of this part. 

§ 559.2 When must a tribe notify the 

Chairman that it is considering issuing a 

new facility license? 

(a) A tribe shall submit to the 

Chairman a notice that a facility license 

is under consideration for issuance at 

least 120 days before opening any new 

place, facility, or location on Indian 

lands where class II or III gaming will 

occur. The notice shall contain the 

following: 

(1) The name and address of the 

property; 

(2) A legal description of the property; 

(3) The tract number for the property 

as assigned by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Land Title and Records Offices, 

if any; 

(4) If not maintained by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Department of the 

Interior, a copy of the trust or other 

deed(s) to the property or an 

explanation as to why such 

documentation does not exist; and 

(5) If not maintained by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Department of the 

Interior, documentation of the 

property’s ownership. 

(b) A tribe does not need to submit to 

the Chairman a notice that a facility 

license is under consideration for 

issuance for occasional charitable events 

lasting not more than a week. 

§ 559.3 How often must a facility license 

be renewed? 

At least once every three years after 

the initial issuance of a facility license, 

a tribe shall renew or reissue a separate 

facility license to each existing place, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
6030 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

facility or location on Indian lands 

where a tribe elects to allow gaming. 

§ 559.4 When must a tribe submit a copy 

of a newly issued or renewed facility license 

to the Chairman? 

A tribe must submit to the Chairman 

a copy of each newly issued or renewed 

facility license within 30 days of 

issuance. 

§ 559.5 What must a tribe submit to the 

Chairman with the copy of each facility 

license that has been issued or renewed? 

(a) A tribe shall submit to the 

Chairman with each facility license an 

attestation certifying that by issuing the 

facility license: 

(1) The tribe has identified and 

enforces the environment and public 

health and safety laws, resolutions, 

codes, policies, standards or procedures 

applicable to its gaming operation; 

(2) The tribe is in compliance with 

those laws, resolutions, codes, policies, 

standards, or procedures, or, if not in 

compliance with any or all of the same, 

the tribe will identify those with which 

it is not in compliance, and will adopt 

and submit its written plan for the 

specific action it will take, within a 

period not to exceed six months, 

required for compliance. At the 

successful completion of such written 

plan, or at the expiration of the period 

allowed for its completion, the tribe 

shall report the status thereof to the 

Commission. In the event that the tribe 

estimates that action for compliance 

will exceed six months, the Chairman 

must concur in such an extension of the 

time period, otherwise the tribe will be 

deemed noncompliant. The Chairman 

will take into consideration the 

consequences on the environment and 

the public health and safety, as well as 

mitigating measures the tribe may 

provide in the interim, in his or her 

consideration of requests for such an 

extension of the time period. 

(3) The tribe is ensuring that the 

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. 

(b) A document listing all laws, 

resolutions, codes, policies, standards or 

procedures identified by the tribe as 

applicable to its gaming facilities, other 

than Federal laws, in the following 

areas: 

(1) Emergency preparedness, 

including but not limited to fire 

suppression, law enforcement, and 

security; 

(2) Food and potable water; 

(3) Construction and maintenance; 

(4) Hazardous materials; 

(5) Sanitation (both solid waste and 

wastewater); and 

(6) Other environmental or public 

health and safety laws, resolutions, 

codes, policies, standards or procedures 

adopted by the tribe in light of climate, 

geography, and other local conditions 

and applicable to its gaming places, 

facilities, or locations. 

(c) After the first submission of a 

document under paragraph (b) of this 

section, upon reissuing a license to an 

existing gaming place, facility, or 

location, and in lieu of complying with 

paragraph (b) of this section, a tribe may 

certify to the Chairman that it has not 

substantially modified its laws 

protecting the environment and public 

health and safety. 

§ 559.6 Does a tribe need to notify the 

Chairman if a facility license is terminated 

or not renewed or if a gaming place, facility, 

or location closes or reopens? 

A tribe must notify the Chairman 

within 30 days if a facility license is 

terminated or not renewed or if a 

gaming place, facility, or location closes 

or reopens. 

§ 559.7 May the Chairman request Indian 

lands or environmental and public health 

and safety documentation regarding any 

gaming place, facility, or location where 

gaming will occur? 

A tribe shall provide Indian lands or 

environmental and public health and 

safety documentation that the Chairman 

may in his or her discretion request. 

§ 559.8 May a tribe submit documents 

required by this part electronically? 

Yes. Tribes wishing to submit 

documents electronically should contact 

the Commission for guidance on 

acceptable document formats and means 

of transmission. 

PART 573—ENFORCEMENT 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 573 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2705(a)(1), 2706, 

2713, 2715. 

■ 8. Amend § 573.6 by revising 

paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 573.6 Order of temporary closure. 

(a) * * * 

(4) A gaming operation operates for 

business without a license from a tribe, 

in violation of part 522 or part 559 of 

this chapter. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 31, 2007. 

Philip N. Hogen, 

Chairman. 

Cloyce V. Choney, 

Vice-Chairman. 

[FR Doc. E8–1862 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

36 CFR Part 1253 

RIN 3095–AB57 

[Docket NARA–08–0001] 

Locations and Hours; Changes in 

NARA Research Room Hours 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: NARA is revising its 

regulations to increase the number of 

hours its archival research rooms are 

open in the Washington, DC, area. At 

the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 2007, 

NARA reduced the extended hours that 

these research rooms were open to the 

public because of fiscal constraints. For 

the FY 2008 NARA budget, the Congress 

has provided funding to increase the 

hours. This regulation will affect 

individuals who use our archival 

research rooms in the National Archives 

Building and National Archives at 

College Park facility. This rule also adds 

the Nixon Presidential Library and 

revises the address of our Fort Worth 

facility to our list of research facilities. 

DATES: This interim final rule is 

effective April 14, 2008. Comments on 

this interim final rule must be received 

by March 17, 2008 at the address shown 

below. Any changes to the rule resulting 

from this comment period will be made 

as soon as practicable after the April 14, 

2008 effective date. 

ADDRESSES: NARA invites interested 

persons to submit comments on this 

interim final rule. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: Submit comments by facsimile 

transmission to 301–837–0319. 

• Mail: Send comments to 

Regulations Comments Desk (NPOL), 

Room 4100, Policy and Planning Staff, 

National Archives and Records 

Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, 

College Park, MD 20740–6001. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS