Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 30315 

available to the public as a matter of 

information. 

If BLM receives a protest against the 

survey, as shown on the plat, prior to 

the date of the official filing, we will 

stay the filing pending our 

consideration of the protest. 

We will not officially file the plat 

until the day after we have accepted or 

dismissed all protests and they have 

become final, including decisions on 

appeals. 

Dated: May 11, 2012. 

John Sroufe, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12357 Filed 5–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GJ–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLES003420.L14300000.EU0000; MIES– 

056498] 

Notice of Intent To Amend the 1985 

Michigan Resource Management Plan 

and Associated Environmental 

Assessment, Marquette County, MI 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended, and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 

1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Northeastern States 

Field Office, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 

intends to prepare a Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) amendment 

with an associated Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for the State of 

Michigan. With this notice, the BLM is 

announcing the beginning of the 

scoping process to solicit public 

comments and identify issues for the 

purpose of amending the RMP to 

identify the specific parcel of land for 

disposal through sale and clarify in the 

EA whether the parcel meets the 

FLPMA Section 203 sale criteria. 

DATES: This notice initiates the public 

scoping process for the RMP 

amendment with associated EA. 

Comments on issues may be submitted 

in writing until June 21, 2012. The 

date(s) and location(s) of any scoping 

meetings will be announced at least 15 

days in advance through local news 

media, newspapers and the BLM Web 

site at: http://www.blm.gov/es/st/ 

en.html. In order to be included in the 

analysis, all comments must be received 

prior to the close of the 30-day scoping 

period or 30 days after the last public 

meeting, whichever is later. We will 

provide additional opportunities for 

public participation as appropriate. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on issues and planning criteria related 

to the 1985 Michigan RMP Amendment 

by any of the following methods: 

• Web site: http://on.doi.gov/ygRVPY. 

• Email: cgrundma@blm.gov. 

• Fax: (414) 297–4409. 

• Mail: BLM Northeastern States 

Field Office, 626 East Wisconsin 

Avenue, Suite 200, Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin 53202–4617. 

Documents pertinent to this proposal 

may be examined at the Northeastern 

States Field Office, 626 East Wisconsin 

Avenue, Suite 200, Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin 53202–4617. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

And/or to have your name added to our 

mailing list, contact Carol Grundman, 

Realty Specialist, telephone (414) 297– 

4447; address BLM Northeastern States 

Field Office, 626 East Wisconsin 

Avenue, Suite 200, Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin 53202–4617; email 

cgrundma@blm.gov. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

to contact the above individual during 

normal business hours. The FIRS is 

available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

to leave a message or question with the 

above individual. You will receive a 

reply during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document provides notice that the BLM 

Northeastern States Field Office, 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, intends to 

prepare an RMP amendment with an 

associated EA for the 1985 Michigan 

RMP, announces the beginning of the 

scoping process, and seeks public input 

on issues and planning criteria. The 

planning area is located in Marquette 

County, Michigan, and encompasses 

approximately 0.82 acres of public land. 

The purpose of the public scoping 

process is to determine relevant issues 

that will influence the scope of the EA, 

including alternatives, and guide the 

planning process. Preliminary issues for 

the plan amendment area have been 

identified by BLM personnel; Federal, 

State, and local agencies; and other 

stakeholders. The issues include: Impact 

of the proposed amendment on land use 

values, ownership, and potential 

development; impact of the proposed 

amendment on cultural resources, such 

as archeological sites and historic trails; 

and impact of the proposed amendment 

on wildlife. Preliminary planning 

criteria include: Section 203 of FLPMA 

sale criteria (43 U.S.C. 1713); and BLM 

policy interpreting Sections 202 and 203 

of FLPMA that require areas available 

for disposal to be identified by parcel or 

legal description. You may submit 

comments on issues and planning 

criteria in writing to the BLM at any 

public scoping meeting, or you may 

submit them to the BLM using one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section above. To be most helpful, you 

should submit comments by the close of 

the 30-day scoping period or within 30 

days after the last public meeting, 

whichever is later. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. The minutes and list of attendees 

for each scoping meeting will be 

available to the public and open for 30 

days after the meeting to any participant 

who wishes to clarify the views he or 

she expressed. 

The BLM will use an interdisciplinary 

approach to develop the plan 

amendment in order to consider the 

variety of resource issues and concerns 

identified. Specialists with expertise in 

the following disciplines will be 

involved in the planning process: 

archaeology, wildlife and fisheries, and 

lands and realty. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 

1610.2. 

John G. Lyon, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12228 Filed 5–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GJ–P 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING 

COMMISSION 

Protocol for Categorical Exclusions 

Supplementing the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations 

Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act for Certain 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

Actions and Activities 

AGENCY: The National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of final action and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC or ‘‘the 

Commission’’) has established a 

protocol that provides for categorical 

exclusions under the National 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30316 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended, Executive Order 

11514, as amended, and Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508) for certain NIGC 

actions. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

June 30, 2012. This Protocol is 

immediately effective upon publication. 

All comments will be reviewed and 

considered to determine whether there 

is a need for potential amendment to the 

protocol. 

ADDRESSES: John R. Hay, Senior 

Attorney, National Indian Gaming 

Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Suite 

9100, Washington, DC 20005; fax at 

(202) 632–7066; or by electronic mail at 

John_Hay@nigc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Hay, Senior Attorney at the National 

Indian Gaming Commission: 202–632– 

7003 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On December 4, 2009, the 

Commission published a draft NEPA 

manual in the Federal Register (74 FR 

63765) and requested comments by 

January 18, 2010. On March 4, 2010 the 

comment period was extended to April 

15, 2010 (75 FR 3756). The purpose of 

the manual was to clarify policy and 

procedures to ensure the integration of 

environmental considerations into 

major federal actions of the NIGC that 

trigger NEPA review. The draft manual 

identified only one type of major federal 

action performed under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) that 

triggered NEPA review—approving 

contracts for the management of Indian 

gaming facilities pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 

2711. The draft manual sought to clarify 

the NEPA-related roles and 

responsibilities and established a 

framework for the preparation and 

consideration of appropriate NEPA 

documentation. 

The draft manual also identified 

several categories of actions taken by the 

NIGC that are categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. In 

identifying these categories of actions, 

the NIGC relied on its past experience, 

several environmental professionals’ 

opinions and comparisons with other 

Federal agency actions that are 

categorically excluded. A copy of the 

administrative record for the list of 

categorical exclusions is available at 

http://www.nigc.gov/Reading_Room/

Environment_Public_Health_Safety/

NEPA_Compliance.aspx. 

After considering the comments 

received, the Commission has decided 

to establish a protocol that provides for 

two of the three categories of categorical 

exemptions contained in the draft 

manual and to continue to review 

comments received on the remainder of 

the manual. Categorical exclusions are 

actions that do not normally require 

preparation of an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) or Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS), absent 

extraordinary circumstances. None of 

the public comments on the draft 

manual expressed any concerns or 

objection to the two categories of 

categorical exclusions set forth below. 

The Commission hereby adopts the 

protocol set forth for determining 

whether a categorical exclusion applies 

to particular action as well as the 

categories of actions the Commission 

has determined are eligible for 

categorical exclusions. 

Regulatory Matters 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This Protocol 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. Indian tribes 

are not considered to be small entities 

for the purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This Protocol is not a major rule 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act. This Protocol does not 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more. This rule 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 foreignbased enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

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). 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the Commission has determined 

that this Protocol 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 Protocol does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

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

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations do not direct 

agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or 

document before establishing Agency 

procedures that supplement the CEQ 

regulations for implementing NEPA. 

Agencies are required to adopt NEPA 

procedures that establish specific 

criteria for, and identification of, three 

classes of actions: those that normally 

require preparation of an environmental 

impact statement; those that normally 

require preparation of an environmental 

assessment; and those that are 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). 

Categorical exclusions are one part of 

those agency procedures, and therefore 

establishing categorical exclusions does 

not require preparation of a NEPA 

analysis or document. Agency NEPA 

procedures are procedural guidance to 

assist agencies in the fulfillment of 

agency responsibilities under NEPA, but 

are not the agency’s final determination 

of what level of NEPA analysis is 

required for a particular proposed 

action. The requirements for 

establishing agency NEPA procedures 

are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 

1507.3. The determination that 

establishing categorical exclusions does 

not require NEPA analysis and 

documentation has been upheld in 

Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 

73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972–73 (S.D. Ill. 

1999), aff’d, 230 F.3d 947, 954–55 (7th 

Cir. 2000). 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the National Indian Gaming 

Commission establishes the following 

Protocol: 

Protocol for Categorical Exclusions 

(CATEX) of Certain Actions 

The use of a CATEX can only be 

applied to an action if all of the 

following criteria are met: 

1. The responsible NIGC official must 

determine that the entirety of the NIGC 

action is encompassed by a listed 

CATEX. 

2. The responsible NIGC official must 

determine that the action has not been 

segmented in order for the NIGC action 

to meet the definition of an action that 

can qualify for a CATEX. Segmentation 

occurs when an action is broken into 

smaller parts in an effort to avoid 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2012 / Notices 30317 

properly documenting impacts 

associated with the complete action. 

Segmentation also occurs when the 

NIGC action is too narrowly defined and 

the potential impacts are minimized in 

order to avoid a higher level of NEPA 

documentation. Connected and 

cumulative actions must be considered 

(See 40 CFR 1508.25). 

3. The responsible NIGC official must 

determine if the NIGC action will 

involve any extraordinary 

circumstances that would prevent the 

use of a categorical exclusion. 

Categorical Exclusions 

The NIGC, based on past experience 

with similar actions, has determined 

that the following types of actions are 

categorically excluded and do not 

require the preparation of an EA or EIS 

because they will not individually or 

cumulatively result in a significant 

impact on the human environment. The 

federal actions listed under Category 1 

and 2 below, meet the criteria 

established in 40 CFR 1508.4. 

CATEGORY 1—Administrative and 

Routine Office Activities: 

A. Normal personnel, fiscal, and 

administrative activities involving 

personnel (recruiting, hiring, detailing, 

processing, paying, supervising and 

records keeping). 

B. Preparation of administrative or 

personnel-related studies, reports, or 

investigations. 

C. Routine procurement of goods and 

services to support operations and 

existing infrastructure, including 

routine utility services and contracts, 

conducted in accordance with 

applicable procurement regulations, 

executive orders, and policies (e.g. 

Executive Order 13101). 

D. Normal administrative office 

functions (record keeping; inspecting, 

examining, and auditing papers, books, 

and records; processing correspondence; 

developing and approving budgets; 

setting fee payments; responding to 

request for information). 

E. Routine activities and operations 

conducted on or in an existing structure 

that are within the scope and 

compatibility of the present functional 

use of the building, will not result in a 

substantial increase in waste discharge 

to the environment, will not result in 

substantially different waste discharges 

from current or previous activities, and 

will not result in emissions that exceed 

established permit limits, if any. In 

these cases, a Record of Environmental 

Consideration (REC), documentation is 

required. 

F. NIGC training in classrooms, 

meeting rooms, gaming facilities, or via 

the Internet. 

CATEGORY 2—Regulation, 

Monitoring and Oversight of Indian 

Gaming Activities: 

A. Promulgation or publication of 

regulations, procedures, manuals, and 

guidance documents necessary for 

NICG’s oversight of Indian Gaming 

Facilities and intra-agency operations at 

existing facilitates. 

B. Support of compliance and 

enforcement functions by conducting 

compliance training for tribal gaming 

regulators and managers in classrooms, 

meeting rooms, gaming facilities, or via 

the Internet. 

C. Preparing and issuing subpoenas, 

holding hearings, and taking 

depositions for informational gathering 

purposes, not associated with 

administrative enforcement actions. 

Extraordinary Circumstances for 

Categorical Exclusions 

Some types of actions that would 

normally be categorically excluded may 

not qualify for a CATEX because an 

extraordinary circumstance exists (See 

40 CFR 1508.4). The responsible NIGC 

official must evaluate each proposed 

action and use best professional 

judgment to determine if it meets the 

CATEX requirements described above 

and does not have any extraordinary 

circumstances. If the proposed action 

has one or more of the following 

conditions, extraordinary circumstances 

exist and the action cannot be 

categorically excluded: 

A. There is a reasonable likelihood 

the proposed action/project will have a 

significant impact on public health or 

safety. 

B. There is a reasonable likelihood the 

proposed action/project would involve 

effects on the environment that involve 

risks that are highly uncertain, unique, 

or are scientifically controversial. 

C. There is a reasonable likelihood the 

proposed action/project would violate 

one or more federal, tribal, state, or local 

environmental laws/regulations/orders. 

D. There is a potential that the 

proposed action/project will have an 

adverse effect on a property or structure 

eligible for listing or listed on the 

National Register of Historical Places, 

including degradation of scientific, 

cultural, or historic resources protected 

by the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, as amended, requiring 

consultation. 

E. There is a potential that the 

proposed action/project will have a 

significant impact on natural, 

ecological, or scenic resources of 

federal, tribal, state and/or local 

significance. These resources include 

federal or state listed endangered, 

threatened, or candidate species or 

designated or proposed critical habitat 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA); resources protected by Costal 

Zone Management Act (CZMA); 

resources protected by the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act; prime, 

unique, tribal, state or locally important 

farmlands; and federal or state listed 

wild or scenic rivers, requiring 

consultation. 

F. There is a reasonable likelihood the 

proposed action/project will have 

effects that are highly controversial on 

environmental grounds. 

Categorical Exclusion Documentation 

The purpose of categorical exclusions 

is to reduce paperwork and delay. The 

NIGC is not required to repeatedly 

document actions that qualify for a 

categorical exclusion and do not involve 

an extraordinary circumstance (See 40 

CFR 1500.4(p)). 

The NIGC will document its decision 

to treat a particular action as 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review, when the CATEX applied 

specifically requires the preparation of a 

REC. In those cases, a REC will include: 

D A complete description of the 

proposed action/project. 

D The CATEX relied upon, including 

a brief discussion of why there are no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

D Supplemental documentation that 

supports the conclusions in the 

narrative. Examples include exhibit(s) 

showing boundaries of historical or 

archeological site(s) previously 

identified near the proposed project, 

documentation from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service noting that no 

endangered species or habitat is present 

near the proposed project, evidence that 

the proposed project site is located 

outside any non-attainment area(s), etc. 

In some cases, a ‘‘no effect’’ 

determination from the State Historic 

Preservation Office or Tribal Historic 

Preservation Office may be required. 

D The following statement: I certify 

that, to the best of my knowledge, the 

information provided is the best 

available information and is accurate. 

D A signature from an environmental 

professional with a signature block that 

includes the professional’s credentials. 

Dated: May 1, 2012. 

Tracie Stevens, 

Chairwoman. 

Steffani Cochran, 

Vice-Chairwoman. 

Daniel Little, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12176 Filed 5–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–02–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES