National Indian Gaming Commission, 63325-63326 [2011-25932]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Notices
meals are the responsibility of the
participating public.
Dated: October 4, 2011.
Shelley J. Smith,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. 2011–26278 Filed 10–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Indian Gaming
Commission.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice of no action.
On November 18, 2010, the
National Indian Gaming Commission
(NIGC) issued a Notice of Inquiry and
Notice of Consultation advising the
public that the NIGC was conducting a
comprehensive review of its regulations
and requesting public comment on the
process for conducting the regulatory
review. On April 4, 2011, after holding
eight consultations and reviewing all
comments, NIGC published a Notice of
Regulatory Review Schedule setting out
a consultation schedule and process for
review. Based on the above review, the
Commission notifies the public that it
does not intend to take action at this
time on certain other regulations
identified in the Notice of Regulatory
Review Schedule.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
National Indian Gaming Commission,
1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005. Telephone:
202–632–7009; e-mail:
reg.review@nigc.gov.
The
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or
Act), Public Law 100–497, 25 U.S.C.
2701 et seq., authorizes the NIGC to
promulgate such regulations and
guidelines as it deems appropriate to
implement certain provisions of the Act.
25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10). On November 12,
2010, the Commission issued a Notice of
Inquiry (NOI) requesting comment on
which of its regulations were most in
need of revision, in what order the
Commission should review its
regulations, and the process NIGC
should utilize to make revisions. The
NOI was published in the Federal
Register on November 18, 2010. 75 FR
70680. The Commission’s regulatory
review process established a tribal
consultation schedule of 33 meetings
over 11 months with a description of the
regulation groups to be covered at each
consultation.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Oct 11, 2011
Jkt 226001
I. Management Contracts—Collateral
Agreements
The NOI asked whether the
Commission should consider
promulgating a regulation requiring the
review and approval of collateral
agreements to a management contract. A
majority of the comments submitted in
response to the NOI stated that IGRA
already allows for the review of
collateral agreements to a management
contract. After reviewing the comments
received in response to the NOI, the
Commission announced its intent to
narrow its inquiry and only review the
issue of approval of collateral
agreements to a management contract.
Public comments received during
both the NOI and NRRA consultation
and comment period have varied
widely. Those comments supporting
both the NIGC’s review and approval of
collateral agreements stated that the
review and approval of collateral
agreements would greatly reduce the
risks to both Tribes and would-be
management contractors, thus reducing
overreaching by third parties; and that
it is the NIGC’s trust responsibility to
the review and approval of collateral
agreements in order to ensure that
collateral agreements do not violate the
sole proprietary interest provisions of
IGRA.
Public comments opposed to the
required approval of collateral
agreements state that collateral
agreements are outside the scope of
NIGC authority and requiring their
submission and approval would allow
the NIGC to second-guess tribal business
decisions. Similar comments opposed
NIGC review of non-management
business relationships of the Tribe; and
that requiring the submission and
approval of collateral agreements would
expand NIGC authority beyond what is
authorized by the IGRA. Public
commentators also stated that requiring
the approval of collateral agreements
could affect the development of
business relationships and discourage
private investment in Indian country.
These commentators recommended the
NIGC only review and approve those
collateral agreements that contain
management provisions separate from
those in the related management
contract. Public commentators also
expressed their concern over the length
of time it currently takes for the NIGC
to review and approve a management
contract and that the required approval
of collateral agreements would further
increase that time. Finally, one
commenter noted the sensitive,
proprietary information contained in
collateral agreements and suggested the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63325
NIGC review collateral agreements only
at the gaming facility.
The Commission reviewed the
comments received and has decided to
not promulgate a regulation requiring
NIGC approval of collateral agreements
to management contracts at this time.
IGRA provides for approval of
management agreements. 25 U.S.C.
2705(a)(4). IGRA does not require
approval of agreements collateral to
management contracts unless those
agreements also provide for
management. The Commission’s
decision today does not prevent tribes
from submitting any agreement,
collateral or not, for NIGC review to
determine whether the agreement
provides for management. As a matter of
practice, the NIGC regularly reviews a
variety of agreements to determine if the
agreements in fact provide for
management. To be clear, the
Commission’s decision today does not
alter in any way, the NIGC’s continued
practice of reviewing agreements for
management. The Commission notes
that any contract that provides for
management that has not been approved
by the Chairwoman is void. 25 CFR
533.7. Further, managing without an
approved contract is a substantial
violation of IGRA that can result in an
enforcement action and closure order.
25 CFR 573.6(a)(7).
II. Definitions—Net Revenues—
management fee
The NOI asked whether the
Commission should consider whether
the definition of net revenues for the
purposes of calculating the management
fees should be defined to be consistent
with the General Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP). Many comments
stated that if this definition was
amended, it would still need to remain
consistent with the statutory definition
of net revenues contained in IGRA, 25
U.S.C. 2703(9). Other comments stated
that it should be defined consistent with
industry standards such as GAAP. One
comment noted that a clearer definition
would have resolved a dispute with
their state over the definition of net win
and net revenue. Another comment
stated that the 2008 regulatory change to
the definition of net revenue does not
comply with IGRA and needs to be
revised to ensure it is consistent with
the statutory definition.
The Commission has reviewed the
comments received during both the NOI
and NRRA comment and consultation
periods and has decided not to issue a
rule at this time amending the definition
of net revenues set forth at 25 CFR
502.16. The Commission agrees that
changing the definition to be consistent
E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM
12OCN1
63326
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / Notices
with GAAP could result in a definition
that is inconsistent with the statutory
definition contained in 25 U.S.C.
2703(9).
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree
Employment and Training
Administration
United
States International Trade Commission.
TIME AND DATE: October 19, 2011 at 10
a.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731–TA–696
(Third Review)(Pure Magnesium from
China). The Commission is currently
scheduled to transmit its determination
and Commissioners’ opinions to the
Secretary of Commerce on or before
October 31, 2011.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
In accordance with Departmental
Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby
given that a proposed Consent Decree in
United States of America v. Brent
Nicholson and Mary K. Nicholson, Case
No. C01–809RBL, was lodged with the
United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on
September 28, 2011.
This proposed Consent Decree
concerns a complaint filed by the
United States against Brent Nicholson
and Mary K. Nicholson, pursuant to
Section 309 of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1319, to obtain injunctive relief
from and impose civil penalties against
the Defendants for violating the Clean
Water Act by discharging pollutants
without a permit into waters of the
United States. The proposed Consent
Decree resolves these allegations by
requiring the Defendants to pay a civil
penalty and perform mitigation. The
Consent Decree also provides for a shore
defense structure to remain in place
under certain conditions, including that
the Defendants enter into a separate
agreement with the Lummi Nation.
The Department of Justice will accept
written comments relating to this
proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30)
days from the date of publication of this
Notice. Please address comments to
Brian C. Kipnis, Assistant United States
Attorney, 5200 United States
Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle,
Washington, 98101–1271, and refer to
United States of America v. Brent
Nicholson and Mary K. Nicholson, Case
No. C01–809RBL.
The proposed Consent Decree may be
examined at the Clerk’s Office, United
States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, 5200 United
States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street,
Seattle, Washington, 98101–1271. In
addition, the proposed Consent Decree
may be viewed at https://www.usdoj.gov/
enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.
By order of the Commission:
Issued: October 7, 2011.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Defense Section, Environment & Natural
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2011–26507 Filed 10–7–11; 4:15 pm]
[FR Doc. 2011–26313 Filed 10–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
BILLING CODE P
Dated: October 3, 2011, Washington, DC.
Tracie L. Stevens,
Chairwoman.
Steffani A. Cochran,
Vice-Chairwoman.
Daniel J. Little,
Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2011–25932 Filed 10–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565–01–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–11–028]
Government In the Sunshine Act
Meeting Notice
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
Investigations Regarding Certifications
of Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Petitions have been filed with the
Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a)
of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and
are identified in the Appendix to this
notice. Upon receipt of these petitions,
the Director of the Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, Employment
and Training Administration, has
instituted investigations pursuant to
Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the
investigations is to determine whether
the workers are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Title II,
Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations
will further relate, as appropriate, to the
determination of the date on which total
or partial separations began or
threatened to begin and the subdivision
of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons
showing a substantial interest in the
subject matter of the investigations may
request a public hearing, provided such
request is filed in writing with the
Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than October 24, 2011.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments regarding the
subject matter of the investigations to
the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than October 24, 2011.
The petitions filed in this case are
available for inspection at the Office of
the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, Employment and Training
Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of
September 2011.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
APPENDIX
[15 TAA petitions instituted between 9/19/11 and 9/23/11]
Date of
institution
TA–W
Subject firm (petitioners)
Location
80445 ................
80446 ................
80447 ................
Masco Builder Cabinet Group () ..........................................
Gildan (Workers) ..................................................................
Dell Computer Corporation (State/One-Stop) ......................
Waverly, OH ..........................
Conover, NC .........................
Round Rock, TX ...................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Oct 11, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM
12OCN1
09/19/11
09/19/11
09/20/11
Date of
petition
09/13/11
09/19/11
09/20/11
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63325-63326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25932]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Indian Gaming Commission
AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission.
ACTION: Notice of no action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 18, 2010, the National Indian Gaming Commission
(NIGC) issued a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Consultation advising
the public that the NIGC was conducting a comprehensive review of its
regulations and requesting public comment on the process for conducting
the regulatory review. On April 4, 2011, after holding eight
consultations and reviewing all comments, NIGC published a Notice of
Regulatory Review Schedule setting out a consultation schedule and
process for review. Based on the above review, the Commission notifies
the public that it does not intend to take action at this time on
certain other regulations identified in the Notice of Regulatory Review
Schedule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Indian Gaming Commission,
1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100 Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-632-
7009; e-mail: reg.review@nigc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or
Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., authorizes the NIGC
to promulgate such regulations and guidelines as it deems appropriate
to implement certain provisions of the Act. 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10). On
November 12, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI)
requesting comment on which of its regulations were most in need of
revision, in what order the Commission should review its regulations,
and the process NIGC should utilize to make revisions. The NOI was
published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2010. 75 FR 70680.
The Commission's regulatory review process established a tribal
consultation schedule of 33 meetings over 11 months with a description
of the regulation groups to be covered at each consultation.
I. Management Contracts--Collateral Agreements
The NOI asked whether the Commission should consider promulgating a
regulation requiring the review and approval of collateral agreements
to a management contract. A majority of the comments submitted in
response to the NOI stated that IGRA already allows for the review of
collateral agreements to a management contract. After reviewing the
comments received in response to the NOI, the Commission announced its
intent to narrow its inquiry and only review the issue of approval of
collateral agreements to a management contract.
Public comments received during both the NOI and NRRA consultation
and comment period have varied widely. Those comments supporting both
the NIGC's review and approval of collateral agreements stated that the
review and approval of collateral agreements would greatly reduce the
risks to both Tribes and would-be management contractors, thus reducing
overreaching by third parties; and that it is the NIGC's trust
responsibility to the review and approval of collateral agreements in
order to ensure that collateral agreements do not violate the sole
proprietary interest provisions of IGRA.
Public comments opposed to the required approval of collateral
agreements state that collateral agreements are outside the scope of
NIGC authority and requiring their submission and approval would allow
the NIGC to second-guess tribal business decisions. Similar comments
opposed NIGC review of non-management business relationships of the
Tribe; and that requiring the submission and approval of collateral
agreements would expand NIGC authority beyond what is authorized by the
IGRA. Public commentators also stated that requiring the approval of
collateral agreements could affect the development of business
relationships and discourage private investment in Indian country.
These commentators recommended the NIGC only review and approve those
collateral agreements that contain management provisions separate from
those in the related management contract. Public commentators also
expressed their concern over the length of time it currently takes for
the NIGC to review and approve a management contract and that the
required approval of collateral agreements would further increase that
time. Finally, one commenter noted the sensitive, proprietary
information contained in collateral agreements and suggested the NIGC
review collateral agreements only at the gaming facility.
The Commission reviewed the comments received and has decided to
not promulgate a regulation requiring NIGC approval of collateral
agreements to management contracts at this time. IGRA provides for
approval of management agreements. 25 U.S.C. 2705(a)(4). IGRA does not
require approval of agreements collateral to management contracts
unless those agreements also provide for management. The Commission's
decision today does not prevent tribes from submitting any agreement,
collateral or not, for NIGC review to determine whether the agreement
provides for management. As a matter of practice, the NIGC regularly
reviews a variety of agreements to determine if the agreements in fact
provide for management. To be clear, the Commission's decision today
does not alter in any way, the NIGC's continued practice of reviewing
agreements for management. The Commission notes that any contract that
provides for management that has not been approved by the Chairwoman is
void. 25 CFR 533.7. Further, managing without an approved contract is a
substantial violation of IGRA that can result in an enforcement action
and closure order. 25 CFR 573.6(a)(7).
II. Definitions--Net Revenues--management fee
The NOI asked whether the Commission should consider whether the
definition of net revenues for the purposes of calculating the
management fees should be defined to be consistent with the General
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Many comments stated that if
this definition was amended, it would still need to remain consistent
with the statutory definition of net revenues contained in IGRA, 25
U.S.C. 2703(9). Other comments stated that it should be defined
consistent with industry standards such as GAAP. One comment noted that
a clearer definition would have resolved a dispute with their state
over the definition of net win and net revenue. Another comment stated
that the 2008 regulatory change to the definition of net revenue does
not comply with IGRA and needs to be revised to ensure it is consistent
with the statutory definition.
The Commission has reviewed the comments received during both the
NOI and NRRA comment and consultation periods and has decided not to
issue a rule at this time amending the definition of net revenues set
forth at 25 CFR 502.16. The Commission agrees that changing the
definition to be consistent
[[Page 63326]]
with GAAP could result in a definition that is inconsistent with the
statutory definition contained in 25 U.S.C. 2703(9).
Dated: October 3, 2011, Washington, DC.
Tracie L. Stevens,
Chairwoman.
Steffani A. Cochran,
Vice-Chairwoman.
Daniel J. Little,
Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2011-25932 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
