[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12312-12317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-6282]
[[Page 12311]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
National Indian Gaming Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
25 CFR Part 514
Annual Fees Payable by Indian Gaming Operations; Final Rule
Fee Rates; Notice
25 CFR Part 518
Issuance of Certificates of Self-Regulation to Tribes; Proposed Rule
25 CFR Chapter III
Self-Regulated Class III Gaming Operations; Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 48 / Thursday, March 12, 1998 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 12312]]
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION
25 CFR Part 514
RIN 3141-AA18
Annual Fees Payable by Indian Gaming Operations
AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming Commission is amending its fee
regulations to add class III gaming revenues to the assessable gross
revenue base, increase the total amount of fees that can be imposed,
and provide for an exemption for self-regulated tribes such as the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw. This action is being taken pursuant to
recent amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The primary
effect of this action is to increase the funding for the National
Indian Gaming Commission. This rule provides direction and guidance to
Indian gaming operations (activities) to enable them to compute and pay
the annual fees as authorized by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(IGRA) as amended. The computation and payment of annual fees are to be
self-administered by each gaming operation that is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December
16, 1997. The 30-day comment period ended on January 15, 1998.
DATES: Effective April 13, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fred W. Stuckwisch, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street,
N.W., Suite 9100, Washington, D.C. 20005; telephone 202/632-7003; fax
202/632-7066 (these are not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA),
enacted on October 17, 1988, established the National Indian Gaming
Commission (Commission). The Commission is charged with, among other
things, regulating gaming on Indian lands. These amendments to the fee
regulations are issued pursuant to the IGRA, as amended.
Purpose
The purpose of the fee regulations is to implement those portions
of the IGRA that provide for the payment of fees by gaming operations
and for the collection and use of such fees by the Commission. Gaming
operations are the economic entities licensed by a tribe that operate
the games, receive the revenues, issue the prizes, and pay the
expenses. Gaming operations may be operated by a tribe directly, by a
management contractor, or under certain conditions, by another person
or other entity.
These regulations are being amended to:
(1) Add class III gaming revenues to the assessable gross revenue
base,
(2) Increase the total amount of fees that can be imposed,
(3) Eliminate the requirement that a minimum fee be assessed on
tier 1 revenues, and
(4) Provide an exemption for self-regulated tribes such as the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw.
As a result, gaming operations offering only class II games must
continue reporting and paying fees, gaming operations offering only
class III games must begin reporting and paying fees, and gaming
operations offering both class II and III games must begin reporting
and paying fees on their class III revenues.
Starting Date
This rule will become effective for calendar year 1998 which means
that all gaming operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission
must self-administer the provisions of these amended regulations and
must report and pay any fees that are due to the Commission for the
first quarter of 1998 by the end of the first quarter of 1998 (March
31), or no later than April 13, 1998, the date these regulations become
effective.
System Self-Administered
These regulations provide for a system of fee assessment and
payment that is self-administered by the gaming operations. Briefly,
the Commission adopts and communicates the assessment rates; the faming
operations apply those rates to their revenues, compute the fees to be
paid, and report and remit the fees to the Commission quarterly.
Fees Based on Assessable Gross Revenues
Annual fees are payable quarterly each calendar year based on the
previous calendar year's assessable gross revenues from the gaming
operations. For this purpose, all revenues from gaming operations
determined by the licensing tribe to be Class II or III are included.
Adoption of Fee Rates
The Commission will adopt preliminary annual fee rate(s) during the
first quarter of each calendar year and final annual fee rate(s) for
that year during the fourth quarter. Separate rates may be set for
assessable gross revenues of $1,500,000 (1st tier) and for revenues
over $1,500,000 (2nd tier). When adopted, the Commission will publish
the rates in the Federal Register as a Notice.
Fee Rates for Current Year
The Commission has adopted a preliminary fee rate of 0.00% for
assessable gross revenues of $1,500,000 1st tier) and 0.00% for
revenues over $1,500,000 (2nd tier) for use beginning with the first
quarter (January 1--March 31) of the current calendar year (1998). The
Commission may change this rate during subsequent quarters when more
information about the assessable gross revenue base becomes available.
The last or final rate adopted will ultimately determine the amount of
fees paid during the year. The Commission is publishing a Notice
announcing this preliminary rate simultaneously with these regulations
in the Federal Register.
Self-Regulation
If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation, the rate of fees
imposed shall be no more than .25 percent of class II assessable gross
revenues and 0% of class III assessable gross revenues. Later
rulemakings will add the requirements for obtaining a certificate of
self-regulation. The Commission is publishing in the Federal Register
today its proposed rules for self-regulation of class II operations.
Reports and Payments
Gaming operations compute their fee payments by applying the rates
adopted to their assessable gross revenues from the preceding calendar
year. Gaming operations report their assessable gross revenues, fees,
and calculations to the Commission with their quarterly payments.
Payments and reports must be received by the Commission no later than
March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31, of each calendar
year, beginning in 1998. As previously noted, payments and reports for
the first quarter of 1998 will be due no later that 30 days following
publication of this rule in the Federal Register, or April 13, 1998.
Computations
Briefly, the computations required for each quarter are:
(1) Multiply the previous calendar year's 1st tier assessable gross
revenues by the rate for those revenues adopted by the Commission.
[[Page 12313]]
(2) Multiply the previous calendar year's 2nd tier assessable gross
revenues adopted by the Commission.
(3) Add (total) the results (products) obtained in steps (1) and
(2) above.
(4) Multiply the total in (3) by the fraction representing the
applicable quarter of the calendar year: 1st quarter--\1/4\; 2nd
quarter--\1/2\ (\2/4\); 3rd quarter--\3/4\; and 4th quarter--1 (\4/4\).
(5) Subtract the amounts already paid by the operation for the
current year and credits, if any, due for any previous year's
overpayment from the amount determined in (4). (The Commission will
compute and tell the gaming operations the amounts of deductible
``credits.'')
(6) The gaming operation should pay the amount computed in (5) for
the quarter.
Examples
The regulations include examples of the computations at
Secs. 514.1(b)(3) and 514.1(c)(7).
Use of Adjusted Numbers
Basing the fees on the previous year's assessable gross revenues
provides enough time to the gaming operations to finalize and submit
adjusted numbers before the end of the third quarter of the calendar
year. Furthermore, the use of preliminary and final rates by the
Commission is intended to provide enough time for the Commission to
determine the assessable gross revenue base before finalizing the rates
for each calendar year.
Applicability
These regulations apply to all gaming operations under the
jurisdiction of the Commission. New gaming operations (with no gaming
revenues generated in the previous calendar year) must file reports
quarterly although no fees will be due. Gaming operations of tribes
with certificates of self-regulation are not required to file quarterly
reports if no fees are payable.
Penalties and Interest
Penalties and interest may apply for failures to file quarterly
statements and to pay fees when due. The Commission may withhold, deny
or revoke required approvals for failures to pay fees, penalties and
interest. Furthermore, the failure of a gaming operation to pay the
annual fee required is a substantial violation and may subject the
operation to an order of temporary closure of all or part of the gaming
operation pursuant to Sec. 573.6(a). Procedures for appealing such
adverse actions are found at Sec. 577.
Public Comments and Responses
The Commission received eighteen separate communications about the
proposed rule during the 30 day comment period. The comments ranged
from simple requests for more time to comment to comprehensive analyses
of the contents of parts of the proposed rule. The Commission has
thoroughly considered these comments and its decisions are set forth in
the paragraphs that follow.
Extension of the Comment Period
One commenter requested that the comment period for the proposed
rule be extended to allow time for additional comments.
Response: The NIGC decided not to extend the comment period
because:
--Many thoughtful, substantive comments were received during the
comment period provided,
--No new concerns about the proposed rules were presented in the
request to extend the comment period, and
--The Commission must begin collecting additional fees to continue
operating at its current level and begin its expansion.
Funding Increase
One commenter wrote that the Tribe supports an increase in funding
for the NIGC because it understands that effective regulation is a key
to continued strong support for Native American Gaming and to protect
the integrity of Native American Gaming. Two writers said they fully
support the NIGC having the resources necessary to do a complete and
thorough job of regulating and, more importantly, assisting the Tribes
in the regulation of the Indian gaming industry. Another commenter
pointed out that without viable enabling legislation, the NIGC may have
little choice other than to impose a uniform fee across the board on
all class III gaming operations and hope that enough tribes fail to
meet or exceed the ``Choctaw'' standard, such that the needed revenue
comes into the NIGC.
Response: The NIGC acknowledges and appreciates the positive
support for the funding increase. It too wants to do a complete and
thorough job of regulating and, more importantly, assisting the Tribes
in the regulation of the Indian gaming industry. As to the enabling
legislation, the NIGC is also concerned. It is presently reviewing its
options.
NIGC Budget
One commenter stated that the NIGC should not be able to
unilaterally set its own budget.
Response: The NIGC does not unilaterally set its own budget. NIGC's
annual budget, pursuant to, and limited by, the IGRA, must be
coordinated with the Secretary of the Interior and included with the
budget of the Department of the Interior in the President's budget. Any
request for appropriated funds is subject to the Secretary's approval.
Furthermore, the Commission's budget is reviewed by subcommittees and
committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
Fee Assessment Revenues
One commenter noted that all fee assessment revenue must fund only
NIGC activities.
Response: Fee assessment revenue is used to fund NIGC activities
only. Amounts not used in one year are carried forward to subsequent
years and used then to fund NIGC activities.
Phase-In
Several commenters suggested that the NIGC should establish rates
which will achieve the ceiling gradually, because doing so will not
only allow tribes to budget for anticipated increases in fees but will
allow the NIGC to determine over a period of time whether or not it in
fact requires the maximum amount of fees to fulfill its regulatory
obligations. The NIGC should work with the tribes to assess what
regulatory services are necessary.
Response: The regulations do not require that the Commission
increase the fees to $8 million in the first fiscal year. The NIGC
agrees that the amounts of fees assessed should be increased
incrementally to meet the growing needs of the Commission. However, the
reader should also understand that while the fee cap was raised from
$1.5 million to $8 million, the funding for the Commission is being
increased from about $4.4 million to a maximum of $8.5 million. This is
because the Commission is currently being funded by a combination of
fees, savings and appropriations, and in 1999 it will be funded by fees
alone.
Assessment Base
One commenter suggested that the assessment should not be based on
gross revenues. Another commenter said the ``assessable gross
revenues'' should include an allowance for salaries and other regular
business expenses.
Response: IGRA specifically provides for the assessment to be based
on gross revenues. The only deductible operating expense provided by
the IGRA is the allowance for the amortization of structures.
Regulation and the cost of
[[Page 12314]]
such regulation should be proportionate to the volume of gaming, rather
than its profitability.
Fee Rates
Several commenters said that fee rates should reflect the services
provided by the NIGC. Some of those suggested that the rates should be
set equally among the number of tribes engaged in class II and class
III gaming while another said that the NIGC should differentiate
clearly between class II gaming and class III gaming.
Response: The NIGC believes that the fee rates will relate to the
services provided by the NIGC--to the Indian gaming industry as a whole
as well as to the individual operations. When the Congress amended the
IGRA, it authorized the assessment of fees on class II and III gaming
revenues. It did not distinguish between class II and III and did not
require different assessment on each. The NIGC has likewise decided not
to distinguish between class II and class III revenues at this time.
Should there be some basis to do so in the future, the NIGC will
consider amending these regulations at a later date.
Range of Authorized Fee Rates
One commenter said that the rate imposed on the ``assessable gross
revenues'' is troubling. Such a rate on the gross revenues may, in
fact, result in a higher dollar amount than net revenues. Other
commenters pointed out that the IGRA amendments provide for maximum
fees of 2.5% on the first 1.5 million of ``assessable gross revenues''
and 5% on the amount above 1.5 million of ``assessable gross
revenues.'' These percentages strike them as being very high.
Response: The ranges of rates set forth in the regulations are the
rates that are authorized, not necessarily the rates that will be
assessed. There is an $8 million limit on the amount the NIGC can
assess. Assuming the industry has assessable gross revenues of $6
billion and that class II and class III revenues are assessed at the
same rate, the actual rate of assessment to collect $8 million would be
0.133%. An operation with $100 million of assessable gross revenues
would pay $133,333 in fees while an operation with $10 million of
assessable gross revenues would pay $13,333 in fees.
Tiers
One commenter stated that it is a good idea to have a ``tier''
structure for fees. A second commenter wrote that it is clear that
Congress intends the Commission to continue the ``sliding fee'' system.
A third commenter noted that Congress, in establishing the tiered fee
structure, and in eliminating the minimum fee under the 1st tier, has
authorized progressive rates that would impose a greater burden on
larger, and presumably more profitable, operations. NIGC should change
from the current flat-rate fee to a progressive fee structure. Further,
nothing precludes the NIGC from setting progressive rates within the
2nd tier, so long as the maximum rate does not exceed 5%. Three other
commenters contend that the two tier process is no longer relevant as a
direct result of the addition of class III revenues and should be re-
examined.
Response: The NIGC has decided to leave the tier structure in place
without modification at this time. It provides flexibility in that it
allows different rates for different groups of operations based on size
and allows both a progressive and a regressive structure. While the
NIGC has no immediate plans to use multiple rates within the second
tier, it does believe that it may have the authority to do so.
Allowance for Amortization
Two commenters urged that in defining what is a proper allowance
for amortization in arriving at assessable gross revenues, the NIGC
should include such facilities as entertainment centers, hotels, and
other ancillary facilities that clearly are designed to enhance gaming
revenue but the revenue from which is not directly assessable by the
NIGC.
Response: The regulations provide for the use of generally accepted
accounting principles which require the matching of revenues and
expenses. To allow the deduction of costs unrelated to the revenues
being assessed would not be in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. Furthermore, the revenues being assessed are the
revenues of the gaming operation. The costs in question are not the
costs of the gaming operation as defined in the regulations.
Another commenter believes that the regulations should clarify how
the ``allowance for amortization of capital expenditures for
structures'' will be determined.
Response: The regulations at Sec. 514.1(b) (2) and (3) provide both
the rules and an example.
Reporting Requirements
One commenter feels that the reporting requirements should not
apply to self-regulated tribes inasmuch as they are exempt from
Commission fees. In addition, the Commission should require information
to be maintained and available for inspection rather than require
submission of that information to the Agency.
Response: The Commission agrees that gaming operations of tribes
with certificates of self-regulation that exempt entire operations from
paying any fees should not be required to file the quarterly reports
that support the fee payments and has revised its regulations
accordingly. However, operations must submit quarterly reports even if
no fees are due until the Commission determines that they are exempt
from paying fees. The Commission does require, where appropriate, that
gaming operations maintain and make available for inspection certain
information. For example, Sec. 571.14 requires a tribe to reconcile its
quarterly fee assessment reports with its audited financial statements
and make available such reconciliation upon request by the Commission's
authorized representative.
Tribal Cap on Fees Payable
One commenter believes that a cap should be placed on the amount of
fees which any tribe should pay to NIGC.
Response: There are already caps on the amounts of fees the gaming
operations can be assessed. There are both the range of rates and the
overall $8 million caps.
Duplication
One Tribe commented that Tribes will now be paying double for
regulation of class III gaming. They point out that many Tribes are
already paying fees to States for regulation and/or other purposes
pursuant to their Tribal-State Compacts. Now NIGC will be assessing
fees on class III revenues for regulation as well. Another Tribe
commented that the proposed fee would cause them to be paying triple
for the same services. Still another Tribe stated that Tribes should
not pay for NIGC services that are already provided for by the Tribe
and/or the state agencies.
Response: The NIGC agrees that tribes should not be paying more
than once for the same services. Each of the various entities
involved--the tribes, the states, the federal government--have a role
to play in the regulation of Indian gaming. Those roles and
responsibilities should not be redundant. The federal government serves
a role separate from that of the tribes and states. It provides overall
oversight for all Indian gaming, intervenes when state and/or tribal
intervention is inappropriate, and takes action for violation of
Federal laws. The three levels of government must, however, continue to
work together to avoid overlap and duplication.
[[Page 12315]]
Credit for Other Costs of Regulation
Several commenters suggested that the Tribes should be given credit
against their fees for regulation and other services provided by local
governments. They pointed out that Tribal gaming operations pay
substantial fees to fund state compact, IGRA and Tribal regulations and
these fees should be credited against any fees paid to the NIGC.
Response: As discussed above, several entities have a role to play
in the regulation of Indian gaming. Their roles and responsibilities
are, or should be, complementary, not redundant. The work of each is
measured and paid for in a unique manner. The work and cost of one
tribal or state entity does not necessarily reduce the work and cost of
the NIGC. The Tribe regulates the individual gaming operation; pursuant
to a Tribal-State compact, the state may participate in the regulation
of the Indian gaming industry of the state; and the NIGC focuses on the
overall Indian gaming industry.
Economic Impact
One commenter thinks the proposed fee schedule will close down many
marginal gaming operations and that the impact of the Fee Regulations
on marginal gaming operations may be exacerbated by the exodus of
``self-regulated'' tribes from the fee paying pool and will eventually
impose severe economic hardship on those Tribes which are not able to
achieve this self-regulated status. Two other commenters pointed out
that only those tribes that cannot afford regulatory schemes that equal
or exceed the system used by the Mississippi Choctaw will be stuck with
the entire $7 million price tag.
Response: The Commission acknowledges that more of a burden may be
placed on ``marginal'' tribes if there is an exodus of self-regulated
tribes from the fee structure. To mitigate that burden, the NIGC has
initially decided to impose a fee on only the second tier, those
revenues over $1.5 million. On the other hand, the Commission must
implement and carry out the provisions of the IGRA as amended. To this
end it is publishing in the Federal Register today an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to implement the self-regulation provision added to
the IGRA by Public Law 105-83.
Hardship Exception
One commenter strongly urged the Commission to include another tier
or an exception to the fee where the assessment would be greater than
the net revenues. Another commenter urged that the non-compacted tribe,
which is faced with a disproportionate burden in payment of the fee,
should not be unfairly penalized.
Response: The Commission is sympathetic to the situations
described, but the IGRA does not provide for such individual
exceptions. The Commission's use of the tier system should provide some
help in this regard.
Impact on Small Business Entities
One commenter believes that the Commission is incorrect in stating
that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small business entities. He thinks that this rule
will shut them and many other small tribal gaming operations down.
Response: The Commission does not believe that the impact will be
grater that great given the $8 million cap. Only if the bulk of the
Indian gaming industry becomes exempt from paying fees will the burden
on the small business entities become so great.
Timing of Exemption From Fee Assessments
One commenter claimed that the NIGC has entirely failed to consider
a critical element of fee assessment, i.e., a present exemption from
fee assessments. It is not only unreasonable and unfair, but also
arbitrary and capricious and clearly erroneous for the Commission to
impose only that portion of the Congressional mandate that raises
tribal fees and increases Commission revenues but delays until a later
date, if at all, and abrogates, the tribal statutory entitlement to a
present exemption from payment of the fees. Another commenter said that
the NIGC should promulgate the rules governing the exemption prior to
imposing fees on tribes that are indistinguishable from the Mississippi
Choctaw. Yet another commenter argues that the NIGC must first allow
the tribes the opportunity to apply for and receive a certificate of
self-regulation before the subject fees may be lawfully assessed. Other
commenters asserted that if the Mississippi Choctaw will be immediately
exempt from application of the assessed fees, all tribes similarly
situated should also be immediately eligible for this exemption. To do
otherwise would lead to unfair preferential treatment which is
discriminatory in nature. Several commenters said that the NIGC should
issue regulations governing self-regulation as soon as possible.
Response: The NIGC agrees that if self-regulatory status is made
available to one tribe, it should be made available to all tribes in a
timely manner. In fact, it is publishing today proposed rules governing
self-regulation of class II operations. The NIGC does not agree that
self-regulatory status has been, or should be, made available
automatically. Self-regulation status is an exception (exemption) to
the general rule and any tribe seeking such status should be required
to demonstrate its qualifications for such classification.
Scope of Exemption From Fee Assessments
One commenter suggested that the NIGC is now prohibited from
assessing class II or class III fees against self-regulated gaming
operations, that Section 2710(c)(5) of the IGRA was not expressly
repealed by Congress but in effect has been superseded by Public Law
105-83. Another commenter asserted that new Section 18(a)(2)(C) of IGRA
supersedes the old procedures under Section 11(c)(3) for a tribe to
petition for a certificate of self-regulation from the Commission and
thereby obtain a partial exemption from Commission fees.
Response: The NIGC does not agree with those interpretations.
First, Section 2710(c)(5) and Section 11(c)(3) of the IGRA deal with
class II while the provision in Public Law 105-83 and Section
18(a)(2)(C) of the IGRA deal with tribes such as the Mississippi
Choctaw, who currently have only a class III operation. The NIGC
believes that the Congress has authorized separate class II and class
III self-regulation provisions. Consequently, the NIGC is publishing in
the Federal Register today its proposed rules for self-regulation of
class II operations and the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
class III operations.
Determination of Self-Regulation
One commenter contends that until the Commission determines which
tribes are self-regulated and which are not, it may not properly assess
any fees on Indian tribes.
Response: The Commission disagrees. The Commission's authority to
assess fees is separate from its authority to determine which tribes
are self-regulating. Furthermore, although class III self-regulated
tribes may be exempt from the obligation to pay fees, that provision is
not self implementing. Thus, regulations must be promulgated to
determine which tribes are self-regulating.
NIGC's Class III Responsibilities
Two commenters stated that the NIGC has very few statutory duties
or
[[Page 12316]]
responsibilities for class III gaming and what activities the NIGC does
undertake for class III (such as approval of management contracts) are
usually covered by fees paid by applicant tribes. Another commenter
said that NIGC's only class III obligation is to receive the annual
audits. And yet another commenter suggested that the Commission clarify
in its regulations that it is authorized only to regulate class II
gaming.
Response: The NIGC's responsibilities for class III gaming are
considerably broader than these commenters suggest. Among other things,
the NIGC is charged with:
--Determining whether the gaming operation is complying with all
provisions of IGRA, any regulation prescribed by the Commission
pursuant to the IGRA, or tribal regulations, ordinances, or resolutions
approved under section 11 or 13 of the IGRA;
--Assure that the tribe has sole proprietary interest and
responsibility for the conduct of the gaming activity;
--Assure that the net revenues from all tribal gaming are used for the
specified purposes;
--Assure that the construction and maintenance of the gaming facility,
and the gaming itself is conducted in a manner which adequately
protects the environment and the public health and safety; and
--Determine that any class III gaming is conducted in conformance with
a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State
that is in effect.
Texas Rather Than User Fees
One commenter suggested that the fee regulations proposed by the
Commission provide for taxes rather than user fees.
Response: The Commission disagrees. The fee assessments relate to
the regulation of the Indian gaming industry and the provision of
services to individual operations and the industry as a whole.
Class II and Class III Operation
Response: A gaming operation that conducts both class II and class
III gaming is subject to the provisions applicable to class II, class
III, and both class II and class III. There may be class II provisions
that do not apply to the class III portion of the operation and there
may be class III provisions that do not apply to the class II portion
of the operation.
Negotiated Rulemaking
One commenter suggested that negotiated rulemaking should be used
for the fee formula, self-regulating tribes, and other issues.
Response: The Commission agrees that negotiated rulemaking should
always be considered but in the situations at hand, it believes that
negotiated rulemaking is not practicable for the fee and self-
regulating regulations. The Commission's budgetary needs required
immediate decisions to implement the change in fees. Furthermore, the
Commission concurred with commenters that regulations on self-
regulation should be finished as soon as practicably possible. As a
result, interested parties have been given ample opportunity to review,
comment on, and discuss with Commissioners and staff the Commission's
thinking with respect to the proposed regulations.
Regulatory Procedures
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The additional entities
becoming subject to these regulations as a result of the changes now
being made are generally larger than those entities presently covered.
Furthermore, the fees that will be paid by the entities presently
covered will be less than the fees they are presently paying.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements contained in paragraph (c)
of this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned clearance number 3141-
0007. The information is being collected to determine the assessable
gross revenue of each gaming operation and the aggregate assessable
gross revenues of all gaming operations. The information will be used
to set and adjust fee rates and to verify the computations of fees paid
by each gaming operation. Response is mandatory.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Commission has determined that this 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.
Larry D. Rosenthal,
Chief of Staff, National Indian Gaming Commission.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 514
Gambling, Indians-lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 25 CFR Part 514 is amended as follows:
PART 514--FEES
1. The authority for Part 514 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706, 2708, 2710, 2717, 2717a.
2. Section 514.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(4), (b) introductory text, (b)(4), (c) introductory text,
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5) introductory text, (c)(8), and (d) introductory
text, by removing paragraph (g), and by adding paragraph (a)(6), to
read as follows:
Sec. 514.1 Annual fees.
(a) Each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission
shall pay to the Commission annual fees as established by the
Commission. The Commission, by a vote of not less than two of its
members, shall adopt the rates of fees to be paid.
* * * * *
(4) The rates of fees imposed shall be--
(i) No more than 2.5 percent of the first $1,500,000 (1st tier),
and
(ii) No more than 5 percent of amounts in excess of the first
$1,500,000 (2nd tier) of the assessable gross revenues from each gaming
operation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
* * * * *
(6) If a tribe is determined to be self-regulated pursuant to the
provisions of 25 U.S.C. 2717(a)(2)(C), no fees shall be imposed.
(b) For purposes of computing fees, assessable gross revenues for
each gaming operation are the annual total amount of money wagered on
class II and III games, admission fees (including table or card fees),
less any amounts paid out as prizes or paid for prizes awarded, and
less an allowance for amortization of capital expenditures for
structures.
* * * * *
(4) All class II and III revenues from gaming operations are to be
included.
(c) Each gaming operation subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commission and not exempt from paying fees pursuant to the self-
regulation provisions shall file
[[Page 12317]]
with the Commission quarterly a statement showing its assessable gross
revenues for the previous calendar year.
(1) These quarterly statements shall show the amounts derived from
each type of game, the amounts deducted for prizes, and the amounts
deducted for the amortization of structures;
(2) These quarterly statements shall be filed no later than--March
31, June 30, September 30, and December 31, of each calendar year the
gaming operation is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission,
beginning in September 1991. For calendar year 1998, the quarterly
statement for the first quarter shall be filed no later than April 13,
1998. Any changes or adjustments to the previous year's assessable
gross revenue amounts from one quarter to the next shall be explained.
* * * * *
(5) Each gaming operation shall determine the amount of fees to be
paid and remit them with the statement required in paragraph (c) of
this section. The fees payable shall be computed using--
* * * * *
(8) Quarterly statements, remittances and communications about fees
shall be transmitted to the Commission at the following address: Office
of Finance, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, N.W.,
Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005. Checks should be made payable to the
National Indian Gaming Commission (do not remit cash).
* * * * *
(d) The total amount of all fees imposed during any fiscal year
shall not exceed $8,000,000. The Commission shall credit pro-rata any
fees collected in excess of this amount against amounts otherwise due
at the end of the quarter following the quarter during which the
Commission makes such determination.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-6282 Filed 3-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565-01-M
