Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

7646

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 19 / Monday, February 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
directed the parties to address the foundational question of the Commissions legal authority to issue a rule mandating such a stay. I strongly encourage parties to address this question in their briefs, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the majoritys order.
8. The Commissions failure to address the substance of the rehearing requests might be understandable if the order directing briefing had been issued earlier. Indeed, the Court in Allegheny suggested that it might be permissible for the Commission to provide for such supplemental briefing.10 However, that suggestion was offered in the context of the Courts discussion of a potential Commission order issued in connection with a timely ruling on rehearing within thirty days after a rehearing request.11
Here, we are simply failing to perform our duties.
9. Finally, lest any reader of todays order overlook it, lets pause for a moment to consider the irony of what the Commission contemplates here. In the very same proceeding in which the Commission promulgated a rule specifically aimed at alleviating concerns that its tolling orders served only to buy the Commission more time to act on a rehearing application and stall judicial review, 12 the Commission attempts to buy more time by ordering further procedure after the statutory deadline to act on rehearing has passed and as judicial review is imminent, absent any modification in the meantime of the rule under review.
I for one will be interested to see whether the D.C. Circuit countenances this action any more than it accepted the Commissions use of tolling orders for the very same purpose. Time will tell.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
James P. Danly, Commissioner.
FR Doc. 202102063 Filed 12921; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 671701P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Part 575
Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty To Reflect Inflation National Indian Gaming Commission.

AGENCY:

10 See
Allegheny, 964 F.3d at 16.
id.
12 Id. at 9.
11 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:10 Jan 29, 2021

Jkt 253001

ACTION:

Final rule.

In compliance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 the Act and Office of Management and Budget OMB
guidance, the National Indian Gaming Commission NIGC or Commission is amending its civil monetary penalty rule to reflect an annual adjustment for inflation in order to improve the penaltys effectiveness and maintain its deterrent effect. The Act provides that the new penalty level must apply to penalties assessed after the effective date of the increase, including when the penalties whose associated violation predate the increase.
DATES: This final rule is effective February 1, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Armando J. Acosta, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, National Indian Gaming Commission, at 202
6327003; fax 202 6327066 not tollfree numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:

I. Background On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 11474. Beginning in 2017, the Act requires agencies to make annual inflationary adjustments to their civil monetary penalties by January 15th of each year, in accordance with annual OMB guidance.
II. Calculation of Annual Adjustment In December of every year, OMB
issues guidance to agencies to calculate the annual adjustment. According to OMB, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2021 is 1.01182, based on the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2020, not seasonally adjusted.
Pursuant to this guidance, the Commission has calculated the annual adjustment level of the civil monetary penalty contained in 25 CFR 575.4
The Chairman may assess a civil fine, not to exceed $53,524 per violation, against a tribe, management contractor, or individual operating Indian gaming for each notice of violation . . .. The 2021 adjusted level of the civil monetary penalty is $54,157 $53,524
1.01182.
III. Regulatory Matters Regulatory Planning and Review This final rule is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866.
1 This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy or
PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

will not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.
2 This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
3 This rule does not involve entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of recipients.
4 This regulatory change does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act The Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
because the rule makes annual adjustments for inflation.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 8042, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. The rule will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This final rule does not impose an unfunded mandate of more than $100
million per year on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule also does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. is not required.
Takings Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this final rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involve a compensable taking. Thus, a takings implication assessment is not required.

E:FRFM01FER1.SGM

01FER1