60 day FR Notice

sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

36322

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2016 / Notices

to be added to the Sabinoso Wilderness
under the provisions of Section 6 (a) of
the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Act), which
will provide for public access to the
wilderness for the first time. The
Rimrock Rose Ranch previously served
as base property for the two livestock
grazing allotments (00735 and 00736)
within or near Sabinoso Wilderness,
and as part of the conditions of the
donation, provided for under Section 6
(a) of the Act, the property cannot be
used for purposes of livestock grazing.
Furthermore, the ranch property offered
for donation contains important riparian
resources critical for supporting a
diverse population of aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife species in this arid
environment where riparian resources
are scarce. The long history of grazing
practices on the ranch property has
substantially compromised the riparian
resources and their function. To protect
and restore riparian resources, as well as
to conform to current BLM management
prescriptions for the area, livestock
grazing is proposed to be eliminated
from the two livestock grazing
allotments because of their dependence
on these riparian areas as a
supplemental water source and for
purposes of trailing. The proposal also
includes the purchase of the remaining
approximate 600 acres of the Rimrock
Rose Ranch not offered as part of the
donation. The purpose of the public
scoping process is to determine relevant
issues that will influence the scope of
the environmental analysis, including
alternatives, and guide the planning
process. Preliminary issues for the plan
amendment area have been identified by
BLM personnel and include potential
impacts to wilderness quality; riparian
resources; cultural resources; livestock
grazing; and opportunities for
recreation. 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.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate
the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill
the public involvement process under
the National Historic Preservation Act
(54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36
CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about
historic and cultural resources within
the area potentially affected by the
proposed action will assist the BLM in
identifying and evaluating impacts to
such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian
tribes on a government-to-government
basis in accordance with Executive

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:36 Jun 03, 2016

Jkt 238001

Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal
concerns, including impacts on Indian
trust assets and potential impacts to
cultural resources, will be given due
consideration. Federal, State, and local
agencies, along with tribes and other
stakeholders that may be interested in or
affected by the proposed action that the
BLM is evaluating, are invited to
participate in the scoping process and,
if eligible, may request or be requested
by the BLM to participate in the
development of the environmental
analysis as a cooperating agency.
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 BLM will evaluate identified
issues to be addressed in the plan, and
will place them into one of three
categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan
amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy
or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan
amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation
in the draft RMP amendment/draft EA
as to why an issue was placed in
category two or three. The public is also
encouraged to help identify any
management questions and concerns
that should be addressed in the plan.
The BLM will work collaboratively with
interested parties to identify the
management decisions that are best
suited to local, regional, and national
needs and concerns. 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: Rangeland
management, riparian resources,
wilderness, outdoor recreation,
archaeology, visual resources, and
realty.
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR
1610.2
Jim Stovall,
Acting Associate State Director, BLM New
Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2016–13273 Filed 6–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–FB–P

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Indian Gaming Commission
Renewals of Information Collections
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
National Indian Gaming
Commission, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of request for comments.
AGENCY:

In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
National Indian Gaming Commission
(NIGC or Commission) is seeking
comments on the renewal of
information collections for the following
activities: (i) Compliance and
enforcement actions under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act as authorized by
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Control Number 3141–0001; (ii)
approval of tribal ordinances, and
background investigation and issuance
of licenses as authorized by OMB
Control Number 3141–0003; (iii)
National Environmental Policy Act
submissions as authorized by OMB
Control Number 3141–0006; and (iv)
issuance to tribes of certificates of selfregulation for Class II gaming as
authorized by OMB Control Number
3141–0008. These information
collections all expire on October 31,
2016.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
August 5, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments can be mailed,
faxed, or emailed to the attention of:
Tim Osumi, National Indian Gaming
Commission, 1849 C Street NW., MS
1621, Washington, DC 20240.
Comments may be faxed to (202) 632–
7066 and may be sent electronically to
info@nigc.gov, subject: PRA renewals.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
Osumi at (202) 632–7054; fax (202) 632–
7066 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:

I. Request for Comments
You are invited to comment on these
collections concerning: (i) Whether the
collections of information are necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimates of the burdens
(including the hours and cost) of the
proposed collections of information,
including the validity of the
methodologies and assumptions used;
(iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; (iv) ways to minimize the
burdens of the information collections
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate

E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM

06JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2016 / Notices

sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other collection techniques or forms of
information technology. Please note that
an agency may not conduct or sponsor
and an individual need not respond to,
a collection of information unless it has
a valid OMB Control Number.
It is the Commission’s policy to make
all comments available to the public for
review at the location listed in the
ADDRESSES section. 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 may ask in your comment that the
Commission withhold your personal
identifying information from public
review, the Commission cannot
guarantee that it will be able to do so.
II. Data
Title: Indian Gaming Compliance and
Enforcement.
OMB Control Number: 3141–0001.
Brief Description of Collection: The
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or
the Act), 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., governs
the regulation of gaming on Indian
lands. Although IGRA places primary
responsibility with the tribes for
regulating their gaming activities,
§ 2706(b) directs the Commission to
monitor gaming conducted on Indian
lands on a continuing basis. Amongst
other actions necessary to carry out the
Commission’s statutory duties, the Act
authorizes the Commission to access
and inspect all papers, books, and
records relating to gross revenues of a
gaming operation. The Act also requires
tribes to provide the Commission with
annual independent audits of their
gaming operations, including audits of
all contracts in excess of $25,000. 25
U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(C), (D);
2710(d)(1)(A)(ii). In accordance with
these statutory mandates, Commission
regulations require Indian gaming
operations to keep and maintain
permanent financial records, and to
submit to the Commission independent
audits of their gaming operations on an
annual basis. This information
collection is mandatory and allows the
Commission to fulfill its statutory
responsibilities under IGRA to regulate
gaming on Indian lands.
Respondents: Indian tribal gaming
operations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
898.
Estimated Annual Responses: 898.
Estimated Time per Response:
Depending on the type of information
collection, the range of time can vary

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:36 Jun 03, 2016

Jkt 238001

from 20.5 burden hours to 1506.75
burden hours for one item.
Frequency of Responses: 1 per year.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours on Respondents: 878,274.
Estimated Total Non-hour Cost
Burden: $47,948,291.
Title: Approval of Class II and Class
III Ordinances, Background
Investigations, and Gaming Licenses.
OMB Control Number: 3141–0003.
Brief Description of Collection: The
Act sets standards for the regulation of
gaming on Indian lands, including
requirements for the approval or
disapproval of tribal gaming ordinances.
Section 2705(a)(3) requires the NIGC
Chair to review all Class II and Class III
tribal gaming ordinances. In accordance
with this statutory provision,
Commission regulations require tribes to
submit: (i) a copy of the gaming
ordinance, or amendment thereof, to be
approved, including a copy of the
authorizing resolution by which it was
enacted by the tribal government, and a
request for approval of the ordinance or
resolution; (ii) designation of an agent
for service of process; (iii) a description
of procedures the tribe will employ in
conducting background investigations
on primary management officials
(PMOs) and key employees; (iv) a
description of procedures the tribe will
use to issue licenses to PMOs and key
employees; (v) copies of all gaming
regulations; (vi) a copy of any applicable
tribal-state compact; (vii) a description
of dispute resolution procedures for
disputes arising between the gaming
public and the tribe or management
contractor; and (viii) identification of
the law enforcement agency that will
take fingerprints and a description of
the procedures for conducting criminal
history checks. The Commission also
requires a tribal ordinance to provide
that the tribe will perform background
investigations and issue licenses for
PMOs and key employees according to
requirements that are as stringent as
those contained in Commission
regulations. The NIGC Chair will use the
information collected to approve or
disapprove the ordinance or amendment
thereof.
Commission regulations also require
tribes to perform background
investigations and issue licenses for
PMOs and key employees using certain
information provided by applicants,
such as names, addresses, previous
employment records, previous
relationships with either Indian tribes or
the gaming industry, licensing related to
those relationships, any convictions,
and any other information that a tribe
feels is relevant to the employment of
the individuals being investigated.

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

36323

Tribes are then required to keep
complete application files. Tribes are
also required to create and keep
investigative reports, and to submit to
the Commission notices of results
(licensing eligibility determinations) on
PMOs and key employees. Tribes must
notify the Commission if they issue or
do not issue licenses to PMOs and key
employees, and if they revoke said
licenses. The Commission uses this
information to review the eligibility and
suitability determinations that tribes
make and advises them if it disagrees
with any particular determination.
These information collections are
mandatory and allow the Commission to
carry out its statutory duties.
Respondents: Indian tribal gaming
operations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,580.
Estimated Annual Responses:
193,745.
Estimated Time per Response:
Depending on the type of information
collection, the range of time can vary
from 1.0 burden hour to 1,419 burden
hours for one item.
Frequency of Response: Varies.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours on Respondents: 1,392,405.
Estimated Total Non-hour Cost
Burden: $3,333,573.
Title: NEPA Compliance.
OMB Control Number: 3141–0006.
Brief Description of Collection: The
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requires federal agencies to
analyze proposed major federal actions
that significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. The Commission
has identified one type of action that it
undertakes that requires review under
NEPA—approving third-party
management contracts for the operation
of gaming activity under IGRA.
Depending on the nature of the subject
contract and other circumstances,
approval of such management contracts
may be categorically excluded from
NEPA, may require the preparation of
an Environmental Assessment (EA), or
may require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
In any case, the proponents of a
management contract will be expected
to submit information to the
Commission and assist in the
development of the required NEPA
documentation.
Respondents: Tribal governing bodies,
management companies.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.
Estimated Annual Responses: 3.
Estimated Time per Response:
Depending on whether the response is
an EA or an EIS, the range of time can

E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM

06JNN1

sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

36324

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 108 / Monday, June 6, 2016 / Notices

vary from 2.5 burden hours to 12.0
burden hours for one item.
Frequency of Response: Varies.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours on Respondents: 26.5.
Estimated Total Non-hour Cost
Burden: $14,846,686.
Title: Issuance of Certificates of SelfRegulation to Tribes for Class II Gaming.
OMB Control Number: 3141–0008.
Brief Description of Collection: The
Act allows any Indian tribe that has
conducted Class II gaming for at least
three years to petition the Commission
for a certificate of self-regulation for its
Class II gaming operation(s). The
Commission will issue the certificate if
it determines that the tribe has
conducted its gaming activities in a
manner that has: resulted in an effective
and honest accounting of all revenues;
a reputation for safe, fair, and honest
operation of the gaming activities; and
an enterprise free of evidence of
criminal or dishonest activity. The tribe
must also have adopted and
implemented proper accounting,
licensing, and enforcement systems, and
conducted the gaming operation on a
fiscally or economically sound basis.
Commission regulations require a tribe
interested in receiving a certificate to
file with the Commission a petition
generally describing the tribe’s gaming
operations, its regulatory process, its
uses of net gaming revenue, and its
accounting and recordkeeping systems.
The tribe must also provide copies of
various documents in support of the
petition. Tribes who have been issued a
certificate of self-regulation are required
to submit to the Commission certain
information on an annual basis,
including information that establishes
that the tribe continuously meets the
regulatory eligibility and approval
requirements and supporting
documentation that explains how tribal
gaming revenues were used in
accordance with the requirements in 25
U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(B). Submission of the
petition and supporting documentation
is voluntary. The Commission will use
the information submitted by the tribe
in determining whether to issue the
certificate of self-regulation. Once a
certificate of self-regulation has been
issued, the submission of certain other
information is mandatory.
Respondents: Tribal governments.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 8.
Estimated Annual Responses: 8.
Estimated Time per Response:
Depending on the information
collection, the range of time can vary
from 0.75 burden hour to 1,940 burden
hours for one item.
Frequency of Responses: Varies.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:36 Jun 03, 2016

Jkt 238001

Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours on Respondents: 4,088.
Estimated Total Non-hour Cost
Burden: $172,450.
Dated: May 24, 2016.
Shannon O’Loughlin,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2016–13276 Filed 6–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–MWR–ISRO–20587; PPMWMWROW3/
PPMPSPD1Y.YM0000]

Amended Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement To
Address the Presence of Wolves at Isle
Royale National Park
National Park Service, Interior.
Amended Notice of Intent.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

The National Park Service
(NPS) is amending its July 10, 2015,
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
and Management Plan for Moose,
Wolves, and Vegetation for Isle Royale
National Park, Michigan (Isle Royale).
The NPS is revising the scope of the EIS
to focus on the question of whether to
bring wolves to Isle Royale in the near
term, and if so, how to do so. This
amended NOI describes a range of
alternatives for bringing wolves to the
Island.

SUMMARY:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347; 40 CFR
parts 1500–1508; 43 CFR part 46.

The public scoping comment
period will conclude 30 days following
the date this NOI is published in the
Federal Register. All comments must be
postmarked or transmitted by this date.
ADDRESSES: Information, including a
copy of the new public scoping
brochure, is available for public review
online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/
ISROwolves. Limited copies of the
brochure will also be available at Isle
Royale National Park, 800 East
Lakeshore Drive, Houghton, Michigan
and by request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Superintendent Phyllis Green, Isle
Royale National Park, ISRO Wolves, 800
East Lakeshore Drive, Houghton,
Michigan 49931–1896, or by telephone
at (906) 482–0984.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although
wolves have not always been part of the
Isle Royale ecosystem, they have been
present for more than 65 years, and have
played a key role in the ecosystem,
affecting the moose population and
DATES:

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

other species during that time. The
average wolf population on the island
over the past 65 years has been about
22, but there have been as many as 50
wolves on the Island and as few as
three. Over the past five years the
population has declined steeply, which
has given rise to the need to determine
whether the NPS should bring
additional wolves to the island. There
were three wolves documented on the
Island as of March 2015 and only two
wolves have been confirmed as of
February 2016. At this time, natural
recovery of the population is unlikely.
The potential absence of wolves raises
concerns about possible effects to Isle
Royale’s current ecosystem, including
effects to both the moose population
and Isle Royale’s forest/vegetation
communities.
The NPS published a NOI to prepare
an EIS and Management Plan for Moose,
Wolves, and Vegetation for Isle Royale
National Park on July 10, 2015, (80 FR
39796), and held scoping meetings July
27–30, 2015. However, based on the
public comments we received and
additional internal deliberations, the
NPS has determined that it will revise
and narrow the scope of this EIS to
focus on the question of whether to
bring wolves to Isle Royale in the near
term, and if so, how to do so.
The revised purpose of the plan is to
determine whether and how to bring
wolves to Isle Royale to function as the
apex predator in the near term within a
changing and dynamic island
ecosystem. The NPS will evaluate
alternative approaches for bringing
wolves to Isle Royale, as well as the
alternative of not bringing wolves to Isle
Royale (the no-action alternative),
which remains a viable option.
Following this evaluation and
additional input from you on the EIS, an
alternative will be selected for
implementation and documented in a
record of decision. Based on the revised
purpose statement, the NPS is now
considering the following alternatives.
Under Alternative A, the no-action
alternative, the NPS would not
intervene and would continue current
management. Wolves may come and go
through natural migration, although the
current population of wolves may die
out. Under Alternative B, the NPS
would bring wolves to Isle Royale as a
one-time event within a defined period
of time (e.g., over a 36 month period) to
increase the longevity of the wolf
population on the island. This action
would occur as soon as possible
following a signed record of decision.
Under Alternative C, the NPS would
bring wolves to Isle Royale as often as
needed in order to maintain a

E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM

06JNN1