Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs: Gaming on Trust Lands Acquired After October 17, 1988, GAO-08-873R, June 3, 2008
The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan
Chairman
The Honorable Lisa Murkowski
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Indian Affairs
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II
Chairman
The Honorable Don Young
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Natural Resources
House of Representatives
Subject: Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs: Gaming on Trust Lands Acquired After
Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, this
is our report on a major rule promulgated by the Department of the Interior
(Department), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), entitled “Gaming on Trust Lands
Acquired After
The final rule implements
section 2719 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that allows Indian tribes to
conduct class II and class III gaming activities on land acquired after
The final rule currently has an effective
date of
Enclosed is our
assessment of the BIA’s compliance with the procedural steps required by
section 801(a)(1)(B)(i) through (iv) of title 5 with respect to the rule. Our review indicates that, assuming BIA
extends the effective date to comply with the 60-day delay, BIA complied with
the applicable requirements.
If you have any
questions about this report or wish to contact GAO officials responsible for
the evaluation work relating to the subject matter of the rule, please contact
Michael R. Volpe, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 512-8236.
signed
Robert J. Cramer
Associate General Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Darren
Pete
Director, Office of Congressional
and Legislative Affairs—Indian Affairs
ENCLOSURE
REPORT UNDER 5
U.S.C. sect. 801(a)(2)(A) ON A MAJOR RULE
ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
ENTITLED
"GAMING ON TRUST LANDS ACQUIRED AFTER OCTOBER 17, 1988"
(RIN: 1076-AE81)
(i)
Cost-benefit analysis
BIA states that
the final rule establishes requirements for the submission, review, and
approval of a gaming application in a timely manner. The anticipated expenses or costs to the
public or the tribes who submit applications will be substantial. However, the benefits of gaming on newly
acquired land will be for the tribe, employees, state and local governments,
nearby businesses, and local economic conditions. For example, jobs created by a gaming
establishment generally vary from 500 to 5,000. The net gaming revenue that is available to
the tribe will vary depending on the location and size of the new gaming
facility and is expected to be from $5,000,000 to $200,000,000.
(ii) Agency
actions relevant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 603-605,
607, and 609
The Department
certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities and, therefore, did not prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
(iii) Agency
actions relevant to sections 202-205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, 2 U.S.C. sections 1532-1535
BIA concluded that
the final rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. (This amount has been adjusted for inflation
to $127 million.)
(iv) Other
relevant information or requirements under acts and executive orders
Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 551 et seq.
BIA promulgated
the final rule using the notice and comment procedures found in the Administrative
Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. sect. 553. On
Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. sections 3501-3520
The final rule contains
information collection requirements that have been reviewed and cleared by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by the Act. The collection has been assigned the tracking
number of OMB Control Number 1076-0158.
Statutory
authorization for the rule
The final rule is
promulgated under the authority in 5 U.S.C. sect. 310 and 25 U.S.C. sections 2, 9, and
2719.
Executive Order
No. 12,866
The final rule was
reviewed by OMB and found to be a “significant” regulatory action under the
order.
Executive Order
No. 13,132 (Federalism)
The Department
determined that the final rule does not have significant federalism
implications because it does not substantially and directly affect the
relationship between the federal and state governments and does not impose costs
on states or localities.