Quapaw Nation Gaming Agency 

P.O. Box 405 • 69300 E. Nee Rd. 

Quapaw, OK 74363 

Phone: (918) 919-6020 Fax: (918) 919-6029 

June 3, 2022 

Mr. E. Sequoyah Simenneyer, Chair 

National Indian Garnjng Commission 

1849 C. Street NW 

Mail Stop #1621 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Re: Tribal Comments to the NIGC's Proposed Changes to 25 C.F.R. Part 518 SelfRegulation of Class II Gaming 

Dear Chairman Simerrneyer & Members of the Commission: 

Included along with this letter are the Quapaw Nation Gaming Agency's comments on the National 

Indian Gaming Commission's proposed amendments to its regulations, specifically the SelfRegulation of Class U Gaming, found at 25 C.F.R. Part 518. These comments expand upon the 

comments submitted following the NIGC consultations held on September 21-22, 2021 , and 

October 21 , 2021 , as well as the amendments made by the NIGC following Consultation Series B. 

We sincerely appreciate the NIGC's efforts to solicit and consider tribal input on these matters, 

which will have a tangible impact on Tribal Gaming Regulatory Agencies' ability to adequately 

protect the integrity of gaming. 

Erin Eckhart, Director 

Quapaw Nation Gaming Agency 

Enclosure. 
COMMENTS OF THE QUAPAW NATION GAMING AGENCY ON THE NATIONAL 

INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 25 C.F.R. PART 

518. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

These comments are submitted in response to the notice of proposed amendments to 25 C.F.R. 

Part 518, published by the National Indian Gaming Commission ("NIGC") in the Federal Register 

on April 7, 2022. This proposed rule was drafted and published after the NIGC conducted its 

Tribal Consultation Series B, in which the NIGC communicated its intent to revise various 

regulations, including those governing the self-regulation of Class II Gaming. 

In response to this proposed rule, the Quapaw Nation Gaming Agency ("QNGA") respectfully 

submits the following comments for consideration. 

II. COMMENTS 

A. Certification and Review Process (25 C.F.R. § 518.7) 

As a regulatory agency, the QNGA understands and welcomes that compliance is necessary to 

maintain certification and functionality. However, the QNGA has some lingering concerns about 

the clarity of standards to which a tribal government seeking to maintain self-regulated status is 

held. During the NIGC's Consultation Series B, the QNGA recommended that the standards of 

review be more detailed, especially the standards of assessment against the terms of 25 C.F.R. § 

518.3 (a)-(e). The QNGA renews that request for a more thorough description of the procedure for 

conducting assessments. Such increased transparency will help ensure self-regulation status is 

achievable and maintainable, which comports with the tenants of self-governance and self-reliance 

propagated by IGRA. 

The QNGA would also like to express its appreciation of the clarification provided by the NIGC 

that a final determination on issuing a certificate of self-regulation will be made within thirty (30) 

days of the Commission's preliminary findings. Such clarification provides a clear time frame for 

when a tribal government can expect a determination and allows the process to move forward 

rather than languish. 

B. Dutv to Advise the Commission (25 C.F.R. § 518.11) 

During the last round of pertinent consultations, we did express a concern that some of the terms, 

particularly those related to the duty to advise the NIGC of certain material changes in 

circumstance, were overly broad and vague. We made specific reference to the term "financial 

instability" and the clause "any other factors that are material to the decision to grant a certificate 

of self-regulation." We note that the sentence that contained these points of concern has been 

removed from the most this proposed rule. However, such deletion raises a new concern-namely 

that now there are no examples of what might constitute a material change to the approval criteria 

in § 518.5. We recommend that the NIGC consider having clear, defined examples of material 
changes so tribal governments have an informed idea on what constitutes a material change that 

would require notification to the Commission within ten ( 10) business days. 

As with the prior subsection, the QNGA again wants to relay our approval of incorporated changes 

between the 2021 consultation and this proposed rule. The NIGC's deletion of the requirement 

that a tribal government provide "information that may lead to information that is relevant to any 

material change in circumstances," is much appreciated. It is our belief that this prior requirement 

was vague and erroneously overbroad. 

C. Determinations of Non-Compliance (25 C.F.R. § 518.13) and Appealing a 

Revocation (25 C.F.R. § 518.14) 

Our concerns for both Parts § § 518. l 3 and 518 .14 are interrelated. As expressed during the Series 

B Consultation, the QNGA is not opposed to the amendments that would designate the Office of 

Self-Regulation as "the proponent of any case to revoke a certificate before the Commission," nor 

are we opposed to the Office of Self-Regulation bearing the burden of proof on evincing why a 

certificate of self-regulation should be revoked. We do, however, have some lingering concerns 

with potential due process issues arising from the appointment of the Director of the Office of 

Self-Regulation and his/her role in the appeals process. 

As opposed to the language suggested during the Series B Consultation, this proposed rule appears 

to allow the NIGC Chair to appoint a non-NIGC member to serve as the Director of the Office of 

Self-Regulation. If such appointment is made, our concerns are abrogated. Yet, if the NIGC Chair 

does choose to appoint a sitting NIGC member to that position, it is our opinion that there would 

be an impermissible conflict of interest. The Director would serve as the decision maker involved 

in the revocation of a self-regulation certificate and would also serve as a member of the body who 

is responsible for determining if the initial decision maker has met his/her burden of proof for such 

a determination. Resulting, we recommend that, in addition to the changes already promulgated in 

Part§ 518.2, that the NIGC consider adding a provision that requires the Director of the Office of 

Self-Regulation to recuse himse1£1herself from participating as a Commissioner of the NIGC in 

any revocation hearing. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The QNGA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the NIGC, and we are confident 

that, through cooperative discourse, the NIGC will achieve regulations that foster the integrity of 

gaming without imposing an undue burden on TGRAs, tribal governments, and tribal gaming 

operations. We look forward to continuing to engage in meaningful collaboration with the NIGC 

on these matters. 

2