SILETZ TRIBAL GAMING COMMISSION

2120 NW 44th St, Suite A

Lincoln City, OR 97367 

Toll Free: (800) 789-5189

Direct: (541) 996-1825

Fax: (541) 996-5492

www.SiletzTribalGaming.com

Shawna Gray, Executive Director

sgray@stgcommission.com

Thursday, September 1, 2022 

Via electronic submission to information@nigc.gov 

E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Chair 

National Indian Gaming Commission

United States Department of the Interior

1849 C St., NW 

Mail Stop #1621 

Washington, DC 20240 

Re: Comments on behalf of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indian on proposed rules published in the 

Federal Register by the NIGC on 08/10/2022 

Dear Mr. Simermeyer,

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission (the TGRA) on behalf of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 

of Oregon (Siletz Tribe) respectfully submits the following comments regarding the recent proposed rules 

published by the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) in the Federal Register on August 

10, 2022, for 25 CFR Parts 502, 556, and 558. 

25 CFR §502.14 Key Employee. 

(a) “Any person gaming operation employee who performs one or more of the following functions for the 

gaming operation:” 

The general te rm “person” is not under the control of the TGRA or Commission and using 

“gaming operation employee” better defines who this CFR applies to. 

(9) “Custodian The gaming operation employee who guards, protects or maintains of gaming systems

gambling equipment and gaming software as defined in 25 CFR 547.2 and similar Class III systems, 

gaming cash equivalents, or gaming system records;” 

This control is vague at best. “Custodian” is not defined in the CFR. The Webster’s dictionary 

defines custodian as: one that guards and protects or maintains. 

What is the intent in changing and expanding “gambling devices” in the current CFR to “gaming 

system”? “Gaming system” is not defined in 547.2; only gaming equipment and gaming software
E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, NIGC Chair

Page 2 of 5 

is listed. With the near future of mobile gaming – would a patron’s personal gaming device be 

included as a “gaming system”?

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission believes that the control should be adjusted to use the 

definition of custodian, include the actual items listed in 25 CFR 547.2 and remove “similar class 

III systems”. 

(10) “Custodian The gaming operation employee who guards, protects or maintains of surveillance systems 

or surveillance system records.”

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission’s position is that this control is an unnecessary overreach 

by NIGC and should be removed in its entirety. Under the circumstances for the Siletz Tribal 

Gaming Commission, the TGRA, the custodian of these records and system is an employee of the 

TGRA, not the Gaming Operation. 

If the Commission is unwilling to remove the control in its entirety “custodian” should be changed 

to “the gaming operation employee who guards, protects or maintains”. Without fully defining who 

the custodian the interpretation is open to multiple regulators and may or may not include a vendor 

or integrator depending on the interpretation of an individual instead of being specific in the 

regulatory law. 

(b) “Any person gaming operation employee authorized by the gaming operation for unescorted access to 

restricted areas designated as restricted areas by the TGRA;” 

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission believes the control should be removed in its entirety. As the 

TGRA we have regulatory, as well as physical, controls currently in place such as the Tribal-State 

Compact, NIGC regulations, security staff posts and key access that prevents unauthorized 

personnel from entering restricted areas of the gaming operation. 

If the Commission is unwilling to remove this control, the general term “person” is not under the 

control of the TGRA or Commission and using “gaming operation employee” better defines who 

this CFR applies to. 

“(c) If not otherwise licensed as a key employee or primary management official, the four persons most 

highly compensated persons by the gaming operation. 

(d) Any other employee of the gaming enterprise operation designated by the Tribe as a key employee in 

its gaming ordinance by the TGRA.” 

25 CFR 502.14(c) and 502.14(d) should be combined to read be “(c) Any other employee of the 

gaming operation designated as a key employee by the TGRA.” Gaming enterprise encompasses 

more than the gaming operation and is an overreach of the NIGC’s authority. The TGRA already 

has regulations and a process to determine the classification of all gaming operation employees 

regardless of their compensation.

25 CFR §502.19 Primary management official. 

(e) “Any other employed management official of the gaming enterprise operation designated by the Tribe

TGRA as a primary management official in its gaming ordinance.” 
E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, NIGC Chair

Page 3 of 5 

The control should be changed to read “Any other employed management official of the gaming 

operation designated by the TGRA as a primary management official.” The regulations in place 

require the TGRA to designate the PMO, not the Tribe itself.

Changing to “enterprise” is outside of the purview of the NIGC as the gaming enterprise 

encompasses entities that may not meet the requirements for regulatory oversight by the NIGC and 

is an overreach on the part of the NIGC. 

25 CFR §502.25 Gaming Enterprise.

“Gaming Enterprise means the entities through which a Tribe conducts, regulates, and secures gaming on 

Indian lands within such Tribe’s jurisdiction pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

Prevue was supposed to read purview don’t know how I messed that one up, but view works for me. NIGC’s 

about us “overseeing and reviewing the conduct and regulation of Indian gaming operations.” Don’t see 

any language about gaming enterprise in this.” 

This definition and any use of “gaming enterprise” with the controls needs to be eliminated and 

changed to a definition of “gaming operation” if the Commission believes it is necessary. The 

definition and use of “Gaming Enterprise” with the controls and using the definition as proposed

expands the purview of the NIGC outside of their lawful regulatory control. 

25 CFR §502.26 Tribal Regulator Authority (TGRA). 

“Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority (TGRA) means the independent governmental entity authorized by 

Tribal law to regulate gaming conducted pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.” 

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission has no objections to this definition as suggest the addition 

of “independent” as established regulation requires such. 

25 CFR §556.4 Background investigations. 

“A Tribe shall perform a background investigation for each primary management official and for each key 

employee of the gaming enterprise operation.” 

As stated previously, gaming “enterprise” is an overreach of authority for the NIGC and should 

only reference their authority over the gaming operation as currently established by law.

25 CFR §556.6 Report to the Commission.

“(a) When a Tribe licenses a primary management official or a key employee, the Tribe shall maintain the 

information listed under § 556.4(a)(1) through (14).”

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission has no objections to this proposed change. 

25 CFR §556.8 Compliance with this part.

All Tribal gaming ordinances and ordinance amendments approved by the Chair prior to [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] do not need to be amended to comply with this part. All future ordinance 

submissions, however, must comply. 
E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, NIGC Chair

Page 4 of 5 

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission has no objections to this proposed change. 

25 CFR §558.3 Notification to NIGC of license decision and retention obligations.

“(a) After a Tribe TGRA has provided a notice of results of the background check to the Commission, a 

Tribe TGRA may license a primary management official or key employee.

(b) Within 30 days after the issuance of the license, a Tribe TGRA shall notify the Commission of its 

issuance.

(c) A key employee or primary management official who does not have a license after ninety (90) days 

shall not be permitted to perform the duties, functions, and/or responsibilities of a key employee or primary 

management official until so licensed. 

(d) If a Tribe TGRA does not license an applicant— 

(1) The Tribe TGRA shall notify the Commission; and

(2) Shall forward copies of its eligibility determination and notice of results, under § 556.6(b)(2) of this 

chapter, to the Commission for inclusion in the Indian Gaming Individuals Record System.

(e) If a Tribe TGRA revokes a key employee or primary management official’s license— 

(1) The Tribe TGRA shall notify the Commission; and

(2) Shall forward copies of its license revocation decision and a summary of the evidence it relied upon to 

the Commission for inclusion in the Indian Gaming Individuals Record System. 

(f) A Tribe TGRA shall retain the following for inspection by the Chair or their designee for no less than 

three years from the date of termination of employment:

(1) The information listed under § 556.4(a)(1) through (14) of this chapter;

(2) Investigative reports, as defined in § 556.6(b) of this chapter;

(3) Eligibility determinations, as defined in § 556.5 of this chapter; 

(4) Privacy Act notice, as defined in § 556.2 of this chapter; and 

(5) False Statement notice, as defined in § 556.3 of this chapter.” 

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission has no objections to these proposed changes other than the 

Tribe should be changed to the TGRA as that is the primary regulatory authority on behalf of the 

Tribe.

25 CFR §558.4 Notice of information impacting eligibility and licensee’s right to a hearing. 

“(a) If, after the issuance of a gaming license pursuant to § 558.3, the Commission receives reliable 

information indicating that a key employee or a primary management official is not eligible for a license 

under §556.5 of this chapter, the Commission shall notify the issuing Tribe TGRA of the information. 

(b) Upon receipt of such notification under paragraph (a) of this section, a Tribe TGRA shall immediately 

suspend the license and shall provide the licensee with written notice of suspension and proposed 

revocation. 

(c) A Tribe TGRA shall notify the licensee of a time and a place for a hearing on the proposed revocation 

of a license.

(d) The right to a revocation hearing shall vest upon receipt of a license or at such earlier time as is 

determined by Tribal law, regulation, and/or policy the TGRA. 

(e) After a revocation hearing, a Tribe TGRA shall decide to revoke or to reinstate a gaming license. A 

Tribe TGRA shall notify the Commission of its decision within 45 days of receiving notification from the

Commission pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.” 
E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, NIGC Chair

Page 5 of 5 

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission has no objections to these proposed changes other than the 

Tribe should be changed to the TGRA as that is the primary regulatory authority on behalf of the 

Tribe.

25 CFR §558.6 Compliance with this part.

“All Tribal gaming ordinances and ordinance amendments that have been approved by the Chair prior to 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] do not need to be amended to comply with this section. All 

future ordinance submissions, however, must comply.” 

The Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission has no objections to these proposed changes. 

※ ※ ※ ※ ※ ※ ※ ※

Thank you for providing a 30-day comment period on the proposed rules published in the Federal Register

on August 10, 2022. This has been a long process since the consultations first began in the Summer of 2021. 

Providing a meaningful government to government consultation to offer a partnership in regulatory decision 

making acknowledges Tribal sovereignty which is first and foremost to the Siletz Tribe as well as all other 

Tribal nations. 

Respectfully,

Shawna Gray, Executive Director 

Siletz Tribal Gaming Commission

cc: Siletz Tribal Council 

 Dorsay & Eason, LLP, Attorneys at Law