September 7, 2022 

Quapaw Nation Gaming Agency 

P.O. Box 405 • 69300 E. Nee Rd. 

Quapaw, OK 74363 

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

Mr. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Chairperson 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

1849 C. Street NW 

Mail Stop #1621 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Re: Tribal Comments on Proposed Rules Published on August 10, 2022 

Dear Chair Simermeyer & Commission members: 

Included in with this letter are the Quapaw Nation Gaming Agency's comments regarding the 

topics presented for comment on the National Indian Gaming Commission's proposed amendments 

to its regulations at 25 C.F.R. §§ 502, 556, and 558, each of which were published in the federal 

register on August 10, 2022. 

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact me by email at eeckhart@guapawnga.com or by phone at 918-919-6031. 

Sincerely, 

Erin Eckhart, Director 

Quapaw Nation Gaming Agency 

Enclosure. 
I. Introduction 

The Quapaw Nation Gaming Agency ("QNGA") appreciates the opportunity to submit comments 

in response to proposed changes to regulations concerning definitions, backgrounding, and 

licensing for consideration by the NIGC. Given the significant changes between the proposed rules 

discussed here and those considered during previous consultations with the NIGC, however, we 

also respectfully request that the NIGC conduct additional, formal consultation on these subjects. 

II. Comments 

A. Proposed Amendments to Definitions in 25 C.F.R. § 502 

The QNGA reluctantly supports the proposed elimination of a compensation threshold for Key 

Employees. We see that in practice, § 502.14 (b), which provided that any person "whose total 

cash compensation is in excess of $50,000 per year" constituted a Key Employee, requires TGRAs 

to background and license gaming operation employees holding positions that are in no way 

connected to gaming, simply because the gaming operation wishes to compensate them at a higher 

amount. Given today's employment market, we are concerned that retaining the threshold, or even 

increasing it, would make hiring even more difficult as the average salary for its non-gaming 

employees necessarily ticks up. 

Employees brought in as key employees solely because of their earnings typically do not carry out 

traditional "key" tasks related to gaming, and accordingly, the possibility that a nefarious actor in 

such a position could interfere with the fairness of gaming, while perhaps not impossible, is low. 

More importantly, however, a tribal gaming regulatory agency's tools for ensuring that gaming 

operation employees are suitable are not limited to its licensing power. At the QNGA, as in many 

TGRAs, we have carefully developed a healthy working relationship with gaming operation hiring 

teams, which in tum take our input and suggestions concerning potential employees into account 

when making hiring and firing decisions. Hiring and maintaining employees of character is 

mutually beneficial to both TGRAs and the gaming operations they regulate, and we believe that 

the strength of those shared interests can be trusted. Accordingly, we recommend accepting the 

proposed change to § 502.14 (b ), which would eliminate classification of key employees on the 

sole basis of compensation, though we would be comfortable with the alternative of increasing the 

threshold from $50,000 to $75,000 - 100,000. 

However, the QNGA respectfully renews its opposition to the other changes proposed for the 

definitions of Key Employee and Primary Management Official. Specifically, we are concerned 

that the proposed language in §§ 502.14 ( d) and 502.19 ( e) is inconsistent with the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act ("IGRA,") which intended the licensing provisions thereof to pertain to employees 

of tribal gaming operations, not employees of the tribe itself or its regulatory agencies. The QNGA 

is in favor of the addition of the definitions of "Gaming Enterprise" and "Tribal Gaming 

1 
Regulatory Agency" at§§ 502.25 and 502.26, respectively. However, we are concerned that the 

choice to use "Gaming Enterprise" rather than "Gaming Operation" at the sections described, and 

indeed throughout the regulations, may lead to unintended results, specifically presenting conflicts 

between complying with licensing regulations and the MOU with the NIGC and the FBI 

concerning criminal history record information and criminal justice information. 

While we greatly appreciate the efforts that the NIGC has taken toward remedying several similar 

issues following its consultation sessions, we are concerned that certain other ambiguities still exist 

so as to cause concern. Particularly, we recommend 1) revising § 502.14 (b) to specify that it is 

limited to employees of the gaming operation who are entitled to unescorted access; 2) modifying 

§ 502.19 (b) to read as "any person, other than an employee of a TGRA, who has authority ... "; 

and 3) revising§ 502.14 (c) to read as follows: "If not otherwise licensed as a key employee or 

primary management official, the four persons most highly compensated by the gaming 

operation." 

B. Proposed Amendments to Backgrounding and Licensing in 25 C.F.R. §§ 556 and 558 

We strongly oppose the proposed amendments to § 558.3 (e), which would require TGRAs to 

provide the NIGC with "its license revocation decision and a summary of the evidence it relied 

upon" for enforcement actions revoking a Key Employee or Primary Management Official's 

gaming license. First, we are concerned that the NIGC does not have a specific, demonstrated 

purpose for these materials in line with its statutory mandate, given that it is able to prevent bad 

actors from re-licensure with the more limited scope of information to which it is currently entitled. 

As a result, we are concerned that enforcement of this proposed requirement may risk classification 

as arbitrary and capricious. 

We are more concerned, however, that such a requirement would prove onerous for TGRAs. While 

the QNGA appreciates the benefits of compiling information in the Indian Gaming Individuals 

Record System, given the stringent requirements for backgrounding Key Employees and Primary 

Management Officials, including provisions of a detailed report on the status of licenses that an 

applicant holds, formerly held, or has applied for, requiring TGRAs to submit the proposed 

information for reference by other TGRAs strikes us as overly intrusive and duplicative. Moreover, 

providing copies of a revocation decision and supporting evidence would undoubtedly increase 

the temporal and monetary burden of TGRAs and tribal governments at large. 

While it may usually be the case that TGRAs have compiled evidence in support of a revocation, 

it is highly likely that such evidence is not ordinarily summarized in a document separate from a 

TGRA's final order. Accordingly, were the NIGC to enact this proposed rule, it would also assign 

a new and arduous task that can only be reasonably completed after an enforcement action has 

concluded, given that the TGRA cannot know what evidence will be relied upon until final 

preparation and issuance of the revocation itself. License revocations are the weightiest of those 

2 
licensing actions that TGRAs undertake, and in tum, the breadth of information considered is 

usually extensive. Accordingly, the preparation of an extraneous summary would deprive TGRAs 

of time that would otherwise be spent dedicated to its responsibilities under federal and tribal law. 

While we can envision a middle ground wherein only already-prepared information is submitted 

with notice of the revocation, we caution that such a requirement would also present issues with 

compliance. Specifically, many tribal governments, including the Quapaw Nation, have enacted 

laws and regulations requiring that any such materials as are internally prepared with relation to 

enforcement actions are confidential and not subject to discovery. We are concerned that to 

regulate in conflict with such usual industry practices would risk offending principles of tribal 

sovereignty. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the NIGC omit this proposal from its final 

rule. 

III. Conclusion 

The QNGA appreciates the NIGC's consideration of our comments and those of other tribal 

governments and TGRAs. We are confident that such collaboration will result in regulations and 

policies that will benefit the tribal gaming industry and economic development in Indian country. 

3