We urge that the NIGC be extremely clear in setting an effective date should it decide to move
forward with this change. Should two fee rates be announced in the same year (June 1° and
November 1‘), the NIGC must be ready to specifically clarify the obligations of the tribal
gaming operations with regard to fees owed for that year. Alternatively, the NIGC could plan to
begin with the November 1" final fee date in a new year and keep a June 1* final fee rate from
the previous year in place until then; clarity would also be a necessity should the NIGC decide to
pursue this introduction strategy.

weeK

In closing, the QTGA would like to reiterate its appreciation for the opportunity to review and
provide comments on the proposals outlined in the November 22, 2016 Notice of Consultation.
Please let us know if we are able to assist you in any way with regard to this important issue.

Sincerely,

Lathan Kage Chili»

Barbara Kyser-Collier
Director, Quapaw Tribal Gaming Agency


allow tribes the ability to know what the NIGC approves and disapproves of; this information
would benefit tribes in their future activities.

For instance, under 25 C.F.R. § 533.2, the Chairman of the NIGC has the power to review all
management contracts. This review, however, is done without any communication from the
NIGC as to what it expects from tribes in the submitted management contract. The QTGA
would appreciate greater clarity as to the kinds of contract terms and conditions that would be
viewed favorably or unfavorably by the Chairman. Clearly defined expectations of what the
NIGC expects out of a management contract would improve “the NIGC’s efficiency in
processing management agreements and background investigations” because tribes would then
be better equipped to devise a contract more like to gain the Chairman’s approval.

V. DRAFT WIRELESS STANDARDS

The NIGC proposes to add language to the Technical Standards found in 25 C.F.R. Part 547 that
addresses mobile gaming devices used on tribal lands. The QTGA is concerned that the draft
regulatory language is subject to become obsolete as mobile gaming continues to advance. We
instead recommend that the language be presented as a guidance document.

Should any of the proposed draft wireless standards become obsolete as a regulation, the QTGA
could automatically be at a competitive disadvantage with other non-tribal gaming outlets not
subject to these regulations, possibly unable to innovate and offer the latest technologies. We
could remain at a competitive disadvantage while the NIGC moves to amend the regulations. If
these standards are presented as guidance instead, the QTGA would then be free to innovate and
also abide by the NIGC’s guidance which ensures the security of mobile gaming.

The QTGA is aware that mobile gaming devices are already subject to 25 C.F.R. § 547.15
(“What are the minimum technical standards for electronic data communications between system
components?”), which also ensure the safety and security of mobile gaming. We take the task of
offering safe and secure gaming to all of our customers very seriously. While we appreciate the
general message of the proposed regulation, we urge the NIGC to afford tribes the flexibility to
integrate and adapt new technologies without significant delay. This would require that the new
technical standards contemplated here are issued instead through guidance documents.

VI. DRAFT CHANGES TO THE NIGC FEE SCHEDULE

Citing the need to better fit the established scheduled of its annual budget release as well as the
tribal gaming industry’s Gross Gaming Revenue, the NIGC is proposing to amend its fee
schedule. Currently, a preliminary fee rate is adopted by March 1“, followed by a final fee rate
by June 1“, every year. Under the proposed changes, the NIGC would no longer be required to
announce a preliminary fee rate at all. It would also be releasing its final fee rate by November
1“ every year.


QUAPAW TRIBAL GAMING AGENCY
P. O. Box 405 ¢ Quapaw, OK 74363
Phone: 918-919-6020
Fax: 918-919-6029

June 29, 2017

Jonodev Chaudhuri, Chairman
National Indian Gaming Commission
1849 C Street N.W.

Mail Stop #1621

Washington, D.C. 20240

Re: Comments on 2017 NIGC Consultation Topics #1-6
Dear Chairman Chaudhuri:

The Quapaw Tribal Gaming Agency (“QTGA”) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
consultation topics set forth in the National Indian Gaming Commission’s (“NIGC”) Notice of
Consultation, which was originally issued to tribal leaders on November 22, 2016. The QTGA
welcomes the NIGC’s decision to circulate these proposals—and in some cases, actual draft
language—for comment before undertaking any official rulemaking activity. Early tribal
involvement is a key step towards developing policies and regulations that are reflective of tribal
concerns and advance the interests of tribes. It is also critical to ensuring that the consultation
process is meaningful and consistent with the special government-to-government relationship
between tribal and federal governments.

The QTGA encourages the NIGC to continue these important outreach efforts and respectfully
requests favorable consideration of our comments below, which address the topics outlined in the
November 22, 2016 Notice of Consultation in the following order: (1) Class III MICS guidance;
(2) Creation of a Rapid City, South Dakota Regional Office; (3) Training a Strong Tribal
Workforce; (4) Improvements to the Management Contract Provisions of the NIGC Regulations;
(5) Draft Wireless Standards ; and (6) Draft Changes to the NIGC Fee Schedule.

I. CLASS III MICS GUIDANCE

It has been almost eleven years since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the
NIGC lacked authority to enforce or promulgate the Class III Minimum Internal Control
Standards (“MICS”) found under 25 C.F.R. Part 542. The QTGA is thus pleased that the NIGC
is now acting on this issue by proposing to suspend these regulations and put in its place a
guidance document for Class III gaming internal controls.

While the guidance document shows the NIGC’s progress on this issue, the QTGA is concerned
the NIGC has not properly addressed how the proposed suspension of 25 C.F.R. Part 542 will
affect other binding documents on tribal regulators. For example, the model Tribal-State

1


Compact agreed to between the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (“Tribe”) and the State of Oklahoma
incorporate by reference 25 C.F.R. Part 542:

All enterprises and facilities shall comply with, and all covered games approved
under the procedures set forth in this Compact shall be operated in accordance
with the requirements set forth in this Compact, including, but not limited to,
those set forth in subsections C and D of this Part. In addition, all enterprises and
facilities shall comply with tribal internal control standards that provide a level of
control that equals or exceeds those set forth in the National Indian Gaming
Commission's Minimum Internal Control Standards (25 C.F.R., Part 542).!

Until 2020, the date the current model Compact expires, under the draft guidance, the Tribe
would have to decide between following non-binding guidance and the Compact standards which
make 25 C.F.R. Part 542 mandatory. Furthermore, the regulation that would formerly be
referred to in the event of a conflict between Part 542 and a Compact, 25 C.F.R. § 542.4, would
no longer be applicable or even binding once the Class III MICS are suspended. Thus, it is
unclear which standard is to prevail in the event of a conflict.

In its consultation briefing, NIGC felt that it would be more cost-effective to create a guidance
document “in-house” and publish it for public comment. The NIGC stated in its consultation
briefing that it wanted to “begin the discussion” in this manner. Now that the discussion has
begun, and there are still serious concerns that have gone unaddressed in the draft guidance, we
again join other tribes in urging the NIGC to create a tribal advisory committee or some other
body to assist in identifying and addressing unintended consequences of the NIGC’s draft
guidance.

Overall, the QTGA would like the NIGC to stay consistent with the ruling of that 2006 case by
allowing tribal regulators the opportunity to develop their own Class III internal controls and
other provisions required under compacts. Giving tribal regulators a seat at the drafting table for
this new Class III guidance so that solutions come from those who are faced with regulatory
compliance issues will accord such deference to tribal regulators.

II. THE CREATION OF A RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA REGIONAL OFFICE

While the QTGA supports the NIGC’s efforts to provide better services in rural Indian Country,
we do not support one of the NIGC’s suggested fixes for this issue: placing a brand new regional
office in Rapid City, South Dakota.

Establishing the Rapid City office would divert critical resources away from programs that
actually do more to provide technical assistance and training to rural offices. For instance, while
an eighth regional office in South Dakota would add administrative support for rural tribes in
North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana, it would likely take away more assets that
could have been used for more tailored training for these same rural tribes (see Section IID.
Before the NIGC considers this change further, the QTGA urges it to elaborate specifically on

" Part V.B of the Tribal Gaming Compact Between the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma and the State of Oklahoma.

2


how rural Indian Country in this area stands to benefit from the NIGC investing in a new
regional office in lieu of investing more into already-established programs designed to assist
smaller rural gaming operations.

II. TRAINING A STRONG TRIBAL WORKFORCE

The QTGA is in favor of the NIGC’s initiative to maintain a strong workforce both at the NIGC
itself and at tribal gaming regulatory authorities. We are pleased that the NIGC continues to
seek input from the regulated community concerning its training programs so that tribal gaming
regulatory authorities may evolve alongside the gaming technology it regulates.

As the NIGC continues to focus on training a strong tribal workforce, the QTGA would like to
remind the NIGC of the vast differences among the 497 gaming establishments operated by 244
tribes across 29 states. The Tribe, with its two gaming operations, may require a different set of
trainings than other tribes to account for size and experience. For instance, although gaming
operations large and small still face many of the same cybersecurity threats, some tribes are
better equipped to address this danger than others. Tailored trainings for large and small
operations will lead to a more effective defense against threats to tribal gaming.

In addition to more tailored trainings, the QTGA also wants to emphasize the importance of the
NIGC keeping an open communications link between itself and tribal gaming regulatory
authorities. This means allowing a permanent dialogue between tribal regulators, who are on the
front line of gaming operations nationwide, and the NIGC. Tribal regulators must have an
adequate mechanism through which it may report back to the policymakers in Washington, D.C.
At the same, NIGC representatives should attempt to perform more on-site visits to gaming
operations. The NIGC is welcome to come to any of the QTGA’s gaming operations and
experience how we perform our day-to-day regulatory tasks. Through an increase in two-way
dialogues and on-site visits, the QTGA believes that the NIGC will gather the information it
needs to create more comprehensive and effective training programs.

IV.IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT PROVISIONS OF
THE NIGC REGULATIONS

The last time 25 C.F.R. Parts 531, 533, 535, and 537 (collectively known as the Management
Contract Provisions) were reviewed by the NIGC was in 2012. Then, only minor changes to Part
537 were made. The remainder of these regulations have existed since 2009. As a result of “a
significant increase in management agreements submissions,” the NIGC is seeking comments
“that may improve the NIGC’s efficiency in processing management agreements and
background investigations.”

Although “[t]he purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the tribe is the primary beneficiary
of its gaming operation,” the QTGA does not feel that the NIGC has shown how these
management contract provisions are used to benefit tribes and their gaming operations.
Specifically, there is not enough transparency in the management contract review process to