Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/25/2013-01315/tribal-background-investigations-and-licensing
Timestamp: 2016-07-29 10:12:13
Document Index: 683085894

Matched Legal Cases: ['art\n558', 'arts 556', 'arts 556', 'arts 556', 'arts 556', 'art 558', 'arts 556', 'arts 556', 'art 556', 'ART 556', '§ 556', '§ 556', '§ 556', 'art 558', 'ART 558', '§ 556', '§ 556', '§ 558', '§ 558', '§ 556']

-5281 (6 pages)
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-01315 Related Topics
556.4Background Investigations
556.5Tribal Eligibility Determination
556.6Report to the Commission
558.1Scope of This Part
558.3Notification to NIGC of License Issuance and Retention Obligations
558.4Notice of Information Impacting Eligibility and Licensee's Right to a Hearing
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Parts 556 and 558
John Hay, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-632-7009.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), 100, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act establishes the NIGC and sets out a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. On November 18, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Consultation (NOI) advising the public that the NIGC was conducting a comprehensive review of its regulations and requesting public comment on which of its regulations were most in need of revision, in what order the Commission should review its regulations, and the process NIGC should utilize to make revisions. 75 FR 70680 (Nov. 18, 2010). On April 4, 2011, after holding eight consultations and reviewing all comments, NIGC published a Notice of Regulatory Review Schedule (NRR) setting out a consultation schedule and process for review. 76 FR 18457. The Commission's regulatory review process established a tribal consultation schedule with a description of the regulation groups to be covered at each consultation. These parts 556 and 558 were included in this regulatory review.
The Commission consulted with tribes as part of its review of parts 556 and 558. Tribal consultations were held in every region of the country and were attended by numerous tribes, tribal leaders or their representatives. After considering the comments received from the public and through tribal consultations, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding background and investigation licensing procedures on December 22, 2011.
In response to our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published December 22, 2011, 76 FR 79567, we received the following comments.
Comment: Many commenters supported the formalization of the “pilot program” because it reduces the quantity of documents a tribe must submit to the NIGC, formalizes a streamlined process, and is a cost effective measure.
Response: The Commission agrees and has decided to amend parts 556 and 558 to implement the pilot program.
Comment: Many commenters generally support the changes to part 558.
Response: The Commission has decided to go forward with many of the amendments set forth in the proposed rule.
Comment: One commenter supported the agency's efforts to improve tribal access to background investigation materials but was puzzled by the suggestion that the Commission presently lacks “sufficient resources and technology” to make this information available in a secure format. The commenter believes that the necessary technology is available and the Commission resources would be minimal. Further, the commenter urges the Commission to develop a plan and a timeline for implementing such a system.
Response: The Commission will continue to review this issue closely to determine whether it is feasible to make background investigation information available in a secure format.
Comment: One commenter stated that there is potential for confusion and/or possible non-compliance when attempting to reconcile the requirements in 556.1, 556.6(b)(2), 558.1, and 558.3(b), because the perimeters of temporary versus permanent licenses are unclear in these sections. The commenter suggested that a revision to the regulations may not be necessary; however, additional guidance may be beneficial for applying the regulatory sections.
Response: The Commission reviewed this provision and believes it is sufficiently clear. The Commission will examine whether it is appropriate to issue additional guidance for those sections.
Comment: One commenter inquired whether a tribe would be out of compliance with 556.2(b)(2) and/or 558.3(b) if it allows for temporary employees to be used and/or issues temporary licenses for a period of 90 days or less and it hires such temporary employee or individual with a temporary license as a key employee or primary management official during that time period.
Response: Temporary licenses are used by tribes that choose to have individuals working in their gaming facilities while the individuals are undergoing the background investigation and licensing process. No key employee or primary management official can work at a gaming facility for longer than 90 days without a gaming license issued pursuant to parts 556 and 558. The tribe should implement the regulatory licensing process for a key employee or primary management official simultaneously with issuing a temporary license to ensure that a permanent license is issued within 90 days of the individual beginning work.
Comment: Two commenters supported the revision to 556.4(b) to clarify that a tribe may use investigative materials obtained from the NIGC that were submitted by another tribe. Specifically, one commenter noted that information regarding an applicant's prior gaming licenses and disciplinary actions in relation to previously held licenses can be of great benefit to tribal governments in determining the suitability of an applicant and, among other things, can help verify the information provided in a license application.
Response: The Commission agrees and has adopted the amendment in the proposed rule.
Comment: Several commenters contended that requesting that an applicant provide a list of “associations to which they pay dues” is overly broad and unnecessary, and the Commission should not add this to the regulation concerning background investigation applications. One commenter disagrees, because a requirement to list and disclose all such associations provides valuable information concerning an applicant's suitability.
Response: The Commission agrees with the majority of commenters that the addition of a requirement to provide a list of associations is unnecessary, because tribes may require any additional information they deem necessary through 556.4(a)(13). This broad provision should be sufficient for tribes to request a list of associations as well as any other information that they deem necessary for purposes of a background investigation.
Comment: One commenter requested that the NIGC consider deleting 556.4(c) mandating that tribal investigators “shall keep confidential the identity of each person interviewed in the course of an investigation,” because the rules of investigatory processes should be determined by each tribal jurisdiction. Further, the commenter is concerned that this provision may violate due process in certain tribal jurisdictions because an applicant would be denied the opportunity to confront an accuser.
Response: IGRA requires background investigations for primary management officials and key employees. Accordingly, such investigations are conducted pursuant to Federal and tribal law. Confidentiality is an existing requirement under the current regulations and pilot program. Section 556.4(c) requires tribal gaming commissions to keep individual identities confidential to promote candor in interviews to determine an applicant's eligibility for a license. Confidentiality facilitates an interviewee's willingness to provide information during the process. A lack of candor in interviews could needlessly prolong the background investigation process and impact both tribal and federal resources. The Commission feels that the need for candid information outweighs any due process concerns.
Comment: One commenter believed that the NIGC does not want to be notified every time a tribe does not license an individual because there are potentially thousands of applicants each year that a tribe does not license. The commenter explained that these applicants may have moved or found other employment before the background was completed or requested withdrawal for any number of reasons.
Response: The Commission appreciates the potential for a large number of key employee and primary management official applicants a tribe may receive. However, the NIGC often receives notice regarding an applicant long before a complete application is submitted. Once a person has been entered into the NIGC system for fingerprints, a record is automatically created. If the NIGC does not receive notification that licensing action was not taken as to such persons, it will not have accurate and up to date information. Accurate information regarding the results of individuals seeking employment as key employees or primary management officials enhances the NIGC's ability to provide current investigative information as to particular individuals. Consequently, notifying the Commission of the results of a license application serves to maintain the integrity of Indian gaming.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Commission eliminate the requirement that background investigations include personal references.
Response: Personal references help to implement IGRA's requirement that eligibility determinations include an evaluation of an individual's reputation, habits, and associations. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(F). Such an evaluation is furthered by interviews conducted beyond the context of documented business relationships.
Comment: One commenter supported a change to 556.4(b) that would allow tribes to rely on notice of results of an applicant already on file at NIGC and to simply update the investigation and investigation report, because this would save tribal resources.
Response: The Commission understands the need to conserve tribal resources and agrees with this comment. Section 556.4(b) provides for a tribe to rely on materials on file with NIGC or with a previous tribal investigative body and to update those materials.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the NIGC should reconsider its decision against replacing the term “eligibility” with “suitability” in 556.5. The commenter proposed that the standard for issuing a gaming license is based on the suitability of the applicant and the standard for hiring is based on the eligibility of the applicant and that hiring and licensing are done by different tribal entities.
Response: The Commission disagrees in light of IGRA's language, which specifically requires that background investigation processes include an eligibility determination. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii).
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed regulation would require the tribe to send the notice of results before 60 days of employment and also requires a tribe to send a licensing decision notification prior to 90 days of employment. The commenter believes that the 60 day requirement should be eliminated, leaving only the 90 day requirement.
Response: IGRA requires two notifications: The first involves notifying the Commission of the results of the background check before the issuance of a license, and the second involves notifying the Commission of the issuance of the license. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii)(I) and (III). The Commission requires tribes to submit the notice of results within 60 days of employment to provide the Commission an opportunity to object while the tribe is still considering issuing the license. IGRA dictates that the NIGC has 30 days to provide objections to a tribe regarding the issuance of a gaming license. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(c)(1). This 30 day time period, prior to the 90 day deadline for issuing a license, ensures that the NIGC's objections will be received prior to the issuance of a permanent license. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(c)(2).
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Commission adopt a single form to be used for the notice of results (NOR).
Response: After careful review of this issue, the Commission has determined not to adopt a single form to be used for the notice of results. This will allow tribes greater flexibility over how the information is submitted to the Commission.
Comment: One commenter stated that submissions made pursuant to 558.3 for purposes of the Indian Gaming Individuals Record System (IGIRS) should be voluntary, not mandatory, because a mandatory requirement exceeds the Commission's authority. Another commenter believes that mandatory submissions are overly burdensome.
Response: The submissions to the IGIRS include the notice of results of the background check, the eligibility determination, and the notification of the licensing action. IGRA requires that tribes notify the Commission of background check results and subsequently notify the Commission of the issuance of a license. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii)(I) and (III). Receipt of these submissions serves to maintain the integrity of Indian gaming and promotes the ability of tribal regulators to receive accurate information concerning key employees and primary management officials.
Comment: Many commenters stated that they were pleased that the Commission added language to 558.1 to clarify that the regulations “do not apply to any license that is intended to expire within 90 days of issuance.”
Response: The Commission agrees and has decided to make this addition.
Comment: Two commenters supported 558.3(c)(2), which requires a tribe that does not license an applicant to forward the eligibility determination and any investigative report “to the Commission for inclusion in the Indian Gaming Individuals Records System.” However, one commenter believes that this submission should be discretionary, because a mandatory requirement would exceed NIGC's authority. Another commenter believes that, although this is a useful resource, the regulation should be voluntary instead of mandatory.
Response: IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii)(I) and (III), requires tribes to submit results of background checks of key employees and primary management officials to the Commission, as well as to notify the Commission when licenses are issued to such employees. The Commission agrees with commenters' suggestion that submitting the full investigative report should be voluntary and, therefore, the submission is now limited to eligibility determinations, notice of background results, and licensing action notices.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the NIGC limit the notifications to NIGC in 558.3(c) to require notification to NIGC only if an applicant is unsuitable or has been denied a gaming license, by adding language to 558.3(c) that states, “(c) if a tribe denies an applicant a license—” or ” if a tribe finds an applicant unsuitable for licensing—,” thereby eliminating the requirement that tribes notify the NIGC if an application is either incomplete or the investigative process is otherwise not completed. Other commenters stated that the requirement in 558.3(c) to notify NIGC if an applicant is not licensed is overly burdensome and fails to recognize benign reasons why a license is not issued.
Response: The Commission disagrees. The suggested limitation would limit the NIGC's ability to provide accurate information on an individual applicant. Often, an individual is identified in the NIGC system before an application is complete or before the eligibility determination is made because fingerprints are processed first. Without information on every applicant, NIGC is unable to provide accurate investigative information to gaming tribes. Thus, licensing information on each applicant is necessary to ensure that accurate information is disseminated.
Comment: A few commenters believed that determining the retention period for applications, investigation reports, and eligibility determinations should be a matter of tribal discretion and, therefore, 558.3(e) should be revised or removed.
Response: IGRA requires an adequate system to ensure that background investigations are conducted and that oversight of primary management officials and key employees is conducted on an ongoing basis. 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(F). A purpose of IGRA is to provide a statutory basis of gaming regulation by Indian tribes adequate to shield them from organized crime and other corrupting influences. The NIGC is tasked with creating regulations to implement IGRA. To implement IGRA's requirements consistent with that purpose of the legislation, the Commission believes that a three year minimum time period is appropriate. An alternative approach, as set forth in the current regulations, would be to provide the NIGC with all the necessary information, eliminating the three year time period. However, maintaining that approach would negate the positive aspects of the pilot program, including the reduction of the submission burden on tribes.
Comment: One commenter stated that the word “immediately” in 558.4(b) should be replaced with “promptly” to give the tribe more latitude, because the term “promptly” more closely conforms to the language contained in IGRA.
Response: The Commission disagrees. IGRA's requirement that a tribe “shall suspend the license” indicates that the tribe should act without delay. 25 U.S.C. 2710(c)(2). Therefore, IGRA provides no latitude in proceeding with the suspension of the license.
Comment: One commenter suggested the term “employment” in 558.4(a) be changed to “licensure,” because a gaming commission issues licenses and does not employ key employees or primary management officials.
Response: The Commission carefully considered this issue and disagrees with the comment because IGRA mandates that tribes have an adequate system for assessing the eligibility of primary management officials and key employees for “employment.” 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii)(II).
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1). Takings
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and assigned OMB Control Number 3141-0003. The OMB control number expires on October 31, 2013.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Parts 556 and 558 Back to Top
For the reasons discussed in the Preamble, the Commission 25 CFR chapter III as follows:
1.Revise part 556 to read as follows: PART 556—BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR PRIMARY MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS AND KEY EMPLOYEES Back to Top
(b) If, in the course of a background investigation, a tribe discovers that the applicant has a notice of results on file with the NIGC from a prior investigation and the tribe has access to the earlier investigative materials (either through the NIGC or the previous tribal investigative body), the tribe may rely on those materials and update the investigation and investigative report under § 556.6(b)(1).
(a) When a tribe employs a primary management official or a key employee, the tribe shall maintain a complete application file containing the information listed under § 556.4(a)(1) through (14).
(iv) A copy of the eligibility determination made under § 556.5.
All tribal gaming ordinances and ordinance amendments approved by the Chair prior to the February 25, 2013 and that reference this part, do not need to be amended to comply with this part. All future ordinance submissions, however, must comply.
2.Revise part 558 to read as follows: PART 558—GAMING LICENSES FOR KEY EMPLOYEES AND PRIMARY MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS Back to Top
558.3 Notification to NIGC of license decisions and retention obligations
(a) Upon receipt of a complete notice of results for a key employee or primary management official as required by § 556.6(b)(2) of this chapter, the Chair has 30 days to request additional information from a tribe concerning the applicant or licensee and to object.
(b) If the Commission has no objection to issuance of a license, it shall notify the tribe within thirty (30) days of receiving notice of results pursuant to § 556.6(b)(2) of this chapter.
(c) If, within the 30-day period described in § 558.3(a), the Commission provides the tribe with a statement itemizing objections to the issuance of a license to a key employee or to a primary management official applicant for whom the tribe has provided a notice of results, the tribe shall reconsider the application, taking into account the objections itemized by the Commission. The tribe shall make the final decision whether to issue a license to such applicant.
§ 558.3 Notification to NIGC of license decisions and retention obligations.
(b) Within 30 days after the issuance of the license, a tribe shall notify the Commission of its issuance.
(c) A gaming operation shall not employ a key employee or primary management official who does not have a license after ninety (90) days.
(d) If a tribe does not license an applicant—
(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.
All tribal gaming ordinances and ordinance amendments that have been approved by the Chair prior to February 25, 2013 and that reference this part do not need to be amended to comply with this section. All future ordinance submissions, however, must comply.
Dated: January 17, 2013, Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. 2013-01315 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]