Rule2023-17455
Definitions; Background Investigation for Primary Management Officials and Key Employees; Gaming Licenses for Primary Management Officials and Key Employees
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 15, 2023
Effective
September 14, 2023
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentNational Indian Gaming Commission
Abstract
In April 2023, the Commission issued a revised proposed rule refining proposed changes to the "primary management official" and "key employee" definitions as well as the newly proposed definitions for "Gaming Enterprise" and "Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority" (TGRA). The revised proposal, like the 2022 original, also proposed: modernizing retention requirements for background investigations and licensing applications; vesting revocation hearing rights upon license issuance as well as in accordance with tribal law, regulation, or policy; and augmenting revocation decision notification and submission requirements. After closely considering comments received, this final rule permits tribes to designate other gaming enterprise employees as key employees and other employed gaming enterprise management officials as primary management officials, including TGRA personnel. These optional designations occur by any documentary means. Further, the key employee definition no longer sets forth a wage threshold but includes in the definition a gaming operation's four most highly compensated persons. And the terms "independent" and "governmental" have been struck from the TGRA definition, aligning it with a corresponding definition in NIGC regulations, part 547. Lastly, license revocation decisions only require notifying the Commission of the revocation along with a copy of the revocation decision.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55366-55371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17455]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Indian Gaming Commission
25 CFR Parts 502, 556, and 558
RIN 3141-AA32
Definitions; Background Investigation for Primary Management
Officials and Key Employees; Gaming Licenses for Primary Management
Officials and Key Employees
AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In April 2023, the Commission issued a revised proposed rule
refining proposed changes to the ``primary management official'' and
``key employee'' definitions as well as the newly proposed definitions
for ``Gaming Enterprise'' and ``Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority''
(TGRA). The revised proposal, like the 2022 original, also proposed:
modernizing retention requirements for background investigations and
licensing applications; vesting revocation hearing rights upon license
issuance as well as in accordance with tribal law, regulation, or
policy; and augmenting revocation decision notification and submission
requirements. After closely considering comments received, this final
rule permits tribes to designate other gaming enterprise employees as
key employees and other employed gaming enterprise management officials
as primary management officials, including TGRA personnel. These
optional designations occur by any documentary means. Further, the key
employee definition no longer sets forth a wage threshold but includes
in the definition a gaming operation's four most highly compensated
persons. And the terms ``independent'' and ``governmental'' have been
struck from the TGRA definition, aligning it with a corresponding
definition in NIGC regulations, part 547. Lastly, license revocation
decisions only require notifying the Commission of the revocation along
with a copy of the revocation decision.
DATES: Effective September 14, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo-Ann Shyloski, National Indian
Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW, MS 161, Washington, DC 20240.
Telephone: (202) 632-7003. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#62280d4f230c0c4c310a1b0e0d11090b220c0b05014c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d79db8fa96b9b9f984bfaebbb8a4bcbe97b9beb0b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>. Fax: (202)
632-7066.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 55367]]
I. Background and Development of the Rule
A. Background
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497,
25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The
Act established the National Indian Gaming Commission (``NIGC'' or
``Commission'') and set out a comprehensive framework for the
regulation of gaming on Indian lands. IGRA requires that tribal gaming
ordinances provide a system for: background investigations of ``primary
management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise;''
tribal licenses for them; a suitability standard to assess whether they
pose a threat to gaming and are not eligible for employment; and
notices of background check results to the Commission before the
issuance of licenses.
The Commission first defined ``key employee'' and ``primary
management official'' in April of 1992, early in its existence. As
mandated by IGRA, applicants for key employee and primary management
official positions are subject to a background investigation as a
condition of licensure. In 2009, the Commission expanded these
definitions to permit tribes to designate other persons as key
employees or primary management officials (74 FR 36926). The FBI, U.S.
Department of Justice, took issue with this expansion, denying the
processing of CHRI for the expanded positions' background
investigations. This final rule rectifies this issue in part 502, as it
now limits tribal designations to ``[a]ny other employee of the gaming
enterprise as documented by the tribe as a key employee'' and ``[a]ny
other employed management official of the gaming enterprise documented
by the tribe as a primary management official.''
Background investigation and licensing regulations for key
employees and primary management officials were initially issued by the
Commission in January 1993 (58 FR 5802-01) in parts 556 and 558,
respectively. The Commission updated these regulations in 2013 to
streamline the submission of documents; to ensure that two
notifications are submitted to the Commission in compliance with IGRA;
and to clarify the regulations regarding the issuance of temporary and
permanent gaming licenses (78 FR 5276-01). This final rule modernizes
retention requirements for background investigations and licensing
applications; vests revocation hearing rights upon license issuance as
well as in accordance with tribal law, regulation, or policy; and
augments revocation decision notification and submission requirements.
The rule also revises the ``primary management official'' and ``key
employee'' definitions and creates new definitions for ``Gaming
Enterprise'' and ``Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority'' (TGRA).
Importantly, the rule allows tribes to designate other gaming
enterprise employees as key employees and other employed gaming
enterprise management officials as primary management officials,
including TGRA personnel.
B. Development of the Rule
On June 9, 2021, the National Indian Gaming Commission sent a
Notice of Consultation announcing that the Agency intended to consult
on numerous topics, including proposed changes to the key employee and
primary management definitions and the backgrounding and licensing
regulations. Prior to consultation, the Commission released proposed
discussion drafts of the regulations for review. The proposed
amendments to these regulations were intended to: address the FBI's
concerns regarding the key employee and primary management official
definitions; include gaming operation employees with unescorted access
to secured areas as key employees; combine certain subsections of the
key employee definition; add general managers and similar positions to
the primary management official definition; and update licensing
application retention requirements. The Commission held two virtual
consultation sessions in July of 2021 to receive tribal input on the
possible changes.
The Commission reviewed all comments received as part of the
consultation process and addressed them in the initial proposed rule,
issued on August 10, 2022. Again, the Commission thoroughly reviewed
comments from the initial proposed rule, modified its proposal
considering them, and issued a revised proposed rule on April 14, 2023.
II. Review of Public Comments
The Commission received the following comments in response to our
Revised Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Comment: Four commenters support the Commission's removal of the
wage threshold in the key employee definition, because such threshold:
(1) is not tied to an employee's duties and responsibilities, (2) does
not enhance safeguarding gaming, (3) is overly broad, and (4) creates
an unnecessary administrative burden, including needless time and
expense of licensing employees who may not perform gaming related
functions. Two commenters disagree with the removal, as it provides
authority to background a greater number of employees whose
responsibilities are reflected in their compensation.
Response: Given the difference of opinion between tribes, the
Commission agrees that the wage threshold of $50,000 per year for a key
employee is not duty, function, or responsibility related, which may
result in overly broad and unnecessary licensures. Nonetheless, the
Commission retained ``the four most highly compensated persons'' by the
gaming operation in the definition if such persons are not otherwise
licensed as a key employee or a primary management official.
Comment: One commenter welcomes the clarification in 25 CFR
502.14(a), the key employee definition, that the functions outlined
apply only to people who undertake them on behalf of the gaming
operation.
Response: The Commission appreciates the comment.
Comment: A commenter agrees with including in the key employee
definition: ``any gaming operation employee authorized by the gaming
operation for unescorted access to secured gaming areas designated as
secured gaming areas by the TGRA.''
Response: The Commission appreciates the comment.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern regarding the change in
the key employee definition from ``the four most highly compensated
persons in the gaming operation'' to ``the four persons most highly
compensated by the gaming operation.'' The commenter believes that such
change may capture individuals who are paid by the gaming facility but
do not work for the facility or serve a gaming related function.
Response: The Commission intends that ``the four persons most
highly compensated by the gaming operation'' include gaming operation
employees. And, certainly, it would be a rare instance for these
individuals not to work for the facility or serve a gaming related
function.
Comment: Two commenters support the inclusion of ``any other
employee of the gaming enterprise as documented by the tribe as a key
employee'' in the key employee definition as it enhances risk
management, allowing the addition of other enterprise employees when
documented.
Response: The Commission appreciates the comments.
Comment: One commenter objects to adding custodian of surveillance
systems or surveillance system records
[[Page 55368]]
to the key employee definition, because surveillance is a tribal
regulatory function and including it within the definition contradicts
the regulatory body's independence.
Response: The commenter's concerns have no basis since the key
employee definition limits custodians of surveillance systems or
surveillance system records to only those persons who perform these
functions for the gaming operation, not a tribal regulatory body.
Comment: One commenter suggests revising section (a) of the primary
management definition, 25 CFR 502.19--changing ``any person having
management responsibility for a management contract'' to ``any person
having management responsibility pursuant to a management contract.''
Response: This is the first time this recommendation was made. It
was not contained in the Commission's original proposal nor raised by
the commenter after the initial 2021 consultation proposal, 2021
consultations, or the original 2022 proposed rule. Consequently, other
parties in the regulated community have not had an opportunity to
comment on the recommendation. For these reasons, the Commission
rejects the recommendation.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that 25 CFR 502.19(b) of
the primary management official definition--``[a]ny person who has
authority: (1)[t]o hire and fire employees of the gaming operation; or
(2) [t]o establish policy for the gaming operation''--includes TGRA
personnel.
Response: Under NIGC definitions, TGRAs and their personnel come
within the definition of ``Gaming Enterprise,'' not ``Gaming
Operation.'' ``Gaming Enterprise'' encompasses the entity through which
a tribe regulates gaming, whereas ``gaming operation'' is limited to
``each economic entity that is licensed by a tribe, operates the games,
receives the revenues, issues the prizes, and pays the expenses.''
Therefore, 25 CFR 502.19(b) of the primary management official
definition does not include TGRA personnel.
Comment: Another commenter is concerned that one aspect of the
primary management official definition, 25 CFR 502.19(b)(1)--``[a]ny
person who has authority: (1)[t]o hire and fire employees of the gaming
operation''--is based on structure instead of function and mandates
licensing any management position that can hire or fire any employee
regardless of whether the position has any gaming related
responsibility.
Response: The Commission disagrees. Hiring and firing gaming
operation employees constitutes a function, duty, or responsibility.
And it would be the rare exception rather than the rule for the person
with authority to hire and fire gaming operation employees not to have
any gaming related responsibility.
Comment: Two commenters appreciate the inclusion in the primary
management official definition of ``[a]ny other employed management
official of the gaming enterprise as documented by the tribe.''
Response: The Commission values these comments.
Comment: One commenter supports the inclusion of the ``Gaming
Enterprise definition.''
Response: The Commission appreciates the comment.
Comment: Two commenters strongly believe that IGRA only intended
licensing requirements pertain to gaming operation employees, not
tribal regulators. And the commenter is afraid that ``such an
arrangement, wherein TGRA employees may be required to hold key
employee licenses, would disrupt key tribal governmental structures . .
. .''
Response: The commenters misunderstand this rule. Under it, TGRA
employees are not required to possess key employee licenses. Only if a
tribe chooses to document TGRA employees as key employees will they
come within the key employee definition.
Comment: A commenter contends that the Gaming Enterprise definition
``conflicts with the requirement that a [TGRA] serves out its
independent and distinct role separate from the Gaming Enterprise.''
Response: The Commission disagrees. The Gaming Enterprise
definition is meant to encompass the entities necessary to conduct,
regulate, and secure a tribe's gaming on Indian lands, including the
TGRA. Such definition, however, should not interfere with a TGRA's
independence and distinct role in regulating a tribe's gaming.
Comment: One commenter asserts that it is unclear how the Gaming
Enterprise definition differs from the Gaming Operation definition.
Response: The definitions are distinguishable: ``Gaming operation''
is defined as ``each economic entity that is licensed by a tribe,
operates the games, receives the revenues, issues the prizes, and pays
the expenses.'' Whereas ``Gaming Enterprise'' ``means the entities
through which a tribe conducts, regulates, and secures gaming on Indian
lands within such tribe's jurisdiction . . . .'' So, Gaming Enterprise
comprises more than just gaming operations, including TGRAs, Security,
and IT entities.
Comment: Two commenters maintain that the ``Gaming Enterprise''
definition is too broad because of its inclusion of TGRAs and possible
inclusion of tribal governmental entities that secure gaming through
the approval of contracts.
Response: As stated previously, ``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.'' In the definition, the Commission intends to
include TGRAs as well as tribal entities that ensure the gaming's risk
from loss or protect the gaming from exposure to danger. The potential
inclusion of governmental entities that secure gaming through the
approval of contracts was not the Commission's intent, but their
inclusion causes no harm nor creates any obligation on them, unless a
tribe chooses to document certain of their employees as key employees
or primary management officials.
Comment: One commenter requested that the ``Gaming Enterprise''
definition be modified to mean ``the business enterprise that operates
gaming on Indian lands within a tribe's jurisdiction pursuant to the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.''
Response: As an initial matter, the commenter's proposal is quite
like the Commission's with the exception that the commenter defines
Gaming Enterprise as a ``business enterprise'' that ``operates
gaming.'' The purpose of a definition is to explain a term's meaning
using other terms that are clear and/or commonly known. The
Commission's definition for Gaming Enterprise does just that, whereas,
the commenter's definition uses the same exact terms, defining gaming
enterprise as a business enterprise. Further, the Commission intends
for the definition to mean more than just the entity that operates
gaming, also incorporating the entities that regulate and secure gaming
on Indian lands. For these reasons, the Commission rejects the comment.
Comment: Two commenters support the definition of ``Tribal Gaming
Regulatory Authority (TGRA).''
Response: The Commission appreciates the comments.
Comment: One commenter recommends striking the term ``independent''
from the TGRA definition since the term is not defined in IGRA or NIGC
regulations. Additionally, TGRA is already defined in part 547 of NIGC
regulations and
[[Page 55369]]
does not contain the term ``independent.''
Response: The Commission accepts the comment, ensuring that the
definitions of TGRA correspond in NIGC regulations parts 502 and 547.
Comment: One commenter generally supports the changes to part 556.
Response: The Commission appreciates the comment.
Comment: One commenter finds that the proposed change to 25 CFR
558.3(c) is helpful since it clarifies the scope of duties that a key
employee or primary management official may carry out during the
ninety-day period.
Response: The Commission agrees and appreciates the comment.
Comment: One commenter suggests a new change to 25 CFR 558.3(d)(2),
which requires tribes to forward a copy of its eligibility
determination and notice of results to the Commission when it does not
license a key employee or primary management official applicant. The
commenter is concerned that this process may capture applicants who are
not licensed for reasons other than being found unsuitable and who may
not have an eligibility determination. Such circumstance occurs when an
applicant withdraws their application before an eligibility
determination is completed.
Response: This is the first instance of such a concern being
raised. It was not conveyed to the Commission after the initial 2021
consultation proposal, the 2021 consultations, or the original 2022
proposed rule. Consequently, other parties in the regulated community
have not had an opportunity to comment on the recommendation. For these
reasons, the Commission rejects the recommendation.
Comment: One commenter is generally supportive of the proposed
changes to 25 CFR 558.3(e).
Response: The Commission appreciates the comment.
Comment: Two commenters, however, strongly oppose the proposed
changes to 25 CFR 558.3(e)--requiring submission of license revocation
decisions and summaries of evidence relied upon--as unnecessary and
unduly burdensome. The commenters claim that IGRA provides the
Commission with a limited role in tribal licensing decisions, allowing
it the authority to object to their issuance, and no role in license
revocation matters. Further, the commenters believe the Commission
already collects information sufficient to achieve the purpose here,
including a detailed report on the status of licenses an applicant
holds, formerly held, or has applied for. Additionally, the commenters
emphasize that revocation evidence summaries may be extensive (tens or
hundreds of pages long) given the extent of evidentiary material,
placing temporal and monetary obligations on TGRAs and the Commission
that are better used elsewhere.
Response: The Commission disagrees. IGRA requires the Commission to
ensure there is an adequate system not only for the background
investigations of key employees and primary management officials but
also continued oversight of such employees and officials on an ongoing
basis. Consequently, these individuals' activities and criminal records
require continuous assessment. Notification of license revocations are
an essential component of this continuous assessment. Tribal
revocations are not contained in other background checks, including FBI
CHRI. Such information further safeguards Indian gaming by guaranteeing
the Commission is aware of and possesses the most up-to-date licensing
information on key employees and primary management officials, which
the Commission uses not only for licensing objections but also to
assist tribes with their background investigations. As for the
submission of license revocation evidence summaries, a summary of
evidence is not the same as submission of actual evidence.
Nevertheless, given the concerns of an undue burden, the proposal to
submit revocation evidence summaries is removed.
Comment: Two commenters welcome the proposed change to 25 CFR
558.4(d), recognizing that a right to a revocation hearing vests not
only upon receipt of a license but also at such earlier time as is
determined by tribal law, regulation, and/or policy.
Response: The Commission appreciates the comments.
Comment: One commenter suggests a new, additional change to 25 CFR
558.4(e), to ask the Commission to consider flexibility in the 45-day
deadline to advise the Commission of a revocation decision.
Response: This is the first time this recommendation was made. It
was not proposed by the Commission, nor was it raised by the commenter
after the initial 2021 consultation proposal, the 2021 consultations,
or the original 2022 proposed rule. Consequently, other parties in the
regulated community have not had an opportunity to comment on the
recommendation. For these reasons, the Commission rejects the
recommendation.
III. Regulatory Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq. Moreover, Indian tribes are not considered to be
small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an
effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause
a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic
regions, nor will the proposed rule have a significant adverse effect
on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based
enterprises.
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
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
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has
determined that the rule does not have significant takings
implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has
determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
Paperwork Reduction Act
1. Overview
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.,
provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a ``collection of information,'' unless it
[[Page 55370]]
displays a currently valid OMB control number. Collections of
information include any request or requirement that persons obtain,
maintain, retain, or report information to an agency, or disclose
information to a third party or to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5
CFR 1320.3(c)). This rule contains new information collection
requirements at 25 CFR 558.3(e) that are subject to review by OMB under
the PRA and, accordingly, have been submitted to OMB for review under
the PRA, Section 3507(d). OMB previously reviewed and approved
information collection relating to 25 CFR 558.3 and assigned OMB
control number 3141-0003 (expires 6/30/2023).
Described below are the proposed rule's information collection
activities along with estimates of their annual burdens. These
activities, along with annual burden estimates, do not include
activities that are usual and customary industry practices. The burden
estimates comprise the time necessary for Tribes to forward to the NIGC
copies of their license revocation decisions unless they already submit
such to the NIGC in the usual course of their business.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of this information
collection, including:
a. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the estimate of the burden for this collection
of information, including the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
d. How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those required to respond, including by appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of response.
2. Summary of Proposed Information Collection Requirements and Burden
Estimates
Title of Collection: Class II and Class III/Background
Investigation Tribal Licenses.
OMB Control Number: 3141-0003.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: New rule with added collection burden.
Respondents/Affected Public: Tribal gaming operations of Indian
Tribes that conduct Class II and/or Class III gaming under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act.
Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
The new rule proposed under 25 CFR 558.3(e) will create the
following estimated burdens:
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 100.
Estimated Completion Time per Response: 1 hour.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 100 hours.
Total Estimated Annual Non-Hour Burden Cost: None.
3. Written Comments or Additional Information
Written comments and suggestions on the information collection
requirements should be submitted by September 14, 2023. Submit comments
directly to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn:
Policy Analyst/Desk Officer for the National Indian Gaming Commission.
Comments also may be emailed to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#246b6d76657b775146494d57574d4b4a644b49460a414b540a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5916100b18060a2c3b34302a2a3036371936343b773c3629773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>, by
including reference to ``NIGC PRA Renewals'' in the subject line.
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Tim
Osumi, Privacy & Records Information Manager, NIGC Information
Management Program by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24504d490a4b5751494d644a4d43470a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdc9d4d093d2cec8d0d4fdd3d4dade93dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a> or by telephone at
(202) 264-0676.
Tribal Consultation
The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to fulfilling
its tribal consultation obligations--whether directed by statute or
administrative action such as Executive Order (E.O.) 13175
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)--by
adhering to the consultation framework described in its Consultation
Policy, published July 15, 2013. The NIGC's consultation policy
specifies that it will consult with tribes on Commission Action with
Tribal Implications, which is defined as: Any Commission regulation,
rulemaking, policy, guidance, legislative proposal, or operational
activity that may have a substantial direct effect on an Indian tribe
on matters including, but not limited to the ability of an Indian tribe
to regulate its Indian gaming; an Indian tribe's formal relationship
with the Commission; or the consideration of the Commission's trust
responsibilities to Indian tribes.
Pursuant to this policy, on June 9, 2021, the National Indian
Gaming Commission sent a Notice of Consultation announcing that the
Agency intended to consult on a number of topics, including proposed
changes to the key employee and primary management official regulatory
definitions as well as the background and licensing regulations.
Consultations were held on July 27 and 28, 2021. A proposed rule was
issued on August 10, 2022, and a revised proposed rule was issued on
April 14, 2023.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Parts 502, 556, and 558
Gambling, Indian lands.
Therefore, for reasons stated in the preamble, 25 CFR parts 502,
556, and 558 are amended as follows:
PART 502--DEFINITIONS OF THIS CHAPTER
0
1. The authority citation for part 502 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.
0
2. Revise Sec. 502.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 502.14 Key employee.
Key employee means:
(a) Any person who performs one or more of the following functions
for the gaming operation:
(1) Bingo caller;
(2) Counting room supervisor;
(3) Chief of security;
(4) Floor manager;
(5) Pit boss;
(6) Dealer;
(7) Croupier;
(8) Approver of credit;
(9) Custodian of gaming systems as defined in 25 CFR 547.2 and
similar class III systems, gaming cash or gaming cash equivalents,
gaming supplies or gaming system records;
(10) Custodian of surveillance systems or surveillance system
records.
(b) Any gaming operation employee authorized by the gaming
operation for unescorted access to secured gaming areas designated as
secured gaming areas by the TGRA;
(c) If not otherwise licensed as a key employee or primary
management official, the four persons most highly compensated by the
gaming operation;
(d) Any other employee of the gaming enterprise as documented by
the tribe as a key employee.
0
3. Revise Sec. 502.19 to read as follows:
Sec. 502.19 Primary management official.
Primary management official means:
(a) Any person having management responsibility for a management
contract;
(b) Any person who has authority:
(1) To hire and fire employees of the gaming operation; or
(2) To establish policy for the gaming operation.
[[Page 55371]]
(c) The chief financial officer or a position with duties similar
to a chief financial officer.
(d) The general manager or a position with duties similar to a
general manager.
(e) Any other employed management official of the gaming enterprise
as documented by the Tribe as a primary management official.
0
4. Add Sec. Sec. 502.25 and 502.26 to read as follows:
Sec. 502.25 Gaming Enterprise.
Gaming Enterprise means the entities through which Tribe conducts,
regulates, and secures gaming on Indian lands within such tribe's
jurisdiction pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Sec. 502.26 Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority (TGRA).
Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority (TGRA) means the entity
authorized by Tribal law to regulate gaming conducted pursuant to the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
PART 556--BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR PRIMARY MANAGEMENT
OFFICIALS AND KEY EMPLOYEES
0
5. The authority citation for part 556 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706, 2710, 2712.
0
6. Amend Sec. 556.4 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 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.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 556.6 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec.
556.4(a)(1) through (14).
* * * * *
0
8. Revise Sec. 556.8 to read as follows:
Sec. 556.8 Compliance with this part.
All tribal gaming ordinances and ordinance amendments approved by
the Chair prior to September 14, 2023 do not need to be amended to
comply with this part. All future ordinance submissions, however, must
comply.
PART 558--GAMING LICENSES FOR KEY EMPLOYEES AND PRIMARY MANAGEMENT
OFFICIALS
0
9. The authority citation for part 558 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706, 2710, 2712.
0
10. Revise Sec. 558.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 558.3 Notification to NIGC of license decisions and retention
obligations.
(a) After a tribe has provided a notice of results of the
background check to the Commission, a tribe may license a primary
management official or key employee.
(b) Within 30 days after the issuance of the license, a tribe 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 does not license an applicant--
(1) The tribe shall notify the Commission; and
(2) Shall forward copies of its eligibility determination and
notice of results, under Sec. 556.6(b)(2) of this chapter, to the
Commission for inclusion in the Indian Gaming Individuals Record
System.
(e) If a tribe revokes a key employee or primary management
official's license--
(1) The tribe shall notify the Commission; and
(2) Shall forward copies of its license revocation decision for
inclusion in the Indian Gaming Individuals Record System.
(f) A tribe 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 Sec. 556.4(a)(1) through (14) of
this chapter;
(2) Investigative reports, as defined in Sec. 556.6(b) of this
chapter;
(3) Eligibility determinations, as defined in Sec. 556.5 of this
chapter;
(4) Privacy Act notice, as defined in Sec. 556.2 of this chapter;
and
(5) False Statement notice, as defined in Sec. 556.3 of this
chapter.
0
11. Revise Sec. 558.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec.
558.3, the Commission receives reliable information indicating that a
key employee or a primary management official is not eligible for a
license under Sec. 556.5 of this chapter, the Commission shall notify
the issuing tribe of the information.
(b) Upon receipt of such notification under paragraph (a) of this
section, a tribe shall immediately suspend the license and shall
provide the licensee with written notice of suspension and proposed
revocation.
(c) A tribe 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.
(e) After a revocation hearing, a tribe shall decide to revoke or
to reinstate a gaming license. A tribe shall notify the Commission of
its decision within 45 days of receiving notification from the
Commission pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
0
12. Revise Sec. 558.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 558.6 Compliance with this part.
All tribal gaming ordinances and ordinance amendments that have
been approved by the Chair prior to September 14, 2023, and that
reference this part do not need to be amended to comply with this
section. All future ordinance submissions, however, must comply.
Edward Simermeyer,
Chairman.
Jean Hovland,
Vice Chair.
[FR Doc. 2023-17455 Filed 8-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 15, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.