[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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: [email protected]. 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected] 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