[tribal letterhead] 

January -, 20 1 1 

Ms. Tracie Stevens, Chairwoman 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

1441 L. St. N.W., Suite 9100 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Re: Comments on the Revision of Existing Gaming Regulations and Promulgating New 

Regulations 

Dear Chairwoman Stevens: 

Thank you very much for your efforts to consult with tribes and discuss our thoughts and 

priorities for revising existing gaming regulations md promulgating new regulations. As you are 

aware, it is very important that both tribes and the governmental agencies that they work with on 

a daily basis have established and working relationships. That is why we were both pleased to 

receive your Notice of Inquiry to consultation and to attend the consultation schedulecl for San 

Diego, California. 

Set forth below are our comments concerning both revising existing regulations and 

promuIgating new reguIations. We address each item believed by the Tribe to be of utmost 

importance, however, it should be noted that our Tribe believes that on-going and meaningful 

dialog with the National Indian Gaming Commission is the only true means of achieving our 

mutual and compatible goals, NIGC's goaI af regulation and compliance and our goal of 

economic development and prosperity for our people. 

Revising Existing Regulations or Promulgating New ReguIations-Need for Additional 

Transparency and Collaboration 

Tn general, revising or promulgating new regulation requires great care, reflection and 

evaluation. Most importantly though, regulations should be implemented based u1timatt:ly upon 

actual necessity. Recently the NIGC embarked on a lengthy, costly and ultimately futiIe effort to 

promulgate regulations directed at drawing a "bright Pine" between Class I1 and GIass III gaming. 

The justification(s) for the revisions were also, in our eyes, woehlly inadequate. Moreover, the 

consultations held concerning the regulations, as recounted by many, lacked substance and were 

less than meaningful. Moving forward, prior to embarking on regulatory revision or 

promuIgation the NIGC shouId take great strides to first evaluate the necessity for the revised or 

new regulation and communicate that need in a more deliberate and focused manner. Likewise, 
NIGC rule making requires increased transparency and colZaboration between the tribes and 

stakeholders who will ultimately be impacted by the revised of newly promulgated regulation. 

Revising Existing Regulations 

Part 542 Minimum Internal ControI Standards for Class 11 Games. 

We support NTGC's continued provision of recommendations for Class 111 Minimum Internal 

Control Standards (MICS). In the absence of a NIGC issued standard, that many if not all Tribes 

have already adopted or incorporated, Tribes will be subject to a plethora of state imposed 

MKS, creating confusion. Both the NIGC and Tribes have the experience and expertise to best 

understand reguIations effect and cost to irnpIement, positive and negative, on gaming facility 

operations. Additionally, it is of utmost importance that tribes participate in the di:;cussions 

concerning MlCS revisions and we would very much support a TAC or working group undertake 

the revisions to Part 542 for future distribution. 

Part 543 Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class I1 Games 

We believe that updating Part 543 is a priority. A review of the regulation demonstrates that it is 

incomplete and poses compliance issues. We would strongly support the convening of a TAC or 

a collaborative working group to both review and draft proposed revisions t~ Part 543 for future 

distribution. 

Prernulga ting New Regulations 

Tribal Advisory Committees 

We strongly suppofl the NIGC's formation and use of Tribal Advisory Committees (TAC's). 

We do not, however, believe promulgation of a regulation is required in order for the NIGC to 

utilize TAC's as an evaluative tool. TAC's, utilized effectively, have proven to be a valuable 

asset with regards to identifying specific concerns with regulatory issues and to the development 

of effective reguIation. Moreover, TAG'S implemented under a regulation could become unduly 

burdensome, even beausocsatic, defeating and possibly delaying the usefulness and purpose of a 

TAC. We believe that the NICC should utilize TAC's on a "case by case" basis, for those 

regulations that contemplate a shift in long standing regulatory policy or those matters that 

require deep discussion, reflection and analysis. We also recommend that the majority 

composition of a TAG be reflective of the stakeholders most impacted by a specific regulation. 

Committee selection should reflect a cross section of stakeholders and interested parties, not too 

large or to small, to heighten TAC participation and effectiveness. 

In closing, we would Iike to thank you for allowing us to participate in the consultative pttocess. 

including the opportunity to discuss and contemplate our concerns. 
Respectfully, - 

. , .- 

Chairman, Ft. independent Indian Community