NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSEON 

Notice Of Inquiry and Request for Information; Notice of Consultation 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry; Notice of TribaI Consultations 

A~rthority: 25 U.S.C. $2706(b)(10$; E.O. 13175. 

SUMMARY: This Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Consultation advises the public that 

the National Indian Gaming Comission (NIGC) is conducting a comprehensive review 

of all regulations promulgated to implement the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 

25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. The Commission is taking a fresh look at its rules in order to 

determine whether amendments are necessary to more effectively implement IGRA's 

policies of protecting Indian gaming as a means of generating tribal revenue, ensuring 

that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players, and 

ensuring that tribes are the primary beneficiaries of gaming operations. The 

Commission's challenge is to adapt its rules to ensure that they promote these values into 

the future. This review is also being prepared in order to submit the NIGCb Semi-Annual 

Regulatory Review to the Federal Register in April 201 1 as required by Executive Order 

12,866 entitled "Regulatory Planning and Review" and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 60 1 et. seq. In compliance with Executive Order 13,175 entitted "Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments," the NIGC wiEI hold eight 

consultations dlurjng January and February 201 1. This Notice of Inquiry invites 
comments and information that will assist the NIGC in understanding the need for 

revising any or all of the regulations outlined below. The consuItations and public 

comments requested in this Notice are intended to assist the NIGC with completion of the 

review and in establishing priorities. 

Following completion of the consuItation and written comment period, the NIGC 

will review all comments received and create a comprehensive regulatory review agenda 

schedule. The public comment period ends February 12,20 I 1. The regulatory review 

agenda wiI1 be released in April 201 1 and will include a summary explaining why the 

NIGC agreed or disagreed with the comments received and why the regulatory review 

agenda took its final form. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before February 1 1,201 1. See Consultation Meetinxs, 

Dates and Locations under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for the dates, 

times, and locations of consultation meetings. 

ADDRESSES: Testimony and comments sent by electronic mail or delivered by hand 

are strongly encouraged. Electronic submissions should be upIoaded on the NIGC 

website, http://www.nigc.gov, or e-mailed to reg.review@nigc.gov, See Electronic 

Submissions, File Formats And Required Information under SUPPLEMENTARY 

JNFORMATION below for instructions. Testimony and comments delivered by hand 

should be brought to the consultations. See Consultation Meetings, Dates and Lacations 

under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for the dates, times, and locations of 

consultation meetings. Submissions sent by regular mail should be addressed to Lael 
Echo-Hawk, Counselor to the Chair, National Indian Gaming Commission, 144 1 L Street 

NW, Suite 9 100, Washington, D.C. 20005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lael Echo-Hawk, National Indian 

Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street NW, Suite 9 1 00 Washington, D.C. 20005. 

Telephone: 202/632-7009; email: reg.review@nigc.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Consultation Meetings, Dates and Locations 

Eight tribal consultations will be heId on the following dates, times and locations. 

Every attempt was made to hold a consultation in each region and to coordinate with 

other established meetings when establishing this consultation schedule. Please RSVP to 

consultation.rsvp@nigc.gov. 

Week 1 

January 1 1,201 1, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the U.S. Grant Hotel, 326 Broadway, San 

Diego, CA 92 1 01. 

January 12,20 I 1, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Cache Creek Casino Resort, 14455 

Highway 16, Brooks, CA 95606. 

January 14,201 1, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Little Creek Resort, 9 1 W. State Route 

108, Shelton, WA 98584. 

Week2 

January 18,201 1, ftom 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Rivewind Casino - Hotel, 1544 West 

Highway 9, Norman, OK 73072. 
January 20,201 1, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Tamaya Resort and Spa, 

1300 Tuyina Trail, Santa Ana Pueblo, NM 87004 

Week 3 

January 24,201 1, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Department of the Interior - South Interior 

Auditorium, 1 95 1 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20240. 

Week 4 

February 1,201 1, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Best Western Rarnkota Inn, 21 1 1 North La 

Crosse St., Rapid City, SD 57701. 

February 3,201 1, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, 1 

Seminole Way, Hollywood, FL 333 14. 

For additional information on consultation locations and times, please refer to the 

website of the National Indian Gaming Commission, http:/lm.nigc.gov. Please RSW 

at consultation.rsvp@nigc.gov. 

11. Eledronic Submissions, File Formats And Required Information 

If submitting by website: Participant must complete a form containing the name 

ofthe person making the submission, his or her title and tribe or organization (if the 

submission of an organization), mailing address, telephone number, fax number (if any) 

md e-mail address. The document itself must be sent as an attachment, and must be in a 

single file and in recent, if not current versions of: (I) Adobe Portable Document File 

(PDF) format (preferred); or (2) Microsof7 Word file formats. 

If submiting by elecctrnic mail: Send to reg.review@nigc.gov, a message 

containing the name of the person making the s~bmission, his or her title and 

organization (if the submission of an organization), mailing address, telephone number, 
fax number (if any) and e-mail address. The document itself must be sent as an 

attachment, and must be in a single file and in recent, if not current versions of (I) 

Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) format (preferred); or (2) Microsoft Word file 

formats. 

If submitting by mint only: Anyone who is unable to submit a comment in 

eIectronic fonn should submit an original. and two paper copies by hand or by mail to the 

appropriate address listed above. Use of surface mail is strongly discouraged owing to the 

uncertainty of timely delivery. 

Copies of the written comments received and any other material may be reviewed 

on the Tribal Consultation webpage of the NIGC website located at http://www.nigc.gov. 

111. Background 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act) (Public Law 100-497), 25 

U.S.C. 270 1 et seq., was signed into Iaw on October 17, 1988. The purpose of the IGRA 

was to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means 

of promoting tribal economic development, self-suficiency, and strong tribal 

governments; to provide a statutory basis for the regulation of gaming by an Indian tribe 

adequate to shield it from organized crime and other corrupting influences; to ensure that 

the Indian tibe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation; to ensure that gaming 

is conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players; and to declare that the 

establishment of independent federal regut atory authority for gaming on Indian lands, the 

establishment of federal standards for gaming on Indian lands, and the establishment of a 

National Indian Gaming Commission are necessary to meet congressional concerns 
regarding gaming and to protect such gaming as a means of generating tribal revenue. 25 

U.S.C. 2702. 

The IGRA authorizes the NIGC to promulgate such regulations and guidelines as 

it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of the Act. 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)( f 0). The 

undertaking of this review facilitates effective implementation of lGRA and coincides 

with Executive Order 12,866 entitled "Regulatory Planning and Review" providing for 

federal entities to identify agency statements of regulatory priorities and additional 

information about the most significant regulatory activities planned for the coming year. 

Additionally, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), agencies 

publish semiannual regulatory flexibility agendas in the Federal Reg;ister identifying 

those rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In the spirit of transparency and accountability set forth by the President of the 

United States, the NIGC wishes to provide a comprehensive regulatory review schedule 

and agenda created after meaningful consultation. 

Additionally, Executive Order 13,175 entitIed "Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments," provides for the NIGC to engage in meaningful 

consultation with tribaI governments prior to taking an action that has tribal implications. 

Through the development of a comprehensive regulatory review, and in meaningful 

consultation with tribes, the NIGC hopes to identify those areas of the regulations that 

need revisf on, and in further consultation, to revise the regulations as necessary to serve 

the current needs of the tribal gaming industry. 

Over tlze past several years, the NJGC has adopted, amended and attempted to 

amend a number of regulations, including a facility licensing regulation, Class I1 and 
Class 111 Minimum Internal Control Standards, and Class II Technical Standards. The 

current Commission understands that some interested parties believe that many of the 

NIGC's regulations need updating or continued revisions. Consistent with Executive 

Order 13 175, consuItation should occur before revisions or amendments to regulations. In 

the past, consultation has often taken the form of a Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) 

used to assist the NIGC in draRing the regulations. However, neither the method of 

appointing members to the TAC nor the joint process of drafting regulations has been 

without conh-oversy ox costs. The Commission recognizes that in order for regulation 

review and revision to occur that benefits and protects the entire tribal gaming industry, 

all points of view must be considered and a decision made based on all comments 

received by the Commission. The Commission seeks advice and input as to how that goal 

can best be accomplished. 

The Commission also requests comment on whether changes to Class I1 MECS, 

Class Il Technical: Standards and Class 111 MICS are necessary. Currently, the 

Commission is examining the Class I1 MTCS regulations and how to address the Class I11 

MiCS in the wake of the Colorado River Indian Tribes decision. The Commission is 

seeking advice and input as to how to provide necessary updates to the regulations 

consistent with federa1 law, tribal sovereignty and tnball expertise in the day-to-day 

operations. 

In sum, the MGC requests comments about which regulations are most in need of 

revision, in what order of priority those regulations should be addressed and the process 

the NTGC should utilize to make revisions. 

IV. Regulations Which Map Require Amendment or Revision 
A. Part 502 - Definitions of this Chapter 

The NTGC is particularly interested in receiving comments on whether any of the 

definitions in part 502 are in need of revision and whether any additional definitions are 

necessary to protect gaming as a means of generating tribal revenue. In particular, the 

NIGC is interested in receiving comment on whether the following terms need fhrther 

clarification: 

(I) Net Revenues. Over the years, tribes, CPAs, and others have raised the issue of 

whether there should be different definitions for Net Revenues when defining what the 

management fee will be based on pursuant to the IGM, 25 U.S.C. 271 1 ; or determining 

net revenues to be used for the allowable purposes as defined by the TGRA. 25 U.S.C. 

2710(b). Should the Commission consider definitions for the following two terms: &t 

Revenues - mana~ement fee; and Net Revenues - allowable uses? 

(a) Net Revenues - management fee. General Accepted Accounting 

Principles (GAAP) define Net Income as "Gross Revenues (less Complimentary Sales) 

subtracting Operating Expenses and Interest and Depreciation." NIGC defines &t 

Revenue as "Net Income plus Management Fee," which is used by the Commission as 

the base number to calculate the management fee when the fee is a percentage on net 

revenue. Should the Ianguage used in the Commission's definition of Net Revenues be 

revised to be consistent with GAAP, j.e., "Net Income plus Management Fee"? 

(b) Net Revenues - allowable uses. The PGRA, 25 U. S.C. 27 10(b)(2$(B), 

states "net revenues from any tribal gaming are not to be used for pusposes other than: (i) 

to fund tribal government operations er programs; (ii) to provide for the general welfare 
of the Indian tnbe and its members; (iii) to promote tribal economic development; (iv] to 

donate to charitable organizations; or (v) to help fund operations of local government 

agencies." 

Tribes, tribal gaming commissions, and CPAs have commented that prior to 

making any decisions for allowable uses of net revenues, the tribal parties should first 

consider the cash flow of the gaming operation (k deduct principal loan payments, 

deduct reserve, add depreciation). In addition, others have stated that tribal parties should 

also consider the overall financial integrity of the gaming operation before funding other 

tribal progams. 

Should the Commission consider adding a new definition for Net Revenues - 

allowable uses that is based on cash flow? For example, should the new definition be 

"Cash flow'' equals 'Wet Income plus depreciation minus principal loan payments and 

reserve findings"? Is there another calculation that this definition could be based on? 

The Commission is seelung advice and input from the tribal gaming industry 

about these proposed definition revisions, if there are other definitions that need 

revisions, whether it should be a priority, and whether a Tribal Advisory Committee 

should be formed to make these change or if another process wiIl be suficient. 

(23 Mana~ement Contract. Should the definition of management contract be 

expanded to include any contract, such as slot lease agreements, that pays a fee based on 

a percentage of gaming revenues? 

Management contractors sometimes believe that the manager should be 

reimbursed for expenses in addition to earning a management fee or may be paid multiple 

fees for development, loans, marketing, and non-gaming management in addition to the 
gaming management fee. These accumulated payments may result in the manager 

receiving sums greater than cash flow to the tribe. Should there be a definition regarding 

acceptable compensation to a manager contractor? 

The Commission is seeking comment about whether the Commission should 

consider amendments to existing definitions or whether additional definitions are 

necessary, how the Commission should prioritize its review of part 501 in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice and comment 

rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review of this part, or 

another process. 

B. Part 514 - Fees 

The NIGC is interested in receiving comments on whether part 514 is in need of 

revision. In particular, the Commission is interested in receiving comment on whether the 

Commission should consider revising this part to base fees on the gaming operation's 

fiscal year. Currently, the fee is calculated based on the calendar year. The Commission 

understands that it may be difficult to accurately calculate fees based on the calendar 

year, which may Eead to frequent audit: adjustments. The Commission is asking for 

comment on whether this issue may be resolved by changing "calendar" to "fiscal" 

throughout part 5 14. Further, if this is a revision that the Commission should consider, 

the Commission is interested in receiving comment on how to implement the revision. 

For example, shouId the Commission consider a revision that would provide for 

implementation over the course of a 12 to 18 month period with an option for the tribe to 

determine when they will change their calculation during that time period? On what dates 

or by what schedule should the Commission set fee rates if this revision is implemented, 
given that tribes have different fiscal years? Is this a revision that would be more 

eficient? Is this a revision that the Commission should prioritize? 

Should the Commission consider amending this part to define wuss gaming 

revenue consistent with the GAAP definition of this tern? Would amending this 

definition to industry standards make the fee easier to calculate and to reconcile? 

Should the Commission consider amending this part to include fingerprint 

processing fees? If so, how should the Commission consider including fingerprint 

processing fees? Should it specify that fees collected from gaming tribes for processing 

fingerprints with the FBI are included in the total revenue collected by the Commission 

that is subject to statutory limitation? Should the Commission include a requirement for it 

to review fingerprint processing costs on an annual basis and, if necessary, adjust the 

fingerprint processing fee accordingly? 

Finally, should the Commission consider a late payment system in lieu of a Notice 

of Violation (NOV) for submitting fees fate? In the past, when a tribe paid their fees aRer 

the deadline, we understand that a NOV may have been issued to the tribe. As a NOV 

could lead to closure of a gaming facility, the Commission questions whether an NOV is 

an appropriate response to a late fee submittal caused by a change in employees or other 

minor issue. Should the Commission consider adding a type of "ticket" system to part 

5 I4 so that an NOV would only be issued in instances of gross negligence or wanton 

behavior, or in a doIIar amount that allowed the tribe to reap an economic benefit from its 

failure to pay in a timely manner? 

The Coinmission is seeking comment on the above particular issues as well as 

other suggested revisions to this part, how the Commission should prioritize its review of 
part 5 14 in the regulatory review process, and whether the Commission should utilize 

standard notice and comment rulernaking, a Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its 

regulatory review of this part, or another process. 

C. Part 51 8 - Self-Regulation of Class I1 

The NIGC has heard that this regulation is overly burdensome to tribes seeking to 

obtain certification and that the burden of completing the process significantly outweighs 

the benefits gained from self-regulation. The Commission is seeking comment on 

whether this part should be revised, how the Commission should prioritize its review of 

part 5 f 8 in the regulatory review process, and whether the Commission should utiIize 

standard notice and comment rulernaking, a Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its 

regulatory review of this part, or another process. 

D. Part 523 - Review and Approval of Existing Ordinances or Resolutions 

Should the Commission consider eIiminating part 523 as obsolete? The regulation 

applies only to gaming ordinances enacted by tribes prior to January 22, E 993, and not 

submitted to the Chairwoman. The Commission believes there may no longer be any such 

ordinances. me Commission is seeking comment on whether this part should be 

eliminated, how the Commission should prioritize its review of part 523 in the regulatory 

review process, and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice and comment 

rulernaking, a Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review of tl~is part, or 

another process. 

E. Management Contracts 

(I) Part 531 - Collateral Agreements 
Should the Commission consider whether it has authority to approve collateral 

agreements to a management contract? The current definition of mana~ernent contract 

includes collateral agreements if they provide for the management of all or part of a 

gaming operation. The Commission has taken the position that although the collateral 

agreements must be submitted, the Commission only approves management contracts. 

Some tribes have asked the Commission to review the management contract and the 

collateral agreements and to make a determination as to whether the cumulative effect of 

the agreements violate the sole proprietary provisions of the IGRA. For example, while 

the gaming management contract may only require a payment of 5% of the net gaming 

revenue, combined with the provisions of the collateral agreements, the tribe may be 

paying in excess of 80% of gross gaming revenue which results in a net loss for the tribe. 

The Commission is seeking comment on whether this part should be revised, how 

the Commission shouId prioritize its review of part 531 in the regulatory review process, 

and whether the Commission should utiIize standard notice and comment rulemaking. a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review of this part, or another 

process. 

(2) Part 533 - ApprovaI of Management Contracts 

This part outlines the submission requirements for management contracts. Wile 

the Commission has disapproved management contracts fox a variety of seasons incl~~ding 

the trustee standard, the Commission seeks comment on whether an amendment wouId 

clarify the trustee standard by adding the following two grounds for possible disapproval 

under 5 533.6(b): the management contract was not submitted in accordance with the 
submission requirements of 25 CFR part 533, or the management contract does not 

contain the reg~latory requirements for approval pursuant to 25 CFR part 53 1. 

The Commission is seekicing comment on whether this part should be revised, how 

the Commission should prioritize its review of part 533 in the regulatory review process, 

and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review of this part, or another 

process. 

(3) Part 537 - Background Investigations for Persons or Entities with a 

Financial Interest in, or Having Management Responsibility for, a Management 

Contract 

This part addresses the background investigation submission requirements for the 

management contractor. Although minor revisions were made in 2009, there appears to 

be some confusion about whether the contractor should be required to submit the Class I1 

background information when the contract is only for Class 111 gaming. IGRA does 

specify approval of Class 11 and Class HI management contracts as a power of the 

Chairwoman. 25 U.S.C. 3 2705(a}(4). 

The Commission is seeking comment on whether this part should be revised, how 

the Commission should prioritize its review of part 537 in the regulatory review process, 

and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review of this part, or another 

process. 

F. Proceedings Before the Commission 

The NIGC is considering amending the regulations that govern appeals of the 

Chairwoman" actions on ordinances, management contracts, notices of violations, civil 
fine assessments, and closure orders. 25 CFR part 519; 25 CFR part 524; 25 CFR part 

539; 25 CFR part 577. Except for some minor changes in 2009, these parts remain 

unchanged from their original adoption in 1993. 

Should the Commission consider more comprehensive and detailed procedural 

rules, especially in areas such as motion practice, that are Iargely unaddressed by the 

present rules? The Commission seeks advice and comment on service of process and 

computation of time; intervention by third parties; motion practice and briefings; and the 

nature of written submissions in enforcement appeals. We also would like comment 

regarding whether a Tribal Advisory Committee should be formed to make the change or 

if another process will be sufficient. 

G. MICS & Technical Standards 

(1) Part 542 - Class 111 Minimum Internal Control Standards 

The Commission is seeking comment regarding Class I11 Minimum Internal 

Control. Standards (MICS). It has been suggested that the rule should be struck and 

replaced by a set of recommended guidelines. Comment is requested from the tribal 

gaming community and other interested parties regarding whether the NIGC's Class III 

MICS have a positive impact on the industry, and, if changed to a guideline, what, if any, 

impact that might have on tribal gaming? Many tribal gaming regulatory authorities have 

relied on the regulation to define the foundation of their minimum internal control 

standards, others have merely adopted the federal ruIe verbatim, while yet others have 

drafted their own internal control standards. If the regulation is struck, how would such 

action impact the tribal regulators and operators? 
Additionally, several state compacts incorporate the Class IEI MICS by reference. 

If the regulation was struck, how would these agreements be affected, if at all? Some 

tribes have amended their gaming ordinance recognizing the authority of NIGC to 

regulate Class 111 MICS and enforce them. Their state compacts have also been revised 

recognizing federal oversight as supplanting that of the state to the extent specified in the 

agreements. If the regulation was struck, what would the effect be on those tribes? 

If the Class ITI MICS are revised but not placed into a regulation, how should 

NIGC publish them to the industry? Do we involve a Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) 

to participate in the revision process? Does that TAC need to be composed of different 

members than the Class I1 MICS TAC? How should the members be selected? What 

process should NTGC utilize to make revisions? The Commission needs input from the 

tribal gaming community on this very important issue. 

The Commission is seeking comment on whether this part should be revised, how 

the Commission shouId prioritize its review of this part in the regulatory review process, 

and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review of this part, or another 

process. 

(2) Part 543 - CIass I1 Minimum Internal Control Standards 

The NlGC is currently in the process of revising the CIass II MTCS. However, the 

process has come under significant scrutiny and objection by the triba1 gaming industry. 

While we have heard from the industry that the regulations need revision, there have also 

been many co~~cerns about the process utilized to make the revisions. The Comrnjssion is 
dedicated to making the necessary updates through a process that is inclusive of all 

interested parties' concerns and suggestions. 

A proposed regulation has been drafted, but questions have arisen regarding the 

clarity and interpretation of certain sections. Although the applicability of the rule may be 

limited, the Commission wants to ensure that it be viable and clear to the tribal gaming 

industry. Accordingly, we are seeking comment on how to proceed. Should tribal gaming 

regulatory authorities be provided an opportunity to provide comment on the proposed 

rule before public meetings? Should comment be sought from accounting practitioners? 

Should a TAC be assembled to provide advice to the NIGC in the administration of the 

rule once adopted? We would appreciate your thoughts on this idea. 

Finally, the Commission is seeking comment on the process of Class I1 MICS 

revisions. Should we start with the current proposed draft? Should we establish a TAC to 

participate? If so, how should the members be selected? What will the revision process 

be? The Commission needs input from the tribal gaming community on this very 

important issue. 

The Commission is seeking comment en whether this part should be revised, how 

the Commission should prioritize its review of this part in the regulatory review process, 

and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review of this part, or another 

process. 

(3) Bart 547 - Minimum Technical Standards for Gaming Equipment Used with 

the Play of Class 11 Games 
This part was recently revised through a joint tribal-NIGC working group. While 

it has been in effect for a short time, the Commission has received comments that the part 

should be further revised. Should NIGC start with the current proposed draR? Should we 

establish a Tribal Advisory Committee to participate? If so, how should the members be 

selected? What will the revision process be? The Commission needs input from the tribal 

gaming community on this very important issue. 

The Commission is seeking comment on whether this part should be revised, how 

the Commission should prioritize its review of this part in the regulatory review process, 

and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review of this part, or another 

process. 

R. Backgrounds and Licensing 

(I) Part 556 - Background Investigations for Licensing 

In 1997, the NIGC began a pilot program which allowed it to effectively perform 

its duties of regulating background investigations in a more timeIy fashion while reducing 

the amount of paperwork submitted and maintained, and accordingly reducing associated 

costs. Today, a majority of the tribes participate in the pilot program. Under the program, 

the Commission allows tribes to send in a list of employees they either I icensed or denied 

a license along with a one-page Notification of Results (NOR). The Commission requests 

comment on whether the pilot program should be formalized into regulations. 

The Commission is seeking comment on whether regulations should be 

promulgated to formalize the pilot program, how the Commission should prioritize this 
issue in the regulatory review process, and whether the Commission should utilize 

standard notice and comment rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its 

regulatory review, or another process. 

(2) Fingerprinting for Non-Primary Management Officials or Key Employees 

Currently, the NIGC reviews fingerprint cards submitted by tribes for Primary 

Management Officials or Key Employees. However, some tribes have requested the 

ability to be able to submit fingerprint cards to the NIGC for vendors, consultants, and 

other non-employees that have access to the gaming operations. Under 25 U.S.C. 

2706(b)(?), the Commission may conduct or cause to be conducted such background 

investigations as may be necessary. Should the Commission adopt regulations that would 

allow tribes, at their option, to submit fingerprint cards to the Commission for vendors, 

consultants, and other non-employees that have access to the gaming operations? 

The Commission is seeking comment on whether regulations should be 

promulgated to clarify this issue, how the Commission should prioritize this issue in the 

regulatory review process, and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice 

and cornment rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review, 

or another process. 

I. Part 559 - Facility License Notifications, Renewals, and Submissions 

This part was recently adopted by the Commission. However, the NIGC has 

received many comments concerning the substance of this regulation from tribes. 

The Commission is seeking comment on whether this part should be revised, how 

the Commission should prioritize its review of this part in the regulatory review pl-ocess, 

and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice and comment rulemaking, a 
Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its replatory review of this part, or another 

process. 

J. Sections 571 .I - 571.7 - Tnspection and Access 

Under IGRA, the Commission may access and examine all papers, books, and 

records regarding gsoss revenues of Class TI gaming conducted on Indian lands and any 

other matters necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission- However, at times the 

Commission or tribe has been denied access to those records. 

Should the Commission revise its regulations in 99 571.5 and 571.6 to cIarify 

Commission access to records at off-site locations, including at sites maintained or 

owned by third parties? 

The Commission is seeking comment on whether this part should be revised, how 

the Commission should prioritize its review of this part in the regulatory review process, 

and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice and comment rulemaking, a 

Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review of this part, or another 

process. 

K. Part 573 - Enforcement 

Should NlGC promulgate a regulation concerning withdrawal of a Notice of 

Violation (NOV) aRer it has been issued? The Commission is looking for advice and 

input regarding whether this is an appropriate issue for a regulation and if so, under what 

conditions or circumstances the NOV could be withdrawn? Would it be appropriate to 

allow the NOV to be withdrawn solely at the discretion of the Chairperson? The 

Commission is seeking comment on this issue, how the Commission should prioritize it 

in the regulatory review process, and whether the Commission should utilize standard 
notice and comment rulemaking, a Tribal Advisory Committee to assist it, or another 

process. 

V. Potential New Regulations 

A. Tribal Advisory Committee 

The Commission seeks comment on whether it should develop a regulation or 

policy identifying when a Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) will be formed to provide 

input and advice to the NIGC and, if so, how Committee members should be selected. 

Should the cost of the TAC be a factor when considering whether to form a TAC? The 

Commission is seeking comment on whether the Commission should consider a 

regulation on this issue, how the Commission should prioritize it in the regulatory review 

process, and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice znd comment 

rulemaking, a TAC to assist in its regulatory review of this part, or another process. 

B. Sole Proprietary Interest Regulation 

Many tribes and interested parties have approached the NIGC requesting a 

determination regarding whether a single agreement, or a combination of agreements, 

violate IGRA's soIe proprietary interest requirement. The PGRA requires that the tribe 

have sole proprietary interest in the gaming operation. Should the Commission consider a 

regulation identifying when the sole proprietary interest provision is violated and 

providing a process whereby at the tribe's request the NIGC will review the documents 

and made a determination? 

The Commission is seeking comment on whether the Commission should 

consider a regulation on this issue, how the Commission should prioritize it in the 
regulatory review process, and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice 

and comment mlemaking, a Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review 

of this part, or another process. 

C. Communication policy or regulation identifying when and how the NTGC 

communicates with Tribes 

Should the MGC develop a regulation or include as part of a regulation a process 

for determining how it communicates with tribes? The MGC has a government-togovernment relationship with federally recognized hibes. However, given the nature of 

the NIGC's responsibilities, oRen the NIGC staff communicates primarily with the Tribal 

Gaming Commission (TGC) or Tribal Gaming Regulatory Agency (TGRA). While in 

many instances this means of communication is appropriate and works well, there are 

also times when the NIGC communicates directly with tribal governments on issues 

related to broad policy changes or compliance issues such as a Notice of Violation. How 

should the NIGC communicate with tnbes and TGCs if those entities are at odds with 

each other on a particular issue? Should the NIGC consider requiring a resolution from 

the elected tribal council setting forth which entity communicates the MGC? Should such 

a resolution be submitted with the annual fees or audit? Is this approach unduly 

burdensome? Alternative1 y, should NIGC promulgate a regulation or policy establishing 

a default method of formal communication unless otherwise directed by a resolution? 

The MGC recognizes the many differences in tribal government structures. However, 

would a universal standard for communication that can then be modified by each tribe if 

they so choose promote more effective regulatory communication? 
The Commission is seeking comment on whether the Commission should 

consider a regulation on this issue, how the Commission should prioritize it in the 

regulatory review process, and whether the Commission should utilize standard notice 

and comment rulemalung, a Tribal Advisory Committee to assist in its regulatory review 

of this part, or another process. 

Further, the NIGC invites comment on whether to define the types of 

communication that occur between the NIGC and the tribe and tribal agencies. For 

example, a letter from the Chairperson regarding upcoming tribal consultations, proposed 

broad policy changes or Notice of Violation could be considered a form of "formal 

communication." Additionally, a Ietter from a tribal chairperson requesting a meeting or a 

request from the tribe for the NEGC to perform an audit could also be "formal 

communication." However, the NIGC understands that communications between the 

NIGC and the tribe, TGC, and TGM may not 'be occwring in a uniform manner and 

wants to provide clarity for all the parties. The NIGC welcomes any comment or 

suggestions regarding whether the clarification is needed and if it should be formalized 

into a regulation or policy. 

D. Buy Indian Act Regulation 

The Commission is considering adopting a regulation which would require the 

NTGC to give preference to qualified Indian-owned businesses when purchasing goods or 

services as defined by the "Buy Indian Act,'" 25 U.S.C. 47. As an agency with regulatory 

responsibilities wholly related to tribes, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is 

appropriate to promulgate such a reg~lation. The Commission is seeking advice and input 
from the tribal gaming industry about this issue, and whether a Tribal Advisory 

Committee should be formed to make the change or if another process will be sufficient. 

VI. Other ReguIations 

A. Part 501 - Purpose and Scope 

The NIGC does not believe this regulation is currently in need of revision. 

However, we are interested in hearing any comments or suggestions related to possible 

revisions to this part. 

B. Part 503 - Commission Information CoIIection Requirements under the 

Papemork Reduction Act: OMB Control Numbers and Expiration Dates 

The NTGC does not believe this regulation is currently in need of revision. 

However, we are interested in hearing any comments or suggestions related to possible 

revisions to this part. 

C. Part 513 - Debt Collection 

The NIGC does not believe this regulation is currently in need of revision. 

However, we are interested in hearing any comments or suggestions related to possible 

revisions to this part. 

D, Part 515 - Privacy Act Procedures 

The NIGC does not believe this regulation is currently in need of revision. 

However, we are interested in hearing any comments or suggestions related to possible 

revisions to this part. 

Em Part 51 7 - Freedom of Information Act Procedures 
The NlGC does not believe this regulation is currently in need of revision. 

However, we are interested in hearing any comments or suggestions related to possible 

revisions to this part. 

F. Part 522 - Submission of Gaming Ordinance or Resolution 

The NIGC does not believe these regulations are currently in need of revision. 

However, we are interested in hearing any comments or suggestions related to possible 

revisions to this part. 

23. Part 531 - Content of Management Contacts 

The NlGC does not believe this regulation is currently in need of revision. 

However, we are interested in hearing any comments or suggestions related to possible 

revisions to this part. 

H. Part 535 - Post Approval Procedures 

The NIGC does not believe this regulation is currently in need of revision. 

However, we are interested in hearing any comments or suggestions related to possible 

revisions to this part. 

1. Sections 571.8 - 571 -1 1 - Subpoenas and Depositions 

The NIGC does not believe these regulations are cursently in need of revision. 

However, we are: interested in hearing any comments or suggestions related to possible 

revisions to these sections. 

J. Sections 571.12 - 571 .I4 - AnnuaI Audits 
The NIGC does not believe these regulations are currently in need of revision. 

However, we are interested in hewing any comments or suggestions dated to possible 

revisions to these sections. 

K. Part 575 - Civil Fines 

The NIGC does not believe these regulations are currently in need of revision. 

While the Commission was interested in seeing tribal dollars paid as a fine for a 

regulation violation returned to the tribes by funding the Commission activities, federal 

law prohibits an agency from keeping fines received from entities it: regulates, and fines 

are deposited in the W.S. Treasury. The view is that regulatory agencies would then have 

an incentive to issue violations. However, we are interested in hearing any comments or 

suggestions related to possible revisions to this part. 

DATED: November 12,20 10. 

Tracie L. Stevens, 

Chairwoman 

~ssociife Commissioner