Consultation Topics

Discussed as a part of Consultation Series C Virtual Sessions

January 11, 12, 18, and 25, 2022

25 C.F.R. §§ 543 and 547 - Minimum internal control standards and 

minimum technical standards: Gaming technology and risks have changed 

significantly since the NIGC implemented its current minimum internal 

control standards and technical standards. The Commission is seeking your 

input on matters related to technological enhancements and technology 

threats.

1. In addition to or instead of regulatory requirements, should the NIGC 

consider other tools such as additional guidance or additional training 

efforts in order to promote awareness and strengthen cyber security 

practices?

2. At the outset of 2020, the NIGC reviewed its regulations to make sure that 

the regulations did not discourage the use of technology throughout the 

industry. For example, the NIGC considered the specific question of 

whether its regulations hindered TGRA’s ability to review an operation’s 

adoption of cashless wallet systems. Do existing NIGC requirements 

create any unintended limits on tribes’ ability to implement, regulate, or 

review new technologies?

3. Data storage approaches are an important part of mitigating risk in the 

area of cybersecurity. These approaches include the use of cloud-based 

technology and approaches that allow for tribes to rely on external cyber 

security expertise to maintain strong data protection practices. What 

should the NIGC know about the approaches tribal law makers are 

making with regard to cloud-based storage investments and external 
vendor services?

4. What changes should the NIGC consider to strengthen cybersecurity for 

Indian gaming operations?

25 C.F.R. § 522.4(b)(7); 25 C.F.R. § 573.4(a)12 – Approval requirements 

for class II ordinances; 25 C.F.R. § 573.4(a)12 – When may the Chair issue 

an order of temporary closure; The Commission seeks your input on 

whether the requirement that a tribe construct and operate its gaming 

operation in a manner that adequately protects the environment, public 

health, and safety extends to issues related to cybersecurity.

1. Should the Agency look to update the EPHS interpretive rule to include 

the potentially harmful and life altering results of a data privacy breach?

2. What should the Agency’s role be in promulgating standards and 

requirements for cybersecurity, and does that intersect with the Agency’s 

existing role of ensuring public health and safety?

3. What existing cybersecurity considerations are informing tribal 

lawmakers’ decisions in this area?

4. How are existing record maintenance requirements potentially impacted 

by a data breach and could this impact the integrity of data?

25 C.F.R § 573.4(a) – When may the Chair issue an order of temporary 

closure: The Commission is seeking your input on adding misuse of net 

gaming revenues to the list of substantial violations for which the NIGC 

Chair may issue a temporary closure order.

1. Given IGRA’s intent and requirement that the Tribe be the primary 

beneficiary of its gaming operation, do you view misuses of net gaming 

revenue as warranting a TCO? Are there circumstances or a level of 

misuse that you think would warrant a closure order for misuse of net 

gaming revenue? 
2. There are currently 13 substantial violations for which the Chair may 

issue a TCO. What would be the impact of adding misuse of net gaming 

revenue to the list of substantial violations?

25 C.F.R. Part 537 – Background investigations for person or entities with 

a financial interest in, or having management responsibility for, a 

management contract: Since the NIGC first issued regulations related to 

contract review, the practices and procedures the agency uses in 

conducting those reviews has continued to evolve. The Commission seeks to 

engage in a discussion as to how the NIGC may modify its regulations to 

provide more transparency, accountability, and efficiency in its contract 

reviews.

1. What regulatory updates would provide additional transparency, 

accountability, and efficiency in the NIGC Chair’s contract review and 

background investigation process?

2. How might technology provide more efficiency and lower cost in this 

process?

3. Should the NIGC consider adopting other jurisdictions’ best practices in 

the area of background investigation processes?