View Rule

Statement of Need: The rapid evolution of gaming technology and regulatory structures in Indian gaming brings new risks and requires a distinction between the control standards for Class II and Class III gaming. Periodic review and revision of existing standards are necessary to ensure that they remain relevant and continue to adequately protect tribal gaming assets and the interests of stakeholders and the gaming public.

Summary of the Legal Basis: It is the goal of NIGC to provide regulation of Indian gaming to shield it from organized crime and other corrupting influences as well as to assure that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly. (25 U.S.C. 2702). Congress authorized NIGC to promulgate regulations and guidelines to implement IGRA’s provisions. 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10). Federal MICS are perhaps the single most important tool for ensuring IGRA’s purposes are carried out. The Commission is charged with monitoring gaming conducted on Indian lands (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1)), and this monitoring takes different forms depending on the class of gaming being conducted. With regard to Class II gaming, NIGC’s responsibility includes inspecting and examining the premises located on Indian lands on which Class II gaming is conducted and auditing all papers, books, and records respecting gross revenues of Class II gaming conducted on Indian lands and any other matters necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission under IGRA. (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(2),(4)). Therefore, NIGC is amending its Class II MICS regulations to set standards for inspections, contents of records, etc. With regard to Class III MICS, however, the NIGC’s role is to provide guidance that tribes and states may then include in ordinances, compacts, or procedures or use as a model. Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(3)(C)(vi), some states compact with tribes to require either the standards set forth in NIGC’s Class III MICS, or others at least as stringent. (See, for example: Model Tribal Gaming Compact, Oklahoma, Part 5(B); Class III Gaming Compact Between the Fort Belknap Indian Community and the State of Montana, App. (A)(III), approved November 9, 2007; and Compact Between the Omaha Tribe and State of Iowa, Section 11, approved January 19, 2007.) Moreover, several tribes have voluntarily adopted NIGC’s Class III MICS into their ordinances, and thus granted NIGC authority pursuant to the enforcement provisions of 25 U.S.C. 2713. The Commission relies on these sections to authorize promulgations of MICS to ensure integrity in tribal gaming.

Alternatives: If the Commission does not periodically update the MICS, the regulations that govern tribal gaming will not address changing technology and gaming methods.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Updated MICS will aid tribal governments in the regulation of their gaming activities.

Risks: There are no known risks to this regulatory action.