3141-0014 Supporting Statement (ii)

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR 25 CFR PART 547
A.

Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify
any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy
of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the
collection of information.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., 102 Stat. 2467, Pub. L.
100-497) (IGRA) governs the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. IGRA establishes the
National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) as an independent federal regulatory agency with
authority to oversee Indian gaming, 25 U.S.C. § 2704, and gives to the NIGC the power to
“promulgate such regulations and guidelines as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions
of this Act” 25 U.S.C. § 2706(b)(10).
IGRA divides Indian gaming into three classes. Class I encompasses “social games”
played “solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by
individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations.” 25 U.S.C.
§ 2703(6). IGRA places Class I gaming on Indian lands within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Indian tribes and outside of IGRA’s own provisions. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(1).
Class II encompasses, among other games, Bingo, lotto (another name for Bingo, not the
game offered by most state lotteries), “games similar to bingo,” pull tabs, punch boards, tip jars,
and instant bingo, all of which IGRA permits to be played with “electronic, computer, or other
technologic aids.” 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(A)(i). IGRA makes the Indian tribes the primary
regulators of Class II gaming on Indian lands and gives to the NIGC a regulatory role in that
regulation. 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710 – 2711.
Class III is a catchall category and includes “all forms of gaming that are not Class I
gaming or Class II gaming,” 25 U.S.C. § 2703(8), and includes any “electronic or
electromechanical facsimile of any game of chance” or slot machine. 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(B)(ii).
IGRA authorizes Class III gaming on Indian lands only if, among other requirements, it is
“conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the
State” within which the tribe is located. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C).
Because IGRA also authorizes the use of “electronic, computer, or other technologic
aids” with the play of Class II games, Class II gaming facilities nationwide offer bingo and pull
tabs electronically aided in various forms. These include electronic card minders that
automatically mark matching numbers and track the occurrence of winning patterns, thereby
allowing players to play large numbers of bingo cards. Also common are electronic
implementations of bingo in the form of electronic player stations linked to central computer
servers. Part 547 establishes minimum uniform technical standards that are applicable to Indian
gaming nationwide, compliance with which is intended to ensure the integrity and security of
Class II games and the proper accounting of the money that they earn.

1

Part 547 was initially published in the federal register on October 10, 2008 and went into
effect on November 10, 2008. On June 1, 2012, the NIGC published a notice of proposed
rulemaking to modify the technical standards. 77 FR 32465, June 1, 2012. Amendments to the
technical standards were published as a final rule on September 21, 2012. 77 FR 58473, Sept. 21,
2012. Although the technical standards themselves changed with the 2012 final rule, the
information collection requirements have not.
25 CFR § 547.5
Section 547.5 establishes a process for assuring that technologic aids used with the play
of Class II games comply with these technical standards. Part 547 uses the term “Class II gaming
system” to refer to any particular collection of hardware, software, and other components used to
play a Class II game.
Section 547.5(c) contains the general rule. A tribe’s gaming regulatory authority must
require that all Class II gaming systems, or modifications thereof, be submitted to a qualified,
independent testing laboratory for review and analysis of the system’s compliance with part 547.
As a matter of established practice, it is the game manufacturer who makes the submission to the
testing laboratory, although the rule also leaves open the possibility that the gaming operation
may do so. The submission must include a working prototype of the complete system – all
pertinent hardware and software – together with an information collection that includes the
complete documentation and description of all functions and components.
In turn, the laboratory will provide the next information collection, a written report
stating that the system does or does not meet the part 547 requirements and of any additional
requirements adopted by the tribe’s gaming regulatory authority. The laboratory will provide the
report and certification to the tribal gaming regulatory authority (TGRA) for its approval or
disapproval of the gaming system. The TGRA must retain a copy of the lab report as long as the
gaming system in question remains in play. These information collections allow federal and
tribal gaming regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with the part 547 requirements for all Class
II equipment offered for play to the public.
25 CFR § 547.5(a)-(b)
Section 547.5(a)-(b) contains minor variations on the submission and reporting process
for particular circumstances, and these variations bring with them other possible information
collections.
Gaming systems that were manufactured before November 10, 2008, may be
grandfathered – exempt from strict compliance with the part 547 provisions – provided that they
be found, through the above submission and reporting process, to be compliant with certain
designated minimum provisions. Upon a finding that a particular system is grandfathered, the
TGRA must issue a certificate to that effect to the system manufacturer and send a notice of that
effect to the NIGC identifying the name and components of the grandfathered system. These
information collections allow federal and tribal gaming regulators to ensure that grandfathered

2

systems meet the required minimum standards and that the location of all grandfathered systems
and components is tracked while they are still in use. While grandfathering gaming systems is
not made mandatory by the rule, the NIGC expects that gaming operations will seek to do so.
25 CFR § 547.5(f)
Given the integral role that independent testing laboratories have in the submission and
reporting process detailed above, § 545.4(f) requires testing laboratories to submit to suitability
determinations made by the tribes that they serve, including criminal background checks for the
laboratories’ principals. These determinations are made according to the same standards used to
license the primary management officials and key employees of Indian gaming operations under
IGRA. This requires the submission of: corporate financial information; qualifications of the
engineering staff; available information (and inspections) of the engineering facilities; and
personal information for principals, including tax returns, bankruptcies and law suits, work
histories and references. This information collection is essential to ensuring the competence,
integrity, and independence of the testing laboratories and the suitability of their decision
makers, i.e. to ensure that undesirable elements are kept out of Indian gaming.
25 CFR § 547.17
The NIGC recognizes that there is tremendous variety in Indian gaming. Operations
range from one of the largest casinos in the world to rural bingo games played a few times per
week or only seasonally. The NIGC therefore recognizes the possibility that there may be
unique, individual circumstances in which uniform standards are inapplicable. As such, § 547.17
provides the opportunity for a TGRA to apply to use an alternate standard from particular
requirements of the uniform rules by means of a formal request to the NIGC Chair. Seeking
approval of an alternate standard is entirely voluntary, and thus § 547.17 creates no mandatory
submission requirements.
If a TGRA wishes to use an alternate standard, the TGRA must send a written request to
the Chair, together with the alternate standard and an explanation of how the standard provides a
level of security and integrity equivalent to (or better than) the uniform standard that it seeks to
replace. That explanation may include an evaluation of the alternate standard by an independent
testing laboratory. Having reviewed the request, the Chair may approve it or object to it.
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for
a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information
received from the current collection.
25 CFR § 547.5
Information to a testing laboratory includes the complete documentation and description
of the gaming system and is used by the laboratory for its evaluation. Games played with the use
of technologic aids can involve complicated pieces of equipment. They can involve tens or even
hundreds of thousands of lines of software code. The more complicated aids are not single pieces
of equipment but can contain multiple peripheral pieces of equipment such as button panels,

3

communications boards, printers, currency acceptors, and video screens. Thus, § 547.5 requires
the submision of sufficient information to enable review and analysis by the laboratory, leaving
to the laboratory the final say over what is sufficient for its review. If this information collection
is not provided as described, meaningful laboratory review cannot occur.
Information provided by the laboratory in the form of a report is provided to the TGRA in
order that the authority may make an informed decision of whether or not to find that the system
meets the part 547 requirements, to approve the gaming system, and to permit it to be offered for
play. If this information collection is not provided as described, the TGRA cannot exercise the
primary regulatory role over Class II gaming that IGRA assigns to it. In addition, if this
information collection is not maintained by the TGRA as described, the NIGC cannot exercise
the oversight role over Class II gaming that IGRA assigns to it.
Information provided by the TGRA in the form of a grandfather certification to the
manufacturer and to the NIGC has two functions. It allows manufacturers to know that particular
grandfathered systems are still permitted to be offered for play and it allows the NIGC to
identify, at any given time, the existence and location of all gaming systems not fully compliant
with § 547.5(c).
Information provided by the laboratory to the TGRA in the form of a suitability
application is essential to assuring the competence, independence, integrity, and suitability of the
testing labs and its principals. Without this information, the TGRA cannot exercise the primary
regulatory role over Class II gaming that IGRA assigns to it, the process for assuring the
integrity and security of Class II games will break down, and undesirable elements may find their
way into Indian gaming.
The only information collection reported directly to the NIGC is the notification of a
grandfathered system. The NIGC has used this information to track the use of grandfathered
systems in tribal gaming facilities. Because grandfathered games are only permitted to be used
until October 22, 2018, the NIGC will also use the information to ensure that all grandfathered
systems have either been brought into full compliance with the general requirements of part 547
or are removed from the gaming facility.
25 CFR § 547.17
The information provided by a TGRA with an alternate standard request allows the Chair
to make a complete and thorough review of the request for an alternate standard, and thus to be
able to make an informed decision of whether or not to approve the request. The information
provided serves no other purpose.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other
forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses,
and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any
consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

4

25 CFR § 547.5
Information may be submitted to the laboratory by any compatible electronic means. In
fact, the submissions contemplated by § 547.5 are modeled directly on similar regulations in
state, Canadian provincial, and tribal gaming jurisdictions throughout North America. It is
already common practice for manufacturers to submit documentation electronically on CDROM.
Information, whether a report or a suitability application, may be submitted by the
laboratory to the TGRA by the same means, although § 547.5 does not speak to the question, and
the issue is ultimately left to the decision of the tribal authorities themselves.
Information may be submitted by the TGRA to a manufacturer or to the NIGC by the
same means and may be maintained electronically. Section 547.5 does not speak to the question,
and the issue is ultimately left to the decision of the tribal authorities themselves.
No specific technological collection techniques are employed.
25 CFR § 547.17
An alternate standard request under § 547.17 may be submitted entirely electronically, if
a TGRA so chooses.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information
already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in item
2 above.
25 CFR § 547.5
The required information is unique to every submission of a gaming system or
modification.
However, although there are approximately 256 tribes with gaming operations, § 547.5
does not require a submission and report from a laboratory each time that a manufacturer wishes
to place a gaming system into a tribal gaming operation. Rather, § 547.5 requires only one
submission to a laboratory and one laboratory report. That report may then be submitted to
multiple tribes and may be used by multiple TGRAs as a basis for allowing play of the system or
modification.
Similarly, testing laboratories need not repeatedly submit applications for suitability
determinations to TGRAs. The rule specifically permits a TGRA to rely upon and adopt a
suitability determination made by another gaming regulatory body. There are only a handful of
private testing laboratories, and as they already serve tribal, state and Canadian provincial
gaming jurisdictions in North America, they have already had suitability determinations made in
most of those jurisdictions. It is likely that most TGRAs will accept suitability determinations
made by other gaming jurisdictions rather than repeating the entire process for themselves.

5

Further, most submissions of systems are, or will be, modifications of previous
submissions. For example, manufacturers may bring out new versions of games that are
substantially identical to ones previously submitted and reviewed. In such cases, the laboratory
has the discretion to require documentation of the changes only.
Gaming in the United States (other than Indian gaming) is regulated at the state level, and
all state gaming jurisdictions require submission and review of games and equipment prior to
approval for play. The submission and review process in the rule simply adopted the existing
procedure. Manufacturers that sell into multiple jurisdictions of necessity have the personnel and
infrastructure in place to prepare and produce multiple copies of individual submissions. To the
extent that a manufacturer has already submitted games and equipment for review and approval
in non-Indian gaming jurisdictions, submissions pursuant to § 547.5 can be made using
information already available.
25 CFR § 547.17
Each alternate standard request under § 547.17 will, of necessity, be unique, and thus
duplication is not an issue, nor will existing information be implicated.
5. If the collection of information impacts small business or other small entities (item 5 of
OMB Form 83-1), describe any methods used to minimize burden.
Not applicable.
6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not
conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to
reducing burden.
25 CFR § 547.5
As a practical matter, the NIGC expects that the submission and reporting requirements
will be applied initially when tribal gaming operations wish to identify grandfathered gaming
systems. Thereafter, they will be applied only when a manufacturer seeks approval or
modification of a gaming system, whether or not grandfathered. The submission and reporting
requirements are, therefore, entirely market driven. Submissions and the resulting reports by
laboratories are not, and cannot be, regularly scheduled. Doing these things on any fixed
schedule would either allow for the play of untested games and aids in Indian casinos (and thus
defeat the very purpose of the rule) or unnecessarily slow the development of the Indian gaming
industry (if, say, tribes had to wait for a certain date to arrive before games could be reviewed
and approved).
The suitability determinations for testing laboratories are likewise market driven. Making
suitability determinations on any fixed schedule may potentially allow unsuitable laboratories to
participate in gaming while awaiting their determinations (and thus defeat the purpose of the
rule) or unnecessarily hinder the Indian gaming industry (if, say, tribes had to wait for a certain

6

date to arrive before a testing laboratory became available to review gaming systems or
modifications).
25 CFR § 547.17
If alternate standard requests are not conducted by submission to the Chair, then either
alternate standards will occur without federal oversight (i.e., implemented by TGRAs without
any review or approval by the NIGC) or not at all. Review by submission is the most efficient
way to make regulatory determinations regarding matters that are, by their nature, unique to each
gaming operation.
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be
conducted in a manner:
•

requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than
quarterly;
25 CFR § 547.5

The frequency of submissions is market driven and is expected to vary. Section 547.5
provides until February 19, 2013, for the submission of gaming systems to be grandfathered.
Following what is expect to be an initial increase in the number of submissions, the frequency of
any other submissions and retention of gaming system records will be a function solely of the
Class II market and the need or desire for new or modified Class II gaming systems.
Because testing laboratories have already acquired suitability determinations, we
anticipate that any additional submissions will occur infrequently. Testing laboratories are under
a continuing obligation to provide to TGRAs material changes in their information, e.g., of new
principal officers who must undergo background investigations or of adverse regulatory action
taken against a lab in another gaming jurisdiction.
That being said, § 547.5 requires submission of gaming systems to testing labs and
submission of reports from testing labs to TGRAs. Section 547.5 requires no submissions to the
NIGC, except for the singular requirement that TGRAs send an identifying list of grandfathered
Class II systems to the NIGC. That is expected to occur within a brief window during and
following the 120-day period for submission of grandfathered systems, when testing labs provide
the reports on those systems, and not again thereafter.
25 CFR § 547.17
Based upon the NIGC’s experience with past requests to implement an alternate
minimum standard, and upon the agency’s experience with technical gaming matters, it is
anticipated that there will be no more than one alternate standard request per year.
•

requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in
fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

7

There is no such requirement.
•

requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any
document;
There is no such requirement.

•

requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government
contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;
25 CFR § 547.5

Section 547.5 requires a TGRA to retain a copy of the laboratory’s report, or of a
modification made to a grandfathered gaming system, so long as the system at issue remains
available to the public for play. It is possible, therefore, that reports and records of modifications
must be retained for more than three years, although prevailing market forces typically cause
turnover of gaming systems on the floors of gaming operations in less time than that.
25 CFR § 547.17
Section 547.17 contains no such requirement.
•

in connection with a statistical survey, which is not designed to produce valid and
reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
Not applicable.

•

requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and
approved by OMB;
Not applicable.

•

•

that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority
established in statue or regulation, which is not supported by disclosure and data
security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes
sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential
information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to
protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
25 CFR § 547.5

A manufacturer’s descriptions and documentation provided with a submission to a
laboratory may contain confidential or proprietary information. Laboratories keep such
information confidential by contractual agreement, although no statute or regulation requires
them to do so. A laboratory’s certification and report may reflect the manufacturer’s confidential

8

and proprietary information in detailed descriptions of how a particular gaming system is
engineered or works. Typically, TGRAs undertake contractually to keep the manufacturer’s
information confidential or may enact a tribal ordinance or regulation requiring confidentiality.
Such an ordinance or regulation, however, is not required by IGRA, and thus its existence is
purely a tribal decision.
Such information is not required to be submitted to the NIGC but only to TGRAs. In the
event that a report is sent to the NIGC, any confidential information contained in it remains
confidential. Such information is protected from disclosure under FOIA exception (b)(4).
Further, 25 U.S.C. § 2716 removes from the NIGC any discretion it would otherwise have to
disclose information that falls within FOIA exceptions 4 and 7 and requires NIGC to disclose
such information only to other law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes.
Nothing in § 547.5 will impede inter-agency data sharing.
25 CFR § 547.17
A description of equipment or software made for the purpose of justifying an alternate
standard may contain confidential or proprietary information. Again, laboratories keep such
information confidential by contractual agreement, and TGRAs may undertake contractually to
keep the manufacturer’s information confidential or may enact a Tribal ordinance or regulation
requiring confidentiality.
Accordingly, an alternate standard submission to the NIGC Chair may contain
confidential or proprietary information. Such information remains confidential. As set forth
above, IGRA removes from the NIGC any discretion it would otherwise have to disclose
information that falls within FOIA exceptions 4 and 7 and requires the NIGC to disclose such
information only to other law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes.
8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in
the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR § 1320.8(d), soliciting
comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public
comment received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in
response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour
burden.
The NIGC first published these information collection requirements in the Federal
Register on October 24, 2007. No comments on the information collection were received at that
time. Following that publication, the NIGC published a final rule on October 10, 2008. On June
1, 2012, the NIGC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking making a number of substantive
changes to part 547. 77 FR 32465, June 1, 2012. The NIGC thereafter extended the comment
period by two weeks. 77 FR 43196, July 24, 2012.
None of the changes to part 547 implicated the information collection requirements. The
NIGC nevertheless received comments on the information collection. Specifically, a few
commenters requested that the NIGC clarify the submission requirements of § 547.17. One

9

commenter suggested that requiring both an explanation of how the alternate standard achieves a
level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the standard it seeks to replace, and the
record on which the TGRA’s approval of the alternate standard was based, is redundant. In the
final rule, the NIGC clarified the difference in the two requirements and the purpose of requiring
both. 77 FR 58473, Sept. 21, 2012.
Other commenters were concerned that the proposed rule would increase the information
collection requirement by requiring the submission of every class II gaming system to a test
laboratory, rather than the submission of a representative prototype. In the final rule, the NIGC
changed the section of the regulation to clarify that only a prototype need be submitted, thereby
decreasing the information collection burden. 77 FR 58473, Sept. 21, 2012.
•

•

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on
the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and record
keeping, disclosure, or reporting format, (if any), and on the data elements to be
recorded, disclosed, or reported.
Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained
or those who must compile records should occur at least once every three years even if the collection of information activity is the same as prior periods. There may
be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These
circumstances should be explained.

Both the original part 547, which went into effect on November 10, 2008, and the current
regulation, which went into effect on October 22, 2012, were developed with the advice and
assistance of an advisory committee composed of representatives of tribal governments, and
committee members have at various times provided views on these issues. When part 547 was
first implemented on November 10, 2008, the NIGC staff discussed the nature and number of
potential respondents to the information collection requirements of § 547.5, burdens of
compliance on respondents, and the costs of compliance with gaming laboratories that serve
tribal, state, and Canadian provincial gaming jurisdictions in North America, and with game
manufacturers who sell to the Indian gaming and non-Indian gaming markets. As the submission,
review, and approval process contemplated by § 547.5 have not changed since implemented in
November of 2008, the instructions, disclosure requirements, reporting formats, and data
elements are already established and understood.
In addition to forming a Tribal Advisory Committee before publishing the final rule
amendments to part 547 on September 21, 2012, the Commission conducted 15 consultations
with tribes throughout the United States that began on June 8, 2011. These consultations
specifically addressed part 547 and its requirements. In addition to these consultations, the
Commission will continue to reach out to tribes and other interested parties within the tribal
gaming industry for input on part 547 and its information collection requirements.
Similarly, the NIGC staff discussed requests for alternate minimum standards and the
burdens and costs of compliance with these same gaming labs. The voluntary submission,
review, and approval process contemplated by § 547.17 is fundamentally similar to the approval

10

process implemented as part of the original rule, and thus already established and understood by
TGRAs.
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
Not applicable. The NIGC does not provide any payment or gift to respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
See response to item #7, above.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly
considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency
considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the
explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any
steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
Not applicable. No sensitive questions are asked.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement
should:
•

•
•

Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden,
and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so,
agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base
hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential
respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary
widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of
estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the alternate standard.
Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual
business practices.
If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour
burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens on Item 13 of OMB
Form 83-1.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for
collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories.
The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection
activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in Item
13.

11

25 CFR § 547.5(a)-(c)
The respondents are developers and manufacturers of Class II games and independent
testing laboratories. There are approximately 25 such manufacturers and 3 such laboratories. In
addition, it is the existing practice in the gaming industry, both Indian and non-Indian alike, for
the game manufacturer to submit a gaming system prototype to a testing laboratory for review
and analysis. Section 547.5 leaves open the possibility that a TGRA may require the
management of a gaming operation to make a submission, for example, for the purpose of
establishing the grandfathered status of a particular gaming system. The practice of submission
and review set out in § 547.5 is not new. It is already part of the regulatory requirements in tribal,
state, and Canadian provincial gaming jurisdictions throughout North America. Manufacturers
already have significant compliance personnel and infrastructure in place, and the very existence
of private, independent laboratories is due to these requirements.
The estimates herein are based on recent discussions with leading testing laboratories and
with manufacturers for the Indian gaming and non-Indian gaming markets. Based on these
discussions, the NIGC estimates that the average hourly rate for the information collection for
the manufacturers, the laboratories, and the tribes, combined, is $44.12 per hour.
The amount of documentation submitted by a manufacturer as part of a submission of a
gaming system and the size of a laboratory report is a function of the complexity of the gaming
system submitted for review. Minor modifications of software or hardware that a manufacturer
has already submitted and that a laboratory has previously examined is a matter of little time
both for manufacturer and laboratory, while the submission and review of an entirely new game
platform is time consuming. The provision of a grandfather certificate and a description of
gaming systems components can be taken directly from a testing laboratory’s report.
As described in response #1 above, in order to qualify under the grandfather provisions of
the rule, a gaming system must be submitted to a testing laboratory for review and analysis
during the first 120 days after the effective date of part 547. The NIGC anticipates that 10
gaming systems will be submitted for the grandfathering process. The NIGC estimates that it will
take laboratories 10 hours and manufacturers 8 hours per grandfathered gaming system. In
addition, the NIGC anticipates that TGRAs will issue grandfather certificates to manufacturers
and send a description of grandfathered systems to NIGC. The preparation of these certificates
and descriptions will be a small matter because all of the necessary information is contained in
the testing laboratory reports. Thus, the NIGC estimates that it will take no more than 0.5 hours
for tribes to complete this portion of the collection. Combined, the NIGC estimates that the total
annual burden is 3005.5 hours.
The frequency of submissions of new gaming systems or of modifications to existing
gaming systems will be entirely market driven. The NIGC anticipates that there will be
approximately 5 submissions of new gaming systems each year. The NIGC estimates that
gathering and preparing documentation for submission of a new gaming system requires an
average of 8 hours for manufacturer’s employee and an average of 10 hours of a laboratory
engineer’s time.

12

Submissions of modifications are, as a matter of course, a more common practice.
Software commonly goes through many iterations in development and continues to be improved
and revised even after sale and placement on a gaming operation’s floor, for example to add
features and functionality. The NIGC anticipates that there will be approximately 300
submissions of modifications and thus 300 reports produced by testing laboratories each year.
For the submission of modifications to a gaming system, the NIGC estimates 4 hours for a
manufacturer’s employee, and 5 hours for a laboratory engineer.
Finally, § 547.5 requires TGRAs to maintain laboratory reports as long as the game
system or modification at issue is available for play. This, however, is a ministerial function that
involves little more than filing, and occasionally retrieving, the report. As this is already
common practice among TGRAs, the NIGC estimates that 0.1 hours per report will be dedicated
to these tasks.
At prevailing wages, the cost of the information burden imposed by § 547.5 (a)-(c) upon
all testing laboratories is approximately $80,000 per year. This figure represents the average
hourly wage of a group of engineers, of differing levels of experience and salaries, who prepare,
review, and issue reports, multiplied by the total annual hours spent in preparing the reports and
certifications. At prevailing wages, the cost of the information burden imposed by § 547.5(a)-(c)
upon all manufacturers is approximately $51,200 per year. This figure represents the average
hourly wage of a group of engineers and compliance employees, of differing levels of experience
and salaries, who produce, prepare, review, and submit documentation and descriptions for
games and aids. At prevailing wages, the cost of the information burden imposed by § 547.5(a)(c) upon the TGRAs for issuing a grandfathering certificate and gaming system description is
$1,200 per year. This is a ministerial function that amounts to creating a certificate and writing a
letter, and the average figure represents the average hourly wage of a gaming authority employee
of produce, prepare, and send such documentation.
25 CFR § 547.5(f)
Section 547.5(f) requires a determination of suitability for each of the approximately 3
testing laboratories. The information required can be substantial, including corporate financial
information; qualifications of the engineering staff; information (and inspections) of the
engineering facilities; and personal information for principals, including tax returns, bankruptcies
and law suits, work histories, and references.
If a test lab has not been certified by a TGRA, it must demonstrate suitability in three key
areas: (i) ownership independent of manufacturers and casinos where tested equipment will be
used; (ii) financial stability of the test lab; and (iii) integrity of testing processes. Demonstrating
suitability in each of the three areas above is a universal practice for compliance testing, and is
required by regulated jurisdictions nationally and globally.
However, because this requirement was implemented in 2008, the three existing testing
laboratories have already collected and provided this information – multiple times – in order to
be licensed in tribal and non-tribal gaming jurisdictions nationwide. Gaming tribes in most
jurisdictions have already made their determinations of suitability for the testing laboratories. To

13

the extent that any new submissions would be required, the NIGC estimates that the submission
of such information would take the necessary laboratory employees 6 hours to collect.
Furthermore, as stated above, § 547.5(f) permits a TGRA to rely upon a suitability determination
already made by another gaming jurisdiction in the United States, whether tribal or state. Many
TGRAs accept existing suitability determinations from other jurisdictions. The submission by a
testing lab of an existing suitability determination amounts to the writing of a letter. The NIGC
estimates that the submission of such letters will take the necessary laboratory employees .5
hours to accomplish once. The NIGC estimates a total of 10 submissions per year, including both
new and existing suitability determinations.
25 CFR § 547.17
The technical standards of part 547 are designed to be uniform standards with nationwide
applicability. As stated in the response to item #1, the possibility of an alternate standard is
designed precisely for unique, and therefore uncommon or unusual, circumstances. More than
this, the NIGC has a similar alternate standard process for its minimum internal control standards
under 25 CFR part 542, which contains another set of uniform standards. The NIGC’s experience
with those standards, together with some general degree of uniformity in the construction of
gaming equipment, points to infrequent submissions.
Since the technical standards were initially implemented in 2008, the NIGC has not
received any requests to use an alternate standard. Although there are approximately 237 gaming
tribes, the NIGC anticipates no more than one alternate standard per year at 6 hours per response.
At prevailing charges by testing laboratories, the annual cost of compliance to tribes for
making alternate standard requests is $1,200 for simple alternate standard requests.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION COLLECTION

CFR CITE

TYPE

Grandfathered
New Games
Modifications
547.5(a)-(c) TOTAL
547.5(f)
Suitability
547.17
Alt. Standard

TOTAL
RESPONSES

AVERAGE
HOURS
PER
RESPONSE

TOTAL
HOURS

10
5
300
315
10
1

18.5
18.1
9.1
9.54
6.5
6

185
90.5
2730
3005.5
65
6

AVERAGE
HOURLY
RATE

TOTAL
COSTS

$8,162.20
$3,992.86
$120,447.60
$44.12 $132,602.66
$44.12
$2,867.80
$200.00
$1,200.00

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers
resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour
burden shown in Items 12 and 14).
•

The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and
start-up cost component [annualized over its expected useful life]; and (b) a total
operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates
should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and
14

disclosing or providing the information. Include description of methods used to
estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected
useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which
costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items,
preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software;
monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
Not applicable. See response to item #12.
•

If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost
burdens and explain the reasons for the alternate standard. The cost of purchasing
or contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost
burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates agencies may consult with a
sample of respondents (fewer than 10). Utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission
public comment process and use existing economics or regulatory impact analysis
associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as
appropriate.
Not applicable. See response to item #12.

•

Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or
portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 11, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory
compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for
reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or
(4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
See response to item #12.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a
description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of
hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing and support staff),
and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of
information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a
single table.
25 CFR § 547.5
Section 547.5 requires only one submission to the NIGC, i.e., a description of
grandfathered Class II gaming systems. Although the NIGC maintains those records for
reference and tracking, the cost to the agency is negligible.

25 CFR § 547.17
As stated in response to item #1, under § 547.17, alternate standard requests are not
mandatory. In the event that a TGRA does make the anticipated one request per year, the direct

15

costs to the federal government comprise only the time it will take NIGC staff to review the
request and make a recommendation to the NIGC Chair, and the time it will take the Chair to
review the request and make a determination. The staff’s time is estimated to be 2 hours, at a cost
of approximately $50 per hour, for a total of $100. The Chair’s time is estimated to be 1 hour.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in items 13 or 14
of OMB Form 83-1.
The number of submissions has decreased since the last OMB approval because most of
the systems that qualify for grandfather status have already been submitted and certified as
required by part 547. Going forward, the NIGC expects the number of grandfathered systems
submitted for certification to decrease substantially, and thus, only a limited number
of grandfathered systems to be submitted under the new certification time period. In addition, the
NIGC expects that the submission of new systems, as well as modifications to existing systems,
will maintain a brisk pace. Since the 2008 regulations went into effect and most recently, the
NIGC contacted several stakeholders and revisited its initial time estimates and calculations set
forth in its previous submission materials and determined that those burden numbers should be
adjusted to more accurately reflect the information collection burden. Lastly, the agency
inadvertently double-counted the burden hours and cost in its previous submission, and thus the
reason for the decline in cost of $130,857.00.
16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for
tabulation, and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be
used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending
dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other
actions.
This is an ongoing information collection with no ending date. The NIGC has no plans to
publish the information collection.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of information
collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement in Item 19, "Certification for
Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions," of OMB Form 83-1.
Not applicable. The NIGC certifies compliance with 5 CFR § 1320.9.
B.

Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods.
Not applicable. Statistical methods are not employed.

16