Supporting Statement For 3141-0003 (10-29-2013)

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
25 CFR PARTS 519, 522, 556, AND 558
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 (IGRA or the Act), Public Law 100–497, 25 U.S.C.
2701, et seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act established the National Indian
Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) and set out a comprehensive framework for the
regulation of gaming on Indian lands. The Act sets standards for the regulation of Indian gaming,
including requirements for the approval or disapproval by the NIGC Chair of tribal gaming
ordinances and resolutions. Specifically, 25 U.S.C. 2705(a)(3) requires the Chair to review and
approve all class II and class III tribal gaming ordinances and resolutions before tribes can game
on their Indian lands. Section 2710 sets forth the specific requirements for the tribal gaming
ordinances, including the requirement that there be adequate systems in place: to cause
background investigations to be conducted on individuals in key employee and primary
management official (PMO) positions (§ 2710(b)(2)(F)(i)); and to provide two prompt
notifications to the Commission, including one containing the results of the background
investigations before the issuance of any gaming licenses, and the other one of the issuance of
such gaming licenses to key employees and PMOs (§ 2710(b)(2)(F)(ii)). In addition, §
2710(d)(2)(D)(ii) requires tribes who have, in their sole discretion, revoked any prior class III
ordinance or resolution to submit a notice of such revocation to the NIGC Chair. The Act also
authorizes the Commission to “promulgate such regulations and guidelines as it deems

1

appropriate to implement” IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10). Parts 519, 522, 556, and 558 of title
25, Code of Federal Regulations, implement these statutory requirements.
25 CFR §§ 519.1, 519.2, and 522.2(g)
As part of any official determination, order, or notice of violation, the NIGC Chair is
required to serve such process on tribes, tribal operators, and/or management contractors. For
this reason, §§ 519.1 and 522.2(g) require a tribe to designate an agent for service of process by
written notification to the Commission. Section 519.2 likewise requires a management contractor
or a tribal operator to designate an agent for service of process.
25 CFR §§ 522.2(a), 522.3(a), 522.10, and 522.11
Before a tribe can game on its Indian lands, the Act requires the NIGC Chair to review
and approve all class II and class III tribal gaming ordinances and resolutions, and amendments
thereof. Accordingly, § 522.2(a) requires a tribe to submit a copy of an ordinance or resolution
certified as authentic by an authorized tribal official, and that meets the approval requirements in
25 CFR §§ 522.4(b) or 522.6. In addition, §§ 522.10 and 522.11 require tribes to submit,
respectively, an ordinance for the licensing of individually owned gaming operations other than
those operating on September 1, 1986, and for the licensing of individually owned gaming
operations operating on September 1, 1986. Section 522.3(a) requires a tribe to submit an
amendment to an ordinance or resolution within 15 days after adoption of such amendment.
25 CFR §§ 522.2(b)-(h) and 522.3(b)
The Act requires the collection of certain information to make the NIGC Chair’s approval
of tribal gaming ordinances and resolutions possible. In addition to a copy of an authentic
gaming ordinance or resolution and the designation of an agent for service of process as set forth
above, § 522.2(b)-(h) requires tribes to submit to the Commission: (i) a description of procedures

2

that the tribe will employ in conducting background investigations on key employees and PMOs,
and to ensure that key employees and PMOs are notified of their rights under the Privacy Act;
(ii) a description of procedures that the tribe will use to issue licenses to key employees and
PMOs; (iii) copies of all tribal gaming regulations; (iv) a copy of any applicable tribal-state
compact or procedures as prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; (v) a description of
procedures for resolving disputes between the gaming public and the tribe or the management
contractor; and (vi) the identification of the law enforcement agent that will take fingerprints and
a description of the procedures for conducting criminal history checks, including a check of
criminal history records information maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In
addition, § 522.3(b) requires a tribe to submit any amendment to these submissions within 15
days after adoption of such amendment.
25 CFR § 522.12
Section 522.12(a) implements 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(2)(D). The regulation requires a tribe to
submit to the Commission a copy of an authentic ordinance revocation or resolution.
25 CFR §§ 556.2 - 556.4
The Act requires tribes to conduct background investigations on key employees and
PMOs involved in class II and class III gaming. To that end, § 556.4 requires tribes to mandate
the submission of the following information from applicants: (i) name(s), Social Security
number(s), date and place of birth, citizenship, gender, and languages; (ii) present and past
business and employment positions, ownership interests, business and residential addresses, and
driver’s license number(s); (iii) the names and addresses of personal references; (iv) current
business and personal telephone numbers; (v) a description of any existing and previous business
relationships with Indian tribes, including ownership interests; (vi) a description of any existing

3

and previous business relationships with the gaming industry generally, including ownership
interests; (vii) the name and address of any licensing/regulatory agency with which the person
has filed an application for a license or permit related to gaming, even if the license or permit
was not granted; (viii) for each ongoing felony prosecution or conviction, the charge, the name
and address of the court, and the date and disposition, if any; (ix) for each misdemeanor
conviction or ongoing prosecution within the past 10 years, the name and address of the court
and the date and disposition; (x) for each criminal charge in the past 10 years that is not
otherwise listed, the criminal charge, the name and address of the court, and the date and
disposition; (xi) the name and address of any licensing/regulatory agency with which the person
has filed an application for an occupational license or permit, even if the license or permit was
not granted; (xii) a photograph; and (xiii) fingerprints.
To ensure that applicants are forthcoming with all of their information, §§ 556.2 and
556.3 requires tribes to place a specific Privacy Act notice on their key employee and PMO
applications, and to warn applicants regarding the penalty for false statements by also placing a
specific false statement notice on their key employee and PMO applications.
25 CFR §§ 556.6(a) and 558.3(e)
When a tribe employs individuals in key employee and/or PMO positions, §§ 556.6(a)
and 558.3(e) require tribes to keep/maintain the individuals’ complete application files,
investigative reports, and eligibility determinations during their employment and for at least
three years after termination of their employment.
25 CFR § 556.6(b)(1),(b)(2)
Before issuing a license to a PMO or to a key employee, § 556.6(b)(1) requires tribes to
create and maintain an investigative report on each background investigation that includes: (i)

4

the steps taken in conducting a background investigation; (ii) the results obtained; (iii) the
conclusions reached; and (iv) the basis for those conclusions. In addition, § 556.6(b)(2) requires
tribes to submit, no later than 60 days after an applicant begins work, a notice of results of the
applicant’s background investigation that includes: (i) the applicant’s name, date of birth, and
Social Security number; (ii) the date on which the applicant began or will begin work as a key
employee or PMO; (iii) a summary of the information presented in the investigative report,
including license(s) that have been previously denied, gaming licenses that have been revoked,
every known criminal charge brought against the applicant within the past 10 years, and every
felony conviction or ongoing prosecution; and (iv) a copy of the eligibility determination.
25 CFR §§ 558.3(b),(d) and 558.4(e)
The Act requires tribes to maintain an adequate system in place to provide prompt
notifications to the Commission regarding the issuance of tribal licenses to key employees and
PMOs. To that end, § 558.3(b) requires a tribe to notify the Commission of the issuance of PMO
and key employee licenses within 30 days after such issuance. In addition, § 558.3(d) requires a
tribe to notify the Commission if the tribe does not issue a license to an applicant, and requires it
to forward copies of its eligibility determination and notice of results to the Commission for
inclusion in the Indian Gaming Individuals Record System.
Because it is important for the Commission to know at all times which individuals are
licensed in PMO and key employee positions, § 558.4(e) requires a tribe, after a revocation
hearing, to notify the Commission of its decision to revoke or reinstate a gaming license within
45 days of receiving notification from the Commission that a specific individual in a PMO or key
employee position is not eligible for continued employment.

5

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 Part 519
This information collection is needed so that the NIGC Chair knows the correct party on
whom to properly serve any official determination, order, or notice of violation. If the collection
of information were not conducted as described, the NIGC would lack confidence that official
determinations, orders, or notices of violation have been legally and effectively served on the
parties authorized to make decisions and take action for the tribes, management contractors, and
tribal operators.
25 CFR §§ 522.2, 522.3, and 522.10 - 522.12
The submission of ordinances, resolutions, or amendments thereof, that meet the approval
requirements in 25 CFR §§ 522.4(b) or 522.6 allows the NIGC Chair to decide whether said
ordinances meet IGRA’s statutory requirements, and helps the Chair ascertain whether an
adequate tribal regulatory system exists within the tribal gaming operation. The Chair also
reviews the information collected to ensure that the ordinance or resolution was enacted in
accordance with all applicable tribal laws. In addition, the information collected in connection
with an ordinance or resolution submission is used by the Chair in determining whether to
approve or disapprove tribal ordinances and resolutions, as required by IGRA.
This information is also used by the Chair to determine whether a particular tribe has
revoked class III gaming for their gaming operation(s), and thus to stay apprised of which Indian
gaming operations offer or do not offer class III gaming.

6

25 CFR Parts 556 and 558
The information collected pursuant to these parts is used by the Commission, in
accordance with its statutory duties, to ensure that the background investigations conducted on
individuals employed in PMO and key employee positions are stringent and thorough, and that
the tribes have sufficient background information to make determinations regarding whether an
individual is eligible to be licensed as a PMO or key employee. The Commission also uses this
information to review tribal decisions to license PMOs and key employees to ensure that no
criminal element enters the tribal gaming system.
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.
While tribes must submit copies of ordinances, resolutions, or amendments thereof in
paper form, the Commission’s regulations allow them to maintain and/or submit other types of
information to the Commission by compatible automated, electronic, and/or mechanical means,
including e-mail.
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.
The Act requires a certain minimum degree of regulation and adequate systems in place
in each tribe’s gaming ordinance, but these tribes have their own sovereign authority to adopt
more stringent requirements on any subject, making each tribe’s ordinance unique. Likewise,
background investigations and licensing information and determinations are unique to each
applicant. Thus, no similar information pertaining to gaming on Indian lands is collected by the
Commission or by any other federal agencies.

7

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 5
of OMB Form 83-I), describe any methods used to minimize burden.
Not applicable. Nonetheless, the Commission’s regulations require operations to submit
the minimum amount of information that the Commission requires to fulfill its statutory
responsibilities. The burden is directly proportional to the economic activity conducted.
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.
One of the purposes of IGRA is to establish federal standards for the operation of gaming
by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and
strong tribal governments. The Act specifically sets forth the minimum standards that must be
contained in tribal ordinances or resolutions, and specifically requires the NIGC Chair to approve
class II and III gaming ordinances. In addition, IGRA requires tribes to notify the Commission
when they revoke class III gaming ordinances. Thus, the failure of the Commission to collect this
information is not an option. The frequency of the submissions is largely dependent on the tribes,
i.e., they only need to make the submissions when they adopt new ordinances or resolutions, or
amend existing ordinances.
Another purpose of IGRA is to provide a statutory basis for the regulation of Indian
gaming to adequately shield it from organized crime and other corrupting influences, to ensure
that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation revenue, and to assure
that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players. To that end, the
Act also requires that tribes have adequate systems in place that ensure that background
investigations are conducted on individuals in PMO and key employee positions, and that tribal
licenses are not issued to such individuals “whose prior activities, criminal record, if any, or
reputation, habits and associations pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective
8

regulation of gaming, or create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices
and methods and activities in the conduct of gaming.” The Act also requires tribes to promptly
notify the Commission when they issue a license to an individual in a PMO or key employee
position. Again, the failure of the Commission to collect this information is not an option, and
would render the Commission unable to carry out its statutory obligations under IGRA to help
tribes protect the integrity of Indian gaming. The frequency of the need to submit relevant
background and licensing information is inextricably linked to the hiring of individuals in PMO
or key employee positions.
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;
 requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in
fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
 requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any
document;
 requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government
contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
 in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and
reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
 requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and
approved by OMB;
 that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority
established in statute or regulation, that 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.
Tribes must promptly submit the information in these collections to the Commission
whenever it becomes available. As mentioned above, the frequency of the submissions is largely
dependent on the tribes, i.e., tribes only need to make the submissions when they adopt new
ordinances or resolutions, amend existing ordinances, and revoke class III ordinances. While

9

rare, it is theoretically possible that a tribe may amend an ordinance two or more separate times
during a particular quarter, and thus would have to make multiple submissions during one
quarter. However, under such circumstances, IGRA requires the tribe to submit the amendments
for approval by the NIGC Chair.
The frequency of the background investigation and licensing information submissions is
again largely dependent on the tribes, i.e., tribes must submit relevant background investigation
and licensing information whenever they make new hires in PMO and key employee positions,
or when they revoke such types of licenses. Because gaming operations are businesses, the hiring
of individuals in PMO and key employee positions are done on an as needed basis, and can often
occur multiple times during a given quarter, thus requiring tribes to submit such information to
the Commission more often than quarterly. This ensures that the Commission is up-to-date on all
background investigations and eligibility determinations taking place in Indian gaming. Such
continuous reporting is necessary to avoid criminal influence in, and to ensure the integrity of,
Indian gaming.
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
comments 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.
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
recordkeeping, 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 3 years - even if the
collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be
circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These
circumstances should be explained.

10

On July 8, 2013, a notice containing the information collection renewals was published in
the Federal Register allowing the public an opportunity to comment on the requirements. (78 FR
40766, July 8, 2013). The public comment period closed on September 6, 2013. No public
comments were received.
In addition, the NIGC consulted with 18 tribal gaming regulatory commissions and/or
tribal gaming operators, and laid out the recordkeeping and submission requirements contained
in its regulations, but did not provide its own estimates to the tribes. The Commission asked the
tribal gaming commissions and/or tribal gaming operators to provide annual hourly estimates
required to perform the tasks, as well as any cost estimates. The average burden hours per
response and average annual costs in this information collection were provided by these 18
tribes. The Commission has upwardly adjusted its previous estimates accordingly.
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than
reenumeration 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.
The Act requires the Commission to keep confidential any and all trade secrets, and
privileged or confidential, commercial or financial information received pursuant to IGRA, or
information related to ongoing law enforcement investigations. Section 2716 of title 25, United
States Code, removes from the Commission any discretion it otherwise would have to disclose
information that falls within FOIA exemptions 4 and 7, and requires the Commission to disclose
such information only to other law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes.
In addition, the Commission must ensure the integrity of Indian gaming and that it is kept
free from criminal influence. To that end, the Commission must require the maintenance and

11

reporting of certain personal information in the form of background investigations. Pursuant to
the Privacy Act, the Commission has established a system of records for maintaining and
protecting such confidential information. In addition, the Privacy Act prevents the Commission
from revealing any personal information received in connection with a background investigation
or license eligibility determination.
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 variance. 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 in Item 13 of OMB
Form 83-I.
 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.
As mentioned in Item 8 above, the NIGC consulted with 18 tribal regulatory gaming
commissions and/or tribal gaming operators to gather the burden estimates for these information
collections. The sizes of tribal gaming operations in the United States vary from small, truck
stop-sized facilities to one of the largest gaming operations in the world. The sizes of the gaming
12

operations consulted included six Tier A gaming operations (annual gross gaming revenues of
more than $1 million but not more than $5 million), four Tier B gaming operations (annual gross
gaming revenues of more than $5 million but not more than $15 million), and eight Tier C
gaming operations (annual gross gaming revenues of more than $15 million). Depending on
market forces, a gaming operation can fall into one tier during one year, and into another tier the
following year.
Because the estimates sometimes varied dramatically for an information collection even
amongst gaming operations in the same tiers (e.g., one Tier A operation reported 4,320 burden
hours for a specific collection while another Tier A operation reported 10 burden hours for the
same collection), the Commission averaged the estimates received only after dropping the
highest and lowest estimates for each information collection. Another example of the dramatic
variances in reported estimates include one Tier C operation reporting 56,400 burden hours to
create and maintain/keep investigative reports, while another Tier C operation reported 360
burden hours for the same information collection.
Some of these information collections are mandatory and some are voluntary, and thus
the difference in the number of annual respondents. There are 239 federally recognized tribes
that operate 424 Indian gaming operations. The table below shows the Commission’s estimated
hourly burdens and the hourly cost burdens for respondents. The average hours per response and
average hourly rates were provided by the tribal gaming commissions and/or tribal gaming
operators.

13

ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN HOUR TOTALS
FREQUENCY
NUMBER OF
OF
TOTAL
AVERAGE AVERAGE
CFR CITE/
ANNUAL
RESPONSES
ANNUAL HOURS PER HOURLY
COLLECTION RESPONDENTS PER YEAR RESPONSES RESPONSE
RATE

519.1,
522.2(g);
519.2
522.2(a);
522.3(a);
522.10;
522.11
522.2(b)(h), 522.3(b)
522.12
556.2, 556.3
556.4
556.6(a);
558.3(e)
556.6(b)(1)
556.6(b)(2)
558.3(b),(d)
558.4(e)
TOTAL

TOTAL
HOURS

TOTAL
WAGES

29

Varies

29

1

$11

29.0

$319

29

Varies

51

125.25

$32

6387.75

$204,408

29

1

29

186.25

$17

5401.25

$91,821

1
239
239
239

1
1
Varies
1

1
239
89,864
239

2.5
16.75
2.75
1,419.0

$15
$18
$17
$18

2.5
4003.25
247,126
339,141

$38
$72,059
$4,201,142
$6,104,538

233
233
233
76

Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies

34,113
34,113
34,113
960

15
5.5
2.5
6

$19
511,695
$19 187,621.5
$19 85,282.5
$19
5,760

$9,722,205
$3,564,809
$1,620,368
$109,440

1580

Varies

193,751

1,392,450 $25,691,147

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers
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 startup 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 disclosing or
providing the information. Include descriptions 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.
 If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost
burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or
contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden
estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of
14



respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public
comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated
with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or
portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 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.
Although part of the dollar cost for this information collection is the estimated total

amount that the tribes will pay to outside counsel to review certain documents (e.g., ordinances)
before they are submitted to the NIGC, the remaining total costs provided by the tribes were
unspecified.
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST TOTALS

CFR CITE/
COLLECTION

519.1, 522.2(g);
519.2
522.2(a);
522.3(a); 522.10;
522.11
522.2(b)-(h),
522.3(b)
522.12
556.2, 556.3
556.4
556.6(a);
558.3(e)
556.6(b)(1)
556.6(b)(2)
558.3(b),(d)
558.4(e)
TOTAL

NUMBER OF
ANNUAL
RESPONDENTS

FREQUENCY
AVERAGE
OF
TOTAL
ANNUAL
RESPONSE
ANNUAL
COSTS
PER YEAR RESPONSES
(if any)

TOTAL
COSTS

29

Varies

29

$0

$0

29

Varies

51

$8,792

$448,392

29

1

29

$196

$5,684

1
239
239
239

1
1
Varies
1

1
239
89,864
239

$0
$256
$50
$5,303

$0
$61,184
$11,950
$1,267,417

233
233
233
76

Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies

34,113
34,113
34,113
960

$5,394
$397
$794
$69

$1,256,802
$92,501
$185,002
$5,244

1580

Varies

193,751

$3,334,176

14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal government. Also, provide a
description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of
15

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 may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a
single table.
The Commission determined its cost and burden hour estimates, inclusive of operational
expenses, based on the workflows of the agency, and the functions specific to the receipt,
recordation, and analysis of the submissions. As a general matter, the cost rate was based upon
the hourly rate of personnel assigned to task. Support services are included in cost estimates.
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN
NUMBER OF
FREQUENCY
TOTAL
REVIEW
CFR CITE/
ANNUAL
OF RESPONSE ANNUAL
HOURS PER
COLLECTION RESPONDENTS
PER YEAR
RESPONSES RESPONSE

TOTAL
HOURS

HOURLY
RATE

TOTAL
AGENCY
COST

519.1,
522.2(g);
519.2
522.2(a);
522.3(a);
522.10;
522.11
522.2(b)(h),
522.3(b)
522.12
556.2,
556.3
556.4
556.6(a);
558.3(e)
556.6(b)(1)
556.6(b)(2)
558.3(b),
(d)
558.4(e)

29

Varies

29

0.1

3

$61

$183

29

Varies

51

2.1

107

$61

$6,527

29

1

29

1.3

38

$61

$2,318

1
239

1
1

1
239

0.25
0.3

0.25
72

$61
$61

$15
$4,392

239
239

Varies
1

89,864
239

0.02
6.0

1,797
1,434

$22
$43

$39,534
$61,662

233
233
233

Varies
Varies
Varies

233
34,113
34,113

1.7
0.2
0.2

396
6,823
6,823

$43
$43
$43

$17,028
$293,389
$293,389

76

Varies

960

0.2

192

$43

$8,256

TOTAL

1580

Varies

193,751

17,685

$726,693

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or 14
of the OMB Form 83-I.
16

The Commission has made the following adjustments to its estimated burdens:


the Commission has increased the number of estimated annual responses from 112,677 to
193,745. The Commission believes that the large increase in estimated annual responses is
due to estimation errors in the previous request for renewal. This estimate is based on the
average number of submissions to the Commission for the past three years, after a review of
the Commission’s own records.



the Commission has increased the number of estimated burden hours from 36,973 to
1,392,405. The Commission believes that the large increase in burden hours is due to
estimation errors in the previous request for renewal. For example, some of the biggest
drivers of this increase include:


§ 556.4, which mandates tribes to require the submission of certain information from
applicants for PMO and key employee positions. Based on tribal feedback, 239 tribal
operators receive approximately 89,864 total applications per year for 424 tribal
operations. If an applicant spends an average of 2.75 hours filling out an application
and providing the required information to the tribes, that quickly adds up to 247,126
burden hours;



§§ 556.6(a) and 558.3(e), which require tribes to keep and/or maintain complete
application files, and the applications for licensing, investigative reports, and
eligibility determinations for a period of no less than three years from the date of
termination of employment. Based on tribal feedback, 239 tribal operators each
annually spend approximately 1,419 hours performing these tasks. That quickly adds
up to 339,141 burden hours;

17



§ 556.6(b)(1), which requires tribes to create and keep and/or maintain investigative
reports, including performing applicant background investigations. Based on tribal
feedback, 233 tribal operators each spend an average of 15 hours performing one
investigation and creating one investigative report. Multiply those hours by 34,113
(based on the average number of notices of results that the Commission has received
over the past three years), and that quickly adds up to 511,695 burden hours;



§ 556.6(b)(2), which requires tribes to submit to the Commission notices of results.
Based on tribal feedback, 233 tribal operators each spend approximately 5.5 hours
submitting one notice of results. Multiply those hours by 34,113 and that quickly adds
up to 187,621.5 burden hours; and



§ 558.3(b),(d), which requires tribes to notify the Commission if it issues a license,
and if a tribe does not issue a license, to notify and to submit to the Commission
copies of its eligibility determination and notice of results. Based on tribal feedback,
233 tribal operators each spend approximately 2.5 hours submitting one notification
to the Commission. Multiply those hours by 34,113 (based on the average number of
license issuance and denial notifications that the Commission has received over the
past three years), and that quickly adds up to 85,282.5 burden hours.

These estimates are based on feedback from the 18 tribal regulatory gaming commissions
and/or tribal gaming operators. The Commission believes that these new estimates more
accurately reflect the actual burden hours for these information collections; and


the Commission has increased the estimated dollar cost burden from $753,758 to $3,333,573.
The Commission believes that the large increase in burden hours is due to estimation errors
in the previous request for renewal. These cost estimates are based on feedback from the 18

18

tribal regulatory gaming commissions and/or tribal gaming operators. The Commission
believes that these new cost estimates more accurately reflect the actual burden hours for
these information collections.
In 2012, the Indian gaming industry generated $27.9 billion in gross gaming revenue.
Since 2008 when the previous burden estimates were approved, the Indian gaming revenues in
the U.S. have increased by approximately $1.2 billion. This growth in the Indian gaming industry
may account, in part, for the dramatic increase in the burden hour and cost estimates as provided
by the 18 tribal regulatory gaming commissions and/or tribal gaming operators.
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.
These are ongoing information collections with no ending date and no plans for
publication.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19,
“Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,” of OMB Form 83-I.
Not applicable. The NIGC certifies compliance with 5 CFR § 1320.9.
B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
This section is not applicable. Statistical methods are not employed.

19