Technical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids Used in the Play of Class II Games, 60508-60523 [E7-20789]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• National Indian Gaming Commission

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60508-60523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20789]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Indian Gaming Commission

25 CFR Part 547

RIN 3141-AA29


Technical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other 
Technologic Aids Used in the Play of Class II Games

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would add a new part to the Commission's 
regulations establishing technical standards for Class II games--bingo, 
lotto, other games similar to bingo, pull tabs, or ``instant bingo''--
that are played using ``electronic, computer, or other technologic 
aids.'' The proposed rule would also establish a process for ensuring 
the integrity of such games and aids before their placement in a Class 
II tribal gaming operation. No such standards currently exist. The 
Commission proposes this action in order to assist tribal gaming 
regulatory authorities and operators in ensuring the integrity and 
security of Class II games and the accountability of gaming revenue.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to ``Comments on Technical Standards,'' 
National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20005, Attn: Michael Gross, Associate General Counsel, General Law. 
Comments may be transmitted by facsimile to 202-632-7066, but the 
original also must be mailed or submitted to the above address. 
Comments may be sent electronically, instead of by mail or fax, to 
technical_standards@nigc.gov. Please indicate ``Class II technical 
regulations'' in the subject line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Gross, Associate General 
Counsel, General Law, Office of General Counsel, telephone: 
202.632.7003. This is not a toll free call.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701-21 (``IGRA''), 
enacted by the Congress in 1988, establishes the National Indian Gaming 
Commission (``NIGC'' or ``Commission'') and sets out a comprehensive 
framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. IGRA 
establishes three classes of Indian gaming.
    ``Class I gaming'' means social games played solely for prizes of 
minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming played in 
connection with tribal ceremonies or celebrations. 25 U.S.C. 2703(6). 
Indian tribes regulate Class I gaming exclusively.
    ``Class II gaming'' means the game of chance commonly known as 
bingo, whether or not electronic, computer, or other technologic aids 
are used in connection therewith, including, if played in the same 
location, pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo, and 
other games similar to bingo, as well as various non-house-banked card 
games. 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(A). Specifically excluded from Class II gaming 
are banking card games such as blackjack, electronic or 
electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance, and slot machines 
of any kind. 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(B). Indian tribes and the NIGC share 
regulatory authority over Class II gaming. Indian tribes can engage in 
Class II gaming without any state involvement.
    ``Class III gaming'' includes all forms of gaming that are not 
Class I gaming or Class II gaming. 25 U.S.C. 2703(8). Class III gaming 
thus includes all other games of chance, including lotteries and most 
forms of casino gaming, such as slot machines, roulette, and banking 
card games like blackjack. Class III gaming may be conducted lawfully 
only if the tribe and the state in which the tribe is located enter 
into a tribal-state compact for such gaming. Alternatively, a tribe may 
operate Class III gaming under gaming procedures issued by the 
Secretary of the Interior. Because of the compact requirement, states, 
Indian tribes, and the NIGC possess regulatory authority over Class III 
gaming. In addition, the United States Department of Justice possesses 
exclusive criminal, and certain civil, jurisdiction over Class III 
gaming on Indian lands.
    The Commission has determined that it is in the best interests of 
Indian gaming to adopt technical standards that govern the 
implementation of electronic, computer, and other technologic aids used 
in the play of Class II games because no such standards currently 
exist. The technical standards seek to provide a means for tribal 
gaming regulatory authorities and tribal operators to ensure that the 
integrity of Class II games played with the use of electronic, 
computer, or other technologic aids is maintained; that the games and 
aids are secure; and that the games and aids are fully auditable, i.e. 
that they provide a means for the gaming authority and gaming operation 
to account for all gaming revenue.

Development of the Proposed Rule

    The development of the proposed rule began formally with the March 
31, 2004, appointment of an advisory committee comprised of tribal 
government representatives with substantial experience and expertise in 
gaming regulation and operations, the Commission, and Commission staff. 
Although the Commission initially intended to develop one set of 
regulations, this committee's work ultimately resulted in the 
Commission's publication of a proposed rule for Class II classification 
standards, 71 FR 30238 (May 25, 2006), and a separate proposed rule for 
Class II technical standards, 71 FR 46336 (August 11, 2006). A detailed 
history of the advisory committee's work on the technical standards to 
that point, its meetings, the Commission's consultations with Indian 
tribes, and the contributions and participation of the interested 
general public is published in the preamble to that proposed rule. 71 
FR 46336-46337.
    The ultimate goal of that first set of technical standards was as 
it is here--to ensure the security and integrity of Class II games 
played with technologic aids and to ensure the auditability of the 
gaming revenue that those games earn.

[[Page 60509]]

It was also the intention of that first set of technical standards to 
allow for flexibility in the implementation of technology and not to 
prohibit the use of future technologies unforeseen and as yet 
undeveloped.
    Given the importance of the regulations to the industry, the 
Commission, which had initially set a comment period of 45 days, 
reopened the comment period for an additional 76 days, from November 
15, 2006, through January 31, 2007. 71 FR 71115 (December 8, 2006); 71 
FR 76618 (December 21, 2006).
    Public comments made it clear to the Commission that the first set 
of proposed technical standards fell short of its goal of technological 
flexibility. In particular, commenters stated that the first set of 
proposed technical standards would mandate particular implementations 
of technology and that some of those were not practical or feasible. 
Commenters suggested that rather than prescribe particular 
implementations of technology, the standards should describe the 
regulatory outcomes that the Commission desires and leave it to the 
manufacturers to develop ways of meeting those regulatory requirements.
    At a December 5, 2006, advisory committee meeting in Washington, 
DC, the tribal representatives to the advisory committee strongly 
seconded this sentiment. The details of the solution, however, were not 
immediately apparent. Before providing further advice to the 
Commission, the tribal representatives wished to consult further with 
other tribal representatives and regulators, and with industry 
representatives. They therefore suggested that they assemble a working 
group made up of representatives from the Class II gaming industry--
tribal operators, tribal regulators, and manufacturers alike--to assist 
it. Accepting the fundamental premise that the technical standards 
ought to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, the Commission agreed 
to allow the tribal representatives to work independently of the 
Commission to redraft the technical standards. Subsequently, the 
Commission withdrew the first proposed technical standards. 72 FR 7360 
(February 15, 2007).
    The tribal representatives to the advisory committee formed a 
working group, which met at various times, in person and 
telephonically, from the end of 2006 through the middle of 2007 to 
draft this new set of technical standards. The Commission did not 
participate in the establishment of this working group. On some 
occasions, the tribal representatives invited the participation of 
Commission staff members to answer questions and to provide explanation 
about the Commission's regulatory goals. Commission staff participated 
in this capacity during in-person meetings on December 11-12, 2006, in 
Las Vegas, Nevada, and June 5, 2007, in Dallas, Texas.
    The full advisory committee, including the Commission, met to 
discuss drafts of proposed technical standards on February 22, 2007, in 
Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 26, 2007, in Seattle, Washington, and 
May 22, 2007, in Bloomington, Minnesota. All of these meetings were 
open to the interested public.
    The Commission is immensely grateful to the tribal representatives 
on the advisory committee and to those who assisted the tribal 
representatives for all of their hard work and for the high-quality 
draft regulations that resulted from their efforts. The proposed rule 
is largely adopted from the final draft of descriptive technical 
standards, which was delivered to the Commission by the tribal 
representatives to the advisory committee on June 18, 2006.
    There are places, of course, where the Commission felt it could not 
accept the draft's recommendations and has proposed rules more 
stringent than the tribal representatives to the advisory committee 
would have preferred. One such area of disagreement concerns the recall 
and tracking of alternative displays.
    It is a common practice for bingo games played using electronic 
player stations to provide alternative display of game results above 
and beyond the numbers marked and patterns obtained on a bingo card. 
Most frequently, these alternative displays take the form of spinning 
reels such as one would find on slot machines. A winning bingo pattern, 
for example, might also be displayed as a winning combination of 
symbols on the reels. The Commission regards such alternative displays 
as perfectly permissible, provided that it is the bingo game, and not 
the spinning reels, that determine the player's results.
    The technical standards require a last game recall function to be 
able to display alternative results as well as the actual game results, 
if a Class II gaming system has a last game recall. The tribal 
representatives to the advisory committee have said that they regard 
the requirement as both unnecessary, since the alternative displays do 
not determine game results, and beyond the scope of the Commission's 
authority.
    The Commission, however, regards recall of alternative displays as 
an important part of safeguarding the integrity of gaming, 
notwithstanding the fact that alternate displays do not determine, and 
are not relevant to, the outcome of the game. The fact remains, 
however, that the alternative displays are the source of many patron 
disputes, and providing for their automatic recall provides to tribal 
gaming regulatory authorities information essential to resolving such 
disputes quickly, completely, and fairly. Over and above this, it is 
the Commission's understanding that many manufacturers already include 
alternative displays in their recall functions, or could easily do so.

Purpose and Scope

    The proposed part 547 applies to all Class II games played using 
electronic, computer, or other technologic aids, or modifications of 
such games and aids. Class II games played through such technologic 
aids are widely used in Indian gaming operations, yet no uniform 
standards exist to govern their implementation. The proposed rule seeks 
to remedy that absence and create a regulatory structure under which 
tribal gaming regulatory authorities and tribal operators are able to 
ensure the integrity and security of Class II games played with the use 
of electronic, computer, or other technologic aids and the auditability 
of gaming revenue.
    There is a great variety in the technologic aids used in the play 
of Class II games and, therefore, a great variety in the means used to 
play the games. An operation may, for example, play bingo using no aids 
at all. A caller may select numbers using ping pong balls taken from a 
hopper, and players purchase paper cards from an employee of the 
operation and mark them with an inked dauber. Alternatively, numbers 
may be selected randomly using an electronic random number generator, 
which in turn displays the selected number on a display board. Instead 
of paper, players may use electronic handheld devices to monitor and 
mark their cards. The handheld devices are purchased and have cards 
loaded on them at a point-of-sale retail terminal.
    Still again, bingo may be implemented electronically on client-
server architectures. A common arrangement, but by no means the only 
one possible, is to have client machines on the casino floor as 
electronic player stations. These display bingo cards, allow the 
players to cover numbers when drawn, and pay any prizes won. The 
server, usually located off the floor, draws random numbers and passes 
them along data communications lines to the client machines for game 
play. Credits may be placed on the electronic player station by 
inserting cash or

[[Page 60510]]

electronically drawing down an account separately established.
    The challenge, then, for writing technical standards is to address 
all of the various ways that Class II games can be played. Central to 
the proposed rule, therefore, is the definition of ``Class II gaming 
system,'' which refers to any given collection of components used in 
the play of a II game: ``All components, whether or not technologic 
aids in electronic, computer, mechanical or other technologic form, 
that function together to aid the play of one or more Class II games, 
including accounting functions mandated by these regulations.'' The 
notion of the ``gaming system'' thus encompasses bingo played in all of 
the implementations described above.
    It is the ``gaming system'' that must meet the technical standards 
of the proposed part 547. Like the gaming system itself, the standards 
are conceived generally so that they may be met by a gaming system, 
regardless of the particular components that may comprise it. For 
example, the proposed rule does not refer to ``bill validators,'' an 
electronic device into which a patron may insert a bill in order to 
place credits on a gaming machine. Instead, proposed part 547 describes 
``financial instrument acceptors'' and the standards they must meet. 
``Financial instrument acceptor'' is broad enough in meaning to 
encompass not only ``bill validator'' but also a cash drawer staffed by 
an employee of the gaming operation. Proposed part 547 provides minimum 
standards for the security of the ``acceptors'' and of the money or 
vouchers (generally, ``financial instruments'') they accept.
    Further, because of the breadth of possible implementations for 
Class II gaming systems, proposed part 547 requires that gaming 
equipment and software used with Class II gaming systems meet the 
requirements of the part, but only those that are applicable to the 
system as implemented. This is, in short, a rule of construction of 
common sense. For example, if a system takes only cash and lacks the 
ability to print or accept vouchers, then any standards that apply to 
vouchers do not apply.
    All of that said, the proposed rule deliberately provides only 
minimum standards. Tribes and tribal gaming regulatory authorities may 
add any additional requirements, or more stringent requirements, needed 
to suit their particular circumstances.
    In order to ensure compliance with the technical standards, the 
proposed rule borrows from the established practices of tribal, state, 
and provincial gaming jurisdictions across North America. The proposed 
rule establishes, as a necessary prerequisite to a gaming system being 
offered to the public for play in a Class II gaming operation, review 
of the system by a qualified, independent testing laboratory and 
approval by the tribal gaming regulatory authority.
    Under the proposed rule, a tribe's gaming regulatory authority will 
require all Class II gaming systems, or modifications thereof, to be 
submitted to a testing laboratory for review and analysis. That 
submission includes a working prototype of the gaming system or 
modification, all pertinent software, and anything else the testing 
laboratory needs for its complete and thorough review. In turn, the 
laboratory will review whether the gaming system does or does not meet 
the requirements of the rule, as well as any additional requirements 
adopted by the tribe's gaming regulatory authority. The laboratory will 
provide a written report of its analysis and conclusions to the tribal 
gaming regulatory authority for approval or disapproval of the gaming 
system or modification. The tribal gaming regulatory authority will 
retain the report as long as the gaming system or modification in 
question remains available to the public for play.
    The Commission understands that existing Class II gaming systems 
likely do not meet all of the requirements of the proposed rule. In 
order to avoid the potentially significant economic and practical 
consequences of requiring immediate compliance, the proposed rule 
implements a five-year ``grandfather period'' for existing gaming 
systems.
    Existing gaming systems may be grandfathered and exempt from 
compliance with all of the requirements of the proposed rule if they 
are put through a similar review by a qualified independent testing 
laboratory and approved by a tribal gaming regulatory authority. 
Specifically, in order to be eligible for grandfathering, a gaming 
system must be submitted to a testing laboratory within 120 days of the 
proposed part 547 becoming final. The testing laboratory must review 
the gaming system for compliance with a specific, minimum set of 
requirements--random number generation, no reflexive or secondary 
decision-making after random numbers are drawn, the inability to change 
bingo cards during the play of a game, and a mechanism for verifying 
game software. The laboratory must issue a report on these issues to 
the tribal gaming regulatory authority, which must make a finding that 
the gaming system qualifies for grandfather status. Once a gaming 
system is qualified, the manufacturer must label each player interface 
on the system with its date of manufacture and certify the same to the 
tribal gaming regulatory authority. This requirement effectively 
freezes the number of grandfathered interfaces in use.
    This is not to say, however, that grandfathered gaming systems must 
remain entirely static. Tribal gaming regulatory authorities may permit 
modifications to gaming system software or hardware that increases 
compliance with the requirements of proposed part 547, even if the 
modifications do not make the system wholly compliant. Tribal gaming 
regulatory authorities may also authorize modifications to gaming 
system software that does not detract from, compromise, or prejudice 
the proper functioning, security or integrity of the Class II gaming 
system and the system's overall compliance with the requirements of 
proposed part 547. Changes such as new pay tables, new game themes, and 
new alternative displays fall within this latter category.
    Finally, the Commission does not intend for proposed part 547 to 
stand alone. The advisory committee pointed out, and the Commission 
agrees, that many of the functions placed in the technical standards 
proposed on August 11, 2006, and now withdrawn, are more properly 
characterized as minimum internal control standards for a gaming 
operation. Accordingly, the Commission is simultaneously publishing, as 
a separate proposed rule, a set of minimum internal control standards 
for the play of bingo that is intended to be applied in conjunction 
with the standards set forth in this proposed rule. In short, game 
manufacturers and tribal gaming regulators must look to both sets of 
rules for applicable standards for the construction and operation of 
Class II gaming systems.
    The Commission intends as well that these two parts be applied in 
conjunction with a third proposed rule, also published simultaneously, 
governing the classification of bingo and pull tabs and distinguishing 
these Class II games played with technological aids from Class III 
facsimiles of games of chance. References in the proposed part 547 to 
``minimum internal control standards'' and ``classification standards'' 
refer to these two other sets of rules.

[[Page 60511]]

Regulatory Matters

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Indian tribes are not considered 
small entities for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    It is not entirely clear whether the proposed rule, considered 
separately and apart from the Commission's proposed part 546, 
``Classification Standards for Bingo * * * Using `Electronic, Computer, 
or Other Technologic Aids','' is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.2, the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The NIGC has 
commissioned an economic impact study of the two proposals taken 
together. The study makes clear that the cost to the Indian gaming 
industry of complying with the two proposed rules will have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, at least for the first 5 
years after adoption. Accordingly, the Commission treats the proposed 
rule as a major rule. The economic impact study is available for review 
at the Commission's Web site, https://www.nigc.gov, or by request using 
the addresses or telephone numbers, above.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency within the 
Department of the Interior, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act. 2 U.S.C. 658(1); 1502(1).

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has 
determined that this proposed rule does not have significant takings 
implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission's Office 
of General Counsel has determined that the proposed rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule requires information collection under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and is 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The title, 
description, and respondent categories are discussed below, together 
with an estimate of the annual information collection burden.
    With respect to the following collections of information, the 
Commission invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collections of 
information are necessary for proper performance of its functions, 
including whether the information would have practical utility; (2) the 
accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed 
collections of information, including the validity of the methodology 
and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize 
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 
the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other 
forms of information technology.
    Title: Process for Certification of Electronic, Computer, or other 
Technologic Aids used in the play of Class II games and process for 
qualification of independent testing laboratories, proposed 25 CFR 
547.4.
    Summary of information and description of need: This provision in 
the proposed rule establishes a process for ensuring that electronic, 
computer, or other technologic aids used with the play of Class II 
gaming systems have been reviewed and evaluated by a qualified, 
independent testing laboratory prior to their approval by a tribal 
gaming regulatory authority and their placement on the floor in a Class 
II tribal gaming operation. The process helps to ensure the proper 
functioning of the equipment and the integrity, fairness, and 
auditability of games played.
    The process requires a tribe's gaming regulatory authority to 
require that all Class II gaming systems, or modifications thereto, be 
submitted to a qualified, independent testing laboratory for review and 
analysis. That submission includes a working prototype of the game and 
aid, all pertinent software, and complete documentation and 
descriptions of all functions and components. In turn, the laboratory 
will determine that the gaming system does or does not meet the 
requirements of the rule and any additional requirements adopted by the 
tribe's gaming regulatory authority. The laboratory will provide a 
written report of its analysis and conclusions to the tribal gaming 
regulatory authority for its approval or disapproval of the gaming 
system or modification. The tribal gaming regulatory authority will 
retain the laboratory report as long as the gaming system or 
modification remains available to the public for play.
    This process is necessary to ensure the security and integrity of 
Class II gaming. Technical standards such as those in the proposed rule 
are a fundamental part of Class III gaming and of non-Indian casino 
gaming throughout North America. No uniform standards exist for Class 
II gaming, however. The implementation of such standards will assist 
tribal gaming regulators in ensuring that games are implemented fairly, 
that all technologic aids are secure and function properly, and that 
the games and aids allow the tribe and the operator to properly account 
for gaming revenue.
    This provision in the proposed rule also contemplates an analogous 
process for determining whether a Class II gaming system is eligible 
for the five-year grandfather period made available by the proposed 
rule. This process again requires a tribe's gaming regulatory authority 
to require that a Class II gaming system be submitted, within 120 days 
after the effective date of part 547, to a qualified, independent 
testing laboratory for review and analysis. The submission must include 
a working prototype of the game and aid, all pertinent software, and 
complete documentation and descriptions of all functions and 
components. In turn, the laboratory will determine that the gaming 
system does or does not meet a small set of certain specified 
requirements of the proposed rule. The laboratory will provide a 
written report of its analysis and conclusions to the tribal gaming 
regulatory authority for its finding that the gaming system is or is 
not eligible for grandfather status. Upon a finding of eligibility, the 
tribal gaming regulatory authority will issue a certificate to that 
effect to the gaming system manufacturer and a description of the 
grandfathered game to the Commission.
    This process is necessary to ensure a certain minimum integrity and 
security for games while at the same time avoiding potentially 
significant economic and practical consequences of requiring immediate 
and complete compliance with the standards of the proposed rule.
    Finally, the proposed rule establishes a process for testing 
laboratories to apply for eligibility to provide testing services under 
the proposed rule. The testing laboratories must submit to suitability 
determinations made by the tribes they serve, and these determinations 
include criminal background checks for the laboratories'

[[Page 60512]]

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 the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act. All of this requires the submission by the laboratory 
of corporate financial information; qualifications of the engineering 
staff; information (and inspections) of the available engineering 
facilities, and personal information for principals, including tax 
returns, bankruptcies and law suits, work histories and references.
    Given the essential role accorded to laboratories in ensuring the 
integrity, security, and auditability of Class II games, this process 
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 gaming.
    Respondents: The respondents are independent testing laboratories, 
developers and manufacturers of Class II gaming systems, and Indian 
tribes. The Commission estimates that there are currently 20 such 
manufacturers, 5 such laboratories, and 226 gaming tribes. The 
frequency of responses to the information collection requirement will 
vary.
    Information Collection Burden: In order to qualify under the 
grandfather provisions of the proposed 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 the final rule. The 
Commission estimates that there are approximately 25 Class II gaming 
systems in existence and that all will be submitted during this period.
    Following the initial 120-day period, the frequency of submissions 
of new gaming systems or of modifications to existing gaming systems 
will be entirely market driven. The Commission anticipates 
approximately a 20% turnover each year for the five-year grandfather 
period. Consequently, there should be approximately five submissions of 
new gaming systems each year.
    Submissions of modifications are, as a matter of course, a more 
common practice. Software in particular 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. That said, the 
submission of modifications tends to be sporadic, with less frequent or 
occasional submissions punctuated by fairly steady periods of 
submissions when new systems or modifications are introduced. The NIGC 
anticipates there will be approximately 300 submissions of 
modifications and thus 300 reports produced by testing laboratories 
each year following the 120-day period that begins with the effective 
date of the final rule.
    The preparation and submission of supporting documentation by 
manufacturers or a tribal gaming operation (as opposed to gaming system 
hardware and software per se) is an information collection burden under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, as is the preparation of reports by the 
test laboratories or the preparation of a grandfather certificate and 
explanation of gaming system by a tribal gaming regulatory authority.
    It is the existing practice in the gaming industry, both Indian and 
non-Indian alike, for the game manufacturer to submit a gaming system 
to a testing laboratory for review and analysis. The proposed rule 
leaves open the possibility that a tribal gaming regulatory authority 
may require the management of a gaming operation to make a required 
submission. The Commission anticipates, however, that it will be the 
responsibility of the gaming system manufacturers to make the 
submissions to testing laboratories.
    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. 
Submission for minor modifications of software or hardware that a 
manufacturer has already submitted and that a laboratory has previously 
examined will be a matter of little time both for manufacturer and 
laboratory, while the submission and review of an entirely new game 
platform will be time consuming. The provision of a grandfather 
certificate and a description of a gaming systems component are small 
matters as that information can be taken directly from a testing 
laboratory's report.
    The practice of submission and review set out in the proposed rule, 
however, 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.
    Accordingly, based upon the discussions with leading testing 
laboratories and with manufacturers for the Indian gaming and non-
Indian gaming markets, the NIGC estimates that gathering and preparing 
documentation for a submission of a single, complete gaming system will 
require, on average, 8 hours for manufacturer's employee. Following 
examination and analysis, NIGC estimates that writing a report for a 
complete gaming system will require, on average, 10 hours of a 
laboratory engineer's time. For the submission of modifications to a 
gaming system, NIGC estimates 4 hours for a manufacturer's employee. 
For the report on a modification, NIGC estimates 5 hours for a 
laboratory engineer.
    Thus, the information collection requirements will be a 200-hour 
burden on manufacturers industry-wide during the first 120 days after 
the final rule becomes effective and a 1200-hour burden industry-wide 
thereafter. The information collection requirements will be a 250-hour 
burden on laboratories for the grandfather submissions made during the 
first 120 days and a 1500-hour burden thereafter.
    Next, the Commission anticipates that tribal gaming regulatory 
authorities will issue grandfather certificates to manufacturers and 
send a description of grandfathered systems to the Commission for all 
of the approximately 25 existing gaming systems. The preparation of 
these certificates and descriptions will be a small matter as all of 
the necessary information is contained in the testing laboratory 
reports and will take no more than 0.5 hours to prepare.
    Finally, the proposed rule requires tribal gaming regulatory 
authorities 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 tribal gaming regulatory authorities, the Commission estimates 
that 0.1 hours per report will be dedicated to these tasks.
    The following table summarizes the annual hour burden:

[[Page 60513]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Collections,
                                                      No. of       Collections,      Hours per       Total        day 121        Hours per       Total
        Provision               Respondents         respondents    1st 120 days     collection      annual     forward, per      collection      annual
                                                                                                     hours         annum                         hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 CFR 547.4.............  Laboratories.........               5              25              10       250               300              5         1500
25 CFR 547.4.............  Manufacturers........              20              25               8       200               300              4         1200
25 CFR 547.4.............  Tribal Gaming                     226               0               0         0                 0              0            0
                            Operations.
25 CFR...................  Tribal Gaming                     226              25              .5        12.5             300              0.1         30
                            regulatory
                            Authorities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule also requires a determination of suitability for 
each of the approximately 5 testing laboratories. The information 
required can be substantial: Corporate financial information; 
qualifications of the engineering staff; information (and inspections) 
of the engineering facilities available, and personal information for 
principals, including tax returns, bankruptcies and lawsuits, work 
histories and references.
    However, the 5 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. The 
Commission estimates that the re-submission of such information would 
take the necessary laboratory employees 20 hours to accomplish once. As 
the gaming tribes typically use only one gaming laboratory, the 
submission of suitability determinations to 226 tribal gaming 
regulatory authorities would total 4,520 hours.
    The Commission believes, however, that the hour burden is not 
likely to be this high. The proposed rule permits a tribal gaming 
regulatory authority to rely upon a suitability determination already 
made by another gaming jurisdiction in the United States, rather than 
require a new suitability determination for a testing laboratory. The 
existing testing laboratories are already licensed in numerous 
jurisdictions throughout the United States, and the Commission believes 
that approximately 90%--203 of 226--of the tribal gaming authorities 
will 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 0.5 hours to accomplish once. As each of the 
gaming tribes typically uses only one gaming laboratory, the submission 
of suitability determinations of up to 203 tribal gaming authorities 
would total 101.5 hours. For the remaining 10% or 23 tribal gaming 
regulatory authorities, the submission burden on laboratories is 20 
hours per tribe or 460 hours. If every tribe requires annual re-
licensing, the subsequent annual hours burden on the 5 laboratories is 
561.5 hours.
    Comments: Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3507(d), the Commission has submitted a copy of this proposed rule to 
OMB for its review and approval of this information collection. 
Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding the burden, 
estimates, or any other aspect of the information collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden (1) directly to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for 
National Indian Gaming Commission, 725 17th St., NW., Washington DC, 
20503, and (2) to Michael Gross, Associate General Counsel, General 
Law, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Washington 
DC 20005.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Commission has determined that this proposed rule does not 
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et. seq).

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 547

    Gambling, Indian-lands, Indian-tribal government, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission proposes 
to amend 25 CFR Chapter III by adding part 547 to read as follows:

PART 547--MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR GAMING EQUIPMENT USED 
WITH THE PLAY OF CLASS II GAMES.

Sec.
547.1 What is the purpose of this part?
547.2 How do these regulations affect State jurisdiction?
547.3 What are the definitions for this part?
547.4 How do I comply with this part?
547.5 What are the rules of interpretation and of general 
application for this part?
547.6 What are the minimum technical standards for enrolling and 
enabling Class II gaming system components?
547.7 What are the minimum technical hardware standards applicable 
to Class II gaming systems?
547.8 What are the minimum technical software standards applicable 
to Class II gaming systems?
547.9 What are the minimum technical standards for Class II gaming 
system accounting functions?
547.10 What are the minimum standards for Class II gaming system 
critical events?
547.11 What are the minimum technical standards for money and credit 
handling?
547.12 What are the minimum technical standards for downloading on a 
Class II gaming system?
547.13 What are the minimum technical standards for program storage 
media?
547.14 What are the minimum technical standards for electronic 
random number generation?
547.15 What are the minimum technical standards for electronic data 
communications between system components?
547.16 What are the minimum standards for game artwork, glass, and 
rules?
547.17 How does a gaming operation apply for a variance from these 
standards?

    Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706(b).


Sec.  547.1  What is the purpose of this part?

    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(A)(i), permits 
the use of electronic, computer, or other technologic aids in 
connection with the play of Class II games. This part establishes the 
minimum technical standards governing the use of such aids.

[[Page 60514]]

Sec.  547.2  How do these regulations affect State jurisdiction?

    Nothing in this part shall be construed to grant to a State 
jurisdiction in Class II gaming or to extend a State's jurisdiction in 
Class III gaming.


Sec.  547.3  What are the definitions for this part?

    For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
    Account Access Component, a component within a Class II gaming 
system that reads or recognizes account access media and gives a patron 
the ability to interact with their account.
    Account Access Medium, a magnetic stripe card or any other medium 
inserted into, or otherwise made to interact with, an account access 
component in order to give a patron the ability to interact with an 
account.
    Audit Mode, the mode where it is possible to view Class II gaming 
system accounting functions, statistics, etc. and perform non-player 
related functions.
    Agent, an employee or other person authorized by the gaming 
operation, as approved and licensed by the tribal gaming regulatory 
authority, designated for certain decisions, tasks and actions in the 
gaming operation.
    Cancel Credit, an action initiated by the Class II gaming system 
where some or all of a player's credits are removed by an attendant and 
paid to the player.
    Cashless System, a system that performs cashless transactions and 
maintains records of those cashless transactions.
    Cashless Transaction, a movement of funds electronically from one 
component to another, often to or from a patron deposit account.
    CD-ROM, Compact Disc--Read Only Memory.
    Chairman, the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission 
established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.
    Class II Game, the same as ``class II gaming'' in 25 U.S.C. 
2703(7)(A).
    Class II Gaming System, all components, whether or not technologic 
aids in electronic, computer, mechanical, or other technologic form, 
that function together to aid the play of one or more Class II games, 
including accounting functions mandated by these regulations.
    Commission, the National Indian Gaming Commission.
    Coupon, a financial instrument of fixed wagering value, usually 
paper, that can only be used to acquire non-cashable credits through 
interaction with a voucher system. This does not include instruments 
such as printed advertising material that cannot be validated directly 
by a voucher system.
    Critical Memory, memory locations storing data essential to the 
functionality of the Class II gaming system.
    DLL, a Dynamic-Link Library file.
    Download Package, approved data sent to a component of a Class II 
gaming system for such purposes as changing the component software.
    DVD, Digital Video Disk or Digital Versatile Disk.
    Electromagnetic Interference, the physical characteristic of an 
electronic component to emit electronic noise either into free air, 
onto the power lines, or onto communication cables.
    Electrostatic Discharge, a single-event, rapid transfer of 
electrostatic charge between two objects, usually resulting when two 
objects at different potentials come into direct contact with each 
other.
    EPROM, Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory--a storage area that 
may be filled with data and information, that once written is not 
modifiable, and that is retained even if there is no power applied to 
the machine.
    Fault, an event that when detected by a Class II gaming system 
causes a discontinuance of game play or other component functions.
    Financial Instrument, any tangible item of value tendered in Class 
II game play, including, but not limited to, bills, coins, vouchers and 
coupons.
    Financial Instrument Acceptor, any component that accepts financial 
instruments.
    Financial Instrument Dispenser, any component that dispenses 
financial instruments.
    Financial Instrument Storage Component, any component that stores 
financial instruments.
    Flash Memory, non-volatile memory that retains its data when the 
power is turned off and that can be electronically erased and 
reprogrammed without being removed from the circuit board.
    Game Software, the operational program or programs that govern the 
play, display of results, and/or awarding of prizes or credits for 
Class II games.
    Gaming Equipment, all electronic, electro-mechanical, mechanical, 
or other physical components utilized in the play of Class II games.
    Hardware, gaming equipment.
    Interruption, any form of mis-operation, component failure, or 
interference to the Class II gaming equipment.
    Modification, a revision to any hardware or software used in a 
Class II gaming system.
    Non-cashable credit, credits given by an operator to a patron; 
placed on a Class II gaming system through a coupon, cashless 
transaction or other approved means; and capable of activating play but 
not being converted to cash.
    Patron Deposit Account, an account maintained on behalf of a 
patron, for the purpose of depositing and withdrawing cashable funds 
for the primary purpose of interacting with a gaming activity.
    Player Interface, any component or components of a Class II gaming 
system, including an electronic or technologic aid (not limited to 
terminals, player stations, handhelds, fixed units, etc.), that 
directly enables player interaction in a Class II game.
    Prize Schedule, the set of prizes available to players for 
achieving pre-designated patterns in the Class II game.
    Program Storage Media, an electronic data storage component, such 
as a CD-ROM. EPROM, hard disk, or flash memory on which software is 
stored and from which software is read.
    Progressive Prize, a prize that increases by a selectable or 
predefined amount based on play of a Class II game.
    Random Number Generator (RNG), a software module, hardware 
component or combination of these designed to produce outputs that are 
effectively random.
    Reflexive Software, any software that has the ability to manipulate 
and/or replace a randomly generated outcome for the purpose of changing 
the results of a Class II game.
    Removable/Rewritable storage media, program or data storage 
components that can be removed from gaming equipment and be written to, 
or rewritten by, the gaming equipment or by other equipment designed 
for that purpose.
    Server, a computer which controls one or more applications or 
environments within a Class II gaming system.
    Test/Diagnostics Mode, a mode on a component that allows various 
tests to be performed on the Class II gaming system hardware and 
software.
    Testing Laboratory, an organization recognized by a tribal gaming 
regulatory authority pursuant to Sec.  547.4(f).
    Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority, the entity authorized by tribal 
law to regulate gaming conducted pursuant to the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act.
    Voucher, a financial instrument of fixed wagering value, usually 
paper, that can only be used to acquire an equivalent value of cashable 
credits or cash through interaction with a voucher system.
    Voucher System, a component of the Class II gaming system or an 
external system that securely maintains records of vouchers and 
coupons; validates

[[Page 60515]]

payment of vouchers; records successful or failed payments of vouchers 
and coupons; and controls the purging of expired vouchers and coupons.


Sec.  547.4  How do I comply with this part?

    (a) Limited immediate compliance. By 120 days after the effective 
date of this part, a tribal gaming regulatory authority shall:
    (1) Require that all Class II gaming system software that affects 
the play of the Class II game be submitted, together with the signature 
verification required by Sec.  547.8(f), to a testing laboratory 
recognized pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section;
    (2) Require that the testing laboratory test the submission to the 
standards established by Sec.  547.8(b), Sec.  547.14, the minimum 
probability standards of Sec.  547.5(c), and to any additional 
standards adopted by the tribal gaming regulatory authority;
    (3) Require that the testing laboratory provide the tribal gaming 
regulatory authority with a formal written report setting forth and 
certifying to the findings and conclusions of the test;
    (4) Make a finding, in the form of a certificate provided to the 
supplier, that the Class II gaming system qualifies for grandfather 
status under the provisions of this section, but only upon receipt of a 
testing laboratory's report that the Class II gaming system is 
compliant with Sec.  547.8(b), Sec.  547.8(f), the minimum probability 
standards of Sec.  547.5(c), Sec.  547.14, and any other standards 
adopted by the tribal gaming regulatory authority. If the tribal gaming 
regulatory authority does not issue the certificate, or if the testing 
laboratory finds that the Class II gaming system is not compliant with 
Sec.  547.8(b), Sec.  547.8(f), the minimum probability standards of 
Sec.  547.5(c), Sec.  547.14, or any other standards adopted by the 
tribal gaming regulatory authority, then the gaming system shall 
immediately be removed from play and not be utilized.
    (5) Retain a copy of any testing laboratory's report so long as the 
Class II gaming system that is the subject of the report remains 
available to the public for play;
    (6) Retain a copy of any certificate of grandfather status so long 
as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the certificate 
remains available to the public for play; and
    (7) Require the supplier of any player interface to designate with 
a permanently affixed label each player interface with an identifying 
number and the date of manufacture or a statement that the date of 
manufacture was on or before the effective date of this part. The 
tribal gaming regulatory authority shall also require the supplier to 
provide a written declaration or affidavit affirming that the date of 
manufacture was on or before the effective date of this part.
    (b) Grandfather provisions. All Class II gaming systems 
manufactured or placed in a tribal facility on or before the effective 
date of this part and certified pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 
section are grandfathered Class II gaming systems for which the 
following provisions apply:
    (1) Grandfathered Class II gaming systems may continue in operation 
for a period of five years from the effective date of this part.
    (2) Subject to the limitations in any applicable Commission 
regulations governing the classification of games, any grandfathered 
Class II gaming system shall be available for use at any tribal gaming 
facility subject to approval by the tribal gaming regulatory authority 
which shall transmit its notice of that approval, identifying the 
grandfathered components, to the NIGC.
    (3) As permitted by the tribal gaming regulatory authority, 
individual hardware or software components may be repaired or replaced 
to ensure proper functioning, security, or integrity of the 
grandfathered Class II gaming system.
    (4) All modifications that affect the play of a grandfathered Class 
II gaming system must be approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this 
section, except for the following:
    (i) Any software modifications that the tribal gaming regulatory 
authority finds will maintain or advance the system's overall 
compliance with this part or applicable provisions of Commission 
regulations governing minimum internal control standards, after 
receiving a new testing laboratory report that the modifications are 
compliant with the standards established by Sec.  547.8(b), the minimum 
probability requirements of Sec.  547.5(c), Sec.  547.14, and any other 
standards adopted by the tribal gaming regulatory authority;
    (ii) Any hardware modifications that the tribal gaming regulatory 
authority finds will maintain or advance the system's overall 
compliance with this part or applicable provisions of Commission 
regulations governing minimum internal control standards; and
    (iii) Any other modification to the software of a grandfathered 
Class II gaming system that the tribal gaming regulatory authority 
finds will not detract from, compromise or prejudice:
    (A) The proper functioning, security, or integrity of the Class II 
gaming system, and
    (B) The gaming system's overall compliance with the requirements of 
this part or applicable provisions of Commission regulations governing 
minimum internal control standards.
    (iv) No such modification may be implemented without the approval 
of the tribal gaming regulatory authority. The tribal gaming regulatory 
authority shall maintain a record of the modification so long as the 
Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification remains 
available to the public for play and shall make the record available to 
the Commission upon request. The Commission will only make available 
for public review records or portions of records subject to release 
under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 
1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 
2716(a).
    (c) Submission, testing, and approval--generally. Except as 
provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, no tribal gaming 
regulatory authority shall permit in a tribal gaming operation the use 
of any Class II gaming system, or any associated cashless system or 
voucher system or any modification thereto, unless:
    (1) The Class II gaming system, cashless system, voucher payment 
system, or modification has been submitted to a testing laboratory;
    (2) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards 
established by:
    (i) This part;
    (ii) Applicable provisions of Commission regulations governing the 
classification of games and minimum internal controls; and
    (iii) The tribal gaming regulatory authority; and the testing 
laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the 
submission, setting forth and certifying to its findings and 
conclusions; and
    (3) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the 
tribal gaming regulatory authority makes a finding that the Class II 
gaming system, cashless system, or voucher system conforms to the 
standards established by:
    (i) This part;
    (ii) Applicable provisions of Commission regulations governing the 
classification of games and minimum internal controls; and
    (iii) The tribal gaming regulatory authority.
    The tribal gaming regulatory authority shall retain a copy of the 
testing laboratory's report so long as the Class II gaming system, 
cashless system, voucher system, or modification thereto that is the 
subject of the report remains

[[Page 60516]]

available to the public for play in its gaming operation.
    (d) Emergency hardware and software changes. (1) A tribal gaming 
regulatory authority, in its discretion, may permit modified hardware 
or game software to be made available for play without prior laboratory 
review if the modified hardware or game software is:
    (i) Necessary to correct a problem affecting the fairness, 
security, or integrity of a game or accounting system or any cashless 
system, or voucher system; or
    (ii) Unrelated to game play, an accounting system, a cashless 
system, or a voucher system.
    (2) If a tribal gaming regulatory authority authorizes modified 
game software or hardware to be made available for play or use without 
prior laboratory review, the tribal gaming regulatory authority shall 
thereafter require the hardware or software manufacturer to:
    (i) Immediately advise other users of the same hardware or software 
of the importance and availability of the update;
    (ii) Immediately submit the new hardware or software to a testing 
laboratory for testing and verification of compliance with this part 
and any applicable provisions of Commission regulations governing 
minimum internal control standards; and
    (iii) Immediately provide the tribal gaming regulatory authority 
with a software signature verification tool meeting the requirements of 
Sec.  547.8(f) for any new software.
    (3) If a tribal gaming regulatory authority authorizes software or 
hardware modification under this paragraph, it shall maintain a record 
of the modification and a copy of the testing laboratory report so long 
as the Class II gaming system that is the subject of the modification 
remains available to the public for play and shall make the record 
available to the Commission upon request. The Commission will only make 
available for public review records or portions of records subject to 
release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy 
Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 
U.S.C. 2716(a).
    (e) Compliance by charitable gaming operations. This part shall not 
apply to charitable gaming operations, provided that:
    (1) The tribal government determines that the organization 
sponsoring the gaming operation is a charitable organization;
    (2) All proceeds of the charitable gaming operation are for the 
benefit of the charitable organization;
    (3) The tribal gaming regulatory authority permits the charitable 
organization to be exempt from this part;
    (4) The charitable gaming operation is operated wholly by the 
charitable organization's employees or volunteers; and
    (5) The annual gross gaming revenue of the charitable gaming 
operation does not exceed $1,000,000.
    (f) Testing laboratories. (1) A testing laboratory may provide the 
examination, testing, evaluating and reporting functions required by 
this section provided that:
    (i) The testing laboratory demonstrates its integrity, independence 
and financial stability to the tribal gaming regulatory authority.
    (ii) The testing laboratory demonstrates its technical skill and 
capability to the tribal gaming regulatory authority.
    (iii) The testing laboratory is not owned or operated by the tribe 
or tribal gaming regulatory authority.
    (iv) The tribal gaming regulatory authority:
    (A) Makes a suitability determination of the testing laboratories 
no less stringent than that required by Sec.  533.6(b)(1)(ii) through 
(v) and 533.6(c) of this chapter and based upon no less information 
than that required by Sec.  537.1 of this chapter, or
    (B) Accepts, in its discretion, a determination of suitability for 
the testing laboratory made by any other gaming regulatory jurisdiction 
in the United States.
    (v) After reviewing the suitability determination and the 
information provided by the testing laboratory, the tribal gaming 
regulatory authority determines that the testing laboratory is 
qualified to test and evaluate Class II gaming systems.
    (2) The tribal gaming regulatory authority shall:
    (i) Maintain a record of all determinations made pursuant to 
paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) and (f)(1)(v) of this section for a minimum of 
three years and shall make the records available to the Commission upon 
request. The Commission will only make available for public review 
records or portions of records subject to release under the Freedom of 
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; 
or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2716(a).
    (ii) Place the testing laboratory under a continuing obligation to 
notify it of any adverse regulatory action in any jurisdiction where 
the testing laboratory conducts business.
    (iii) Require the testing laboratory to provide notice of any 
material changes to the information provided to the tribal gaming 
regulatory authority.


Sec.  547.5  What are the rules of interpretation and of general 
application for this part?

    (a) Minimum standards. A tribal gaming regulatory authority may 
establish and implement additional technical standards that are as 
stringent as, or more stringent than, those set out in this part.
    (b) Only applicable standards apply. Gaming equipment and software 
used with Class II gaming systems shall meet all applicable 
requirements of this part and applicable requirements of Commission 
regulations governing the classification of games and minimum internal 
controls. For example, if a Class II gaming system lacks the ability to 
print or accept vouchers, then any standards that govern vouchers do 
not apply.
    (c) Fairness. No Class II gaming system shall cheat, mislead, or 
disadvantage users. All prizes advertised shall be available to win. No 
progressive prize shall have a probability of winning of less than 1 in 
50,000,000. No other prize shall have a probability of winning of less 
than 1 in 25,000,000.
    (d) Approved equipment and software only. All gaming equipment and 
software used with Class II gaming systems shall be identical in all 
respects to a prototype reviewed and tested by a testing laboratory and 
approved for use by the tribal gaming regulatory authority pursuant to 
Sec.  547.4(a) through (c). Unapproved software shall not be loaded 
onto or stored on any program storage medium used in a Class II gaming 
system, except as provided in Sec.  547.4(d).
    (e) Proper functioning. All gaming equipment and software used with 
Class II gaming systems shall perform according to the manufacturer's 
design and operating specifications.
    (f) No Limitation of Technology. This part should not be 
interpreted to limit the use of technology or to preclude the use of 
technology not specifically referenced.
    (g) Severability. If any provision of this part is declared invalid 
by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect 
the remainder of this part.

[[Page 60517]]

Sec.  547.6  What are the minimum technical standards for enrolling and 
enabling Class II gaming system components?

    (a) General requirements. Class II gaming systems shall provide a 
method to:
    (1) Enroll and unenroll system components;
    (2) Enable and disable specific system components.
    (b) Specific requirements. Class II gaming systems shall:
    (1) Ensure that only enrolled and enabled system components 
participate in gaming; and
    (2) Ensure that the default condition for components shall be 
unenrolled and disabled.


Sec.  547.7  What are the minimum technical hardware standards 
applicable to Class II gaming systems?

    (a) General requirements. (1) The Class II gaming system shall 
operate in compliance with applicable regulations of the Federal 
Communications Commissi