Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Part 543 addresses minimum internal control standards (MICS) for Class II gaming operations. The regulations require tribes establish controls and implement procedures at least as stringent as those described in this part to maintain the integrity of the gaming operation and minimize the risk of theft.
The Commission recognized from their inception that the MICS would require periodic review and updates to keep pace with technology, and has amended them three times since: June 27, 2002 (67 FR 43390), August 12, 2005 (70 FR 47108), and October 10, 2008 (73 FR 60498). In addition to making updates to account for advances in technology, the 2008 MICS also included part 543 and began the process of relocating all Class II controls into that part. The MICS do not classify games as Class II or Class III; rather, they provide minimum controls for gaming that is assumed to be Class II.
On November 18, 2010, the NIGC issued a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Consultation advising the public that the NIGC endeavored to conduct a comprehensive review of its regulations and requesting public comment on which were most in need of revision, in what order the Commission should review its regulations, and the process NIGC should utilize to make revisions. 75 FR 70680. On April 4, 2011, after consulting with tribes and reviewing all comments, the NIGC published a Notice of Regulatory Review Schedule (NRR) setting out a consultation schedule and process for review. 76 FR 18457. The Commission's regulatory review process established a tribal consultation schedule with a description of the regulation groups to be covered at each consultation. Part 543 was included in this regulatory review.
The Commission consulted with tribes as part of its review of part 543. In response to comments received, the Commission appointed a Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) to review and recommend changes to part 543. The TAC submitted its recommendations for part 543 on February 14, 2012.
The Commission developed a preliminary discussion draft based upon recommendations from current and previous TACs, NIGC staff and subject matter experts. The Commission published the preliminary draft on its Web site on March 16, 2012, and requested that all comments from the public be provided to the Agency by April 27, 2012. The Commission held two consultations on the preliminary draft and received numerous written comments.
After reviewing comments and making revisions, the Commission published a Proposed Rule on June 1, 2012 (77 FR 32444). The Commission held several consultations. At the request of commenters, the Commission published a notice on July 24, 2012, extending the comment period to August 15, 2012 (77 FR 43196).
Commenters generally stated that the rule is an improvement over the current MICS. Some commenters noted that these regulations provide tribes with more flexibility than the existing MICS or the 2010 proposal, but many stated that part 543 should be drafted to provide even more flexibility to tribal regulators and gaming operations. Commenters suggested removing the procedural requirements and measuring compliance by the extent to which tribes have successfully achieved a regulatory standard, rather than the extent to which tribes have followed step-by-step procedures in the MICS. The Commission declines to take this approach and believes the standards set forth in this part are both appropriate and sufficiently detailed to be implemented by tribes.
Commenters noted several provisions in the MICS—notably in the Bingo and Information Technology sections—that they argued either surpassed the requirements of 547 or would be more appropriately placed there. Necessarily, there is substantial interplay between the Technical Standards in part 547 and the MICS of this part, and many standards could arguably be placed in either. The Commission reviewed each of these comments and determined that the standards to which the commenters refer are best categorized as control standards and declines to move them to Part 547. Further, where a standard may unintentionally require older devices to produce a report that it is not capable of producing (bingo card sales tracking or kiosk reports, for example), the Commission has revised the standard to allow an exemption for the devices, so long as their limitations are noted.
Similarly, commenters suggested that provisions for vouchers and cash and cash equivalents should be relocated from individual sections to § 543.18 (Cage, vault, etc.). The Commission declines to relocate those provisions because the controls are specific to the section in which they appear. The exception is the vouchers subsection of
Additionally, two commenters provided extensive comments in red-line format. The Commission has reviewed those comments, and, to the extent those comments identified inconsistent language, noted grammatical errors, or suggested stylistic changes, the Commission has made changes where appropriate. One of the changes suggested in the red-line comments was to delete “authorized” where it modified “agent” because agents are necessarily authorized. The Commission understands that point, but stresses that, where the MICS require an “authorized agent”, the term refers to an agent specifically authorized for the particular department or function. The red-line comments also noted that variance thresholds are more appropriately determined by the gaming operation and approved by the TGRA. The Commission agrees and has revised the rule accordingly.
Based on comments, the Commission added definitions for the following: cashless transaction, complimentary services or items, coupon, financial instrument storage component, voucher, and voucher system.
Commenters also suggested that the terms kiosk, sufficient clarity, and surveillance system be revised to avoid limiting technology. Accordingly, the Commission redefined kiosk to be a device capable of performing one of two core functions. Kiosks may perform additional functions beyond those in the definition, but only the devices that are able to perform those core functions are subject to the kiosk controls. “Sufficient clarity” was revised to allow for an equivalent to the 20 frames per second recording speed. The Commission declines, however, to revise the definition of surveillance system in response to commenters who suggested that the specified equipment, specifically “video” cameras may limit technology. Video cameras are not limited to tape formats and may be digital. The Commission also revised the definition of the TICS to provide a more complete definition.
Commenters also suggested that the definition of “Gaming promotion” should be limited to promotions requiring Class II game play as a condition of eligibility. The Commission declines to limit the definition, believing that NIGC's authority is already sufficiently described by the title of the part (Class II MICS). Promotions offered solely to Class III gaming participants are not covered by this part or the gaming promotion definition, in particular. However, where eligibility may be secured by playing either Class II
Finally, the Commission notes that commenters requested language requiring the implementation of procedures “to prevent unauthorized access, misappropriation, forgery, theft, or fraud.” Rather than repeat the language, the Commission added it to the definition of SICS so that it applies to all implementing procedures. Consequently, the Commission removed the language from individual provisions where it appeared.
Commenters suggested adding five interpretive provisions to § 543.3. First, commenters requested a provision stating that nothing in this part is intended to limit technology. The Commission agrees that nothing in this part is intended to limit technology, but believes such a provision is properly located in the technical standards rather than control standards. Although the Commission declines to add a general statement that nothing in this part is intended to limit technology, it reviewed and made appropriate changes regarding all comments that specifically noted possible limitations. Similarly, several commenters requested that the Commission expand computer applications in § 543.3(e) to include other technologies. The Commission declines, but clarifies that computer applications include software regardless of whether it is commonly regarded as a “computer application”.
Second, commenters recommended that the Commission include a section specifying that only applicable control standards apply. The Commission addressed this concern by changing § 543.3(b) to require TGRAs to ensure that “TICS are established and implemented that provide a level of control that equals or exceeds
Third, some commenters advocated for the inclusion of a severability clause to ensure that, should a court conclude that any part of this regulation is invalid, such invalidity will not affect the rest of the part. The Commission also addressed this concern in the previous preamble, stating that severability clauses are not conclusive of an agency's intent (
Fourth, many commenters requested the inclusion of a provision recognizing that tribes are the primary regulatory authority for Class II gaming. The Commission declines to insert the requested language into the regulation. The Commission agrees that tribes are the primary regulators of Indian gaming, but has never understood that to mean that the regulatory authority of a TGRA is superior to that of the NIGC. Rather, the Commission recognizes that TGRAs are the day-to-day regulators of Indian gaming and the first line of oversight at every facility. Although the findings section of IGRA states that tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands, IGRA also establishes a regulatory scheme that includes the NIGC as well as tribes.
Fifth, several commenters requested a provision stating that the regulations are not intended to require a particular organizational structure. The Commission declines to add the provision because it could be read too broadly, but clarifies that the terms “supervisor” or “manager”, as they are used within the MICS, reference the agent's authority level, not the agent's job title.
In addition to the five requested interpretative provisions, commenters also questioned the Commission's authority to require a System of Internal Controls (SICS) and the standard by which the Commission will judge deficiencies in the SICS. In response,
Commenters requested clarification that the charitable gaming operations described in § 543.4 are not limited to those with a 501(c)(3) designation. The Commission agrees that it does not intend to limit the definition of charitable organizations to those with a 501(c)(3) designation. For purposes of the MICS, an organization is charitable if the regulating tribe recognizes it as such.
Further, the Commission reviewed the exception for charitable operations. Rather than cause unnecessary confusion by removing it, the Commission has left the charitable gaming exception in place, despite any redundancy it may have with the small gaming operation exception.
The Commission received several comments at consultations asking for clarification of the process. Provisions were added to clarify that operations may implement an alternate standard once it has been approved by the TGRA, that operations may continue to implement the standard upon approval from the Chair, and that operations must revert to the relevant MICS if the Chair objects to the standard.
Commenters generally supported the Commission's consolidation of manual and Class II gaming system bingo into a single Bingo section, but many of the other comments on this section were very specific.
In response to comments requesting that § 543.8(d)(1) be limited to “physical” objects, the Commission made the change, but also re-ordered the subsection to eliminate redundancy and better clarify which controls apply to physical objects.
Commenters objected to the installation testing requirements, suggesting that all testing standards should be included in part 547. The Commission disagrees and emphasizes that—contrary to technical standards, which test the system itself—installation testing standards are meant to ensure that components have been properly connected to associated equipment and are functioning as intended.
Commenters also objected to the removal, retirement and/or destruction standards, explaining that these details are often spelled out in their lease agreements. The Commission understands that tribes may not have control over the disposition of machines and software, and points out that the MICS do not require specific procedures, only that they address certain areas.
Many expressed confusion resulting from a missing line break between § 543.8(g)(8) Dispute resolution and (h) Operations. Dispute resolution is the final of eight areas for which procedures must be developed relating to the use of technological aids in bingo. “Operations” begins a new subsection.
Finally, some also questioned clarification for the term “other associated meter information” as it appears in Class II gaming system sales. This refers to meter information that reflects anomalies such as malfunctions.
As a result of a number of comments that questioned the usefulness of analyzing pull tab statistical records before the deal is finished, the Commission eliminated requirements for conducting a statistical review at regular intervals. The Commission agrees that statistical analysis is useful for pull tabs only when the deal is finished or has been removed from play.
Regarding card room supervision, one commenter expressed concern that allowing a supervisor to function as a dealer without other supervision could result in inadequate supervision. The Commission specifically requested additional comments regarding that issue and received no additional comments. Therefore, the Commission declines to revise the provision, but notes that it is an area where TGRAs may wish to issue more stringent controls.
Some comments suggested that it is unheard of in the industry to require supervisory authorization for every exchange or transfer from a card table. These comments do not take into account the second half of the provision, which does not require supervisory authorization for banks maintained at an imprest level. Because nearly all card room banks are maintained at an imprest level, exchanges requiring supervisory authorization are very rare.
Many commenters objected to the gaming promotion and player tracking standards, arguing that the Commission should defer to TGRAs to establish standards, and that the NIGC lacks authority to regulate these areas. The Commission agrees that TGRAs should establish standards, which is precisely the reason the standards do not detail requirements, and instead provide a general outline of areas that must be addressed and displayed to patrons. The Commission disagrees with commenters regarding its authority. Gaming promotions, as defined in the rule, require game play as a condition of eligibility. For example, the promotions standards are not applicable to the type of promotion in which a patron drops a free card into a tumbler drawing. This rule applies to promotions that are directly related to gaming activity and are, therefore, within the scope of the Commission's authority to establish Class II MICS. Further, although player tracking systems may be useful for gathering other customer data, their primary purpose is to track game play and issue rewards based upon that play. Because the player tracking and gaming promotions in this rule require game play to become eligible for rewards, the Commission concludes that they relate to gaming activities and are within the scope of its authority.
Commenters also questioned the inclusion of promotions, patron accounts, coupons and vouchers in the player tracking subsection because they are all controlled in separate sections. The Commission revised the heading to include both player tracking and promotions, but also points out that there are no coupon or voucher controls in this section. The standard requires that changes to the “player tracking systems * * * which control external bonusing system parameters such as the * * * issuance of * * * coupons or vouchers * * * must be performed under the authority of a supervisory agent * * *.” (§ 543.12(d)).
Finally, commenters requested clarification of the use of “tracking” in the complimentary services and items section. The Commission agrees that the term caused confusion and revised the standard to require “documenting and recording the authorization, issuance, and
As a result of comments, the Commission added a provision specifically allowing for a Personal
Many commented generally that the section is too procedural and it should be one streamlined standard instead of separated by game. The Commission agrees this section is more procedural than others, but drop is a process that differs by game and count is necessarily detailed.
Some comments suggested using one term for both financial instrument storage components and drop boxes. Although they serve the same purpose, financial instrument storage components are an industry term specific to player interfaces, while drop boxes are specific to card tables. Applying either of the terms universally could create confusion. The Commission revised the card game drop and player interface drop standards in response to comments suggesting that the two should mirror each other where they address the same control (notifying surveillance of the drop, for example).
The Commission also agrees with comments suggesting that a cage/vault agent should be allowed to be on the count team if they are not the sole recorder of the count and do not participate in the transfer of drop proceeds to the cage/vault. The Commission declines to revise the provisions requiring supervisory participation because it is a necessary control.
The Commission accepted numerous suggestions in this section. Most notably, the Commission revised the kiosk section to require a series of reconciliation reports be available on demand. If the system is not capable of producing a report(s), the limitation must be documented. Commenters stated that the physical and logical controls from the kiosk subsection are already addressed in the information technology section, but the Commission does not agree that the redundancy is clear and declines to remove them.
The Commission agrees with a suggestion to eliminate the $100 minimum threshold for requiring specific documentation on cage increases or decreases. Specific documentation is now required for all increases or decreases to cage inventory.
Finally, the Commission accepted a suggestion to raise the threshold from $100 to $600 for specifically documenting card game promotional payouts.
Some commenters were concerned that the requirement to secure communications from Network Communication Equipment, or to secure some of the more portable equipment, such as cell phones, may be an impossible standard. The Commission clarifies that, where endpoints of communication are controlled by an entity other than a tribe, an attestation by the third party confirming the security of the communications is sufficient. Further, a procedure ensuring that highly portable Network Communication Equipment, such as tablets and cell phones, are distributed only to appropriate persons will satisfy the standard for that equipment.
Commenters also requested a provision requiring operations to consult with a manufacturer before disabling ports suspected of being unused. While consulting with manufacturers regarding services and ports may be worthwhile, it is more appropriately included as a suggestion in future guidance documents.
Finally, commenters suggested deleting the annual requirement for testing recovery procedures. The Commission disagrees, and notes that removing the phrase would not change the standard, because an independent auditor conducts yearly reviews to determine whether each requirement has been met.
Several commenters questioned the need for surveillance of all jackpot meters. The Commission agrees and has limited the standard to progressive prize meters exceeding specified thresholds. The Commission believes this revision more adequately reflects the risks addressed by the standard.
One commenter expressed concern that the one-year retention period for surveillance footage of suspected crimes, suspicious activity, and security detentions is arbitrary. The Commission invited further comment on this concern. After clarifying that digital copies of surveillance are acceptable forms of retention, the Commission received no further comment and declines to revise the standard. The Commission emphasizes, however, that it intentionally declined to provide a definition of suspicious activity and believes that TGRAs are in the best position to define the term for their operations.
Many commenters requested that the Commission limit the instances of noncompliance requiring action or reporting to “material” instances. The Commission disagrees. Although most instances of noncompliance would not be deemed material, they may pose a significant risk, individually or collectively, to the gaming operation and must, therefore, be reported and corrected as required in this part.
The Commission accepts commenters' request to clarify that independent accountants may, but are not required to, create journal entries.
The Commission accepted several comments for § 543.24. It agreed that the title “Revenue Audit” may be misleading for operations who have departments by that name. As clarification, the Commission has retitled § 543.24 “Auditing Revenue”. It also agreed that once per quarter may not be a frequent enough interval for review of player tracking systems. One comment suggested weekly review, but the Commission determined that monthly is a more appropriate minimum interval. Additionally, the Commission understands commenters' concerns with the list of entities required to be provided with a report detailing complimentary services and items and has revised it to include entities authorized by the TGRA or by tribal law or ordinance.
Finally, the Commission reviewed the provision that required reconciling lines of credit payments with sequential receipts as a result of comments requesting clarification. Upon review, the Commission realizes that the provision was mis-numbered and should have been included in (7)(i). The Commission clarified and reordered the provision.
The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions, nor will the rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Commission has determined that the 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,
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501
Gambling, Indian—Indian lands, Indian—tribal government.
25 U.S.C. 2702(2), 2706(b)(1-4), 2706(b)(10).
This part establishes the minimum internal control standards for the conduct of Class II games on Indian lands as defined in 25 U.S.C. 2701
The definitions in this section apply to all sections of this part unless otherwise noted.
(1) Defer payment of debt; or
(2) Incur debt and defer its payment under specific terms and conditions.
(1) The determination of tier level will be made based upon the annual gross gaming revenues indicated within the gaming operation's audited financial statements.
(2) Gaming operations moving from one tier to another will have nine months from the date of the independent certified public accountant's audit report to achieve compliance with the requirements of the new tier. The TGRA may extend the deadline by an additional six months if written notice is provided to the Commission no later than two weeks before the expiration of the nine month period.
(1) Each TGRA is required to establish and implement TICS pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. Each gaming operation is then required, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, to develop a SICS that implements the TICS. Failure to comply with this subsection may subject the tribal operator of the gaming operation, or the management contractor, to penalties under 25 U.S.C. 2713.
(2) Enforcement action by the Commission will not be initiated under this part without first informing the tribe and TGRA of deficiencies in the TICS or absence of SICS for its gaming operation and allowing a reasonable period of time to address such deficiencies. Such prior notice and opportunity for corrective action are not required where the threat to the integrity of the gaming operation is immediate and severe.
(1) The TGRA permits the operation to be exempt from this part;
(2) The annual gross gaming revenue of the operation does not exceed $3 million; and
(3) The TGRA develops, and the operation complies with, alternate procedures that:
(i) Protect the integrity of games offered;
(ii) Safeguard the assets used in connection with the operation; and
(iii) Create, prepare and maintain records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
(1) All proceeds are for the benefit of a charitable organization;
(2) The TGRA permits the charitable organization to be exempt from this part;
(3) The charitable gaming operation is operated wholly by the charitable organization's agents;
(4) The annual gross gaming revenue of the charitable operation does not exceed $3 million; and
(5) The TGRA develops, and the charitable gaming operation complies with, alternate procedures that:
(i) Protect the integrity of the games offered;
(ii) Safeguard the assets used in connection with the gaming operation; and
(iii) Create, prepare and maintain records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
(1) A TGRA may approve an alternate standard from those required by this part if it has determined that the alternate standard will achieve a level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace. A gaming operation may implement an alternate standard upon TGRA approval subject to the Chair's decision pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) For each enumerated standard for which the TGRA approves an alternate standard, it must submit to the Chair within 30 days a detailed report, which must include the following:
(i) An explanation of how the alternate standard achieves a level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace; and
(ii) The alternate standard as approved and the record on which it is based.
(3) In the event that the TGRA or the tribal government chooses to submit an alternate standard request directly to the Chair for joint government to government review, the TGRA or tribal government may do so without the approval requirement set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(1) The Chair may approve or object to an alternate standard approved by a TGRA.
(2) If the Chair approves the alternate standard, the Tribe may continue to use it as authorized by the TGRA.
(3) If the Chair objects, the operation may no longer use the alternate standard and must follow the relevant MICS set forth in this part.
(4) Any objection by the Chair must be in writing and provide reasons that the alternate standard, as approved by the TGRA, does not provide a level of security or integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace.
(5) If the Chair fails to approve or object in writing within 60 days after the date of receipt of a complete submission, the alternate standard is considered approved by the Chair. The Chair may, upon notification to the TGRA, extend this deadline an additional 60 days.
(1) Physical bingo card inventory controls must address the placement of orders, receipt, storage, issuance, removal, and cancellation of bingo card inventory to ensure that:
(i) The bingo card inventory can be accounted for at all times; and
(ii) Bingo cards have not been marked, altered, or otherwise manipulated.
(i) When bingo card inventory is initially received from the supplier, it must be inspected (without breaking the factory seals, if any), counted, inventoried, and secured by an authorized agent.
(ii) Bingo card inventory records must include the date received, quantities received, and the name of the individual conducting the inspection.
(i) Bingo cards must be maintained in a secure location, accessible only to authorized agents, and with surveillance coverage adequate to identify persons accessing the storage area.
(ii) For Tier A operations, bingo card inventory may be stored in a cabinet, closet, or other similar area; however, such area must be secured and separate from the working inventory.
(i) Controls must be established for the issuance and return of bingo card inventory. Records signed by the issuer and recipient must be created under the following events:
(A) Issuance of inventory from storage to a staging area;
(B) Issuance of inventory from a staging area to the cage or sellers;
(C) Return of inventory from a staging area to storage; and
(D) Return of inventory from cage or seller to staging area or storage.
(i) Bingo cards removed from inventory that are deemed out of sequence, flawed, or misprinted and not returned to the supplier must be cancelled to ensure that they are not utilized in the play of a bingo game. Bingo cards that are removed from inventory and returned to the supplier or cancelled must be logged as removed from inventory.
(ii) Bingo cards associated with an investigation must be retained intact outside of the established removal and cancellation policy.
(i) The inventory of bingo cards must be tracked and logged from receipt until use or permanent removal from inventory.
(ii) The bingo card inventory record(s) must include:
(B) Shift or session;
(E) Inventory received, issued, removed, and returned;
(F) Signature of agent performing transaction;
(G) Signature of agent performing the reconciliation;
(H) Any variance;
(I) Beginning and ending inventory; and
(J) Description of inventory transaction being performed.
(1) Agents who sell bingo cards must not be the sole verifier of bingo cards for prize payouts.
(2) Manual bingo card sales: In order to adequately record, track, and reconcile sales of bingo cards, the following information must be documented:
(ii) Shift or session;
(iii) Number of bingo cards issued, sold, and returned;
(iv) Dollar amount of bingo card sales;
(v) Signature, initials, or identification number of the agent preparing the record; and
(vi) Signature, initials, or identification number of an independent agent who verified the bingo cards returned to inventory and dollar amount of bingo card sales.
(3) Bingo card sale voids must be processed in accordance with the rules of the game and established controls that must include the following:
(i) Patron refunds;
(ii) Adjustments to bingo card sales to reflect voids;
(iii) Adjustment to bingo card inventory;
(iv) Documentation of the reason for the void; and
(v) Authorization for all voids.
(4) Class II gaming system bingo card sales. In order to adequately record, track and reconcile sales of bingo cards, the following information must be documented from the server (this is not required if the system does not track the information, but system limitation(s) must be noted):
(iii) Number of bingo cards sold;
(iv) Dollar amount of bingo card sales; and
(v) Amount in, amount out and other associated meter information.
(1) Controls must be established and procedures implemented to ensure that all eligible objects used in the conduct of the bingo game are available to be drawn and have not been damaged or altered. Verification of physical objects must be performed by two agents before the start of the first bingo game/session. At least one of the verifying agents must be a supervisory agent or independent of the bingo games department.
(2) Where the selection is made through an electronic aid, certification in accordance with 25 CFR 547.14 is acceptable for verifying the randomness of the draw and satisfies the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3) Controls must be established and procedures implemented to provide a method of recall of the draw, which includes the order and identity of the objects drawn, for dispute resolution purposes.
(i) The identity of each object drawn is accurately recorded and transmitted to the participants. The procedures must identify the method used to ensure the identity of each object drawn.
(ii) For all games offering a prize payout of $1,200 or more, as the objects are drawn, the identity of the objects are immediately recorded and maintained for a minimum of 24 hours.
(1) Controls must be established and procedures implemented for cash or cash equivalents that address the following:
(i) Identification of the agent authorized (by position) to make a payout;
(ii) Predetermined payout authorization levels (by position); and
(iii) Documentation procedures ensuring separate control of the cash accountability functions.
(i) Controls must be established and procedures implemented to verify that the following is valid for the game in play prior to payment of a winning prize:
(A) Winning card(s);
(B) Objects drawn; and
(C) The previously designated arrangement of numbers or designations on such cards, as described in 25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(A).
(ii) At least two agents must verify that the card, objects drawn, and
(iii) Where an automated verification method is available, verification by such method is acceptable.
(i) For manual payouts, at least two agents must determine the validity of the claim prior to the payment of a prize. The system may serve as one of the validators.
(ii) For automated payouts, the system may serve as the sole validator of the claim.