COMANCHE NATION GAMING COMMISSION
P.O BOX 1769 LAWTON, OK 73502
1915 E. GORE BLVD. LAWTON, OK 73501
PHONE: (580) 595-3300 — FAX: (580) 595-3394
WWW.COMANCHENATION.COM

Discussion Draft so that hand held mechanisms are not inadvertently disqualified. We do also
note that our primary concern with this section raised in our 2008 Comments remains unaddressed
in this Discussion Draft at §547.7(f). The existing language concerning financial instrument storage
components appears to be an operational control more appropriately addressed in the minimum
internal control standards ("MICS"), rather than a technical standard. We again recommend that the
Commission insert the words "designed to be" as indicated here: "Any Class II gaming system
components that store financial instruments and that are not designed to be operated ... ."

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.8 — What are the minimum technical software standards applicable to
Class II gaming systems?

We are pleased to see that two of our most serious concerns with the existing regulations
have been favorably addressed in this Discussion Draft. First, the words "[flor bingo games and
games similar to bingo" in the existing § 547.8(b)(2) have been deleted and replaced with the phrase,
"The Class IT gaming system... ." This revision addresses our concern that these technical standards
were not drafted to address "games similar to bingo" and therefore this language was unnecessary.
Second, the requirement in existing § 547.8(d) — Last game recall, to be able to recall any alternative
display (“entertaining display") has been removed. We agree with this revision, as the alternative
display has no relevance to the game of bingo being played, or to the outcome of the game being
played. We appreciate your response to our prior concerns as a Nation and as part of the TAC to
make this revision. Finally, we urge you to consider removing the phrase “automatic or” from the
sentence in § 547.8(b)(1): "There must be no automatic or undisclosed changes of rules." We agree
that undisclosed rule changes should be prohibited but are concerned that the phrase in question may
not add further protection to a tribe and its patrons, but rather introduces ambiguity and potential
unintended consequences with respect to Class II games offering automatic bonus features.

Draft 25 C.F.R. §§ 547.9 - 547,13.

We generally agree with the minor edits in Discussion Draft §§ 579.9 — 579.13. We do note
specific agreement with the Commission's revisions to Discussion Draft § 547.12 — What are
Minimum technical standards for downloading on a Class II gaming system? These revisions adding
the terms "must be capable of" in § 547.12(a)(5) and § 547.12(b), thereby resolving our concern that
the existing language was incorrectly worded as a MICS, rather than a technical standard.

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.14 —- What are the minimum technical standards for electronic random
number generation?

Similar to our comments above, we agree with the Discussion Draft revisions to § 547.14(e)
— General Requirements which removes the reference to "entertaining displays." Additionally, we

Page 5 of 7


COMANCHE NATION GAMING COMMISSION
P.O BOX 1769 LAWTON, OK 73502
1915 E. GORE BLVD. LAWTON, OK 73501
PHONE: (580) 595-3300 = FAX: (580) 595-3394
WWW.COMANCHENATION.COM

Discussion Draft § 547.5(c)(4), provides that "[t]he testing laboratory's written report certifies
that the operation of each player interface must not be compromised or affected by electrostatic
discharge, liquid spills, electromagnetic interference, or any other risk identified by the TGRA." We
are not sure that any testing laboratory can or would be willing to "certify" that the player interface
“must not be compromised or affected” by the specific risks identified, much less by "any other risk
identified by the TGRA." (emphasis added). Perhaps the testing laboratory’s report should certify
that the operation of each player interface “is not subject to compromise or affected by electrostatic
discharge, liquid spills, electromagnetic interference, radio frequency interference, or any other risk
required by the TGRA to be tested.” In any event, this language deserves further discussion in order
to avoid potential uncertainty and inability to obtain the required certification.

The Discussion Draft at page 19 contains a subheading incorrectly numbered as § 547.5(e) —
Compliance by charitable gaming operations. This section number should be revised to § 547.5()
and §547.5() should become §547.5(g).

We note that the Commission has addressed the concern expressed in our 2008 Comments,
with the existing regulations at § 547.4(f) that effectively prohibit a tribe from using its own testing
laboratory, even if that test laboratory is independent from the tribe. The Discussion Draft at §
547.5(f)(1)(iii) now provides that a tribe may utilize its own testing laboratory but "it must be
independent from the manufacturer and gaming operator... ."

In our 2008 comments, we also expressed concern that existing § 547.4(f(iv), puts tribal
testing laboratories in a competitive disadvantage against non-tribal laboratories. Specifically, non-
tribal testing laboratories will already have suitability determinations from non-tribal jurisdictions
which will likely have nothing to do with tribal gaming experience, while tribal gaming laboratories
lacking non-tribal suitability determinations are subject to the stringent background investigation
required of gaming management companies.

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.6 — What are the minimum technical standards for enrolling and
enabling Class II gaming systems?

We urge the Commission, for the sake of clarity, to define "enroll" and "unenroll."
Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.7 — What are the minimum technical hardware standards applicable to

Class II gaming systems?

We applaud the removal of references to the Federal Communications Commission and
Underwriters' Laboratories, consistent with the TAC’s recommendations. We recommend that
the Commission replace the word "display" with "bear" in the initial phrase of § 547.7(d) of the

Page 4 of 7


COMANCHE NATION GAMING COMMISSION
P.O BOX 1769 LAWTON, OK 73502
1915 E. GORE BLVD. LAWTON, OK 73501
PHONE: (580) 595-3300 = FAX: (580) 595-3394
WWW.COMANCHENATION.COM

agree with the revision to § 547.14(f) — Scaling algorithms and scaled numbers which now require
any bias in the algorithm to be reported to the TGRA, removing the "I in 100 million" algorithm bias
measurement. As a general comment, we urge the Commission to consider further revision to the
random number generation provisions where it is the overall consensus of technical experts in the
field that language in the Discussion Draft is inaccurate, contrary to industry standards, ambiguous,
or otherwise introduces potential confusion or limitations regarding standards for Class II games that
would unnecessarily limit or burden game availability or function.

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.15 — What are the minimum technical standards for electronic for
electronic data communications between system components?

We have no comments on Discussion Draft § 547.15.

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.16 — What are the minimum standards for game artwork, glass, and
rules?

Although we are pleased with the removal of the minimum probability standards at §
547.5(c) noted previously, we are concerned with the new language at § 547.16(c) — Odds
notification. That language provides that "[i]f the odds of hitting any advertised top prize exceeds
100 million to one, the Player Interface must continually display 'Odds of winning the advertised top
prize exceeds 100 million to one' or equivalent." This new requirement is duplicative of the existing
regulations at § 547.16(a) which already require that the game rules and prize schedules be displayed
“at all times" or be "made readily available to the player upon request... "This requirement may also
have the practical effect of unnecessarily alarming and/or driving away patrons from the play of such
games, simply because of the new odds notification requirement. Moreover, the word "hitting"
should be replaced with "winning."

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.17 — How does a tribal gaming regulatory authority apply to implement
an alternate standard to those required by this part?

We agree with the Discussion Draft revisions to this section that replace the term
"variance" with the term "alternate standard." Additionally we agree with the removal of the
appeal procedure language in this section which is currently under the sub-heading "Commission
Review." The consolidation of all appeals procedures throughout the Commission's regulations
into one location at 25 C.F.R. Subchapter H provides for a streamlined appeals process.

Thank you for the opportunity that you have afforded to tribes to respond to your
inquiries. We look forward to working with you in the coming months to develop new
regulations to benefit our collective efforts to enhance and protect the integrity of Indian gaming.
If you have any questions concerning these issues, please contact me at (580) 595-3300.

Page 6 of 7


COMANCHE NATION GAMING COMMISSION
P.O BOX 1769 LAWTON, OK 73502
1915 E. GORE BLVD. LAWTON, OK 73501
PHONE: (580) 595-3300 — FAX: (580) 595-3394
WWW.COMANCHENATION.COM

April 25, 2012

Via Email Transmission: reg.review@nigc.gov
Tracie Stevens, Chairwoman

Steffani A. Cochran, Vice-Chairperson

Daniel Little, Associate Commissioner
National Indian Gaming Commission

1441 L Street, N.W., Suite 9100

Washington, DC 20005

Re: | Comments on Preliminary Discussion Draft of 25 C.F.R. Part 547 — Minimum Technical
Standards for Gaming Equipment Used With the Play Of Class II Games

Dear Chairwoman Stevens, Vice-Chairperson Cochran and Commissioner Little:

The Comanche Nation of Oklahoma (the "Nation") respectfully submits the following
comments in response to the National Indian Gaming Commission's ("NIGC" or "Commission")
Preliminary Draft of 25 C.F.R. Part 547 - Minimum Technical Standards For Gaming
Equipment Used With The Play Of Class II Games. Initially, we thank you for seeking tribal
input through release of a discussion draft. We hope this will allow for the elimination of any
errors and improvement to the proposed Technical Standards prior to their publication for
comment as part of a formal rulemaking effort. We would also like to express our appreciation
to you for our opportunity to participate on the recent Tribal Advisory Committee ("TAC"), and
urge you to carefully consider the work and concerns expressed by the TAC in review of the
Technical Standards.

As we have expressed to the Commission in prior comments and through the TAC
correspondence, we strongly support the protection and preservation of Tribal Gaming
Regulatory Authorities ("TGRA's") as the primary regulators of Class II gaming, consistent with
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") and our sovereign right of self-governance. And,
as part of our own effort to continue to build a strong tribal government — a primary objective of
Congress in passing IGRA — we fully support the use of technology, to the greatest extent
feasible, for the advancement of Class II gaming, again in accordance with the objectives of
IGRA.

We note that our comments on the Part 547 Discussion Draft are generally favorable,
although we do have some areas of concern expressed below. We commend the Commission for

making many revisions throughout this Part to clarify that these are in fact, technical standards,

Page 1 of 7


COMANCHE NATION GAMING COMMISSION
P.O BOX 1769 LAWTON, OK 73502
1915 E. GORE BLVD. LAWTON, OK 73501

PHONE: (580) 595-3300 — FAX: (580) 595-3394
WWW.COMANCHENATION.COM

incerely,
5

100 Lecor

Jill Peters
Executive Director
Comanche Nation Gaming Commission

Page 7 of 7


COMANCHE NATION GAMING COMMISSION
P.O BOX 1769 LAWTON, OK 73502
1915 E. GORE BLVD. LAWTON, OK 73501
PHONE: (580) 595-3300 — FAX: (580) 595-3394
WWW.COMANCHENATION.COM

rather than minimum controls that would more appropriately be addressed in 25 C.F.R. Part 543.
We were pleased to find that the proposed Technical Standards address a number of our concerns
expressed in our March 6, 2008 comments ("2008 Comments") on the current version of 25
C.F.R. Part 547.

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.2 — What are the definitions of this part?
The Discussion Draft includes the following definition:

Agent. A person authorized by the gaming operation, as approved by the TGRA, to make
decisions or perform tasks or actions on the behalf of the gaming operation.

The Nation is concerned that, by defining an agent as a "person," NIGC appears to allow
only human agents, and would not allow for an electronic agent. We believe that TGRAs should
have the flexibility to authorize, and operations should have the flexibility to utilize, electronic
agents when appropriate for particular circumstances.

Additionally, the Commission developed a new definition:

Proprietary Class II System Component. "[a] system component that is only
interoperable with a single manufacturer’s Class II system. Examples include vouchering
systems, accounting systems, and cashless systems."

A number of current back office products, like accounting systems, are specifically
designed for use with more than "one manufacturer's Class II system." We are concerned that
this is an unwarranted and impermissible limitation, both under the IGRA and § 547.3(b) of this
Discussion Draft, on technology in that the definition appears to limit vouchering, accounting, or
cashless systems to only be interoperable with a single manufacturer's Class II system.
Moreover, the term "proprietary" is only used in this Discussion Draft in the definitions of
"cashless system," "voucher system," and in §547.7 when referring to "proprietary" or specially-
manufactured "printed circuit boards." We urge the Commission to remove this definition or
provide an explanation of the concerns it is attempting to address by the inclusion thereof, so that
the Comanche Nation and other tribes can have meaningful input in addressing the concerns.

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.3 — Who is responsible for implementing these standards?
The Discussion Draft at § 547.3(a) Minimum Standards states that "[t]hese are minimum

standards and, recognizing that TGRAs also regulate Class II gaming, a TGRA may establish
and implement additional technical standards that do not conflict with the standards set out in

Page 2 of 7


COMANCHE NATION GAMING COMMISSION
P.O BOX 1769 LAWTON, OK 73502
1915 E. GORE BLVD. LAWTON, OK 73501
PHONE: (580) 595-3300 FAX: (580) 595-3394
WWW.COMANCHENATION.COM

this Part." (emphasis added). We noted at the outset our objection to the underlined language
above because the IGRA at § 2710(5) specifically states that "Indian tribes have the exclusive
right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands..." The powers of the Commission regarding
class II gaming, on the other hand, are far more limited and include the power to "monitor", and
"inspect and examine." See IGRA at 25 U.S.C. § 2706(b)(1)-(2). The underlined language
should be revised in accordance with the IGRA to read as follows "recognizing that TGRAs are
the primary regulators of Class II gaming... ."

Section 547.3(a) also describes TGRAs as entities that merely "also regulate Class II
gaming." TGRAs are, as the IGRA intended, the primary regulators of Class II tribal gaming,
and the language of Part 547 should accurately reflect the critical role that TGRAs play.

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.5 — How does a tribal government, TGRA, or tribal gaming operation
comply with this part?

The Discussion Draft at § 547.5(a)(6) requires a "plate" to be affixed to the player interface
consistent with existing § 547.7(d). We suggest that the Discussion Draft § 547.5(a)(6) be revised as
follows, adding the underlined language for clarity: "Have required the supplier of any player
interface to designate with a permanently affixed label each player interface with an identifying plate
or similar label containing information consistent with § 547.7(d) ... .". There is no requirement in §
547.7(d) for a "plate", however specific information is required by that section and we believe the
suggested revision adds clarity. Also, the existing § 547.5(b)(1) and the Discussion Draft refer to the
grandfathered systems continuing in operations "for a period of five years from November 10, 2008."
We suggest removing this sunset clause from Part 547.

We note that there appears to be great potential for unintended consequences with further
revision to the grandfathering provisions following passage of the initial time period for
grandfathering games. The Comanche Nation recognizes the importance of past efforts to clarify and
preserve the realm of Class II gaming and is opposed to any portion of the grandfathering provisions
which would have the effect of eliminating or prohibiting a Class II game or any system component
thereof, where such game or component has been previously certified under the existing
grandfathering regulations or determined valid by a court decision. Accordingly, we urge you to
adopt a savings clause to so reflect.

We applaud the removal of the minimum probability requirements from existing § 547.5(c).
As we noted in our 2008 Comments and during the TAC discussions, there was not a rational basis
for setting minimum required probability odds at 50,000,000-to-1 for all progressive prizes, and
25,000,000-to-1 for all other prizes, and further, these odds placed tribes at a competitive
disadvantage to states, which routinely offer odds of at least 250,000,000-to-1.

Page 3 of 7