Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

Tribal Gaming Commission
15700 East Hwy. 9
Norman, Oklahoma 73026

May 25, 2017

Via Email to Vannice_Doulou@nigc.gov

Chairman Jonodev Chaudhuri

Vice Chair Kathryn Isom-Clause
Commissioner E, Sequoyah Simermeyer
National Indian Gaming Commission
1849 C St. NW

Mailstop #1621

Washington, DC 20240

Attn: Vannice Doulou

Re: Comments on Draft Standards for Class I] Wireless Player Interfaces

Dear Chairman Chaudhuri, Vice-Chair Isom-Clause, and Commissioner Simermeyer:

On behalf of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe Gaming Commission (the "ASTGC"),
we offer the following comments concerning the National Indian Gaming Commission's
("NIGC" or "Commission") draft technical standards for Class II wireless player
interfaces, also known as mobile gaming. The draft standards would add a new section
(Draft § 547.18) to 25 C.F.R. Part 547, Minimum Technical Standards for Class II
Gaming Systems and Equipment.

The Absentee Shawnee Tribe ("Tribe"), which offers Class II games at its gaming
facility on its Indian lands in Little Axe and Shawnee, Oklahoma, strongly supports the
NIGC's effort to provide guidance to tribes on the use of mobile devices as part of a Class
Il gaming system. While mobile gaming is a relatively recent development, the NIGC's
recognition that this "modern" method of playing Class II games is available to tribes is
consistent with legislative history of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"). In
enacting IGRA, Congress was clear that it intended for tribes to have "maximum
flexibility" to use "modern" technology to conduct Class II games. S. Rep. No. 100-446,
at 9 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3071, 3079.

From a practical standpoint, the use of mobile/wireless devices for Class II
gaming could be very beneficial to tribes. Mobile gaming provides an opportunity for
tribes to increase their gaming revenue without the high costs associated with building or
expanding bricks-and-mortar gaming facilities. Instead, patrons may participate in Class
Il games from anywhere on the tribe's lands that is eligible for gaming under the IGRA.
Other jurisdictions in the United States have recognized that gaming via mobile devices
can be a safe and lucrative method for gaming facilities to offer games to their patrons.


National Indian Gaming Commission
May 25, 2017
Page 2

In recent years, states such as Nevada (Standard 4), New Jersey (N.J.A.C. 13:690) and
Indiana (68 IAC 25) have adopted standards for mobile gaming. Further, Gaming
Laboratories International, LLC has issued detailed standards for wireless gaming
systems (GLI-26).

For these reasons, the ASTGC applauds the Commission's efforts to provide
guidance on minimum standards for mobile gaming. As an initial matter, as discussed at
the consultations, some or all of the items found in the draft § 547.18 could be addressed
in a guidance document rather than in the regulation. At the very least, audit logs and
printable reports provisions (draft § 547.18(b)(6) and § 547.18(c)). While both are
important, but neither do not need to be included in a regulation intended to govern
technical standards.

Regarding the Commission's draft, § 547.18 fails to address apparent
inconsistencies with other provisions in Part 547 and contains language that should be
revised or removed to more accurately apply to patron-owned mobile devices. For
instance, the ASTGC believes that a definition of "wireless player interface" should be
added to Part 547, since the phrase is open to a number of different interpretations.
Adding a definition such as the following would help to provide clarity:

"Wireless player interface" means a communications device, whether
owned by the gaming facility or a patron, that functions as a player
interface by connecting to a Class II gaming system via a secure wireless
network, and which allows play in a Class II game if the patron is located
on lands eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

While the NIGC's current Part 547 Class II Technical Standards regulations do
not preclude the use of mobile devices, they do create some uncertainty about the testing
requirements for a mobile device that is owned by a patron rather than offered by the
tribal gaming facility. For example, the definition of "player interface" is broad enough
to include patron-owned mobile devices: "Any component(s) 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." However, the regulations suggest that all player interfaces must be tested to
confirm compliance with certain standards, 25 C.F.R. § 547.5(c)(4), § 547.7(b). Many of
these standards simply do not make sense in the case of a patron-owned mobile device
that is used only incidentally for gaming, and even then only when (1) necessary software
is downloaded to the device and (2) the device is linked to the Class II gaming system via
a secure wireless connection. Also, some provisions are unworkable in the context of a
patron-owned device, such as the requirement that the "player interface must exhibit a
serial number and date of manufacture ... ", 25 C.F.R. § 547.7(d), and the requirement
that the player interface "must continually display (1) 'Malfunctions void all prizes and
plays' or equivalent; and (2) 'Actual Prizes Determined by Bingo (or other applicable
Class II game) Play. Other Displays for Entertainment Only' or equivalent," 25 C.F.R.

§ 547.16(b).


National Indian Gaming Commission
May 25, 2017
Page 3

The ASTGC recommends that Part 547 be revised to clarify that testing in the
context of a "player interface" that also is a patron-owned mobile device is limited to the
gaming-related software that is downloaded to the device in order to participate in the
game. Standards and requirements, such as hardware requirements, that would apply to
other types of player interfaces should not apply to patron-owned mobile devices. The
ASTGC believes that this is the intent of the Commission's proposal, in light of the
Commission's statements at various consultation sessions that patron-owned mobile
devices are permitted by the rule.

With respect to the proposed rule, we note that the draft fails to include language
addressing how the "wireless player interface" will interact with the patron deposit
accounts and cashless systems to deposit or redeem credits. The standards should, at a
minimum, prohibit patron account access information from being stored on the wireless
player interface.

The ASTGC further recommends some aspects of the proposed § 547.18 should
be revised. For example, the requirement to "[d]isable all exposed network connectivity
ports," draft § 547.18(a)(2), is not necessary or practical in the context of a mobile device
and should be eliminated. Likewise, patron-owned devices should be excluded from the
requirement that a "wireless player interface must be designed or programmed such that it
may only communicate with authorized gaming systems," draft § 547.18(b)(3).

Finally, the ASTGC suggests that the Commission engage in a parallel effort to
update the minimum internal control standards for Class II gaming (Part 543) to
specifically address those issues that are unique to mobile gaming. In doing so, the
ASTGC strongly recommends that such updates be developed with the assistance of a
tribal advisory committee that includes representatives from tribes that have experience
with Class II gaming issues, such as the Absentee Shawnee Tribe.

Conclusion

On behalf of the ASTGC, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
Commission's proposed standards for Class II wireless player interfaces.

Eastman Switch
Deputy Commissioner

ce: Governor Edwina Butler-Wolfe, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma
Roy Larney, ASTGC Commissioner
Leslie Tanyan, ASTGC Executive Director
William Norman, ASTGC Attorney