2120 L Street, NW, Suite 700 T 202.822.8282 HOBBSSTRAUS.COM

Washington, DC 20037 F 202.296.8834

HOBBS STRAUS DEAN & WALKER, LLP WASHINGTON, DC | PORTLAND, OR | OKLAHOMA CITY, OK | SACRAMENTO, CA

April 24, 2012 

VIA E-mail to reg.review@nigc.gov

Tracie L. 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:

On behalf of the Seminole Tribe of Florida (the "Tribe"), we offer 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. The Tribe believes that 

allowing tribes the opportunity to comment on preliminary discussion drafts leads to a 

much more efficient rulemaking process. 

The Tribe's comments on the Part 547 Discussion Draft are largely favorable, 

although we highlight some areas of concern below. The Tribe commends the 

Commission for making many revisions throughout this Part that make it read more 

clearly as a technical standard, rather than arguably as a minimum control standard more 

appropriately addressed in 25 C.F.R. Part 543. The Tribe also acknowledges that the 

ongoing consultation through the Commission's Regulatory Review initiative has resulted 

in a draft regulation that addresses most of the primary concerns expressed in the Tribe's 

March 7, 2008 comments ("2008 Comments") on the existing version of 25 C.F.R. Part 

547.

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.2 – What are the definitions for this part?

The Commission's newly added definition of Proprietary Class II System 

Component means "[a] system component that is only interoperable with a single 

manufacturer’s Class II system. Examples include vouchering systems, accounting 

systems, and cashless systems." However, this term is not used elsewhere in the draft 

regulations. If the definition is meant to address a particular concern of the Commission, 
Tracie L. Stevens, Chairwoman

Steffani A. Cochran, Vice-Chairperson

Daniel Little, Associate Commissioner

April 24, 2012

Page 2

HOBBS STRAUS DEAN & WALKER, LLP WASHINGTON, DC | PORTLAND, OR | OKLAHOMA CITY, OK | SACRAMENTO, CA

we request that the concern be explained so that tribes can provide input as to whether 

this term should be more accurately defined. As it stands we recommend striking the 

definition in its entirety since it does not add clarity to the technical standards.

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 this Part." (Emphasis added). The Tribe objects to the underlined 

language above, which is inconsistent with the IGRA and with the NIGC's prior position 

on this issue. The IGRA at 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5) specifically says that "Indian tribes have 

the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands ..." Although the NIGC 

has the authority to enforce any violation of the MICS, tribal regulators have the primary 

role in enforcing the MICS and regulating Class II gaming in their casino operations. 

Accordingly, tribes are considered the primary regulators of Class II gaming. The NIGC 

repeatedly recognized that tribes are the primary regulators of Class II gaming in the 

preamble to the current Technical Standards rule, and there is no reason the NIGC should 

change its position in this Discussion Draft. 

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 an "identifying plate" to be affixed 

to the player interface consistent with existing § 547.7(d). The Tribe suggests that the 

Discussion Draft § 547.5(a)(6) be revised as follows: "Have required the supplier of any 

player interface to designate with a permanently affixed label each player interface with 

information consistent with § 547.7(d) ... ."

The Tribe supports the removal of the minimum probability requirements from 

existing § 547.5(c). As noted in the Tribe's 2008 Comments, 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 placed tribes at a competitive disadvantage to state lotteries, which routinely 

offer much higher odds. 

Discussion Draft § 547.5(c)(4) requires 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." While the Tribe understands the intent behind the 

new language, we question whether such a requirement is practical. We are not sure that 

a testing laboratory can "certify" that the player interface will not be compromised by 
Tracie L. Stevens, Chairwoman

Steffani A. Cochran, Vice-Chairperson

Daniel Little, Associate Commissioner

April 24, 2012

Page 3

HOBBS STRAUS DEAN & WALKER, LLP WASHINGTON, DC | PORTLAND, OR | OKLAHOMA CITY, OK | SACRAMENTO, CA

"any other risk identified by the TGRA." (Emphasis added). This language deserves 

further discussion of the intended scope of 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(f), and all numbering throughout the document should be reviewed 

for accuracy. 

We note that the Commission has favorably addressed the concern expressed in 

the Tribe's 2008 Comments concerning the existing regulations at § 547.4(f), which 

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 ... ." 

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.6 – What are the minimum technical standards for 

enrolling and enabling Class II gaming system components?

The Tribe has no comments in this section, other than the terms "enroll" and 

"unenroll" should be defined, at least within the text. 

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.7 – What are the minimum technical hardware 

standards applicable to Class II gaming systems?

The Tribe's sole concern with this section noted in the 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 suggest again that the words "designed to be" should be 

inserted into this section indicated by the underlined language as follows: "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?

Two of the Tribe's most serious concerns with the existing regulations have been 

favorably addressed in this Discussion Draft. First, the words "[f]or bingo games and 

games similar to bingo" in the existing § 547.8(b)(2) have been deleted and replaced with 

the phrase, "The Class II gaming system ... ." This revision addresses the 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, that the Class II gaming system must be able to recall any alternative 
Tracie L. Stevens, Chairwoman

Steffani A. Cochran, Vice-Chairperson

Daniel Little, Associate Commissioner

April 24, 2012

Page 4

HOBBS STRAUS DEAN & WALKER, LLP WASHINGTON, DC | PORTLAND, OR | OKLAHOMA CITY, OK | SACRAMENTO, CA

display ("entertaining display") has been removed. The Tribe agrees 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. 

Draft 25 C.F.R. §§ 547.9 - 547.13. 

First, we note that § 547.12(a)(2) has been amended so as to no longer require that 

any downloads be authorized by the tribal gaming regulatory authority. The Tribe would 

like to confirm that this deletion does not in any way limit the ability of a tribal gaming 

regulatory authority to continue to impose its own requirement for pre-approval of any 

downloads.

The Tribe also agrees with the revisions to §§ 547.12(a)(5) and § 547.12(b) of the 

Discussion Draft, which now includes the terms "must be capable of", which addresses 

the concern that the existing language was incorrectly worded as a MICS, rather than a 

technical standard.

Second, it appears that the Commission has erroneously deleted the word "power" 

in the Discussion Draft at § 547.10(c)(1)(i) – Non-Fault Event, and it should be reinserted. The event being described here is the "Player interface power off during play." 

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.14 – What are the minimum technical standards for 

electronic random number generation?

The Tribe agrees with the Discussion Draft revisions to § 547.14(e) – General 

Requirements which removes the reference to "entertaining displays." However, the 

revision to § 547.14(f) – Scaling algorithms and scaled numbers requiring any bias in the 

algorithm to be reported to the TGRA and removing the "1 in 100 million" algorithm bias 

measurement may be unworkable or simply impractical. This language deserves more 

discussion and consideration. We suggest that the RNG must be capable of measuring 

and reporting bias to the TGRA, but without a range for measured bias it seems that 

requiring any bias to be reported would be an unworkable standard that is not a minimum

technical standard. 

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.15 – What are the minimum technical standards for 

electronic data communications between system components?

The Tribe has no comments on Discussion Draft § 547.15.
Tracie L. Stevens, Chairwoman

Steffani A. Cochran, Vice-Chairperson

Daniel Little, Associate Commissioner

April 24, 2012

Page 5

HOBBS STRAUS DEAN & WALKER, LLP WASHINGTON, DC | PORTLAND, OR | OKLAHOMA CITY, OK | SACRAMENTO, CA

Draft 25 C.F.R. § 547.16 – What are the minimum standards for game 

artwork, glass, and rules?

Although the Tribe is pleased with the removal of the minimum probability 

standards at § 547.5(c) noted previously, it does have a concern with the new language at 

§ 547.16(c) – Odds notification. The new 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 redundant as the existing regulations at § 547.16(a) 

already require that the game rules and prize schedules be displayed "at all times" or be 

"made readily available to the player upon request ... ."

We also note that the Discussion Draft proposes to change the existing regulations 

so as to require the Player Interface, rather than the Class II Gaming System, to 

continuously display "Malfunctions void all prizes and plays" or equivalent and "Actual 

Prizes Determined by Bingo [or other applicable Class II game] Play. Other Displays for 

Entertainment Only" or equivalent. The Tribe has no objection to this change, with the 

understanding that this requirement does not mean that the required notifications must be 

made on the video screen, but could be displayed elsewhere on the Player Interface. The 

NIGC should clarify this understanding in the preamble when this rule is issued as a 

proposed rule.

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?

The Tribe agrees with the Discussion Draft revisions to this section that remove 

the term "variance" and instead use the term "alternate standard." Additionally the Tribe 

agrees 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 much cleaner and streamlined appeals process. 

On behalf of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, we appreciate the opportunity to 

comment on the Commission's proposed changes to Part 547. 

Sincerely,

HOBBS, STRAUS, DEAN & WALKER, LLP

Joseph H. Webster /s/

By: Joseph H. Webster

cc: Jim Shore, Esq.