Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/09/21/2012-23161/minimum-technical-standards-for-class-ii-gaming-systems-and-equipment
Timestamp: 2015-09-02 14:50:21
Document Index: 726711180

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 547', 'art 547', 'art 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', 'art 547', 'art 547', 'art 547', 'art 547', '§ 547', 'art 547', '§ 547', 'art 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', 'art 543', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', 'art 543', '§ 547', 'art 543', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', 'art 547', 'art 547', 'ART 547', 'art?\n547', 'art?\n547', 'art?\n547', 'art?\n547', '§ 547', '§ 547', 'art 543', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', 'art 543', 'art 543', '§ 547', 'art 543', 'art 543', '§ 547', '§ 533', '§ 537', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', 'art 543', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547']

Federal Register | Minimum Technical Standards for Class II Gaming Systems and Equipment
-58488 (16 pages)
Document Number: 2012-23161
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2012-23161 Related Topics
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) is amending its technical standards to change the order of the first five sections; add definitions and amend existing definitions; amend requirements and time restrictions for grandfathered Class II gaming systems; amend the requirements concerning minimum odds for Class II games; amend standards for test labs; remove references to the Federal Communications Commission and Underwriters Laboratory; require a player interface to display a serial number and date of manufacture; amend requirements concerning approval of downloads to a Class II gaming system; and clarify the term “alternate standard.”
Michael Hoenig, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-632-7003; email: michael_hoenig@nigc.gov.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), 100, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act establishes the NIGC and sets out a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. On October 8, 2008, the NIGC published a final rule in the Federal Register called Technical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids Used in the Play of Class II Games. 73 FR 60508. The rule added a new part to the Commission's regulations establishing a process for ensuring the integrity of electronic Class II games and aids. The standards were designed to assist tribal gaming regulatory authorities and operators with ensuring the integrity and security of Class II gaming, the accountability of Class II gaming revenue, and provide guidance to equipment manufacturers and distributors of Class II gaming systems. The standards do not classify which games are Class II and which games are Class III.
After publishing the discussion draft, the Commission conducted consultations in Mayetta, KS and San Diego, CA. In addition to tribal consultations, the Commission requested public comment on the discussion draft. Considering the comments received in response to the discussion draft, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on June 1, 2012. 77 FR 32465. The NPRM invited interested parties to participate in the rulemaking process by submitting comments and any supporting data to the NIGC by July 31, 2012. After receiving several requests to extend the comment period, the Commission published notification in the Federal Register that it would do so by two weeks, establishing a new comment deadline of August 15, 2012. 77 FR 43196.
In addition to soliciting public comment in the Federal Register, the Commission also conducted an additional five tribal consultations to discuss the proposed rule with interested tribes and industry representatives. As with the discussion draft, the consultations and written comments have proven invaluable to the Commission in making needed amendments to the Class II technical standards. III. Review of Public Comments Back to Top
Comment: A number of commenters made miscellaneous editorial suggestions not intended to change the substance of the technical standards but to improve sentence structure, correct grammar, and preserve consistency of usage throughout the document.
Response: The Commission accepted all such changes where they improve clarity and editorial consistency, and these are reflected throughout the final rule. Substantive changes are addressed in the responses to comments below.
Comment: A number of commenters recommended the Commission accept, without alteration, the draft of the Technical Standards provided to it by its tribal advisory committee. Other commenters recommended the Commission adopt a draft of the regulation prepared and submitted by the Tribal Gaming Working Group (“TGWG”).
Response: The Commission greatly appreciates the assistance and advice of the TAC in developing these amendments to the technical standards. The Commission is also aware of the hours the TGWG put into its recommended part 547 and appreciates its participation in the process. After carefully reviewing those recommendations, and in several cases incorporating them into the NPRM and this final rule, the Commission declines to adopt either proposal whole-cloth.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that the NIGC lacks authority to implement or enforce these standards.
Response: The Commission, pursuant to IGRA, possesses the authority to adopt these technical standards. Congress expressed the concern that gaming under IGRA be “conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players” and “to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation.” 25 U.S.C. 2702(2). The technical standards are designed to ensure these concerns are addressed. These standards implement the authority granted the Commission to monitor, inspect, and examine Class II gaming, 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1)-(4), and to promulgate such regulations as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10).
Comment: One commenter suggested simplifying the title of part 547 from Minimum Technical Standards for Gaming Equipment Used With the Play of Class II Games to the simpler title of Minimum Technical Standards for the Play of Class II Gaming Systems.
Response: The Commission agrees the title for this part should be simplified. It declines to adopt the recommended title, though, because this part applies not only to Class II gaming systems, but to all equipment, including computer, electronic, or other technologic aids used with Class II games. The Commission instead has amended the part's title to Minimum Technical Standards for Class II gaming systems and equipment.
Comment: Several commenters recommended amending the definition of Agent to permit the use of computer applications to perform the function(s) of an agent.
Response: The Commission declines to accept this recommendation. The term “computer applications” is undefined and potentially broad. Any hardware under the control of an agent is exempt from the testing requirements of this part, and thus amending the definition of Agent in this manner potentially would exempt hardware that is subject to testing requirements such as financial instrument acceptors, financial instrument dispensers, etc.
Comment: One commenter asked the Commission to clarify that the definition of Reflexive software means that the Class II gaming system can never look at the historical activity or status of the game or player to deprive a player of an award or to declare a player a winner. The commenter distinguishes the awarding of a prize as a result of a reflexive decision by software from “good neighbor” awards that are not part of the pay-table which, according to the commenter, are “promotions.”
Response: The commenter is correct that the definition of Reflexive software is not intended to encompass “promotional awards” made based on the player's accumulated “player points” or the player's membership in a casino player's club. Such awards are not based on the outcome of the game, but another set of factors separate and apart from the game results. Rather, the definition of Reflexive software is intended to encompass any decisions made by software that would change the outcome of the game. For example, a random ball draw produces a sequence of numbers that would entitle a player to the top advertised prize; then the system discards this sequence and replaces it with a new ball draw sequence whereby the patron wins a lower prize.
Comment: Several commenters supported the removal of the definition of Proprietary Class II gaming component and the word “proprietary” from the definitions of Cashless system and Voucher system. The changes were first made in the discussion draft of part 547 published by the Commission, but removed from the NPRM. Commenters recommend, however, that the Commission reiterate and further clarify the reasons for including the new and changed definitions in the discussion draft in the first place, as well as the reason for removing it from the NPRM.
Response: The Commission appreciates the comments in support of the change. The intended purpose of the new and amended definitions was to distinguish the common back of the house component systems that communicate with all Class II gaming systems, regardless of the manufacturer, from those components that work exclusively with one manufacturer's Class II system. An example of such a system is a Class II gaming system with a voucher functionality that only allows a patron to use a dispensed voucher on other electronic player interfaces on the same Class II gaming system, and not on electronic player interfaces from a different Class II gaming system at the same tribal gaming facility. Conversely, voucher systems that are part of a common back of the house system allow a dispensed voucher to be used on any electronic player interface at the same tribal gaming facility.
Comment: Several commenters supported the NPRM's removal of language asserting that “TGRAs also regulate Class II gaming,” but advocate changing § 547.3(a) to reflect that TGRAs are the primary regulators of Indian Gaming. Other commenters suggested that the Commission use this preamble to reiterate its position that tribes are the primary regulators of tribal gaming.
Response: 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 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.
Comment: Rather than require a game to meet a minimum odds requirement, these technical standards require that a player be informed if the odds of winning a top prize exceed 100 million to one. This change was made at the discussion draft stage, and comments were overwhelmingly supportive. One commenter, however, submitted comments in opposition to the change. The comment asserts that the NPRM's removal of a minimum odds requirement is not fair to the public. According to the comment, players have the right to expect that an advertised jackpot is winnable and the regulatory community has an obligation to protect that player's rights of expectation by establishing some minimum, guaranteed threshold. The commenter recommends reinserting a minimum odds requirement.
Response: The Commission respectfully disagrees and declines to accept the commenter's suggestion. This amendment allows operations to increase advertised top prizes, but also gives the player the ability to make an informed decision regarding whether to play a game that may have a higher pay-out, but decreased odds of winning.
Comment: The Commission received several comments on the grandfathering provisions, the majority of which focused on the five year duration. Commenters unanimously opposed maintaining the sunset provision in the grandfather clause, citing serious negative financial impact of requiring the grandfathered systems to be brought into full compliance or removed from play. In response to questions posed by the NIGC in the NPRM, commenters submitted that withdrawing and replacing grandfathered systems could cost in the range of $46 million to $65.5 million. One commenter asserts that twenty Oklahoma gaming tribes estimate that they will lose in excess of $82 million. One commenter also pointed out that, not only will a sunset provision have a significant economic impact in the future, many tribes have already spent millions of dollars developing and defending the legal status of the grandfathered games.
Response: The Commission appreciates all of the articulate, well reasoned comments it received on this issue. This, more than any other topic, has been the subject of long deliberation and analysis within the Commission. The Commission acknowledges that grandfathered machines have, for the most part, continued to operate with relatively few problems to the patron or the gaming operations. Nevertheless, lack of a major incident in the past does not mean that the grandfathered Class II gaming systems pose no risk to patrons and the gaming operation. For example, § 547.15 of this Rule sets minimum requirements for security of sensitive data and wireless and wired communications. Because a grandfathered system does not need to meet this standard, there may be a risk of data being intercepted or tampered with, when that data is constantly being transmitted to/from equipment on the floor.
The Commission declines, however, to insert language conveying that nothing in this part is intended to prohibit the continued use of any gaming system or component ruled to be Class II by any judicial rulings. Including such a provision may lead to the false impression that this part is intended to address classification. It is not. Nothing in part 547 bears on the classification of a game as Class II or Class III. The provision requires only that, for any Class II game to be available for play, the game must have been certified as a grandfathered Class II gaming system or comply with the standards in part 547, and that systems must comply with all standards in part 547 by November 10, 2018.
Comment: Several commenters recommended removing the limitation in part 547 that only those systems manufactured before November 10, 2008 may be submitted for certification for grandfathering. The commenters recommend that, instead, the Commission amend § 547.5(b) to include as grandfathered games, all Class II gaming systems certified as grandfathered prior to the effective date of this final rule.
Response: The Commission declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion to allow Class II gaming systems manufactured after November 10, 2008 to be certified as grandfathered systems. When the current regulation was published in 2008, it was clear that any Class II gaming system manufactured from that date forward had to meet the minimum technical standards contained in part 547. As a result, there should not be any Class II gaming systems manufactured after November 10, 2008 that do not meet those standards.
Comment: Several commenters raised a concern that, as written, § 547.7(a) may require any Class II game system manufactured before November 10, 2008, regardless of whether the game is otherwise fully compliant with part 547, to be submitted for grandfather certification.
Response: The Commission amended the language found in the NPRM to make clear that, if a game is fully compliant, it does not need to be submitted for certification pursuant to § 547.5(a). The section now states, “[a]ny Class II gaming system manufactured before November 10, 2008, that is not already certified pursuant to this sub-section or compliant with paragraph (c) of this section may be made available for use at any tribal gaming operation if * * *”
Comment: Commenters requested adding a provision that “nothing in this section is intended to prevent a TGRA from approving a grandfathered component to be added to a fully compliant Class II gaming system, or affect the certification of a fully compliant Class II gaming system.”
Response: The Commission declines to adopt this suggestion. In the NPRM, the Commission asked for comments regarding repairs and modifications to Class II game systems. Specifically, the Commission wanted feedback on the effect of requiring all repairs, replacements, and modifications of grandfathered Class II gaming systems to be fully compliant with the regulations. Responses unanimously opposed any requirement that repairs or modifications be fully compliant. Upon considering those comments and deliberating, the Commission has left the repair, replacement, and modification sections as they are in the current rule. However, the goal of this part is to bring all Class II gaming systems further into compliance. Even the current regulation requires a modification, at a minimum, to maintain or advance the system's compliance with this part. To allow a grandfathered component to be added to a fully compliant system would work against that goal by allowing a system to be regressively modified, bringing it further out of, rather than into, compliance with these regulations. If a grandfathered component is added to an otherwise fully compliant Class II gaming system, that system ceases to be fully compliant.
Comment: Section 547.5(a)(7) of the NPRM requires a supplier of any player interface to designate each player interface with a permanently affixed label containing an identifying number and the date of manufacture. Commenters assert that this language may limit technology by eliminating the potential use of a consumer handheld device that is not distributed by the Class II game manufacturer or supplier. Commenters recommend that the proposed rule be modified to clarify that such a label is not required in the case of consumer devices such as mobile devices and tablets.
Response: The Commission appreciates the commenters' concern, but stresses the importance of the requirement that every player interface contain this information. Ensuring that this information is displayed somewhere on the player interface protects both the player and the gaming operation. This is especially true when the player interface is as easily interchangeable as a handheld device or tablet. However, to lessen the potential burden on these devices, the Commission has changed the provision, now found in § 547.5(b), to require that the player interface “exhibit information consistent with § 547.7(d) of this part and any other information required by the TGRA.” The provision no longer requires a “permanently affixed label” thereby giving the manufacturer or supplier additional options for ensuring that the information is displayed.
Comment: Section 547.5(c)(4) of the NPRM requires the test lab to confirm that “the operation of each player interface has been certified that it will not be compromised or affected by” certain events. Commenters point out, however, that testing labs do not test each player interface that is added to the gaming floor, but rather models of the player interface. Commenters request that the Commission amend this section to clarify that it does not require every player interface to undergo testing.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenters and has changed the section to specify that the testing laboratory's written report confirms that “the operation of a player interface prototype has been certified.”
Comment: One commenter suggested that the words “designed to be” should be inserted into the beginning of § 547.7(f) of the NPRM so that the section reads as follows: “Any class II gaming system components that store financial instruments and that are not designed to be operated * * *.”
Response: The Commission declines to adopt this recommendation, but acknowledges that the section is confusing as drafted in the NPRM. To clarify that this is a technical standard capable of being tested, rather than a control standard that belongs in part 543, the Commission has changed the section to read:
“Any financial instrument storage components managed by Class II gaming system software must be located within a secure and locked area, cabinet, or housing that is of a robust construction designed to resist determined illegal entry and to protect internal components.”
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the section's prohibition of any automatic changes to game rules may operate to limit the use of certain technologies that may otherwise provide for full and clear disclosure of all rules and any changes thereof.
Response: The Commission changed § 547.8(b)(1) of the NPRM to state: “Each game played on the Class II gaming system must follow and not deviate from a constant set of rules for each game provided to players pursuant to § 547.16. There must be no undisclosed changes of rules.” Although the Commission still believes that there should be no automatic rule changes, it believes that the first sentence of the section adequately addresses its concern. By requiring each game to “follow and not deviate from a constant set of rules for each game,” it clearly prohibits the game from changing the rules given to the player pursuant to § 547.16.
Comment: When the Commission published the discussion draft of these standards, it carried over the current regulation's requirement found in § 547.8(k)(3) that the validity of affected data stored in critical memory must be checked after certain events. The current regulation and discussion draft included both “each attendant paid win” and “each attendant paid progressive win” in that list of events. In response to the discussion draft, the Commission received a comment suggesting that it delete the reference to attendant paid progressive wins, as each attendant paid progressive win is just a subset of “each attendant paid win,” which is already noted in subparagraph (ii). The Commission initially agreed with the commenter, striking the requirement from the NPRM as redundant. Upon further review, however, and as the result of internal discussions, the Commission is reinstating the requirement.
Comment: Section 547.8 of the current technical standards contains certain requirements regarding entertaining displays. Section 547.8(a)(2)(ii) requires that, between plays of any game, or until a new game option is selected, the player interface must display the final results for the last game, including the entertaining display. Section 547.8(d)(2), meanwhile, requires that the entertaining display be included in the last game recall.
Response: The Commission respectfully disagrees. The standard, as proposed, does not require a blank screen. It requires the player interface to display the wager amount and all prizes and total credits won during the last game played, the final results of the last game played, and any default purchase or wager amount for the next play.
Comment: The proposed rule removed the requirement from § 547.12 that the TGRA authorize all downloads by a Class II gaming system. This change was first made in the discussion draft and many commenters requested clarification that nothing prohibits the TGRA from maintaining the download approval requirement. In the NPRM, the Commission reiterated that, as stated in § 547.3(a), the Commission recognizes that the TGRA regulates technical standards and, accordingly, may implement stricter standards. One commenter to the NPRM, however, stated that although they understand that the TGRA has the authority to require restrictions to control software downloads, the purpose of including this requirement in the technical standard is to ensure that manufacturers implement processes in the design of their products. According to the commenter, these standards should incorporate controls over digital content as part of the design of Class II systems rather than implement awkward or ineffective controls after the fact. According to the commenter, the original intent of the standard was to ensure control over downloadable content until the TGRA has performed an independent software authentication.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter that controls must be incorporated to ensure control over downloadable content until the TGRA has performed an independent software authentication. But the Commission also believes that § 547.12, as included in the NPRM, establishes those controls. The NPRM removed the requirement that downloads be conducted only as authorized by the TGRA. The Commission continues to believe that the download authorization requirement is an internal control that belongs in part 543, where it has been relocated. The remaining requirements in § 547.12 ensure control over the downloaded information in multiple ways. The standard requires each system to use secure methodologies in delivering the downloaded data, and provide information that the TGRA will need when making its decision to approve or disapprove use of downloaded information. The standard also requires that any downloaded game software be capable of being verified by the Class II gaming system. All of these requirements provide the TGRA with the information necessary to exercise its authority, as required by the part 543 Minimum Internal Control Standards, to approve downloads.
Comment: Several commenters noted that changes made to § 547.14(b)(2) regarding random number generation (“RNG”) could negatively impact Class II gaming. According to the commenters, the current rule permits the use of various discretionary RNG tests. The proposed rule, however, mandated three specific tests. Although in many instances a Class II gaming system that has already been certified as compliant may have performed these now mandatory tests, other systems may not have been certified because the tests were not previously required. Thus, this new requirement may necessitate recertification of a fully compliant system at a substantial cost and inconvenience to tribal gaming operations. The commenters recommended either restoring the wording of the current rule or including language to clarify that these new requirements are not applicable to previously certified Class II gaming systems.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenters and has restored the wording of § 547.14(b)(2) to that of the current rule. The change to three mandatory RNG tests was made after discussions with the TAC, and was based on the fact that the Commission was informed that these three tests were nearly always performed as a matter of course and should be made mandatory. However, the Commission acknowledges that this change would create an additional testing requirement and run the risk of decertifying several machines. Rather than making the mandatory testing requirement prospective, thereby creating a third category of certified games (those certified as grandfathered, those certified as fully compliant prior to the effective date without the mandatory RNG tests, and those certified as fully compliant after the effective date with the mandatory RNG test), the Commission restored the language of the current rule, and all tests are discretionary. The Commission reminds TGRAs, however, that these are minimum standards—a TGRA may require that any of the tests be performed as part of the certification process.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about § 547.14(f) of the NPRM, which requires an RNG that provides output scaled to given ranges to use an unbiased algorithm. The current regulation specifies that a scaling algorithm is considered to be unbiased if the measured bias is no greater than 1 in 100 million. This ratio was later updated by NIGC bulletin to 1 in 50 million. The NPRM, however, changed the standard to require that the RNG use an unbiased algorithm and any bias be reported to the TGRA. Commenters assert that this is an unrealistic or untestable standard. In support, commenters point out that requiring any bias is a maximum standard, not minimum. Commenters also note that, because there will always be some—often insignificant—measure of bias, the standard will require near constant reporting to the TGRA.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenters and has restored the current regulation's standard. The rule still requires the RNG to use an unbiased algorithm, but specifies that a scaling algorithm is unbiased if the measured bias is no greater than 1 in 50 million. As the Commission previously explained in Bulletin 2008-4, this bias standard adequately protects the statistical randomness of the number generator.
Comment: Commenters suggest that the § 547.16(b) requirement that player interfaces continually display disclaimers is burdensome and unfeasible in smaller devices such as hand held devices. A suggested option is to include alternate language requiring the disclaimer to be displayed only until acknowledged by the player.
Response: The Commission declines to adopt this recommendation. The disclaimers are of critical importance, and, therefore, the Commission believes that it is necessary that they be displayed somewhere on the player interface at all times.
Comment: Section 547.17 permits a TGRA to approve an alternate standard to those set out in this part. That alternate standard, however, is subject to the review and approval of the NIGC Chair. To facilitate that review, the TGRA must submit (1) a detailed report to the NIGC, which must include 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 (2) the alternate standard, as approved, and the record upon which it is based. Some commenters stated that these two requirements are redundant and the “record upon which [the alternate standard] is based” will necessarily include the detailed statement.
Response: The Commission disagrees. The first requirement is a statement from the TGRA to the Commission about the standard as approved, while the second requirement is the standard itself and all of the documents and information the TGRA used in deciding whether to grant the alternate standard.
Comment: A few commenters asked for the standard be changed to clarify that the TGRA can implement the alternate standard as soon as it is approved by the TGRA.
Response: The Commission has amended § 547.17(a) to include the statement that a gaming operation may implement an alternate standard upon TGRA approval subject to the Chair's decision pursuant to sub-section (b). The Commission believes that this language makes clear that an alternate standard may be implemented upon TGRA approval. To further alleviate any potential confusion regarding the alternate standard process, the Commission has also added language specifying that, if the Chair approves an alternate standard, the gaming operation may continue to operate accordingly. The rule now also specifies, however, that, if the Chair objects to the alternate standard, the gaming operation must cease using the alternate standard and must follow the applicable minimum technical standard.
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 et seq. and assigned OMB Control Number 3141-0014 which expired. The NIGC is in the process of reinstating that Control Number. The final rule does not require any significant changes in information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 547 Back to Top
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the NIGC revises 25 CFR part 547 as follows:
PART 547—MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR CLASS II GAMING SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT Back to Top
547.1 What is the purpose of this part?
547.2 What are the definitions for this part?
547.3 Who is responsible for implementing these standards?
547.4 What are the rules of general application for this part?
547.5 How does a tribal government, TGRA, or tribal gaming operation comply with 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 TGRA apply to implement an alternate minimum standard to those required by this part?
Testing laboratory. An organization recognized by a TGRA pursuant to § 547.5(f).
(b) Approved gaming equipment and software only. All gaming equipment and software used with Class II gaming systems must be identical in all respects to a prototype reviewed and tested by a testing laboratory and approved for use by the TGRA pursuant to § 547.5(a) through (c).
(a) Grandfathered gaming systems: Any Class II gaming system manufactured before November 10, 2008, that is not already certified pursuant to this sub-section or compliant with paragraph (c) of this section may be made available for use at any tribal gaming operation if:
(b) Grandfather provisions. All Class II gaming systems manufactured on or before November 10, 2008, that have been certified pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, are grandfathered Class II gaming systems for which the following provisions apply:
(3) Remote communications may only be allowed if authorized by the TGRA.
(4) As permitted by the TGRA, individual hardware or software components of a grandfathered Class II gaming system may be repaired or replaced to ensure proper functioning, security, or integrity of the grandfathered Class II gaming system.
(5) 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 TGRA finds will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's overall compliance with this part or any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter, after receiving a new testing laboratory report that the modifications are compliant with the standards established by § 547.4(a), § 547.8(b), § 547.14, and any other standards adopted by the TGRA;
(ii) Any hardware modifications that the TGRA finds will maintain or advance the Class II gaming system's overall compliance with this part or any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter; and
(iii) Any other modification to the software of a grandfathered Class II gaming system that the TGRA 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 any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter.
(iv) No such modification may be implemented without the approval of the TGRA. The TGRA must 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 must 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).
(6) The player interface must exhibit information consistent with § 547.7(d) and any other information required by the TGRA.
(7) If a grandfathered Class II gaming system is approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, it ceases to be a grandfathered system and the restrictions of paragraph (a) and (b) of this section no longer apply.
(c) Submission, testing, and approval—generally. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, a TGRA may not permit the use of any Class II gaming system, or any associated cashless system or voucher system or any modification thereto, in a tribal gaming operation unless:
(1) The Class II gaming system, cashless system, voucher system, or modification thereto has been submitted to a testing laboratory;
(2) The testing laboratory tests the submission to the standards established by:
(ii) Any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(iii) The TGRA;
(3) The testing laboratory provides a formal written report to the party making the submission, setting forth and certifying its findings and conclusions, and noting compliance with any standard established by the TGRA pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section;
(4) The testing laboratory's written report confirms that the operation of a player interface prototype has been certified that it will not be compromised or affected by electrostatic discharge, liquid spills, electromagnetic interference, radio frequency interference, or any other tests required by the TGRA;
(5) Following receipt of the testing laboratory's report, the TGRA makes a finding that the Class II gaming system, cashless system, or voucher system conforms to the standards established by:
(iii) The TGRA.
(6) The TGRA retains a copy of the testing laboratory's report required by paragraph (c) of this section for as long as the Class II gaming system, cashless system, voucher system, or modification thereto that is the subject of the report remains available to the public for play in its tribal gaming operation.
(d) Emergency hardware and software modifications. (1) A TGRA, in its discretion, may permit the modification of previously approved hardware or software to be made available for play without prior laboratory testing or review if the modified hardware or software is:
(2) If a TGRA authorizes modified software or hardware to be made available for play or use without prior testing laboratory review, the TGRA must 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 or modified hardware or software to a testing laboratory for testing and verification of compliance with this part and any applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter that are testable by the testing laboratory; and
(iii) Immediately provide the TGRA with a software signature verification tool meeting the requirements of § 547.8(f) for any new or modified software.
(3) If a TGRA authorizes a software or hardware modification under this paragraph, it must 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 must 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).
(5) The annual gross gaming revenue of the charitable gaming operation does not exceed $1,000,000.
(A) Makes a suitability determination of the testing laboratory based upon standards no less stringent than those set out in § 533.6(b)(1)(ii) through (v) of this chapter and based upon no less information than that required by § 537.1 of this chapter, or
(i) Maintain a record of all determinations made pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section for a minimum of three years and must 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).
§ 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?
(iii) Be constructed to permit communication with the Class II gaming system of the accounting information required by § 547.9(a) and by applicable provisions of any Commission and TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.
(3) The monetary amount related to all valid financial instrument transactions by the Class II gaming system must be recorded as required by § 547.9(a) and the applicable provisions of any Commission and TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.
(2) The monetary amount related to all valid financial instrument transactions by the Class II gaming system must be recorded as required by § 547.9(a), the applicable provisions of part 543 of this chapter, and any TGRA regulations governing minimum internal control standards.
§ 547.8 What are the minimum technical software standards applicable to Class II gaming systems?
(b) Game initiation and play. (1) Each game played on the Class II gaming system must follow and not deviate from a constant set of rules for each game provided to players pursuant to § 547.16. There must be no undisclosed changes of rules.
(i) Provide all accounting functions required by § 547.9, by applicable provisions of any Commission regulations governing minimum internal control standards, and by any internal controls adopted by the tribe or TGRA;
(1) Be retrievable at all times, other than when the recall component is involved in the play of a game, upon the operation of an external key-switch, entry of an audit card, or a similar method; (2) Display the results of recalled games as originally displayed or in text representation so as to enable the TGRA or operator to clearly identify the sequences and results that occurred;
(1) Display the information specified in § 547.11(b)(5)(ii) through (vi) for the last five vouchers or coupons printed and the last five vouchers or coupons accepted; and
(v) Every reconfiguration, download, or change of prize schedule or denomination requiring operator intervention or action. (l) Secured access. Class II gaming systems that use a logon or other means of secured access must include a user account lockout after a predetermined number of consecutive failed attempts to access the Class II gaming system.
§ 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?
(i) Component fault
Reported when a fault on a component is detected. When possible, this event message should indicate what the nature of the fault is.
(ii) Financial storage component full
Reported when a financial instrument acceptor or dispenser includes storage, and it becomes full. This event message must indicate what financial storage component is full.
(iii) Financial output component empty
Reported when a financial instrument dispenser is empty. The event message must indicate which financial output component is affected, and whether it is empty.
(iv) Financial component fault
Reported when an occurrence on a financial component results in a known fault state.
(v) Critical memory error
Some critical memory error has occurred. When a non-correctable critical memory error has occurred, the data on the Class II gaming system component can no longer be considered reliable. Accordingly, any game play on the affected component must cease immediately, and an appropriate message must be displayed, if possible.
(vi) Progressive communication fault
If applicable; when communications with a progressive controller component is in a known fault state.
(vii) Program storage medium fault
The software has failed its own internal security check or the medium itself has some fault. Any game play on the affected component must cease immediately, and an appropriate message must be displayed, if possible.
(c) Non-fault events. The following non-fault events are to be acted upon as described below, if applicable: Event
(1) Player interface off during play
Indicates power has been lost during game play. This condition must be reported by the affected component(s).
(2) Player interface power on
Indicates the player interface has been turned on. This condition must be reported by the affected component(s).
(3) Financial instrument storage component container/stacker removed
Indicates that a financial instrument storage container has been removed. The event message must indicate which storage container was removed.
§ 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?
(2) Downloads must use secure methodologies that will deliver the download data without alteration or modification, in accordance with § 547.15(a).
(b) Verifying downloads. Downloaded software on a Class II gaming system must be capable of being verified by the Class II gaming system using a software signature verification method that meets the requirements of § 547.8(f).
§ 547.13 What are the minimum technical standards for program storage media?
(c) Writable and rewritable program storage media. (1) Writable and rewritable program storage, such as hard disk drives, Flash memory, writable CD-ROMs, and writable DVDs, may be used provided that the software stored thereon may be verified using the mechanism provided pursuant to § 547.8(f).
§ 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?
(a) Rules, instructions, and prize schedules, generally. The following must at all times be displayed or made readily available to the player upon request: (1) Game name, rules, and options such as the purchase or wager amount stated clearly and unambiguously;
§ 547.17 How does a TGRA apply to implement an alternate minimum standard to those required by this part?
[FR Doc. 2012-23161 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]