I am no expert on RNGs, but I can think of two reasons off the top of my head:
First:
Remember that if you decrease the chance of a type 1 error, you increase the chance of a type 2 error. For testing RNGs, a type 2 error seems much worse.
Null hypothesis: This RNG is OK under the criterion of the particular test.
Type 1 error: We reject the null when it's true. That is, we reject a good RNG.
Type 2 error: We fail to reject the null when it's false. That is, we use a bad RNG.
Type 1 error means the programmers have more work to do. Type 2 error means our banking records are not secure.
Second, and more general, the whole question of whether we need to do any correction for multiple comparisons is one in which (to quote Jacob Cohen) "reasonable people can differ". I would say that, if the tests being applied to the RNGs are really different from each other, that would argue against correction. Also, if the plan of testing is specified ahead of time, that would also argue against correction. I think the corrections are most needed when we are in a field where we know very little and are doing a whole lot of testing of hypotheses. One such is the area that Fisher did most of his work in: Testing fertilizers and other products in agriculture (especially back when Fisher was working). That was more a of a "let's try this, it might work!" atmosphere. And there, the importance of the two types of error was quite different.