San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Tribal Gaming Commission

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION

27995 Highland Ave., Suite 301 (909) 863-2150
Highland, CA 92346 (909) 863-2155 Fax

November 9, 2011

Ms. Tracie Stevens, Chairwoman
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L St. N.W., Suite 9100
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Chairwoman Stevens,

Pursuant to your request for public comment on changes to 25 CFR Part 547 (Class II
Technical Specifications) as proposed by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians and the “Tribal
Gaming Working Group”, we offer the following comments.

§ 547.4 (f) (1) (iii) — The existing regulation prohibits a tribally owned test lab from testing
gaming equipment used in that Tribe’s own gaming operation.

The proposed revision reverses that premise and allows a Tribe to have its own test lab
testing its own equipment and certifying compliance with these technical specs.

It should be obvious to any observer that this creates, if not a real risk, certainly a
perceived risk, of a conflict of interest.

We recommend no change.

§ 547.5 (c) “Fairness”: The existing regulation establishes a minimum mathematical probability
(odds) for hitting an advertised jackpot.

The proposed revision eliminates any required minimum odds, and simply requires the
test lab to calculate what the manufacturer has programmed for “probability” and inform the
TGRA.

It is an undisputed fact that the complexity of “bingo math” is so vast that it could/would
allow for programming a mathematical probability that an advertised jackpot could never (or
virtually never) be won. This would not be “fair” to the public.

Players have the right to expect that an advertised jackpot is winnable. The regulatory
community has an obligation to protect that player’s “right of expectation” by establishing some


minimum guaranteed threshold. Failure to do so would require a regulator to inform the public,
media, or anyone else inquiring, that the “odds” in Class II games are “unregulated”.

§ 547.7 (a) “General Requirements” — The existing regulations require Class I] gaming systems
to comply with any applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and to
be tested by Underwriters Laboratories certifying the safety and reliability of equipment.

While we would have no objection to the proposed elimination of these two
requirements, for the protection of the Tribe we believe it would be wise to require the
manufacturer to provide some kind of certification or assurance attesting to the safety of the
equipment.

§ 547.8 (a) (2) (ii) The existing regulation 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 entertaining displays of results, if any”.

The proposed revision eliminates the display of results related to the entertainment
display.

From a practical standpoint it would seem counterproductive to have the most exciting
and entertaining feature of the game (the entertainment display) be required to go blank in
between games. We would recommend no change here.

§ 547.8 (d) (2) The existing regulation sets forth parameters for what should be displayed as part
of the “last game recall” capabilities. Specifically, it states that the last game recall function
shall “display the results of recalled games as originally displayed or in text representation,
including entertaining display results implemented in video, rather than electro-mechanical form,
if any”.

The proposed revision eliminates any requirement to be able to recall the “entertaining
display results”.

We strongly object to this revision for the following reasons.

First, when a paytable on a player interface indicates that certain combinations of
symbols will result in certain prizes, a player has a reasonable right to expect that if that
combination of symbols appear on the pay line of the “entertainment only” display, that they
have won a prize.

We understand that there are disclaimers on the player interface advising that the reels
and symbols are for “entertainment only” and that the outcome of the game is determined by the
game of bingo. However if posted prize paying combinations of symbols appear in the
“entertainment display” and no prizes are awarded, the integrity of the gaming system and
reputation of the Tribe may be called into question by the playing public.


Secondly, in most jurisdictions the regulatory authority is responsible for investigating
player disputes and rendering final rulings. Consequently, the regulatory investigator has the
right and need to know what the player actually saw, giving rise to the dispute. The regulator’s
investigatory abilities are seriously hindered without access to what was publically displayed in
the last game.

§ 547.17 Variance Requests: We would recommend that information described in the existing
paragraphs (b) (2) (i) and (ii) (which are proposed for deletion) be retained as part of a
submission to the Commission. It would seem likely that if this information is initially included,
it will reduce the risk of the Commission asking for additional information as allowed in

paragraph (a) (2).

We apologize for failing to submit these comments by the October 7, 2011 date specified
in the August 15, 2011 Federal Register publication. We did not realize that the product of an
unofficially recognized “working group” could be subject to official public comment. We are
historically accustomed to submitting comments on rules drafted and/or proposed by the federal
agency(s). We accept responsibility for the confusion and misunderstanding.

We humbly request that you consider including these comments in your public record.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and hope you find some value in

Norman H. DesRosiers
Executive Director Gaming Commission

cc: Stephanie Cochran, Vice-Chairperson
Daniel J. Little, Commissioner
Lael Echo-Hawk, Counselor