1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

______________________________________________________

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

TRIBAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

NOVEMBER 15, 2011

VOLUME I

______________________________________________________

DATE: November 15 - 17, 2011

PLACE: Hilton Garden Inn

815 East Mall Drive

Rapid City, South Dakota 57701
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

I N D E X

TAC MEMBERS PRESENT:

John Magee, Gaming Commissioner, Pechanga Band

of Luiseño Mission Indians

Kathi Hamel, Casino General Manager, Lytton

Rancheria of California

Jason Ramos, Gaming Commission Chairman, Blue

Lake Rancheria

Daniel K. McGhee, Gaming Commission

Administrator, Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Brian Callaghan, Gaming Commission Executive

Director, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians

Christinia Thomas, Office of Gaming Regulation

and Compliance Executive Director, Mille Lacs

Band of Ojibwe

Steve Garvin, Gaming Commissioner, Ho-Chunk

Nation

Jeff Wheatley, Director of Gaming,

Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians

Michele Stacona, Gaming Commission Executive

Director, The Confederated Tribes of the Warm

Springs Reservation of Oregon

Leo Culloo, General Manager of The Point

Casino, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

Mia M. Tahdooahnippah, Gaming Commission

Compliance Director, Comanche Nation

Robin Lash, Gaming Commissioner, Miami Tribe

of Oklahoma

Matthew Morgan, Gaming Commissioner, Chickasaw

Nation

Thomas Wilson, Gaming Commission Executive

Director, Pascua Yaqui Tribe

Carleen Chino, Gaming Commissioner Executive

Director, The Navajo Nation

NIGC SPEAKERS:

David Little

Nimish Purohit

R. Rust West

Tracie Stevens

Michael Hoenig

FACILITATOR:

Robert Fisher
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

(November 15, 2011, at 8:05 a.m.)

MR. FISHER: Good morning, everyone. So

we're only missing one TAC person so far. And

there is a question that has come up before we

get to our agenda, and I'm going to turn it over

to Commissioner Little.

MR. LITTLE: Good morning, everyone.

First of all, I want to welcome everybody here

today. Glad everybody made it safely.

Before we even get started with welcomes,

introductions, there is an issue that we need to

address and to the group to discuss. The

Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association has contracted

with a court reporter to take a transcript of

these proceedings, and then they would like to

post it on their website.

When we started this process, we discussed

this issue in great detail amongst the

commission. And I think through our past

experiences, through our consultation in the last

basic year and a half, we've been very clear

about our desires for transparency and openness.

If you look on our website, there's a lot of

information, including every single transcript

from every single public meeting or consultation
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

that we held. We are very big believers in

document -- written documentation, of any

activity that the commission does in the public.

However, when we were talking about this issue,

we did raise a point that we were concerned that

a written document or a transcript, word for word

transcript, could stymy full and open

communication. I think at the end of the day, we

came down to the point that we decided to do a

written summary and have someone take notes

versus doing an actual transcript.

We understand part of the nomination

process, you are all required to get, you know,

permission from your councils that you are able

to make decisions and speak, you know, speak on

behalf of your tribes. We understand that's a

huge responsibility. And, you know, we didn't

want to make sure that you were looking at every

single word that you said with the concern that

that may go back to your council and then there

could be some discussion that may not be, you

know -- you may not like. So that was the whole

reason why we decided not to use a

transcriptionist and decided to go with a written

summary. However, we do have this issue
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

presented before us.

And the folks that, you know, did bring

this reporter, you know, has made some compelling

arguments that there has been a lot of questions

about this group and what we're doing. So my

idea was that this is your group. This is your

decision. If it's something that you all believe

is in the best interests of, you know, this group

going forward, then I'm fine with it. However, I

would have two requests. One is that because we

did originally talk about doing this, the

commission would actually like to pay for it

because we think it is something that we think is

appropriate to do. And then we would like to put

it on our website versus I think the folks from

Oklahoma have -- that they would put it on their

website. Now, it's entirely up to you. This is

obviously your group and I would like to open up

a discussion amongst everybody here, including

the folks from Oklahoma that did bring the

transcriptionist here. I think it's something we

need to talk about and take care of right away.

Because she is behind us here and ready to go.

MR. FISHER: She's starting.

MS. LASH: I would just like to say for
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

the record, I don't oppose her being here. I

think it's a good idea to have a free flow of

information, and I hope that it's not a problem

with the TAC. Also, I would like to point out

that this is a public hearing, and I think that

it's not really the decision of the TAC whether

she could be here or not. It's a public hearing,

and I think she has the right to be here for the

public. It's a public information event. But I

think it's a good idea. There's been some errors

in the summary, and I think that having that as

our only record and dealing with errors in the

summary that we have, I think it's better just

that the information just be free flowing and

accurate.

MR. LITTLE: I don't disagree with

anything you said.

MR. WILSON: I don't foresee in my mind

that our tribe would have a problem with a court

reporter being here. But I do see that if it

were posted out on their website as kind of --

that would seem odd to me and that my preference

would be that if they're going to be recorded,

then that information should be posted wherever

you normally would post information. I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

personally wouldn't want my tribal council to ask

me a question about something they read on a

non-NIGC website about the meeting. It just

seems to me that that would be a little bit

convoluted.

MR. LITTLE: Anybody else that wants to --

MR. WHEATLEY: Is this a standard

procedure for NIGC meetings?

MR. LITTLE: It has been since this

commission has been formed. We've transcribed

every public event and consultation that we've

done.

MS. STEVENS: The commission -- I think

back -- the previous commission did not do

transcriptions. They did transcribe. We did

that as soon as I came into office, started

transcribing our consultations. It is very

costly. What's costly, if any of you have done

this before, is it's per page. I think on

average, we're spending --

MR. LITTLE: 7 to 10,000.

MS. STEVENS: It's in the thousands in one

day because of the pages that they have to

transcribe. And so when we do three days in a

row, that's very costly. Even the White House is
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

in a Tribal Nations conference. They do

summaries because of the costs. But we've

started doing the transcribing. The previous

commission in their TACs did not do this. And,

frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed that

Oklahoma Indian Gaming didn't talk to us about

this and sprung this on us this morning with the

court reporter being here, when that was

something that was never done before with the

previous commission. When it was probably more

reason to do it there than there is here.

As Dan said, we've been very clear about

what our intentions are. We've been letting

everybody know what we wanted to do. We are

approaching this differently than the previous

commission. You know, we have an alternative

standard that's been put in front of us, and

rather than just taking it, altering it and

putting it right to the Federal Register, we're

adding not only did we ask it from the tribes and

the manufacturers as have happened before; we've

added this TAC in here from around the country to

give us their opinion of that document, and

that's an extra step that's happened. So we've

been, I think, very fair.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

I'm concerned at how we're stepping off

here. You know, ghosts of past and a hangover

from previous commissions are still haunting us.

And I'm frustrated by this, and I'm disappointed.

And, you know, we're going to leave this to all

of you to decide, but I have to be honest that

having come down from, you know, 15 minutes

before the meeting to have this sprung on me is

rude. So this will be left to you all to decide.

We -- you know, the reason we -- like Dan said,

we chose not to do the transcriptionists so that

we, one, could be mindful of the costs; and, two,

we could have free-flowing conversation and that

there be some trust. You know, the summaries go

around so that there can be some corrections made

to them prior. And it's not like we're trying to

hide anything or that we're trying to do anything

shifty. But we're just trying to be mindful of

free-flowing information and costs. And,

overall, and I'm just going to, you know -- one

thing you can always count on me for is candor,

even if it hurts. I'm disappointed that there is

already begun an "us versus them" mentality here.

And we put this together and we're not part of

your decision-making process as a TAC and we're
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

sponsoring this so we can get some wide spectrum

expertise from Indian Country on these particular

standards. And we do want to consider them, and

we're counting on all of you to give us your

recommendations; not just on this decision this

morning, but as we move forward, as you start

getting to substance, because we're still in the

middle of a process. This is another process

question. So that's all I have to say about

that. I'm going to be here for a little while

this morning, and then I'm going to leave. Dan

is going to be in charge of NIGC's participation

here, as you all know. I have the utmost

confidence in Dan, and I also have the utmost

confidence in Robert. So that's all I have to

say. Thank you.

MR. LITTLE: Is there anybody else that

had any other discussions on this?

MR. FISHER: I think it might be useful to

hear from everybody, just see what everybody is

thinking and figure out where we go from there.

MR. CULLOO: I don't have a problem with

it being recorded, a transcript being put

together, though. I would like it -- prefer it

to be on the NIGC website if it's going to be
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

anyplace at all. It does bring into question if

we go into small groups, are we going to have the

ability to go off the record at any point. So

those are the concerns I would have.

MS. HAMEL: I don't have an opinion one

way or the other, but I do share Leo's question

about is there some discussion that is off the

record, because it may be a lot more detailed

than needs to be published on the website.

MS. CHINO: I have the same kind of

concerns, just that for some -- to go off the

record at some point in time, can we do that and

that kind of thing. Other than that, I don't see

any problem with it either.

MS. THOMAS: I guess I have no issue with

it all being transcribed. It is expensive.

We've transcribed stuff before for our tribe, and

it does run a pretty hefty bill. I do agree with

Tom that it should be on the NIGC website. And

then just addressing their concerns, our

procedures actually allow us to go into a closed

meeting, and so at that point I wouldn't think

that they would be recording.

MR. WILSON: I would just add that my

concern is the Oklahoma association, if the TAC
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

were to vote, no, we don't, I don't want to get

into a debate about whether we have authority or

don't have authority to say, yes, we do, or, no,

we don't, because I suspect that they'll have

this person here anyhow. I mean, she's here now.

So I don't know. I just don't want to get into a

political debate about whether this person should

or shouldn't be here. I just want to make sure

that the information is accurate and that I'm not

-- I do not want to come across, nor does my

tribe, that we are being represented by the

Oklahoma Indian Gaming group, and that's why them

sponsoring having the court reporter here seems

odd to me.

MS. LASH: I've made my statement, but I

would like to add, though, you know, I do know

that there's a great expense for tribes to come

to be here to hear what's being said, and I know

that during the consultation, there were a lot of

tribes following what was going on at the

consultation through reviewing the transcript.

So I think it's useful to Indian Country as an

information source to follow the discussion and

what's taking place at our meetings.

MR. CALLAGHAN: No objection.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

MR. MAGEE: John Magee, for the record. I

don't object. It's a little odd, but I don't

object. As far as -- I'll have to agree with

Tom, post it on NIGC's website for the record. I

think that's where most of the documents have

been presented so far. I would have to agree

with that process.

MS. STACONA: Well, I don't think I have

any objections. It's a public meeting. I think

I'm going to have to watch what I say now a

little bit. But I guess my concern is on this,

are we still going to have the summary also being

done? I prefer a summary. I don't want to go

read in all the stuff everybody says line by

line. I don't have time to do that. So I would

like to still see the summary being done.

MR. GARVIN: I don't have any objections

certainly to the transcription. I would

appreciate it if the NIGC took on the expense. I

would appreciate that offer. I guess I'm a

little interested in why Oklahoma kind of did it

in the manner that they did it. I guess were you

anticipating NIGC, some push-back? Because they

explained why they didn't in the first meeting,

and so I was kind of interested to know. It
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

wasn't a good enough reason or --

MR. LITTLE: I don't have a reasoning why

it was done. I do understand it was at the last

minute, last minute issue, so maybe that's why we

weren't contacted. I don't know. Just

speculating. You know, I think it's a decision

which was made on Friday.

MR. GARVIN: I guess I don't have an

objection. I would hope my tribe doesn't have

any problem with what I said. I'm sure it will

be good.

MR. MORGAN: No objection. I will state

it's a public meeting. Every consultation I've

been through on your term has been transcribed,

and I read the goofy stuff I said on there so

far. It's not bothered me. We're here and it's

being transcribed. I hope it doesn't limit

anybody and anybody doesn't feel uncomfortable to

express. That decision was made by the OIG

leadership, which none of us here are actually

on, so I really can't answer the

behind-the-scenes question of what was done, if

it was discussed at a general meeting as far as

what the -- I guess of how that happened. We

don't know. From Oklahoma, we don't sit on that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

leadership group, so --

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I have no objections.

I think that it would be a positive thing if

later down the line, if there ever needs to be

why did we do a certain thing or how was it

interpreted, it would be helpful. But on the

flip side, I hope that doesn't limit conversation

and open dialogue.

MR. WHEATLEY: I don't know that I would

say I object. Again, I think I echo the

sentiments of some other folks that said I think

it's odd. I think it's unfortunate the NIGC has

to take on the expense, especially in our tight

budget times. I think it will limit some of the

conversations a little bit. Some people might

not feel as comfortable. I don't know who's

going to go back and review all these documents.

I think that the stuff that we have to read now

is plenty, plenty enough on our plate. I

certainly won't have time to go back and look at

transcripts. But, to me, it's a growing sense

that there's an adversarial relationship here,

and that's what I'm concerned about. How much

more process stuff are we going to have to talk

about before we get to reviewing regulations.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

We're already behind, and now we're again talking

about process issues. And if at what point, how

do we decide is this going to be on the record,

off the record, do we have to throw that into our

operating plan on how we handle those types of

discussions? That's my biggest concern is that

it's holding up what we're -- the work we're

actually supposed to be doing here.

MR. RAMOS: I think I agree with Jeff to a

large degree. I think that while it's a public

meeting, and I can't object to a public meeting,

I do kind of object to the way that it was

proposed to the group. I think that the tribes

that represent this stenographer had a duty and

responsibility to address this in some way during

the first meeting in Connecticut where we talked

about process. And if you're not going to do it

there, then at least get it on the agenda somehow

so that we know that it's here and not with the

other members of the group showing up and that

we're addressing a new issue that I don't have

much background in. But I would like to have had

some consideration prior to the meeting to be

able to formulate some thoughts on it so at the

end of the day, stand down or stand by on the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

issue, but I think there's some common courtesy

that really should have happened.

MR. LITTLE: So what does everybody want

to do? Christinia said we could go into a closed

meeting, vote to go into a closed meeting, kick

everybody out and decide what you want to do off

the record. We --

MS. STEVENS: Because you're on the record

right now.

MR. LITTLE: I did ask that she not start

prior to until we settled this issue.

MS. STEVENS: There's a couple of

questions, too. What happens in Connecticut,

what happens with the day, how does this get paid

for. Because NIGC, we had consultation

yesterday, and we couldn't get a stenographer, we

couldn't get one locally, so this had to have

been decided at some point just recently.

Because we planned out all of our consultations,

and we couldn't get one for Rapid City, which

tells me this was thought about. And so what do

we do today? Because she's on someone else's tab

right now. That means we don't own this

transcript, and it can't go on our website. And

then we will have to scramble to find one for
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

tomorrow and the next day. Which is fine, we'll

do that. I want to be clear. I don't have a

problem with it. It's just a decision. We've

been doing it all along. We'll do it again if

that's what the group decides. But then we've

got another process question here on how do we

move forward. And everybody's -- you know, it's

a little different when you start doing actual

transcription. You're going to have to state

your name, where you're from, so they can get it

accurately into the record. It's going to change

the dynamics here. So we all want to go into

closed session and talk about this, but we have

an issue right immediately on what to do.

MR. WILSON: I'd like to move that we go

into closed session. Because this wasn't an

agenda item, I'm really not prepared to talk

about this in an open session, and I do think

that this was sort of thrown on us, and so I'm

not comfortable discussing it in an open session.

I'd like to move that we go into a closed session

to resolve this.

MR. FISHER: Sure. So the procedures

allow for you to do that. And so if everybody is

okay with doing that, then let's ask the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

stenographer to stop and basically ask everybody

else to leave the room so that we can figure out

what you want to do. Okay.

(Executive session - discussion held off

the record.)

MR. FISHER: Should we get started? Okay.

What did you decide?

MR. WILSON: What we've decided is -- so

I'm speaking for the TAC right now. We don't

have any opinion on having a stenographer or not.

We're neither opposed to it nor in favor of it.

We feel like if there is an issue between NIGC

and Oklahoma Gaming Association, that you guys

can work that out as far as that goes. But we'd

like to move past any further discussion in this

group about that issue.

We would also like to close some

procedural issues. We're prepared to vote on the

guidance documents or operating procedures, as

well as the public comment procedures.

We do have one comment on the public

comment procedures that we would like to discuss.

We'd like to table the summary document to get

some feedback to you, Robert, between today and

tomorrow that we then could have changes made to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

that and vote on that document on Thursday. And

that's what we'd like to do to move the process

forward, and we'd like to put procedural issues

to bed now and not have to revisit them unless

absolutely necessary.

MR. LITTLE: So is it on the NIGC website,

the document, or on OIGA's?

MR. CULLOO: You guys are supposed to

decide that.

MR. WILSON: We feel like OIG is going to

do whatever they want anyhow, so we had a

preference on the NIGC website, but, again, we

really don't -- we don't have an opinion one way

or the other.

MR. LITTLE: We'll talk to the Oklahoma

Gaming Association and see if they'll loan us a

copy to put on our website. And then at the next

meeting, and all future meetings, we'll arrange

to have a transcriptionist do that. Okay.

MS. STEVENS: I'm going to expound on this

point. These would not be our documents. And we

have no control over the content of the document,

so that is my disclaimer, and I'm sure my

attorney would agree with me back there, Mike.

These are not ours. We would have to ask
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

OIGA if they could submit those to us, just like

the tribal meeting working group's document. We

have to put it on the website that this is not

our document; this is someone else's document,

and we have no responsibility of the content of

those documents for this meeting. Because we

have an immediate question to answer right now,

which is we have a lady, lovely Amy back here,

doing her job and we would need to have her keep

doing it or stop. And if she keeps doing it,

it's going to be on OIGA's tab, and all we can

ask is that OIGA share it with us. And, you

know, they can choose to or not to share it with

us and then we would have to post it on our

website later on as they have submitted it to us

and with the appropriate disclaimers that this is

the property of OIGA and not NIGC. And then we

can arrange for a transcriptionist at the next

ones, and we can proceed as we normally do with

how we handle transcriptionists in the future.

So is that workable for everybody? Okay.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So it sounds like you

want to get to doing the voting on the operating

procedures and the public engagement protocol.

MR. WILSON: If we could vote on the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

operating procedures first and then have a brief

discussion on public protocol and then vote on

that.

MR. FISHER: Before we do that, could I

introduce my colleague, Kim Oliver, who is here

joining us, who I expect is going to be here

throughout however long I'm here with you in

place of Touchard who was here with us at the

last meeting. So, Kim, she also works -- you can

say -- you want to say two seconds?

MS. OLIVER: Sure. I'm currently working

for the Department of Interior in an accelerated

management development program where I spent four

months in various offices under the Office of

Secretary. And collaborative action resolution

is currently one of the offices I'm rotating

through. I've been through environmental policy

and compliance, Office of Civil Rights where I

wrote final agency decisions for the department,

and my first rotation was in the Office of Budget

where I worked in the past. So I'm glad to be

here.

MR. FISHER: I'm glad to have her. It was

my goal to have somebody who would be with us

throughout the whole process. Kim was able to do
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

that with us. Okay.

Did you want to say something before we

start? You look like you do.

MR. LITTLE: I just want to make sure that

I know in the protocols, has the group decided on

the employee issue disclosure or how that's going

to be handled?

MR. FISHER: Well, there was a thing that

got -- in this draft of the procedures about

employees.

MR. LITTLE: On my checklist here, I would

ask if we could go back and get further

definition of employee and how it's viewed under

FACA. We're prepared to talk about it, unless

it's something that's been already resolved.

MR. FISHER: Sounds like they're ready to

vote.

MR. LITTLE: What's determining is a

resolution going to be provided by your councils.

Do you want a form letter created? What is the

process for you bringing your, you know, experts

or whomever might -- is this the right time to

talk about this? How is that to be handled?

Okay. It was handled with a resolution from a

council last time. Is that going to be the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

standard procedure for any experts, produce a

tribal council resolution? We need some -- we

need some documentation.

MR. FISHER: The way it's written right

now, it says that they'll provide written

verification, right?

MR. WILSON: Dan, we were comfortable with

how it's worded currently in the operating

procedures.

MR. LITTLE: Okay.

MR. FISHER: Did you have anything else?

Does that -- did that answer your question?

MR. LITTLE: Yeah.

MR. FISHER: All right. So then let's

turn to the operating procedures, and it sounds

like people are ready to -- so were there any

changes to it, or you're ready to approve it the

way it is, or is there anything else that people

needed to talk about?

MR. WILSON: We were ready to approve it.

MR. FISHER: So, you know, as part of our

consensus procedure, raise your hand if you agree

with the operating -- the draft of the operating

procedures dated 11/10.

(All hands raised.)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

MR. FISHER: Okay. That looks like

everybody.

MR. MORGAN: Procedural matters are simple

majority.

MR. FISHER: Okay. On the procedural

things, that's how you want to do your work, by

simple majority? Perfect. So I think that's it,

correct? We put that in there based on the

agenda plan.

MS. STEVENS: On recommendations, when you

get to substance recommendations --

MR. FISHER: Right. It's only on process

related.

MS. STEVENS: Clarifying.

MR. FISHER: All right. Congratulations.

All right. That takes care of that part of it.

So now the public engagement protocol.

MR. WILSON: We had a comment on that. We

feel like the TAC should be able to determine if

a speaker should be given more time. Right now

under the three-minute rule, it's NIGC that's

determining if somebody should have more time or

not. We feel like that should be the TAC that

determines that.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Was there anything
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

else to change in that? No. So it will stay the

way it's set up, three minutes, then the response

time. Unless the time limits are changed by the

TAC. Okay. So all I'll do is cross off the NIGC

representative in the TAC in there and it will

read, Time limits may be changed at the

discretion of the TAC, and then take out the

"after consulting." Okay. So are you ready to

check to see whether you've got consensus on

that? Now this would be a procedural thing. It

would only be a simple majority. But we might as

well see what everybody thinks about it. If you

agree with the document as revised, raise your

hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. Unanimous. All right

then.

MR. WILSON: One other comment, Robert.

On the summary document that would be on

Thursday, one thing they would like is we know

there's a summary document, but we're presuming

that there is a whole host of notes that really

have been taken by the -- in this case, Kim, and

we'd like to be able to see the entire package as

well as the summary, those two documents
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

together.

MR. FISHER: So those notes were not taken

from the perspective that anybody else was going

to read them, other than the person who created

the list. So they're raw notes. They're, you

know, not a transcript. There could be

commentary in there. I don't know. I have no

idea what's in there.

MR. WILSON: We're okay with that.

MR. FISHER: I figured you would be. I'm

wondering about Touchard. Okay. So how would

you like that -- you want me to e-mail that to

everybody? I'll e-mail it to everybody. Okay.

All right. So on the summary, my understanding

is you provide comments tomorrow or --

MR. WILSON: Today and tomorrow.

MR. FISHER: And then I can redo it and

send it back out to everybody and then we can

determine whether it's final. And once it goes

final, NIGC was going to put it on its website.

And since -- so you know, in terms of the way

that thing was drafted, and I know it got sent to

people later than we had said, but Touchard did a

first draft, he sent it to me. He got it to me

six days later than he committed to getting it to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

me. I then read through it and edited it and

then sent it out to you. It did not go to

anybody else for review before it went out to

you. It basically went to everybody for review.

I did check on a couple of the provisions in it

with -- one with NIGC and one with one of the TAC

members about some of the things that were in it,

and then it just went out to you for review. So

that's basically the procedure, is that nobody is

scrubbing those things in advance. And the

process is set up for you to be able to review

and to make changes so that it accurately

reflects what we did. Okay. So when do you want

to provide comments on it?

MR. WILSON: Well, some folks will provide

comments today. Some --

MR. FISHER: You give it to me in writing.

It would be easier in writing.

MR. WILSON: Yes, they'll give it to you

and they'll e-mail. Are you able to comment

electronically or in writing? Either way. And

you'll have all comments by tomorrow at noon.

And then that will give you time to make the

correction and then get that document back to us

on Thursday.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

MR. FISHER: Okay. I can do that. That's

good. Okay. So anything else on process? Okay.

So we need to actually kind of check in

with the agenda. Should we check in with the

agenda so we're not too far off. We're already

in the midst of the work. The only other thing

we had on the agenda before we got back into the

discussion on the technical standards is whether

there were any updates or information to share.

The commission put out its comparison

documents. Anybody have anything else to share,

or should we go straight into the technical

regulations -- technical standards, I mean?

Okay.

So what we said on the technical standards

was that we would pick up where we left off, and

where we left off was on the grandfather

provision. So just as a reminder to folks, you

know, the group is small enough. You know, that

exercise this morning where you talked about the

procedural things, to the extent that you can

talk to each other across the table, then let's

do it. If everybody wants to talk once, then

we'll use the cue process with the cards. And

we'd ask that everybody in the audience, if you
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

haven't already signed in, please sign in. If

you want to provide public comment to the group

before lunch, there's a place to sign in on the

sheet up there, and there's additional public

comment sheets in writing. Anything that's

commented in writing is shared with the TAC. All

right.

So we're ready to go to the technical

standards. I'm putting all my process documents

aside. So where we left off, we did create a

recommendation at the last meeting about the

Sunset provision. And there were other things

that we were talking about in the grandfather

provision, so who wants to kind of kick us off

and pick up where we left off?

MR. MORGAN: My recollection is the next

item we had to discuss is the submission date.

The current 547 had a 120-day submission

requirement past the November 10, 2008 deadline.

The tribal work group proposed that that go away

and make it read basically kind of similar to

what we talked about in Connecticut, all those

authorities kind of fall to your local tribal

gaming authorities. I like the way that that is

written. I like that authority being at a local
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

level jurisdictionally, not at a federal level.

Like at my jurisdiction, I can choose whether I

think something can come into play or not come

into play because, again, at least in my

jurisdiction, I have requirements above and

beyond what these are. So just because you may

meet federal 547 regulations to come into play,

it doesn't mean you can come into play at the

Chickasaw Nation. That's the way -- I don't know

if anybody else has any objection to it moving,

it being moved or not.

MR. WILSON: Just for a point of

clarification, the timeline, the 120 days is to

having to submit software. In other words, we've

already discussed the boxes, the recommendation

grandfathered in, and meeting those four criteria

we discussed. This is different, though. This

is dealing with the software?

MR. MORGAN: My understanding is that the

purpose was is that all things out there in the

market were to be submitted to a -- not

necessarily tested, but at least submitted within

120 days, software. The only thing about

removing it would be -- and it's kind of -- I'm

fuzzy from Connecticut -- is you would still meet
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

all the grandfathered requirements or whatever

requirements you tend to make; it's just that you

don't have to submit within that 120 days. You

submit it to the lab and you would still go

through that normal process under 547 and have

anything tested. The only thing we're saying is

if you miss that window, you're not forever

forbidden from playing that. And that comes into

context a lot in that some -- at least from

vendors I talked with, some games they didn't

think they were going to be profitable anymore.

Now they've changed their mind as new technology

came along. At least in Oklahoma, we'll be on

the one subject for a while, and then you kind of

see us go back to an older tradition form of

something and then we'll move forward again. And

it kind of ebbs and flows. And it's to take away

that you would never be able to play the

software. All requirements meet. If you still

want to play it, and you haven't got it tested by

a testing lab, you still have to send it. That's

my understanding.

MS. LASH: I agree. One other point is

the software, the things that we're talking about

have already been approved by court cases in the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

Ninth and Tenth Circuit as Class IIs. So we're

not going to conflict with what established law

is.

MR. WILSON: I'm wondering if we could

hear from the NIGC in terms of the thinking about

this 120-day rule, what the thoughts were about

that and why that was significant or not. Of

course, I understand that that was done in the

context of having a grandfathering clause, but,

you know, are we missing anything on our end as

to why you felt a 120-day rule was necessary?

MR. LITTLE: I can't say what their

thinking was when they created this, you know.

My understanding, I think, from reading the

preamble was that they figured the natural course

of the market will move these machines out and

they will no longer be -- the market won't demand

that. I think. I think. I can't be a hundred

percent certain what their logic was.

In Connecticut the question, I think, that

we had raised was how big of an issue is this.

Are there a lot of machines out there that would

not make -- and the market in 2009 had to be

submitted -- that did not make that date. How

big of an issue is that. And I think, if memory
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

serves me correctly, I think they said it was

about 6,000 machines out there that did not make

that deadline. And that date could be -- so it

was desired to bring them into -- to be used.

However they still would have to -- they still

would have to meet all the provisions under the

grandfather provision, but it's just they cannot

meet that arbitrary date. Am I correct?

MR. MORGAN: I think that elicits

discussion, but there's probably more than 6,000.

What we're talking about is software. So you're

talking about a software. Now, what that box,

that software goes on, at least in my mind, is

irrelevant. Because at least my understanding of

our conversation in Connecticut, our concern was

was it going to meet the testing standards. As

long as it's submitted and meets the testing

standards, I won't let the market determine how

many boxes that software goes on.

MR. LITTLE: You're right. Those boxes

and not the servers -- I mean, the software is

fully compliant. It's just the boxes that we're

discussing.

MR. MORGAN: Like ours, we own some

software that we bought, that we purchased as a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

tribe thinking that we could develop it for

future uses. I don't really have it assigned to

boxes yet, but we have the software. We have

that capability.

MR. FISHER: Jeff.

MR. WHEATLEY: As long as the manufacturer

goes through the expense of submitting the box or

whatever it is to the independent testing lab, I

don't think it should matter. I don't think when

it was developed or when it was tested, as long

as they're meeting the four or five different

criteria of the technical standards that are in

place now, it shouldn't matter when the box was

created. As long as they're submitting them and

they meet those four requirements, then they

should be able for play, is my --. It's on the

manufacturer to absorb those costs.

MR. MORGAN: I think I'm paraphrasing what

you actually said. That's my understanding.

MR. FISHER: Wait one second.

MR. LITTLE: What he is telling me is he

thought that the previous commission had kind of

pulled the manufacturers and that they would set

up through, I guess, consensus how long it would

take to get them into the lab. So we're just
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

kind of, you know, trying to remember what -- I

can't really say what the last was, but just a

little bit of additional information.

MR. RAMOS: I think where we had gotten,

Dan, is to the place where we said, Hey, look,

where's that arbitrary date, what's really

important? What's really important is that the

machines are safe for players; they're not going

to get, you know, hurt, shocked, whatever; that

there's not the -- that there's fairness of play;

that they've been tested; that there's not

reflexive software, near miss software; and that

the transmission was secure. And then Jeff's

follow-up comment was that's already in the

standards anyway. So we're kind of going full

circle there.

MR. McGHEE: So am I clear that the way

it's written in the proposed document where it

just struck out that "within 120 days," is that

basically that we're saying that that's okay?

MR. FISHER: It sounds like that that's

the proposal. You want to check to see if people

are in agreement with that?

MR. McGHEE: Yeah, if nobody is opposed to

it.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

MR. FISHER: Right. The question is

whether everybody is in agreement with

eliminating -- this is my way of saying that, so

maybe there's a better way of saying it --

eliminating that the date requirement to submit

to a lab, taking out that fixed --

MR. McGHEE: The 120 days.

MR. FISHER: Right, the 120 days. So

let's see if we can do it on a short hand wave.

Everybody good with this? Anybody have a problem

with it? It will be easier if we can work our

way through. If people have a problem with it,

they can say and we can talk about what the

problem is. If nobody has a problem, then we'll

consider it to be unanimous that you're in

agreement to remove it. Okay. So is there --

there's more in here, right? Kathi?

MS. HAMEL: I have a question just in the

document that we're working from does not have

the entire 547.

MR. FISHER: Right.

MS. HAMEL: And in 547 for (a), there's

provision number 7 that requires the player

interface to have a tag on it. And just like

what Matthew is saying, it's not the box that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

runs the game. It's the software. And I guess I

don't understand what the format of only those

items that are listed in there, the review

documents, are up for discussion, or are all the

provisions in 547 up for discussion?

MR. FISHER: Let me take a quick stab at

reminding people, because we talked a little bit

about this in October, so this document

represents the TGWG's comments. And while that's

the starting point for our conversation, anything

in the regulations is open for discussion.

MS. HAMEL: Do we need to bring it up, for

those people that may not have this in front of

them?

MR. FISHER: Bring it up, you mean up on

the screen?

MS. HAMEL: This section. Do you want me

to read it?

MR. FISHER: Yeah.

MS. HAMEL: It keeps talking about the

box, 547.4(a)(7).

MR. MORGAN: It's the --

MR. FISHER: Why don't you read it.

Before you do that, let me just double-check. So

I took it that we had unanimous agreement on
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

moving the March 20th date, the 120 days

requirement.

Okay. So do you want to read it, Kathi?

MS. HAMEL: I can.

MR. McGHEE: I have a question. So if the

document that was given to us by NIGC, you know,

they only -- if they only list (a) and then (1)

and then they skip the pages, so (2) through (7),

what does that mean? Does that mean they didn't

have a problem with (2) through (7) of the TGWG's

document or that they didn't have an opinion, or

did you only want an opinion on (a)(1)?

MR. LITTLE: When we did these, we only

compared the changes that were made by the TGWG.

And I think we talked about at the last meeting

was there any areas that were not addressed that

the group would like discussed. But we

actually -- at technical standards, we only

addressed the issue changes that were changed.

Now when we move forward to the bingo, we

actually -- there are some areas that we did have

to raise some issues with the parts that were not

affected by the document before us, just for some

clarification. So in this document, it's only

the changes that were presented to us that we
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

compared.

MR. McGHEE: So if I'm looking, there's

changes in 1, changes in 2 and 3, and then -- but

those aren't up here for discussion.

MR. PUROHIT: They might be in the

subsequent pages. Let me just double-check,

though.

MR. FISHER: What -- Dan, say again what

you don't see there.

MR. McGHEE: What I'm saying, and maybe

I'm missing it, is changes in the TGWG documents

are changes, but they're not in the comparison

document of NIGC. So it makes me think that

they're okay with those. Only the ones that they

listed may be the problem, and I just want to be

sure.

MR. FISHER: I was pretty sure they were

doing everything.

MR. PUROHIT: It was all the major things

that had a response from the TGWG for

justification. And if you look on the second

page, there's 547.4(2)(a) and then subsection (2)

that talks about limited media compliance that's

on the next page. It was kind of broken down

into sections that had like regulations in there.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

That's what we tried to focus on.

MR. McGHEE: It's not in order.

MR. PUROHIT: It's not necessarily all

together lumped in.

MR. McGHEE: So the changes that you're

talking about --

MR. FISHER: It's in there. Which page is

it on?

MR. PUROHIT: 547.4. The specific

subsection (7) with the box, that's not in here.

MS. HAMEL: I didn't think so. That's the

question I'm bringing up. It's not in the

document, but I have it.

MR. FISHER: We're still trying to make

sure that everything TGWG did is in the document

and then we'll come back to yours. Are you good,

Dan?

MR. McGHEE: Yeah. Now, just as long as

we can find it.

MR. FISHER: The intention is that it's

all in there.

MR. PUROHIT: If you notice on the top of

each page as well, we kind of grouped it into

sections of each. Like in the first section, we

talk about the grandfather provision and
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

everything that the TGWG proposed for that. And

the next one talks about the actual -- the

minimum probability standards and relevant

fairness requirements. So we grouped all the

TGWG proposed changes into that subgroup as well.

So we're kind of looking at the subject area of

the regulation document, not necessarily just

that. As far as the documentation, just do like

reg by reg and take a look at that.

MR. FISHER: So are you good?

MR. McGHEE: Good.

MR. FISHER: So let's go to Kathi's

question with 547.4(a)(7).

MS. HAMEL: The regulation reads, Require

the supplier of any player interface to designate

with a permanently affixed label each player

interface with an identifying number and the date

of the manufacture or a statement that the date

of manufacture was on or before the effective

date of this part. The Tribal Gaming Regulatory

Authority shall also require the supplier to

provide a written declaration or affidavit

affirming that the date of manufacture was on or

before November 10, 2008.

And here's our comment. Why is this a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

special requirement for player interfaces with a

grandfathered system? It's just a box. The

player interface has nothing to do with the play

of the Class II gaming system. It is possible

for a grandfathered Class II gaming system to

utilize the player interface cabinets that were

built after November 10, 2008.

MR. McGHEE: Really, it would be trying to

identify that the software was at least -- not

the box.

MS. HAMEL: Exactly. Through software

signature verification.

MR. MORGAN: To me that was their

confusion when the previous NIGC published it,

they kept mixing up software and boxes and

software, and they equated them to one and the

same in a Class II, which it's not. At least

with our last agreement, are you saying that this

should all be removed, is that where you're

getting to?

MS. HAMEL: There's one piece on here that

I think it's valuable that this has to have an

identifying number.

MR. FISHER: I guess the question is --

while we're having that discussion, I can figure
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

out how to project this.

MR. CALLAGHAN: In the manufacturer's

world -- and there's two sides of this. One, I

agree with the affidavit, that doesn't belong.

Two, manufacturers, particularly in the State of

Nevada, are required, and that's where the

majority of the boxes are made, in the Class 3

world. They're required to put a label on the

outside of manufacturing, and they also have to

subscribe on the inside of the cabinet. They

tell us that's what they're required to do. So

that may be the genesis of this. So you might

not see that for a manufacturer out of Norfolk,

Georgia.

So then the other part of this is on an

annual basis, we have to file a letter with the

Department of Justice, and I'm not thinking of --

where it says we have the ability to transfer

boxes interstate, and that may also be where

that's at. So that might be a safe part. I

think a Class 3 manufacturer is going to do this

anyway, because Nevada doesn't distinguish

between Class II and Class 3. But I do -- I

think you really had a very good point on that,

on, one, the affidavit; and, two, making the --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

distinguishing between the software and the

hardware.

MS. HAMEL: And when it was manufactured.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Correct.

MR. MORGAN: My worry here is that

technical standards are set up to be a checklist

for the independent testing lab, and suddenly

we're talking about a stick on a box that says

you submit the software back to your thing. So I

submit the software. Do I really need to submit

the box the software is going into with that

label? Because I don't know how that's a

technical standard from my perspective. If the

Class III of Nevada requires it, that's something

they have to meet in Nevada. That doesn't apply

to Class II. There's an explicit exemption for

Class II's on the Johnson Act for their gaming

machines. So I agree with you. I think that's

where it came from, now that you say that. We

have seen that a lot in the Class II world, where

a Class III requirement comes down on a Class II

because it makes sense in the Class III, but it

doesn't really make sense in our world. So

I'm --

MS. HAMEL: I'm not saying there shouldn't
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

be a label so you at least know where it came

from. I'm just saying that it's not relevant to

Class II and grandfathered systems and 547.4.

MR. MORGAN: Does this sentence fall

anywhere else? Because if we're talking only

about grandfathered here, did that sentence fall

anywhere else?

MS. HAMEL: I don't recall.

MR. MORGAN: Because if it's not relevant,

grandfathered, are we going to get rid of it or

move it to a different section so it does apply

somewhere, but just not within a grandfathered

system?

MR. FISHER: Did you hear his request

about whether it appears somewhere else? Do you

know the answer to that?

MR. LITTLE: I --

MR. PUROHIT: As far as the software side

of it identifying where the software? I don't

think there's any requirement that I'm aware of.

MR. MORGAN: The requirement is on the

player interface.

MS. HAMEL: Not on the software.

MR. PUROHIT: What you're requesting is is

there something that identified the date of the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

software itself?

MS. HAMEL: That's the relevant, not the

hardware.

MR. McGHEE: So can (7) just be fixed to

address software, not --

MR. PUROHIT: The key issue also is I

think the justification for the whole

grandfathered process was to make sure not

everything is introduced like this is

grandfathered, this is grandfathered even when

there's not. There's some kind of identifying

factor of what is going to be grandfathered. So

I think to Kathi's point, the box itself is from

a technical standard perspective. They can't

test the date of anything. But that's going to

be included that this is the software, this is

when it was submitted to a lab or this is when it

was identified as being created to prior to 2008

or whatever the timeline is.

MS. HAMEL: I think we have enough

language about software verification and testing

through labs because there has to be

documentation to support that. I just don't

think this applies at all to this section. I

don't think it's relevant at all.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

MR. FISHER: So your proposal would be to

remove it. So let's --

MR. RAMOS: I think it really -- with this

entire discussion, it kind of centers around what

we're really targeting in regulation. And,

really, from my perspective, it's the software

involved with the server and not so much this

discussion around the boxes.

MR. McGHEE: How would we -- just strike

that?

MR. WHEATLEY: So are we saying that the

box does not get submitted to the independent

testing lab at all?

MR. MORGAN: There's safety requirements.

MR. WHEATLEY: I think that the label

still needs to be there with the serial number

and the model number so that the tribal gaming

regulatory body can ensure that the model of

machine, regardless of what softwares, they'll

have do the software verification, but they also

need to confirm that the box that is on the floor

has been through an independent testing lab, and

then they'll do that through a model number.

MR. McGHEE: Number 7 doesn't require a

model number. It just requires a tab that says
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

this was manufactured. Somewhere in here, and I

don't know if it's in here or the MICS, that says

they have to have that stuff on the box. But

that paragraph number 7 only says it's something

to identify that that cabinet was produced before

November 7th or something.

MR. WHEATLEY: That all goes away with our

recommendations about the grandfathering and the

120 days. So that portion wouldn't be necessary.

As long as it's somewhere else within the

document that says that the box needs to have a

label that has the model number, serial number,

blah, blah, blah, I'm fine with that.

MR. MORGAN: You need some type of

identifying number.

MR. WHEATLEY: The tribal gaming

regulatory body needs to have a way to be able to

identify that this is an approved box.

MR. FISHER: So is that currently in a

separate regulation?

MR. LITTLE: I'm not aware of that.

MR. WHEATLEY: If there's hardware

requirements.

MR. PUROHIT: I'm not aware of any

specific technical standard that requires models
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

to be affixed on the side of the terminal or

anywhere identified. I think that might be in

the MICS.

MR. CULLOO: By the serial number.

MR. PUROHIT: The serial. That's

definitely a requirement.

MR. McGHEE: That's what I recall it

being, and when it talks about being an

identifying number and stuff like that. But I'm

not going to swear to it.

MR. FISHER: So the question that was

posed was whether people were in agreement or

disagree with removing this section (7). You

raised a question about wanting to make sure

there were other requirements that were still in

place. What I heard the answer was is that it's

in the MICS, not in the technical standards.

MR. McGHEE: Which (7) doesn't do that

anyway. Number (7) doesn't do it.

MR. FISHER: So why don't we check to see

what people are thinking about with respect to

the proposed recommendation to remove

Section 547.4(a)(7), what's projected up on the

screen there.

MR. PUROHIT: Can I say one word of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

caution, though? The other thing about the

technical standards, there is minimum design

guidelines for manufacturers. So if you take

that requirement, put it in the MICS, then the

manufacturer is going to say we have to start

looking at the MICS now, too, to put the labeling

on our terminals and all that stuff.

MR. McGHEE: This number (7) --

MR. PUROHIT: Again, the date itself.

MS. HAMEL: It does say a statement. It

doesn't necessarily have to be affixed. So

it's --

MR. McGHEE: The modeling and stuff he's

talking about are a separate issue to number (7).

Because this is only about making sure about that

before November 7th. So it would be formally

grandfathered or something. As far as model

number, serial number, whether you take this away

or add it or not, I don't think this is going to

appear somewhere else or not somewhere else.

MS. HAMEL: Are there player interfaces

out there without any sort of language affixed in

them? So to keep this -- the intent of

understanding where player interface came from,

could number (7) end at the date of manufacture
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

and strike the rest?

MR. PUROHIT: That's what I was trying to

get at. It has to be put in by the manufacturer.

It's still a design principle of the device

itself.

MR. FISHER: You would do that, right?

That's what you were saying? Let's pause here

for a second. So to make sure everybody is

hearing, Kathi, this is what you were saying, it

would stop here?

MS. HAMEL: That would give you a label.

It gives you some sort of identification,

identifying the number and the date of

manufacture. And obviously this -- the suppliers

would have their name on it, I assume.

MR. McGHEE: Is that a -- something that

needs to be limited? Once we take away all that

other garbage, what we're asking should probably

be somewhere in the (inaudible.)

MR. WILSON: Is the relevance of the date

of manufacture -- because I understand this part

that was in there is because of the arbitrary

date to determine this was prior to November or

whatever and this was after. So my question is:

What's the relevance of that date? I'm trying to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

think from a standpoint of auditing or something

after the fact, do I need that date, do I need

that information?

MS. HAMEL: It's not relevant on the box.

MR. WILSON: On the box. So if -- because

I'm wondering, too, with manufacturers even on

some of these machines, it's when they were

manufactured or other than if generically you can

say that this set of machines was manufactured

prior to whatever. But, again, if that date

serves no purpose for me, then --

MR. McGHEE: Just because the date is on

the machine doesn't mean you have to replace

everything on the machine, like the parts of it

that are not manufactured, the --

MR. WILSON: That's what I'm trying to get

at, is does this date mean anything to me from an

audit standpoint if I'm trying -- do I need that

date to determine something about that box?

MR. CULLOO: The box can be modified any

way. The date makes no difference.

MR. FISHER: So where does that take you

in terms of the suggestion around how to deal

with this section?

MR. MORGAN: To follow up on Dan's
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

question, and I heard Jeff say probably in the

hardware. If you will look at 547 -- 8; 547(d),

Player interface. The player interface shall

include a method or means to: display

information, allow player to interact with the

gaming system. My suggestion would be if you

think that statement is relevant and it needs to

go somewhere, that's probably the section it

needs to go in, on the player interface, 547(b).

You could have an (a) or I guess (1) or (2) or

however you want to.

MR. McGHEE: There's no (d).

MR. MORGAN: Yeah, (d). If you like that

first sentence, my suggestion is you move that to

547(d). If you like it. I'm in agreement, I

don't disagree with having that statement, but I

think it's misplaced if you have it there.

MR. FISHER: 547 -- 547.7(d), physical

enclosures.

MR. MORGAN: You got (c) and (d). So

either right there, physical enclosures, or

player interface. Because 547.7, the subject is,

What are the minimum technical hardware standards

applicable to Class II gaming systems. That

seems to be more appropriate for that section if
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

that's where you want to keep it.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Kathi, back to you in

terms of what's your suggestion?

MS. HAMEL: I agree with that, it needs to

be down with the hardware.

MR. FISHER: So it would be that first

sentence from --

MS. HAMEL: Or it can be 7. I mean, it

talks about an identification plate in (d).

MR. FISHER: Right.

MS. HAMEL: That includes serial number

and date of manufacture. It does say that.

MR. FISHER: You're saying it's covered?

MS. HAMEL: Isn't that what an

identification plate is?

MR. WILSON: It seems like the issue is

whether the manufacturer is going to be required

to put that information on the box or whether the

gaming regulatory authority requires that

information to be on the box. And it just seems

to me that it probably makes more sense for it to

come from the manufacturer as to make, model,

whatever identifying information needs to be on

there from the manufacturer.

MR. PUROHIT: Another word of caution, if
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

you remove it from 547.4 altogether, then it's

saying that this is only a requirement for fully

compliant cabinets, terminals. But, you know,

we're not concerned about the box. But then if

the tribal regulatory body wants to still do an

audit of grandfathered boxes for that nameplate

as well, then there's nothing that requires the

manufacturer to put that on any grandfathered

system and the components on there. It's only

for the fully compliant boxes. That's just a

word of caution over here. The way -- if you

just put it in here in 547.7, that's my only urge

of caution.

MS. HAMEL: So if you leave it in 547.4,

there's enough language in 547.7 that talks about

the physical box as well as an identification

plate. And if you just take out all the other

languages, it's telling the suppliers what they

need to do to be able to get a player. But I

don't think the date is relevant or when it was

manufactured in relationship to grandfathered.

MR. WHEATLEY: There's no such thing as a

grandfather clause anymore. There's only four or

five technical standards that any system needs to

meet in order to become compliant. So there's no
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

more grandfather.

MR. FISHER: Well, you got a little ahead

of everybody. So far we've been chipping away at

removing the pieces. We haven't said yet there's

a recommendation to remove the whole grandfather

provision.

MR. LITTLE: Just remove the deadline.

MR. FISHER: We remove the deadline, so

now you can have those dates. Does that change

what you were -- how you approach this?

MR. WHEATLEY: No, I think that thought

process is the same. It depends on if we agree

to remove the 120-day, the time frame clause.

But we've already removed the Sunset provision

which would be for existing compliances to meet

additional technical standards. Since we removed

that, the only requirement is that they meet the

existing technical standards that are in place

now. The question on the table, though, when we

go around is whether we remove the 120-day clause

that those systems already had in place, or now

can any system be submitted to conform to the

existing technical standards that are in place

now. If we do that, we essentially remove any

type of grandfathering clause in my mind. And if
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

that's the case, then that requirement would go

away as well. There's not a need to identify

whether a box or cabinet needs a grandfather

clause because there isn't one. Am I --

MR. WILSON: I'm not quite sure that's

correct, because we've got two levels of

standards. You've got the grandfather standards,

which are the four criteria that those have to

meet. But newer machines meet a higher degree of

standards that the older machines can't meet

because of their inherent design. So there

really are still two components. So new machines

being made are being made to meet a higher level

of standards, but not built to be the four

criteria.

MS. HAMEL: And you could take a box

manufactured after November 2008 on a

grandfathered and play it on a grandfathered

system and use it on a grandfathered system.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So where does that

leave us in terms of the recommendation? Daniel?

MR. McGHEE: All right. So what we're

saying is with number 7, we want to -- basically

we're talking about striking the whole paragraph.

The only concern was that grandfathered systems
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59

still have a requirement that they have an end

plate or identifying number. So what she had

said before, where it ended at player interface

with an identifying number, period --

MS. HAMEL: And date of manufacture.

MR. McGHEE: Which isn't on here. It

ended after manufacturer would solve the problem.

So how does everybody stand on that?

MR. FISHER: I think we need to delete --

sorry, I'm trying to -- it's that --

MR. PUROHIT: Kathi, for consistency would

it be some language along the lines of in 547.4,

identification plates as required by tribal

agreement regulatory authority? Kind of leave it

like --

MS. HAMEL: But in 7, 547.7, not 547.4.

MR. PUROHIT: No, in 4, because there's

still a requirement for the TGRAs, like what Tom

was just outlining, you still want to be able to

audit any of the information, the unique

identifiers on there. Instead of putting a date

requirement, just any kind of requirements that

you might have specific to your jurisdiction,

including date, serial number, whatever. But

it's just like keeping a generic with the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60

identification plate from 547.7, as well. That's

what I was trying to get at.

MS. HAMEL: So I don't understand.

MR. WILSON: From my standpoint, it's just

that I want to be able on the floor or whenever

to identify a machine, a box, as knowing that

that box is A, B, C, and the box next to it is D,

E, F. And just from an audit perspective, if

you -- put it this way: Each box should have a

unique identifier, whether that's for inventory

purposes for whatever it happens to be; there

should be a unique identifier. And I can tell

you right now, we're going through issues with

the fact that we have tables for manufacturers,

card tables that don't have any unique

identifiers, and we just discovered the fact that

we're talking about Table A, but it could be

Table B that's moved off the floor. And this

might not matter, but the reality is this idea of

having a unique identifier for a piece of

equipment is relevant for probably any number of

reasons that you might want to be able to say

it's this machine that we're talking about or

it's this box that we're talking about.

MS. HAMEL: And if -- wouldn't that cover
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

that?

MR. WILSON: Well, I think if I understand

what Nimish is saying, is that the one statement

covers new machines, but if it's not saying that

in 547.4, it wouldn't necessarily apply to what

we're currently calling grandfathered machines.

MR. PUROHIT: One is saying, like,

identification plates and the other one is saying

identifying numbers. I was saying if there's

consistency, then there's any requirements that

the TGRA operations needs.

MR. McGHEE: I think you would add a note,

not necessarily language, to y'all's purpose to

make sure that it is consistent with 547.7. Not

that it belongs there. It still belongs here.

But make the language consistent.

MR. FISHER: So the recommendation would

be -- so let me see if I can see where we are,

and maybe -- because you had your card up and you

had your card up. But the recommendation would

be as projected on the screen, right, so stop the

sentence at the end of "manufacturer" and with a

note that says "make it consistent with 547.4."

MR. McGHEE: 547.7(d).

MR. FISHER: Does everybody understand
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62

where we are? Good. So you want to check that?

Leo has his card up. We can take his comment and

then check.

MR. CULLOO: I'm confused because every

machine I know on my floor has the date of

manufacture, serial number and has the

information you're talking about. Where is it

defined what specifically has to be on the label,

other than there where it says with identifying

number, date of manufacture?

MR. PUROHIT: There isn't any specifics as

far as what the definition of identification,

you're right. It's just left as a -- I think

it's implied language on whatever the TGRA wants.

If you put in all the specifics in there, it's

going start varying by jurisdiction to

jurisdiction. The only requirements has to be

unique identifiers, that's it. That's all that's

implied in there. What that unique identifier is

depends on whatever your jurisdictional needs

are. Date and serial number, if you start going

into that detail --

MR. McGHEE: The TGRA can take these and

expand upon them.

MR. CULLOO: That's the minimum. That's
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

63

the baseline.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So that's -- if I got

that right, that's the suggestion, assuming that.

MR. LITTLE: Could we make some suggested

language or put it out there? After -- replace

identifying number with an identification plate

consistent with 547.7(d) and as recommended by

TGRA. I'm sorry, required by TGRA.

MR. PUROHIT: Something along those lines.

MR. FISHER: Say that again.

MR. LITTLE: Right there. Identification

plate consistent with 547.7(d). There you go.

And "as required by TGRA," or you can put "as

recommended," whatever. "Required by TGRA." Is

that right?

MR. FISHER: I got the section reference,

right, 547.7(d), which is --

MR. McGHEE: It's (c) on this. Physical

enclosures is (c).

MR. PUROHIT: We're going with the current

standard as it is.

MR. MORGAN: That was my fault for -- I

was meaning to put it under player interface,

because that's what we were talking about.

MR. LITTLE: It should be (c) or (d).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

64

MR. FISHER: It's (e) on what I've got,

player interface.

MS. HAMEL: Physical enclosures is (d).

MR. MORGAN: We're talking about

requirements of player.

MR. WHEATLEY: You're referencing where

it's stated. I have it as (d).

MR. LITTLE: We are working off this

document, so it should be (e). Yes.

MR. PUROHIT: Whatever the section is

going to be.

MR. McGHEE: And it's (c).

MR. MORGAN: Jeff, if I understand, you

have all attachments such as buttons,

identification plates, and labels shall be

sufficiently robust to avoid unauthorized

removal, that's where the point --

MR. FISHER: It's intended to be a

reference to the physical enclosure section. So,

Kathi, did you have something?

MS. HAMEL: "With" is there twice.

MR. FISHER: Two "with's". They got two.

MR. McGHEE: I think that would be "and

any other additional information," because it's

not as required by, right? You should add
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

65

anything else TGRA wants on it.

MS. HAMEL: How about "or"?

MR. PUROHIT: I don't think you need "or."

Just say, "as required by TGRA." So that gives

the flexibility so it could be anything you want

in that unique identifier as long as it --

MR. FISHER: Kathi, does that --

MS. LASH: Is this (c), not (d) on the

original file?

MR. McGHEE: Just leave that question mark

in parentheses, wherever physical enclosures ends

up being.

MR. FISHER: There. Did I do it? That's

the intention, is to hit that section. Okay. So

everybody -- let's check on this and see what

people are thinking, because a lot of people we

haven't heard from yet. So the recommendation is

to go with what's up on the screen for all of the

reasons people have talked about it. So let's

just try this one. If you're -- if you agree

with this recommendation, raise your hand.

(Indicating.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. So we missed Tom

because he's not in the room. But I will check

with him to see -- if it counts as unanimous
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66

because he's not in the room. But we might as

well check with him anyway. Okay. It's about 20

after 10. We had a scheduled break at

10 o'clock, which we didn't take because of our

time change. Do you want to take a break now?

All right. So why don't we take a 15-minute

break.

MS. STEVENS: I'm taking off. I'm so glad

to hear this conversation happening, and I'm sure

you are all very happy, too. So I trust that you

all will come with some really good

representation for us. You will see me again.

We do consultations right before -- on other

relations before the TAC, so I've been handling

those. I've been staying over so I can say, you

know, hey, hope you all are doing well. And then

Dan will be here representing NIGC and our staff,

and hopefully that you utilize NIGC and our staff

and really have robust conversation about

anything that's written from the NIGC's

perspective, just like you are now. So I thought

I heard Matt over here talking about high

lightning speed you're going now comparatively, I

guess, so I hope that continues and wish you all

the best of luck. Thank you.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67

(Recess taken at 10:22 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. Let's start again. So

on our agenda, we have until 11:30, and then at

11:30, we're scheduled for public comment. And

there is one person signed up to give public

comment. So we're back -- are we back to the --

let's not get distracted by my computer here. So

we're still back -- is there anything else in the

grandfather provision on the Page 1 of the TGWG

document?

MS. HAMEL: Well, I have comments or

questions, mostly comments, about many of the

phrases in grandfathering that aren't listed on

the grandfathering provision of the document. So

you just want me to go ahead?

MR. FISHER: Sure. Go ahead. Start with

the first one.

MS. HAMEL: We did number 7. And then (b)

of the grandfathering provision (3). It talks

about 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. My comment
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

68

is that as this is written literally, you can

only modify, repair or replace individual

components of the gaming system that are

grandfathered. No new components can be added.

For example, a gaming system software is fully

compliant, but you may want to add a new theme

and interfaces to the existing four that are

grandfathered. But that -- this language about

grandfathering and hardware and software is

limited.

MR. FISHER: You're reading number (2),

correct?

MS. HAMEL: (3), as permitted by the TGRA.

MR. McGHEE: Individual hardware or

software.

MR. MORGAN: Can you say that again?

MS. HAMEL: 547.4(b)(3).

MR. FISHER: Up on the screen.

MS. HAMEL: I'm working from 547.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So did you want to

maybe restate your --

MS. HAMEL: As it's written literally, as

a Class II operator, we can only modify, repair

or replace individual components of the gaming

system that are grandfathered. What if I want to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69

add a new component that's technology, or I want

to add a new piece of software to a grandfathered

system? Our interpretation of number (3) is

limited.

MR. McGHEE: I can't hear what you're

saying.

MS. HAMEL: Or new themes. Or you may

have a fully compliant Class II system, but you

want to bring in a grandfathered theme. Our

interpretation of this regulation is you couldn't

do that. Am I --

MR. PUROHIT: I'll jump in. The way I

would always approach this, and that was, I

think, a first question that we talked about in

October as well. The way this is written and the

way I was explaining to it tribal regulators any

time I'm asked is the whole intent of this, even

from a lab and a former regulatory background,

the way I read this was a grandfathered system

doesn't have to be in stasis. You can make any

changes to that as you want, as long as at what

point does it cease being the grandfathered

system. When you start approaching a software

that we talked about as well, the minute that

that's touched, that's where the compromise comes
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70

in. So I can see you're concerned with the

specific language as well. The most common thing

that happens, I think we talked about it in

October as well, is you might have a game theme

library that was grandfathered initially as part

of this overall package by a manufacturer, and

then they started releasing new themes instead of

just grandfathering the whole system again. What

you're saying is you're taking a stricter

approach that you can't really add on any themes.

And, vice versa, if it's a fully compliant

system, you can't add on any grandfathered themes

as well. Grandfathered software in general, I

think that you want to put it in an overall

umbrella?

MR. McGHEE: Do you have a suggestion?

MR. FISHER: Before you get to the

suggestion, Jason has his card up.

MR. RAMOS: I guess I'm still a little

confused. And maybe members either from National

Gaming Commission or the group can tell me,

what's the real purpose behind having the

grandfathered language anyway? What is it

specifically about? Is it something about the

software? I mean, why was that regulation
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71

proposed? Because we keep talking about

grandfathering and keep going back. What are

those core elements of a grandfathered system

that industry-wide we don't want, we shouldn't

have?

MR. PUROHIT: Can't really speak on the

"shouldn't have" part.

MR. RAMOS: We said before, the near miss

software, the reflective software, those are all

-- are those the elements we're talking about

here?

MR. PUROHIT: Yeah, in general the main

intent of having -- I think going back to the

first part of your question, the main intent was

to make sure that you effectively freeze any kind

of systems that were in place when it was passed

and make it comparable to other jurisdictions

that had existing gaming products out there when

a set of regulations were passed. So anything

manufactured after that point, once regulations

go into effect, they have to be tested to

everything applicable in there. So as far as the

bad parts, like you pointed out, the four

minimums are definitely in here. But there are

other risk areas in general, I think what Tom
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72

brought up last time as well, with the -- what is

it that you're assessing with the risk as far as

having the five-year period or whatever. But

what that was referring to is any kind of

technology that might be in its infancy at the

time when the regulations were passed, for

example. And once they were passed as far as the

date, like let's say 2008, that technology which

has since then evolved as well, it might not had

been able to regulate it because at that point,

it didn't have the capabilities in there. Remote

access is the one thing I keep bringing up. When

these started being drafted back in 2006, 2007,

you know, whatever the expiration was, remote

access of gaming was still in its infancy as

well. But since then it's evolved to a

significant point. But it's not to the point

that where grandfathered systems need to be fully

compliant with all remote access requirements. I

don't know if that makes sense or not.

MR. RAMOS: To some degree. I'm just

wondering why we go back to grandfathering. Why

not have a remote access standard, right? I

mean, we keep going back to this grandfathering.

So far that's the only part of this grandfathered
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73

section that I really -- the argument I've heard

besides the software. I think the software can

be solved through testing laboratories, some

standards through testing laboratories and this

other way, and we can get -- I mean, I'm looking

at it globally. What's the regulatory value of

having this grandfathered system, this idea of

having a grandfathered clause? And so I'm not

too sure -- I'm not so sure I'm seeing the value;

is it protecting the public, is it about -- is it

just about software? We have those standards.

Is it just about the UL certification or some

protection of the public? I think we have that.

So just kind of getting back to the core argument

of why we should have this grandfathering clause,

I think that's worth a discussion.

MR. FISHER: Pause for a second while you

guys are conferring. So let's go Tom and then

Daniel.

MR. PUROHIT: I'll let the TAC talk about

it. I'll address it after the TAC gets done as

well.

MR. FISHER: Tom, Daniel, Mia.

MR. WILSON: I think there's two

components; one is you have manufacturer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

74

interests that they have, you know, 6,000

machines or whatever that may or may not come

into play, depending upon whether there's a

grandfathering clause or not. But then you also

have tribes that are using -- and that

manufacturing has to be owned by a tribe. And

then you have tribes that are using these older

machines that want to continue to have that

capability to use those machines without having

to meet the newer technical standards because

they don't envision a point in time in the near

future, anyhow, where they would be changing

those machines out, nor monetarily do they want

to invest in that new capital to have to bring in

machines that meet the new standards. So that's

kind of the economic piece behind the whole

grandfathering piece, as I understand it, why

that even exists.

MR. RAMOS: And they wouldn't meet the

standard -- they wouldn't meet the new standards

now because of what reason? Software?

MR. WILSON: Software capabilities. So

just like what Nimish was saying, the new

standard talks about remote access or things like

this. Well, those older machines don't even have
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

75

that capability, so they can't meet that

standard. So you have to have some way to

grandfather them in and say you're okay because

just the hardware and the software just

physically can't do that at the time it was

designed. So, you know, that's kind of that

reality issue.

MR. RAMOS: Okay.

MR. PUROHIT: I'll add one more example to

that, too. I think I spoke about it last time,

securing communications from eavesdropping and

all that. That, too, at the time was in its

infancy as far as the gaming environment was

concerned, even though Class II gaming is

advanced as everyone here knows as well. But as

far as like the encryption of the data that goes

from one point to another in a server-based

environment, that wasn't still as advanced as it

is right now. So some of the requirements in

here may be the grandfathered systems, which when

this standard was passed, may be five or

six years old or even older than that. So

they're already dated at that time when this was

passed. So not only are they not going to meet

any existing requirements at that time, but even
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

76

technology from five or six years before that.

So that's the main reason to capture that segment

of the market that's been on the floor for a

while as well; that even though it might have the

technology, the technology was installed in the

system well before the standards were passed as

well. It's not just the operator communications

in there. Some simple requirements in there;

they sound like they are trivial. Like help

screen requirements, as far as what's being

displayed to the patrons, price schedule

requirements and their artwork, anything generic

from disclaimers. I can speak -- give you

examples of jurisdictions of tribal regulators

where they just told manufacturers, put it on

them. But something as simple as actual payouts

determined by the game of bingo are similar and

malfunction, voids, the two minimum disclaimer

requirements, stuff like that as well. When

there were no standards, that wasn't a

requirement to be put in. So there's a whole

array of systems. And I think the idea was that

because they've been on the floor for a while at

that point, you effectively freeze it and only

require those older machines that might not have
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

77

capabilities or it might just be logistically

impossible to give them time to catch up, and

that's where the five-year period came in as

well.

MR. FISHER: Mia, then Matthew, then

Robin.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I just want to make

an overall comment on (b)(3), altogether. It is

very confusing and it's very wordy and it is very

confusing. And I am not in big favor of how it

just generically lists the sections that it has

to be compliant to because it is very difficult

to -- now I got to flip over and see this one,

547.14, now I got to read that. I think it adds

to the confusion.

MR. McGHEE: This is the one she was --

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Uh-huh.

MR. MORGAN: My comment is to address the

reasons for grandfathering, Tom. And I think you

summed up economic reasons why. I guess my take

at it would be legal requirements; that there are

machines out there that -- again, we're operating

a regulatory framework, but when we look back at

IGRA, the governing document, three statutory

requirements. And as long as you meet those
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78

three statutory requirements, you're bingo. And

no matter what we do by regulation, we can't

change that. I mean, that's been upheld in so

many court cases. So for those machines that do

meet the minimum requirement, I think your

grandfathering provision does allow a pathway for

those machines to make it to the marketplace,

albeit with some minimum software and safety

requirements. And their recommendations that's

placed on them is now you can't update to the

latest and greatest of some aspects. Maybe it is

remote. And if you choose to take advantage of

those technological upgrades, now you're going to

have to meet the newer standards. So I

definitely think there is a place for

grandfathering and a place for grandfathering

machines out there, but I agree with Tom on all

your points on the economic reasons for it as

well.

MS. LASH: And just to follow on both the

comments of Tom and Matt, there's value in these

games, and there are requests for those games and

they're simple games. And there are legal

indications again -- back to the legal -- there

are cases that said these are Class II machines
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

79

and some random dates can't change that. They're

still -- they were approved back by lab tests

when they were in operation. They're older

games, they're simple games, but they're still

Class II games, and they shouldn't be excluded.

MR. FISHER: Daniel.

MR. McGHEE: I agree with what everybody

said about that. All right. Because this is

something else. I'm getting past that.

So to go back to Kathi's concern, is what

I'm trying to determine where we're at, is what

was listed here, you're saying, for instance, if

you have a grandfathered machine and you wanted

to make it compatible with, say, CNP or

something, right, and you still want it to be

considered a grandfathered machine, and you want

to make sure this language doesn't prevent you

from being able to add that and mess it up,

right?

MS. HAMEL: Right, because it's not a

repair or replace. It's something new.

MR. McGHEE: And it's not ensuring proper

functioning, security or integrity. So we just

need to figure out, if everybody is okay,

something we can add. Because the next one says,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

80

Any modifications that affect the play is a

different category. Which you have a category

missing that would be -- I mean, if we can

identify what that is, then we can fix this

section.

MS. HAMEL: Right. And in Section (3),

also, if you've got a fully compliant system, but

you want to put a grandfathered theme or

grandfathered software on the floor, this seems

to be a contradiction to the ability to do that.

MR. McGHEE: But then you're getting into

what can I do to another system, a fully

compliant system, which I think you can do

anything to a fully compliant system, as long as

you're not then turning it into a grandfathered

system. So you can add grandfathered provisions

to a fully compliant system as long as you're not

bringing that new system back.

MS. HAMEL: Right, but this is talking

about components of the system.

MR. McGHEE: Components of the

grandfathered system.

MR. PUROHIT: What's unique is this is not

a system that just came off the shelf. This was

a system that was grandfathered back in and then
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81

it was gradually brought into full compliance.

So at what point does it become a fully

compliant.

MS. HAMEL: But then there's theme that

was a grandfathered theme and it can play on a

fully compliant system.

MR. McGHEE: But are themes really

grandfathered? I mean, software and the way in

which a game is played is --

MS. HAMEL: Software.

MR. McGHEE: Software, but then a theme is

really just bells and whistles, so to speak. It

all plays the same on an X, Y, Z software

platform and you may change it from pigs to dogs,

but that's just a theme.

MR. PUROHIT: The fairness requirements

are standard, but then there might be something

along the lines of what --

MS. HAMEL: Help.

MR. PUROHIT: -- exactly, the help

screens, the artwork, all of that in order to

make that fully compliant as well. There's

numerous other requirements just at the theme

side as well. So it might be cost prohibitive

for manufacturers, for example, to fully comply,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

82

fully certify all the game themes that were at

one point grandfathered.

MR. FISHER: Tom.

MR. WILSON: My concern would be from a

risk standpoint, is that it's this idea of trying

to freeze the technology of one, you know, the

grandfathered system, but not being able to take

a grandfathered system and make it then something

other than what it was at the time when it was

grandfathered, if you will. If the ultimate

objective -- and we had talked last month, that

over time, just the sheer nature of the market

and stuff would determine what happens with these

machines anyhow. But my concern as a regulator

would be are you now -- is that machine being

turned into something other than what it was as

part of the grandfathered provision. And I'm not

disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm just

saying that from a regulatory standpoint, if I

were asked to go evaluate this machine, I would

be evaluating -- one of the criteria I would be

evaluating on is has this machine changed from

what we approved, if you will, at this point in

time, to what's being asked to be changed in the

machine now at this point in time. That would be
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

83

the question that I would have to resolve in my

mind about whether this still is a grandfathered

machine or this is a machine that no longer meets

the criteria and therefore is no longer a

grandfathered machine, hence, it can no longer be

operated.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Let's take the

comments, and then we'll see where we are on

this. Matt.

MR. MORGAN: Kind of following up with

Tom, I have that concern, too. But my question

to Kathi is: Is this a proper question at a

federal minimal, or is this a proper question for

your local regulatory body to say there may be

ambiguity here, but after discussions with my

staff or with the lab or whatever, whoever, I

think it falls into this. Because, again, we're

talking about when that line is crossed. That is

going to be an interpretation from every

jurisdiction, and I'm not for sure if that's an

overarching minimal and federal concern.

MS. HAMEL: That's the section that makes

it confusing for the regulatory at our property.

If we have a fully compliant system, this says we

can't bring in a grandfathered software for the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

84

theme.

MR. FISHER: Back to you, Daniel, and then

Nimish.

MR. McGHEE: I don't -- if you'll just

tell me or maybe help me understand, because I'm

not getting it, why this statement doesn't allow

you to do something to a fully compliant machine.

Because all this is really addressing is

grandfathered systems, the way I read it.

MS. HAMEL: Because it's talking about

grandfathered software components and hardware.

MR. McGHEE: It says, Individual software

and hardware 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.

MR. PUROHIT: Let me give you an example.

MR. McGHEE: It's talking about the Class

II grandfathered system. She's talking about

new.

MR. PUROHIT: Let's say originally

manufacturer X, Y, and Z had a server, like about

20 game themes, and like all these other

accounting systems, proprietary accounting

systems, everything else for that one Class II
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

85

gaming system as a whole, that was initially

grandfathered with the technical standards,

everything. Then that manufacturer saw that for

them it might not be economically feasible for

what they did, so gradually they brought that

whole system into full compliance. But except

for out of those 20 themes, they only brought 10

themes into full compliance, and the remaining 10

themes are still grandfathered. So that's the

software component side of it. So another

particular example for X, Y, Z, now, the issue

comes into the fact we have a grandfathered

system that it's been brought into full

compliance except for the ten themes that they

were initially grandfathered with. So what do we

do with these ten themes, even though we want to

use them for a couple years more? And what does

that do to the status of the grandfathered system

for the system that was fully -- brought into

full compliance, and only ten themes were brought

into full compliance, but we still want to use

the other ten themes that are still in the

grandfathered.

MR. McGHEE: What happens is these ten

themes, if they really want them, make the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

86

manufacturer make the ten themes compliant if you

want to use them. When does the manufacturer

have to do something to, you know -- he only

brought ten into compliance. He left the other

ten lingering back there for whatever reason.

And as an operator, then you would say, I want

the other ten, bring them into compliance.

Because then just the gray lines start getting to

ten of these have been moved up and ten of these

are still back here. It's a regulatory tool.

It's not for operations so much. It's to help

the regulator understand what's going on. So at

some point, the buck has to fall on the

manufacturer to either decide you want it to be

grandfathered systems or not a new system, not a

hybrid of something.

MR. FISHER: Let's take Jeff and then Leo,

and then we're going to come back to what problem

are we trying to solve and what's the way to do

it. So Jeff.

MR. WHEATLEY: So I understand what your

argument is, Daniel. And I guess kudos to the

manufacturer for bringing their system fully

compliant, but now they have these other games to

worry about. My fear is if we told the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

87

manufacturer that, no, you can no longer use

those themes, that's going to drive other

manufacturers not to bring their systems fully

compliant. Because then there's an economic loss

to them with those themes that are currently

existing and grandfathered. If they're

grandfathered under a grandfathered system, why

couldn't they operate, I guess, on a fully

compliant system. You're not changing the

experience for the guests at all. So if there is

economic viability -- and maybe it's only at one

property. Maybe it's only at Kathi's property,

so that's why they don't want to invest the extra

dollars just to bring those one or two themes or

ten themes into compliance just for Kathi's

property. Maybe there's not an economic

viability there. But I think if we put too many

restrictions and we say that we can't allow them

to use those games on a fully compliant system,

it will drive other manufacturers not to become

fully complaint. They'll want to stay in a

grandfathered status as long as possible.

MR. CULLOO: As far as requiring the

manufacturer to upgrade it to be compliant, I

think it's such a niche market right now, so
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

88

there's not that many machines that it's cost

prohibitive for them. They're not going to do

it. And if they do, they're going to pass the

cost on to the tribe that wants it. So every

manufacturer I see, when they change their OAS

system, eventually they quit supporting old

software because it's too expensive. It's not

the market. By requiring the vendor to do it,

it's hurting the tribes, not the vendor because

the vendor is going to say, I don't see a value

to that; it's cost prohibitive, we're not going

to do it.

MR. RAMOS: Getting back to the example,

is it the case you think that that legacy

software, it's not we're not saying -- or that

grandfathered software is a better term -- it's

not compliant. It passes the GLI certification,

independent lab certification, but it's not

compliant because some of those elements you

spoke of earlier; it doesn't have a help screen,

doesn't have some other -- is that where we're

going with that?

MR. PUROHIT: Yes.

MR. RAMOS: So nothing prohibits it from

being valid software?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

89

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. It's just

grandfathered at that point. The way I would

read this as well is just in that particular

example, it's just that because the system was

grandfathered at one point, when you start adding

grandfathered components, it just reverts it back

to a grandfathered system. It's no longer a

fully compliant system. And that's where the

whole issue of labeling comes in as well, like

how do you certify it, whatever you classify it,

is it a grandfathered system now because you're

adding in grandfathered components because of

those ten themes; what does happen to that?

Because only a couple of components aren't fully

certified.

MR. McGHEE: There's the November 10th

deadline, that it says basically so you can't

bring that new system back because it wasn't

already operating.

MR. FISHER: Christinia.

MS. THOMAS: Going on what Nimish said, my

understanding of how software and stuff is tested

and hardware and that specific software, if you

have software that is fully compliant, that's

what you look at when you look at independent
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90

testing labs when you look at it's compliant

with. When you're looking at the grandfathered

software, you're looking at the previous

provisions that are approved on it. So why

wouldn't you just maintain that separation even

if you're putting it all into a system together?

Because you would still have to look at that

software individually as having proved either

this way or this way.

MS. HAMEL: Because the confusion is that

now this system that was fully compliant is not

because one of its components are grandfathered.

MR. McGHEE: Because they couldn't have a

help screen, that's just an example.

MR. FISHER: So maybe -- so there's two

more cards up. Maybe we need to create something

that addresses that circumstance, right, instead

of -- and maybe changing this language is the way

to do it. Maybe we need something new. Matt and

then Tom.

MR. MORGAN: I don't read it as

prohibiting what you want to do. And maybe

that's an issue with your individual regulators.

My question would go to NIGC. Do you read

it as prohibiting that? Because as a regulator,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91

I'm going to talk to the lab and then I may call

you guys and see what your opinion is before I

make my opinion. Is this an issue with their

regulator? Because I don't see it as prohibiting

that. In my place, I think I would allow that to

happen, like Christinia was talking about, and

keep them separate. I don't see that prohibition

in there.

MR. LITTLE: I don't think this commission

does, but then again --

MR. MORGAN: But it's my job as the

primary regulator to classify and issue an

opinion. Your job, no matter what it is, is to

come back and look respectfully and say, I may or

may not bring an enforcement. But that's my job

to do for my jurisdiction, and I need to have

reasoning and documentation and do some due

diligence. That's my decision. And, again, I

know things change as commissions change, but I

don't see it as a prohibition. And that's maybe

where I'm getting lost myself.

MR. PUROHIT: I had a couple conversations

with Commissioner Little about this as well. The

combined intent of 3 and 4 from everyone that

I've spoken to and that pretty much agrees, is
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

92

that you can have a grandfathered system, but,

you know, as long as you're bringing it into

gradual compliance -- that was the original

intent and that was pretty much the only

intent -- it's not supposed to be in stasis. And

I think the interpretation part of it, I think,

that's where the issue is coming in as well, as

far as what the software components are versus

what the play components are, like Dan pointed

out with the number 4 here as well. Is it the

language combined with 3 and 4 that is something

that is still ambiguous from that perspective

that the intent is not being carried out that you

can add and make changes to the system as long as

the core software that was certified as

grandfathered is still grandfathered when you

bring it into gradual compliance with any other

additions you're bringing on. Any other

additions you are making to it are bringing it

into full compliance gradually and not touching

this core software as well. Is there something

that needs to be added in 3 and 4 to make sure

that that gives you the comfort level, I guess?

MS. HAMEL: I believe so. And I wish I

could tell you what it should say to indicate
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

93

that. And I will tell you that all of these

comments are not based on the discussions that we

had in October in Connecticut where there was no

longer a date. But that 2013 date was looming,

and our ability to continue to make our floor

competitive and to add new to a grandfathered

system, we interpreted, as limiting by these two

regulations.

MR. FISHER: So we have made a fundamental

change to the structure that you just talked

about in terms of dealing with grandfathered

machines. So it may be that you have to revisit

the effect of 3 and 4 and that fundamental

premise as a way to figure out whether there's

still a problem. And it may be we can't do it at

the table here and you need to figure out some

other way to do that. So I think it's Tom,

Michele, and then Mia.

MR. WILSON: Kathi, I want to be clear,

because we keep jumping back and forth between

adding something to a grandfathered machine or

adding grandfathered stuff to a fully compliant

system. And is this a both way or is this one

way?

MS. HAMEL: Would be both ways. You could
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

94

add a component to a grandfathered system that's

new. It's not a repair or replace because it's

new; it's new technology. So that doesn't talk

about something new. It just talks about repair

or replace to ensure. And you also could have a

fully compliant system and you want to put a

grandfathered software component on.

MR. WILSON: Theme is what you're talking

about?

MS. HAMEL: Right, and that's a component

and therefore would make the entire system all

compliant.

MR. WILSON: And that's, I guess, where

I'm trying to understand. I mean, when I get

back to my simplicity thing, my computer is

running on Windows 7, Version 2, but your

computer might be running on Windows 7, Version

3. By virtue of the fact that she's running

Version 3, she has the benefit of certain changes

in Version 3 that I don't have in 2, but it

doesn't make 2 any less significant than it was

before Version 3 came out. So, I mean, I always

get back to this risk thing. Adding this

grandfathered component to a fully compliant

machine, in my mind, it doesn't make it any less
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

95

compliant. What it means is there's now a

component there, the component -- and I may be

incorrect, Nimish -- but the component doesn't

meet the standard. But, you know, unless you're

telling me that by adding that component, it

changes the entire parameters of that machine.

Then in my mind, that is a significant issue as

opposed to we're just adding a non-compliant

component, but the rest of the machine, the rest

of the software is still operating to the

standard that it was approved.

MR. PUROHIT: If the software that has

like the random number generator for ball drop,

if that gets changed out, I think everybody is in

agreement that's a significant issue. But I

don't think that's the example that's happening

right down here either.

And as far as components being added on,

it's usually the stuff that, you know, the core

system and the software that's on there and the

game server that houses all the software, too.

That continues to remain untouched. It's just

these add-ons that you pointed out that are being

put on there. And some of these add-ons have

been fully certificated and some haven't. I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

96

don't think they may be restrictive from that

point of view, but we want to make sure that

there's -- it does capture that, too, because

it's a unique situation.

MS. STACONA: I think Tom got into what I

was trying to get at. When you have a

grandfathered system that's compliant and you

want to add an old software on there, whatever,

does that -- I guess my question is: Does it

affect the risk of fairness and integrity of the

whole system, is my question? If it doesn't,

then I don't see no problem with it. I guess

that's why I need to find out from them. I

mean --

MR. FISHER: So are you asking NIGC?

MS. STACONA: Yeah.

MR. PUROHIT: No matter what software is

added on to what system, any of them have to meet

those four minimum risk criteria.

MS. STACONA: Right. If you add that, why

does that then make it non-compliant then? I

just don't get it. When it's okay at the bottom

level, why can't you put it into a current

compliant system?

MR. PUROHIT: I think it's just an issue
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

97

of calling it a fully compliant system. I think

it's labeling it fully compliant versus not being

fully compliant just because you have a couple

components that are still grandfathered. It's a

unique situation because it was something that

was originally grandfathered and then it was

brought into full compliance. So at that point

where it was reverted back, quote, unquote, "a

little bit," you're still being there but not

there because of those couple of components. So

it might be something that's a marketing negative

feedback for the manufacturer because they can't

truly call it a fully compliant system even

though for lack of a better word it is. I think

it's in the labeling. That's why I don't really

see an issue with it as far as the core

components because everything else has been

brought into full compliance.

MS. STACONA: So could we add some

language in there that covers that? Because

you're still going to have a compliant system.

MR. PUROHIT: Right.

MS. STACONA: Is that something we can do?

MR. PUROHIT: I think that's going to get

into the issue of like you start figuring out all
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

98

of these scenarios, and that's going to go into

Matt's observation that it's going to really,

really make the regulations specific, and I don't

think that's a good intent with it.

MR. LITTLE: You're right on.

MR. PUROHIT: I think it's going to have

to go into the scenarios -- I think it might be

an issue of putting in some kind of clarification

language and the intent in the preamble with a

comment as well.

MS. HAMEL: Maybe that's where it is.

MR. FISHER: Mia and then Dave.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: In 3, 4, under -- it

does say that no such modification may be

implemented without the approval of the TGRA.

So, I mean, I think that's pretty clear that a

modification is at the direction, and what kind

of modification. So it leaves the TGRA up to

decide. And then the second part in (3)(i), it

states that after receiving a new testing

laboratory report, you know, that the

modifications are compliant with the standards.

I think that that's pretty clear that the lab

report should state whether it's fully compliant

or what components are not fully compliant.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

99

MR. PUROHIT: They'll do that.

MR. McGHEE: I was going along the same

lines. Even numeral (iii), like (iii) -- triple

I, which says, Any other modification to the

software of the grandfathered Class II gaming

system that the TGRA finds will not detract from,

compromise or prejudice. So even there it says

if you as a TGRA decide it's not going to affect

these things, then you can allow it. And that's

already in there.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So I don't see any

more cards up. So now the question is what's the

-- what do you want to do with this, right? So

there have been a couple different suggestions

for how to deal with this. So what do you think?

MS. HAMEL: Well, I agree with Nimish, if

there's something in the preamble that talks

about the components versus the overall system,

so that there's clarification for the TGRAs as

well as the operators.

MR. FISHER: So the recommendation would

be that -- let me just try to say this and then

-- you want to try to say what the recommendation

is?

MR. MORGAN: No. My comment would be,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

100

remember, the preamble goes away -- if it's

published in the Federal Register, the preamble

goes away. So maybe what you're looking for is a

statement, a guidance, a bulletin or something

from them, or I don't know if it's -- when it's

published, you issue a comment and they have to

respond back to your comment to try to clarify.

I'm just not sure a preamble is the correct

vehicle because it does go away once published,

and I'm not for sure what weight the preamble

will hold.

MS. HAMEL: Afterwards.

MR. MORGAN: Yeah, afterwards.

MR. WILSON: I think -- I mean, that's a

critical thing. As a regulator, the most

frustrating part of dealing with regulations is

the ambiguity. Because we all end up debating.

And, you know, you're going to have a different

interpretation of, just as you brought up, where,

you know, Matthew doesn't see that same ambiguity

there. So I think that some kind of guidance

document -- and, you know, the tribal working

group has done a pretty good job of identifying

guidance of many of these things, that if there's

a guidance document that one can reference that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

101

says here's the intent of this piece, and there

you can spell out what the intent is, it's not to

limit this, but it's to do this. As a regulator,

that's what I would need most to quell the

discussions so that I don't end up with a

discussion with my gaming enterprise division

and, you know, this long, drawn-out thing about

is this affecting this or is it not affecting

that. So I think a guidance document of some

kind that supports these things would be most

beneficial for me as a regulator.

MR. McGHEE: So if we add under this

section of that particular paragraph you're

talking about something that says, Guidance

document should be provided by NIGC, would

that --

MR. FISHER: It could be a recommendation.

It may be the exact language of which you could

sort out, people could sort out overnight and

bring it back. But the essence of it is how you

deal with grandfathered pieces that go into a

fully compliant system or mixing going both ways,

right? So it's guidance, direct guidance on what

the status of those the components and the

machines are, right? So maybe what we could do
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

102

to kind of put this aside for right now is ask a

couple of folks to maybe kind of come back to the

group later on this afternoon, or if you could do

it over lunch or first thing in the morning, to

come back with a suggestion for the specific

recommendation you would make to NIGC about what

should be included in guidance. So, Kathi, are

you willing to --

MS. HAMEL: I'll work on that.

MR. FISHER: Yeah?

MR. McGHEE: I'll work with her.

MR. FISHER: Daniel. And you just

volunteered Nimish to work?

MR. LITTLE: I did, yes.

MR. FISHER: All right. There's help for

you there to draw on, Kathi. So Daniel and

Nimish. So we would bring that back. If you

could do it over lunch or sometime this

afternoon, we will do it before the end of the

day today. All right.

So when we started this and came back from

the break, you said there were other provisions.

Are there other things in this that you want to

raise?

MS. HAMEL: Yes. Any reference to 542.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

103

MR. FISHER: All right. If I'm

remembering correctly from what you said in

October, it was there should be no reference to

542?

MS. HAMEL: Correct. Because 542 is Class

III.

MR. McGHEE: It is in. It's just a matter

of everybody accepting it, I think.

MR. FISHER: So it is something that the

TGWG also proposed?

MR. McGHEE: Yeah.

MS. HAMEL: It's just that the document

we're working from -- but there's -- throughout

547, there's reference to 542, so I don't know if

you want to go through each one of them and

highlight them or --

MR. McGHEE: Make a note that any

reference to 542 should be stricken.

MR. FISHER: Why don't we test that with

everybody around the table. Does everybody

understand the suggestion that's being made?

It's right? Daniel, could you say it again?

MR. McGHEE: That we make a recommendation

to strike any reference to 542 throughout the

technical standards.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

104

MR. FISHER: Let's see what -- not what's

on the screen right now, but -- don't look up.

All right. So should we test it? If you're in

favor of that recommendation, which is to strike

all references in the technical standards to

Section 542, which is the Class III, raise your

hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: You'd raise two hands if you

could?

MR. CALLAGHAN: Correct.

MR. FISHER: Carleen, did you have your

hand up?

MS. CHINO: Yes.

MR. FISHER: Okay. All right then.

Unanimous. That was a fast one. So we have

about four more minutes before we're supposed to

shift to public comment. So, Kathi, did you have

another one you wanted to raise?

MS. HAMEL: I don't think so.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So then that would

take us back to the TGWG document. So the

changes that were proposed by the TGWG. Okay,

Mia, did you have something?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: In the (a), 547.4(a),
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

105

it uses the word "and were in operation," and

then in 547.4(b)(1), it uses "or."

MR. FISHER: 547(a)(1).

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: (a)(1) requires that

all Class II gaming system software that affects

the play of the Class II game and were in

operation prior to November 10, 2008 be submitted

"and" were in operation prior to.

And then in (b)(1), it says all Class II

gaming systems manufactured or placed in a tribal

facility on "or" before effective date.

MR. FISHER: Right. So maybe that

effective date provision -- that reference to the

effective date has to change because we've

changed that provision. We've recommended that

provision be changed.

MR. McGHEE: I see the first one. Where's

the second one?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: (b).

MR. FISHER: It's up on the screen.

MR. McGHEE: Where's the specific --

MR. FISHER: It's right here (indicating).

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Manufactured or

placed in a tribal facility on the effective

date. So on the effective date, I guess we're
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

106

talking about November 10, 2008.

MR. FISHER: This part right here is the

-- that's the November 2008.

MR. McGHEE: Now, we struck out her first

reference, didn't we? Wasn't that decided?

MR. FISHER: Yes, you struck out the

reference to 120 days from November 10, 2008.

MR. McGHEE: I thought we struck the whole

paragraph? No, we didn't. Never mind. The

question is should it be "and" or "or" in both

places?

MR. MORGAN: Which one are you thinking?

It should be "and" or "or"?

MR. FISHER: There's a lot of lawyers in

the room, and they can tell you about the "and"

and the "or".

MS. LASH: I think the "or" is fine with

us, not "and." Just "or."

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: They should just be

the same, not one different than the other. So I

think that's right, the correct one sounds

more -- in (b) sounds more correctly stated.

MS. LASH: Yeah.

MR. FISHER: So in 547 -- let me scroll up

for a second. 547(a)(1), right?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

107

MR. McGHEE: Is this the document we had

before?

MR. FISHER: Yes.

MR. McGHEE: Didn't you strike the

120 days?

MR. PUROHIT: We gave her a current copy

of the regulations. We're going to give them

that after lunch so he has a copy of that.

MR. FISHER: This is not reflecting all of

the changes so far. So we just picked up with

the change that we did on Section 547(a), right?

But the recommendation -- now I'm a little

confused. Which part do we need to change?

MR. McGHEE: It's in the TGWG document

that she's referring to, that she says. So

there's new language there. And that's the

document we're working from. So it says -- and

in the new language that's proposed she's saying

it should say "or."

MR. FISHER: Got it. I don't have that.

I see. Got it. Okay. So I'm trying to keep

track of all these changes that you're making. I

got it. So anybody disagree with changing that

from "and" to "or"? Okay. I found it. Okay.

Tom and then Daniel.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

108

MR. WILSON: I just want to make an

observation, because I know we're going to be

going to public comment, for the TAC to think

about during lunch. While I don't disagree the

comment about "and" and "or" is important, I

don't know that it's important right now. And

one of the things that we've talked about is

what's important for me is that NIGC understand

the concepts of what it is that we want them to

embrace when these regulations are being written.

So, you know, I'm more concerned about like

Kathi's point that we get the concept out there

that everybody understands, you know, we don't

want a limitation of this sort or that sort as a

part of the regulation. But I'm afraid if we get

into a line-by-line discussion, which is kind of

what's happening, we won't get through what we

need to get through. And it just seems to me

that we have two levels of dealing with all of

this. And, you know, one level is a concept that

we want to get out that these regulations have to

embrace. But I don't know that right now,

getting into the specific word, you know, it

should say "and" or "or" is going to get us where

we need to get to because we're going to spend a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

109

lot of time discussing that. And since this

isn't a final document anyhow, it just seems like

we're going spend a lot of time discussing

something that's all going to be subject to

change anyhow. And I'm more concerned about just

the group keeping in mind that these concepts

that I think are important for us and for NIGC to

walk away with, that we're in agreement on, and

then focus on the wording of how we get there as

an afterthought of this. So just an observation.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So we're -- by my

clock, it's 11:30, just about 11:35, which means

we should be shifting to public comment. Okay.

So Jess, I think --

MR. GREEN: Withdrawal. I signed up just

in case. Well, I don't have anything to say at

9 o'clock in the morning. I signed up just in

case. You all are doing a good job. I don't

need to say anything.

MS. HAMEL: Even though you have time?

MR. LITTLE: Get that for the record.

MS. HAMEL: Jess had nothing to say.

(Laughter.)

MR. LITTLE: Moving right along.

MR. FISHER: I know that the sign-in sheet
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

110

is back at that table on the other side of the

door. Is there anybody else in the audience that

signed up and would like to give public comment

right now? Okay then. Hearing none, we can go

back to the discussion on the technical

standards. Okay. We don't have anybody. All

right.

So any -- partially in response to what

Tom raised about what level are we focusing on in

terms of our discussion, the way I thought you

were doing the recommendations was at the

conceptual level. So a recommendation that said,

you know, to the NIGC, remove this provision or

change this provision. We did make some specific

language with changes right now because it seemed

to be the easiest way to do it. But you do have

to figure out how each of those recommendations

get specifically framed to the NIGC. And what I

was thinking was that I would -- we would, Kim

and I tonight, would try to create a list of

everything that came out of the conversation

today and give you that tomorrow on paper so that

you will have that to basically be in front of

you and to work from. If that would be useful,

we can check at the end of the day whether you
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

111

want that.

Let's go back to the TGWG and keep moving

through the provisions in there. We've got a

little over 20 minutes before we are scheduled to

break for lunch.

MR. McGHEE: I was trying to determine if

we were done with the whole grandfathered.

MR. FISHER: That's the question. Are we

done?

MR. McGHEE: Where does it end in the

actual document?

MR. RAMOS: I got one more thing.

MR. FISHER: On the grandfathered

provision?

MR. RAMOS: Yeah. I guess I wanted to

make a statement and ask the National Indian

Gaming Commission, I know it wasn't your

commission that came up with the idea of

grandfathering. Clearly the idea is to move the

industry forward. So that there were some parts

of those devices that were deemed to be not so

good for the public and not so good for the

industry. You freeze it and you move forward. I

guess my question is, since that's been in place,

do you see that grandfathering provision actually
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

112

accomplishing that goal? Is the industry moving

forward and meeting these new standards, or do we

have manufacturers that are now just hiding in

the grandfathered provision? It's just a general

statement.

MR. LITTLE: I mean, kind of a general

response is, you know, my personal opinion, I

haven't discussed this with our commissioners.

The market is going to demand what is going to be

required. And there's 400 different, you know,

facilities in this country, 200 different tribes

with varying different degrees of markets and

capabilities and consumer demands. And that's

what's going to, I think, you know, push forward.

I can't speculate on what the previous

commission, their goals was. From reading the

preamble, I think I can get an idea. I figure

the market would have pushed these machines

probably through the normal course and new

technology would come in, and that's what the

market would demand. But it sounds to me like

the market is still demanding these machines. So

I think from my personal perspective is that we

need to make a, you know -- we need, you know, to

adopt regulations that can be, you know, utilized
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

113

by, you know, all the facilities and all the

tribes. And that's difficult. It's a very

difficult thing to do. But that's kind of the

goal.

MR. PUROHIT: The other thing in here,

too, I think we're all only focusing on just

player terminals that resemble electronic gaming

machines. You've got to understand, too, that

these are also met as any applicable standard for

session bingo device, those CardMinders,

electronic CardMinders that have those as well.

Generally speaking, that technology, even though

it's pretty robust in its sense, it doesn't

evolve, if I may -- and I know it might be a

volatile, but it doesn't evolve at the same speed

as the general market because it's a much smaller

market together. But these standards also apply

to them as well. I think that's the other sense.

It's not just making sure that the grandfathering

requirements apply to the gaming terminals, but

also that other segment of the different types of

Class II gaming systems and components that are

still there, and there's a significant portion

out there, too, that might not necessarily be

able to be forced out because that is the market
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

114

at this point. So we all want to make sure --

the commission is also going take a look at that

point as well and make sure that they're not

required to put in significant resources that

some of the TAC members pointed out may be passed

on to the tribes well. There's a couple of

segments of the technology here that I hope TAC

keeps in mind as far as the Class II systems are

concerned from a grandfathering point. I don't

know if that answers it.

MR. RAMOS: I think it does. For me, I

look at and say with the grandfathering clause we

created all these other ambiguities that we are

negotiating here today or reviewing here today.

And as a regulator, personally I would rather see

the real core issues addressed, the four or five

things about these machines that we could really

hang our hat on and then move forward with the

rest of it. So I was wondering if that program

has been effective and whether or not you really

see the industry moving forward.

MR. PUROHIT: I can tell you one thing.

The one thing, as far as the industry that I've

seen the report, and I'm sure Commissioner Little

would agree with me, is that I've been a big fan
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

115

of this document, even though it has its

blemishes on there. But I can't think of any

other document that's empowered all the

regulators like this document has as far as Class

II gaming systems. The single most important

point in here being nothing can be put on the

floor or no changes can be made without the

tribal regulatory authority approving it. From

that sense, absolutely it's moved the industry

forward. And I think that's that main segment of

this document as well, among with other market

forces and everything as well.

MR. LITTLE: That's the regulation, the

547 regulation you're referring to?

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. As far as

empowering the tribal regulatory body, the

technical standards.

MR. FISHER: When you said "this

document," you meant the current regulation?

MR. PUROHIT: Correct, when it was first

passed. There was nothing that empowered tribal

regulators as far as the technology was concerned

and entering the jurisdictions especially at the

national level. It definitely has moved the

industry forward in that way.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

116

MR. FISHER: Okay. So are we ready to --

if we're ready to move on to the next item on the

TGWG list, the question was whether there's

anything else in the grandfathering provision in

547.4, because the next one on Page 2 here is

547.5. Okay. We're on Page 2 of the TGWG

document, and the --

MR. LITTLE: The comparison, you mean?

MR. FISHER: Comparison document, I'm

sorry. And it goes to this provision right here.

All right. So the way we had set up in October

for each of these provisions was to ask somebody

from the TGWG to say what the purpose or the

intention is here with the changes that are

proposed, and then open it up for discussion and

get any kind of NIGC comment. Do I have the

wrong provision up there?

MR. LITTLE: Yeah.

MR. FISHER: I do?

MR. MORGAN: That's the current provision.

MR. LITTLE: We're going to get you a copy

of the TGWG document. That's what we should be

working off of.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So let's take that

down because it's creating confusion.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

117

MR. LITTLE: It is.

MR. FISHER: And so over lunch, I'll get

the TGWG document so I can project that up there.

Okay. So back to the basic format. So does

somebody who was on the TGWG want to talk about

this provision and what's proposed and the

reasons for it?

MR. MORGAN: The probability -- this

section addresses the probability standards. The

current goal was to talk about fairness. The way

that they got to fairness was instituting an

arbitrary, in our opinion, an arbitrary standard

that was more based on a Class III premise on

probability. What the Tribal Gaming Work Group

did is say we agree that something needs to

address fairness, but the way to get there is to

get some of the manufacturers to disclose to the

testing laboratory, this is what our expectation

is under a bingo math model, and them to test

that to make a determination of whether you're

meeting that expectation. Not pick out some

arbitrary, what is it, less than 1 in 100 million

standard. So the TGWG actually thinks that it

enhances the fairness question with its change by

saying the test laboratory shall calculate and/or
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

118

verify the mathematical expectations of game

play, where applicable, in accordance with the

manufacturer stated submission. The results

shall be included in the test laboratory's report

to the TGRA. Which would then allow the TGRA to

make that determination on whether the

manufacturer has met its stated goal, whatever

that may be, because it leaves up to the

manufacturer what its goal is in bingo, whether

it's 75 balls or whether it's 50 balls, and how

often do you think you're going to get there or

what is your percentage of win-backs. That was

the point of the Tribal Gaming Work Group's

document instead of relying on arbitrary, what we

felt was a Class III probability standard.

MR. FISHER: Brian.

MR. CALLAGHAN: I based my research on the

class. This is the one time that I looked at a

parallel and actually pulled some contracts from

various manufacturers. What standard would you

-- there has to be some reasonable expectation.

I think the idea is eradicating the idea that you

will never hit. So what probability would you

hit. Because it's contribution rate. The rate

that's going to go -- at least that's going to go
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

119

into a progressive is going to be the public is

contributing so much from every card, correct?

So then what would be the reasonable expectation

of an outcome, 1 in 100 million or -- I don't

understand what the resistance is to not having

some kind of a parallel there at least.

MR. MORGAN: When you play a session bingo

game, you know what you're playing for. You know

what patterns exist. This is the winning pattern

in order to win this game. Whether it's in

session bingo or an electronic Class II game,

that is the same information you need. What

pattern do you have to achieve and what number of

balls in order to win designated prize A. It's

not a probability question. It is what is the

pattern involved. As long as you understand what

that pattern is, you can test it; did it meet

that pattern in there. What does it matter

whether it was 1 in 50 or 1 in 100. I equate it

to percentages when you do your payback

percentages. You tell your player that that's

98 percent or that's at 93 percent. As a

regulator in your individual jurisdictions, you

may have a floor and you may also tell them it

has to be a percentage that's tested by the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

120

independent testing lab. You just can't pick out

anything because I need to go in and verify

that's what it's set at. But as long as it's in

that range, again, we're talking about fairness

to the player. They have the rules in front of

them. They know what it takes to achieve that

winning pattern. They know what prize is

associated with that winning pattern. How is

that not fair to them? That's my --

MR. CALLAGHAN: Still it is -- it is an

RNG. You have to bring some kind of probability

to the math model, don't you?

MR. MORGAN: I once saw a bingo math

presentation. Do you remember that? I'm not

very good at explaining it. Maybe you are.

MS. HAMEL: I saw it three times.

MR. MORGAN: The math model is so much

different from a Class II.

MS. HAMEL: Nimish understands it.

MR. MORGAN: I want to say he did the

presentation.

MR. FISHER: Before you go into that,

so --

MR. CALLAGHAN: Leo could kick in on this

because of the lottery based. There is a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

121

probability that is built into this. Again, the

only reason I see this is setting some kind of a

maximum expectation, you know, at least 1 in 100

million. That's the way I look at it. The way I

understand it, couldn't it be the first card?

Let me equate it to a Class III. First pull,

even if it was a 10 in 100 million, and it's got

-- you see it with a million dollars, the first

card could very well hit that and take that

jackpot down and then you're upsidedown.

MR. MORGAN: If it's a blackout, four

corner. We have to equate that back to a session

bingo game, not a Class III. What patterns are

achievable in what number of balls? Everybody

ran bingo back in the day on session. You

understood what your profit margin is on that and

when things can be achieved and not. At least in

my opinion, it's a different way of looking at it

than a purely based Class III, this is a 4, this

is a --

MR. CALLAGHAN: This is where I'd like to

see -- I hadn't had the opportunity to get some

feedback from the manufacturer. In particular,

I've got some Rocket games on my floor. They

automatically seed it with a million dollar
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

122

jackpot. They must be doing that on some

probability. I can't imagine they're doing it

out of the fact that they're not, one, getting a

return, and -- well, if it's being seeded, it's

being seeded. There's got to be some way that

they're minimizing their risk which would mean a

math model.

MR. MORGAN: Whatever their math model is,

they have to submit it to the lab, and the lab

has to verify that what they are portraying to

you is correct. Whether you have issues with

that math model or not may be an individual

jurisdiction question. They do have to disclose

this is our model.

MR. WILSON: And I think, Brian, the thing

with this is understanding that there is a very

complex math model for bingo. It just doesn't --

the probability -- or the probability standards

that, you know, you're used to seeing in Class

III, it's different in bingo, but there's still a

mathematical testable or something that can be

validated as, yes, this --

MR. CALLAGHAN: That answers the question.

Then there's true probability that's going to

hit. Rather than having -- understanding what
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

123

you're saying with not applying it to Class III

where it's 1 in 100 million, but with the

understanding that there is a true probability

that it eventually is going to be hit. It's not

like going into a carnival and it's got a punch

board.

MR. FISHER: Let's go to Jason and then

Nimish.

MR. RAMOS: I agree with you, Brian, and I

think that to a large degree, that's what this

change does. I know that when I talked to a

large commercial manufacturer, they had a problem

with the progressive amount, 1 in 100 million.

It seems like a large number to me. But they

seem to believe that -- and certainly I'm not

representing them today. They seem to say to me,

their response was that's restrictive. That's

going to restrict the way in which we develop the

software. That's going to restrict the prizes

that -- the prize structure, and that, really,

it's just it's not needed in there. But they

really specifically spoke to the progressive

portion of that.

MR. FISHER: Nimish.

MR. PUROHIT: I have a few things I'll
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

124

bring out as well. I'll try to make sure I'm not

overly technical as well. If you look at every

compact in jurisdiction, because that's pretty

much the closest thing that compares this

document. Every single one, if they have any

kind of requirements, they don't have odds

requirements. They have minimum payback

requirements. So as someone that used to attest

to this before, to have odds requirements and not

have any payback percentage requirements, that

was very, very difficult. So from a testing

standpoint, it was always what are we testing it

to do.

The other fact of it is, kind of what

Matthew and what everybody pointed out as well,

it's underneath the fairness section. So it's

arbitrarily assigning a value of what fairness is

in this particular case, which 100 million for

progressive prizes. And then there's also by the

way a word that says, it's 1 in 50 million or

better for all other prizes. No other

jurisdictions -- if you're familiar with the odds

department, they don't say for all. They say for

top advertised awards. So it's only for the

highest one. So to put a limit on all advertised
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

125

products not only limits the creativity on the

manufacturing side, but also on the testing side.

How do you test for this? Because there's so

many different prizes out there. You could have

anything from 200 to 300 different bingo prizes

in any given math model. So that was the other

ambiguous part of this as well.

Finally, in my experience with pretty

much, I would say, 200 tribes a year, as far as

the tribal regulators that I deal with, everyone

has -- when I discuss this with them, the one

deficiency with the regulation as it stands right

now is -- what my firm belief is that it should

be empowering tribal regulators to make that

decision, which this section itself doesn't do

that by recommending a requirement to give that

equivalent to what a par sheet would be in the

Class III world and have that submitted to the

tribal regulatory body, tribal operator,

whatever.

MR. CALLAGHAN: You hit on a very

interesting thing. How do we, when we're paying

into a progressive pool that's controlled by a

manufacturer, i.e., IGT, how do we establish the

minimum payback? An example, IGT is always
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

126

sending out notifications how they're adjusting

how they're holding -- the money is secured

because they're drafting off the top. This is

really not a $20 million prize. It's the present

value of a $20 million prize if you want to take

it as a lump sum over a 20-year period. So there

are some things, I think, that just by saying 1

in 100 million is leaving a lot of the other

things off the table as well. How do you pay it

back, where do you secure the money if you're not

doing an immediate cash prize as well. I don't

believe that the Rockets that we have, that it's

a million -- that's immediate cash value. It's

an annuity.

MR. WHEATLEY: Yes.

MR. PUROHIT: The proposed language here,

it saying -- it doesn't say what the fairness is.

It just says all the documentation first has to

be created by the manufacturer, which there was

no requirement for them to create anything such

as like a par sheet. So it immediately elevates

it to that level over there. Secondly, it has to

be verified independently. And, thirdly, and

most importantly, it makes sure that it requires

either the manufacturer or the verified copy from
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

127

an independent test lab, whatever the final

outcome of this is, to be handed over to the TGRA

so they can make an informed decision to whatever

they see is fair.

MR. CALLAGHAN: From your recollection,

then, are you saying that then at least from the

buyer, the true top prize, there's no minimum

payback, there is no par on that? If you were to

go get the par sheets, like for slot machine,

there is no such animal for the top tier prize;

is that correct?

MR. PUROHIT: There is. There's an animal

for that, not to use your words.

MR. CALLAGHAN: I got the contracts. I

haven't had a chance to read them.

MR. PUROHIT: There is a math model that

identifies the expectations of all the different

bingo prizes on there.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Expectations. Which

translates into what he's saying, if you could

translate that in a bingo card, expected value

where you have a slot machine that's every stop

on a reel. I think then you could probably come

up with the same expected value based on a card

play.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

128

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. It's much more

complex, but it can be done. That's the whole

thing. And the language in here just says that

manufacturers should get it done and should get

that result certified and not necessarily put in

the requirements of which fields they're supposed

to design their games to.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Okay. Very good.

MR. FISHER: Robin.

MS. LASH: I just wanted to remind that

the statute says exactly what Class II bingo is.

And that you're playing for a prize with cards,

we covered that. Designated pattern and the

first person to cover the designated pattern

wins, and I think this is just arbitrary

language. And it's -- it limits the game design.

MR. McGHEE: The old language or the new

language? TWGW language or other language?

MS. LASH: The current language.

MR. FISHER: Why don't we check to see if

-- what people think of the TGWG proposal.

MR. LITTLE: Can I ask a question?

MR. FISHER: No. Oh, okay. Go ahead.

MR. LITTLE: It's an easy one. Explain to

me the benefits of removing the probabilities.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

129

What are the benefits of removing the minimum

probabilities? More games, more prizes, more

what?

MR. RAMOS: More games. More software.

More versions.

MR. MORGAN: Technology and availability

of what I have to choose from from either

operator or regulator point of view to

arbitrarily limit that for some reason. And

everybody I know, at least in the Class II world,

can't really figure out what that reason is, and

if there is a reason, why that standard is picked

because it doesn't make sense on a Class II

discussion.

MR. LITTLE: I mean, do you think it's

something that, you know, I think in my mind

recently there was a big Powerball jackpot and I

heard on the radio that the chances were 1 in 195

million, which to me is amazingly -- it's crazy,

crazy. But people are still going out in droves

to buy those tickets, so clearly it wasn't

affecting the public with crazy odds. Do you

think it's something that should be disclosed?

MR. CULLOO: But those odds kept changing

as more people bought tickets, so it was never a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

130

fixed number.

MR. LITTLE: I think above 175 million to

1 is, you know -- I mean, that's bigger than I

think anything that you guys are all proposing.

MR. MORGAN: But market drives payback.

What I need to do to compete at paybacks in my

market is probably different than what Daniel

has, probably different from what Kathi has. As

regulators, you go to all these different

jurisdictions, and you kind of have in your mind

what the general going rate for a payback is

versus a Las Vegas maybe versus Oklahoma or

California. Or if you're going to take one of

those cruises to nowhere, you know, what that

probability is, that's the market that drives you

back, at least from my perspective as a

regulator. As long as you're meeting the

expectations that you said you were going to

meet. You said you were going to meet this

standard, a testing laboratory has verified you

met that standard, we go in and do a signature

verification and make sure that your

configurations also fall within those parameters.

MR. FISHER: I have to interrupt for a

second. By my clock, it is our appointed time to
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

131

break for lunch. So how about we take these

cards up and see where we are in the discussion

and then we can do the lunch break. Are we good?

Everybody good with that? So I think the order

is Jason, Robin, Daniel.

MR. RAMOS: So I think part of the

question that Daniel was asking there -- so part

of the question you were asking there, he kind of

spoke to our ability to be able to verify, right,

verify through software check, Cobitron, whatnot.

What you were kind of saying was it's for more

public benefit, right?

MR. LITTLE: Right. Does any tribes have

any disclosure requirements that you put it out

there. I don't think there are. I don't think

it's included in any compacts either.

MR. RAMOS: Interesting question.

MS. LASH: I just wanted to remind you

again, or remind the group again, that we have

two federal courts, the Ninth and Tenth Circuit,

that have established in accordance with IGRA the

three requirements for bingo. So we have the

IGRA statute and then we have the statutes that

says there are three requirements of bingo. So

this doesn't fit in there.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

132

MR. LITTLE: Robin, I'm just asking a damn

question.

MS. HAMEL: That was off the record,

right?

(Laughter.)

MR. CALLAGHAN: That's not going to read

as well as it sounded.

MR. FISHER: Make sure you put all the

laughter in.

MR. McGHEE: Well, the way I read this,

it's just saying that whatever their expectation

is, whatever the manufacturer has decided they

were going to put on that game, they're going to

let the TGRA know about it. And TGRA could say

I'm not comfortable with that and limit it. They

could go and say, no, I want it to be 1 in 100

million, or they could -- you know, it leaves it

up to the TGRA. So I think the way it was

before, it kind of made it to as long as they

reached this -- stayed within this area, they

were all good. The way it's worded now, I mean,

I'm okay with it, because once I get what they've

got or their thought process on, as a TGRA we

could decide if we wanted it to be so hard to

win, the odds are so high, that that isn't fair
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

133

to the people playing. So the way it's written

now, I'm good with that. And help me to clarify

what the comments you're making is you're saying

because this says that there must be a

mathematical expectation to the way the game

plays, it contradicts what --

MS. LASH: No, the mathematical

expectation is fine; there's not a problem with

that. It's just this random number.

MR. McGHEE: The 1 in 100 million, which

in the TGWG document it struck out. So the blue

proposed language --

MS. LASH: We're okay with.

MR. McGHEE: We're supposed to look at

what TGWG proposed in blue and decide if there's

a problem with that.

MR. FISHER: It's the basis for our

discussion which could take us to seeing if

people had other ideas or if people wanted to

make a recommendation that says adopt what the

TGWG says.

MS. LASH: Let's start with that.

Clearly, unless someone has a question with the

existing, but that's how this started, was a

question with the existing, should that even be
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

134

in there. And according to IGRA, no. According

to federal case law, no. So then what's the

alternative? Let's look at if anybody else has a

discussion.

MR. FISHER: Michele has her card up.

Let's take her comment and then let's see what

people think of the TGWG's suggestion.

MS. STACONA: I guess just for history,

has NIGC explained where they came up with these

numbers, or can they?

MR. LITTLE: I'm sorry, previous

commission, and I think the same thing, I don't

know the reasoning behind how it was done.

MR. PUROHIT: It was initially 50 million

and 25 million. And then if you look at the

comment section and the tech standards, they said

that it was way too strict and they upped it to

100 million and 50 million for progressive and

non-progressive. That was pretty much -- and

then they have an explanation in the comment

section as well on what their reasoning was for

those numbers.

MR. McGHEE: Didn't they contract the

testing lab? Is that a question again?

MR. FISHER: We couldn't hear you.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

135

MR. McGHEE: I guess I'm trying to

remember, but it seemed like NIGC was fielding

out the GLI, BMM, those two, standards that

that's where a lot of this came from. It ended

up being BMM, I think.

MS. LASH: It's my understanding that the

author of these random numbers was Norm

DesRosiers.

MR. PUROHIT: I'm going to say one thing.

It is just for the consideration of the audience

as far as this language, the proposed language.

One thing, if you read the language, it doesn't

require the manufacturer to submit the document

that's been verified by an independent test lab,

like a par sheet, to the tribal regulator. It

requires just the findings by the independent

test lab to be submitted to the tribal regulator.

And that kind of goes around the purpose of

giving the information in its entirety to the

tribal regulator to make that decision. That's

not what standard practice as far as how par

sheets are submitted to the tribal regulatory

body. Just for some -- to consider that tribal

language.

MR. FISHER: Let's just check to see what
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

136

people are thinking about the TGWG

recommendation, which is to eliminate the 1 in

100 million and the 1 in 50 million requirement

and regulation. So if you're in favor of that or

support that recommendation, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. That's everybody.

Okay. So good work. So we're picking up speed

here.

MR. McGHEE: You related it, and then the

next vote would be if this blue language would be

-- should we settle that before we break?

MR. FISHER: Well, I think we --

MR. MORGAN: I would like to settle that

so we can move on, if we can.

MR. LITTLE: You just want to accept the

recommendations in the TGWG?

MR. FISHER: That was my inartful way of

saying that. So what's the recommendation you

would like them to do, adopt the TGWG --

MR. McGHEE: Proposed language in section,

whatever that would be, fairness.

MR. FISHER: 547.5(c). If you're in

support of that, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

137

MR. FISHER: It's unanimous again. Okay.

So all right. So now we're at our appointed

break time. So we had set aside an hour for

lunch today, hour and a quarter. I did an hour

and a quarter. So an hour and a quarter from my

watch takes us to 12:25. And so anybody have

anything to say before we break for lunch? We're

picking up speed here. Come back at 1:25.

(Recess taken at 12:08 p.m. to 1:32 p.m.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. That's where we left

off.

MS. HAMEL: Did you want our lunch

assignment?

MR. FISHER: Yeah. Do you have it?

MS. HAMEL: Yes.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So let's do this.

MS. HAMEL: That's 547.4(b)(3).

MR. FISHER: What you got?

MS. HAMEL: The three of us, our

suggestion was a recommended bulletin which

answers two questions.

MR. FISHER: Okay.

MS. HAMEL: Does 547.4(b)(3) preclude the

TGRA from approving a non-grandfathered component

to be added to a fully compliant Class II gaming
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

138

system? If yes, how does this affect the

classification of a fully compliant Class II

gaming system?

MR. FISHER: Okay. So, Kathi, this was

developed by you and Daniel and Nimish.

MR. LITTLE: Technical advisor.

MR. FISHER: For information purposes

only.

MS. HAMEL: And the way we came up with

this is we went and looked at the bulletin that

was from 2008, Nimish, for the questions and

answers that were asked and answered from 2008

for grandfathering.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Anybody have any

questions about this? What do you think? This

gets out what you were talking about this

morning, right? And this is really intended to

get at the full suite of everything we were

talking about. All right. So what do people

think? Good, or questions?

MR. PUROHIT: Isn't that supposed to be

certification, not classification, for number 2?

MS. HAMEL: Yes. Certification of a fully

compliant --

MR. PUROHIT: Classification has some
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

139

other undertones here.

MR. FISHER: Right there.

MS. HAMEL: Just say how does this affect,

and take out "if yes."

MR. MAGEE: My only concern is that by

asking the question, you might not get the answer

you want. And are you prepared to have that in

the event it goes that way? I guess, you know,

people who are lawyers always know that. Don't

ask the questions if you're not prepared for the

answers. Sorry.

MS. HAMEL: Did you just kick him?

MS. STACONA: No, I just told him he's a

party pooper.

MS. HAMEL: This is the objective. So

anyone have recommendations for --

MR. FISHER: Tom?

MR. WILSON: Well, in my mind this just --

the question, as I understand it, was is if

the -- can the TGRA approve something, correct,

and I mean, I don't see the question as asking

the question -- I don't see a guidance document

answering that question. We should be answering

that question beforehand. But the guidance

document then should speak to how the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

140

interpretation of -- so in other words, the

guidance, in my mind, is the impact of a fully

compliant machine and when you add a

grandfathered component to the fully compliant

machine, does it change the status from one thing

to another. Because the thing I see here is the

answer to the question, if the answer is yes.

But if the answer is no, then number 2, we still

have the same question to resolve as to, well,

has the status of that machine changed if you add

something to it. So I thought the guidance was

going to address that portion of it that, you

know, what does that mean in terms of this

machine. Is it no longer a qualified -- or, you

know, does the machine no longer meet the

requirements or does it meet the requirements,

but it has this one little exception component in

it?

MS. HAMEL: So we need to add to the

question as well as asking the question.

MR. WILSON: It seems to me by not

answering the question, we haven't accomplished

anything, other than we're going to submit to

NIGC to answer this question for us when -- I

mean, I think you want an answer to the question,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

141

right?

MR. McGHEE: I think partly you're going

off an answer, you know, what we were talking

about and how it's written, the answer or say

interpretation or whatever was okay. But that

would need to be --

MS. HAMEL: To clarify 3.

MR. McGHEE: I mean, NIGC's unofficial

answer would be that I understand it would be

okay.

MS. HAMEL: Right. That the answer to one

would be --

MR. McGHEE: This needs to be a bulletin

with the correct answer. He's not formulated the

answer.

MR. WILSON: Yes, that's correct.

MR. LITTLE: I can't speak on behalf of

the whole commission, so any clarity you might

provide would probably be best.

MR. MAGEE: So we provide you the answer?

MR. WILSON: We can tell you what we think

the answer should be.

MR. McGHEE: Nimish, why don't you give us

what you think, that is, based on how it's

written now.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

142

MS. HAMEL: And does not affect.

MR. FISHER: That is the way to take those

two questions and turn it into the answer, right?

MR. LITTLE: Right.

MR. WILSON: Right. Because the

implication is, as I understand it, if it were to

affect the certification of that machine, then

that could mean that that machine is no longer

certified and therefore --

MS. HAMEL: That system.

MR. WILSON: That system and cannot be

used if it were interpreted that it changes

certification of that system.

MS. HAMEL: It's not a matter of not being

used based on what happened in October -- if

October's recommendations are accepted, with

Sunset going away, but this is clarifying the

issue of components that are added to a Class II

system.

MR. PUROHIT: This is also clarifying the

issue of existing language right now. The

language itself isn't going to get changed

with -- as of right now, with the TAC

recommendations. We haven't even addressed that.

Because everyone pointed out that the language is
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

143

-- doesn't prohibit that, but there's still

ambiguity in there. Like the other question and

answer bulletin that was issued in 2008, it's

just saying we have gotten this question before,

is that the intent. So it would be something

along --

MR. WILSON: I understand now the context

of the question and answer. I was thinking we

were proposing a question and answer, but -- I

mean, we still want to say here's what we think

the answer should be, and you guys, we'd like you

to agree with us.

MR. LITTLE: Right.

MS. HAMEL: Yes. So the -- I think the

way Robert has written it in the second example

is not a question. It's more direct.

MR. FISHER: You don't need that? Okay.

So we would get rid of this?

MS. HAMEL: Yes. Okay.

MR. FISHER: So let's test it. So what do

people think?

MR. PUROHIT: Just to clarify, though, the

bulletin, I'm just asking we want -- we still

want it in a question and answer format? Like

the bulletin that was issued in 2008, if you've
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

144

ever seen that, it was just like a whole bunch of

questions and answers that were posed based on

those. The format is still going to be similar,

despite how it's up there. Okay.

MR. FISHER: Q and A-D format. That's

digital. So it's the bulletin that's in the

question and answer, but it provides this answer.

That's what this recommendation asks for.

MR. LITTLE: Right.

MR. FISHER: If you're in favor of this

recommendation, raise your hand.

(Indicating.)

MS. THOMAS: Is that supposed to be

non-grandfathered? Should it be?

MS. HAMEL: It should be grandfathered,

you're right.

MS. THOMAS: If you change that, then I'm

good.

MR. FISHER: You're good, I think.

MR. LITTLE: I think Robin has got --

MS. LASH: There's a comment to be made

here. The answer to question one, if yes,

presents the basis for legal action immediately.

Why foster a question that is devoid of facts and

presents potential of controversy? And the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

145

purpose is to address topics and give guidance,

not create additional controversy. So I think

that's red, too.

MR. WILSON: Is that comment in

relationship to what's up here now?

MS. LASH: Yes.

MS. HAMEL: Is the question to clarify

547.4(b)(3) and not ask the specific question?

MR. WILSON: I'm not understanding the

comment.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I kind of have a hard

time understanding if we're working on a document

and we're trying to come up with changes and

suggestions, and then -- why can't we just fix it

and instead of like putting a Band-Aid on it and

then having to clarify it somewhere else? Why

can't we fix it in the document so everybody can

understand it? Because if we can't understand

it, how is anyone else going to understand it and

enforce it?

MR. PUROHIT: I think this was like that

math question was and I think a couple other TAC

members also talked about it earlier, that do we

want to address something that's such a specific

situation in this particular case where it's a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

146

formerly grandfathered system that has been

brought into compliance and then it's adding on

parts. And if it's going to be so specific and

you're adding a whole section in there, is it

going to create more ambiguity and more

restrictions for the TGRA to do actions on their

own right now. Whereas, the language that's

there right now gives them the flexibility to

interpret that either way. This is just

solidifying that fact that any ambiguity that

exists for that particular situation is going to

be addressed. And it's in a bulletin format.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: If you just added

that language, something like that in there, then

it takes care of it and then you don't have to

put out separate rules.

MS. HAMEL: I don't know if it can be

added to regulation because that's not

regulation. That's procedural or comment to

regulation.

MR. PUROHIT: Specifying the intent in a

very particular case, that's what it is.

MR. FISHER: So could we go back, Robin,

back to your -- do you want to come back to your

comment? Because I heard some people say they
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

147

did not understand the context for it.

MR. McGHEE: In layman's 8th grade terms.

MR. MORGAN: If I understood it, basically

the comment was meaning you may be creating a

controversy where the one does not exist and do

you really want to do that. It may be a question

in your jurisdiction, but it's not a question in

my jurisdiction. It's really not a controversy.

By having NIGC clarify something that's not yet

controversial, you have therefore made it like

there's controversy out there. Is there

controversy? Kathi has a question. I don't know

how many other people have the question. And I

fully support trying to clarify if for Kathi.

It's not a question in my place. I think it's

allowable. I'm good with it as written in the

regulation, that situation. But by lending

credence to a bulletin, you're de facto saying

there's controversy that exists out there,

ambiguity, and I am clarifying this. So what if

somebody disagrees with that now? You've invited

somebody to challenge it. I think that was the

point. Now, how real that risk is, that's what I

heard, in non-legalese terms.

MR. LITTLE: I don't know what -- I mean,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

148

bulletins are changed. They can be changed.

They're not final agency action. I'm not aware

of a commission ever being sued for a bulletin.

MR. MORGAN: It's just the position of the

commission. Not legally enforced.

MR. LITTLE: Exactly. Not necessarily.

MR. McGHEE: If one tribe has a question

about it, I think that's enough to have an answer

given to that tribe. If you had a question about

your property --

MR. MORGAN: That's the other way that

questions, at least to my knowledge, is if Tribe

A has a question, they submit the question to the

commission. The commission may respond back by

writing a specific action and/or a specific

letter or verbally and then they move on. Only

when there's such a question that exists that

affects nationwide that there seems to be a

disagreement on what this means do you guys

usually step in and say, hey, we want to clarify

what we think the intent is on this subject

matter.

MR. WILSON: So my concern would be, I

know in our regulatory structure, we issue

regulatory guidance documents, because the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

149

regulation never can be -- it would be so onerous

to try and address every conceivable outcome that

may happen, so we issue regulatory guidance

documents that pertain to our interpretation of a

particular regulation. And that may even be the

compact; it may be NIGC. I mean, we as a tribal

regulator say here is how we are interpreting

this to mean for us, which may be different than

what your tribal regulatory authority interprets

that. So I think what I'm saying is to Matthew's

point, that if the issue is that your tribe is

interpreting this statement one way and another

tribe is interpreting it another way, I don't

know that that is inappropriate because that's

the nature of regulation. I mean, it becomes an

issue only when somebody takes issue with it.

MS. HAMEL: But the manufacturers have

different interpretations, too.

MR. WILSON: But the manufacturer, the

interpretation -- I mean, this is what I'm trying

to understand, is that we're not really

regulating -- or the individual tribal gaming

authorities are setting the standards for the

manufacturers. So if in my jurisdiction, I'm

saying that here is what this means, boom, boom,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

150

boom. Well, that manufacturer, if they want to

do business with me, then they have to conclude

whether they can meet whatever that standard is

that we have agreed for our particular

jurisdiction that you need to meet. But it may

be that down the road, at another site they have

a different interpretation. And I guess

fundamentally in my mind, this issue becomes if

you want the tribal regulating authorities to

have the flexibility, then they have to be able

to interpret regulations to their particular

operation, or you have to be very specific in the

regulation and state, Here is exactly what it

means and nothing else. And I think that's the

challenge that we're faced with.

MR. FISHER: Leo, and then Robin.

MR. CULLOO: To Tom's point, I think the

problem is we're an operational side, not a

regulation side. Ambiguity may be good at times,

but it's not good when large costs are

potentially involved. In your jurisdiction, you

may interpret it on Kathi's behalf, but say

you're replaced when someone else comes in, and

they say, In my opinion, you've been wrong all

along and you got to change it. So I think in
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

151

certain areas, you do need to be specific to

protect the investment of the operation and the

tribe. And this might be one of those areas,

particularly in Kathi's case. I'm hearing it's

important to them.

MR. WILSON: Just a -- is there a

disagreement in your jurisdiction between a

regulating authority and the operations about the

interpretation of this?

MS. HAMEL: I can't say there's a

disagreement, but we both interpret it

differently, and the manufacturer interprets it a

different way. And so often the manufacturers

say, well, that's not what happens in other

casinos. And we would never change our approvals

by our TGRA because of what goes on in other

jurisdictions, but it is vague. It isn't

specific and it does not give clear guidance to

the TGRA on what happens with grandfathered and

fully compliant systems. And I don't know how we

get -- I don't know how to recommend we get to

clarifying that if it's not in the regulation;

how do we communicate it in such a fashion that,

yes, indeed, you can add a grandfathered

component to a fully compliant system that does
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

152

not change the status of the system because it's

the system that plays the game of bingo, not that

component? And we keep getting hooked up into

thinking that component plays bingo, and it

doesn't. And nothing -- it's not specific.

That's my point.

MR. FISHER: Robin, then Nimish.

MS. LASH: I think it goes back to the

sovereignty of the tribe and the TGRA to make

these determinations, and then they are presumed

correct and upheld by the courts, unless shown

otherwise. And I think the determination needs

to be made by the Tribal Gaming Regulatory

Authority as primary regulator versus NIGC

answering the question.

MR. FISHER: Nimish.

MR. PUROHIT: I just wanted -- the

manufacturer in this particular case, someone

said it's not necessarily a nationwide issue. It

could be because this manufacturer is nationwide,

just so everyone is aware as well. So from that

perspective, this is also a design standard

document as well. It could have impact in other

jurisdictions. And from one manufacturer's

perspective, they're interpreting it in a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

153

different way as well. To back up Kathi's point

that we're talking about. If that makes sense.

MR. WILSON: Just so I understand -- and

I'm hearing two different things here. Adding a

component to an already-certified machine is

something that happens --

MS. HAMEL: System.

MR. WILSON: System. Is something that

happens at the local level, or does that happen

at the manufacturer level? Do you request the

manufacturer to add a component to the system?

Or do you do it on the floor, so to speak? I

mean, you do it at your facility?

MS. HAMEL: Well, operationally, you look

for player interface offerings that are

competitive, and there can be those components

that are grandfathered, yet our system is fully

compliant. So you want to be competitive. And

if the manufacturer, again, does not see the

benefit of making those changes to that

component, then potentially you cannot offer that

product, that component.

MR. PUROHIT: The certification letter

from the independent test lab is generally issued

to the manufacturer, and then any of their
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

154

stricter regulations on top of 547 that the

tribal jurisdictions have adopted, it will say it

was also tested to that and then it will list it

to that tribal regulatory jurisdiction as well.

That's one of the tenants. Like there's no

stricter standards for 547 adopted anywhere than

those certifications are transferrable from one

jurisdiction to the other. At least that's the

way the independent test tabs that write the

certifications. And you might want to -- it

could be an nationwide issue from the

manufacturers' design standpoint.

MR. MORGAN: My question is, is it a local

issue or is it a nationwide issue? Because

depending on that answer, kind of predisposes

what the appropriate response is. So, I mean, is

this a conjecture, it could be a national

problem, or, yes, this is a national problem that

we need to fix. That's maybe where I'm getting

stuck.

MR. PUROHIT: The manufacturer has reached

out to me for clarification on this because of

the issue. The manufacturer reached out. So

from that perspective, it is a nationwide issue

because they are nationwide. However, the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

155

jurisdiction that they are inquiring about is a

singular jurisdiction, but that perspective is

not. That's why I'm saying it could turn into

it, and that's the reason I'm focusing on the

"could" part. When the manufacturer first

reached out to me, they said they have "a

jurisdiction," and this certification is for

their whole system which is being used in all

these places as well. And they want to make sure

they don't run into it at other places because

one jurisdiction is bringing it up. Does that

answer?

MR. MORGAN: Sort of. But they still

could potentially run into a problem. Just

because one jurisdiction says it's okay, you

still have to deal with each individual

jurisdiction. So just because you say it's okay

and Kathi's regulator says it's okay, doesn't

mean Mia says it's okay. You still have that

risk somewhere. To me, is it a local issue or is

it a broad, this is a disagreement, and it's

affecting multiple jurisdictions because

everybody is confused on this question? Because

while I heard the question in theory, and I agree

there's some ambiguity in theory, I don't know of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

156

the practical aspect on why -- a wider issue, you

know, among several tribes, and that's where, I

guess, I'm looking for. Is anybody else having

this issue or is this such a niche problem that

we haven't heard about it yet?

MS. HAMEL: Well, I just know that we go

through audits. We're under scrutiny that maybe

other jurisdictions aren't, and these questions

come up. So I'm bringing it to the table because

it's out there. And maybe the other

jurisdictions aren't under the same amount of

scrutiny that we are.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Kathi, by whom?

MS. HAMEL: By NIGC, by --

MR. CALLAGHAN: It's your fault.

MR. MORGAN: So you're getting questions

from your field staff on whether the legality of

running a particular theme on a particular --

MS. HAMEL: Of managing the 547.

MR. MORGAN: Back to the response,

couldn't they clear that up with a phone call to

their field staff?

MR. LITTLE: Could you repeat that? I'm

sorry.

MR. MORGAN: If the issue is her field
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

157

staff of how to interpret that, couldn't you guys

come to an agency opinion that says, This is our

stance on this and direct it to your field staff

and say, This is our determination?

MR. LITTLE: That is our standard

practice, yes, we can.

MS. HAMEL: But I'll go back to what Leo

just said, if that changes --

MR. FISHER: You mean, if the commission

changes?

MS. HAMEL: If the commission changes and

now it's a different group --

MR. MORGAN: But the new commission has

the ability to withdraw that bulletin, too.

Reliance on a guidance document is tenuous at

best. I mean, it does give you comfort. I'm

trying to figure out what is the proper response

to your issue. Because I agree with you, if you

have that issue, I want to help you try to

clarify it in a way that you want it to be

clarified. Because, again, I think you have the

right to do that.

MS. HAMEL: I guess if it's not affecting

everyone, then I will withdraw my comments. But

it's not clear.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

158

MR. WILSON: Well, I mean, to Mia's point,

if this statement were added to the regulation,

that would provide the clarity on this issue. I

guess my concern would be that -- well, we'll

just have to wait and see how many other issues

there are where this level of clarity has to be

defined. Do you see what I'm saying? In other

words, to do that -- I mean, I personally, I see

nothing wrong with this wording up here, and I

would have no problem with it being in the

regulation because I think everybody has

discussed that the TGRA should be able to approve

that, and that that approval shouldn't affect

certification of that system to the extent that

you're using a previously-approved grandfathered

component in that system that still has to meet

the four criteria. I mean, I don't know that

anybody has any objection to that, that that's

what --

MR. MORGAN: I agree with that.

MS. HAMEL: Well, and I think this

morning, that's where we started. And the

recommendation was to come up with a bulletin.

So that's --

MR. LITTLE: You could write an opinion
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

159

letter to the commission on this particular

subject. You can clarify. I'm not going to

guarantee you what their response is going to be,

but that might be an avenue that might work for

your tribe.

MS. HAMEL: Okay. I'm just recommending

we move on then.

MR. FISHER: So do you want to test

whether there's -- I mean, people around the

table have said they're willing to help try to

solve the problem. It's just really a question

of what's the right vehicle. We've had a number

of suggestions about different ways to do it,

bulletins, opinion letters, phone calls, or

whether there should be something in the --

proposed in the regulation. So do you want to,

as a part of kind of concluding this, do you have

a preference, would you like to ask the TAC to

support something, a regulation or in the

bulletin, or what would you like to do?

MS. HAMEL: I'll just go back to what I

said this morning, in 547.4(b)(3), it's

written -- if you read it the way it's written

literally, you can only modify, repair or replace

individual components of the gaming system that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

160

are grandfathered. No new components can be

added. And, for example, the gaming system

software is fully compliant, but if you want to

add a new theme or a new interface to the

existing four that are grandfathered, there isn't

-- there's no language to support that. This

talks about repair and replace to ensure

functional and secure.

MR. WILSON: What changes specifically in

that wording would meet with clear ambiguity for

you guys?

MS. HAMEL: I believe if there's

clarification between adding new, not just

repairing or replacing, but there's -- and that

it doesn't change the classification of the

system. If it meets the four components of or if

it's fully compliant. If it doesn't change the

overall intent of the system and the compliance

of the system. Because it just talks about

repair and replacing. It doesn't talk about

adding new.

MR. FISHER: So, Tom, were you asking to

try to figure out if there was a recommendation

around the regulation itself or --

MR. WILSON: Yes, in other words, if --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

161

for purposes of this particular issue, is there a

recommendation of wording to change the proposed

regulation so that it resolves that, or are we

going to go with the guidance document approach

on this particular issue?

MR. McGHEE: I think when you were filling

out the group, does the group think this should

be a direct letter for this specifically? Does

the group think it should be a regulation? Does

the group think it should be a bulletin? Can we

decide where that is? At least the majority, we

could at least focus our attention on that.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So what I was doing,

because Kathi said she was willing to drop it, I

just wanted to check to see if people had a

suggestion. So usually it's a -- if you think we

need to do something about this, raise your hand,

I mean, address this issue. And if so, we'll

figure out what people think about the vehicle.

Or we could just say if you think we should do

this in a bulletin or in the regulation, raise

your hand.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Kathi, wouldn't this be

more appropriate, particularly based on what I'm

seeing, for you to make this response for NIGC so
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

162

you can present that to the manufacturer? Again,

keeping with the spirit of what Matthew had

mentioned, if you open it up globally, then it

may end up being -- this appears to be local

politics that you're dealing with here, and maybe

going around that local -- that regional office

and going through NIGC may be beneficial to you.

MS. HAMEL: We'll take it off.

MR. FISHER: So if it remains an issue and

you want to bring it back, let us know.

MS. HAMEL: Okay.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Back to the TGWG

document. And I got that. I got the real thing

up there. Okay. We're done with this one,

right, because the recommendation is to do what

the TGWG recommended. So then were we done with

what was on Page 2 of the comparison document?

MR. LITTLE: Minimum probability.

MR. McGHEE: You did 547.5 and then the

next section is 547.4. And did we talk about

that yet?

MR. PUROHIT: It's just referring --

MR. McGHEE: Minimum probability

standards.

MR. PUROHIT: Like it's just making sure
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

163

that the reference to 547, the fairness

requirements are still there. The only reason we

put that in there is just so you know that

also -- it also --

MR. McGHEE: All we did is recommend

language for fairness. We didn't say -- by

accepting that, in turn, that has to be fixed.

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly.

MR. FISHER: We were talking about the

thing at the bottom. Everybody ready to move on?

So now we're on Page 3 on the TGWG

comparison document. And I'm just going to

scroll down here to 547.7. How do you want to do

it, do you want to do it the way we were doing it

before, somebody from the TGWG says, Here's what

we were trying to accomplish and why? You want

to do it some other way?

MR. McGHEE: I have a comment here. I

could read the comment here of why they changed

it. With this deletion of the general

requirement section, the remark was, Other

federal agencies are responsible for establishing

and enforcing electrical product safety

standards. Accordingly, promulgation of such

standards is beyond the scope of NIGC
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

164

jurisdiction. However, subpart 547.4(a)(3)(i) is

proposed above to reflect that this is an

industry standard for the laboratories to make

note or include other laboratory certifications

as provided by the manufacturer in their report.

And that's the remark as to why that was struck.

MR. FISHER: Anybody got any comments?

MS. LASH: Just another comment from the

Tribal Gaming Working Group is that this

requirement, the UL requirements is not required

in any other kind of gaming except for ours. And

this UL is a nonprofit business. You know, they

create testing requirements and everyone has to

spend lots of money to do that. And, you know,

they create a -- by having this language as a

regulation, it is giving a monopoly to a

nonprofit business that other gaming forums don't

have to -- they don't have to do this. So it's

-- we just would like to take it out. Your

Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authority can always put

in some sort of requirement. But these -- the

other federal regulations cover these safety

requirements. So those are just additional

comments.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Tom?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

165

MR. WILSON: So somebody help me

understand the proposed language, Operate in

compliance with applicable regulations with the

Federal Communication Commission. I would guess

that there's a zillion regulations the FCC has.

That seems awfully broad. And then in my mind,

it brings out all kinds of questions about, well,

who interprets the applicable -- what applicable

regulations are. I don't know, this just seems

odd to me what this is all about. I mean, what

is the risk that is trying to be mitigated in

terms of meeting some standard? And is there not

a better standard than the FCC?

MS. LASH: One thing is, if you notice

this first part, is that it mirrors the language

over here. It's in red here, but it reads the

exact same, the FCC comment. Then we struck out

the rest of it, just saying that this -- the UL

testing is unfair on our gaming business; that we

shouldn't have to have that requirement.

MR. WILSON: I understand that, but this

first part is confusing me in terms of compliance

with applicable FCC -- I mean, in my mind, that's

in there because somebody has thought that

there's something applicable in the FCC
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

166

regulations that apply to Class II systems. So

my question is, is that true or not because I

don't even know that referencing the FCC is the

right reference or if anything needs to be

referenced. I mean, is the risk they don't want

somebody to get zapped when they touch the

machine? I don't think that's an FCC issue.

MR. RAMOS: I guess, my statement or

comment would be with or without this regulation,

do tribes still have to -- are they still

obligated to follow the Federal Communications

Commission's requirements? I mean, it seems to

me that they probably do. And I don't think we

need it necessarily outlined in a regulation if

it's already out there.

MR. MORGAN: Tribe response. I'll preface

it that way. A lot of our discussion back from

what I recall when this was originally proposed

in 2007, and also the Tribal Gaming Work group is

we akin this to almost like tribal 31. It's

regulations you do have to follow. And instead

of the NIGC trying to set forth some jurisdiction

over a law they have no authority to enforce, we

just pointed to, hey, the FCC has some

regulations here on this subject, you should go
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

167

refer to that, whatever that may be. Because we

don't want to tie you down in this document to

some specific language or this version as they up

it. Just like we would as the Bank Secrecy Act

or Johnson Act. So it was pointing to a note to

go look somewhere else. But I do understand your

question, what is applicable. Probably a sea of

regulation the FCC has. I agree with Jason's

comment, there's no way to get around it, if it's

a requirement, you have to meet it. But I think

the point of it was just a point to, you know,

hey, you got to go look somewhere else because,

tribe, you have to follow it. NIGC, you may not

have the authority to enforce it, but tribe, you

still have to follow it.

MR. PUROHIT: I've spoken to a few

manufacturers about the TGWG issue. It's about

six manufacturers I spoke to, and they all pretty

much said that when you put in the words

"Underwriters Laboratory," even though it says

Underwriters Laboratory or Equivalent, it does

seem like a lot of jurisdictions only take a look

at that first part. And it's like saying

independent testing lab -- instead of saying

independent testing lab, you're not saying GLI or
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

168

equivalent or BMM or equivalent. That's the

first part of it.

The second part of it, in nearly every

jurisdiction you go to, I understand it's still

the box. But every single jurisdiction you go

to, there's a common requirement that I think

this was trying to capture. And this is based on

my regulatory experience and testing experience.

And those are things that are not required

necessarily by federal law, which is liquid

spills testing, electrostatic discharge, magnetic

interference. These are three, like, the most

common hazards requirements that are not

necessarily minimum federal requirements, but

they're put in a gaming environment to replicate

casino environment for that. And the UL or its

equivalent, as it points out, they go well above

and beyond, and that's why it's very expensive to

make it compliant like that. These manufacturers

said instead of having just a specific reference

to that, outline the three or four tests that

nearly every jurisdiction that's a universal

requirement and put those in there, instead of

just saying UL, which encompasses a wide array

and a lot of them might not be applicable so
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

169

what's the point of in incurring these costs as

well. That's the manufacturers' side of this

thing.

MS. HAMEL: Doesn't our facilities'

license cover safety and electrical shock and

live safety and water, and do we need to spell it

out again just for us, too? And just player

interfaces and not all of the equipment

associated with the facility.

MR. PUROHIT: Kathi, from the tests that I

was just naming out, they're not necessarily for

-- and this is going to be hit right at the box

issue. They're not necessarily for player safety

only. The minute you plug something into an

electrical outlet, it has to pass a whole slough

of laws. This is geared toward the integrity of

the overall gaming system environment. But if

you do expose it to any kind of an

outside-of-normal operation things, hazards, it

shouldn't malfunction and give a $42 billion

jackpot or anything along those lines. That's

what this is referring to. Colorado is a

specific example. Sorry. That's what this is

referring to, as far as equipment malfunctions or

anything that compromises the integrity of the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

170

environment. It's the issue of the box as well,

from that particular perspective. That's why

comparing it, we are comparing it like as far as

the box is concerned from both issues, so on

safety and a malfunction point of view, but the

malfunction won't apply here because if

everything doesn't reside on there and

malfunction voids all plays anyway. In this

particular instance, what are they going to test

for? That's what the manufacturers, they're

saying that given specific tests, but at the end

of the day, how do those tests apply to a Class

II gaming environment.

MR. WILSON: And I think that's where I'm

getting at is that -- I mean, I will tell you as

a regulator, I don't have a clue what all the FCC

things may or may not be, but I'm guessing that

one of them doesn't have anything to do with

spills on the machine, but that's really relevant

in the casino environment. So it does make more

sense to me to outline what is it that this

machine needs to meet to protect the integrity of

the game, assuming that personal safety issues

are already addressed in the manufacturing

process that they know that they can't make the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

171

machine that somebody is going to get

electrocuted when they touch it. It seems to me

that the technical standard here should be

addressing the integrity of the game issues that

that system needs to meet as opposed to these

general UL, you know, type of things, that it

would be doubtful that anybody is making a

machine that I wouldn't say isn't UL compliant,

but the fact of the matter is that basically

people manufacture to a standard anyhow,

otherwise they can't be competitive. So if their

machine plugs in and people are getting

electrocuted, my guess is that's going to be

addressed and corrected after you, you know, deal

with that. So it seems to me the integrity of

the gaming issue is what the technical standards

should be addressing, not the entire

manufacturing process of every component of this

machine.

MR. FISHER: Where does that leave us?

MR. McGHEE: We took it out because it

wasn't applicable to the integrity of the game.

MR. PUROHIT: It's not -- I want to say

something else. The game integrity as far as the

software is concerned, yes. As far as the math
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

172

models, that's going to be on the game server.

But you can't forget about the bill accepter

software, that's still critical to the integrity

as far as paying out and generating the payments.

That's still happening, if it does exist, inside

of a Class II cabinet as well. The software on

the bill accepters that is actually being

validated at the terminal, that's still happening

at the terminal level, too, in some cases. So in

that perspective, that needs to be protected as

well. That does compromise the integrity

somewhat. Not in the sense as far as the ball

draw, the random number generator, but that also

is still a factor in the integrity environment as

well. I'll give you an example of a very common

scam that has been going on for a couple of years

now, and the reason for the radiofrequency

requirements, is there is a cartel, if I may, out

there that goes in and has a radiofrequency

transmitter that when you aim it at the bill

accepter, it registers a hundred times the credit

of the bill you're putting in. I'm sure a lot of

you, if not all, have heard of that scam. That

does compromise the integrity of the environment

even though it's not directly hitting at the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

173

source in the software on the server itself.

That's why the manufacturer is saying that when

you do something, we want to make sure that it's

still some testing being done at the terminal

level, because it's a primary interaction point

at the end of the day.

MR. WILSON: Is that testing that you're

referring to -- again, you're identifying some

specific risks, which I think makes perfect sense

to me. My whole issue with this is that there's

more than just the FCC. I'm just hung up on this

that they've referenced the FCC as the compliant

piece you have to be compliant with. I certainly

as a regulator am not going to be able to go to

that machine and determine whether it is fully

compliant with all of the applicable FCC

requirements, but I certainly can determine if

certain standards -- if the machine meets certain

standards that we've defined in the technical

standards, it has to be A, B, C and D resistant

or whatever it happens to be. So I don't know if

we're saying the same thing --

MR. PUROHIT: We are.

MR. WILSON: -- or not.

MR. PUROHIT: We are saying the same
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

174

thing.

MR. WILSON: But when we talk about

striking this whole piece, that doesn't make

sense to me either because it seems to me that

there does need to be certain standards dealing

with -- I don't want somebody to walk in with

their radio device. I don't want somebody

walking in with a big magnet and be able to do

something. I don't know where those standards

currently sit. If they sit somewhere in the

federal world of -- whether it's the FCC or

whatnot. But that's what I would be most

interested as a regulator knowing that that

machine met those high risk items and not that

it's fully compliant with the FCC because I don't

know what that means.

MR. PUROHIT: I thinks we're talking the

same thing. It has to be a specific test, not

just a blanket or umbrella that could be a whole

bunch of things that definitely don't apply to

the Class II terminal either.

MR. McGHEE: So can you tell us which

tests? Because if we took it out, the whole FCC

reference, and said prior to approval by the TGRA

pursuant to whatever, the Class III gaming system
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

175

shall have attained relevant certification for

blank, blank, blank test.

MR. PUROHIT: Right. I'll give you an

example. This is from ADOG, as I like to call

them, Arizona Department of Gaming, compacted

jurisdiction, Appendix A. I always refer to

Appendix H in a couple other jurisdictions. Here

is something that they specifically identify, no

federal requirements or anything else. These are

pretty much common to every state regulated

tribal compact regulated jurisdiction that you go

to for cabinet security, because they're also

built on the GLI 11 series as well as far as

cabinet security. Few examples: electromagnetic

interference gaming devices shall not create

electronic noise that affects the integrity or

fairness or neighboring gaming devices. Very

specific. You can't really go in and expose it.

The other one is the electrostatic interference,

you know, don't tase a terminal in order to make

it go haywire. Even though the software might

not be there, some other components inside of it

may malfunction as well. Radiofrequency

interference testing, magnetic interference, and

finally liquid spills. These are some examples,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

176

specific tests. They're very common in multiple

jurisdictions out there.

MR. FISHER: What was the fourth --

MR. PUROHIT: Magnetic interference,

radiofrequency interference.

MR. MORGAN: Is that what you were getting

at, is you want to say, give me four tests and

say this is what you have to meet so I can

verify?

MR. WILSON: Right, because I can't verify

the FCC regulations.

MR. MORGAN: The other thing is, Nimish,

you want to put something in, or any other

additional requirements as required by the TGRA,

and then that captures it? Is that -- because

and then the Tribal Gaming Work Group, this is

the one that I struggled with the most as well,

and I kept asking people what tests are the most

common out there. Everybody keeps saying

industry standard. What's the industry standard?

That's the four or five. I'm fine with that

proposal if that meets your --

MR. PUROHIT: There's one more in here

that wouldn't apply to Class II environment.

It's the security of a random number generator.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

177

That doesn't apply here. It has to be shielded

and all that stuff. I'm only bringing up ones

that are applicable here.

MR. MORGAN: Don't put a lock on an empty

box.

MR. LITTLE: We're just providing

technical assistance. We're not making

recommendations for the group. You guys take it

any way you like.

MR. FISHER: Jeff?

MR. WHEATLEY: I like where we're going,

but my concern is these tests are probably going

to change over time, so are we going to have to

go back and change these as new cheats come out

and, you know, con artists have new ways of

coming in and manipulating a machine or device to

try to and gain some type of advantage? How are

we going to address that in the future? Is there

a way that we can write in the language that,

like Matthew said, the industry standard tests,

but those industry standards change over the

course of two, three, four years. I don't know

how to address that, or is this the direction we

want to go to?

MR. McGHEE: Could it be any other TGRA
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

178

requirement were to cover that? Because if

something would be to develop, we can add it.

MR. PUROHIT: Might be jurisdiction

specific as well, like in Oklahoma and Kansas

City Tribes, but it hasn't perpetuated beyond.

And the independent test labs, too, once they

discover something, I know all three labs, they

incorporate that into their test description as

well. Especially because the bulletins go out

from the manufacturers.

MR. FISHER: So what's the right lead-in

language to this? I've been playing with this,

but this might not be right.

MR. McGHEE: Take the "from" away.

Obtained relevant certifications.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Got it. Does that do

it?

MR. MORGAN: Now my only question is --

okay. They have to obtain relevant certification

because -- just because they obtain it, do they

have to give it to someone, and if so, who are

they giving it to, to the lab or TGRA? How do we

ensure?

MR. PUROHIT: I liken it to Arizona, for

example. It says the laboratory shall determine
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

179

whether or not outside influences affect game

fairness to the patron or create cheating

opportunities. The gaming device shall be able

to withstand the following tests, and then it

leads into it.

MR. MORGAN: That is my only concern.

Because as technical standards, checklists for

the labs, and if this is where we're putting it,

then I want to put responsibility on the labs and

say you check it. If you see certification, this

is all good.

MR. FISHER: So the recommendation could

be --

MS. HAMEL: Is it the wrong place, because

right now it's in hardware, not testing.

MR. FISHER: Yes, that's correct.

MR. MORGAN: I was just speaking to 547.

MR. FISHER: Let's skip the lead-in

language first and then we can figure out where

does it need to go.

MR. CULLOO: In order to address Jeff's

concern about new technology or new ways,

wouldn't you say that as a minimum relevant

certification? So it gives an ability for the

TGRAs to build upon that if something else comes
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

180

out in the future.

MR. WHEATLEY: Is "certifications"

necessarily the right word? Is the independent

testing lab going to have to come out with a

separate certification? Wouldn't it be things --

there's things they're going to test for

inclusive of their overall certification?

MR. PUROHIT: It will be in their

certificate of testing that they release to you,

and these will be comprehensive of all the tests.

Kind of like what Matthew said, that they check

it off, and they'll just give you a final report

that you act upon. It won't be a separate series

or anything along those lines.

MR. WHEATLEY: To me that kind of sounds

like it would be a separate certification.

That's why I brought it up.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So you want to read

that? What was the Arizona language?

MR. PUROHIT: Here's the lead-in. It

says, A laboratory shall determine whether or not

outside influences affect game fairness, and that

can be reworded here as well. I don't know if

you're caught up?

MR. FISHER: No. Now I am.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

181

MR. PUROHIT: Game fairness to the patron

or create --

MR. McGHEE: When you were reading it

earlier, you even expounded a little bit upon

what electromagnetic interference was. Can you

paste that to him, and it will pop up so

everybody can see it?

MR. PUROHIT: Yeah. Each one of them has

their own testing requirements as well.

MR. FISHER: Maybe we should take a quick

break because we have a little technical thing to

do. So there's brownies and drinks at the back.

(Recess taken at 2:33 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.)

MR. FISHER: The Arizona language is up on

the screen. It doesn't fit the whole thing

because it's -- but that's the lead-in language

and then all the information about the specific

tests. But then, Nimish, do you want to say --

MR. PUROHIT: I also gave him an example,

like talking with Jeff and Jason just had a

brainstorm, if you want to call it, and I was

like, wait, we have Washington State and I

remember their technical standards. They

actually specifically referred to everything as a

player terminal as far as their terminal
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

182

requirements, and that's just their testing

requirements for the terminal itself. And they

don't go into detail.

MS. LASH: That's perfect.

MR. FISHER: It basically collapsed all

that other Arizona stuff into one sentence.

MR. CALLAGHAN: That in a nutshell is

Nevada as well. You would similarly say spills

and human electronic dischargers rather than

someone coming in with a taser.

MR. WILSON: Just to be clear, we're

discussing here about the standard for the box,

not the server?

MR. PUROHIT: Correct.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Good job, Leo.

MR. CULLOO: That's the definition of a

player terminal there.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Basically it's a bingo

system, Class II. Not much inside.

MR. FISHER: So what do people think of

this?

MR. CULLOO: Use Washington.

MR. FISHER: Is that the right term? Is

that the same term?

MR. WHEATLEY: Player interface.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

183

MS. LASH: You want interface, terminal,

what?

MR. PUROHIT: For consistency it would

have to be electronic player interface.

MR. FISHER: So this would now be this.

And this is in place -- so where does this go?

So is it the part that's in --

MS. LASH: 547.7(a)(1), right?

MR. FISHER: So the TGWG language was to

eliminate 547.7(a) and make a change to

547.4(a)(3). So what's our recommendation?

Matt?

MR. MORGAN: I got a lawyer thing. Just

want to make sure. What's defined is player

interface, not electronic player interface.

MR. PUROHIT: I was just making sure of

that. The electronic player interface, I think

that's what -- the definition is just player

interface. Thank you for that, Matt. Yeah, we

have a definition for player interface in here.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So back to my question

about what's the recommendation, given the TGWG

recommendation was to delete certain parts and

make changes to other parts. Matt?

MR. MORGAN: My recommendation would be if
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

184

you look at the tribal gaming board group

suggestion is that that language replace what was

2. So you still have Class II gaming systems

operate in compliance with applicable regulations

and the Federal Communication Commission. Then

2, the operation of each player interface must

not be adversely comprised or affected by static

discharge, liquid spills, or electromagnetic

interference, period.

MR. WILSON: So I'm still hung up on the

FCC thing.

MR. MORGAN: I thought we struck it. I

was just reading what was there.

MR. LITTLE: I don't know if there was a

wrong or right in there. There's not really a

wrong or right. You state it or take it out. My

only point I'd raise is does it help a tribe that

may not necessarily know how to comply with it,

or just a reminder, or I mean, is it helpful to

leave it in there? I mean, it's not wrong to

have it in there. It's not right to have it in

there. But does it help the folks remain in

compliance with not necessarily just our

recommendations but other regulations? I'm just

asking the question that way.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

185

MR. WILSON: Well, I don't know. I just

get back to the thing that I'm just trying to

think in Class III, and maybe independent say it

says somewhere about the FCC or whatnot. This

FCC thing is throwing me, and I don't know why.

But it appears that you're all comfortable that

there's something in the FCC requirements that

pertain to Class II interface devices.

MR. MORGAN: I think it's general product.

MR. CULLOO: Electronic product. Not

specifically gaming device. Probably referring

to electronic devices in general, not

specifically gaming devices.

MR. MORGAN: My point is I kind of fall

where Dan does, in that it doesn't really hurt

and it may be helpful for some. And that

language is for the independent testing lab, to

send me their certificate of -- what do you call

it, whatever their certificate is, and say, yes,

we verified that it does meet that.

MR. WILSON: The testing lab is going to

verify that the component meets the applicable

requirements of the FCC, is that what -- is that

what that's saying?

MR. MORGAN: Something for that $25,000
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

186

charge they do. I want them to stand behind

something that says, yes, that's --

MR. PUROHIT: Can I clarify something,

too? In Part C of the same hardware standard as

well, by the way, there is an electrostatic

discharge requirement which specifies the voltage

ranges and all that other stuff. If you want to

remove that part from here and keep that so that

there's not other changes involved in there.

This is the Underwriters Laboratory reference, is

(a)(2), and if you look underneath printer

circuit boards, and then go to (c), there's a

specific reference to electrostatic discharge

there as well.

MR. McGHEE: And we add that language to

this language?

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. You can do that as

well. That does define what the parameters of

electrostatic discharge are.

MS. LASH: I would like to ask that we

leave in the FCC language because specifically

with Rocket games, they're broadcast between

locations, and so we are comfortable with that

language being in there just as a -- for that FCC

language to remain in there. Some manufacturers
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

187

have local signals, but ours are broadcast, so I

think it should stay in there.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Go ahead. Daniel.

MR. McGHEE: Okay. The only difference

that I see leaving in or taking it out means that

I have to be sure that the gaming lab tests

checklist now has this -- I guess in compliance

with FCC. If it stays in there, that's why I

have to make sure it's on the certification. If

it's out, then I don't have to. So I think it's

not a big issue either way. I mean, if it's an

issue to one or the other, then that's fine that

it stays. I'm more interested in where -- if we

put that over here with this other static

discharge stuff, can we then see where we are

voting-wise and move on?

MR. FISHER: Yes. So do you want to try

what's -- first of all, with number one with the

FCC, do you want to check that first? So the

proposal is basically is to leave it as in the

current regulation, right, so not to adopt the

TGWG recommendation, to delete it, to leave it as

in the current recommendation. So if you're in

agreement with that, raise your hand.

MR. WILSON: Say it again.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

188

MR. FISHER: Leave it as it is in the

current regulation. Number 1. Leave it as it

is. So if you're in agreement with that, raise

your hand.

MR. McGHEE: It reads, the Class II gaming

system shall operate in compliance with

applicable regulations of the Federal

Communications Commission.

MR. FISHER: Communications Commission,

period.

MS. LASH: Applicable.

MR. McGHEE: It was originally just struck

from the whole document.

MR. FISHER: I have to try this again

because we're still -- okay. So the suggestion

is to leave it as in the current regulations just

the way that Daniel read it. So if you are in

agreement with that --

MS. LASH: I'm leaving it. All right.

MR. FISHER: If you're in agreement with

leaving it in, raise your hand.

(Indicating.)

MR. FISHER: I need you to do it again

because I can't see everybody. I know there are

some people that don't have their hands raised.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

189

So if you are not in agreement with doing it,

which I count at least three or four people,

what's the -- what's the -- what's the reason or

what needs to change in order for you to be in

agreement with that? So anybody that didn't

raise your hand yes?

MR. RAMOS: I'm not so sure that I

understand what the applicable Federal

Communications regulations are. And I think I'm

already -- that those are already subject to my

facility anyway. I'm not so sure why we need it

as a technical standard.

MR. WHEATLEY: I would say that listed as

it has to be tested at the independent testing

laboratory to meet those standards. Otherwise I

think you're going to, like Thomas made reference

to, I think you're going to confuse the tribal

gaming regulators, they're not going to know how

to ensure compliance with that. If they have a

certification from the lab that says it is

compliant with that, then I think that's usually

good enough for the tribal gaming regulators.

But how is a regulator -- are they going to go

and say, okay, are we meeting this provision.

They're not going to know what applicable
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

190

regulations to test for or even if they have the

ability to test for them.

MR. FISHER: Tom?

MR. WILSON: Yes. I agree with Jeff. I

mean, for me, you know, honestly, it's not

whether that the term is in there or not. I just

-- it strikes me as odd that of all the

particular things that we could talk about that

the federal government has regulations over, that

we pick out the FCC. But why not any number of

other -- I mean, that's what bothers me, is I

keep trying to get at what is the concern with

the FCC pertaining to Class II devices versus any

other number of things that are out there that

people in the manufacturing world comply to. So

I guess that's where I'm struggling, is nobody

has convinced me yet why the FCC was singled out

as a point of reference for this as opposed to

any other number of things. Because the question

it raises to me is that, well, if it's applicable

to the FCC commission, well, what about other

things then? And it seems to me it's like a

rabbit hole; you start going down and saying

that. So nobody has yet articulated for me what

it is about the FCC component being in there that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

191

is so important, which is why I'm leaning towards

taking it out, because I haven't seen the risk of

why it's in there.

MR. FISHER: I don't know which one is

first.

MR. MORGAN: I'm looking at him. My, I

guess, point would be the FCC is going back to

Rocket, Megamania games, some of those older

games that relied on low level satellite

communications that have to be in conformance

with the FCC requirements. Now we're using wide

area, using the internet. The FCC may have some

authority over that, but back to the mid '90s

when you had low level satellite games

broadcasting the signal around reservation to

reservation, you needed to be in compliance with

FCC regulations. That's my recollection of why

FCC is there.

MR. PUROHIT: As I studied regulations in

my spare time, one of the things that I've

collected as one of the best practices go as well

is kind of like put the onus on the manufacturer

and require attestation from them saying we're

attesting to the fact that we are complying with

all applicable federal laws including federal
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

192

compliance. It might be something that can't

even be tested by an independent test lab because

they're not going to know how when it goes into

effect and like if it goes into a wide area

network, if it goes into a single property. But

as long as the device is built by conforming to

those standards -- there's other ones like OSHA

is a requirement as well. But as long as it's a

requirement saying that they built it to these

standards, they're good to go. I'm just giving

an example. They're attesting to that fact. And

it might not be necessarily something that's

certified or whatever else it might be.

MR. WILSON: I would rather be able to

come back to the manufacturer, the onus on them;

it meets, you know, 22,000 standards out there.

Okay. Well, I'm not going to be able to test

that it does, but when something goes wrong, then

I want to be able to have the hook back to the

manufacturer that you said that it met all these

things. Because, again, you know, FCC -- but I

see all kinds of things. And if it's more of a

statement that it meets all applicable things,

you know, whatever those are, would make sense to

me. I just -- I'm just not understanding the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

193

particular thing about the FCC being the only

thing that we would be concerned about for

purposes of this because then it implies in my

mind that maybe there's a bunch of other things

that they don't have to meet.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So there are two cards

out, and then let's decide whether this is

something that we want to put aside to come back

to or whether this is something that we're going

to declare we're not able to reach consensus on

right now and want to just explain what the

reasons are. Because that's the procedure when

we've gotten into a thing like that. So Mia and

then Robin, and then we'll check where we are.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I agree, I don't want

to get into writing a document that refers to the

federal government on any level. If it starts

here, where might it end in referring to

different agencies of the federal government?

You know, we talked about that earlier, referring

to Title 31 and then other parts that could

change. And I just think we can write our own

safety controls if needed.

MS. LASH: I think that the FCC emphasis

is important with the Class II games. It's an
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

194

important part of the history, and it's also an

important part of their internet potential to

have a reference to the FCC and with Class II.

So I propose leaving it in.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So here would be one

way to do this, is to check to see if we have

agreement on leaving it in. If we don't have

agreement, then figure out what to do. All

right. Because we've heard people who weren't in

agreement the first time explain why they weren't

in agreement. So let's check to see if we have

anybody who's not in agreement, and then if so,

we'll figure out what to do.

MR. MORGAN: Can I make one suggestion?

Because Jeff had language and basically clarified

whose responsibility it was to test. Can we

check that language? Because I was in the group

that said, yeah, I want to leave it in, but I

don't have a problem leaving it in with that

suggested change. And if that has more binding

from the group -- because that was a little

different. If that's a sticking point on leaving

it in, is that we're explicitly stating the lab

must check for -- Jeff, I'm sorry if I'm

butchering language. I could get on board with
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

195

that suggestion.

MR. WHEATLEY: Either way, and I don't

feel that strongly about it. I'm just -- my

thought process was that a tribal -- a local

tribal gaming regulatory authority is not going

to have the ability to test for that, so they're

going to feel like their hands are tied. They're

not going to know how are we complying with this

regulation. I thought it better to leave it at

the hands of the independent test lab.

MR. FISHER: So the recommendation would

be?

MS. HAMEL: Not be in the hardware

section, but be in the testing section?

MR. WHEATLEY: I would just say the

independent test labs shall test that the Class

II gaming system is operating in compliance with

applicable regulations of the Federal

Communications Commission.

MR. CALLAGHAN: Building for the future,

handhelds? There's interruption for -- that's

why I think to a degree that concept of -- and I

don't know, it's got to be the FCC controlling

internet or broadband, telephone, and all that.

So when you start looking at handhelds and with
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

196

ability for interference in the gaming

environment, it may be worth tabling this and

doing research of the FCC and controls they have

so we could come up with a language. I could see

from a tribal standpoint not wanting to put a

federal agency in there as having some control

over what we have. There's that visceral aspect.

But maybe we could come up with some other

parallel just as we did with Leo's suggestion on

adopting language that doesn't identify

particular jurisdictions, but we're using it

because it benefits us.

MR. FISHER: So your suggestion is to put

it on hold?

MR. PUROHIT: Do research on the

frequencies and all that.

MR. FISHER: And basically research the

impact on future technology?

MR. CALLAGHAN: It is there right now. I

think, Nimish, you've seemed like you've dealt

some -- with some of the manufacturers. There's

a few of them that have the handhelds and they're

testing it right now. We may want to see what

standards they're testing those to. Somebody

must have the standards.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

197

MR. PUROHIT: There's wi-fi requirements.

There's wireless, in general, requirements, and

they can only broadcast on certain frequencies.

So there are requirements. And that's why you'd

say leave it a general requirement on the

manufacturer to make sure that they're building

to that. That's why I was just talking about it

from a session legal point. I'm not talking

about internet. I'm not talking about that at

all.

MR. LITTLE: There's a hearing on

Thursday, by the way.

MR. WILSON: Just to --

MR. McGHEE: I mean, I hate to put

something on hold and research it. Who's going

to do the research and handle it? But, I mean,

couldn't we just generalize it enough to say that

the standards are the -- you know, that these

systems will operate in compliance with all other

federal and applicable federal regulations and

laws that are out there?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: But isn't that what

the proposed language says?

MR. McGHEE: No, it says the Federal

Communications Commission.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

198

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: No, on the proposed

document on the summary, TGWG, it says that they

struck from that and then they added in 547.4 to

require that the testing lab provide TGRA with a

formal report, and the testing laboratory written

report shall note the submission of any other

compliance with applicable federal laws or

regulations.

MR. McGHEE: So basically we struck 547.7

and moved it to 547.4 -- so that fixes it. They

took it from somewhere, put it somewhere else to

correct it. Is that okay? Do you see that

language?

MR. FISHER: So that might fix the

problem. So let's just check if it does.

Because we might be trying to solve multiple

problems that are giving us contradictory

results. Tom.

MR. WILSON: Is what we're looking at the

proposed change not correct?

MS. LASH: No, I think it is correct.

MR. FISHER: Okay.

MR. WILSON: You struck the whole thing?

MR. McGHEE: We struck the whole thing.

MR. WILSON: Because the problem is with
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

199

the document, it only shows in the proposed

changes; it doesn't show that you struck the

whole thing unless you read down, I guess.

MR. WHEATLEY: It looks like there's two

different versions.

MR. FISHER: Two different versions?

MR. McGHEE: It's in red on his document,

but then it's struck out.

MR. WHEATLEY: Jason has a version where

the FCC portion is not struck, and it sounds like

other people have that, too.

MR. McGHEE: It's red, but it's not a

strike-through.

MR. FISHER: Do you not have that?

MR. WHEATLEY: That's what I have.

MR. FISHER: So he has -- so Jason has a

version that -- where did you get that version,

off the web?

MR. RAMOS: No, that was distributed from

the Tribal Gaming Work Group.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Some of those have

mistakes, if you notice on ones that we already

covered. Like there's misspelled words and it

doesn't match the summary that the other one has,

so --
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

200

MR. WILSON: This is an issue we've got to

respond to in terms of what version.

MR. FISHER: So we all have to be working

from the same version. So, first, is it easiest

to work from the comparison document that the

NIGC prepared?

MR. LITTLE: You're saying there's errors

on that one?

MR. FISHER: Where's the error, is it in

the NIGC document or is it in the --

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I think it's in the

working group.

MR. WHEATLEY: I believe what happened, I

didn't read them, but I saw that the Tribal

Gaming Working Group submitted documents with

comments regarding NIGC's comments, and I believe

that's the version that doesn't have the FCC

portion struck through. The stuff that we got

solely from the NIGC, it is struck through. So

it looks like it was -- there's a difference

there somehow.

MR. McGHEE: The one that was submitted to

the NIGC officially by Horse Creek is this

document. It's just a copy of it. And it's

struck.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

201

MR. WHEATLEY: And I think the Tribal

Gaming Working Group just recently added comments

to the NIGC's portion, the summarization and the

comparison document. They added comments

explaining why they did some of that. And it

sounds like that version is a little different.

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. We're going back

to what was submitted to us, back in May of --

whenever Stephanie submitted it to us.

MR. FISHER: May 12th.

MR. PUROHIT: There's a different version

that was submitted to them by TGWG that's wrong.

MR. FISHER: So what are we working from?

MR. WILSON: So the version that I am

looking at is the one that's 11/9/11.

MR. FISHER: Wait a second. One

conversation going at a time. Okay. Tom.

MR. WILSON: Okay. The version that I'm

looking at is dated 11/9/11 which is the one that

came out I think in the last e-mail from you, was

the proposed -- the summary of proposed changes

to Part 547 Travel Gaming Working Group Review

dated 11/9/11.

(Discussion held off the record.)

MR. FISHER: So we definitely need to make
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

202

sure we're working from the same document.

However, what we do know about this particular

provision is there was a recommendation to delete

it and there was a recommendation to keep it, or

a proposal, I should say. So we just need to

figure out what we're doing with it.

MR. McGHEE: I like how it was deleted and

then Mia, which I'm glad she did, pointed out

that it was actually addressed somewhere else.

MR. WHEATLEY: Without the FCC language,

but just all applicable federal.

MR. McGHEE: I like that. If we can maybe

see how we feel about that.

MR. FISHER: For those of you that said

you wanted to keep it the way it was, or in other

words, not delete it, does the way that the

working group prepared moving it -- moving that

provision into 547.4, does that take care of what

you were trying to accomplish? So, Robin, the

question would be to you because you said you

wanted to leave it in.

MS. LASH: Well, you know, we have the

reference in 547.4 about meeting federal

regulations, so -- and maybe we can just add the

specific FCC language just to make sure because
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

203

of the nature of Class II and the broadcast

that's going on that we could say, you know,

federal regulations including the FCC maybe to

specify it?

MR. FISHER: Okay. So -- let me find this

in here so people can see this.

MR. PUROHIT: Do you have the comparison

document that we circulated?

MR. LITTLE: That's on our website?

MR. FISHER: Yes.

MR. LITTLE: Could you pull that up?

MR. FISHER: For what purpose?

MR. CULLOO: So we're all looking at the

same.

MR. PUROHIT: To make sure that everyone

is looking at the one that has the struck-out

language. If you have it available.

MR. LITTLE: Can you get on the internet?

MR. FISHER: No.

MR. WILSON: Robert, you know, for the

group, this is one of my concerns about getting

information from multiple people from the TAC.

So I know that we've got Oklahoma, you know, the

group that sends out versions of changed

documents. But it seems to me for purposes of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

204

the committee, we need to have one definitive

repository where we can go to get this because

I'm, frankly, bothered that I'm working off of

apparently a version that isn't the same version.

And now that I hear discussion about, you know,

is the version that everybody thinks is the

version, was that really the version or whatnot.

And it seems to me that NIGC has to say here is

the version for purposes of discussion here that

we're talking about. Because, you know, I've

identified now what looks like five versions of

this document floating around, and I'm not sure

which one now I'm supposed to be using.

MR. FISHER: That's a really good

question.

MR. CULLOO: Can I ask why copies were

sent on the TGWG on the 9th, why this was set up?

Why did we get this sent to us?

MS. LASH: You're asking why?

MR. CULLOO: Why we got another copy?

Where the confusion is is this copy that was sent

out 11/9 is the wrong copy.

MS. LASH: My understanding of what

occurred was that the comparison document was

looked at by the Tribal Gaming Working Group.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

205

There were several telephone conversations last

week about the comparison document looking at the

NIGC's comments, interpreting the work that the

Tribal Gaming Working Group did. And the Tribal

Gaming Working Group wanted to provide to the TAC

their explanation of why the Tribal Gaming

Working Group made the changes that they did

because that's one of the columns that you're

looking at. I can't explain why this is

un-struck, this 547.7(1). I don't know. Because

the only thing that the working group did was add

comments below so that it would be more

informational. And it was sent around just in

case you were curious as to why the Tribal Gaming

Working Group made the changes.

MR. CULLOO: But we don't know if there's

any more things that might not have been changed

in here.

MS. LASH: It makes no sense to me why

that was different because they worked off of the

comparison document, as far as I understood, you

know. That's weird. I can't answer that.

MR. WHEATLEY: But, I mean, there may be

different versions. There may be a bunch of

different language. I think that's all
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

206

irrelevant. Our job here is to present and

recommend to the NIGC what we feel as a group is

the best language and the best set of

regulations. So, I mean, the two versions from

Tribal Gaming Working Group, those are both

options. What we've discussed here, those are

options. It's upon all of us to come up with

what's the best solution, not is option one from

Tribal Gaming Working Group the best solution or

option two from Tribal Gaming Working Group.

It's what we believe is the best option. So I

think it's irrelevant what version we're working

off of. What's the best language.

MR. FISHER: To Tom's thing, we want to

make sure we know which documents we're working

from and where the repository for those documents

is.

MR. WILSON: You know, we were instructed

that there was a document submitted that was

going to be used as the basis for discussion. I

just don't want to be spending time discussing

something that's in a version that I have that

isn't in a version you have.

MS. LASH: It helps now that it's up here.

Now we all are looking at the same thing.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

207

MR. WILSON: Yeah. And that's all I'm

saying, is as a point of reference, I'd like to

make sure that we're at least all at the same

starting point.

MR. McGHEE: I think if we can just, like

you say, focus on whatever NIGC sends you because

that's what's going to be looked at. What I'm

looking at over here and what there was some

concern about was making sure -- because NIGC's

documents does not provide TGWG's comment as to

why they made a change, but the submission to

NIGC did have them. Okay. This document is on

the NIGC website as the official document with

the TGWG's comments, not any new comments, just

the comments at the time of submission. And then

you have the thing that -- those are two official

NIGC documents now. And those should be the only

two which we look at, which are all on the

website.

MR. WHEATLEY: If there are additional

comments, I think those members should bring

those with us and not distribute copies. That

will cut down on the confusion.

MR. McGHEE: Or send them to NIGC and say

I would like to provide them to the TAC and then
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

208

NIGC --

MR. LITTLE: Send them to Robert.

MR. McGHEE: At least we know where

they're coming from.

MR. FISHER: Send them to us, and we'll

take care of distributing them if you wish.

MR. LITTLE: Is everybody clear on where

these documents are located on the website?

There's a tribal advisory tab on the website and

then at the bottom we'll be adding all the

documents on there.

MR. FISHER: What's on the screen now is

the comparison document that NIGC prepared that

was distributed by Rita Homa in advance of the

October meeting. This is the document that was

sent to everybody.

MR. PUROHIT: Show everyone where

everything is real quick.

MR. FISHER: I was asked to pull up the

one that Rita sent. Rita didn't send me a color

version, which we did manage to get posted on the

NIGC website.

MR. LITTLE: Also point out where the

proposal submitted by Poarch Creek is on there.

MR. PUROHIT: There's like a special tab
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

209

as I clicked on it. I know our website is not

the best in the world. On the bottom part of it

there's comments received from the tribe. That's

where the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, that's

the Tribal Gaming Working Group as part of the

official submission, and that's the copy that we

were going off of as far as these comments go.

In the color comment as well, there's a resource

materials section where we have all the

comparison documents and everything. That will

be the most updated, and that's what's going to

be circulated. So if I click on that, you'll see

changes to 547. And these are the color PDF. I

think that's what the request was in the last one

as well. You didn't get this one?

MR. WHEATLEY: I didn't pull the color

ones. I have the same document, just not in

color.

MR. PUROHIT: This one also, because of

comments received last time, there was no

reference to comments as well. We just copied

and pasted the tribal -- from that working group

document, the comments as of 5/13/2011 and what

their justification was for recommending the

changes.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

210

MR. FISHER: Pause for a second. What I

just heard you say is that the color version

that's on the website is different than the black

and white version that was sent in the October

meeting?

MR. PUROHIT: I don't know when that was

circulated.

MR. CULLOO: What's the date of the most

current one?

MR. FISHER: There's no remark on any of

these.

MR. GARVIN: The color version is

different than the black and white version?

MR. FISHER: It is. There are two

differences. Two differences. One is the color.

And two is what?

MR. PUROHIT: Two is right on the bottom,

where it says what their comments were. So it's

all been put in here as opposed to having two

different sections that you have to keep

referring back and forth. As far as the

substance goes --

MR. FISHER: Wait. I can tell you right

now by looking at it, the black and white version

has 12 pages, and the color version has 16 pages.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

211

MR. PUROHIT: Correct. I'll go print them

off. But none of this -- just so that you're

aware, whatever is in here, the language

proposed, nothing has changed from there. That's

verbatim from what was submitted in the TGWG

submission.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: You're saying the

green in the Poarch Creek version has been taken

out and put on a bottom page?

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. So TAC can refer

to that, what their reasoning is for the change.

MS. LASH: Can you scroll down to 547.7,

let's see what the box is on that. I can't

understand why it's not crossed out on this one.

It is. It is all crossed out on that one.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Robin, look on the

end of -- there was a misspelled word on there,

too. On the very bottom of 547.4, federal, like

the word "federal" is misspelled, and it's not

misspelled in here. It's not just there that it

got messed up.

MR. McGHEE: Maybe she was working on a

little earlier version than was submitted.

MR. FISHER: Can I make a suggestion that

whatever you need to do figure out what happened,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

212

that you do that off line; that we take the two

suggestions that the official documents are the

ones that are posted on the NIGC website, those

are what we'll be using. And that if people have

documents that they want to circulate to the TAC,

that they send them to us and then we'll send

them out. And then they can get posted up on the

website under, you know, TAC member documents

distributed to the TAC. And so we can just keep

track of all the stuff that's floating around and

make sure we're all working from the same set of

documents.

That said, we still have -- if we go back

to that provision, we have some people who said

take it out, some people who said leave it in,

some people who said take it out with the change,

the other change that in here. So let's go back

to 547.7(a)(1) and see if we're striking that and

adopting that other suggestion, and then we can

move on to (2). So Daniel.

MR. McGHEE: I would like to, if you don't

mind, just propose if anyone has an issue with

what's listed right up there on that right-hand

column as it's written, both sections, just like

it's written, and see what people say. I think
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

213

with that, it may be all fixed.

MR. FISHER: Okay.

MS. LASH: And I was in agreement, except

I had asked that FCC be specifically referenced.

MR. McGHEE: Such as FCC.

MS. LASH: Yeah, and then it's covered.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So I can't do that on

here, because this is a PDF.

MS. LASH: Like I said, FCC.

MR. FISHER: Including regulations in the

Federal Communications Commission.

MR. WHEATLEY: I thought we also had good

comments with the static discharge, liquid spills

and stuff. So would it be applicable to make

that number (2) of 547.4?

MR. FISHER: You mean (ii)?

MR. WHEATLEY: Yeah, (ii). There might

already be that somewhere. But, yeah, the

language that we came up with, that we modified

from the Washington language.

MR. FISHER: It's no longer Washington.

MR. WHEATLEY: But I think there's value

in having that in there as well.

MR. McGHEE: Are we going to put that in

the static discharge section?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

214

MR. WHEATLEY: This one is specifically

talking about testing, right?

MR. FISHER: Can I ask you to hold that

question? Because what happens is, generally

speaking, you can only kind of hold two options

-- you can only choose between two options at one

time. You can have multiple options, but it's a

lot easier to say A or B and B or C or A or C.

MS. HAMEL: Eye doctor test. This one or

this one.

MR. FISHER: Exactly. That's why they do

it that way. People can hold a lot of options at

one time. So can we stick with what we're going

to do to (a)(1), so (a) first and then move on.

MR. MORGAN: I have a problem with that in

that if we agree on something and then we move

on, because for me, I'm fine with moving that

with (a) if you add it down here in little (i).

But if you're not going to add it to (i), then

I'm not okay with leaving it.

MR. FISHER: But that's the suggestion. I

just want to test -- I want to see if we can come

to agreement around that and then move on to the

spill provision. And maybe it's all connected

and we have to do it all at once. So the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

215

suggestion is to -- no, that's not the right one.

Sorry, I got too many documents open now. Okay.

So the suggestion is to do what the TGWG

proposed, which is in red and blue, with the

addition of the provision in (1)(i) there of

specific reference to the Federal Communications

Commissions. So if you support doing that, raise

your hand.

(Indicating.)

MR. WHEATLEY: Which one is this?

MR. McGHEE: What you referred to as a

separate issue.

MR. WHEATLEY: I know.

MR. FISHER: So what's your question?

MR. WHEATLEY: This is the language we're

talking about?

MR. FISHER: This is the language, with in

addition right here because I can't type it in

here, right here, that references the Federal

Communications Commission regulations.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Would it be in

addition?

MR. FISHER: It would say including the

regulations of the Federal Communications

Commission, such as.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

216

MR. CULLOO: Why would you just put the

one? It puts more weight on one than the others.

People would interpret that the FCC is the --

MR. FISHER: Right. So the reason that

got suggested is because Robin has said she wants

a specific reference to the Federal

Communications Commission.

MS. LASH: Because of the nature of Class

II gaming and broadcast issues. That way

definitely one of the situations covered one of

the statutes looked at.

MR. WILSON: Before I can vote, I need one

point of clarification. Nimish, the issues of,

you know, those four or five criteria that we

looked at about spills and static discharge and

whatnot, are those in fact addressed somewhere

else in -- because I keep hearing that there's a

static discharge section.

MR. McGHEE: That's another issue.

MR. FISHER: That's the next thing we were

going to take up.

MR. WILSON: Okay. My question is that --

we haven't forgotten that piece. I don't want to

vote yes for this if that precludes us from

discussing those other components.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

217

MR. FISHER: No, I was trying to put that

on hold to do next. Maybe we can't. Maybe we

have to see the whole thing. I don't know. So

who else said -- anybody else say no to this

change?

MR. WHEATLEY: Well, if we are going to

add the FCC at the end of that, I don't know why

we don't keep the original language.

MR. FISHER: There might be -- well, this

is in -- they're in different sections trying to

get at different things. Wait a second. We

really need one conversation going at a time. So

there are people that have questions up. So

Daniel, who raised his hand, and then Michele and

then Jason.

MR. McGHEE: My card is up. So just

because -- the two concerns I heard was FCC be

added and then other people say why get that one

person. So in this one, which this is Arizona

said FCC and OSHA, so could you say such as FCC

and OSHA standards?

MR. RAMOS: Why not bring the EPA in it,

too? Honestly for the construction of the

circuit boards, you don't want to be using

mercury switches and hazardous material. How
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

218

many federal agencies you want involved in this?

MR. McGHEE: I don't think the way it's

going that we're going to convince the one to

take FCC out.

MR. RAMOS: My question is, what is it

about the FCC specifically that you think needs

to be added; why?

MS. LASH: Because of the nature --

MR. RAMOS: Because of the nature of Class

II. That doesn't tell me it, though.

MS. LASH: Well, specifically Rocket

broadcast.

MR. RAMOS: If you say, Shall abide by

federal regulations, that's not enough? It has

to specifically name the FCC?

MS. LASH: We're more comfortable with

specifically naming the regulatory body that

relates the broadcast signals.

MR. FISHER: This is a really funny thing

to get hung up on. I mean, I know it's really

important, but it's -- for some reason, we're

cycling back around the same questions. Every

single time somebody says take it out, somebody

says leave it in. And over time somebody says

leave it in, somebody else says I don't
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

219

understand where you want to leave it in.

MR. WILSON: Only one is advocating.

MR. FISHER: Let's go, so it's Michele,

then Mia, then Kathi.

MS. STACONA: We went from just having the

FCC in there to now opening up to God knows what

federal laws and regulations out there. That's

what bothers me right now, is what the heck are

all the applicable laws that are out there then?

I wouldn't have a clue. We just made it worse

with that language.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Yeah, I agree with

Michele. But I also feel like the language as it

is includes the FCC.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Kathi?

MS. HAMEL: Does everybody have the issue

or just Rocket?

MR. FISHER: And so, Tom, you're next

then.

MR. WILSON: I just want to say in answer

to -- I don't think that it's a question that it

opens up or doesn't open up by saying all

federal. For me, I want the manufacturer to be

on the hook. I don't want to be on the hook as a

regulator. I want to be able to hold the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

220

manufacturer accountable that you're ensuring

that this system is in compliance with whatever.

And if it's not, then I hold you responsible. I

know, though, as a regulator I do not have to go

out and figure out what all these things,

potential requirements are. I'm putting that

ownership by this wording on the manufacturer

where I think that's the appropriate place it

should be. And that's what you're paying them

for, to figure that out. And then if you have

questions about a specific thing that may be of a

concern in your jurisdiction, you can ask did

that -- have you in fact ensured that it complies

with the FCC. And if they tell you yes, then

there we go. Again, it just seems to me that,

you know, your concern is FCC. I got it. My

concern might be the FAA. Your concern might be

the DEA or whatever, so I just -- I would rather

have the language that says, you know, I can

leave it at that and then make it my concern

locally as to what specific agency I want to have

a concern about.

MR. McGHEE: And I guess by leaving it

out, you still win because it includes the FCC.

So I don't understand the need for it to be
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

221

there. With it not being there, you're still

covered.

MR. WILSON: I move that we should vote on

this language right here.

MR. McGHEE: Does this have to be

unanimous?

MR. FISHER: It has to be unanimous for it

to be a recommendation. So people can step aside

as a part of doing that, or we can conclude that

we can't reach consensus and what do we do.

MS. LASH: I changed my mind.

MS. FISHER: You changed your mind?

MS. HAMEL: Women's prerogative.

MR. McGHEE: You owe me 45 minutes of my

life back.

MR. FISHER: How about if we do this. We

got to check. We just got to check, recognizing

that we're going to move after this to the status

language and the liquid spills and that kind of

stuff. All right. So if you're in agreement

with the change as proposed by the TGWG projected

on the screen, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Yahoo! All right.

MR. RAMOS: It's not always easy, Robert.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

222

MR. FISHER: But we got through it. Who

would have guessed that the FCC --

MR. WHEATLEY: I didn't think anybody

liked the FCC.

MR. FISHER: All right. So, moving right

along, the next suggestion had to do with this

language, right, and so we have this language and

-- okay. What do you think?

MR. MORGAN: You got two questions. One

is whether you agree with the language, and two

would be where does the language go.

MR. FISHER: Correct. And then there was

a suggestion about the language that is -- just

hold on a second -- that is down here in the

printed circuit board section. Also it has --

wait a second. It's right -- do you mind if I

just take this out for one second? It's an

electrostatic discharge. All right. So, Jeff,

you have your card up.

MR. WHEATLEY: Yes. So I think if we make

(ii) with that, the language that we spelled out

right there, that you could actually strike the

electrostatic discharge portion that's a little

bit farther down. Because the electrostatic

discharge portion down there is very specific on
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

223

to what degree variance, plus if the independent

test lab tests the fact that the components are

not affected by static discharge, that covers it.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So your suggestion is

take this language and strike this?

MR. WHEATLEY: Yes.

MR. FISHER: And it would become (ii)

right there?

MR. WHEATLEY: Uh-huh.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Everybody follow that?

Everybody follow that? So I'm not sure everybody

followed it.

MS. LASH: Yeah.

MR. FISHER: Everybody did. Okay. So,

Kathi and Dan, you have your cards up. So --

MS. HAMEL: I just have a question for the

whole group, and they may not -- my questions may

not be by the TGWG document, but testing seems to

show up in the document in more than one section

and in more than one form. And right now, what

we're talking about is 547.4, limited immediate

compliance. And we seem to be talking about what

needs to be tested. But if we go on, under

(a) -- if we go on to (c), there's a section

called submission, testing and approval that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

224

seems to talk more about what's tested. And I

think it's confusing.

MR. WHEATLEY: Which part is that, Kathi?

MS. HAMEL: (c) is called submission,

testing and approval under 547.4.

MR. McGHEE: That's submission, testing

and approval for grandfathered, isn't it? I

don't know, but --

MS. HAMEL: (b) is grandfathering

provision, and (c) is testing; submission,

testing and approval. But we've taken some of

the testing requirements and embedded them in

limited immediate compliance, and I wonder why

all testing requirements aren't listed under

submission, testing and approval, including the

report?

MR. PUROHIT: Initially it was under the

hardware section, testing specifically for the

hardware.

MS. HAMEL: Right. And now we're in the

media and not in with all the testing

requirements. Again, going back to Matthew and

the checklist, it's going to be in different

sections of what's required to be tested.

MR. MORGAN: My response would be if you
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

225

look at the grandfathering provision where it

says that you have to be certified pursuant to

paragraph (a), and this was one of those big

things that we talked about everything needs to

have done immediately is safety testing, and

that's why it points back to (a), not (c).

Because (c) is not something that has to be done

in a grandfathering situation. So only --

MS. HAMEL: So does this have to be done

before grandfathering?

MR. MORGAN: Under (a), yes. Am I reading

that wrong?

MS. HAMEL: This has been added.

MR. MORGAN: I'm reading under

grandfathering provisions where it says, All

Class II gaming systems manufactured, and I know

we've changed some of that language since, but

basically it says, And certified pursuant to

paragraph A of this section are grandfathered

Class II gaming systems to which the following

provisions apply. You need that

electromechanical and spill testing done on both

grandfathering and non-grandfathering machines,

so I think it is important that it goes there. I

don't have an issue if you want to put it
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

226

somewhere else, but --

MS. HAMEL: So if you're testing a fully

compliant system, you don't have to do this?

MR. MORGAN: No, you should have to. But

grandfathering only points back to certain

subsections that you have to meet. And (a) is

one of those subsections it points back to.

MS. HAMEL: Okay.

MR. WHEATLEY: And I think the reason that

we developed this language was to counter the UL

stuff, and that just happened to be in that

section that was about technical hardware

requirements. So this addresses those technical

hardware requirements, but I guess it doesn't

address it for the grandfathering stuff, if I

understand it correct.

MS. HAMEL: Okay.

MR. FISHER: That answer your question?

MR. WHEATLEY: So how do we address that

then?

MS. HAMEL: It still confuses me.

MR. WHEATLEY: I think it needs to be

addressed for both grandfathered and fully

compliant systems.

MS. HAMEL: Because it's not an immediate
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

227

-- it's not a limited -- it's any system in any

player interface.

MR. PUROHIT: I think you put it in the

hardware section and then refer it, like Matthew

pointed out, and that will address your issue,

that it's going to be tested for fully compliant

systems, and oh, by the way, there's also a

requirement here. However, it's grouped under

general hardware testing requirements.

MR. FISHER: Isn't that where it is right

now, the electrostatic?

MR. PUROHIT: Correct.

MR. FISHER: It is in the hardware

section?

MR. PUROHIT: Correct. Everything else,

like what Kathi is saying, is being moved under

just the specific grandfathering, which is

referring to the hardware section before.

MS. HAMEL: Wasn't that the recommendation

to now bring it down part of testing, before

grandfathering?

MR. McGHEE: No. I mean, all he did was

add it to the hardware section at the top, right?

MR. WHEATLEY: Uh-huh.

MR. FISHER: Daniel, you had your card up.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

228

MR. McGHEE: Well, we're not anywhere on

there. We're on the next -- that's done. That's

been approved and voted on, right?

MR. FISHER: Yes, but Jeff suggested we

add this language in here. Yes. Right here. As

right here. That's why that was up there.

MR. WILSON: Jeff's issue is that if it's

only referenced elsewhere pertaining to

grandfathered machines, it needs to also pertain

to compliant machines.

MR. McGHEE: I was thinking it was in the

place where we deleted the static discharge and

just the extent of that, this was the new

language.

MR. FISHER: That's what Nimish suggested,

that it be in the hardware section. So it could

substitute for that language in the hardware

section.

MR. WHEATLEY: I'm fine with that. Rather

than making it the two, we could change that to

now the same line item, the electrostatic

discharge.

MR. FISHER: Right. So it would in

essence take the place of that highlighted

language. In the old one it was (2)(c) but now
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

229

it's (b), because we eliminated (a).

MR. McGHEE: They can't see that because

there were no changes made to that.

MR. FISHER: Right. It's a little hard to

follow sometimes. All right. So the suggestion

is to replace -- take this language, minus this,

to take this language, and substitute it for this

language -- let's make the whole thing because

the title would change, too. In 547.7, which is

the hardware section -- everybody with me? Okay.

So I know that doesn't address the question that

Kathi raised directly, but let's -- should we

check it?

MR. CULLOO: Earlier Nimish said there

were five areas of concern. This is only three.

Was there something else you need to add to that?

MR. WHEATLEY: One of them was the RNG.

MR. PUROHIT: There's a few others from --

like the Arizona specific ones.

MR. McGHEE: You checked the title.

MR. RAMOS: Electromagnetic covers both of

those.

MR. FISHER: Then we have electrostatic.

So it's this --

MR. PUROHIT: It's not necessarily both of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

230

them. It's slightly different testing for both

of them. Electromagnetic discharge is taking a

look at the shielding. The other one is taking a

look at quote, unquote, "magnetic interference"

of the different components as well. So one is

grounding, the other one is shielding. It's an

engineering thing.

MR. RAMOS: Electromagnetic radiation.

There's no difference between magnetic and

electro.

MR. PUROHIT: I agree. But from a testing

perspective, they have two different series of

tests for both of them, though. One is they look

at the actual grounding part and see if it does

have any as a vulnerability in the grounding or

the cabinet itself. And the other one is taking

a look at the individual components and see how

vulnerable they are to magnetic --

MR. RAMOS: If you define them both as

electromagnetic, you're telling me it's a

different -- it's different the way that the

manufacturer will interpret it?

MR. PUROHIT: Not manufacturer. The test

labs, when they do the tests; they might not test

for one of the other requirements.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

231

MR. RAMOS: They'll just say okay --

MR. PUROHIT: You can put it in there,

it's fine. I can't really speak for the

independent test labs, per se, but when I was

there, there are specific tests that we would do

which were correlated with the specific

conditions in here. Because the definitions of

the conditions themselves, they're put in there

as well. That's what we would actually test at.

But like I think you had --

MR. RAMOS: There's no difference between

electricity and magnetism. Electromagnetism is

the same thing.

MR. McGHEE: Electromagnetic interference

is the same as magnetic interference, is that

what you're saying?

MR. RAMOS: I'm saying that

electromagnetic energy is the same, right, so if

you say electromagnetic, it covers both of them.

But he's saying in a testing laboratory, they

separate those.

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. It's just from the

definition perspective. Because this script is

taken pretty much verbatim from existing

standards elsewhere. That's the only reason I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

232

recommended breaking them apart, because they

have two different scripts for them. But I

agree, it in essence covers both of them. I

don't think from a testing part it will

necessarily --

MR. FISHER: Does that mean you have to go

down here and check this language here? Do we

have to add in here?

MR. WHEATLEY: RFI maybe, do we need to

add in here?

MR. PUROHIT: Yes. Was this included in

the Washington State one?

MR. CULLOO: No, it wasn't.

MS. HAMEL: Not in Washington, but --

MR. WHEATLEY: Radiofrequency?

MR. FISHER: Is that the only thing that's

missing? Those are the five right there.

MR. WHEATLEY: I don't know the difference

between electromagnetic and magnetic.

MR. McGHEE: That's the thing we were

discussing right now.

MR. PUROHIT: I will be comfortable with

Jason's recommendation because at the end of the

day, the test will test for both. I'll be

comfortable with that. I think from a Class II
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

233

terminal perspective, I think it covers what

you're talking about as well as far as the

radiation.

MS. HAMEL: Earlier we talked about the

final requirement, and I don't remember who

brought it up, and I apologize, for future

technology and other tests or other requirements

of the TGRA. That was the ending, if technology

changed and now it became --

MR. FISHER: Right. It's right there.

MS. HAMEL: Yes.

MR. FISHER: Are you saying to add it

right here?

MS. HAMEL: Uh-huh.

MR. FISHER: Okay. It took me a while,

but I got there. Okay. So everybody ready to

test this one? And, again, the recommendation

would be that that -- the language in yellow

would substitute for this language in the

hardware section. Should we test it? Yes.

MS. HAMEL: But I'm going to -- I have to

go back and ask the question that Matthew brought

up. If the sequence of events is that it's part

of testing even grandfathering, how does the lab

know that or the operator? What gets tested for
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

234

grandfathering or what gets tested for

everything?

MR. MORGAN: My comment goes back to

Connecticut, and I thought Jason and Jeff both

brought it up in Connecticut, that this type of

safety testing needed to be testing for even

grandfathered. Hardware -- it's irrelevant

whether software is grandfathered. The safety

needs to be tested every time, and that was my

point of bringing it.

MR. CULLOO: What is different? The four

requirements, what's different?

MR. PUROHIT: As far as like the terminal

itself?

MR. CULLOO: Yeah.

MR. PUROHIT: The terminal itself was not

necessarily a part of the grandfathered

requirement. And I think, from what I'm hearing,

is that's what's changing over here in this

recommendation, that they're making it part of it

especially from a safety and hazard perspective

or from a -- the safety of the actual terminal

perspective as well so it doesn't make it a

requirement as opposed to just saying a generic

underwriter. The four things of a random number
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

235

generator has to be random. The software has to

be able to be checked as far as the authenticity

of it, the foundation of it. It can't have any

reflexive software. And I always forget the

fourth one.

MR. McGHEE: Where are those at?

MR. PUROHIT: 547.4.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Probability.

MR. PUROHIT: Probability, thank you.

It's 547(b)(2).

MR. FISHER: It's (b)(4)(1)(i).

MR. PUROHIT: It's (a)(2). Sorry about

that. It says it requires a testing laboratory

to test the submission to the standards

established by 547.8(b), 547.8(f), 547.714,

547.5(c).

MR. McGHEE: Why can't you just say

547(b) -- whatever that, add that to that list of

things? I'm just saying that would -- if that's

the concern, to be tested to these specific --

that just add that reference to that one

sentence, which would be --

MR. WHEATLEY: My only concern is that if

that wasn't tested in the initial grandfathering

aspect, what type of impact is that going to be
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

236

on manufacturers and current operations? Would

they then have to go send those boxes to an

independent test lab to be certified to those

standards? That might be problematic.

MR. McGHEE: Yeah. But, I mean, it was

either suggested that we do test to it or we

don't. I thought we were leaning towards trying

to figure out how to test them. That's what we

need to get a poll on. I'm confused. Do we want

to test the grandfathered stuff to this or --

MR. FISHER: That's a good question. What

were people trying to accomplish, to require the

grandfathered machines to test to those

requirements, or test to the static discharge

requirements, or not?

MR. McGHEE: And like you said, being the

cost of sitting on all the old boxes you've

already grandfathered to be tested, it's almost

too late for that.

MR. WHEATLEY: Exactly.

MS. LASH: Exactly.

MR. McGHEE: So I move that you don't

require it now if it wasn't required before.

MR. FISHER: But the way, this --

MR. McGHEE: This would apply to new
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

237

stuff.

MR. FISHER: So maybe get rid of this if

they want to make it compliant.

MS. LASH: Right.

MR. FISHER: So let's see, should we test

this? Because we were about to test it and then

we had the request about what applied to the

grandfathered provisions, right? So we've now

determined that this should not apply to the

grandfathered provisions, and it would be located

in the hardware section. And so the suggestion

is to replace this language right here with the

language in yellow. So if you're in agreement

with that, raise your hand.

(Indicating.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. So we have two people

who didn't raise their hand. And so Michele?

MS. STACONA: I'm still thinking.

MR. FISHER: Still thinking.

MS. STACONA: Yeah.

MR. FISHER: You could just pass, which is

to say you could abstain from this.

MS. STACONA: I'll pass. Abstain.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So Jason has a

question, and then I'm going to turn to Brian.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

238

MR. RAMOS: One question for Nimish. Did

we cover all those areas in your experience that

required testing? I mean, how about lasers or

photons? I mean, do you find that at other

places? If we're going to tackle this thing and

hit it here, we might as well consider those. I

mean, in your experience, is there any others?

MR. PUROHIT: No, those are pretty much

it. The idea is they want to replicate the

casino environment and the clumsiness or

aggressiveness of patrons, and then any other

known vulnerabilities that are exposed that they

have around the chassis of the cabinet. It's

just to be sure that the cabinet is so robustly

built so nothing from the outside can influence

anything on the inside. That's the general

principle. And that's how they take a look at

the shielding and the radio interference and

everything else. And that's what they will test

it. It's like a brand new concept, for example,

for, like, wireless handheld in a session bingo

or CardMinder environment, they'll make sure that

nothing that is transmitting can be intercepted

either. So that's the security part of the

handheld itself, that it can't be compromised
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

239

just because it's not physically enclosed

somewhere behind the scenes.

MR. RAMOS: I say that because I remember

in the Class III world, people try to cheat the

hoppers with light devices. But that's not

really comparable in the Class II arena.

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. Yeah, there's not

-- I'm not aware of many hopper installations

right now. But if it does have -- the only

electrical mechanical components that I've seen,

even for the benefit of the TAC here as well, are

the spinning reels, the stepper Class II games.

And those are already irrelevant anyway as far as

the payout mechanism goes. So from that

perspective -- and the only other moving parts

inside are the power supplies and all that other

stuff.

MR. FISHER: Brian, are you okay with

this?

MR. CALLAGHAN: Yes.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So then that one is

done. We're kind of knocking them right off now.

MS. HAMEL: Can I ask a question? Since

we circled around our concern of adding this

electrostatic discharge and how it could affect
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

240

grandfathering, doesn't the (i) that we've added

to (a)(3) affect grandfathering? Testing to

applicable federal laws and regulations, that

wasn't there before.

MR. McGHEE: No, because we would have had

to test to those regardless. We didn't require

that. That was just another authority would have

had to say you haven't been tested.

MS. HAMEL: But this is coming -- this is

now being required to be grandfathered compliant.

MR. McGHEE: Any other federal laws that

existed out there, they would have had to be

compliant with them anyway. Not just because --

we told them what we wanted.

MS. HAMEL: Are there grandfathered

systems out there that maybe don't comply with

that regulation? Because it wasn't there when

they were set --

MR. McGHEE: The FCC was there and the

other UL. All those were there when those

machines were created.

MS. HAMEL: This is far more general. The

FCC was hardware, not A before B of

grandfathering. These are out of order. 547.7

is talking about hardware. 544 -- 547.4 is
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

241

talking about A, immediate compliance, and B,

grandfathering has to meet A, and we've added

that to A. It wasn't there before.

MR. WHEATLEY: So by changing it from

547.7, we have introduced it into the

grandfathering portion?

MS. HAMEL: Yes.

MR. WHEATLEY: It should have maybe stayed

under 547.7 where the FCC portion was originally?

MS. HAMEL: Or it needs to be down in

testing and submissions and not in A for

grandfathering because grandfathering says refer

back to A and make sure it's done. And that's

already passed and gone when we could have

grandfathered systems and grandfathered

components that are not compliant with that.

Yes?

MR. McGHEE: Suggest moving it back?

MS. HAMEL: Or to testing maybe.

MR. FISHER: So this is a question that

you've brought up in the various different ways.

MS. HAMEL: I just brought it up because I

heard everybody saying that we couldn't stick

anything in here because there's already

grandfathering device systems out there, and
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

242

therefore they're not grandfathered because that

didn't take place. But then I went back and

said, well, we -- which was the static and the

all that. Now, we've put -- embedded this

statement and we have all these grandfathered

systems and components that may not -- that most

likely did not have a report that tested to those

other --

MR. McGHEE: Where would you recommend

putting it?

MR. FISHER: Is this a question that the

working group addressed? This is a working group

suggestion to put --

MR. MORGAN: Not that I know of, because

my recollection of this is basically whether you

were in compliance with applicable federal laws

and regulations is not really the question there.

What the point was -- you want to put it on the

report, going back to Daniel's point of whether

you were compliant or not, is not that

requirement. The requirement is the testing lab,

you have to put it on the report. Now, old

grandfathering reports won't have it on the

report. But that still doesn't say do you have

meet something; it just says it's on the report.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

243

So the difference is what does your report looks

like. New reports coming out on grandfathering,

the rule has this listing. Old grandfathering

reports won't have this listing. Is that

significant or not?

MS. HAMEL: Doesn't make them not

grandfathered.

MR. WHEATLEY: Well, it could. All

applicable federal laws can relate to hardware,

so if that -- if all applicable laws relates to

hardware, that means the box has to go back and

be grandfathered. So that's what we're trying to

avoid.

MS. HAMEL: Just needs to be in testing.

MR. FISHER: Maybe we need a random number

generator to pick the spot.

MS. HAMEL: Maybe at the end of testing,

because it's all-encompassing.

MR. FISHER: So what's the suggestion?

You want to do a suggestion on this right now?

MR. WHEATLEY: Again, I think that it was

designed to replace the FCC portion under 547.7.

Why not just put it back there? Unless there's a

better spot in the testing.

MR. McGHEE: Because I think someone said
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

244

that only addressed hardware if you put it where

it was. And they want it to address software and

hardware, so put it in the testing. Is what the

argument is?

MR. WILSON: In 547.7, if that is specific

to grandfathered machines --

MR. WHEATLEY: It's not.

MR. PUROHIT: Hardware only.

MR. WILSON: Hardware only. But then it's

547.4 that is specific to grandfathered machines,

no?

MS. HAMEL: 4(b), but 4(b) says you have

to comply with 4(a).

MR. WHEATLEY: So yes.

MR. WILSON: I don't know what I'm yes'ing

or no'ing to. But in my mind, it seems to me

that the grandfathered component should be very

clear. There should be no ambiguity about what

applies to it and what doesn't. So if the

hardware testing section, 5(c), only applies to

non-grandfathered machines -- correct? Then it

seems like that's where this federal requirement

should be. But not where it's confusing that

does this or does this not apply to a

grandfathered machine. Because I agree, they may
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

245

or -- whatever laws applied at the time when

those machines were manufactured could be

different than laws that exist now, which would

defeat the whole purpose of the grandfathered

machine. So from my simplistic standpoint, it's

just I want to know that a grandfathered machine

doesn't have to meet X, Y and Z, but all other

machines do have to meet whatever.

MR. McGHEE: Okay. The grandfather

provision only addresses the four software

issues. But the new fully compliant section

address hardware and additional software issues.

So applying -- the comment about applying, making

sure you comply with applicable laws needs to

apply to software and hardware components of a

new system, just not the old system. So you

don't want to put it in the hardware section or

the software section. You want to put it in a

section that applies to all the new machines but

not the old machines. She's suggesting putting

in the testing section which actually addresses

testing of new machines and old machines, right,

the testing section does?

MR. WILSON: Right. I guess wherever it

goes, it needs to say that this applies to X
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

246

machines and not grandfathered machines. Now,

maybe I'm just confused in my mind and it all

makes sense.

MR. McGHEE: What you're saying is right

where it goes. I think it's under the testing

section as it's separated.

MR. WHEATLEY: I don't, per se, see a

testing section.

MR. FISHER: 547.4(c), submission, testing

and approval generally. It could go in there.

MR. WHEATLEY: That's only for

grandfathered systems, right?

MR. FISHER: No, that's everything.

MR. PUROHIT: Bulletin 2008-3, there's a

section called Questions about grandfathering

testing. Question: How should hardware

components be tested for grandfathering? Answer:

Unless the TGRA adds specific hardware testing

requirements, there are no hardware tests that

must be performed for a Class II gaming system to

be grandfathered. And it goes on, the minimum

requirements of 547.4(a)(2) are only software

requirements. So there's existing language here

and existing guidance here that makes it

absolutely clear there's nothing unless the TGRA
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

247

goes above and requires that.

MR. WILSON: It tells me there's no issue.

Is that --

MR. McGHEE: All it did is clarify what we

already knew, which was there was no hardware

testing in the grandfathering provisions. We

knew that. There was only software testing,

minimal software testing. So new provisions have

hardware testing and more complex software

testing, and they want that (i) to only apply to

the new stuff.

MR. FISHER: Michele and then Christinia.

MS. STACONA: I'm confused. Where are we

at?

MR. FISHER: Where we are is trying to

figure out where this -- where to give this

provision a home. Because it's currently in

547.4(a), which means it applies to the

grandfathering provisions. And so the suggestion

is to try to find a different home in testing for

this provision, notwithstanding the

clarification.

MS. STACONA: We're going to go back on

the consensus we made an hour or two ago?

MR. FISHER: Yep.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

248

MS. HAMEL: That's my fault, because I

listened to what (b) says you have to comply with

(a).

MS. STACONA: I'm just reading our rules,

operating procedures. I believe we had in here

where once we reached consensus, we can't go

back. So are we going to --

MR. WHEATLEY: I think we realized we made

a mistake.

MS. STACONA: Even though in our rules we

said we can't go back?

MR. FISHER: I guess the question is if

you recognize -- some people believe that you

made a mistake. And so now we're trying to reach

consensus on how to fix the mistake. It could be

just leave it the way it is because that's what

you decided.

MR. WILSON: Well, that doesn't make -- I

mean, could we do a --

MR. FISHER: What?

MR. WHEATLEY: Closed session?

MR. FISHER: What do you want to do, Tom?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I think that's one of

the problems with using the summary document, is

that it's kind of choppy, so you don't get the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

249

full picture of things that were before.

MR. WILSON: I get a sense, putting the

protocol aside because I agree that is exactly

what the rules say, that moving that section to

the hardware -- no, to the testing section, I

don't think anybody is going to have an objection

to that. I mean, that's just the sense I get.

So I'd be willing to throw it out to a vote and

then agree that we didn't follow protocol for

this one time and we'll be more careful in the

future.

MR. FISHER: Let's check that. So based

on everything that's been said, if you agree with

moving this provision right here, the one little

(i) provision to the testing section out of

section (a) into the testing section, raise your

hand.

(Indicating.)

MR. FISHER: Two people.

MS. THOMAS: I'm wondering if doing that

now is still going to make the grandfathered and

the new stuff have to comply with it putting it

in the testing section.

MR. WILSON: I was told the testing

section, my understanding is the testing section
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

250

as it exists now only applies to new machines,

compliant machines, not grandfathered machines.

And that that's a generally accepted

understanding.

MR. PUROHIT: I'm lost right now, too.

MS. LASH: Does the testing section only

apply to the newer stuff, not the grandfathered

stuff?

MR. PUROHIT: Are you talking about

existing regulations or the TGWG document?

Because that's what I'm lost at right now.

MR. FISHER: The existing regulation.

MR. PUROHIT: Okay. In that particular

case -- do you have a citation for the testing

section?

MR. FISHER: I believe it's 547.4(c).

MR. PUROHIT: Thank you. Right. It's

testing generally with any additional

requirements for grandfathering. So anything

that applies for fully compliant systems.

MS. LASH: That's where we move it.

MR. PUROHIT: Yeah.

MR. FISHER: If you really wanted to be,

as they say, adults in suspenders, you could just

make sure you have a note that says this is not
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

251

intended to apply to grandfathering provisions,

right? If you really want that clarification.

MS. LASH: Test it again now that we

clarified.

MR. WILSON: Can we vote again?

MR. FISHER: So the recommendation is to

move this to the testing provision, testing

provision, right? So raise your hand if you're

in agreement with that.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Voila! Was that a question

or a late vote?

MS. STACONA: That was a late vote.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: For clarification,

that is not applicable to the grandfathering

provisions.

MR. LITTLE: Yes.

MR. PUROHIT: I'll make sure they work on

that, too.

MR. FISHER: How about we take a short

break?

(Recess taken at 4:27 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.)

MR. FISHER: Okay. There are seven

technical standards proposals left to talk about.

That means ten minutes per proposal, if you want
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

252

to do it that way.

MR. LITTLE: Or we can go late.

MR. FISHER: Assuming that we don't get

through all the technical standards tonight

before we adjourn, we can pick up where we left

off.

So what is on the screen is what is next

on the TGWG list, which is Page 6, I believe.

MR. McGHEE: The TGWG comment as to why

they made those are at the bottom.

MR. FISHER: I can project that because

it's on this document there. All right.

MS. HAMEL: Can we go to (f) and then --

did we ever talk about (c)?

MR. McGHEE: Were there changes?

MS. HAMEL: I just have comments, I guess,

as always.

MR. FISHER: So, Kathi, did you have

something on (c) so we can make sure we cycle

back to it. Don't give it to us right now. Do

you have something on section (c)?

MS. HAMEL: Yes. But I don't see that the

TGWG talked about (c).

MR. FISHER: It did not, so we'll talk

about (c). All right. Daniel, you had your hand
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

253

up.

MR. McGHEE: Yeah, I did. You may have

just fixed it, because I was going to suggest if

we could just stick to the script of it, and then

anything that wasn't addressed by the TGWG at the

end, if we get done, we can go back.

MR. FISHER: All right.

MR. McGHEE: Secondly, can we work on the

premise of show us up there and ask anybody if

they object so we can get to the heart of it.

MR. FISHER: We could try it that way,

yeah, if everybody is willing. All right. So

that would mean that the next thing I would say

is if you support this change, raise your hand.

We have a couple of waits, so put your hands

down, because some people aren't quite ready yet

and some people have some questions. So maybe we

should start there and say if you have any

questions, let's take the questions and then we

can check it.

MR. McGHEE: Start with do we have any

objection and then let them raise their hands.

MR. FISHER: That's given. We did that

and we didn't get everybody's hands up. All

right. So any questions? Do you have a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

254

question, Jason?

MR. RAMOS: I got a question about

(f)(iii) or letter number 3. Are we saying there

that a tribe -- if a tribe is a testing

laboratory, can they or can they not test their

own devices?

MR. McGHEE: They cannot test their own

devices, but if they own -- if their tribe owns

the, whatever you call it, the software or

whatever, they can't test their own.

MR. WHEATLEY: Because they're considered

the manufacturer at that point?

MS. HAMEL: That it's not independent.

MR. McGHEE: They still would be

independent from what they're testing.

MS. LASH: So if Miami had a testing

company, we can't test Rocket.

MR. WHEATLEY: So if my tribe had their

own testing laboratory, they could test my

operation's machines as the independent testing

laboratory?

MR. McGHEE: As long as if they weren't --

if they didn't have ownership.

MR. WHEATLEY: But they're still a member

and entity of the tribe?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

255

MR. McGHEE: Yes.

MR. WHEATLEY: Is there any concern that

that could be construed as not having a

separation of duties or powers?

MR. McGHEE: It would be construed that if

your testing lab -- your testing laboratory was

crooked. But there's no benefit to really -- to

the tribe. I would say if your gaming commission

is your testing lab, I would assume part of your

testing lab, then they would be no more apt to

allow this than to allow any other technical

standard to slide.

MR. WHEATLEY: Can you really say at that

point it's an independent test lab?

MR. McGHEE: It's an independent test lab

-- I say it's an independent test lab if you're

not testing something that you have a financial

gain in or financial interest in.

The way it was written before, so you

know, was that you could not test to any type

of -- my understanding, to anything you were

going to have in your casino, all right. So in

essence by putting that on the people that did

have testing laboratories would now be out of

business.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

256

MR. WHEATLEY: They couldn't test other

tribes?

MR. McGHEE: They were primarily testing

their own.

MR. WHEATLEY: Right.

MR. McGHEE: Stuff that was not their own

tribes'. Stuff that was coming into their casino

had to come to them first as a commission to be

tested before it would be allowed on the floor.

So I guess it's the same thing about procedure

has to go to the commission before it's allowed

to be implemented. So you're giving them the

same credibility as you've always given them

throughout the document, except all of a sudden

why would this be any different just because

they're a testing laboratory; that they would not

test to the standard that should be tested. Now

it's a question throughout the document.

MR. PUROHIT: I just want to answer Jeff's

question. As the standards stand right now,

there's nothing that really prohibits a

tribally-owned lab to test for any other

jurisdiction. The only thing it prohibits them

testing is in their own jurisdiction regardless

of where that laboratory lies. That's the only
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

257

clarification I wanted to make to your question.

MR. WHEATLEY: It doesn't necessarily

prohibit them from testing it. They wouldn't be

the independent test. They would still have to

have an independent, GLI, BMM, Eclipse, whoever,

and then they could do their own testing.

MR. PUROHIT: Correct.

MR. MORGAN: In Class II, the tribe is the

primarily regulator, and they are deemed as

independent from your operation in every other

regulatory function. I don't see how that bleeds

over into restricting a tribe from testing its

products from the independent point because I

think I agree with Daniel, it does go back to

credibility of that testing. And, you know, this

perception of Indians can't regulate Indians is

wrong. It's just wrong in my opinion. I don't

know why a prohibition is there. Not to say that

you're going to do it, but at the same time you

shouldn't prohibit unnecessarily for some reason

to do that. I guess that's my issue with

currently written.

MR. FISHER: Right.

MR. CALLAGHAN: The way I read this is

they met -- as Matthew had mentioned, is our
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

258

access where we're independent of tribal council.

And we got a gaming authority and there's --

there have been some questions by some vendors

even who came in and said the tribal council is

going to see if my personal file and things like

that were independent of that. They don't see

that. The way I interpret this is it's owned or

operated by the tribe. The testing laboratory

must be independent from the manufacturer and

gaming operator. I'm independent of the gaming

enterprise; therefore, if I had a testing lab

that was adjunct to the gaming commission, we

would be independent of the gaming operation

and/or the gaming manufacturer. So the way I

interpret this is they may be one in the same, in

essence, of under the tribal umbrella as long as

they could demonstrate their independence.

MR. McGHEE: Independent from the

operations?

MR. CALLAGHAN: Correct. So that's the

way I interpret it.

MR. FISHER: Shall we test it to see if

everybody is ready? Kathi, you have a question?

MS. HAMEL: I have a question on the

language in (f)(1). It says that the testing lab
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

259

may provide. But shouldn't the regulations say

that the TGRA must require the testing lab to

provide?

MR. McGHEE: Say again.

MS. HAMEL: Right now it starts out that a

testing laboratory may provide the examination,

testing, and this is all about the TGRA.

Shouldn't it say the TGRA must require the

testing lab to -- but it's the TGRA that must

request the testing lab to demonstrate its

integrity.

MR. McGHEE: I don't know if anywhere that

it has to be a testing lab that performs the

tests, is it? Does it ever say that anywhere? I

don't think it does. And I think what they were

trying to do is saying a testing laboratory, if

there's some other kind of way of testing, as

long as you can still do it, you can use that

way. It's just generally accepted that there's a

testing lab, and there's only three or four out

there. But I don't think it was ever required

that it had to be someone that considered

themselves a testing laboratory.

MS. HAMEL: But it's still the TGRA is

requesting that of who's ever doing the testing,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

260

not -- this isn't a regulation for a lab. It's a

regulation for the operations and TGRA to

implement.

MR. FISHER: It you look at the whole

regulation, the TGRA part is in little (iv),

starts in little (iv).

MS. HAMEL: But is it the lab's

responsibility to provide the examination -- but

is it the lab's responsibility to demonstrate its

integrity, or is it the TGRA that requires the

lab to do such?

MR. FISHER: Depends on how you read the

requirements of (iv).

MR. MORGAN: The way I understand it is to

qualify the testing agency -- or, you know, you

may provide these if you do these things. And a

big shift in concept is that -- I'm going to pick

on Dan and Nimish. This is the first time the

NIGC has come in from a vendor and said, I'm

going to make you do something, Tribal Gaming

Regulatory, to your vendor. That's a big shift.

That's never happened before that says you now

have to license the labs. Now, they give you an

out that says, well, you can rely upon another

jurisdiction's license of it if you want to. And
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

261

I know a lot of regulatory bodies did that and

say, I'm not going to go in and perform this; I'm

going to rely upon your Nevada lab certification.

So they kind of give them an out. That's a big

shift in paradigm of, hey, NIGC, we talked to the

tribal regulators, tribal regulators you talk to

your labs and your manufacturers. This now tells

you that you have to do something to one of your

labs. So it does speak to the TGRA having to do

something, but it's basically saying, lab, you

can qualify to do this testing if you demonstrate

these things to the TGRA, and this is how you

demonstrate them. You can do it directly to your

jurisdiction, or your jurisdiction can rely upon

some other licensing of this lab, and that's how

you say you're okay to provide testing to my

jurisdiction.

MS. HAMEL: Okay.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Are there any other

questions or suggestions before we test this

proposed change? Okay. So if you are in

agreement with what's up on the screen as

proposed by the TGWG, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okey-dokey. Done. Okay.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262

Next on the list here, is -- that was 13 minutes.

Tracking the time. Okay. So the next on the

list here is the -- this is Page 7 in your

document, and it is 547.7(g). This just takes

you down. So do you want me to display the TGWG

-- yep. That is -- that's it.

MR. PUROHIT: It was the same remark three

times over, so I put it up there once.

MR. FISHER: Okay. Right. Get it up

here. There we go. Okay. Anybody from TGWG

want to say anything more than about this one

other than what was in the remark? Anybody have

questions?

MS. HAMEL: Just semantics, isn't it?

MR. McGHEE: It said -- the comment down

there stated to not get into the operation of

what a financial component does so much as the

design, the financial component. So that's why

they changed that.

MR. MORGAN: The technical standard has to

do with the document. And that's more of an

internal component, not a technical component.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So if you are in favor

of this change up on the screen, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

263

MR. FISHER: Another one. That one only

took 90 seconds.

Okay. So next on the list would be this

section on Page 8. Entertaining displays. I

don't think I can get the whole thing on there.

MR. McGHEE: Do you want me to read what

the TGWG said?

MR. FISHER: Yeah.

MR. McGHEE: In video gaming systems game

outcome is displayed on the bingo card located on

the player interface which is independent of and

separate from any entertaining display. Because

an entertaining display cannot in any way affect

the player outcome of the game, it is irrelevant

for regulatory purposes. Furthermore, in

conclusion of regulatory language concerning the

entertaining display creates false appearance of

legal relevancy that enhances the potential for

patron disputes. We therefore have proposed the

removal of that language.

MR. FISHER: That's what this

accomplishes?

MR. McGHEE: Yes.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So people are still

reading. Just give them a second. Anybody have
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

264

any questions about this?

MR. CALLAGHAN: So what you're saying is

what this says is you're strictly relying on the

bingo replay, the card draw rather than the

entertainment display? So if that is wrong,

you're not misleading the public. If it doesn't

correlate, if the graphics don't match the ball

draw results, you're saying that won't be a

player dispute?

MS. HAMEL: They create a dispute.

MR. McGHEE: It could create a dispute,

but they have no basis. Legally we can't even

rely on that entertaining display to do anything.

We have to show the bingo card and the bingo card

equals you should have won this much regardless

of the display.

MR. CALLAGHAN: That falls in line of

being electronic, I understand that. But I would

be inclined, and I like what Tom says, is holding

the manufacturers' feet to the fire. If that

entertainment display is misleading, as a

regulator I would have a concern with the

outcome. Manufacturer puts the wrong button

panel in, player has got a dispute over whether

he was hitting as opposed to what was being
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

265

played, I would hold the manufacturer's feet to

the fire. But conceptually --

MR. McGHEE: By law, you only refer to the

bingo. That's what this is.

MR. RAMOS: The tough part about that,

though, is the player never disputes the bingo

card. It's the little thing on the side.

They're going to try to dispute the reel. If

somehow those don't match, you know, I've got

concerns as a regulator that it -- that you'd be

tough to field those disputes.

MR. MORGAN: It's not tough, to be quite

honest with you. And, again, we do preserve it

to the individual jurisdictions. What we're

saying as a federal basis -- and you can't start

anywhere without bingo; this is the common game

of bingo. It's the basis how legal was started

to make entertaining displays. As soon as you

give those reels legal significance, you've

changed the fundamental meaning of bingo, and

that completely borders that line between Class

II and Class III. Now, for your jurisdiction, if

you come in and you think the manufacturer did

something wrong there and you feel like holding

their feet to the fire at a local level, that's
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

266

within your prerogative to do. And you do see

that sometimes where players actually don't win

and then the dispute, the regulator, or whoever

the administrative body is, still may find for

the patron in that dispute. But that's up to an

individual regulator at a local level. On a

federal level to provide any legal significance

to entertain the display, you've almost wiped out

the total distinction between a Class II and

Class III game.

MR. McGHEE: We've -- as a gaming

commission, we'll say if there was a win, you did

not win, you did not win. And based on the bingo

pattern, what was awarded was what you should

have gotten. And then we may make a

recommendation to the operation of that for

customer services for this kind of thing, you may

want to offer them something. Legally from the

gaming commission standpoint, there was no win,

done.

MR. MORGAN: You have to do some

education.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: We have come across

where patrons do win their bingo patterns.

Believe me, they know what a winning pattern is
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

267

and they won on that bingo pattern but their

reels didn't say that it was a jackpot, and so

you have the opposite true. And so if they win

on that bingo pattern, they win. They win the

jackpot.

MR. CALLAGHAN: You're never going to get

the money back on something like that. And I'm a

big fan of predetermined outcome, and that does

happen with bonusing. You can actually cash out

on some of these lottery things without going to

the bonus round. And I may be getting ahead.

When we get back into game recall, are you guys

looking to cut back on that as well? I thought I

saw something in here.

MR. McGHEE: Game recall for the bingo

patterns. It doesn't require the entertainment

display be recalled because it should have no

significance. So to make it be required is

almost saying why do you need to see that if it

has no bearing on if they win or not. Yeah, you

might want to as TGRA say it, but you don't want

it to be in this law.

MR. CALLAGHAN: So if I'm hearing you

correctly -- well, because these manufacturers

are going to test to a standard. And I don't
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

268

know -- well, I don't know, but I probably

should, what they're currently doing as far as

game recall. But I've only got Rocket right now.

I don't know what the other manufacturers are.

I'm a real advocate of game recall because in the

Class III world, even though it was a

predetermined outcome of the bonus, I've still

ruled in favor of the patron and against the

manufacturer because the rules weren't adequately

displayed and some other things.

MR. McGHEE: It's a good idea as a TGRA,

you might want that just to demonstrate, you

know, that, yeah, there was a problem that the

reel did not match the bingo pattern. You do

want to at least be able to show that. And you

as a TGRA should require the manufacturer to add

it to your procedures, but don't put it in this

law because then you start giving credit to the

entertaining display.

MR. FISHER: So Robin and then Dan,

Nimish, Matt. You're done. Robin.

MS. LASH: And the entertaining display

can be dealt with in the fairness section, but as

Matt said and as Daniel said, it cannot be in

this section because this -- it changes this from
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

269

a Class II game. It is the legal -- the outcome

of the game is the bingo pattern, end of story.

That's what decides the game, and it cannot be --

you can't give legal relevancy to an entertaining

display, or it's not going to be Class II.

MR. PUROHIT: I just have a question.

This is something that I've come across in the

past as well. And it's somewhat of a complex

issue, and I think it's relevant in this matter,

but just for the TAC to think about and consider,

there's some manufacturers out there that allow

the patron to turn off the bingo card display

altogether and go completely into an entertaining

display part of it. And the key word there is

the option is up to the player to turn off the

bingo card display.

MS. HAMEL: It's just the opposite. Turn

off the entertainment display.

MR. MORGAN: They don't turn it off. What

they do is they allow you to hide it. It's still

there.

MR. PUROHIT: Wrong choice of words. You

can hide it. You can hide the actual bingo card.

It just goes up. But the point of the word is

when tribal regulators have asked me the question
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

270

in the past, I just want to put it for your

consideration out there, what's the remedy there

when the patron has that option, does the

disclaimer that says the actual prize is

determined by bingo or equivalent signage like

that, does that take care of that issue in your

experience, or how does that work out when they

have the option to hide the display?

MR. MORGAN: I'll actually address that.

MR. FISHER: You're next.

MR. MORGAN: One is you do have the game

recall that shows your patterns. Most of them

are common, at least the last ten. You can go

back in there and pull up your last ten plays

that show you how much you bet, what the pattern

was, what you should have won, and you can go

back and it's line by line and you can show them

what they actually won. Whether they're seeing

or not doesn't matter. The system still logs all

that information, so it's there. And as a

regulator, you have access to that information.

So you can recreate what happened play by play

for at least the last ten plays on those systems.

But going back to some of those entertaining

displays, because -- and I'll agree, Brian, a lot
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

271

of regulators like the comfort of looking at it.

Especially if you come from a Class III

background and that's what you're used to because

that is the sole significance. So some part of

it is educating your players, educating your

staff, educating people on the floor. But those

early cases that allowed you to plug in machines

and said this is Class II were solely based on

the fact of what does this machine do. It simply

reads the predetermined outcome and displays what

it is. That's all it does. And in some of those

early cases, you couldn't even have it in your

machine. You had to have a separate box for it

just so the judge understood that, and this was a

big key difference. What is the purpose of this.

Just to give your players some entertaining --

entertainment value of it so they're not looking

at a bingo card. Because that's what players

look to when they want to play. And from

Oklahoma's perspective, like Mia was saying

earlier, they will watch the bingo card and they

will know what the payout is before the display

even stops. In other jurisdictions,

predominantly Class III, it does require some

education to your players to make sure they
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

272

understand that difference.

MR. CALLAGHAN: We do that with the Class

III. As you very clearly articulated, Class III

world malfunctions void all play. And I'm not

recalling in the help screen or anything like

that, does it state in there bingo device

controls?

MR. MORGAN: Put that sticker on there.

MR. CALLAGHAN: There's a lot of our rules

that you have to be able to go on the help screen

and find the rules. Nonetheless, but it does say

it does control.

MR. PUROHIT: There's two requirements for

disclaimers. There's one that says malfunction

voids all pays. And the second one is actual

prize determined by the bingo or its equivalent

signage.

MR. CALLAGHAN: I'm satisfied.

MR. PUROHIT: That's only for a fully

compliant gaming system and terminals. It's not

for grandfathered terminals.

MR. CALLAGHAN: I'm fully compliant.

MR. FISHER: I don't see any other cards

up with questions. So do you want to test this

one? Are we ready? Yes? Okay. So if you
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

273

support and agree with the change on the screen

proposed by the TGWG, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: All righty, then. That was

about 12 minutes, and we had a full discussion;

12 minutes. We're picking up speed. All right.

Next on the list on Page 10 is

Section 547.3. This is in the definitions

section. Anybody have any questions about this

one?

MR. McGHEE: Are you talking about .3 or

all of it?

MR. FISHER: All of it. What's up on the

screen. Might as well do all of it.

MS. HAMEL: Can we do each one of them

separately?

MR. FISHER: Okay. Let's do that one.

Okay. So should we test it? Ready? So if you

support the change in the definition to reflexive

software, raise your hand.

(Indicating.)

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I'm still looking.

MR. FISHER: Put your hands down for a

second. Mia, did you have a question?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Oh, no, still
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

274

reading.

MR. FISHER: Okay.

MR. WILSON: While Mia is reading that,

can somebody give me an example of, you know, the

change that was put in there, deprives a player

of a prize to which the player is otherwise

entitled to based on the random outcome of the

game. What's an example of software that would

cause that to happen and isn't already taken into

account as far as any software that manipulates

-- I'm just trying to understand the rationale

for that additional piece in there.

MR. MORGAN: It actually strengthens where

it comes from, and the rationale was that and

this is -- I heard this third party. It's an

explanation from Mr. Mater. That when you're

playing a bingo game and you bought in at a

particular level and you're playing for a

particular prize, what the technology says is

just because you're getting close to the win, I

can't take you and knock you down to a lower

probability somewhere. I would be depriving you

of some prize that you are otherwise entitled.

However, if you're playing at that level and you

haven't played for a while, nothing says that I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

275

can't give you better odds. Because that's the

way the game was intended to play. So if you've

put $10 in and you went down to 5 and you're

about to hit something big, it can't say I'm

going to change out the odds all of a sudden and

change the game you're playing. That's wrong

because now we're depriving you. But if you play

down to that $5 and you haven't won for a while,

say I'm going to move you up into a higher

probability and I'm going to make you win and

otherwise you may not because of what you were

playing, that's okay because in session bingo

that was allowed. Somebody had to hit a jackpot

and you're trying for a blackout, and you've gone

for two hours, they may say in the next five

numbers, if somebody hits it, we're going to add

$500 to the pot. Great. That gives me a better

chance of winning. That's okay. From a player's

perspective, they like that. And instead of

saying in the next five calls, if somebody

doesn't win, then we're going to take you out or

I don't want to end that game, so you might have

won, but I'm going change that somehow. So the

Tribal Gaming Working Group actually thought they

strengthened this provision that some
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

276

manufacturer said we can live with. But

Mr. Mater's point to us was you can always better

the odds for a player. You just can't deprive

them of a prize they'd otherwise be entitled to.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: In here, in the

working group, it says deprives or endows a

player of a prize, but it doesn't say that up

here.

MR. WILSON: What page are you on in the

tribal group?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: 5. It's in the

definitions actually.

MR. McGHEE: I don't see where it says

endows.

MR. PUROHIT: Which version are you

looking at? Do you have the date stamp on the

top?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: 5/13.

MR. McGHEE: The 5/13 is the one.

MR. FISHER: That's the one that's up on

the screen.

MR. McGHEE: Are you reading the green

language, is that where that is? Because I don't

see it. Help me find it.

MR. PUROHIT: You know the page number, is
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

277

it Page 4?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I have comments, but

it's in the definition.

MR. FISHER: It says Page 5 on the screen.

MR. McGHEE: Any software that has the

ability to manipulate and/or replace a randomly

generated outcome for the purpose of changing the

results of a Class II game or deprives a player

of a prize --

MS. LASH: So just going off this screen,

that's what we're talking about. So how does

everyone --

MR. RAMOS: I had one question for

Matthew, just so I get a better kind of grasp for

it. You said that you couldn't deprive a player,

right, you couldn't change the odds to deprive a

player, but you could change it in their favor.

Is it somehow later on reflected in overall

machine hold, I mean, how do you get that back?

Why would a manufacturer ever do that? Why would

you make it -- just the increased play on the

machine or what's the --

MR. MORGAN: Practically if I put in 20

bucks, I want a certain amount of play going back

and forth before you may take my 20 bucks. So I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

278

want to win every third or fourth spin. I don't

want you to go down, down, down. And you may be

in that cycle of that, that you're going down,

down, down, down and you didn't win. Because if

I put in $20 and I didn't win anything, I'm

probably not coming back to that machine. So it

may be in their interests to say if you've lost

20 bucks in I row, then I can raise you up

because I've actually increased your odds.

Maybe. That's just --

MR. McGHEE: I think what we're talking

about here, that's just the kind of software that

can be both. It can raise it or it can decrease

it. And when it was in there before, it wasn't

real clear that it could totally deprive you of

winning to that kind of software. Whether later

on when we start talking about what reflexive

software isn't able to do is where we get into

what you're allowed to do as far as making it go

up and down. That's what that software can do.

It can deprive you or give you or take away.

MR. FISHER: Mia, have you figured out

your --

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: I'm fine.

MR. FISHER: Are you good with the change?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

279

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Uh-huh.

MR. FISHER: So that means everybody was

good with it. And so then the next part of this

is okay.

So 547.8(b).

MS. LASH: All that was struck was just

redundant language.

MR. FISHER: Say what?

MS. LASH: That was the comment we had.

This was taking out just the redundant language,

and redundant and confusing language was the

working group's comment. Taking out for bingo,

games and games similar to bingo being, you know,

we just say the Class II gaming system shall not.

MR. FISHER: Right.

MS. LASH: And then our perpetuations --

or commutations for game rules used for. We took

out "for game rules."

MR. PUROHIT: I have a question on behalf

of the commissioner as well. What's the main

reason that -- I think there's always been

confusion for that. But the main reason to take

out the rules being changed in the middle of game

play. Is there a reason that that was taken out,

or is it just the fact that a reflexive decision
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

280

is already going to take care of it, that once

the game play starts, what you see is what you

get; is that the reason it was taken out?

MR. McGHEE: They thought it said the same

thing.

MS. LASH: I don't remember the

conversation on that because I'm not -- Daniel,

do you remember?

MR. McGHEE: The reason it was taken out

is because in our opinion, it said you had to not

deviate from a constant set of rules provided for

each game. Which means any changes in rules

constitutes a different game. You can't make

changes in rules. Before you said you couldn't

deviate, so why say what happens if you do.

Because it says you can't in the first sentence.

MR. PUROHIT: It deprives the word itself.

I'm thinking of a scenario, back to the games

that might be played over international waters,

cruise ships. If you have a game that when you

read the game rules that says if you get an X

pattern in the first seven balls drawn, whatever

it might be, you get the jackpot. You get that.

You go back to the game rules, and it was

actually eight balls, and it changed out the game
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

281

rules. Does that meet the --

MR. McGHEE: You deviated from a constant

set of rules.

MR. PUROHIT: That's the reasoning you

strengthened the definition in the first part to

capture for scenarios like that, right?

MR. McGHEE: We didn't strengthen it. All

we did was delete.

MR. PUROHIT: I'm talking about the

reflexive software definition itself.

MR. McGHEE: Yeah, yeah. I'm confused

now. I thought you were talking about this.

MR. PUROHIT: I am talking about that. It

seems like one part has been strengthened.

That's what you put in the comments as far as the

effect of the current provision. It does prevent

that first scheme, as it says over there, which

was the initiation in play, but it doesn't

necessarily prevent that other example I just

gave. Going back and retroactively changing the

game rules, not necessarily the outcome of the

game itself. Not necessarily the ball draw that

happened, but changing out the game rules, it

does prevent that from happening, too.

MR. McGHEE: All it does is define
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

282

reflexive software.

MR. PUROHIT: I just want to make sure --

the reason for the amendment. Cool.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So any other questions

or comments on this before we check to see

whether people support this change? Okay. So if

you are in agreement with the change proposed by

the TGWG projected on the screen, raise your

hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okey-dokey. That takes care

of that one.

All right. So by my clock, it is one

minute before 5:30, or in other words, 5:29. And

at 5:30, we're scheduled to have a public comment

section. So I don't -- I don't think anybody has

signed up for the public comment section since

this morning, so why don't we check to see if

there's anybody in the audience that wants to

give public comment.

MR. GREEN: I didn't sign up.

MR. FISHER: I'm just checking. There

isn't anybody that wants to. Because if you

don't, we can use the next half hour to keep

going.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

283

MR. GREEN: As long as you don't need me

interfering, I'm going to sit here quietly.

MR. FISHER: It's on the record. So let's

keep moving through this. And the next one on

the list is on Page 11, and it is on the

downloadable software. 547.12. Page 11.

Page 32.

MR. McGHEE: The big document. Okay.

Kathi, you got your card up?

MS. HAMEL: Yes. Isn't this an internal

control?

MR. McGHEE: Well, I think it used to be

an internal control. And to try to address the

reason they put it in there to begin with, and it

took any connotation to an actual control and

moved it to the MICS. So with the strike-out

version, do you still think it's a control?

Because it used to be very obviously a control

because it said the gaming commission had to

verify something and do this. Now it says the

system has to more or less be capable of

verifying, but nobody has to do anything.

MS. HAMEL: It doesn't say the system has

to be capable. It just said it must verify.

MR. McGHEE: Downloaded software on a
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

284

Class II gaming system shall be verified by the

Class II gaming system.

MS. HAMEL: It says it's got to be

capable. But it's written in an internal

control. If it's a technical standard, it has to

have --

MR. McGHEE: Downloaded software on a

Class II system shall be capable of verifying by

using -- download by using software signature

verification methods, something like that?

MS. HAMEL: Only if it's downloadable.

MR. MORGAN: Downloaded software on a

Class II gaming system shall be capable of being

verified by the Class II system using a software

signature verification method that meets the

requirements of Section 547.8(f); is that your

concern?

MS. HAMEL: Yes.

MR. McGHEE: I'm cool with that.

MR. FISHER: Let me just go in here and do

this.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: The whole section is

procedural. You know, like all of (a) where it

talks about the Class II -- on (6), the Class II

gaming system or the TGRA shall log each
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

285

download. So there that's giving -- saying that

the TGRA has to log a download of any downloaded

package. I mean, that's giving me procedure that

I have to do physically.

MR. McGHEE: Where are you saying?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: On (a)(6).

MS. HAMEL: 547.12.

MR. PUROHIT: You're referring to the

scratched-out portion?

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: No, I'm referring to

the actual --

MR. MORGAN: Mia is in 547.12, not (b).

She's just up above. She's just making a comment

that it's procedural in nature.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: All of 543.12 is

procedural.

MR. McGHEE: So basically where you said

the Class II gaming system or TGRA should log,

really it should be the Class II gaming system

shall be capable of logging each download.

MR. MORGAN: It is two issues. I was

thinking can we take care of one before we go to

the next? Because I agree with Mia, it is. But

I want to finish one before --

MR. PUROHIT: Can I ask the TAC a general
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

286

question about downloads in general, keeping in

mind I read the preamble and everything else and

have experience in the field. Downloads, like

when you regulate the downloads, are you

referring to downloads that exist as far as even

from the definition of the approved content that

you put into the system, install into the system

at some point and now once you introduce it in

the system, it can go anywhere? Or you're

referring to downloads for that scenario plus

anything that's introduced from remote access as

well? Because that's been the interpretation

that I've always seen. I just wanted to see what

everyone sees the interpretation of downloads in

general. Is it something within the system or

also extend to something that's coming into the

system from an external connection such as remote

access?

MR. McGHEE: The last part.

MS. HAMEL: And I would say both.

MR. McGHEE: It's both, it's the internal

and external. There's probably a definition in

here.

MR. MORGAN: I agree. My situation has

been both because I read the first sentence of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

287

547.12, and it says for downloading on a Class II

gaming system, and a Class II gaming system is

more than what's taken from the server and

downloaded onto that terminal. It's what's

downloaded onto the system. So if it's remotely

downloaded, you download onto the system. It

means to self verify and a person has to come in

and verify the signature as well.

MR. PUROHIT: Going to Mia's observation

about 547.12 in general, do you think that even

putting it into a procedural context in terms of

putting it into the MICS altogether, or just the

fact that it is procedural in nature, do you

think it adequately addresses the areas where you

had the tools to verify the downloads both that

are coming in externally and internally based on

the current standards? Because I've heard

arguments to the contrary as well that going back

to the original conversation about grandfathered

systems, this may not necessarily be something

that's required by grandfathered systems.

MS. HAMEL: That's correct.

MR. PUROHIT: That goes to what I brought

up, I think, when Tom, you had asked the question

at the last meeting as well about what's the risk
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

288

factor here.

MR. WILSON: Well, this is -- I guess

coming back to the concern that I have of not

being as familiar with this document in totality

as the tribal working group, but are we really

clear throughout that grandfathered is

grandfathered and here's what applies to it, and

this -- the rest doesn't? Because now what I

hear you saying is that potentially this ability

to -- for the machine to self-validate after the

download, but there could be grandfathered

machines that don't even have that capability to

do that. But that this procedure -- you know,

we're dealing with now yet another section of

that is it -- is the implication that this

applies to both grandfathered and not machines?

MR. PUROHIT: That's what I wanted to

bring to your attention, this does not apply. If

you're looking at the downloads in their

entirety, something coming from outside of the

system, this would only apply to fully compliant

systems. The capability to offer that to the

tribal operator and regulator to test for

anything that's coming in as far as approved

content, that's only for fully compliant systems;
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

289

that doesn't apply to grandfathered systems. But

the one requirement that does apply to anything

is the ability to verify software in general.

But that doesn't include downloaded software. So

I wanted to bring that to your attention here.

MR. WILSON: So I was good up until the

last sentence. So we're saying that the

criterion here doesn't apply to grandfathered

machines, but it could apply to grandfathered

machines if software is downloaded onto them?

No. Okay.

MR. PUROHIT: No. Okay. Let me --

MR. WILSON: How could a grandfathered

machine -- is there a scenario where this could

apply to a grandfathered machine?

MR. PUROHIT: 547.12 is not reference to

as far as any requirements for grandfathered

gaming systems and their components. So from

that perspective, none of this applies unless the

TGRA says it applies to it. What I was trying to

say is if the software that is downloaded is

critical to the integrity of the environment of

the gaming system, then there has to be -- that

triggers the other clause from the grandfathered

requirement that says there has to be a way that
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

290

the TGRA can go in and verify the software, the

signature. That's the only thing that would be

triggered in this particular case. But there's

somewhat -- I guess the concerns I've heard is

there's somewhat of a disconnect between those

two. Because even though there's critical

software that might be downloaded, the only

requirement is there has to be an ability to

verify that. But there's nothing that says it

has to be approved software that's downloaded

onto the system. Like all the requirements in

the download section here, they don't apply to

grandfathered systems. I think I still lost you

from your smile over there.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Can you explain how a

Class II gaming system verifies -- or how does --

because it just makes it sound like the way it

reads, that it will be verified by the Class II

gaming system. Like, how does the downloaded

software -- explain how that would happen.

MR. PUROHIT: All right. I'll give you

the really simple scenario from my experience

with manufacturing and the testing side as well.

What would happen is like let's say you're

pushing out some artwork, for example, to the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

291

Class II terminal as well. Once that's pushed

out, it would keep a log of the software that had

checked on its own. The assumption is when that

software was installed in the system itself, it

was approved. That's in the definition as well.

It's approved content that's been put in there.

And then once it transfers somewhere into the

system, it will make sure that it keeps a log of

everything as far as all the changes that are

made to the software.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Checking itself?

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly, self-verification,

right. And then the log -- the requirement at

the end of it, and it says that, you know, when

the TGRA sees appropriate, you have to go and

audit that log to make sure that all these

changes that happened to the download and whatnot

were within your requirements.

MR. CALLAGHAN: It's matches one another

signatures and that's how it checks itself.

MR. MORGAN: It's in the check -- did you

download what you said and it sends it back.

MR. PUROHIT: It's a handshake.

MS. HAMEL: If it's looking for A and it

receives B, it should shut down.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

292

MR. CALLAGHAN: Exactly.

MR. McGHEE: Then as far as on the

procedural side, there are things in the MICS

about downloads and stuff that do apply to

grandfathered, whatever. This is just saying if

you're going to put the machine on, we want to be

able to do this so we can better do our job of

tracking your downloads. We understand the older

ones are not. But there are still things we're

going to have the ability to go in and do to make

sure they were done fairly. They're not capable

for automatically because they were

grandfathered. The MICS is going to take care of

us still having to do that. It's just we want

the new ones to be more automatic and more

tracking of itself, more self-sufficient in the

sense of keeping track of all this so we can pull

up paper.

MR. WILSON: I get all that. I'm still

back to what you brought up and why. I'm not

understanding what you brought up as to --

MR. PUROHIT: The scenario is -- the

concern is, like this section, for example.

Let's say there is approved content. And when

someone comes in and physically installs it at
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

293

your property, you can go in and verify on the

game server, the software that was installed on

it. The downloaded part of it -- that's why I

added the generic definition of it from a concern

perspective, is it can be downloaded by the

manufacturer, in their case uploaded, from their

facility because they can't physically come in,

which is understandable. I'm a big proponent of

that. But once it comes in there, are there any

requirements for logs, especially for

grandfathered systems, that say there has to

exist a log out there that keeps track of all of

this stuff that the TGRA can go in and verify

that. And from what Dan is saying that that's a

requirement.

MR. McGHEE: In the remote access log

MICS.

MR. MORGAN: Server systems, it requires.

MR. WILSON: And that makes sense. My

concern was that you were saying for

grandfathered machines, you can just download

whatever the hell you want and nobody verifies it

and --

MS. HAMEL: Only on Fridays.

(Laughter.)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

294

MR. WILSON: Because my concern was right

now you've got to be able to verify anything that

is being downloaded off a machine.

MR. PUROHIT: There is that catch-all that

says you can go in and there has to be ability to

verify the critical software. My concern was

from a download perspective, also, like, you

know, there's one requirement in there -- let me

just find it. I think there's -- and I might be

butchering the exact verbiage of it. But it

requires for a secure connection for downloads,

for example. That's not an inherent requirement,

and that goes to the risk question. Like going

back to the grandfathered system, if there's no

requirement for remote access and download to do

that, then it doesn't have to meet the security

requirements either. You can still go and verify

that, but anything else that was introduced into

the system -- this could kind of propose that

risk in there. But it sounds like they're

addressing it in the MICS section of it anyway.

That's the reason I pointed this out. Like you

want to be wary that this 547.12 in general does

not apply to grandfathered systems in general.

MS. HAMEL: And much of it is procedural,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

295

not a technical standard.

MR. WILSON: Well, and procedure makes

sense to me especially with the grandfathered

machines that don't have the ability to automate.

MS. HAMEL: Then it would be a MIC not --

MR. WILSON: I'm understanding that. My

concern is on the technical standards that saying

that this device has to comply with certain

things, and it sounds like many of the new

devices do or would, are capable of complying

with this. And it's clear that the grandfathered

machines -- this does not apply to the

grandfathered, but the MICS component certainly

does because that's the only way you can get to

verifying what's happening on the verified

machine.

MS. HAMEL: In the TGWG there is no

reference to fully compliant and grandfathered in

the MICS, right? We don't care how we control

and how we -- what procedures we have to follow

to have internal controls.

MR. WHEATLEY: They're the same.

MS. HAMEL: There's no reference to

grandfathered or fully compliant.

MR. WILSON: As long as the procedure
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

296

doesn't rely on certain automated functionality

that doesn't exist in a grandfathered machine.

MS. HAMEL: Well, if it doesn't exist,

then it would be non-applicable.

MR. McGHEE: If it doesn't exist,

assuming --

MR. WILSON: I think I'm okay. I'll sleep

on it.

MS. HAMEL: This is a big -- this is a big

section.

MR. FISHER: Sleep on that question also

that you raised about what applies to being clear

or specific about what applied to grandfathered

machines and what doesn't. Because that's been

raised a couple of times, and maybe there's

something we need to do around that. I don't

know. Think about it. All right. So why don't

we check the -- it's not working anymore because

the guy snuck in the back while nobody was

watching and took the mixer. Apparently there

was something more important than us at 5:30 and

he needed it. All right.

So let's see if we can finish off 547.12.

So there's two things about 547.12. One was

verifying the downloads, which it was part of the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

297

TGWG proposal; and then the other is back to

Mia's question about Section 12(a), so we'll come

back to that in a moment. So we had two

suggestions on the verifying downloads provision.

The first one up on the screen in the red and the

blue is what the TGWG proposed, and the second

one in the yellow is the -- reflects the

discussion that we had about a design standard

capable of doing the verification. So why

don't -- you want to test them? Where do you

want to start, yellow or red and blue?

MR. WHEATLEY: Yellow.

MR. FISHER: Let's test yellow. Everybody

follow where we are with this? Okay. So if

you're in agreement with the recommendation

that's in yellow up on the screen, raise your

hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: All right. There we are.

Okay.

So now back to the question that Mia

raised.

MR. McGHEE: Could we go back to that at

the end like we told Kathi?

MR. FISHER: We're on the subject, so you
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

298

want to stick with it, or you want to -- Daniel

is saying that what we had said we're going to do

was work through all the TGWG comments first, and

then go back to anything that was additional. So

we could put Section 547.12 aside, 12(a) aside

and move on to the TGWG. That's okay with you,

Mia? Okay. So I'll put it on the list to come

back to. Thanks for the reminder, Daniel.

Okay. Next on the list on the TGWG

proposals is on Page 12 of the comparison

document, and it's on the random number

generation, Section 547.14. See if we can get

this one done by 6 o'clock. This is too long to

put up in one single page.

MR. WILSON: I think this one is too -- to

try to cram it into eight minutes is maybe not

going to be enough time.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So what would you

propose, that we pick up tomorrow with this one?

MR. WILSON: Uh-huh.

MR. FISHER: Yes?

MR. WHEATLEY: Seems to be strengthening

everything.

MR. McGHEE: It looks probably more

complicated than it is.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

299

MR. WHEATLEY: Right.

MR. FISHER: Do you want to start the

discussion, or you want to break?

MR. McGHEE: There's only two more changes

and then we're done.

MR. FISHER: Done with what's in the

document.

MR. McGHEE: What's here.

MS. LASH: Let's tackle it and see how far

we get.

MR. WILSON: I recall my previous comment,

so I'm --

MR. FISHER: So all right. So let's see,

so people are taking a look at it. And anybody

-- we can go to the remarks about it, or if

people have questions about it, we can start

there.

MR. PUROHIT: I'm going to echo Jeff's

statements as far as what my experience with this

is. If anything, it actually strengthens the

minimum requirements here. And if NIGC is fine

with it, I think that's what the language here is

capturing, anyway. If you just notice, Tom, in

the first section, it goes from "which may

include," and it gives you, like, 11 tests.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

300

That's a typical language from other existing

technical standards out there which says that

too. And the proposed language, what's that

doing, it's saying at a minimum, it has to do X,

Y and Z, and then in addition to that, you can do

whatever else that the TGRA and what the other

requirements are.

MR. FISHER: Which you like?

MR. PUROHIT: If I'm allowed to say that,

yeah.

MR. LITTLE: I think our initial reading

of the proposal is it does strengthen the

regulations.

MR. WHEATLEY: The only question I have is

the unbiased algorithm, why was that taken out?

I don't even know what is that is.

MR. PUROHIT: It was a bulletin. There

was flawed language in there. The bulletin

2008-4, I want to say, it's a bulletin right

after the grandfathered requirements. Let me

make sure I have the right. 2008-4. It pretty

much said that having that bias of 1 in 100

million, it was flawed mathematics as far as the

game of bingo is concerned and the way the ball

draws happened. And I was actually on the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

301

independent test lab site when he reached out to

the NIGC and were talking to them about it.

MR. WHEATLEY: So it's basically

previously removed.

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. It was unbiased,

the part of itself. I don't necessarily think it

should be removed altogether. It's just, you

know, the language of having the explicit number

need to be removed. I think that's what the

actual bulletin was talking about as well.

MR. FISHER: Are you in that section

that's right there on the screen?

MR. PUROHIT: Yes, the bottom part, number

4, that's the one that's struck out.

MR. FISHER: So the -- what you commented

on was the number, not the use of an unbiased

algorithm.

MR. PUROHIT: Correct. The bulletin just

advised that it can have better bias than 1 in

100 million. But it didn't say it should be

removed all together.

MR. FISHER: All right.

MR. WHEATLEY: Anyone else have algorithm

comments? I don't know enough about it to know

anything.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

302

MR. MORGAN: What they removed was

547.14(f). There's still language there that

says that. What it reads is scaling algorithms

and scaled numbers. An RNG that provides output

scaled to given ranges shall (1) be independent

and uniform over the range; (2) provide numbers

scaled to the ranges required by game rules, and

notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph

(e)(3) of this section. So what it's saying is

you say it does this, does it really do that?

MR. CALLAGHAN: That's fine.

MR. MORGAN: And (3) be capable of

producing every possible outcome of a game

according to its rules.

MR. FISHER: I put that up on the screen

here. Just a second. I'm going to show you the

other (1) through (3). So there it is. Yeah,

it's (1), (2), and (3) and then removes (4).

That's the -- that's from the TGWG document.

Okay. All right. So are we ready to test this

one?

MS. HAMEL: I just have one comment. I

know in this section, we skipped over number (1)

of this section. And it has the same issue as

the TGWG suggestion in number (2). It says
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

303

numbers or other designations. Well, we didn't

make that change in number (1) that says numbers

produced by RNG. So I think throughout the

document if we're referring to numbers, it should

all be the same language. And I don't know if it

exists in other places and it just wasn't caught.

If you go to (b)(1), it has the same issue. It

just says numbers produced by the RNG.

MR. McGHEE: Under (b)?

MS. HAMEL: That's not in this document.

It's only in number (2).

MR. McGHEE: I see it right here in number

(1), though. I don't know, which one are you

looking at?

MS. HAMEL: The one he just handed us.

MR. FISHER: Maybe it didn't make the

comparison.

MR. McGHEE: (b)(1) isn't even listed.

MR. FISHER: It's up on the screen.

MS. HAMEL: Wherever numbers are.

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly.

MR. FISHER: She's right. It's there, but

it's not on here. It's on the comparison.

MR. WHEATLEY: It's on the submitted.

MR. McGHEE: I think if you agreed with it
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

304

here, then you would agree with it there.

MS. HAMEL: Since we have number (1) up,

can I bring up one other comment? Is the example

really necessary, since it's the first time we

have an example in the standards?

MR. FISHER: In other words, are you

asking to get rid of it?

MS. HAMEL: Uh-huh. Get rid of the

example. Because it really doesn't --

MR. WILSON: It seems like an example of

something you'd expect to see in a guidance

document.

MR. LITTLE: Not necessarily. The

bulletin is going to be changed. Regulations are

pretty -- they're there. You know, it's more

difficult.

MR. WILSON: What's the significance of

asking for this particular -- I mean, an example

implies to me that people just don't quite get it

in that first sentence, so we have to give an

example. So I'm trying to understand.

MR. PUROHIT: Here's another example,

547.5(b), only applicable standards apply.

Gaming equipment and software used with Class II

gaming systems shall meet all applicable
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

305

requirements of this part. For example, if a

Class II gaming system lacks the ability to print

or accept vouchers, then any standards that

govern vouchers do not apply. So they're kind of

littered throughout.

MS. HAMEL: I haven't got there yet.

MR. McGHEE: I think it's just a matter of

where it seems complicated.

MR. PUROHIT: It's for public perception.

I think that's the reasoning for it.

MR. WHEATLEY: The algorithm thing, I'm

still struggling over. Nimish, you said that you

wouldn't have stricken the entire thing. Can you

tell me what the risks would be of striking the

whole thing?

MR. PUROHIT: Sure. The unbiased

algorithm part, what the bulletin recommended is

saying that we're not going to go with the

measure being better than 1 in 100 million. It

says that because of that technical data in

there -- there's something called off-the-shelf

random number generators, and there's something

that manufacturers develop. Usually they use the

so-called off-the-shelf because they met all

these tests, and if ain't broke, don't fix it.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

306

So one of the issues that came with the bias

measure that they had there is that it doesn't

meet a majority of these off-the-shelf

requirements, which are known as 32-bit random

number generators. So what they said is that

that was not the intent for it to fail that and

create a measure of bias that might seem okay for

these other types of random number generators,

but it doesn't meet random number generators used

for bingo ball draw and shuffling. So the

language says the NIGC will shortly publish and

change the technical standards, which the number

was. Amending 547.14(4)(f) to read, Use an

unbiased algorithm. A scaling algorithm is

considered to be unbiased if the measured bias is

no greater than 1 in 50 million. So that's what

was introduced. In this case, the 1 in 50

million is much better than 1 in 100 million.

That's all I'll say. It's not like the

probability requirements where the higher number

means that it's looser. Here it's giving more

forgiveness when the random numbers are being

produced. That 1 in 100 million was not giving

enough of a flexibility for numbers to come out,

and it would have unnecessarily failed these
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

307

off-the-shelf random number generators.

MR. MORGAN: Who defines unbiasness? Is

there a standard, I mean, could you say use an

unbiased algorithm? I mean, is that enough? Or

do you have to put in, say, unbiased means this?

Who determines that?

MR. WHEATLEY: Obviously it meant two

different things to two different people.

Somebody it means 1 in 100 million, and you said

the change was going to be 1 to 50 million, so --

MR. PUROHIT: The bias itself is referring

to the fact that when you have these raw numbers

that are spit out by a random number generator,

it's just random numbers, without getting into

too many technical details. But then they need

to be converted for use in a 75-ball draw game,

for example. When it's converted in there, there

might be a case where one number or one type of

number shows up more frequently than others.

That's the bias that it's talking about. So what

I was suggesting is not necessarily putting a

number in there, but saying that, you know, the

unbiased shouldn't be stricken altogether. I

think it should just be when the RNG is created,

there should be able to show there is no bias. I
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

308

don't think, in my humble opinion from the

testing side of it, getting rid of it altogether

might not serve a purpose.

MS. TAHDOOAHNIPPAH: Changing the numbers,

does that -- I mean, if you change -- we're

assuming that it's on 75 numbers in a 32-bit. If

you have 20 numbers or 5 numbers --

MR. PUROHIT: I think the language can be

corrected to capture what the intent here is to

make that robust random number generator. I

think it can be something along the lines of it

can't be biased for an application of the random

number generator in a particular game of bingo.

I think that would strengthen the RNG thing as

well.

MR. McGHEE: And that would be in lieu of

putting a number?

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. Putting a specific

range that, you know, just identifies a ball draw

of 75 numbers, 72 numbers.

MR. McGHEE: Will you type that language

he said?

MR. FISHER: I'm trying.

MR. PUROHIT: If you do put an unbias, the

onus is going to fall on the TGRA to determine
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

309

what your bias ranges are going to be. It's just

that the ITLs should report to you that, hey,

they did find a bias, here's what it is. And

then you can make that decision. But they have

enough to reveal on the certification letter and

explain to you that there is something there.

It's making sure it's capturing the propensity

for this to be completely random, however little

that might be.

MR. MORGAN: Is there not a third party

you can point to to say this is biased or

unbiased? Algorithms, that's above me, but I

don't want to put a number here that's

predisposed on a 75-number bingo just in case

that ever changes. But at the same time, if you

come back and say this is biased, where's your

range. I'm looking for somebody else to tell me

what is the industry-acceptable range. I don't

know if I'm qualified.

MR. WHEATLEY: By taking it out, does that

remove the testing requirements at the lab?

MR. PUROHIT: Yes.

MR. WHEATLEY: But by saying that they

must use an unbiased algorithm, they're going to

test it. And if there is a bias, they'll report
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

310

that to you, so like you said, the TGR, it can

make the determination if it's too much of a bias

or not.

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. The independent

test lab should tell you what that is and how it

plays into it. I mean, there's plenty of

technical language in there that you might not

understand in addition to the RNGs. It's ITL's

job to tell you at the end of the day if you

don't understand something.

MR. WHEATLEY: So essentially they'll tell

you the risk involved.

MR. PUROHIT: Exactly. I think if you

leave it as an unbiased algorithm and any bias

should be reported to the TGRAs, something along

those lines.

MR. FISHER: It's getting late. All

right. So are we checking the whole TGWG

proposal with this change in yellow? Let's check

that. If you support the TGWG proposal with the

change in yellow, raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Okey-dokey. There's sections

we have to cite back to. We're not on the verge

of being done with the technical standards, but
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

311

we're close. We're close. All right. Are we

ready to -- you want to keep going, or are we

ready to pause?

MR. MORGAN: Next up is the variance

language. It's the same variance language you

will see later in the MICS. And the general

question is, do you buy into how you do licensing

right now? Because if you buy into the concept

on background licensing, that the tribal

regulatory body gets to make a decision, you send

it up to the NIGC, they have the ability to

disagree, you may have to justify that the final

decision resides at the TGR level. That's the

change in variances that you see, technical

standards and you'll see it come up on the MICS.

If that needs more discussion, then we may not be

able to finish. That's kind of it in a nutshell.

The TGWG tried to say we're going to treat it

just like you do your licensing investigators.

Where NIGC may object, but the final decision

rests with you, whether you decide to grant that

variance or not.

MR. CALLAGHAN: I like that, absolutely.

MR. RAMOS: I have one question there. On

one of changes that didn't make it over is number
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

312

8, where the commission's decision shall

constitute a final agency action. So in the

proposed version, where is the final agency

action -- for example, you go through this NIGC

about the vendor and who's going to be licensed

and who's not. At some point, if it goes to

federal court, they have to have a final

decision, a final agency action. And I don't see

that making it over into the change.

MR. MORGAN: Under the scenario, it falls

to individuals. If individual A comes and

applies and wants to be your employee, they have

something, you send it up and say I recommend

that you're going to grant you a license. NIGC

objects. While you do have to set forth the

reasoning for that objection, they may agree or

disagree with you, but at the end of the day the

TGR gets to make the final decision. NIGC gets

to provide you comments. They get to say I may

disagree with that. So there wouldn't be a final

agency action on that. The final action is at

the TGRA level. It takes it away from it. The

other thing it does is another big change in

there is currently is variance sections. You can

request the TGRA to grant a variance and then
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

313

send it up, or the tribe may send it up by

itself. Under this the way this language is

written, you have to go to your TGRA and get that

approved and then it goes to NIGC. If your TGRA

doesn't approve your variance, it never goes up

and the tribe or the operator can't go around

you.

MR. FISHER: Tom?

MR. WILSON: I'm with you on everything,

except we get to the end and unless there's other

documentation, you know, it talks about the NIGC

after their 14 days that they issue a -- you

know, their disapproval and they have to say a

reason why they're disapproving it and how it's

an imminent threat to the integrity of tribal

gaming, but then it ends there. So I was under

the impression that their disapproval is a

binding disapproval. But if that's not the case,

then --

MR. MORGAN: What they're saying is we

disagree with you and because we're not -- if

they do that, what you risk is an enforcement

action. And they always have that authority to

come and do an enforcement action. But if it

doesn't rise to the criteria of the enforcement
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

314

action --

MR. WILSON: An enforcement action based

on their concern or an enforcement action based

on a violation of the standard? I mean, I guess

that's where I'm trying to come from is if we're

saying for purposes of this document that we

can at the end of the day still say, well, we

hear everything that you've said, NIGC, but we're

going to move ahead and do this, and NIGC then

comes and says we're going to now take an

enforcement action against you, which my feeling

would be that if you've reached that impasse --

but if they take an enforcement action, then the

enforcement action is against what, that you

didn't take their advice?

MR. MORGAN: They feel like it's an

imminent --

MR. WHEATLEY: That you're violating the

standards because you did not get the variance.

MR. MORGAN: Imminent threat to the

integrity of gaming. I think in IGRA

regulations, they can only take enforcement

actions for certain specific acts, and they have

to tell you what you violated here. And one of

those is that imminent threat to the integrity of
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

315

gaming. If it doesn't rise to that level, they

should not be doing an enforcement action. You

may disagree with the policy decision, but it's

the TGRA's policy decision to make unless it

rises to that.

MR. WILSON: So just so I'm clear, though,

I mean, is this saying that if they -- I'm just

trying to look at it from a practical aspect. We

submit something, run it up the ladder, it comes

back, and let's say that NIGC does outline what

they believe is an integrity of gaming issue, is

the presumption here that then the Tribal Gaming

Regulatory Authority would in fact heed, then, at

that point and say, Oh, I see what you're saying,

or not?

MR. MORGAN: Depends on your local TGRA.

I would say the vast majority of people, if you

get that letter back, the vast majority would

say, You know what, I will change my variance

request so I meet your concerns and we're in

agreement. Because at the end of the day, you

want to be in agreement. But there may be an

individual jurisdiction out there, and I think

back about Chris, that says, hey, we

fundamentally disagree you have a right with
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

316

that, and we're going to take you to the mat over

this because we disagree we have that. There may

be a tribe out there that does that. A tribe

does have that ability if it so chooses.

MR. WILSON: I get it. And I just wanted

clarification of -- it just kind of ends at this

thing that the --

MR. MORGAN: Like a disclaimer, like if

you decide to proceed, proceed at your own risk.

MR. WILSON: I just wanted it to be clear

in my mind that there was no other effect beyond

that you get this notification back from NIGC,

but that doesn't mean anything from this standard

thing. I could still proceed on, no matter how

reckless it may or may not be.

MR. MORGAN: You could. I would think

almost anybody, if you read, in effect, NIGC

can't disagree, but you can only disagree if it's

an imminent threat to the integrity of tribal

gaming. And they will disagree with you and

that's what they have to stand on. If you decide

to take it to an appeals or take it to court or

just say, you know what, I ain't listening to

you, I'm moving forward. I would think most

tribes would say we're going to reconsider our
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

317

variance request and let me have the discussion

with you and figure out how I change this

variance request to fit your concerns and still

get to the goal where I think is lawful and

permissible.

MR. McGHEE: You could as simple as refer

to any step after as this would be referred to

the section that deals with this as a violation

and how they're able to do this.

MR. WILSON: And maybe that's it, because

from a compact world, if we had the same

situation with the state, our compact says that,

okay, if we agree to disagree -- or it's not that

we agreed -- we can either agree to disagree or

we can go to some form of arbitration to work

through that. And I'm okay that that's not

there.

MR. WILSON: It's kind of like this

dangling thing.

MR. MORGAN: What they're trying to get to

was if the NIGC is going to agree to disagree,

this is your place to stand on it, imminent

threat. You can't disagree just because you

think it's a bad idea. It's the tribe's right to

do it, and you have your place in the federal
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

318

regulations to disagree. I disagree because

imminent danger to the integrity of gaming, if it

rises to that level. You can't just disagree

because you're not doing it the way we think you

should do it.

MR. FISHER: Okay. So do you want to test

this one? Okay. So it's too big to project the

whole thing on the screen, but if you support the

TGWG proposal on Section 547.17 on the variances,

raise your hand.

(All hands raised.)

MR. FISHER: Success. We worked through

the whole document. So now we know when we come

back in the morning, we have a couple of the

additional provisions on the technical standards

that were not in the document that we said we

would come back to, and it sounds like there are

a couple of other questions that we need to

discuss. So it sounds like we can plan to finish

off the technical standards tomorrow morning, and

then we will adjust our schedule to move into the

bingo section. Let's close out the day.

(The National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Advisory Committee was adjourned at 6:18

p.m., November 15, 2011.)