1. 11 VAC 15-40-10. Definition of "flare"

a. Issue – "Flare" is defined as "a piece of paper, cardboard, or similar material that bears printed information relating to the name of the manufacturer or logo, name of the game, card count, cost per play, serial number, the number of prizes to be awarded, and the specific prize amounts in a deal of instant bingo, pull-tab, or seal cards."

b. Comment/Question – "Electronic game cards" are not contemplated in the definition of "Flare" and should be added.

2. 11 VAC 15-40-10. Definition of "serial number"

a. Issue – "Serial number" is defined as "a unique number printed by the manufacturer on each bingo card in a set; each instant bingo, pull-tab, or seal card in a deal; each electronic bingo device; or each door prize ticket.

b. Comment/Question – The definition of "serial number" should include "electronic game card."

"

3. 11 VAC 15-40-50(W) – Conduct of bingo, instant bingo, pull-tabs, seal cards, event games, and raffles

a. Issue -- Subsection W provides that "A qualified organization selling instant bingo, pull-tabs, seal cards, or electronic game cards shall post a flare provided by the manufacturer at the location where such cards are sold. All such sales and prize payouts shall be in accordance with the flare for that deal.

b. Comment/Question – Can the flare provided for electronic game cards be posted electronically on the screen of the electronic game card dispenser?

4. 11 VAC 15-40-270(A)(a) – Validation system and redemption

a. Issue – Subsection A(1) provides that

"A distributed pull-tab system may utilize a voucher validation system to facilitate gaming transactions. The validation system may be entirely integrated into a distributed pull-tab system as a separate entity.

"1. Payment by voucher printer as a method of redeeming unused game plays and/or winnings on a player device is only permissible when the device is linked to an approved validation system or distributed pull-tab system that allows validation of the printed voucher."

b. Comment/Question – We had thought from the second stakeholders meeting that validation systems would be optional, not required. Subsection A(1) appears to require a validation system for paper vouchers. We do not believe it is necessary to burden charities such as fraternal clubs that may have only one or two dispensing devices in their social quarters with the expense of a validation system for paper vouchers. There are many states (e.g., Idaho, South Dakota, Louisiana, Oregon, Iowa, etc.) that have allowed dispensing of player credits on a printed voucher without requiring a validation system. Several of these states have allowed dispensing of paper vouchers without validation for over 20 years without any problems. Requiring a validation system for one or two machines in a fraternal club will make the program too expensive for many charities to participate in the program. Validation systems are more applicable to casinos or large bingo halls where more devices are placed. Virginia’s proposed program is for charities, and requiring a validation system in most charitable locations will not justify the cost. Requiring a validation system for paper vouchers can also create confusion when a charity has more than one manufacturer’s system placed in its facility. To which system do the players go? Utilizing water-marked paper for printed vouchers, which is required by the proposed regulations, provides ample security and safeguards against counterfeit. If there ever is a question regarding a certain printed voucher, the manufacturer’s central computer system that monitors each site can be used to further investigate and authenticate printed vouchers that are in question. This is done at the expense of the manufacturer and does not require the charities to incur the expense of having their own validation systems.

5. 11 VAC 40-300(F) – Player device general requirements (first issue)

a. Issue -- Subsection F provides that "A player device shall not have any of the following attributes: spinning or mechanical reels, pull hand, sounds other than an audio effect to simulate the opening of a paper pull-tab or instant bingo card, flashing lights, tower light, top box, coin tray, ticket acceptance, hopper, coin acceptor, enhanced animation, cabinet or payglass artwork, or any other attribute identified by the department."

b. Comment/Question – Although we fully understand the need to address this issue, we believe that the proposed language is too restrictive. There are certain sounds that are needed to accommodate federal Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. For example, when a player touches a button on the playing device screen, there needs to be audio feedback indicating a command was received. These sounds are not used for the purpose of entertainment or to entice a person to play a game, but to respond to the player who has touched certain areas on the screen. Furthermore, since certain audio and video animations are needed and can be subjective, we would suggest that the following added at the end of subsection F: "All audio and video animation shall be subject to approval by the department."

6. 11 VAC 15-40-300(H) – Player device general requirements (second issue)

a. Issue – Subsection H provides that "The number of player devices, other than those player devices that are handheld, present at any premise at which charitable gaming is conducted shall be limited to one device for every 50 permissible occupants under the maximum occupancy as determined pursuant to the Uniform Statewide Building Code. The department shall determine whether a player device is handheld."

b. Comment/Question – We agree and understand that there needs to be some limit on the number of player devices that can be placed in any one facility. However, the Office of Charitable Gaming repeatedly stated to stakeholders, including at its two stakeholder meetings, that the regulations it would propose would not discriminate against, or favor, any one form of electronic gaming. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations appear to provide an advantage to those companies that provide handheld products on which the player may play the games authorized by the regulations. For example, with the proposed limit of one non-handheld player device for every 50 permissible occupants, if the average occupancy of fraternal clubs in Virginia is less that 200, sites could not have more than 3-4 non-handheld devices, but could have an unlimited number of handhelds. This is not equitable and creates an unfair advantage for handhelds in the marketplace. There should be some limitation for handhelds if there are limitations on other devices. Limitations of handhelds are being considered in other states where electronic pull-tabs are being considered. We would recommend that the same limit be placed on handheld devices on which players can play the games authorized by the regulations as is placed on non-handheld devices on which those games can be played. For example, if the limit for a given facility is 3 non-handheld player devices, then the limit for handheld devices that can play the games that are authorized by the regulations also should be 3. This would in no way limit the number of handheld devices that could be used to play bingo itself.

Furthermore, the limit of one device for every 50 permissible occupants is too restrictive. We would suggest allowing 2 devices for every 50 occupants or decreasing the amount of occupants to 25 for every device. Suppliers of the devices will not place more devices than what is cost effective. Because of the economic realities, the number of devices placed is self regulated.

Finally, whatever the limit is, the proposed regulations need to clarify the various cut-off points for the number of player devices permitted – e.g., we would recommend that if the limit is one device per 25 permissible occupants, the cut off points should be one device for 1-24 permissible occupants, 2 devices for 25-49 occupants, 3 devices for 50-74 occupants, etc. If the limit remains at one device for every 50 permissible occupants, then we would recommend that the cut-off points should be one device for 1-49 occupants, 2 devices for 50-99 occupants, 3 devices for 100-149 occupants, etc.

7. 11 VAC 15-40-410(A)(6) – Game play requirements

a. Issue – Subsection A(6) provides that "The results of the electronic game card shall be shown to the player using a video display. No rolling, flashing, or spinning animations are permitted. No rotating reels marked into horizontal segments by varying symbols are permitted. No entertaining sound or music is permitted other than an audio effect to simulate the opening of a paper pull-tab or instant bingo card. Any sounds present used to simulate the opening of a paper pull-tab must not be played at a level sufficient to disturb other players or patrons."

b. Comment/Question – [Same as Comment 5] Although we fully understand the need to address this issue, we believe that the proposed language is too restrictive. There are certain sounds that are needed to accommodate federal Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. For example, when a player touches a button on the playing device screen, there needs to be audio feedback indicating a command was received. These sounds are not used for the purpose of entertainment or to entice a person to play a game, but to respond to the player who has touched certain areas on the screen. Furthermore, since certain audio and video animations are needed and can be subjective, we would suggest that the following added at the end of subsection A(6): "All audio and video animation shall be subject to approval by the department."

8. Section 18.2-340.34 of the Code of Virginia – Manufacturer’s License

a. Issue – Section 18.2-340.34 of the Code of Virginia provides that "no manufacturer shall distribute electronic games of chance systems for charitable gaming in the Commonwealth unless and until such person has made application for and has been issued a permit by the Department."

b. Comment/Question – The proposed regulations do not address the manufacturer’s permit required by § 18.2-340.34 of the Code. A provision addressing this issue needs to be added to the proposed regulations.