Regulation Number

Concern/Clarification

11 VAC 5-90-20 Unclaimed Jackpots

A. A player shall have a maximum of 180 days from the date an unclaimed jackpot is won to claim it.
B. After 180 days, an unclaimed jackpot shall be distributed to the Lottery for deposit in the Problem Gambling Treatment and Support Fund established by §37.2-314.1 of the Code of Virginia.

There may be instances in which a customer is unable to claim a jackpot within 180 days, and regulation should provide flexibility for claiming of jackpots beyond that period

A. Unless a casino operator submits a request in writing to the department and the department agrees to the request, a   player shall have a maximum of 180 days from the date an unclaimed jackpot is won to claim it.
B. In all other circumstances, after 180 days, an unclaimed jackpot shall be distributed to the Lottery for deposit in the Problem Gambling Treatment and Support Fund established by §37.2-314.1 of the Code of Virginia.

11 VAC 5-90-40 Licenses and permits generally

H. 3. Every five years after the date a license is issued, a facility operator shall submit to the department for review and approval a reinvestment projection related to the casino gaming establishment to cover the succeeding five-year period of operations.

Requiring department approval for reinvestment plans every five years is unusual and overly burdensome. Capital plans should be included in an operator’s license renewal application.

H. 3. As part of its license renewal application, Every five years after the date a license is issued, a facility operator shall submit to the department for review and approval a reinvestment projection related to the casino gaming establishment. to cover the succeeding five-year period of operations.

11 VAC 5-90-90 Enforcement

D. 5. Department staff shall prove a licensee or permit holder with notice of the violations that describes the statute, regulation, or directive allegedly violated, along with the director’s recommendation for addressing the alleged violation.

Providing investigative findings is helpful to operators, appropriate, and consistent with regulatory practice elsewhere in the U.S.

D. 5. Department staff shall provide a licensee or permit holder with notice of the violations that describes the statute, regulation, or directive allegedly violated, along with the investigative findings and director’s recommendation for addressing the alleged violation.

11 VAC 5-90-90 Enforcement

F. 1. The director may provide a licensee or permit holder with the opportunity to discuss with staff a means of entering into a voluntary settlement agreement between the licensee or permit holder and the department by which the violation is settled without a sanction or civil penalty.

F. 2. A settlement may involve elements of corrective action and may also include a remittance of funds to the department from the licensee or permit holder.

Guaranteeing that operators have opportunities for discussions with staff of voluntary settlement agreements would encourage a spirit of regulation by consensus. Operators should also be provided the opportunity to make affirmative defenses as part of the settlement process.

F. 1. The director shall may provide a licensee or permit holder with the opportunity to discuss with staff a means of entering into a voluntary settlement agreement between the licensee or permit holder and the department by which the violation is settled without a sanction or civil penalty.

F. 2. A settlement may shall involve elements of corrective action, affirmative defense, or both and may also include a remittance of funds to the department from the licensee or permit holder.

11 VAC 5-90-100 General Facility Operator Requirements

D. 6. If the certification under subdivision D 5 states that the facility operator is not in compliance, the department shall require the operator to submit a plan of compliance, corrective action, or request for variance consistent with this chapter.

There may be situations in which there is a good-faith disagreement on an operator’s compliance and there should be procedures to evaluate the merits of any disagreement.

D. 6. If the certification under subdivision D 5 states that the facility operator is not in compliance, and the operator does not contest the host city’s determination, the department shall require the operator to submit a plan of compliance, corrective action, or request for variance consistent with this chapter. If an operator contests the host city’s determination, the department shall review the matter and issue a ruling on the operator’s compliance or non-compliance.

11 VAC 5-90-100 General Facility Operator Requirements

D. 11. b. (3) Provided access to health insurance and retirement savings benefit opportunities for all full-time employees of the facility operator performing work at the facility;

Many benefit programs include reasonable probationary periods and should be accommodated.

D. 11. b. (3) Provided access to health insurance and retirement savings benefit opportunities at the conclusion of a reasonable probationary period for all full-time employees of the facility operator performing work at the facility;

11 VAC 5-90-100 General Facility Operator Requirements

G. 6. No licensee or permit holder shall accept postdated checks in payment for participation in any gaming operation.

A “knowingly” standard is appropriate for assessing compliance with this requirement.

G. 6. No licensee or permit holder shall knowingly accept postdated checks in payment for participation in any gaming operation.

11 VAC 5-90-100 General Facility
Operator Requirement

4.A facility operator shall be subject to review by the department on an ongoing basis and annual to determine compliance with gaming law, this chapter, and directives of the department and the director

The review should be coincident with license renewal processes.

4.A facility operator shall be subject to review by the department on an ongoing basis and annual prior to the renewal process to determine compliance with gaming law, this chapter, and directives of the department and the director

11 VAC 5-90-100 General Facility Operator Requirements

Subsection J.1. through J.4 (Voluntary exclusion program)

The voluntary exclusion program for patrons of Virginia casinos should be administered by the state, consistent with detailed standards and procedures that are articulated in regulation, apply to all casinos, and be structured similar to the way self-exclusion is structured in jurisdictions across the United States.

We recommend that specific components of the self-exclusion regulation include, but not be limited to:

-Department responsibility to establish and maintain the exclusion program and associated lists;
-Requirement for excluded patrons to agree that, during any period of voluntary exclusion, the person may not collect any winnings or recover any losses resulting from any gaming activity at Virginia casinos;
-Establishment of procedures for placements on, and removals from, the list of excluded persons;
-Procedures for the transmittal to all Virginia casinos of identifying information concerning excluded persons;
-Requirements that all Virginia casinos establish a system that, to the extent practicable, refuse wagers and deny gaming privileges to excluded persons;
-Requirements that all Virginia casinos establish procedures designed, at a minimum, to remove self-excluded persons from targeted mailings or other forms of advertising or promotions and deny self-excluded persons access to complimentaries and check-cashing privileges;
-Establish a “willful violation” standard for any sanctions on casino operators for failing to exclude individuals on the state’s exclusion list;
-Requirement for a waiver and release which holds harmless the Commonwealth, the Department, casino licenses, and their employees from any liability for various acts regarding the good faith execution of the voluntary exclusion program; and
-Regulations for the protection and sharing of information on individuals in the voluntary exclusion program, which should permit casino operators to implement national or multi-jurisdictional exclusion programs.

The vast majority of commercial casino jurisdictions have detailed regulations on voluntary exclusion which include the components described above, and we encourage the Department to consult and evaluate them, and then implement “best practice” regulations for the Commonwealth.

11 VAC 5-90-110 Casino Gaming Facility Minimum Internal Control Standards

E. 2. a. A certification by the facility operator’s chief executive officer or chief legal officer that, to the best of their knowledge, the submitted internal controls conform to the requirements of the casino gaming law, this chapter, and any directives of the department or the director;

Typically, a facility operator will have a general manager, not a chief executive officer. “Chief executive officer” confuses property personnel with corporate personnel. We request that this change be made throughout where the reference to the senior-most staff of a facility is intended. 

E. 2. a. A certification by the facility operator’s facility’s general manager chief executive officer or chief legal officer that, to the best of their knowledge, the submitted internal controls conform to the requirements of the casino gaming law, this chapter, and any directives of the department or the director;

11 VAC 5-90-110 Casino Gaming Facility Minimum Internal Control Standards

F. 3. Unless otherwise specified by the department, reports to the department shall be signed by the:

a. Chief executive officer if the facility operator is a corporation;

b. General partner if the facility operator is a partnership;

c. Manager if the facility operator is a limited liability company;

d. Chief executive officer or functional equivalent if the facility operator is any other form of business association; or

e. Owner if the facility operator is a sole proprietorship.

The suggested changes builds in some needed flexibility concerning who should be permitted to sign the required reports.

F. 3. Unless otherwise specified by the department, reports to the department shall be signed by the:
a. Chief executive officer if the facility operator is a corporation, or their designee;
b. General partner if the facility operator is a partnership, or their designee;
c. Manager if the facility operator is a limited liability company, or their designee;
d. Chief executive officer or functional equivalent if the facility operator is any other form of business association, or their designee; or
e. Owner if the facility operator is a sole proprietorship, or their designee.

11 VAC 5-90-110
Surveillance Department Operating Procedures

K. 3. A facility operator’s surveillance department operating procedures shall, at a minimum, require:
    . . . .

    (c) A surveillance incident log:

        (1) Maintained by monitor room employees in:

            (a) A book with bound numbered pages that cannot be readily removed; or

            (b) An electronic format equipped with software that prevents modification of an entry after it has been initially entered into the system; and

Surveillance incident reports are used as evidence, so there should be a standard to ensure reporting software has controls to reasonably prevent malicious tampering.  As currently written, the regulation could be interpreted to mean that once an entry is typed, it must permanently become embedded, which does not seem to be a reasonable standard.  Surveillance reviews and investigations evolve to where information or findings might change as investigation is ongoing and sometimes the Surveillance Department's initial direction changes.  Furthermore, Surveillance employees are not always perfect in their initial documenting of a report resulting in grammar issues or incorrect findings.  Something as simple as forgetting the word “no” can have a major impact and cause misunderstandings down the road.  For example, if a report should state:  “Surveillance reviewed the play of John Smith and found no cheats,” but the employee making the entry inadvertently neglected to enter "no" before "cheats," this finding would ultimately be incorrect and lead to a misunderstanding about John Smith's play status.  Therefore, to eliminate any misunderstanding, a supervisor should have the ability to correct, or reopen the report for correction, during his/her audit of reports.

A facility operator’s surveillance department operating procedures shall, at a minimum, require:
    . . . .

     (c) A surveillance incident log:

       (1) Maintained by monitor room employees in:

            (a) A book with bound numbered pages that cannot be readily removed; or

             (b) An electronic format equipped with software that prevents designed to provide evidentiary and leadership access controls on modification of an entry after it has been initially entered into the system; and

11 VAC 5-90-110 Casino Gaming Facility Minimum Internal Control Standards

L. 3. A facility operator’s security department operating procedures shall, at a minimum, include:
a. A security zone plan for the facility, employing fixed security posts and roving security officers designed to ensure:

“Ensure” is an unrealistic and inappropriate standard here.

L. 3. A facility operator’s security department operating procedures shall, at a minimum, include:
a. A security zone plan for the facility, employing fixed security posts and roving security officers designed to assist with ensure:

11 VAC 5-90-110 Casino Gaming Facility Minimum Internal Control Standards

Y. 3. A facility operator shall provide a player with a record of casino game spending levels if:

Estimates of table game spending are just that, estimates, and facility operators cannot provide exact documentation of these spend levels.

Y. 3. A facility operator shall, to extent practical, provide a player with a record of casino game spending levels if:

11 VAC 5-90-110 Casino Gaming Facility Minimum Internal Control Standards

O.2.d.  Timely report a deficiency in, or noncompliance with, the facility’s internal controls to:
(1) The audit committee;
(2) The chief executive officer;
(3) Management; and
(4) The department;

A materiality standard is appropriate for notice to the audit committee and chief executive officer.

O.2.d Timely report a deficiency in, or noncompliance with, the facility’s internal controls to:
(1) The audit committee (material deficiency only);
(2) The chief executive officer (material deficiency only);
(3) Management; and
(4) The department;

11 VAC 5-90-110 Casino Gaming Facility Minimum Internal Control Standards

O. 3. The audit department shall audit at least semiannually the functions and operations of the facility’s:
a. Cashiers’ cage;
b. Main bank;
c. Collection of cash storage boxes;
d. Cash count;
e. Revenue audit;
f. Operations department;
g. Key control; and
h. Table game operations.
4. The audit department shall audit at least annually:
a. Responsible gaming program;
b. Security department;
c. Currency transaction reporting;
d. Suspicious activity reporting;
e. Information technology controls;
f. Accounts payable;
g. Purchasing;

h. Player tracking; and

i. Surveillance department.

The suggestions are provided to recognize relative risk as well as accepted industry standards.

O. 3. The audit department shall audit at least semiannually the functions and operations of the facility’s:
a. Cashiers’ cage;
b. Main bank;
c. Collection of cash storage boxes;
d. Cash count;
e. Revenue audit;
f. Operations department;
g.Key control; and
h. Table game operations.
4. The audit department shall audit at least annually:
a. Responsible gaming program;
b. Security department;
c. Currency transaction reporting;
d. Suspicious activity reporting;
e. Information technology controls;
f. Accounts payable;
g. Purchasing;
h. Player tracking; and

i. Surveillance department;
i. Cashiers’ cage;
j. Main bank;
k. Cash count; and
l. Key control.

11-VAC-5-90-120 Casino Gaming Facility Standards

D. 5. A facility operator may not implement any change to its approved gaming floor plan without the prior written approval of the department

Casino floors may experience slight cosmetic and/or non-material modification that do not impede approved routes, machine counts, or table counts.

D. 5. A facility operator may not implement any a material change to its approved gaming floor plan without the prior written obtaining approval of the department.

11VAC5-90-150 Slot machines

Y. External bonusing system - additional requirements.

1. A facility operator may utilize an external bonusing system that has been tested, certified, and approved under this section.

2. In addition to complying with the minimum design standards of subdivision V of this section, a casino gaming machine connected to an external bonusing system may not equal or exceed an average payout percentage of 100% when the contribution of any bonus awards available on a casino gaming machine is added to the casino gaming machine's average payout percentage.

In other jurisdictions, we award bonuses to players based either upon their total spend or their potential to spend. In the former case, we calculate total spend across all machines a player plays but make the award to a single machine. Doing so could drive that machine’s payout above 100% for a short time period. In reality, the one machine is paying an award that the player earned at a number of machines. 

A similar issue arises with progressive jackpots. Example: 30 games are lined to a common progressive and 2% of the wagers on each game are added to the progressive. The progressive grows to $200,000 and is won on one of the machines. That machine pays out $200,000 and goes well above 100% payout.

Ideally, this language would be modified to indicate that individual player bonuses cannot accrue from any single gaming machine at a rate that equals or exceeds an average payout of 100%. If we pay attention to accrual, instead of reward, the above problems are resolved.

11-VAC-5-90-150 Slots

DD. 4. A facility operator may not authorize a manufacturer to remotely access a slot machine management system until its system access protocols are approved in writing by the department.

We are asking that once remote access is approved by the Department for a specific manufacturer that subsequent approvals are not necessary.

DD. 4. A facility operator may not authorize a manufacturer to remotely access a slot machine management system until its system access protocols are approved in writing by the department.  Such written approval by the Department shall be deemed to satisfy the requirement in subsection EE and subsequent approvals are not warranted.

11 VAC 5-90-170

O. Cards (entire subsection)

We contend generally that including too much detail in the regulation regarding cards would require significant staffing to ensure compliance and potentially restrict development of new game variations and adjustment to future market demands. Decks of cards have evolved to support the use of no-peek devices and the composition of decks of cards are constantly changing to suit new games or rules variations.  For example, Spanish 21 uses a 48 card deck of cards whereas Pai Gow Poker uses a 53 card deck of cards and there are games that use multiple decks of cards.  As cheating methods are discovered, card backs required immediate change as is seen with edge tracking.  In short, over-regulation now could prevent industry from progressing or developing future technologies as they would be banned by current regulation.

Accordingly, we would respectfully request a re-write of the section to include less specificity and allow for more flexibility to evolve.  Below is an example of how it could be drafted.

O. Cards

1. Approved cards and decks of cards;

A. Cards used in the casino for table game play must be submitted to the Department for approval based on;

• The proposed use of the cards
• The suitable design of the cards based on applicability for use on a designated game.
• The size
• The deck composition
• Any coloring specifications required for applicable game use
• Identification of origin

B. Cards and decks of cards may not be altered in any way from their approved form.

2. Cards must be received from the manufacturer in sealed containers or boxes.

3. The operator must submit a set of internal controls and procedures to the Department for approval regarding the receipt of card shipments.

4. The operator must submit a set of internal controls and procedures to the Department for approval regarding the secure storage of cards.

5. The operator must submit a set of internal controls and procedures to the Department for approval regarding the management of cards while on premises.  The controls should assure an auditable method of;

• Receipt
• Secure handling of cards
• Real time inventory
• Authorized access to cards for inventory or distribution
• Distribution process

6. The operator must submit a set of internal controls and procedures to the Department for approval regarding the process of opening a new game.  This should include;

• Delivery of the cards to the game
• Designated staff with authority levels
• Inspection of cards prior to play
• Hand and machine shuffled card games
• Pre-shuffled card games

7. The operator must submit a set of internal controls and procedures to the Department for approval regarding the process of closing a game.  This should include;

• Removal of the cards from play
• Transportation of card to used card storage.

8.  The operator must submit a set of internal controls and procedures to the Department for approval regarding the cancellation and destruction of cards.

9. The operator shall have procedures in place for dealing with damaged or missing cards.  Discrepancies should be noted in the shift log.

10. In the instance of a card or deck of cards not complying with approved standards, the instance should be brought to the attention of the Department.

11.  The operator must submit a set of internal controls and procedures to the Department for approval regarding the maximum duration of card usage or service life.  Specific areas that shall be addressed are;

• Hand shuffled games
• Machine shuffled games
• Pre-shuffled games
• Multi-deck games
• Plastic Cards

11 VAC 5-90-170
W. Roulette- Ball, Table, and Wheel Inspection; Security Procedures

W. 7. When a Roulette table is not open for play, the Roulette wheel shall be secured by a cover that is placed over the entire wheel and securely locked.

Operators are tasked with inspecting and balancing the wheel each time the game is opened and required to complete monthly maintenance logs.  Furthermore, the tables have dedicated surveillance coverage to aid in addressing tampering concerns.  The opening inspection, surveillance, and property personnel are all reinforcements to mitigate the risk of not having an additional lock placed on the wheel.

When a Roulette table is not open for play, the Roulette wheel shall be secured by a cover that is placed over the entire wheel and securely locked.

11 VAC 5-90-180 Inspecting Cards

Y. 2. After receiving one or more decks of cards at the table, the dealer shall inspect the cards for any defects and a floorperson assigned to the table shall verify the inspection.

3. After the cards are inspected, the dealer shall spread the cards out face up on the table, in horizontal fan shaped columns by deck according to suit and in sequence, for visual inspection by the first player to arrive at the table.

4. After the first player arriving at the table has been afforded an opportunity to visually inspect the cards, the dealer shall:

    (a) Turn the cards face down on the table;

    (b) Mix the cards thoroughly by washing them; and

    (c) Stack the cards.

5. After the cards have been stacked, the dealer shall shuffle them in accordance with subsection Z.

6. If an automated card shuffling device is utilized and two decks of cards are received at the table, each deck of cards shall be spread for inspection, mixed, stacked, and shuffled in accordance with subdivisions Y2-5.

Eliminating the need for the first patron to inspect fanned cards would allow the patron quicker play time instead of waiting 5-6 minutes for the shuffler.  The shuffler verifies with the camera.

Y.2. If the decks of cards received at the table are preinspected and preshuffled, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply After receiving one or more decks of cards at the table, the dealer shall inspect the cards for any defects and a floorperson assigned to the table shall verify the inspection.

 After the cards are inspected, the dealer shall spread the cards out face up on the table, in horizontal fan shaped columns by deck according to suit and in sequence, for visual inspection by the first player to arrive at the table.

After the first player arriving at the table has been afforded an opportunity to visually inspect the cards, the dealer shall:

    Turn the cards face down on the table;

     Mix the cards thoroughly by washing them; and

     Stack the cards.

3. After the cards have been stacked, the dealer shall shuffle them in accordance with subsection Z.

4. If an automated card shuffling device is utilized and two decks of cards are received at the table, each deck of cards shall be spread for inspection, mixed, stacked, and shuffled in accordance with subdivisions Y 2-35.

11 VAC 5-90-180 Table Game Procedures

T. Game rules; notice; wagers

5. A facility operator may not accept a bet at a table game in an amount less than $5 or more than $50,000.

Operators should be permitted to yield manage their table game offerings and accept bets in whatever dominations it determines, consistent with its internal controls and other requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations.

The $5 bet minimum bet is especially problematic on games where it is common practice to make multiple bets. For example, it would prevent a player from making a $5 bet on red/black in roulette as well as a separate $1 bet on a particular number.

5. A facility operator may not accept a bet at a table game in an amount less than $5 or more than $50,000.

Regulation Number

Concern/Clarification

11VAC5-90-10 - Definitions

Request clarification as to whether the definition of “Adjusted gross receipts” includes free play. We would suggest that free play be exempted from the definition.

11VAC5-90-40.B.1 - Licenses and permits generally (Changes in application)

We suggest that the current language be revised to require applicants to submit changes to an application only if “material information” changes.  Requiring the submission of changes to any information by an Applicant would essentially require a continuous series of updates by Applicants.

11 VAC 5-90-40.E - Licenses and permits generally (Bonds)

The current regulation requires the operator to obtain a bond and submit the bond to the director for review.  The amount of the bond may not exceed $50,000,000.  We would suggest a cap of $5,000,000.  Licensees have a variety of financial controls and solvency tests in place to ensure sufficient liquidity to protect Virginia residents.  A $50,000,000 bond could reasonably incur between $.5mm and $7.5mm in annual expense.  Virginia regulations can protect Virginia taxpayers through licensing reviews and ongoing liquidity reviews rather than requiring a bond of that magnitude that ensures a significant, recurring expense for operators while providing a control that could be duplicated through other more cost-effective means.

11VAC5-90-40.H.2 - Licenses and permits generally (Continuing obligations)

The current language requires applicants to immediately submit to the department notice in writing of any changes in information for an applicant.  Similar to the note above, we suggest only requiring updates for “material changes” in information.

11VAC5-90-40.I.7 - Licenses and permits generally (Identification cards)

The current language requires licensees to provide notice if an identification card is “temporarily unavailable” to the licensee.  Cards may be temporarily unavailable in a variety of circumstances (such as when a licensee is off-duty or away from the premises) but would only be problematic if the licensee is unable to display the identification card as required for a defined purpose. 

11VAC5-90-50.F.4 - Investigations (Administrative costs of background investigations)

The current regulation requires a nonrefundable application fee of $50,000.  We would suggest an application fee more similar to those found in other jurisdictions - $5,000 - $10,000.

11VAC5-90-60.F.6 - Applications for and issuance of facility operator’s license (Issuance term and conditions)

The current regulation provides for a nonrefundable issuance fee of $15 million before the operation license is issued and upon any approved transfer the license.  Confirming that the allocation of that fee from a seller or a buyer can be contractually distributed such that the payment could be provided by an acquiring party if so agreed upon.

11VAC5-90-60.H.1 - Applications for and issuance of facility operator’s license (Suspension, civil penalties, revocation and nonrenewal)

The current regulation allows the director to impose a civil penalty or suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a facility operator’s license for a variety of issues, including failure to comply with, or violation of, any provision of the casino gaming law, this chapter, any other law, regulation or condition.  We acknowledge that casino gaming is a privilege and that licensees should be held to a high standard.  However, we would suggest that suspension or revocation of a license be reserved for material violations of law and be subject to prior due process.

11VAC5-90-90 A.1 - Enforcement (Inspections)

The current regulation subjects licensees or permit holders to unannounced inspections by the department.  While we acknowledge that the department has the right to regulate operations in real time and without prior approval, we suggest that audits be coordinated so licensees can provide the requisite information in a reasonable manner and time frame.

11VAC5-90-100.D.2 - General facility operator requirements (Facility operator requirements)

The current regulation requires a facility operator to submit to the department any updates or revisions to capital investment plan provided with the initial license application.  Generally, operators review and approve capital plans on an annual basis and have discretion to apply capital within prescribed amounts throughout the year in order to respond to changing business plans.  We suggest that an operator’s capital investment plan be available to the Lottery at its request rather than require submissions for any deviation from the initially approved plan.

11 VAC 5-90-100.D.11 - General facility operator requirements (Facility operator requirements)

The current regulation requires that the contract between an eligible host city and its preferred casino gaming operator shall require the operator to agree to hire contractors that meet a series of requirements.  We would suggest that these restrictions be eliminated and instead replaced with requirements to hire local and M/WBE certified vendors.  The requirements contained within this subsection will limit the number of qualified vendors with which the preferred casino gaming operator can contract.  Many small businesses cannot meet this requirement, and this could limit the intended economic impact of the project.

11VAC5-90-100.J - General facility operator requirements (Voluntary exclusion; responsible gaming)

We recommend that regulation of the voluntary exclusion program include the following components, which are common in state-administered exclusion programs across the U.S.:

-Explicit regulator responsibility to establish and maintain the exclusion program and associated lists;
-Requirement for excluded patrons to agree that, during any period of voluntary exclusion, they will neither gamble nor collect any winnings or recover any losses resulting from any gaming activity at Virginia casinos;
-Establishment of procedures for placements on, and removals from, the list of excluded persons;
-Procedures for the transmittal to all Virginia casinos of identifying information concerning excluded persons;
-Requirements that all Virginia casinos establish a system that, to the extent practicable, refuses wagers and denies gaming privileges to excluded persons;
-Requirements that all Virginia casinos establish procedures designed, at a minimum, to remove self-excluded persons from targeted mailings or other forms of advertising or promotions and deny self-excluded persons access to complimentaries and check-cashing privileges;
-Establish a “willful violation” standard for any sanctions on casino operators for failing to exclude individuals on the state’s exclusion list; and
-Requirement for a waiver and release which holds harmless the Commonwealth, the Commission, casino licenses, and their employees from any liability for various acts regarding the good faith execution of the voluntary exclusion program.

11VAC5-90-100.M - General facility operator requirements (Facility exclusion plan)

We would suggest that this section be revised to follow procedures more similar to other jurisdictions and allow for the creation of a state-wide voluntary exclusion list with controls that apply checks against that list during certain interactions (such as jackpot payouts).

11VAC5-90-110.I - Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Surveillance system design standards)

Section I.2.a.3.e. requires that surveillance monitor the movement of cash and cash storage boxes within the facility.  We request confirmation that by following the cash and cash storage boxes with PTZ cameras that the operator would meet this requirement.

Section I.2.a.3.g notes that surveillance must monitor all “restricted areas.”  Request clarification as to the definition of “restricted areas.”

Section I.2.c.2 and Section J.3.c.2.g requires that surveillance be able to identify and locate, through the use of a meter, counter or other device or method, a particular event that was recorded.  Request confirmation that use of the surveillance monitoring system logs suffices this requirement.

11VAC5-90-110.L - Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Security department operating procedures)

The regulation currently requires security to immediately remove intoxicated individuals from the facility.  We would suggest that this requirement be limited to require removal from the gaming floor such than an intoxicated individual could be sent to a hotel room rather than be removed from the facility entirely.

11VAC5-90-110.U.2.a - Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Player accounts)

The current regulation requires a substantial amount of information in order to create an on-premises player account.  We would suggest that the requirement to provide an email address and SSN be limited to transactions such as jackpot payouts.

11VAC5-90-110.U.2.c. - Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Player accounts)

Section 8 requires the operator to take a series of actions if the operator determines that the information provided by a player to make a deposit or process a withdrawal is inaccurate or incapable of verification.  We suggest that such requirements are in excess of similar requirements pertaining to other financial institutions and that customers can provide information outside of the 21 day period after which operators must suspend and/or deactivate accounts.

11VAC5-90-110.U.9 - Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Player accounts)

The current regulation requires operators to review all adjustments to a player account for individuals amounts of $500 or less.  We believe this language may be inadvertent and that the requirement should be $500 or more. 

11VAC5-90-110.Z.2.a - Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Gaming ticket)

The current regulations require a facility operator to maintain a record of all unredeemed gaming tickets for a minimum of two years from the date of issuance.  We would suggest a time period of 6 months to a year is reasonable.

11VAC5-90-110.CC.5.b - Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Jackpot payout)

The current regulation requires a security or gaming operations department employee to verify jackpots of $1,200 or more but less than $15,000.  We suggest that a second verifier be included to verify jackpots between $5,000 or more but less than $15,000.  Given surveillance coverage and slot machine logs, we believe this is a reasonable protection.

11VAC5-90-110.HH.5.b.3 – Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Collection of cash storage and table game drop boxes)

The current language requires an accounting team member to verify various aspects of the drop process prior to moving the cash storage boxes into the count room.  We suggest that accounting perform post-count verification procedures through the accounting and audit procedures as the drop is also handled by drop and count team members, security and is monitored by surveillance.

11VAC5-90-110.JJ.9 - Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Accounting controls for a count room)

The current language requires a facility operator to report variances within 72 hours of the count.  We would suggest a week, which would allow variances to be compared to subsequent drops, which can often identify cash count variances.

11VAC5-90-110.KK – Casino gaming facility internal control standards (Player complaints)

The current language requires a facility operator to report when it is unable to “satisfactorily resolve” a dispute with a player within three days of notice.  We suggest eliminating the word “satisfactorily” as the operator cannot attest to the guest’s satisfaction.

11VAC5-90-140.G.1 - Transportation and testing of casino gaming machines and equipment (Request for authorization)

The current regulation requires facility operators to obtain prior written authorization from the department before taking a number of actions regarding optioning games.  We would suggest that this section focus on placing games into operations and game moves rather than address all variations of game optioning.

The current regulation also requires the operator to obtain prior written approval for numerous functions relating to slot machine placement and operations.  We would suggest eliminating the subjective requirements such as “performing a substantial replacement of parts” and “any other action that materially alters or interrupts the operation of a slot machine” as we believe the objective controls adequately ensure the regulator is aware of and provides prior approval for game changes.

11VAC5-90-150 K.2 - Slot machines (Average payout percentage)

The current regulation requires a slot machine to have a theoretical payout percentage that is between 84% and 100%.  We want to confirm that so long the manufacturer and ITL tested payout percentages noted in the game option comply with this payout percentage that a particular game will comply with this requirement.  Actual payout can vary but over time will meet this requirement so long as it is correctly optioned.

11VAC5-90-150.K.3.a - Slot machines (Average payout percentage)

The current language requires periodic reviews to ensure the average payout percentages, on an average annual basis, comply with the requirements of this subsection that a slot machine shall have a theoretical payout percentage between 84% and 100%.  We would suggest that this section be eliminated as specific game actual payout can vary from the theoretical pay out, but so long as the game’s theo is correctly set to the manufacturer’s specifications the game, over the lifetime of the game, will comply with the payout percentages.

11VAC5-90-150.K.5.b. - Slot machines (Average payout percentage)

The current language requires that games shall be designed to ensure that all possible combinations in the game cycle are independent of each other, unless disclosed to the player.  We request clarification on how the disclosure must be provided.  Would a sticker on the game meet this requirement?

11VAC5-90-160.H.2 – Mechanical casino games (Minimum and maximum bet)

The current language requires that a mechanical casino game may not accept a maximum bet on a single game event in excess of $50 without the written approval of the department.  Can an operator submit a blanket request to offer maximum bets on a single game event in excess of $50 for all games on a property?

11VAC5-90-170.U – Table games definitions and equipment (Dealer controlled electronic table game system procedures)

The current language requires that “A player shall participate in wagering at a dealer controlled electronic table game by presenting a gaming voucher or value chips to the dealer or boxperson.”  We suggest that this language be altered to allow the guest to insert cash or a ticket into the EGD itself, which is typically how these games function.

11VAC5-90-180.J - Table Games Procedures (Table inventory counts)

The current regulation requires the use of a three-compartment drop box.  We should suggest a single compartment drop box as typically used in other jurisdictions.  We believe that traditional drop box procedures provide sufficient guest protection and prevent errors involving the use of multiple drop boxes.

11VAC5-90-180.T.5 - Table games procedures (Game rules; notice; wagers)

The current language requires that a facility operator may not accept a bet at a table game in an amount less than $5.00 or more than $50,000.  We would suggest that bets under $5.00 be allowed as often side bets are made in increments under $5.00.

11VAC5-90-180.BB.1.a – Table games procedures (Procedure for dealing cards from the hand)

The current langue notes that an automated shuffling device shall be used to shuffle the cards if cards are dealt from a dealer’s hand.  We would request approval to allow hand shuffling as that option is generally available and requested for high-limit games.  Table Games Supervision and surveillance provide complimentary controls to ensure game integrity.