 Oh, yeah, that's what it was. All righty, we're all set to go then. All right, let me hit the go live button now and we're good. Okay, good morning. We are just coming in a little bit late around 10, 10. This is the convening of the Master's Gaming Commission. We just happened to have a bit of a tech issue. So our apologies holding this meeting virtually. So I'm going to do a roll call. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here, but I'm about to be in transit. So I will be passively listening for a little bit, but I am here. Okay. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Excellent. Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Okay. Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I am here. Okay. Excellent. We'll get started today, Karen. I'll turn to you for any update you have. We've got mainly some regs to go through today. Yeah. So just briefly, I wanted to report to the commission that the launch of the sports wagering at the retail sites of the three casinos was successful. I have not heard any issues or any problems that have come to light, either technical or otherwise. So, so far, so good. And we'll continue to monitor and update the commission as needed. But other than that, we will now be transitioning to preparations for the category three launch. And we'll have more details on a timeframe and operational needs as we go forward. Okay. That's it. Excellent. Thank you. Any questions for Karen? Congratulations again to the entire team. We had our mission, we had a meeting yesterday for our agenda setting and take some, the entire team's efforts, every individual contribution to lead to success. And that was really demonstrated with you, Karen. And your team, so congratulations to you. Thank you. Okay. I'm gonna turn now to then, Councilor Grossman and your entire team, including A&K. Good morning. Morning, everybody. We're gonna turn it right over to the other members of the team who have the presentations all prepared for you. And we will kick it off. It looks like with Judy. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. This morning we have for you 205 CMR 105, the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau. This regulation was first brought before the commission on November 10th, 2022. It is existing regulation for the commission, however, with the onboarding of two, excuse me, 23. And we've modified it to extend the authority of the Investigation and Enforcement Bureau, also known as the IAB to this regulation. So we had a hearing for this regulation on January 31st, 2023 and received unfortunately no comments at the hearing, however, we did receive a good amount in the weeks leading up to the hearing in this meeting today. I'm joined by Mina Macarius from A&K who will walk you through the edits made to the regulation and a red line included in your packet. And I will turn it over to him. Thank you, Judy. So we have, as Judy mentioned, a slightly revised version of 105. This actually appears in your packet twice because of a change that was made last minute. So I think what I'd like to do is start at, just note that it's in the packet at page 13 of your packet. The red line changes you see are the ones in actual red ink are all ones that were suggested before when you pass this, these are changes to the existing, to the 105 that was passed in connection with the Gaming Act and the only changes that were made initially in your initial review were to add references to 23N. 105 has to do with what the Bureau's responsibilities are when investigating and taking enforcement action. The new change that we're suggesting for today is actually in two places in 105.04 and 105.05 on page 14, those changes appear in blue text. And where in the first version of this in the fall, we had a sort of broader reference to 23N. We've changed it to a reference to 205-CMR232, which is the enforcement regulation that we discussed a week or two ago now that you all voted on and passed. So the idea is to make clear that the Bureau's enforcement capabilities follow from that process with respect to 23N. And that's to make the distinction of statute. The only other changes, 105 that we're suggesting from last time, 105.06, there's the addition of the word that commission in one place about seizure of unlawful devices to avoid confusion of such stuff for 23K or rent to avoid any confusion that the commission could act under its authority. There is a removal in 105.09 to references to 23N because in conversations with the Bureau, the ABCC is just not referenced in that context. So all coordination would happen by virtue of the authority under 23K. And we again broadened in 105.10, a reference to the rest of 205-CMR for the purposes of procurement or hiring of independent investigators. Otherwise, the substance of this, sorry, and then the last change is in 105.10, all the way at the bottom of page 16, that's just a technical change to the title of the deputy director for the IAB that I think even if it's changed over time or was not reflected properly in the first instance. So that's that, those are the changes we're recommending. We can walk through the comments briefly and explain why we did not think any of the comments were appropriate for making changes at this point. Okay, before we go to the comments, any questions regarding the changes, questioners? Okay, let's go to the comments. I think we understand that you didn't adopt them, but they are extensive, so we should understand them. Sure, yeah, yeah. So this starts on page seven. Some of these are, they are extensive, but they're somewhat thematic. The 105, the comment from BEDMGM on 105.04, and this is a comment they made in a few places. The changes are fairly subtle, but it was requesting that there be a notice to operators whose information is shared with third parties, including law enforcement agencies, as part of the regulation. We don't recommend that as a matter of an enforcement of an investigatory agency's power to be required to automatically share with an entity they might be investigating. There may be other protections to the extent they're bringing enforcement or the commission's bringing enforcement, where you would have to share those, but to have it as a blanket rule might compromise an investigation. So that's why we're not recommending that. Any questions? I guess any questions on that general theme, because I think this is the one you'll see pop up in a few places. I'll set. Okay. Then another change was also from BEDMGM on 105.04. This shows up at the bottom of page eight, excuse me. A requirement that any information shared with, for instance, federal agencies be done through secure methods. Again, it's our understanding that the IEP does obviously take, and the commission takes confidentiality very seriously and security very seriously to put it in sort of a standard that suggests that there's some additional right for a third party did not make sense here. 105.04, that on top of page nine, again, still orders and directed. This comment predates the change that I just suggested, of course, but it's suggested to remove without limitation from the phrase, if yours shall have power and authority without limitation to issue orders and et cetera. And they suggested the power should not be limitless. It should be subject to a reasonableness standard. I think this is misconstruing what the phrase without limitation is intended to do here. It's intended to make clear that there may be other sources of authority. And that this is not the only source of authority. However, with the addition of the cross reference to 232, at least for sports weight-dring purposes, there is a much clearer direction of how that authority is to be exercised anyway. So that's why we are not recommending that. Similar comment on 105.05, almost identical comment. Again, I think that misconstrues the purpose of those words. This is back to 105.10.5 on page 10. There are sort of two comments again with respect to management of confidential or sensitive information by contract investigators. Again, first of all, I think the change is being made and the context we're making them in is to include sports weight-dring. We're not trying to change how the bureau or contract investigators do their work and how the commission engages them. So we didn't think this was the appropriate time to add that language. Further, the first change in particular suggesting that contract investigators have to delete or destroy confidential information. Putting that in the regulation may unduly tie the hands of the commission or its contract investigators in terms of retaining information if an investigation is not done, but is done, but there's a need to retain information for instance, to assist law enforcement. So again, we're not recommending any changes of this kind at the moment. And I believe that's it for the comments. That's right. So the drag that we would be moving on is on page 13 commissioners, right? Amina, 13. Yes. So the one that you're moving on will be the ones that start on page 13, correct. Any questions for Amina and team commissioners? Are you prepared to move on those commissioners? Commissioner Hill. Madam Chair, I would move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205, CMR 105 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Thank you. Any questions commissioners? All right, I'll take a vote. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Like commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. Groups. Yes. Surprise you're on that. Turning miraculous, my apologies. All right. Are you still on? I believe I'm going to be kicking it over back to, to Yang, thank you. For 143 followed by Paul commoners for the rest. Okay. Let's hope we don't see you again. Thank you, but I know we'll see you in the near future. Okay. Continuing on then to Yang, do you want us on page 17? Yes, starting on packet page 17. Good morning, madam chair and commissioners. You have in your packet drafts of three regulations. Although each of these regulations are individual agenda items, I'm introducing them as a set since they are interrelated. The first regulation is 205 CMR 143.07. Gaming devices and electronic gaming equipment, which governs the technical standards for gaming devices and electronic equipment, specifically as they relate to kiosk and has been amended to include an updated reference to a more recent version of the technical standards cited within the regulation. The second regulation is 205 CMR 243, sports wagering equipment, which governs and adopts the GLI technical standards required for sports wagering equipment. And then finally, the third regulation is 205 CMR 244, approval of sports wagering equipment and testing laboratories, which governs the process for the technical approval and testing of sports wagering equipment to be utilized in all sports wagering activities. You will also find an amended small business impact statement for each of these regulations in your packet. When these three regulations came before you on November 17th, 2022, you voted to promulgate by emergency and also to begin the formal regulation process. The regulation has been working its way through the process and the public hearing was held on January 31st, 2023, presided over by commissioner, commissioner, Irina O'Brien. We received comments for these regulations, which I'll ask ANK to discuss some more detail. At this time, we're looking for a vote to the finalized promulgation process and file the regulation with the secretary of state. I'll now turn it over to ANK to discuss the comments and answer any questions. Great, thank you, Ying. And so, ANK is the sub attorney commoners, Paul. Good morning, Paul. Good morning, commissioners, madam chair. I'm going to start with 2.43. I apologize, we may have had a slight internal miscommunication about who has 1.43. That's okay, Paul. 2.43 also appears later in the packet, so please start on 3.43. 7 for the copy that we'll be discussing today. Okay, page 30. 37. 37, the comments preceded, got it. Just one minute, there we go. So as a reminder in general, 205-CMR 243, adopt GLI 33 standards for event wagering and then tweak it in a number of ways to conform to our statute, to conform to our practices and to conform to updates to best practices nationwide. Based on a handful of helpful comments from DraftKings, GeoComply, and BetMGM, we're recommending a few tweaks. I'll walk you through those edits as they appear in this draft and then I will take the remaining comments one by one. So the first edit appears on page 38. It shortens the time between location checks, pardon me, 37, it shortens the time between location checks for typical patrons from 20 minutes, to 20 minutes from 30 minutes. This responds to a comment from GeoComply and we made this change with GLI as a bison input. The next change is going to appear at the bottom of page 38 and at the top of page 39. It responds to a comment from DraftKings. As written, GLI 33 restricts employees of operators from placing sports wagers with any operator whatsoever. This is more expansive than what is required from under chapter 23N, which only requires that employees be prevented from placing bets with their own employer. And we understand it's more expansive than your typical practice nationwide. So after discussion with GLI, we recommend partially narrowing this restriction, which is what the language, the edit in front of you does. Employees, this language would prevent employees from placing bets with their own employer or with any operator tethered to their employer. We also realized that the existing language didn't necessarily cover qualifiers who were not employees, directors, owners or officers. So we added qualifiers in to get that extra coverage. Also, I do need to apologize, but there is one error in here. This should say replace section A24A rather than replace the first section of the A24, this program, replace the first sentence of section A24. It should be one instead. So this, the edit on subparagraph two starts with replace the first sentence of section A24. It should say replace section A24 parentheses A. Got it, thank you. So the next two changes appear in red line on the first half of page 40. And these respond to two comments from that MGM. Well, do you mind just going back to the exception clause in that red line, the exception in private, aren't any of that accepted in private rules? Yes. Thanks. At the top 39. So that appeared in GLI 33 already and I understand it's a standard term. So does that address the issue that they raise around DIC sports? Is that one of those? I don't know, except in private rules where they're associated with the operate. They only disclosed and have GLI's on. Okay, we can hold on that. Maybe GLI can join us on it. All right. I think the larger objective is likely to ensure that is likely to respond to the fact that the integrity concerns of an employee of the operator who might have access to private information or greater access to information about the workings of the platform should not be betting against the general public, but the same integrity concerns don't arise when they're betting in private pools where their identity is clearly disclosed. Got it, thank you. So the next two edits appear on the first half of page 40. So these both respond to comments from that MGM. The first change just concerns when operators are required to forward an independent technical expert security audit to the commission. Bet MGM asked that we change conducted to completed so that it's slightly clearer. We've read it slightly clearer and so we recommend adopting that edit. The second item is the partial adoption of a comment. Bet MGM asked that we narrow the obligation to provide a remediation plan to those items which the independent technical expert identifies as high priority. That's a fine default rule, but it can't be the absolute rule because that would undermine the commission's authority over security issues. And it would invite the operators to haggle with their technical experts over the classification of items. So we adopted Bet MGM's proposals, the default rule, but added another clause, retain it so that, which retains the commission's authority to order them to take corrective action with respect to any other item identified by the independent technical expert. Mr. Chair, is there any questions so far for Paul? Okay, we're all set, Commissioner Skinner. You're done, thank you. I'm okay. Thanks, Jordan. So we have one more edit at the bottom of page 40, top of page 41, and here, it's all right, I'm going to share my screen because I think this one is going to look somewhat arcane unless you can actually see how it's incorporated into GLI 33. Just as a word of background, this concerns wager cancellations. As it stands, GLI 33 requires operators to obtain prior commission approval for all wager cancellations, even though it was made in accordance with the operator's approved house rules or internal controls. The need for the commission to weigh in on every single cancellation is unnecessary and it's also inconsistent with 205CMR238.35. And so we recommend adopting these two tweaks in order to conform the two regulations and to streamline appropriate wager cancellations. So the edits made by these tweaks to 205CMR243 show up in the relevant portion of GLI 33 as in red line and highlighting here. Any questions on that? I think we're all set. Do you want to go bring us back to the comments? Yes, Madam Chair. So the first edit that we do not recommend adopting appears on page 31 of the packet. So this deals with the minimum time period before players who set deposit limits can adjust, can lengthen those, sorry, can adjust those deposit limits upwards. The basic concern that draft Kings has expressed is that 205CMR243 and GLI 33 set a much shorter time period before a player can make an upwards adjustment. They undo the daily fantasy sports regulations enacted by the Attorney General's office. So operators who offer both sports wagering and daily fantasy sports from the same wallet must adhere to the Attorney General's longer time period for both, while operators who offer only sports wagering or who offer a sports wagering specific wallet can conform to the shorter time period from our regulations. They have asked that if we lengthen our one day time period match the Attorney General's 90 day time period. We recommend declining this request. This only affects operators who offer both sports wagering and daily fantasy sports from the same wallet. And draft Kings can pursue a change in the Attorney General's daily fantasy sports regulations. And then the final comment that we do not recommend adopting appears on page 32. draft King is asking for a tweaked particular multi-factor authentication requirements that appear in GLI 33. We've checked with GLI who's confirmed these are industry standard requirements that draft Kings complies with. And in light of that, we don't believe that an amendment is needed. On that point, Paul, is it that we require the multi-factor authentication or do they have to have the option? Or is it where they do require uncertain components and then there's an option for other components? I believe it's this comment is on transactions where multi-factor authentication is required. Okay. So where draft King says it's not mandated by other jurisdictions, GLI says in fact, what we have is consistent with other jurisdictions. So it just may be a misunderstanding of some sort. Yes, I think the regulation does not cover what draft Kings is concerned it covers. Okay. If there's any continuing confusion, draft Kings can reach out to executive director Wells on that point, just to make sure we're all clear. Sounds like it is not a concern, Karen. All right, I'm sure how do you have a question on this? Not at all. Ready to move forward. Yep. Any other questions on these comments? The rest we were responding to in some way. So this is, sorry, Madam Chair, this is commissioner Brian. I just got back on my computer and was able to pull this up and sort of listen along. I was wondering if we could go back to page 31 and the first comment in terms of the 24 hours versus the 90 days of the DFS regs. So I'm just wondering, they make a representation because of shared wallet that they're not going to be able to offer less than 90 days for limitation. I guess I'm trying to get trying to figure this out is are they saying that they would have to be 90 days? Yes. To make it less restrictive? I think to be, it's actually more restrictive, right? I'm sorry, to make the limit less restrictive is what I should say. Right, I think what Paul was saying is that, the attorney general's regulation competes with powers. So I think they would have. No, I get that part. And I guess what I was trying to figure out is it seems like the AG DFS reg is more protective of sort of making sure you don't increase your limits. And so a question that I throw out for us is, I'd love to know why that was. And we're doing 24 hours, they're doing 90 days. That's a huge delta. And so. A very big delta of the 24 hour period. It's my understanding is more consistent with sports wagering protocols. And are we, do we look into that at all? Attorney commoners? Is 90 days more likely to be the number of days or is 24 hours more likely to be the upgrade time? Anybody look at that? I don't believe we've, we have not gone out and independently researched other jurisdictions, but I believe this is, the 24 hour period is standard from GLI 33. Yeah. Yeah. So I guess the question I have that obviously not for today, given the pace that we're on, but I'd love to get that information because I'm curious. That's a pretty big delta. And I just like to have more information about why that is. And is that true in the DFS world? Or is that more a Massachusetts anomaly? In which case being in Massachusetts, I think we should talk about it at a meeting in the not too distant future. That's absolutely appropriate. We can look at it. I think I'd like to know what the, if in fact other jurisdictions are following the 24 hours. Right. You know, remember that I don't know how long that drag has been in place, Commissioner O'Brien on the 90 days, but we certainly can have conversations with the AG's office to see their thinking. And it may be a shift, but I don't want you to think because of the pace you mentioned the pace we're on. I don't think that's an issue right now. This is something that's before us. And we could make that change. My recommendation without further evidence that we're our original drag is inconsistent with the industry that we are currently regulating. I wouldn't recommend a change, but I'm all ears. Anybody wants to entertain an expansion on this period of time. I don't want pace to be an issue here. Yeah. So I guess my point is I don't know if I would recommend that because I just don't feel like I have enough information in front of me today because this is really the first noticing or someone's flagging the Delta for me. So. Okay. So you're okay. Then we stay with respect to the recommendation today to not adopt that, but we put it on for if the team take a look at that, find out why, to any explanation on the Delta. Yes. Yeah. And even other jurisdictions or is there a Delta DFS across jurisdictions or is this a Massachusetts issue where maybe we have some dialogue with the AG's office in terms of why they did that? Yeah. It does show that there'll be times where the regulations may not be completely aligned and we'll just have good open communications with the AG's office to work it out, but they are two different industries in a sense. All right. Good. So we'll continue anything else on those comments. As I think Paul pointed out, the rest were either fully adopted or partially adopted. All right. Commissioner Maynard, I don't know. He may have shifted. Oh, he's still there. So, I don't know if you can hear me. We can, we can. To Commissioner O'Brien's point, I was sitting here thinking too, Paul said that Drafting could go and speak to the Attorney General's office and try to get a change, a right change there. I am kind of interested in knowing what, I mean, it's rare that a operator comes to us and says, hey, we want to be more restricted, not less restricted. I am interested in knowing what the technological hurdles are for companies that do present both products and thinking about how we address this. So, and so for Drafting's, I'm not sure if it's even so much technical, but they, I think even if they did have the technology, they would be obligated because of their single wallet issue to not bifurcate their practice to comply with the 2X. I think they were hoping then that the entire industry would shift to the more restrictive standard. But also you're- I totally get that, Madam Chair. What I'm saying is I'm wondering if this is a technological problem that can be overcome, right? That's what I'm really asking just to be frank. Yeah, and I think that that is, I think on the single wallet, that bifurcation issue for a few things are important. So to follow up then to the team for Commissioner Maynard, if we could also just look at what the, you know, if in fact the standards are gonna be different, are there technological challenges for Drafting's and others with both the other chemistry sports that also impact this issue, right? So we can explore both. Commissioner Maynard would you like that? Yep, that works. Okay, thanks. All right, anything else? Okay, I mean, I guess if there are no other questions, we would take a motion on this is- I think I see Commissioner Skinner ready to make one, right? I'm ready when everyone else is. Okay, Commissioner Skinner. I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205-CMR 243 as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any further edits? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. Aye. Excellent, and I go yes, five-zero. Thank you. Aye. Okay, so what's next? Is this Commissioner, is it Attorney Comerter? So are you back on or is somebody else handling this? Madam Chair, you'll have either Attorney Macarius or Attorney Lee next, and I'm just confirming which one. It's- Okay, no problem. It'll be any Lee. It'll be any Lee. You won't have me back. For today. I got the message loud and clear. He won't be back. Thank you, Attorney Macarius. And Paul, are you all done for the day? I believe so. Thank you, Attorney Comerters, to both of you. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner. Now we have Attorney Lee. Thank you. All right, thank you everyone. Good morning, commissioners, and good morning, Madam Chair. So I am going to walk us through the comments received to 244, which is on the approval of sports wagering equipment and testing labs. You'll see 244 begins in your packet at page 42. And so overall, the commission received a handful of comments and questions, clarifying questions about these regulations. Ultimately, we don't suggest adopting any of them. So I'll start first with the questions. We received two related questions. One was from Penn and the other was from Canby, which I understand is going to be a vendor to some of our operators. And this question was a clarifying question about 244.03. They specifically raised that in GLI's Change Management Program Guide, GLI permits either operators or their technology suppliers or vendors to handle change management related items directly with the commission. So the way that the regulation is currently written, it appears as if the operator is the only entity that can submit information for change management policies and procedures to the commission. After conversation with GLI, we would suggest the commission clarify that in accordance with GLI's Change Management Program, vendors are permitted to submit information about change management policies and procedures directly to the commission. However, if a vendor does submit that information to the commission, that does not relieve the vendor, sorry, relieve the operator of the operator's ultimate responsibility over a change management. The operator is still responsible for their change management, even if it's the vendor who is the one who is immediately aware of the information and submitting that information to the commission. If there are no questions on that one, I'll move on to the next question. Commissioners, are you all set? The only question I have, madam chairs, Annie, what page are you on at this point? So that was 244.03, and apologies, I just lost. Page 49, maybe it was the 10-1, and then the can be one, one of the can be's didn't come through, and I asked Crystal to have legal senate to our email, but the other can be one was page 50. There's one that starts on 47, but that's the one that's not complete and was rectified this morning. Thank you. Should we see that in our email? I believe so. Okay, let's just see. So the whole packet came through Crystal, is that what it is? Madam chair, I sense the, just that comment language. Let me check what time that went through and what the subject was. Thanks, Denise. At 9.54 to 44.03 public comment is the subject sign. I have got my glasses, Harry. Too many people, there it is, I see it now. Thanks, that's really helpful, okay. So that's a clarifier, thank you. Yes, this is a clarification question. Yeah, so the two asked the same question, got it. Everybody else all said, I don't know if you, there was a comment from Cambi that wasn't completely clear. I don't know if you want to read it, those who don't have, I'm sorry, I think it's. I have it up, I think we can take it down when you guys. There you have it up now, thanks. Now I see, okay, all set, commissioners, thanks. Great. Okay, all right. And so the next clarification question comes to us through Bette MGM. They asked, their comment is provided on page 48 of the packet, it's at the very end. This is a question with respect to 244.04 section six. That specific section is on packet page 45. And so Bette MGM asked the questions if a testing lab relies on data from another commission certified testing lab. Is it permissible if both labs are not ISO certified or do not accept the testing results? So I think that just to sort of clarify this question after discussion with GLI, the provision of 244.04 subsection six permits a commission certified independent testing lab to rely on the results of another commission certified independent testing lab. ISO certification refers to another organization's certification sort of similar to GLI, it's just an industry-wide certification. However, because the gist of 244.04 subsection six is that both labs have to be certified by the commission in order for one lab to rely on another lab's report for a purposes of complying with 244. If both labs are not certified by the commission or they do not accept the testing results in 244.046 simply does not come into play. In other words, because the commission's regulation requires both labs to be certified by the commission also requires the lab relying on the other lab to accept those results. The scenario that the MGM poses here just simply wouldn't be permissible under that specific section of the regulations. If there are no questions, I'm happy to turn to the two suggested amendments that were proposed by the MGM. I think we're all set to hear those. Okay, so the first comment that MGM makes or first suggested amendment that they make is located on your packet at page 47, it's the very end. They propose replacing promptly in 244.02 subsection six with within 48 hours of confirming an issue. After discussion with GLI, we understand that there's no hardened, fast rule about what promptness means in any given situation. There might be some serious issues that require reporting to the commission as soon as the operators made aware of it. So in less than 48 hours, there might be issues that on their face seem a little bit less pressing and therefore the operators can spend a little bit more time investigating whether or not there truly is an issue before reporting it to the commission. So we would not suggest adopting this amendment from the MGM. Any questions on that? Okay, thank you. And then finally, the last comment is at the top of packet page 48 again from the MGM. They suggest adding a provision to 244.04 subsection four that would make the log or communication that's submitted by an operator to the commission as confidential. Their concern is based on that a log could contain sort of an email or discussion that could contain trademark secrets or technical investigations. However, for the reasons that Mina stated earlier today, the commission ultimately doesn't have authority over what is considered a public record and what is not. That's where the secretary's office to the side will also note that this log is not considered part of an operator's report. And so there, which is itself a public record by our regulations because it's not part of the report and it's not clearly a public records. There's no need to sort of add this extra layer of confidentiality that in any case would not be appropriate for the commission to include in the regulations here. Questions for Amy on this? Okay, I guess I'd like to thank those who participated and provided comments throughout for today's review. So thank you to everyone who contributed. No further questions? Do we have a motion on this number 244? Madam chair, I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 205 CMR 244 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to follow the required documentation with the secretary of the commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any questions or edits? Okay. Commissioner Bryan? Hi. Commissioner Hill? Hi. Commissioner Skinner? Hi. Commissioner Maynard? Hi. And then I thought, yes. Can we circle back to 143? Yes. So we're going to circle back to 143.07 kiosks which is on page 18 of your packet. I'm going to cover this today. It's a short one. It's very short, yeah. So we did not receive any comments on this reg. I'll walk through it in a second but we did not receive any comments on this reg. So we would recommend adopting the final version as it was originally adopted by the commission and just as a quick reminder, this reg is pretty straightforward. What it does or what it originally did is it adopted GLI-20 regarding kiosks for our gaming licensees. And so the amendments that were made to it and that are currently effect now include sportsway during operators and vendors as also having to adhere to GLI-20 kiosks. It also updated the version of GLI-20s that all the different operators have to adhere to. And so we, again, no comments on this one. So we would recommend approving as is. The final version is on page. It's on page 18. So the one that's redlined is the final. All of those are adopted, okay? Yeah, because this is an amendment to the 143. Yeah. Any questions on this? Okay, I see Commissioner Hill leaning in. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement and the draft of 205, CMR 143 as included in the commission's packet and discussed here today. And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any questions or edits? Recommended changes. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? Hi. Commissioner Lainard? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking because he popped in. Commissioner Hill? Hi. Commissioner Skinner? Hi. Lainard? Hi. And I vote yes. Five-zero. I'll set on that. Excellent work. Legal, do we have anything else? I think we're all good today. Thank you. Excellent, Caitlin. Thank you, everyone. Thank you to every member of our team and to A&K. Thank you very much, Annie. I think she has excused herself and quite properly to thank her for her work. All right. Commissioner, do we have any additional updates that we need to address now? Sounds like no. Then I know that we have one commissioner who has to travel for some family needs. So he travels, commissioners, do I have a motion to adjourn? I'll adjourn. Second. Commissioner O'Brien? Hi. Commissioner Hill? Hi. Commissioner Skinner? Hi. Commissioner Maynard? Hi. And I vote yes. Five-zero. Have a great day, everyone, and thank you to the entire team. Thank you so much.