NOTICES

INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION

Notice of Comments Issued

[45 Pa.B. 6174]
[Saturday, October 10, 2015]

 Section 5(g) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(g)) provides that the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) may issue comments within 30 days of the close of the public comment period. The Commission comments are based upon the criteria contained in section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b).

 The Commission has issued comments on the following proposed regulations. The agency must consider these comments in preparing the final-form regulation. The final-form regulation must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.

Reg. No.	Agency/Title	Close of the Public Comment Period	IRRC Comments Issued
125-188	Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Table Game Rules of Play 45 Pa.B. 4185 (August 1, 2015)	8/31/15	9/30/15
125-189	Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Hybrid Gaming Tables and Electronic  Wagering Terminals 45 Pa.B. 4170 (August 1, 2015)	8/31/15	9/30/15

Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Regulation #125-188 (IRRC #3111)

Table Game Rules of Play

September 30, 2015

 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the August 1, 2015 Pennsylvania Bulletin. Our comments are based on criteria in Section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b). Section 5.1(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(a)) directs the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (Board) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.

1. Preamble.—Clarity.

 The Preamble states that Chapter 671a (relating to Lunar Poker) is a complete rewrite of the game from temporary regulations. For the final-form regulation submittal, we ask the Board to explain in the Preamble why this provision was rewritten and what amendments were made.

2. Section 611a.2. Minimum proficiency requirements.—Clarity.

 Subsection (d) adds a provision for an ''experienced dealer.'' The regulation does not specify the standards that must be met for a dealer to be considered an experienced dealer. We recommend adding the standards to the regulation, such as a documented number of hours of experience, that qualify a dealer as an experienced dealer.

3. Section 669a.6. Raise It Up Stud Poker hand rankings.—Clarity.

 In Chapter 667a.6 relating to Flop Poker, Paragraphs (b)(2) to (9) include language describing the highest and lowest ranking within a category of winning hand. For example, Paragraph (2) states:

A straight flush, which is a hand, other than a royal flush, consisting of five cards of the same suit in consecutive ranking, with king, queen, jack, 10 and 9 being the highest ranking straight flush and ace, 2, 3, 4 and 5 being the lowest ranking straight flush. (Emphasis added.)

 The parallel provisions in this chapter, Paragraphs (b)(2) to (9), do not include the further explanation of highest ranking and the lowest ranking, as shown in the emphasized language for a straight flush. We recommend adding this clarifying language, as appropriate, to Paragraphs (b)(2) to (9). The same comment applies to Subsection 674a.6(b).

4. Section 671a.11. Procedures for completion of each round of play.—Clarity.

 We have two concerns. First, Subparagraph (f)(2)(ii) provides an example that states:

For example, if a player's winning hand contained two aces, a king, 8 and 9, the player would be paid out for the pair of aces that beat the dealer's hand but would also be paid out for the ace-king. If a player purchased a sixth card, all six cards may be considered for purposes of the second payout.

 In the context of Paragraph (2) and this example in Subparagraph (ii), it is our interpretation that the dealer's hand would be an ace-king. Therefore, while the player beat the dealer with two aces and should collect that winning, we question whether the player should also collect winnings for an ace-king, given that the dealer also had an ace-king. This would appear to contradict Subparagraph (iii) which states that if the dealer's hand and the player's hand are equal, the dealer returns the player's wagers. We ask the Board to review Paragraph (2) and explain the Board's intent.

 Second, Subparagraph (f)(2)(iii) states ''. . . If the dealer's highest ranking five-card Poker hand is: . . . (iii) Equal in rank with the dealer's hand. . . .'' This appears to be a typographical error and Subparagraph (iii) should read ''Equal in rank with the player's hand.'' (Emphasis added.)

Subsection (h)

 Under Paragraph (2), if a count of the cards reveals that 52 cards are not in the deck, the entire deck of cards shall be removed. Why doesn't this provision also direct the dealer to determine if cards were misdealt?

5. Section 674a.2. Criss-Cross Poker table physical characteristics.—Clarity.

 Paragraph (b)(2) states the table must contain ''Five separate betting areas for each player designated for the placement of the Ante Wagers required under § 674a.7(d) (relating to wagers).'' The cross-referenced Subsection (d) only specifies two wagers: Ante Across and Ante Down. The Board should review this section to clarify what the five wagers are.

6. Section 674a.10. Procedure for dealing the cards from an automated dealing shoe.—Economic impact; Reasonableness; Clarity.

 Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment, Inc. (GGE) commented that the procedure for dealing cards from an automated dealing shoe in Subsection (b) differs from the dealing procedures for dealing from a manual shoe in Subsection 674a.8(d) and dealing from the hand in Subsection 674a.9(b). GGE requests an amendment so that dealing from any of the mediums (manual shoe, automated shoe or hand) is consistent. We recommend amending Subsection (b) to be consistent with Subsections 674a.8(d) and Subsection 674a.9(b).

7. Section 674a.12. Payout odds.—Reasonableness; Economic impact.

 GGE also requests additional language stating that a maximum amount is payable to a player on a single hand. GGE cites six other games in existing regulation that include language for a $50,000 maximum payout. We recommend that the Board either add this language or explain why this language should not be included for this game.

8. Chapter 675a. High Roll Dice.—Clarity.

 We note that every other chapter includes a definitions section, but Chapter 675a does not. Should terms used in Chapter 675a also be defined?

9. Section 676a.11. Procedures for completion of each round of play.—Clarity.

 The definition of Gopher Wager and Subparagraph (d)(5)(i) do not appear to be consistent. A Gopher Wager is defined in Section 676a.1 as ''An optional wager that a player's four cards will contain an ace.'' Paragraph (d)(5) and Subparagraph (i) state: ''For all players who placed a Gopher Wager, if any of the player's four cards: (i) Is not an ace, the dealer shall collect the player's losing Gopher Wager.'' The definition implies the player needs a single ace to win the wager, whereas the wording of Paragraph (d)(5)(i) could be interpreted to mean the player would have to have four aces to win. Our specific concern is with the phrase ''if any of the player's cards is not an ace.'' The Board should reconcile these provisions.

10. Miscellaneous Clarity.

 • Subpart E is titled ''Slot Machines and Associated Equipment,'' however this subpart now addresses table games. We suggest updating the title to better reflect the content of the subpart.

 • Paragraph 667a.2(b)(8) references Paragraph (6), but Paragraph (6) already specifies when a sign is required. Should the reference be to Paragraph (7)?

 • The last sentence of Subsection 667a.8(e) has a typographical error because it cross-references itself, subsection (e). We recommend correcting this cross-reference.

 • Paragraph 670a.12(d)(2) appears to have a typographical error. Should the word ''resent'' be changed to ''reset''?

 • Under Subsection 671a.6(a), a straight flush is described twice as only having four cards. These descriptions should be corrected to include five cards.

Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Regulation #125-189 (IRRC #3112)

Hybrid Gaming Tables and Electronic Wagering Terminals

September 30, 2015

 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the August 1, 2015 Pennsylvania Bulletin. Our comments are based on criteria in Section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b). Section 5.1(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(a)) directs the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (Board) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.

1.  Determining whether the regulation is in the public interest; Clarity.

 Section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) directs this Commission to determine whether a regulation is in the public interest. More specifically, under § 745.5b(b)(3)(iii), the Commission must determine the need for the regulation. To make that determination, the Commission must analyze the text of the proposed rulemaking and the reasons for the new or amended language.

 The explanation of the regulation in the Preamble is not sufficient to allow this Commission to determine if the regulation is in the public interest. The Board did not provide detailed explanations for the following amendments where hybrid gaming tables are included:

 • § 461a.4 (relating to Submission for testing and approval)

 • § 461a.26 (relating to Testing and software installation on the live gaming floor)

 • § 465a.11(b)(9) (relating to Slot machine licensee's organization; jobs compendium)

 • § 607a.2(a)(6) (relating to Table game device master list)

 Also, where the Board excludes hybrid gaming tables from provisions that are being applied to electronic wagering terminals, the Preamble should explain the Board's rationale. For example, the requirements relating to the possession, movement and storage of slot machines and fully automated electronic gaming tables that are being amended to include electronic wagering terminals, would not apply to hybrid gaming tables (§§ 463a.1—463a.5, and 463a.7). Without an explanation of this proposed change to requirements that seemingly should apply to both electronic wagering terminals and hybrid gaming tables, we cannot determine if this regulation is in the public interest. How will the Board address the movement and storage of hybrid gaming tables?

 In the Preamble submitted with the final-form regulation, the Board should provide a description of the amendments proposed for each section of the regulation and explain in detail why the amendments are needed. The Board should also clarify the differences between slot machines, fully automated electronic gaming tables, electronic wagering terminals, electronic gaming tables, table games and hybrid gaming tables in the Preamble of the final-form regulation.

2.  Miscellaneous Clarity.

 • The Preamble states that Section 465a.9 (relating to Surveillance system; surveillance department control; surveillance department restrictions) has been amended to apply to electronic wagering terminals and hybrid gaming tables. However, only electronic wagering terminals have been added to this section. The Board should either revise the Preamble in the final-form regulation or amend the Annex to include hybrid gaming tables.

 • In Section 461a.15 (relating to Casino management systems) and Section 461a.16 (relating to Player tracking systems) the Board has added ''table games and table game devices'' to these sections. Our concern is that ''a slot machine licensee'' may or may not possess a table games operation certificate. We ask the Board to ensure that terms used throughout the final-form regulation are consistent and appropriate.

 • In Section 465a.11 (relating to Slot machine licensee's organization; jobs compendium), the existing language in Paragraph (b)(7) refers to ''a slot machine licensee that has a certificate to operate table games'' while proposed Paragraph (b)(9) uses the term ''certificate holder.'' Likewise, in Section 465a.19 (relating to Acceptance of tips or gratuities from patrons) proposed Paragraph (g)(2), the term ''certificate holder'' is also used. The term ''certificate holder'' is not defined in the proposed regulation. For consistency, the Board should either use the phrase ''a slot machine licensee that has a certificate to operate table games'' or define the term ''certificate holder'' in the final-form regulation.

 • We recommend the Board amend the titles of Sections 461a.14 (relating to Slot monitoring systems) and 465a.11 (relating to Slot machine licensee's organization; jobs compendium) to reflect the addition of the new gaming technology to the content of the section.

JOHN F. MIZNER, Esq., 
Chairperson

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 15-1815. Filed for public inspection October 9, 2015, 9:00 a.m.]

---

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

---