NOTICES
Notice of Comments Issued
[41 Pa.B. 5725]
[Saturday, October 22, 2011]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 regulation. The agencies 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final-form regulation must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.
IRRC Close of the Public Comments Reg. No. Agency/Title Comment Period Issued 125-155 Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
Table Game Rules for Blackjack and
Pai Gow Poker
41 Pa.B. 4421 (August 13, 2011)9/12/11 10/12/11
Comments of the Independent Regulatory
Review Commission
Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
Regulation #125-155 (IRRC #2901)
Table Game Rules for Blackjack and Pai Gow Poker
October 12, 2011 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the August 13, 2011 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. Adverse effects on prices, productivity or competition.
Section 25 of the Regulatory Analysis Form asks how this regulation compares with those of other states and how it will affect Pennsylvania's ability to compete with other states. The Board's response to these questions is that the regulations are consistent with the objectives and requirements of the Gaming Act. The Board also notes that having more advantageous rules of play in Blackjack should attract more patrons to gaming in the Commonwealth versus other states and should not negatively affect Pennsylvania's ability to compete with other states.
While we appreciate the Board's response to these questions, we seek more information on the house advantage that these regulations establish for each of the table games contained in this rulemaking. We ask the Board to provide this information and to compare it to other gaming jurisdictions, including New Jersey. This information will assist this Commission in determining if the regulation is in the public interest.
2. Implementation procedures.
This proposed rulemaking includes references to regulations that have not been promulgated. The sections of this rulemaking that include the references are:
• § 633a.2(b)
• § 633a.2(b)(3)(iii)
• § 633a.2(c)
• § 633a.2(d)
• § 633a.5(g)(2)(ii)
• § 633a.5(h)
• § 633a.7(a)
• § 645a.2(b)
• § 645a.2(c)(1)
• § 645a.2(c)(2)
• § 645a.2(c)(3)
• § 645a.2(e)
• § 645a.5(g)(2)(ii)
• § 645a.5(h)
• § 645a.5(j)
• § 645a.8(a)It is our understanding that the references are to other Board table game regulations that will be promulgated in the near future. We are concerned that this rulemaking will be finalized before the other regulations are finalized. If this occurs, it could lead to a confusing regulatory environment for those that must comply with the rulemaking. In the Preamble to the final version of this rulemaking, we ask the Board to explain its plan for promulgating all of these regulations in a manner that ensures all references are valid.
3. Clarity and ambiguity.
Throughout this proposed rulemaking, licensed facilities that hold table game operation certificates (certificate holders) are required to obtain certain approvals from the Board's Bureau of Gaming Operations, the Bureau of Gaming Laboratory Operations, or the Bureau of Casino Compliance. For example, Section 633a.2(b) states, in part, the following: ''The layout for a Blackjack table shall be approved by the Bureau of Gaming Operations and contain, at a minimum. . . :'' We are concerned that the proposed rulemaking does not include the procedures for obtaining the necessary approvals. To assist the regulated community in understanding how to submit the requests for certain approvals, we suggest that the final-form regulation include the procedures or appropriate cross-references to where the procedures can be found. We have identified the following sections that contain references to approvals:
• § 633a.4(f)
• § 633a.5(a)
• § 633a.6(e)
• § 633a.6(f)
• § 633a.7(r)
• § 633a.11(c)
• § 633a.12(a)
• § 633a.12(b)
• § 633a.13(f)
• § 633a.13(g)
• § 633a.13(j)
• § 645a.2(d)
• § 645a.4(e)
• § 645a.5(a)
• § 645a.7(e)
• § 645a.7(f)
• § 645a.11(a)(1)
• § 645a.11(c)
• § 645a.12(a)
• § 645a.12(e)
• § 645a.12(i)
• § 645a.13(b)
• § 645a.13(c)
• § 645a.13(d)
• § 645a.13(e)(2)
• § 645a.13(f)4. Section 633a.7. Procedure for dealing the cards; completion of each round of play.—Reasonableness.
Subsection (n) requires a dealer to draw additional cards in the game of Blackjack until he has a hard or soft total of 17, 18, 19, 20 or 21. Casino patrons have submitted comments in favor of this provision. They note that this provision, along with others, is the reason they patronize Pennsylvania casinos more than casinos in other states. A certificate holder also submitted comments on this section stating that this requirement limits its ability to maximize gross table game revenue. It suggests that the provision be amended to allow certificate holders the option of staying or hitting on a soft 17. This change would align Pennsylvania regulations with standards of other gaming jurisdictions. In the Preamble to the final-form regulation, we ask the Board to explain its rationale for this provision and why it is appropriate for both Pennsylvania certificate holders and patrons of casinos.
5. Section 633a.8. Insurance wager.—Reasonableness.
A certificate holder submitted comments on this section proposing that it be amended to allow certificate holders to offer ''even money'' in lieu of an insurance wager when the player's hand contains a two-card Blackjack. The commentator notes that once a player is dealt a two-card Blackjack and decides to take insurance, the player will always end up with a net gain equal to the original wager. The commentator believes that allowing this option would be more efficient and customer friendly. We believe the suggestion is reasonable and ask the Board to consider it as it prepares the final-form regulation.
6. Section 645a.3. Cards; number of decks.—Reasonableness.
A commentator has suggested that the requirement of changing cards used in an automatic dealing shoe for the game of Pai Gow Poker be amended from every eight hours to twelve hours. They note that when the game is halted to change cards, revenue is not being generated. If the Board believes this amendment would not hinder the integrity of gaming, we suggest that it be incorporated into the final-form rulemaking.
7. Section 645a.9. Procedures for dealing the cards from the hand.—Reasonableness.
Subsection (a)(1) requires an automated shuffling device to be used for the game of Pai Gow Poker if the cards are dealt from the dealer's hand. Has the Board considered allowing certificate holders the option of using an automated shuffling device or manually shuffling the cards? This flexibility could assist in instances when the automated shuffling device becomes inoperable. We suggest that the Board amend the final-form rulemaking accordingly, or explain why doing so would diminish the integrity of gaming.
SILVAN B. LUTKEWITTE, III,
Chairperson
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 11-1803. Filed for public inspection October 21, 2011, 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.
