RWB-25-10-00009-P Types of Harness Races to be Offered

6/23/10 N.Y. St. Reg. RWB-25-10-00009-P

NEW YORK STATE REGISTER

VOLUME XXXII, ISSUE 25

June 23, 2010

RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES

RACING AND WAGERING BOARD

PROPOSED RULE MAKING

NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED

 

I.D No. RWB-25-10-00009-P

Types of Harness Races to be Offered

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:

Proposed Action:

Amendment of section 4108.8 of Title 9 NYCRR.

Statutory authority:

Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, sections 101, 301 and 307

Subject:

Types of harness races to be offered.

Purpose:

To permit restriction of entries in races to horses that have competed in New York for the majority of their most recent starts.

Text of proposed rule:

Section 4108.8 is hereby amended to read:

4108.8. Types of races to be offered.

(a) In presenting a program of racing, the racing secretary shall use the following types of races only:

(1) [(a)] stakes and futurities;

(2) [(b)] early closing events;

(3) [(c)] overnight events:

(i) [(1)] conditioned races;

(ii) [(2)] claiming races;

(iii) [(3)] preferred races limited to the fastest horses at the meeting. These may be open races, free-for-all races, invitational races, conditioned races. Horses to be eligible in such races shall be posted in the declaration room, and listed with the presiding judge. Horses so listed shall not be eligible to conditioned races unless such conditions specifically include horses on the preferred list. Not more than 12 such preferred races may be conducted during a racing week. Purses offered for such preferred races shall be at least 25 percent higher than the highest purse offered for other conditioned races or letter class races scheduled the same racing week. A two or three year old horse may not be used in such races, without the consent of the owner, unless such horse has won three races at the track during the year or has lifetime earnings of $ 15,000;

(iv) [(4)] classified races but only with the express written permission of the commission and only if the track offers and schedules sufficient claiming races to give those horses authorized for claiming races and intended to be so raced an equal opportunity to race; and

(v) [(5)] invitational races for two or three year olds.

(b) Notwithstanding any preference requirements set forth in Rules 4108.9 and 4111.9(a), the racing secretary may offer condition races or claiming races that limit entries only to horses that have competed at licensed New York State tracks for the majority of their most recent starts. The racing secretary may establish the limitation for each race. The limitation shall not exceed seventy-five percent of the most recent starts for an individual race. At least one race must be carded in the same class without the New York limitation on the same or the next race date for each race that is carded with the New York limitation.

Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:

John J. Googas, Racing and Wagering Board, 1 Broadway Center, Suite 600, Schenectady, New York 12305, [phone], email:[e-mail].

Data, views or arguments may be submitted to:

Same as above.

Public comment will be received until:

45 days after publication of this notice.

Regulatory Impact Statement

1. Statutory authority: Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law §§ 101, 301 and 307. Section 101.1 vests the Racing and Wagering Board with general jurisdiction over all horse racing activities and over the corporations, persons, and associations engaged in pari-mutuel horse racing. Section 301.2 provides that the Board shall supervise all harness race meetings and adopt rules and regulations. Section 307(2)(a) provides that every pari-mutuel harness race meeting shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the Board.

2. Legislative objectives: To enable the Board to authorize and regulate the conduct of pari-mutuel horse racing in a manner consistent with promoting agriculture in New York and raising revenue for the support of government.

3. Needs and benefits: This rulemaking is necessary to provide racing opportunities for year-round New York horsemen in the face of an influx of out-of-state horses at certain times of the year. Existing preference requirements in Board Rules 4108.9 and 4111.9(a) provide preference (priority consideration for racing) to those horses that have not raced for a longer period of time in the current year compared with other entrants for a specific race. Consequently, implementation of these New York-restricted races without consideration of the preference date cannot be accomplished without rule change. New York horsemen are seeking additional racing opportunities, not always available in light of preference date requirements, in situations where there is an abundance of available horses at certain times of the year. Implementation of this concept (offering condition races or claiming races that limit entries only to horses that have competed at licensed New York State tracks for the majority of their most recent starts) would provide additional racing opportunities for horses/horsemen that/who compete regularly in New York. Equivalent racing opportunities for those who do not compete on this basis will be available because at least one race must be programmed in the same class on the same or next race date without the New York limitation, which cannot exceed seventy-five percent of the most recent starts for an individual race. Further, this concept may result in the programming of additional races, which will create additional wagering opportunities with corresponding increases in revenues for purses, pari-mutuel taxes, and regulatory fees.

4. Costs:

(a) Costs to regulated parties for the implementation of and continuing compliance with the rule: There are no direct costs.

(b) Costs to the agency, the state and local governments for the implementation and continuation of the rule: None.

(c) The information, including the source(s) of such information and the methodology upon which the cost analysis is based: This amendment merely authorizes consideration of the local racing history of horses as a factor in establishing race conditions.

5. Local government mandates: None.

6. Paperwork: None. There are no new requirements.

7. Duplication: None.

8. Alternatives: The Board did not consider any significant alternatives. The existing preference date requirement may at times operate to the disadvantage of horsemen who regularly compete at New York tracks. In order to address this concern, while balancing the needs of all horsemen and the desire to preserve the most competitive racing, it was determined to authorize use of a New York-based restriction while requiring a like number of non-restricted races. Support for this concept was received during pre-proposal solicitation of comments from the industry. The Board considered percentages other than the maximum 75% of races; it determined that use of 75% provides a fair measure based upon both preference and fairness.

9. Federal standards: None.

10. Compliance schedule: The rule will become effective upon adoption in the State Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Rural Area Flexibility Analysis and Job Impact Statement

This proposal does not require a Regulatory Flexibility Statement, Rural Area Flexibility Statement or Job Impact Statement since the amendment expands the Board's current rule on types of races to be offered. This amendment provides preference requirements to horses that have consistently competed at New York State racetracks. However, an equivalent number of races without this preference must be carded in order to provide racing opportunities for those whose horses do not satisfy this requirement. Accordingly, there is no adverse economic impact for New York horsemen. In addition, this rule does not affect small business, local governments, jobs or rural areas. Further, this proposal will not impose an adverse economic impact on reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on small businesses in rural or urban areas nor on employment opportunities. Due to the straightforward nature of the rulemaking, there is no need for the development of a small business regulation guide to assist in compliance. These provisions are clear as to what preference requirements can be utilized when creating a restricted race and what is necessary for racing secretaries to comply with the rule.