SGC-19-16-00014-A Conduct of Operation of a Gaming Facility
7/20/16 N.Y. St. Reg. SGC-19-16-00014-A
NEW YORK STATE REGISTER
VOLUME XXXVIII, ISSUE 29
July 20, 2016
RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES
NEW YORK STATE GAMING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
I.D No. SGC-19-16-00014-A
Filing No. 640
Filing Date. Jul. 05, 2016
Effective Date. Jul. 20, 2016
Conduct of Operation of a Gaming Facility
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:
Action taken:
Addition of Part 5313 to Title 9 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, sections 104(19), 1307(1), (2)(i), (k), 1331, 1332, 1333 and 1341(2)
Subject:
Conduct of operation of a gaming facility.
Purpose:
To govern a gaming facility licensee's system of procedures for the conduct and operation of gaming.
Text or summary was published
in the May 11, 2016 issue of the Register, I.D. No. SGC-19-16-00014-P.
Final rule as compared with last published rule:
No changes.
Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Kristen Buckley, Acting Secretary, New York State Gaming Commission, One Broadway Center, 6th Floor, Schenectady, NY 12305, (518) 388-3407, email: gamingrules@gaming.ny.gov
Initial Review of Rule
As a rule that does not require a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2021, which is no later than the 5th year after the year in which this rule is being adopted.
Assessment of Public Comment
The Gaming Commission received comments from one entity, Fox Rothschild LLP on behalf of Montreign Operating Company, LLC, in regard to this proposed rulemaking. The Commission has considered each of the comments and decided that no changes are appropriate at this time. Requests for interpretations of rules were not considered to be public comments and, therefore, are not addressed in this assessment. In particular:
1. Proposed Rule 5313.1(e)-(g). The commenter suggests that the timeframe for Commission review of internal control amendments be reduced from 30 to seven days. The Commission finds that the 30-day review period is consistent with or less burdensome than other related statutory and regulatory requirements. The Commission understands that time-sensitive circumstances can arise and will, at its discretion, accept requests to expedite review of any internal control amendment.
2. Proposed Rule 5313.2(e)-(f). The commenter objects to the imposition of mandatory penalties for violations of underage gaming, suggesting that certain instances of minors on a gaming floor might be the result of intentionally deceptive conduct on the part of the minor. The Commission believes that the proposed rule is sufficiently clear in providing that only when it is determined that culpability for a violation is established would the prescribed sanctions apply.
3. Proposed Rule 5313.7(a). The commenter suggests that the timeframe for submission of emergency procedures be reduced to 30 days. The Commission believes that 90 days is prudent and that the rule as proposed is consistent with other sections of law and regulation.
4. Proposed Rule 5313.8(g). The commenter suggests that the timeframe for when an amendment to an operation certificate becomes effective be designated as seven days. The Commission believes that it is prudent to not set a specific time limit because some amendments may require longer review periods.
5. Proposed Rule 5313.14(e). The commenter disagrees with the restrictions on the placement and location of automated teller machines. The Commission conducted a thorough review of those jurisdictions that do regulate the location of automated teller machines and believes that five feet is a reasonable distance.
6. Proposed Rule 5313.14(f). The commenter recommends that the maximum amount a player may withdraw from an automated teller machine be increased from $3,500 to $5,000 per calendar day. The Commission conducted a thorough review of jurisdictions that regulate the maximum withdrawal amounts from automated teller machines and believes that the $3,500 limit proposed is reasonable.
