Back in January, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo directed all state agencies to analyze their existing regulations and guidelines for anything deemed to be outdated or irrelevant in order to recommend at least 10 for removal by the start of May.
The Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) has started this process, and held a public workshop on April 12 to discuss the removal of numerous subsections from the state’s long list of gaming regulations.
NGCB Chairman Kirk Hendrick told the Nevada Independent that the review represents “a real deep dive by the staff and every agent in every division,” and emphasized that the process has been a collaborative effort.
To be clear, the statutes being discussed for possible removal are in fact subsections of overall regulations—according to regulatory experts, removing an entire regulation is tricky and would cause substantial changes to existing standards, so revisions and removals are simpler.
The subsections in question involve a total of nine overall regulations, and one in particular that looks to see the most changes is Regulation 14, which governs licensing matters for equipment distributors and manufacturers as well as technical standards. There have been five subsections recommended for removal from Regulation 14 alone.
Just last month, the board heard comments from several of the industry’s biggest suppliers about how the licensing process has become too cumbersome, putting the state’s industry at a disadvantage in terms of innovation and product development.
Becky Harris, former chairwoman of the NGCB, told the Independent that she believes “Regulation 14 is probably ripe for massive editing,”
Another regulation that looks to see some changes is Regulation 26, which covers parimutuel betting. One of its sections, Subsection 26.060, has never been adjusted for changes in tax percentages since it was implemented in the 1970s, which was discovered in the review process.
In reference to that particular finding, Hendrick told the Independent that “no one ever went back and fixed it,” and for years “the industry has been paying what’s required by statute.”
Last week’s workshop was but the first step in the process of finalizing regulatory changes—now the board must make a formal recommendation to the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC), which will have final say on the matter.
“Our procedures allow the industry and the public more time to consider and comment on any revisions,” Hendrick told the Independent. “The workshop will greatly expedite the future process because most of the drafting and reviewing will have already occurred.”
Harris noted that in her experience, revising regulations was one of the most daunting processes because the board has to do everything “with a 360-degree view and understand how removing certain sections, especially if they are significant sections, will impact the rest of the regulations.”
