Regulators from the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) as well as several suppliers and industry representatives convened again on September 30, continuing a conversation about potential tweaks to the approval process for new products that first began earlier this year.
Even though Nevada is largely considered to be the gaming capital of the U.S., much of its regulatory framework is decades old, and manufacturers have long bemoaned the fact that other, newer markets around the country have pulled ahead of the Silver State in terms of innovation and technology thanks to more modern processes.
Since the beginning of the year, Nevada regulators have made several regulatory changes to help reduce the amount of legwork operators must go through, including a reduction of foreign gaming reporting requirements, field tests and pre-approvals.
During the meeting, NGCB Chairman Kirk Hendrick said that the goal of the conversation is to get to a point where there are less steps along the way.
“For new games, we put out an industry notice that said if another state with a regulatory system similar to Nevada’s has already approved a machine and been out on the floor with 10 machines for 30 days, that’s will be deemed approved in Nevada,” Hendrick said, as reported by CDC Gaming Reports. “That’s a microcosm of new gaming devices that come out, a step in the right direction, and shows where our philosophy is coming from.
“Speed is good for the industry and Nevada. One of the reasons I took this job was to make radical change and if we can get it done collaboratively, this is going to be a big step in the right direction.”
Due to the fact that regulators are primarily concerned with their own jurisdiction and don’t interact with other jurisdictions as much as operators do, the NGCB has asked companies to give examples of processes in other states that may help Nevada gaming keep its place atop the U.S. market.
According to CDC, NGCB IT Division Chief Jim Barbee said that the state hopes to implement more changes next month that would make it easier for suppliers to find host properties to conduct trials. Once trials begin, only weekly reports will be required.
“Let’s take all these trial procedures off you and the licensee and let you sell the product,” Barbee said, per CDC. “We’ll do the work on the back end.”
Two topics that have come up several times over the course of discussions are the use of independent product testing labs and application timelines—Nevada has historically prided itself on its stringent requirements and lengthy approval processes, but finding the best way to go about changing or amending those requirements is very tricky.
Dan Reaser, an attorney for the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers (AGEM), said that even though the NGCB has suggested that a review of similar practices in other states may be the best way to start, AGEM would “categorically reject that approach.”
Reaser argued that Nevada’s policy shouldn’t be governed by what other states are doing, given that it is in a league of its own. This drew some ire from board members, who then asked for a better idea, since the problem remains the same.
“The Board has historically defended its processes by focusing on how the industry wants to very specifically change a particular procedure, path or approach and in those discussions the Board can’t articulate why it needs to do what it does,” Reaser said in response, as reported by CDC. “For those reasons, the working group at AGEM believes the discussion on modernization and reform has to be calibrated. The industry should recommend what is the best-in-class duration for Board and Commission actions on different types of requests or applications.”
With regard to application timelines, Reaser argued that the best course of action may be just to simply shorten the amount of days it would take to test and approve various forms of technology, which could be implemented without changing existing regulations.
For new gaming machines, AGEM suggested that field trials could be approved in 28 days if no changes were required, and the NGCB chair would have to approve or deny an application within 15 days; if objections were raised, companies would have 10 more days to correct and resubmit, at which point applications would either be approved in three days or denied. Modifications to existing machines would have an 18-day window and a five-day period to approve or reject applications.
Regulators expressed apprehension toward the proposal in the sense that it would make the process more driven by deadlines than anything else. Board member Brittnie Walkins also noted that the agency does not currently have the resources or capacity to operate on those timelines, per CDC.
