Gaming equipment makers push Nevada regulators for shorter approval times

Gaming equipment manufacturers are lobbying state regulators to shorten the approval process so they can get their products and technology into casinos more quickly.

Continued below:

In a roughly three-hour meeting Wednesday afternoon, the Nevada Gaming Control Board continued planning regulatory changes to help streamline the process, following a similar workshop in March. It remains to be determined what those changes will look like once Gov. Joe Lombardo lifts the new restrictions.

"Today we're talking about reducing the number of field tests or field tests with very few conditions, that is, reducing the steps in the approval process for new gaming," said Gaming Control Board Chairman Kirk Hendrick. "We've issued industry notice that for new gaming, if you install 10 machines for 30 days that have already been approved by other states with similar regulatory systems to Nevada, you'll be considered approved in Nevada. This is a microcosm of what new gaming equipment is coming out of, a step in the right direction, and shows where our philosophy is coming from."

Since March, regulators have lowered their overseas gaming requirements, eliminating pre-approval of gaming system installations and field testing of new gaming equipment. Hendrick said they have shown a "risk tolerance" for what has been put through lab testing over the past eight months without bending the statutes or regulations.

"Speed ​​is good for the industry and the state of Nevada," Hendrick said. "One of the reasons I took this job is to make sweeping changes, and if we can do it collaboratively, it would be a big step in the right direction."

Hendrick said he heard at the cocktail party that Nevada wouldn't be the first to bring new equipment to its casino floors. The board is asking vendors to provide examples. Regulators don't go to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan or other gaming states regularly.

"We want to be one-note in Nevada. We want to be number one in the world," Hendrick said.

Gaming Control's chief information officer, Jim Barbee, said some operators will move to software-as-a-service in the future, but the state's approach allows for a faster rollout. The board is looking to implement the changes in November after receiving suggestions from the industry and some ideas from other states.

Under the proposal, developers would have an easier time finding properties that accept trials. Developers' staff would have no extra work beyond sending in a weekly round of reports, Barbee said.

"You're not just trying to sell a product, you're putting a certain burden on yourself to sell that product," Barbee said. "Let's take all of these testing steps away from you and your licensees and let you sell the product. We'll do the back-end work."

That would require more staffing at the state level, but Barbee said it could be ramped up in stages.

The goal, Hendrick said, is to approve toys and devices that are certified by an independent testing lab. But the labs are testing technical requirements, not, say, legal requirements like using a credit card for gambling, which is illegal in Nevada but legal in other states. The concern is unfair gambling for customers and lost tax revenue, Hendrick said.

"If we were to approve these test cases, even if I had the right to do so as chairman, I would have to pick one or two test cases and have them agree to a minimum violation threshold of $500, 000 to $1 million or more. I don't want to hurt operators or taxpayers or tarnish the reputation of this industry."

Daron Dorsey, executive director of the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers (AGEM), said the discussion is only positive because there have been times in the past when that wasn't the case. Manufacturers and suppliers want to hear yes on products and processes. That should be the goal.

Massachusetts doesn't have a lab and relies on Michigan's independent accession framework, Dorsey said. The question is, what can be done in the legislative and regulatory framework to bring Nevada into line with "the ideal jurisdiction" that is at the forefront of product and technology development and approval.

Dan Reaser, an attorney for Agem, said the board suggested that looking at comparable practices in other jurisdictions be a starting point for adoption, but that it shouldn't be made the standard. "We've debated this long and hard among the working group that developed this at Agem," he said.

Hendrick replied that Nevada has only heard that it is only slower than other states. "I have heard many times that Nevada is slower than other states. Please give a specific example of why Nevada is slow. I can't. "

Lisa replied that even if Nevada's method was changed, the legislation and goals were different from other states.

"I'm sitting in the choir seat, so please preach." Can you tell me what other states are doing? I don't know, but the other states are different. Do you say?

Lisa said that it was necessary to leave the debate about whether or not the practices in other jurisdictions were relevant. "The Board has been claiming that the procedure is being proceeded under Nevada's unique technical requirements for over 10 years. A typical example is how to track and report the total income data. We believe that deriving recommendations to you while spending effort and comparing approaches in the jurisdiction. "

Lisa said that the goal of modernization of the technical process should be at the forefront as the best in class, not just as well as other jurisdictions.

"The board has historically defended the process by focusing on how the industry wants to change specific processes, routes, and approaches. For this reason, the Working Group in AGEM. We believe that modernization and reform discussions need to be adjusted for various types of demands and applications for the best time for the Council and Committee. Should be.

Lisa does not only mention situations where the independent test is required. He has tools in the state regulatory authorities, but should be discussed in the "appropriate number of days" to complete the regulatory process of approval or rejected specific type of technology. Was stated. < SPAN> Hendrick replied that Nevada has only heard that it is only slower than other states. "I have heard many times that Nevada is slower than other states. Please give a specific example of why Nevada is slow. I can't. "

Lisa replied that even if Nevada's method was changed, the legislation and goals were different from other states.

"I'm sitting in the choir seat, so please preach." Can you tell me what other states are doing? I don't know, but the other states are different. Do you say?

Lisa said that it was necessary to leave the debate about whether or not the practices in other jurisdictions were relevant. "The Board has been claiming that the procedure is being proceeded under Nevada's unique technical requirements for over 10 years. A typical example is how to track and report the total income data. We believe that deriving recommendations to you while spending effort and comparing approaches in the jurisdiction. "

Lisa said that the goal of modernization of the technical process should be at the forefront as the best in class, not just as well as other jurisdictions.

"The board has historically defended the process by focusing on how the industry wants to change specific processes, routes, and approaches. For this reason, the Working Group in AGEM. We believe that modernization and reform discussions need to be adjusted for various types of demands and applications for the best time for the Council and Committee. Should be.

Lisa does not only mention situations where the independent test is required. He has tools in the state regulatory authorities, but should be discussed in the "appropriate number of days" to complete the regulatory process of approval or rejected specific type of technology. Was stated. Hendrick replied that Nevada has only heard that it is only slower than other states. "I have heard many times that Nevada is slower than other states. Please give a specific example of why Nevada is slow. I can't. "

Lisa replied that even if Nevada's method was changed, the legislation and goals were different from other states.

"I'm sitting in the choir seat, so please preach." Can you tell me what other states are doing? I don't know, but the other states are different. Do you say?

Lisa said that it was necessary to leave the debate about whether or not the practices in other jurisdictions were relevant. "The Board has been claiming that the procedure is being proceeded under Nevada's unique technical requirements for over 10 years. A typical example is how to track and report the total income data. We believe that deriving recommendations to you while spending effort and comparing approaches in the jurisdiction. "

Lisa said that the goal of modernization of the technical process should be at the forefront as the best in class, not just as well as other jurisdictions.

"The board has historically defended the process by focusing on how the industry wants to change specific processes, routes, and approaches. For this reason, the Working Group in AGEM. We believe that modernization and reform discussions need to be adjusted for various types of demands and applications for the best time for the Council and Committee. Should be.

Lisa does not only mention situations where the independent test is required. He has tools in the state regulatory authorities, but should be discussed in the "appropriate number of days" to complete the regulatory process of approval or rejected specific type of technology. Was stated.