Cashing in coin buckets officially died out, because the biggest casino operators started using the ticket-in-ticket-out payment system throughout the early 2000s. Furthermore, it resulted in the complete extinction of the slot machine exchange booth on Nevada casino floor.

For that reason, there is a possibility that on Thursday, April 20, the Nevada Gaming Commission will officially end the requirement that casinos are required to have video surveillance of non-existent change booths.

16 regulations to remove:

The ordinance is one of 16 regulations slated for removal as state gaming regulators want to comply with a January directive issued by Gov. Joe Lombardo, that gave an assignment to each Nevada agency with reviewing regulations and evaluating a minimum of 10 for elimination by May 1.

Throughout a workshop last week which lasted 2 hours, the Gaming Control Board ranked the proposed changes based on input from agency department heads and comments from Daron Dorsey, executive director of the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers.

Part-time gaming commission for final decision:

The part-time gaming commission is scheduled to make a final decision on the regulatory subsections that include video surveillance of change booths, together with eight other subsections of regulations identified for language changes. The subsections were submitted to the commission.

Furthermore, the panel’s final decision is expected during the panel’s monthly meeting in Las Vegas. After the meeting, suggestions will be sent to the governor.

Follow-up hearings:

Moreover, subsections of the ordinance are among 9 of the state’s 37 gaming regulations, and according to the state gaming law, the control board and gaming commission will have to convene follow-up hearings to officially eliminate the subsections.

In this regard, the Chairman of the control board, Kirk Hendrick, said: “I think it was time to go through them … to see if we can make them a little bit better.”

In addition, he suggested the board follow the example set by Lombardo throughout his State of the State address in January, when he called out the board’s testing lab, saying that “concerns have surfaced over the approval process.”

Control board member George Assad officially agreed with Hendrick stating: “The technology regulations were the most outdated and should be the primary focus during the regulatory review process.”

Consideration of regulations:

However, the control board ranked part of the key employee licensing requirements under Regulation 3 as subsection No.1 for removal. Board members reached an agreement with staff that the regulation needing employee reports to be filled twice a year is duplicative for gaming licensees. Furthermore, this information is already contained in other reports submitted by gaming companies.

In addition, a $250,000 limit on payouts for progressive keno games, part of Regulation 5, was considered the second most old-fashioned subsection.

On that note, Hendrick said: “Keno regulations need to be updated and correlated to how changes are made to progressive slot machine jackpots.”

Agency analysts added: “There would be a positive economic impact for licensees given that they would no longer need to file requests.” Also, the board would benefit from undisclosed cost savings by not needing to investigate the reports.

What’s more, one of the very important subsections, ranked 3rd through six, for elimination is the technology subsections under Regulation 14. The regulations relate to parts of the licensing process for gaming equipment manufacturers and distributors and the approval process for all casino games, equipment and systems, cashless gaming and interactive gaming products.

Throughout the discussion, Assad frequently suggested that “the industry benefits from the proposed changes.”

At the start of the hearing, Hendrick noted that he was included in the drafting of several of the regulations in the early 1990s when he was chief deputy attorney general for the gaming division.

On that note, he recommended that “the process would result in a less burdensome process for the industry, while still maintaining effective regulation that this state desires and deserves.”