Inside Asian Gaming

INSIDE ASIAN GAMING | November 2011 18 GLI M acau recently announced it is to introduce its own set of technical standards for electronic casino games. The local regulator—theGaming InspectionandCoordinationBureau (DICJ)—indicated there will be a two-month consultation period followed by implementation of the new standards in January. Inside Asian Gaming spoke to Gaming Laboratories International, the world’s premier testing company for gaming devices, about some of the implications of Macau’s decision. Ian Hughes, Managing Directo r— GLI Asia, shared his thoughts on the subject during G2E in Las Vegas. IAG : What is the current situation in Macau regarding gaming device standards? Ian Hughes : At the moment Macau runs on a self-executing instruction, which basically means that suppliers can choose several standards in which to operate. And the process currently works so that getting device approval is really up to the concession holder. Can you expand a little on that? In many jurisdictions, the manufacturer is responsible for obtaining approval of their products and regulatory approval in order to get it on the floor. But in Macau, it’s up to the concessionary holder to make those applications. That means the approval from the regulator resides with the concessionaire, not with the product itself. In other words, Casino A could seek approval for Product X under Nevada standards, while Casino B could seek approval for the same product but under say New South Wales standards. What they’re proposing now in Macau is to follow a model which is more prevalent throughout the rest of the world. It will mean the supplier is responsible for obtaining approvals, documentation and meeting a specific standard rather than a selection of standards. “By developing local standards, you enhance clarity on what is allowed and what is not allowed. That then gives manufacturers much more confidence in developing a product for that market.” So, from an auditing point of view, it would mean that there’s more of a consistent product base. That’s beneficial from a regulator’s perspective. At the moment, Macau can have four or five different product types all approved to different types of standards. What they’re looking to do is to create a common standard so that all operators would have the common core requirements met for Macau. Will this for the first time establish a contractual relationship between the suppliers and the Macau regulator and/or the government? I don’t know how that will work in terms of the relationship between the regulator and the supplier. Presently there’s no relationship between the regulator and the supplier. The only relationship is between the regulator and the concessionary holder or sub-concession holder. How does it work in Nevada, for example? Is there a contractual relationship between supplier and the regulator in terms of when the supplier has to comply with Nevada standards? Well, the first step is there’s a licensing process. So, before a manufacturer can do business in Nevada or sell, manufacture or distribute product, they have to be licensed by the regulator before they even talk about product compliance. So, is there any suggestion that there’s going to be a licensing system in Macau for suppliers? I don’t know their ultimate aim in terms of where they’re heading in terms of licensing and so forth. Some suppliers have said to us they would like to have a licensing system in Macau so they could talk directly to the DICJ. It’s not GLI’s role to take a view in the case of Macau. I’m simply explaininghow itworks elsewhere. If amanufacturer is not licensedby the jurisdiction, obviously there are no conditions that the regulator Setting Standards Gaming Laboratories International explains the likely impact of dedicated technical standards for the Macau market Gaming Laboratories International—a huge standards database to cover every market