Proposed Regulations

SUMMARY OF INPUT FROM BOARDS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS 

(input on proposed regulations before they were sent to LCB for drafting)

The Office of Nevada Boards, Commissions, and Councils Standards received written submissions from multiple occupational licensing boards and Executive Directors representing professional, regulatory, and administrative perspectives. Collectively, the comments reflect shared themes, repeated concerns, and common requests for revisions regarding the draft regulation.

1. General Themes

A. Lack of Clarity on the Role and Duties of the Office
Several boards noted that the regulation focuses primarily on new requirements for boards rather than defining the structure, duties, and scope of authority of the Office itself.

• Boards emphasized that “centralized administration” is not defined, and statutory duties in NRS 232.8415 (investigations, licensing, discipline, internal controls, legal representation, structural standards, consumer protection, efficiency, efficacy) are not operationalized or described.
• Boards requested clear sections defining the Office’s responsibilities before imposing requirements on boards.

B. Concerns About Exceeding Statutory Authority
Multiple commenters expressed that portions of the regulation appear to go beyond the authority granted under NRS 232.8413 and NRS 232.8415. Common examples include:

• Corrective action authority, timelines, and deficiency notices.
• Broad language such as “boards shall adopt and enforce requirements created or approved by the Office”.
• Open-ended reporting authority (“but are not limited to”). Boards questioned whether certain mandates may be interpreted as new powers not stated in statute.

C. Duplicative and Burdensome Reporting Requirements
Nearly all boards commented that:

• Many required reports are already submitted to LCB, Legislative Auditor, State Controller, IFC, or other state agencies under NRS 622.100, NRS 218G.400, NRS 353C.1965, NRS 331.110, NRS 333.705, etc.
• Summaries, re-entry of data, and Office-approved forms represent duplicative administrative workload, especially for small boards with limited staff. Some boards requested that the Office obtain information directly from the agencies that already collect it, rather than requiring each board to resend it.

D. Confidentiality Conflicts
Boards expressed concern about required submissions of investigative files, timelines, or disciplinary materials where confidentiality is mandated by statute, including:

• NRS 622.360
• NRS 625.425
• Various board-specific disciplinary and investigation statutes Boards asked whether the Office, by regulation, can require disclosure of confidential records.

E. Financial and Unfunded Mandate Concerns
Boards noted that new requirements—especially website upgrades, searchable disciplinary databases, quarterly reporting systems, and expanded documentation—may require:

• Additional staff
• New software or platforms
• IT expenditures Without funding, these become unfunded mandates that may require fee increases to licensees.

F. Need for Defined Standards and Clear Metrics
Boards repeatedly stated that the regulation requires adherence to “uniform standards,” but the actual standards for:

• investigations,
• licensing and discipline,
• internal controls,
• legal representation,
• structural standards,
• efficiency,
• efficacy, and
• consumer protection are not included. Boards requested that these standards be created, published, and defined before they can implement or comply with them.

G. Website Posting Concerns
Boards expressed concerns regarding required posting of:

• financial statements and CPA audits (including whether redactions are allowed),
• all statutory reports,
• performance data,
• internal controls. Smaller boards noted that these changes could cost “thousands of dollars in IT fees” and may conflict with confidentiality statutes.

H. Ambiguity on Forms, Processes, and Expectations
Boards requested clarification on:

• what must be submitted “on Office-approved forms,”
• what constitutes “proper reconciliation,”
• performance reporting metrics,
• how boards may contest corrective action,
• how the Office will coordinate investigations involving the Attorney General’s Office.

2. Board-Specific Considerations Reflected Across Multiple Submissions

Nevada Board of Dispensing Opticians

• Regulation does not define the Office’s authority or organization.
• Terms like “efficacy,” “efficiency,” “consumer protection,” and “centralized administration” are not defined.
• Report requirements duplicate existing statutory reports.

NVBPELS (Engineers & Land Surveyors) and NALS

• Oppose open-ended reporting authority.
• Concerned about confidentiality (NRS 625.425).
• Raise issues about Office-initiated corrective actions, member removal, and enhanced oversight.
• State that the regulation must reflect the limits of NRS 232.8415.

Board of Environmental Health Specialists

• Submitted as subject-matter expert due to timing.
• Requested clear definition of the Office’s duties and suggested language that describes the Office’s administrative support functions.

Board of Optometry

• Requires clarification of “proper reconciliation,” financial posting requirements, and whether redactions are permitted.
• States that website upgrade mandates constitute an unfunded mandate.
• Requests a dispute mechanism for corrective actions.

Board of Nursing (Legal Division & ED)

• Questions necessity of regulation duplicating requirements already in statute.
• Raises confidentiality concerns and cost allocation issues.
• Notes conflict with existing SAM requirements and AG-driven investigative timelines.

Board of Accountancy

• Provides legal analysis citing Dunning, Coury, Killebrew, and Whitley decisions.
• Notes that regulations must specify the actual uniform standards, not restate statute.
• Expresses concern that including former board members in the definition of “board member” is overly broad.

Board of Cosmetology

• Notes potential conflicts with existing statutory authority.
• Requests clarification of uniform standards, confidentiality issues, and minimum attendance requirements.

Funeral Board (ED)

• Notes concerns with reports containing personal information (SSNs, home addresses) and statutory prohibitions on disclosure (NRS 353C.1965).
• Recommends evaluation of whether posting full reports is appropriate.

Board of Massage Therapy

• Raises issues regarding unclear metrics, investigative timelines influenced by AG’s Office, and unclear expectations for reconciliation and financial statement submission.

Dental Board

• Notes multiple duplications of existing requirements.
• Requests precise language on reporting and investigation policies currently in NAC.

3. Summary of Requested Revisions

Boards generally request that the regulation be revised to:

1. Define the Office’s duties and structure, including the meaning of “centralized administration.”
2. Remove or streamline duplicative reporting requirements already mandated under existing statutes.
3. Clearly define all key terms (efficacy, efficiency, internal controls, structural standards, etc.).
4. Ensure confidentiality statutes are not overridden by regulation.
5. Clarify expectations and metrics for performance reporting.
6. Specify uniform standards, rather than reciting statutory language alone.
7. Create a process for boards to dispute corrective actions.
8. Provide Office support or funding for required IT/administrative changes.
9. Ensure the regulation does not exceed the authority granted by NRS 232.8413–8415.

4. Conclusion

The feedback reflects broad engagement and consistent themes across multiple boards. While supportive of the goals of transparency, consistency, and accountability, boards unanimously request greater clarity, statutory alignment, defined standards, avoidance of duplication, and respect for confidentiality and board autonomy.
This summary is prepared for LCB drafting purposes and reflects the collective input provided by boards and their Executive Directors in the documents submitted.