The statute asked for a limit, in terms

This is not a case of an agency declining to do something optional. The final sentence of NRS 116.31031(1)(b) directs the Commission to adopt regulations establishing three things:³

“…the criteria used in determining whether a violation poses an imminent threat of causing a substantial adverse effect on the health, safety or welfare of the units' owners or residents of the common-interest community, the severity of such violations and limitations on the amounts of the fines.”

Section 2 as adopted addresses the first. It addresses the second only indirectly, by describing the conduct that qualifies. On the third — limitations on amounts — the adopted text is silent, where the agency's own first draft was not.

Why the number mattered more in Nevada than the number suggests

A capped Nevada fine is a debt of at most $100 per violation and $1,000 per hearing. A health-and-safety fine is a different kind of obligation, because it is uncapped and because past-due association obligations in Nevada run with the association's lien rights against the unit. The distance between a $1,000 ceiling and no ceiling is therefore not only a question of how much an owner owes; it is a question of what the association can eventually do about it.

The deleted paragraph (c) spoke to exactly that. A court order requirement above $10,000 would have put a judge between a board's own severity assessment and enforcement of the largest fines. Nothing in the adopted text performs that function.

What replaced it

The adopted text trades a ceiling for a gate. Instead of limiting how large a health-and-safety fine can be, it limits which violations can be called health-and-safety violations at all — through the four safe harbours in section 2(2), the most sweeping of which excludes conduct that “[i]s a violation of the governing documents of the association but is otherwise lawful under the laws of this State.”

Those are genuinely different regulatory designs, and it is worth being precise about the trade:

• The November design let a board call almost anything a health-and-safety violation, but stopped the fine at $10,000 and sent anything larger to a judge.
• The July design narrows what counts as a health-and-safety violation considerably — and then, for whatever still counts, imposes no ceiling whatsoever.

Which design protects an owner more depends entirely on how the subsection 1 test is applied in practice. An owner whose conduct genuinely “directly, immediately or actually endangers” a neighbour now faces a fine limited only by what a board considers commensurate.

The intermediate drafts

The register carries four versions of R091-25: the agency's initial draft, the LCB proposed draft, and two revised proposed drafts. Between the first and the last sit four public workshops — December 9, 2025; March 10, 2026; June 9, 2026; and September 8, 2026 — the last of these held the day before the adoption hearing.⁴ The record of which comment produced which change lives in those workshop minutes.

The Division's published statement of purpose for the regulation does not mention the removal. It describes the fine provisions only in terms of empowerment:⁵

“Providing guidelines and criteria for when to designate a violation as health, safety welfare, should empower executive board members as they consider the severity of any violation. To further empower board members with their discretion as fiduciaries, language is proposed to establish criteria to authorize the board to consult with the appropriate professionals for assistance.”

Under NRS 233B.060, an interested person may request — before adoption, or within 30 days after it — a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against adoption, including the agency's reasons for overruling the arguments made against it. The notice of hearing says so on its face. For anyone who wants the deletion explained on the record, that 30-day window is the mechanism, and it is open now.