Federal Register Class III Tribal State Gaming Compacts

Proposed Rule

Design update: FederalRegister. Gov's website has expanded the area assigned to the table and moved all documents to the left of the document. For more information, please see the function notification.

Class III Tribal State Gaming Compacts

Publication document

This document was published in the Federal Gazette. Use PDF to get a formal electronic format. The link to PDF is on the side panel of the document.

Publication document

Information on document

Public table with tabl e-Details of documents

Incorporation Infare Bureau Documents Number 2231A2100DD/A0A501010. 999900 CFR 293 Document FROWER 74916 Page Image line 74916-74947 (page 32) F68

Public table with tabl e-Details of documents Official seeds Official seeds Public table with tabl e-Details of documents

Incorporation Infare Bureau Documents Number 2231A2100DD/A0A501010. 999900 CFR 293 Document FROWER 74916 Page Image line 74916-74947 (page 32) F68

Public table with tabl e-Details of documents Public table with table-Date of document

Comments will be locked on March 1, 2023, along with words for stakeholders who are looking for comments until March 1, 2023.

Public table with table-Date of document Expansion Table of Content s-Table of Table of Contents

Bureau:
action
CV:
date
address
Inquiry
Additional Information
table of contents
I. Legal options
II. Resume
III. Reference information
IV. Summary of the acquired statement
A. joint observation
Consulting Quest: Is there a plan to revise the provisions to promote external tariffs or Internet play to stat e-owned land?
B. Comments on section
What are the issues for this section?
Annotation to Article 293 2 What is the main definition in this section?
Article 293's annotation 2 (a) --Reming
Annotation of 293. 2.
293. 2 (D) annotatio n-Business activities
293. 2 (E) -Con comments on language settings
Comments on important terms for
§ What kind of opportunities do the Secretary have a comment agreement or correction to 293. 3?
Is it considered and approved any comment agreements and changes related to Article 293, Paragraph 4?
Comments on 293. 4 (a)
293. 4 (b) commen t-SOTYE was adopted in §293. 4 (c).
5 Is the contract or the approval of the change subject to consideration and approval?
Comments on Article 293.
Comments on Article 293 7 When does the tribes or states shall submit contracts or amendments for deliberations and approval?
8 What kind of document must be submitted to the contract or correction?
9 Where is the place where you need to submit agreement or correction for deliberations and approval?
Comments on Article 293 10 How long does the secretar y-general of the secretary take a contract or correction?
When will the countdown on 11 45 days begin?
12 What will happen if the Secretary did not make a contract or correction decision within the 45th period?
Who can cancel it after a comment agreement or revision regarding Article 293, paragraph 13 is accepted by the Secretar y-General?
Comments on Article 293. 14 When will the agreement or revision expire?
Comments on Article 293 15 Is there an obligation to not approve a contract or correction that violates IGRA?
What is the case where the Secretary cannot approve the contract or correction?
17 Is it possible to include the clause on the application of criminal law, civil law, and the application of the tribal or state regulation in the contract or correction?
Comments on Article 293 1 Is it possible to include a clause on the split of criminal and civil trial rights between the state and the tribe in the contract or correction?
19 Is it possible to include the state expenditure clause to regulate gambling activities in the agreement or correction?
20 Can the agreement or correction include taxation provisions for gambling activities?
Article 293 Is it possible to include a clause related to legal protection funds in the case of a contract or correction relating to paragraph 21?
Comments on Article 293. Is it possible to include the gambling standards and the maintenance of the gambling station in the Agreement or Change Paragraph 22?
Comments on Section 293. 23-Adopted in paragraph 293. 24-What elements use to determine whether the terms of contracts or amendments are directly related to the operation of gambling activities?
Comments on Article 293 (A)
§293. 24 (b) Note
§293. 24 (c) Note
§293. 24 annotation-This is adopted in §293. 25-What are the Secretary analyzing to consider whether or not profit distribution is considered legal?
Comments on Article 293. 25-Is there a contract or extension that is adopted in Article 293. 26-Is there a contract or extension that restricts the exposure of the contract?
Comments on Article 293, paragraph 2 6-Is this possible in Article 293, paragraph 2 7-Is it possible to get a contract or reinstatement that restricts the tribe to any form of gaming?
Comments on §293. 27 adopted in 293. 28-Are there any contracts other than Indian gambling?
293. Comments on §293. 28 adopted in 3 1-How does the law on cardboard cuts affect this section?
V. section CV
A. C o-rules and use areas of proposed su b-section A
Fix of section 293. 1-What is the function of the specified section?
Fix in Article 293, Paragraph 2-How is the main definition stipulated?
Article 293 Amendment drafts 3-What options do the secretar y-general have a contract and correction or not?
Article 293 Amendment proposal 4-Is the contract and corrections discussed and approved?
Article 293 Amendment drafts 5-Is a comprehensive contract discussed and approved?
B. The proposed subset B is a presentation of a gaming agreement between the tribes and the state.
Article 293 Correction proposal in Paragraph 6-Who has the authority to submit a contract or amendment?
Fixed proposal in Article 293, Paragraph 7-When does Indian tribes or staff need to adopt a contract or amendment for discussion and approval?
Article 293 Amendment proposal 8-Which article must be presented with a contract or amendment?
Amendments in Article 293 9-Where is the footnote of the footnote to present a contract or amendment for deliberations and approval?
C. The proposed section C is the secretary test of the gaming agreement between the tribe and the state.
§293. 10 Amendmen t-How long does the Secretary have to consider the contract or correction?
When will the countdown for 11-45 days of revision in Article 293 begin?
What happens if the Secretary-General does not keep the conclusion of contract or correction during the examination period of 12-45 days of correction of Article 293?
Article 293 Amendments 13-Who has the option to withdraw the contracts or corrections received by the secretary?
Article 293 (1) Amendments in Paragraph 1 4-When will the contract be aggressively approved or approved in the power of the law or recovery?
The proposed §293. 1 5-Should the Secretary confirm the contract or correction that violates IGRA?
Proposal §293. 16 What is the case that the Secretary has an option that does not approve the contract or correction?
D. The proposed subset D is the area of use of gaming agreements between tribes and states.
Proposal §293. 1 7-Is it possible to tie the provisions related to the use of criminal law, civil law, and regulatory measures in tribes or states?
Article 293 (18) -Is it possible to connect the provisions related to the distribution of criminal and civil trial rights between the state and the tribe?
Article 293 (19) -Is it possible to connect the states to accept gambling activities?
Proposal §293. 2 0-Is it possible to connect the provisions on gambling tax in the tribe?
Is the proposed §293? 21- Is it possible to contract or collect a clause on the resolution of dispute on default of the contract?
Proposal §293. 22-Is the contract or recovery the ability to detain gambling stereotype and gambling facilities?
Article 293 (23) -Is there a contract or recovery that connects the provisions related to the implementation of gambling?
Proposal §293. 2 4-Whether or not the provisions of contracts or corrections are directly related to gambling activities, what time applies to judge this?
Proposal §293. 2 5-Whether the distribution of profits is legal, what kind of moment do you analyze to certify this?
Proposal §293. 26 is a contract or collection that restricts the exposure of the contract.
Proposal §293. 2 7-Does the contract have the ability to allow tribes to engage in class III gaming in all forms?
Proposal §293. 28- Can any other contract outside the contract regulate Indian gambling?
Proposal §293. 29- Are the contracts or recovery the ability to restrain the state-scale external charges or the Internet gambling clause?
Proposal §293. 30- What is the impact of the provided sharing on requirements, the conclusions of the ministries that have already been accepted, and the future requests?
Proposal §293. 3 1-How does the cardboard reduction method affect this section?
VI. Procedure request
A. Stolen planning and education program (E. O. 12866)
B. Adjustable elasticity law
C. Congress conclusions
D. Non-Financial Obligations Reform Act of 1995
E. Contraction (E. O. 12630)
F. Federalism (E. O. 13132)
G. Civil Justice Reform (E. O. 12988)
H. Consultation with Indian Tribes (E. O. 13175)
I. Cardboard Shredding Act
J. State Eco-Political Act (NEPA)
K. Impacts on Energy Supply (E. O. 13211)
L. Clarity of Orders Provided
M. Public Statement
List of Topics 25 CFR part 293
Tribal-State Part 293 Class III Gaming Agreements
Subchapter 1 Joint Provisions and Use Areas
Subchapter B Representation of Tribal and State Gaming Compacts
space} Subchapter C - Commissioner Test for Tribal and State Gaming Compacts
space} Subchapter D - Scope of Use for Tribal and State Gaming Compacts
Subchapter 1 Joint Provisions and Use Areas
Subchapter B Representation of Tribal and State Gaming Compacts
space} Subchapter C - Commissioner Test for Tribal and State Gaming Compacts
space} Subchapter D - Scope of Use for Tribal and State Gaming Compacts
Footnotes

Expansion Table of Content s-Table of Table of Contents Extended Table of Contents - Comments on the Population Comments are now closed. See "Dates" for more information.

76 clarifications were received on the Regulations. gov website. Agencies will evaluate all exhibits and may accept conclusions regarding redactions or suppression of some materials (or portions thereof). Submitted comments may not be read until the agency is made aware of them.

Name of dock	ID - Document	Comments
Gambral Class III Tribal Agreement	BIA-2022-0003-0001	76

Extended Table of Contents - Comments on the Population Extended Table of Contents - Data regulations. gov

FederalRegister. gov extracts appropriate information about this document from the regulations. gov website to provide users with supplementary context. This information is not considered part of the official document in the Federal Register.

Class III Tribal State Gaming Compacts

Docket ID BIA-2022-0003 Material provided No material Extended Table of Contents - Data regulations. gov Extended Content - Joint Implementation Extended Content - Joint Implementation Extended Table of Contents - Press Extended Table of Contents - Press Extended Table of Contents - Document Statistics

The number of page views of a document is updated with the direction of the day and is considered a total indicator of the documents provided. The number of views has the ability to be selected, processed, and modified in the direction of the day (by increasing or decreasing). Page views 3. 931 as of 26/08/2024 8:15 am EDT

Extended Table of Contents - Document Statistics Extended content - other formats

This document is still available in the appropriate format: JSON regular attributes and metadata XML Real Absolute Word XM L-Mods Help information and document metadata issued by the government can see the creator tool page. Masu.

Extended content - other formats Public review

This PDF is considered the current document confirmed in the public screening held at 12/05/2022 8:45. Meanwhile, this document was viewed 56 times in social inspections. If you use a social test entry for legal research, this is for you, the finals of the Federal Gazette, the footprints of creating the table of contents of the document. Only the official publication of the Federal Gazette will provide public announcements to the general public and judicial notice to the court in accordance with 44 U. S. C. 1503 and 1503. In accordance with C. 1503 and 1507, public announcements and court announcements to the court will be made. Click here for details.

Public review Publication document

This document was published in the Federal Gazette. Use PDF to get a formal electronic format. The link to PDF is on the side panel of the document.

(Print page 74916) Document heading

The headline of the document depends on the similarity of the document, but there is a good possibility to keep the right:

A department that issued and signed documents
Space} Header number of CFR, and the number of sections that introduce corrections, seek corrections, or show a specific posture.
Engine number / internal number
Space} Rin that identifies the regulation effects described on a single agenda of federal regulations and deregulation

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 293
[2231a2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010. 999900]
Rin 1076-AF68

AGENCY:

The Ministry of Home Affairs Red Guard Bureau.

ACTION:

SUMMARY:

The Beddle Secretariat (BDI) calls for a composition of its own standards for discussions and declarations of gambling agreements between tribes and states. With this configuration, it is clear how the bureau evaluates the "class III tribal gambling agreement" (a gambling agreement or agreement of a tribal state).

DATES:

If you are interested, please adopt your comments by March 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

Comments can be turned to one of the appropriate methods.

Federal Electric Rules Portal: Http: // www. Regulations. Gov is downloaded, Gov is downloaded to find a rule plan using the "search" background, and the explanation instructions are followed.
Electric mail: comments to Consultation@bia. gov, and specify the subject as "Rin 1076-AF68, 25 CFR SHARE 293".
E-mail answer destination sender destination: Indian Affairs, RACA, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Suite 229, Albuquerque, NM 87104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Oliver Walei, the Office For Regulatory Procer ASSEMBLY ACTS (RACA) ERIOR, Telephone (202) 738-6065, Raca@Bia. Gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

These rules will be published in cooperation with 209 DM 8. and as part of the opportunity to be delegated by the Minister of Interior in charge of red racial issues (Assistant Secretary; AS-A).

I. Legal options

II. Resume

IV. Summary of the acquired statement

A. joint observation

B. Comments on section

V. section CV

A. C o-rules and use areas of proposed su b-section A

B. The proposed subset B is a presentation of a gaming agreement between the tribes and the state.

C. The proposed section C is the secretary test of the gaming agreement between the tribe and the state.

D. The proposed subset D is the area of use of gaming agreements between tribes and states.

VI. Procedure request

A. Stolen planning and education program (E. O. 12866)

B. Adjustable elasticity law

C. Congress conclusions

D. Non-Financial Obligations Reform Act of 1995

G. Civil Justice Reform (E. O. 12988)

H. Consultation with Indian Tribes (E. O. 13175)

I. Cardboard Shredding Act

J. State Eco-Political Act (NEPA)

K. Impacts on Energy Supply (E. O. 13211)

L. Clarity of Orders Provided

M. Public Statement

I. Statutory Authority

The parliament, which accepted Igra, has delegated to the Secretary's ability to monitor agreements on the ratio of Igrra, other clause of federal law, unrelated to gambling in the Indian territory, and agreement on US trust promises. 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (8) (B) (I)-(III).

II. Executive Summary

The Department of the Interior (the Ministry of Home Affairs) evaluates the changes in the unique standards (25 CFR, SHARE 293) that stipulates the gaming agreement between tribes and the state. The composition will add a moment to explain how to evaluate the "Class III Tribe Gaming Agreement" (tribal state gaming agreement or agreement).

The ministry's management rules do not specify what to consider, but these points are described in a series of opinions published by the ministry since 1988. In how the gaming industry changes and the progress of the lawsuit, the ministry examined the tribal and state gaming agreements, how to do the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulation Law (IGRA), Article 2701 of the United States Code, Article 2701, and Gaming in Indian territory. It emphasizes the need to comply with the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction and the other clause of the federal law, which is not related to the United States trust promises.

III. Background

In 1988, the Red Skins Gaming Regulation was limited to the sovereign rights for the tribes to participate in gambling, assuming that almost all tribes are already engaged in gambling. Although this law tries to guarantee that the Indian tribes are the main beneficiaries of the gambling business, the state government has concluded an agreement with a tribe called "class III tribe and state gaming compact". He acknowledged that it would play a limited role in regulations on the Red Skins gambling project. Class III gaming compact). The Federal Congress regulated the gambling industry and tried to balance the sovereignty of the tribe and the state of the state by protecting from official crimes and other rotten effects. 25 USC 2702 (2).

At the time of the IGRA, Redskins gaming business accounted for about $ 121 million in the US cooperation gaming industry, and Casino in Nevada has created a total of $ 4. 1 billion gaming. [1] By the end of the 2021 fiscal year, the Red Skins gaming business accounted for about $ 39 billion in the US cooperation gaming industry, and the paid gaming business accounted for $ 53 billion. [2] In a Casino City report on the 2018 Red Skins gaming business, Allen Meister, a philosophy of Meister Economic Consulting, had a total of 31, 50 Red Skins gaming in 2016. It was calculated as $ 100 million, a fiscal contribution of the industry to the US economy-105, $ 4 billion. The ministry's management rules do not specify what to take into account, but these points are described in a series of opinions published by the ministry since 1988. In how the gaming industry changes and the progress of the lawsuit, the ministry examined the tribal and state gaming agreements, how to do the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulation Law (IGRA), Article 2701 of the United States Code, Article 2701, and Gaming in Indian territory. It emphasizes the need to comply with the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction and the other clause of the federal law, which is not related to the United States trust promises.

At the time of the IGRA, Redskins gaming business accounted for about $ 121 million in the US cooperation gaming industry, and Casino in Nevada has created a total of $ 4. 1 billion gaming. [1] By the end of the 2021 fiscal year, the Red Skins gaming business accounted for about $ 39 billion in the US cooperation gaming industry, and the paid gaming business accounted for $ 53 billion. [2] In a Casino City report on the 2018 Red Skins gaming business, Allen Meister, a philosophy of Meister Economic Consulting, had a total of 31, 50 Red Skins gaming in 2016. It was calculated as $ 100 million, a fiscal contribution of the industry to the US economy-105, $ 4 billion. The ministry's management rules do not specify what to consider, but these points are described in a series of opinions published by the ministry since 1988. In how the gaming industry changes and the progress of the lawsuit, the ministry examined the tribal and state gaming agreements, how to do the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulation Law (IGRA), Article 2701 of the United States Code, Article 2701, and Gaming in Indian territory. It emphasizes the need to comply with the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction and the other clause of the federal law, which is not related to the United States trust promises.

In 1988, the Red Skins Gaming Regulation Law has restricted the sovereign rights for tribes to be gambling, assuming that almost all tribes are already gambling. This law tries to guarantee that the Indian tribes are the main beneficiaries of the gambling business, but the state government has concluded an agreement with a tribe called "class III tribe and state gaming compact". He acknowledged that it would play a limited role in regulations on the Red Skins gambling project. Class III gaming compact). The Federal Congress regulated the gambling industry and tried to balance the sovereignty of the tribe and the state of the state by "protecting from official crimes and other rotten effects." 25 USC 2702 (2).

Concurrent with the growth of Indian gambling, commercial gambling, state licensing, and state lotteries also grew. In the early 1980s, when Congress began considering Indian gambling-related bills, commercial casinos were legalized in two states and state lotteries in 17 states. By 2017, commercial casinos were legalized in 24 states, leading to the emergence of approximately 460 commercial casinos, excluding establishments with state-licensed video chisels, hippodromes for animals that do not have slot machines, and card halls. In 2017, total gaming revenues from commercial casinos were approximately $40. 28 billion, bringing in approximately $9. 2 billion in gambling taxes. In addition, state lotteries operated in 44 states in 2017.

The expansion of state lotteries and licensed commercial gambling may put tribes and states in a situation where they directly compete for market share. In addition, advances in gambling technology and changes in state and federal gambling laws since the adoption of IGRA (preprint p. 74917) have impacted the contract negotiation process. As a result, gambling Class III contracts have become larger and more complex as parties seek mutually beneficial provisions. However, IGRA did not envision the contract negotiation process taking place between competitors, but rather between sovereign governments seeking to regulate gambling.

Congress, through IGRA, mandated tribes to enter into compacts with states to conduct Class III gaming. 25 U. S. C. 2710 (d) (1) (c). IGRA requires states to negotiate Class III gaming compacts with discretion, limits the negotiation of Class III gaming compacts, and prohibits states from using the process to impose taxes, fees, payments, or other levies on tribal gaming operations. 25 U. S. C. 2710(d)(3)(a); 2710(d)(3)(c); 2710(d)(4).

According to IGRA, the agency has 45 days to complete its review and approve or disapprove a Class III gambling agreement. If the agency takes no action during this 45-day period, the gambling agreement between the tribe and the state is deemed legally approved to the extent that it complies with IGRA. For the agreement to take effect, a notice of approval must be published in the Federal Register.

IV. Summary of Comments Received

A. General Comments

The rules related to the processing process of the inte r-tribal agreement by the Ministry of Industry are listed in 25 CFR Part 293 and were published in 2008 (hereinafter, "2008 Regulations"). 73 FR 74004 (December 5, 2008). The 2008 regulations were created by the ministry for "consideration of tribes and state applications and by the Secretary of the Gaming Class III Agreement between the Translites and State", and (...) biological problems. It is not intended to consider. " 73 FR 74004-5. The ministry's examinations on organisms are described in many decisions. In addition, a series of precedents on the related limit of the class III agreement of gambling was created. By adopting these rules, the ministry intends to make the interpretation of the lon g-standing policies and precedent law in the form of legal acts related to this proposal, and that the Secretary of the Secretary is specific clause. The certainty and clarity are ensured on how to consider.

On March 28, 2022, the Bureau announced a tribe of the tribe in accordance with the criteria for the company's policy and the Cabinet Order No. 13175, "The 25CFR Part 293 amendment". "Everybody is the leader". The ministry held two student sessions and four official discussions. The bureau also accepted his opinions until June 30, 2022.

Leaders who respect the tribes include a 2 5-CFR part 293 revision project (hereinafter referred to as a consultation project), a consolidation table of talks on the part 293 revised project, and the revision of the 2008 views. The line was included. To the Dear Tribal Captain, the letter of the dialogue included a request to submit an opinion on the consultation project and the answer to the seven questions regarding the consultation.

The bureau received many written and verbal opinions from tribal leaders and organizations to protect the interests of tribes. In addition, organizations that do not belong to the tribe are not taken into consideration or answers for discussions with the tribes, but received an opinion that was included and considered as part of the public comments.

Some opinions commented on the processes and conditions of proposed regulations. Some of them were requested for additional consultation in the rules for formulation, to conduct a wide range of consultation equivalent to the agreed standard, and to promptly develop the rules.

The bureau complies with comments on this annotation. The bureau is eager to ensure the balance of efficiency in intensive consultation and rule formulation. The Bureau held four virtual consultations and two complete meetings, and in the scheduled discussions and written comments, for a statement on a statement on the rules that showed great contributions from the tribal supporters. Provides support skills.

Many opinions say the bureau's first opinion question, "The change plan will increase the certainty and clarity of the compensation through the agreement by the secretar y-general? Is the commentator supporting some of the 293, and how they look at it? In terms of substantial legal measures that ensure certainty and clarity, comments on the lon g-standing politics and precedent law are actually several clauses. , The exterior of them is too wide or ambiguous and may cause all problems, to improve the individual sections of the offer that indicate the fear of all problems Used the other opinions that the provisions proposed by the bureau were used in a solid or patalistic style, and did not follow the tribal sovereign conclusions. I urged attention.

The bureau announced a comment on the notes. Considering the respect of the tribal sovereignty, I would like to explain and guarantee the scope of use of the contract concluded in cooperation with IGRA. The proposed criteria are culturally cultural to the tribes that conclude a contract with the IGRA and the people who have a state of state. The division saw a specific proposal to improve the stenosis of several clauses and to improve lower right segments. The bureau complies with comments on this annotation. The bureau is eager to ensure the balance of efficiency in intensive consultation and rule formulation. The Bureau held four virtual consultations and two complete meetings, and in the scheduled discussions and written comments, for a statement on a statement on the rules that showed a great deal of contribution from the tribal supporters. Provides support skills.

The bureau announced a comment on the notes. Considering the respect of the tribal sovereignty, I would like to explain and guarantee the scope of use of the contract concluded in cooperation with IGRA. The proposed criteria are culturally cultural to the tribes that conclude a contract with the IGRA and the people who have a state of state. The division saw a specific proposal to improve the stenosis of several clauses and to improve lower right segments. The bureau complies with comments on this annotation. The bureau is eager to ensure the balance of efficiency in intensive consultation and rule formulation. The Bureau held four virtual consultations and two complete meetings, and in the scheduled discussions and written comments, for a statement on a statement on the rules that showed great contributions from the tribal supporters. Provides support skills.

2nd discussion questions "Is the necessary management done for the parties who participate in the negotiations of the decision contract? Is there a method of assistance instructions? Commentator supports the consultation plan and the new major rules proposed. The parties have announced the fact that they provide a "technical support" to provide "technical support" to the main negotiations. , I advised the station to connect to the rules. Other commentators stated that "appropriate leadership" is basically a praise, but ultimately cannot be accessed. Commenters have expressed concern about the consultation plan, and the proposed main rules are unnecessary, and the number of technical support requirements is increased to negotiate with local governments and district authorities in cooperation with Igra's claim. He said that it would lead to.

The department complies with these comments. The bureau has evaluated the technical backing issues in the following separate CV explanations and answers. The bureau states that the proposed major provisions are a culture of politics and precedents cultivated by the bureau over the years, covering the following contract scope. Inte r-i n-government agreements between tribes and state or regional authorities may be, in effect, but parliament may connect the tribes and states to the gaming commercial between the tribe and the state. We predicted the problem in the range.

The commentator asked for an explanation whether this standard would affect the current negotiations.

In fact, a department that reflects the standard (74918 printing page), which was proposed as a consultation plan, has summarized promising disposal, and has been used as a political number that can be used by the department, past facts and precedents. The discussion plan has been published, and the bureau has advised the tribes and states, which are important negotiations, to be familiar with the proposed rules.

Some commentators asked the bureau to clarify the date of the proposed guidance rules to the jurisdiction court, and questioned whether it would have a fluid effect. The commentator pleaded to explain when the parties would be able to provide any opportunity to issue documents in cooperation with new rules, and then when they could exercise their influence. One of the commentators proposed a word proposal for a section on the date of the authority and the grandfather's comment.

The bureau partially accepted the proposed normation law, and added a section on the enforcement date of the proposed rules. The new section number is §293. 30. Igrra has restricted the period of consideration of contracts or changes to 45 days. Thus, the ministry cannot approve or recognize the contract or change after the 4 5-day examination period.

Many commentators interpreted the IGRA's acts on negotiations for contract conclusion and questioned the authority of the Secretary of the Secretary. In addition, the commentator called for the authority of the Secretary to judge unfair evidence, pointing out that IGRA has delegated this role to the court, and clarified how the Secretary would judge unfair. 。

The Secretary has the authority to disclose this rule regarding the submission of a contract and reviewing the amendment based on the authority of the IGRA and 25 U. S. C. EN 9. Congress, which accepted the IGRA, delegated the authority to consider contracts for other clauses of federal law, which are not related to the jurisdiction of gambling in the land of IGRA and Indians, and the United States compliance with the United States' trust obligations. 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (8) (i)-(III). IGRA is subject to contract negotiations and contract changes, and specifies the parameters of those who are included in the contract. Therefore, when considering the submitted contracts and amendments, the Secretary has the authority to determine whether the contract is unacceptable. The bureau recognizes that Article 2710 (7) (a) (i) has given the Federal District Court against any of the causes of states. The state has given the Federal District Court against the cause of the state's conscientious negotiations ... the condition of the state's conscientious negotiations. "Therefore, in this rule, the phrase" proof of unfair "was replaced with the phrase" proof of Igrra's violation. " With this change, the rules of the Bureau harmonize with simple IGRA words that stipulate issues that believe that IGRA can be evidence of IGRA violation. The bureau partially accepted the provisions of the proposed normal law and added a section on the enforcement date of the proposed rules. The new section number is §293. 30. Igrra has restricted the period of consideration of contracts or changes to 45 days. Thus, the ministry cannot approve or recognize the contract or change after the 4 5-day examination period.

The Secretary has the authority to disclose this rule regarding the submission of a contract and reviewing the amendment based on the authority of the IGRA and 25 U. S. C. EN 9. Congress, which accepted the IGRA, delegated the authority to consider contracts for other clauses of federal law, which are not related to the jurisdiction of gambling in the land of IGRA and Indians, and the United States compliance with the United States' trust obligations. 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (8) (i)-(III). IGRA is subject to contract negotiations and contract changes, and specifies the parameters of those who are included in the contract. Therefore, when considering the submitted contracts and amendments, the Secretary has the authority to determine whether the contract is unacceptable. The bureau recognizes that Article 2710 (7) (a) (i) has given the Federal District Court against any of the causes of states. The state has given the Federal District Court against the cause of the state's conscientious negotiations ... the condition of the state's conscientious negotiations. "Therefore, in this rule, the phrase" proof of unfair "was replaced with the phrase" proof of Igrra's violation. " With this change, the rules of the Bureau harmonize with simple IGRA words that stipulate issues that believe that IGRA can be evidence of IGRA violation. The bureau partially accepted the proposed normation law, and added a section on the enforcement date of the proposed rules. The new section number is §293. 30. Igrra has restricted the period of consideration of contracts or changes to 45 days. Thus, the ministry cannot approve or recognize the contract or change after the 4 5-day examination period.

Many comments have quoted the Supreme Court's conclusion 44 (1996) that the federal parliament has no opportunity to abandon the exemption from stat e-owned government through Igra, and connects to the proposed "seminol modification" rules. I begged. Some commentators are Texas (Traditional Kicapes), 497 F. 3D 491 (5th district in 2007), New Mexico (Pueblo from Sufuku), 854 F. 3D 1207 (2017 (2017) In the case of the 10th district, he advised the ministry to add technical corrections to the 25 CFR share 291. The commentator, 5 and 10 wards, concluded that the 291 share of 291 share is actually not considered, and that the 291 share is very far from the goal of Congress and is forgotten by relics. Other commentators recommend that the state can predict a device that can stop the intervention of the Judicial Ministry when the state talks about his own disclaimer in the correction of Article 11 in connection with the unfair distortion of negotiations in collaboration with IGRA. did. If a commentator is basically the story of seminol, the tribe is often regarded as a tribal rival in gambling and finds himself in the state power of the state that wants sovereignty o < Span. > Many comments quotes the Supreme Court's conclusion 44 (1996) that the federal parliament has no opportunity to abandon the exemption from stat e-owned government through Igra, and connects to the proposed "Seminol Fixed" rules. I begged the ministry. Some commentators are Texas (Traditional Kicapes), 497 F. 3D 491 (5th district in 2007), New Mexico (Pueblo from Sufuku), 854 F. 3D 1207 (2017 (2017) In the case of the 10th district, he advised the ministry to add technical corrections to the 25 CFR share 291. The commentator, 5 and 10 wards, concluded that the 291 share of 291 share is actually not considered, and that the 291 share is very far from the goal of Congress and is forgotten by relics. Other commentators recommend that the state can predict a device that can stop the intervention of the Ministry of Justice when the state talks about his exemptions in Article 11 of the revision, in connection with the unfair distortion of negotiations in cooperation with IGRA. did. Commenters basically, if the story of seminol is not the current revision, the tribes are often regarded as rivals in gambling and find themselves in the power of the state that wants sovereignty. The commenter quoted the Supreme Court's conclusion 44 (1996) that the Federal Congress did not have the opportunity to abandon the exemption of the government through Igra, and begged the ministry to connect to the proposed "seminol modification" rules. did. Some commentators are Texas (Traditional Kicapes), 497 F. 3D 491 (5th district in 2007), New Mexico (Pueblo from Sufuku), 854 F. 3D 1207 (2017 (2017) In the case of the 10th district, he advised the ministry to add technical corrections to the 25 CFR share 291. The commentator, 5 and 10 wards, concluded that the 291 share of 291 share is actually not considered, and that the 291 share is very far from the goal of Congress and is forgotten by relics. Other commentators recommend that the state can predict a device that can stop the intervention of the Judicial Ministry when the state talks about his own disclaimer in the correction of Article 11 in connection with the unfair distortion of negotiations in collaboration with IGRA. did. If a commentator is basically not the current revision in the story of seminol, the tribes are often regarded as gambling and tribal rivals and find themselves in the power of the state that wants sovereignty.

As an example of "unfair", some commentators refuse to not contract or take, or refuse to provide almost the same contract to all tribes in the state, The bureau called for additional additions to refuse to negotiate or fix before expiration.

The bureau has acknowledged that they could be an example of no n-conscientious negotiations according to Igra. The ministry incorporates several clauses indicating IGRA violations in the rules. The ministry will continue to coordinate the IGRA warning with the Ministry of Justice and the Intoders Gambling Committee.

Consultation Question: Should the draft revisions include provisions that facilitate Statewide remote wagering or internet gaming?

Some commentators have notified the Judicial Ministry of Justice for dismissing the contract, requesting the Judicial Ministry to appeal to the state on behalf of the tribe. The Bureau pointed out that the Supreme Court ruling of 517 U. S. 44 (1996), "Seminol and Florida, Florida", is that minority districts have recognized rules based on the 291th department of the Bureau. 。 According to the rules, the parliament did not have the right to obey the state in the Indian tribe in accordance with Igra. The bureau is considering all possible options, including the technical fix of Part 291. The provisions of Part293 reflect the ministry's efforts aimed at all tribes to make a profit from the goals of IGRA, while guaranteeing the use range of IGRA for contracts. 。 It is a step toward this direction not only formulates a situation in which IGRA violations, eventually indicating no n-conscientious negotiations, but also a clear leadership and important testing culture. The ministry has submitted evidence that the tribe is unreasonable to negotiations, and has refused to cultivate a formal process transferred to the Justice Ministry. The Ministry has long been adjusted for the lon g-awaited Ministry of Justice and the National Commission On Indian Gaming (National Committee on Indian Gaming) and the IGRA requirements, "unfair negotiations between tribes," or implementation. Ta.

The bureau has acknowledged that they could be an example of no n-conscientious negotiations according to Igra. The ministry incorporates some clauses indicating IGRA violations in the rules. The ministry will continue to coordinate the IGRA warning with the Ministry of Justice and the Intoders Gambling Committee.

Some commentators have notified the Judicial Ministry of Justice for dismissing the contract, requesting the Judicial Ministry to appeal to the state on behalf of the tribe. Following the Supreme Court ruling of the 517 U. 44 (1996) Supreme Court, the Bureau of the Seminol, the Seminol, the Seminol, the Bureau of the Supreme Court of the Bureau has acknowledged the rules of the Bureau 291. According to the rules, the parliament did not have the right to obey the state in the Indian tribe in accordance with Igra. The bureau is considering all possible options, including the technical fix of Part 291. The provisions of Part293 reflect the ministry's efforts aimed at all tribes to make a profit from the goals of IGRA, while guaranteeing the use range of IGRA for contracts. 。 It is a step toward this direction not only to formulate situations where IGRA violations, themselves, which may show no n-conscientious negotiations, but also have clear leadership and important testing culture. The ministry has submitted evidence that the tribe is unreasonable to negotiations, and has refused to cultivate a formal process transferred to the Justice Ministry. The Ministry has long been adjusted for the lon g-awaited Ministry of Justice and the National Commission On Indian Gaming (National Committee on Indian Gaming) and the IGRA requirements, "unfair negotiations between tribes," or implementation. Ta.

B. Section Comments

Comments on § 293.1 What is the purpose of this part?

Some commentators have notified the Judicial Ministry of Justice for dismissing the contract, requesting the Judicial Ministry to appeal to the state on behalf of the tribe.

In its own, contracts and amendments are not evidence of unfair negotiations. However, if a tribe has submitted evidence that the state has forced the tribe to incorporate the situation in the tribe, the Bureau may ask the Ministry of Justice to file an unfair law on a specific situation. 。

Some commentators have requested that all letters, including the contrac t-based decisions, and the documents on the no n-approved claims, in an accessory indicator. (Print page 74919)

The bureau pays attention to these comments. The Bureau wants to publish all letters, including the decision on the contract, and the allegations of the backs and allegations on the website of the Indian Game Bureau, including the indicators that are easy to use.

Comments on § 293.2 How are key terms defined in this part?

In order to provide technical support to tribes and states, some have called for the official culture of gambling in Indian gambling in the rules. There were also opinions that the bureau would like to define the period to publish a technical support document. Other comments requested that some of the requests for technical support provide "legal views" or official actions by the ministry.

The bureau rejected the recommendation. Technical support is not a "provisional definition" or "legal guidance", but rather an explanation of past precedents and cases. The bureau pointed out that the tribes and states to ask Indian Gambling stations is a wide variety of issues that require a wide range of political and legal surveys. In addition, depending on the needs of the parties and the amount of requests, they may prefer oral technical support rather than writing. Authorities will continue to provide technical support.

Some commentators talked about negotiations on contracting with the state and trying to solve contract disputes. Some say that gaming is a source of income for Indian tribes, which is important to increase employment and economic empowerment.

The ministry pays attention to these opinions.

Several commentators discussed legal dissertations, including Kevin Washburn's former Indians.

Pay attention to these opinions. In itself, contracts and amendments are not evidence of unfair negotiations. However, if a tribe has submitted evidence that the state has forced the tribe to incorporate the situation in the tribe, the Bureau may ask the Ministry of Justice to file an unfair law on a specific situation. 。

Comments on § 293.2(a)—Amendment

Some commentators have requested that all letters, including the contrac t-based decisions, and the documents on the no n-approved claims, in an accessory indicator. (Print page 74919)

Comments on § 293.2(c)—Extension

Several commentators discussed legal dissertations, including Kevin Washburn's former Indians.

Pay attention to these opinions. In its own, contracts and amendments are not evidence of unfair negotiations. However, if a tribe has submitted evidence that the state has forced the tribe to incorporate the situation in the tribe, the Bureau may ask the Ministry of Justice to file an unfair law on a specific situation. 。

Comments on § 293.2(d)—Gaming Activity

Some commentators have requested that all letters, including the contrac t-based decisions, and the documents on the no n-approved claims, in an accessory indicator. (Print page 74919)

The bureau rejected the recommendation. Technical support is neither a "provisional definition" nor "legal guidance", but rather an explanation of past precedents and cases of cases. The bureau pointed out that the tribes and states to ask Indian Gambling stations is a wide variety of issues that require a wide range of political and legal surveys. In addition, depending on the needs of the parties and the amount of requests, they may prefer oral technical support rather than writing. Authorities will continue to provide technical support.

Comments on § 293.2(e)—Gaming Facility

The ministry pays attention to these opinions.

Several commentators discussed legal dissertations, including Kevin Washburn's former Indians.

Pay attention to these opinions.

Some commenters commented that it would be better not to say the word Igra and not paraphrase it. The commenter advised the bureau to limit the proposed major provisions. Other commentators are defined in Article 293, Paragraph 2 (D), and the definition of gambling acts used in Article 293, Paragraph 23 of the Consultation Plan and Article 293, Paragraph 24 of the rules. He states that it is a fear.

In the consultation plan, the Bureau strictly protect the words of the legislature and propose an important provision that was proposed with the Bureau's lon g-standing politicians. The bureau states that the term "gambling" is not defined by IGRA. As stipulated below, the Bureau revised the definition of "gambling" in §293. 2, and still saw it in §293. 24.

Many commentators responded to the 6th advisory question, "Is it possible to create a amendment to connect the provisions that promote remote fees or Internet gambling on stat e-owned land?" Most of the commentators agreed that the bureau had a line in order to connect online gambling related clause. Some commentators believe that the tribes need to have opportunities to compete in the digital industry, so the rules of I-gaming have been solved. Other commentators are in terms of changes in footprints, which predict that negotiations between tribes and states are allowed to actually look at i-gaming. Another commentator explained that IGRA encourages the agreement between sovereign state.

Others have also said that the I-Gaming model based on the state law is not an alternative to I-Gaming based on IGRA, and that tribes need to have the opportunity to participate in IGRA online games. There are also opinions that tribes need to participate in IGRA online games to participate in IGRA online games.

Finally, a certain number of scholars who supported the associations with the gambling business were highly evaluated and approved the gambling test conducted by the Bureau in a message to the seminol civilization on June 21, 2021. At least three commentators have also offered the Bureau's wording about I-gaming. Some comments commented that it would be better not to replace the word Igra and not paraphrase it. The commenter advised the bureau to limit the proposed major provisions. Other commentators are defined in Article 293, Paragraph 2 (D), and the definition of gambling acts used in Article 293, Paragraph 23 of the Consultation Plan and Article 293, Paragraph 24 of the rules. He states that it is a fear.

Finally, a certain number of scholars who supported the associations with the gambling business were highly evaluated and approved the gambling test conducted by the Bureau in a message to the seminol civilization on June 21, 2021. At least three commentators have also offered the Bureau's wording about I-gaming. Some commenters commented that it would be better not to say the word Igra and not paraphrase it. The commenter advised the bureau to limit the proposed major provisions. Other commentators are defined in Article 293, Paragraph 2 (D), and the definition of gambling acts used in Article 293, Paragraph 23 of the Consultation Plan and Article 293, Paragraph 24 of the rules. He states that it is a fear.

Comments on the Term Necessary for

Comments on § 293.3 What authority does the Secretary have to approve or disapprove compacts and amendments?

Multiple commentators have denied that the bureau is considering the issue of I-gaming in the revised project. Another person is regulated by the I-Gaming in the state law, and there is no precedent that claims that the Secretary has authority on this issue, the other is an unresolved problem of the federal law, and the ministry. I don't think it should interfere, and the other believes that there is no way to regulate i-gaming, which will damage the business at the actual store.

The two commentators did not express a clear pros and cons for I-gaming. One pointed out that one of them should be discussed with the tribes before deciding, and the other is beneficial for the tribal views on this situation, but what kind of additional provisions are proposed. He pointed out that it was unknown. Other opinions have stated that personal experiences and legal analysis have helped to judge.

In response to comments, the Bureau related to the rules of external charges and Internet gaming in the state area, "§293. 29 can conclude an agreement on the fixes related to external charges and Internet gaming in the state of the state." A new clause has been added. IGRA is a "distribution of criminal and civil jurisdiction rights between the state and the Indian tribe, which is necessary to ensure compliance with the law and regulations," It stipulates that the application of relevant Indian tribes or state criminals and civil laws and regulatory acts can be agreed. 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (3) (C) (II). The position of the station is a criminal and civil jurisdiction of negotiations with the states related to the state-scale external betting or I-gaming. It is a wide range of categories. Therefore, if the player is not physically on the land of other tribal Indians, it should be allowed to participate in this kind of gambling in accordance with the gambling agreement between the tribe and the state.

By revising Article 293, Paragraph 1 (A), and adding "or" after "AND", the corresponding clause is "the tribal and / or the state of the" service. It is recommended that you use Latzedora that must be used when providing. "The corresponding proposal proposed by the commentator clarifies that both parties can submit contracts or contract corrections.

In fact, as described in §293. 6, contracts or corrections have the option to submit tribes or staff.

Several comments supported the configuration of §293. 1.

Comments on § 293.4 Are compacts and amendments subject to review and approval?

The department considers this comment as a record.

Several comments have advised the Bureau to save the wording of the introduction of Article 293, Paragraph 2 of the 2008 Regulation: All (printing page 74920) for the purpose of the specified section. In fact, it has the same meaning, part of the definition of Red in 1988-Kiri Gaming Adjustment (25 U. S. C. 2703).

The bureau has abandoned the recommendation of saving the 2008 rule §293. 2. The station made a proposal to clarify the preface §293. 2.

One comment recommended the phrase "In addition to the already identified conditions of IGRA, this section defines the appropriate main conditions."

The ministry will adopt this recommendation. Once the term "Indians" is defined in IGRA's 25 U. S. 2703 (5), it is specified here as a "tribe". The proposed wording indicates that all specific definitions of §293. 2 are regarded as fresh or additional definitions, which may actually lead to incitement.

Several comments supported the configuration in Article 293, Paragraph 2, and in fact, the new definition of the main definition was IGRA.

Comments on § 293.4(a)

The ministry respects these opinions.

In fact, some comments have announced that the definition of the configuration used by §293. 2 (a) and §293. 4 is considered to be very wide. Other comment submits requested the department to clarify the definition of the configuration in order to strictly eliminate the correction or procedure correction from the adjustment of §293. 4.

Section 293. 4 was reviewed in consideration of these comments and other comments on this section.

One of the submits is when the change in the secretary procedure prescribed by adjusting the adjustment of 25 U. S. C. 2710 (7) (B) (VII) is adjusted by the Indian tribe and the state. By adding "" whether to restrain, the department was asked to reconsider the definition of the configuration. The statement creator explained that the addition of this additional contract is basically considered a "contract" or "change of contract" for the purpose of the 4 5-day study period by IGRA.

The bureau adopted the recommendation and included words proposed in §293. 2 (a).

The ministry follows these opinions.

The commentator has advised the bureau to delete the sentence "or amendment" from the provisions of the extension, and there is no sentence "or correction" in fact §293. 5.

In fact, the definition of "contracts" and "changes" is often applied as possible, in accordance with the needs of precedents and contract parties. Based on this, the bureau used the expression "contract or change" throughout the entire 29 3-Part Advisory Plan. The bureau added the correct editing to §293. 5.

The commentator has advised the bureau to delete the sentence "or amendment" from the provisions of the extension, and there is no sentence "or correction" in fact §293. 5.

It should be noted that the station has adopted the recommended changes in §293. 2 (E). The definition of a game work or gambling is that "game work or gambling means gambling class III, which contains three no n-handled substances.

Multiple commentators may be interpreted that the definition of gaming operations in the 293 share may be interpreted as all gaming operations will be applied to be applied in the Indian tribal area. He has expressed concern that he has the ability to sign a mobile or an I-gaming contract on a state-scale.

In response to this fear, the bureau has enabled a new §292. 29 proposal to handle i-gaming in the contract.

One of the commenters advised the bureau to connect the definition of the term "gambling field", which matches the legitimate reason for the Bureau, when the Bureau did not confirm three California contracts in 2021. 。 By connecting the definition of the term "gambling field", a statement creator will have a logical objection between the definition of gambling facilities and 25 U. S. 2710 (3) (C) (VI). You can explain and connect to the contract, "Standards for the Section 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (3) (C) (VI) The whole structure is for the structure of the building. Section 2710 (D) (3) (I) (I) , Gambling in collaboration with the first (VI) and (VII), explained that it provides clarity to the parties on the appropriate boundary of the Observation of Land in Igrra.

The department has adopted this advice, revised the definition of gaming facilities, including gaming buildings in the definition, and decided to include gaming facilities in (F) gaming facilities. The definition of the revised gaming facilities incorporates concerns of comments on households and licensing based on paragraph 2 of 25 U. S. 2710 (D) (3) (C) (VI).

Many opinions have expressed concern about the provisions related to gaming facilities in the definition of gaming facilities proposed in Article 293, paragraph 2 (E).

Comments on § 293.4(b)—Which Has Been Renumbered as § 293.4(c)

Several comments have advised the gaming bureau to change the expression "facilities necessary for gaming activities" to the expression "facilities that are particularly related to the implementation of class III gaming activities." 。 Comments explained that this wording matched the method of the Ministerial Ordinance that the appropriate usage of the term "gaming facility" in the treaty was outlined by the Ministerial Ordinance.

There were several opinions that advised the ministry to change the expression "Inclouding a Casino Floor" to "Casino Floor". Comments explained that this change will allow the parties to determine which areas should be integrated and which areas should be excluded.

Several comment creators recommended that the end of the definition add a phrase "and Other Protected Areas".

Several comments have excluded gaming facilities, excluding areas that provide basic amenities to gaming guests (hotels, restaurants, and other facilities that are not specially used for class III gaming). Recommended to clarify.

The bureau partially agreed to the recommendation change of gaming-building in the definition of gaming facilities. The new definition of gaming facilities is linked to the proposed configuration, and in coordinating with IGRA, it is in a hurry into physiological orbitals with low possibility of the national jurisdiction over the territory of the tribe. This definition (printing page 74921) may provide a lon g-lasting interpretation because section 25 U. S. 2710 (D) (3) (C) Class III gambling is applied only to the substantial areas. Is designed. The definition of the revised gambling facility is limited to buildings or structures only in the building or structure in which the gambling is performed in cooperation with Article 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (3) (C) (VI). Is applied to the prescribed house and license services. [4]

One opinion advised the bureau to connect the term "building" to show the diversity of the building used by the tribe for gambling.

The definition of a gambling field in Article 293, paragraph 2 (E) was "physical facilities or structures where gambling is performed." The definition of gambling facilities in Article 293, paragraph 2 (e) (e) became "physical facilities or structures where gambling is performed."

Several commentators advised the ministry to link the definition of the term "project" in Article 293, paragraph (2), as the proportion of the term "gambling field" in Article 293, paragraph 2 (e). Statement creators have several states, and observations of local governments by starting a wide range of environmental surveys, impacting or paid payments when they live to develop or expand the "gambling field". He explained that the term "project" or "gambling project" is used in combination with the "gambling field" to expand the tax.

The clause has been alleviated to connect the definition of the term "project". The composition of the 293 copies, as in the important provisions of Article 293. 24, Article 293. 25, and Article 293. 28, is related to the definition of the gambling field and the gaming space, and the tribes and the state. Based on the limited awareness of the influence of the agreement between the agreements, the California's department is satisfied with the basis of the expansion definition of the "Gambling Field" and "Project". The bureau partially agreed to the gaming facility's definition of gaming-building. The new definition of gaming facilities is linked to the proposed configuration, and in coordinating with IGRA, it is in a hurry into physiological orbitals with low possibility of the national jurisdiction over the territory of the tribe. This definition (printing page 74921) may provide a lon g-lasting interpretation because section 25 U. S. 2710 (D) (3) (C) Class III gambling is applied only to the substantial areas. Is designed. The definition of the revised gambling facility is limited to buildings or structures only in the building or structure in which the gambling is performed in cooperation with Article 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (3) (C) (VI). Is applied to the prescribed house and license services. [4]

One opinion advised the bureau to connect the term "building" to show the diversity of the building used by the tribe for gambling.

The clause has been alleviated to connect the definition of the term "project". The composition of the 293 copies, as in the important provisions of Article 293. 24, Article 293. 25, and Article 293. 28, is related to the definition of the gambling field and the gaming space, and the tribes and the state. Based on the limited awareness of the influence of the agreement between the agreements, the California's department is satisfied with the basis of the expansion definition of the "Gambling Field" and "Project". The bureau partially agreed to the recommendation change of gaming-building in the definition of gaming facilities. The new definition of gaming facilities is linked to the proposed configuration, and in coordinating with IGRA, it is in a hurry into physiological orbitals with low possibility of the national jurisdiction over the territory of the tribe. This definition (printing page 74921) may provide a lon g-lasting interpretation because section 25 U. S. 2710 (D) (3) (C) Class III gambling is applied only to the substantial areas. Is designed. The definition of the revised gambling facility is limited to buildings or structures only in the building or structure in which the gambling is performed in cooperation with Article 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (3) (C) (VI). Is applied to the prescribed house and license services. [4]

One opinion advised the bureau to connect the term "building" to show the diversity of the building used by the tribe for gambling.

Comments on § 293.5 Are extensions to compacts or amendments subject to review and approval?

The clause has been alleviated to connect the definition of the term "project". The composition of the 293 copies is related to the definition of the gambling field and the gaming space, as in the important provisions of Article 293. 24, Article 293. 25 and Article 293. 28. Based on the limited awareness of the influence of the agreement between the agreements, the California department's discrimination is satisfied under the basis of the expansion definition of the "Gambling Field" and "Project".

Multiple comments are the criteria for interpreting the term "Necessary for" used in Article 270 (D) (3) (C) and 25 CFR Part 293, which is used in the United States Code. It is recommended that it is determined or in other ways. The comment creator also advised the tribe to prioritize the rational judgment of the contract provisions required to implement class III gaming.

The bureau has pointed out that the term "necessary" has no strict definitions, so it is necessary to consider the context used by law. "NECESSARY" used in IGRA is a limited expression and is an expression that uses the commonly accepted "NECESSARY". [5] When applying the provisions including the "NECESSARY FOR" of IGRA and Part 293, the department asks, "Is this position absolutely necessary for class III gaming?"

Multiple commentators supported §293. 3 changes, but questioned whether the internal mutual link with §293. 14 was accurate.

The association pays attention to these opinions. The internal cross link to 293. 14 was deleted with the current §293. 14, and the updated link to §293. 15 was given.

Multiple commentators recommended that §293. 3 the legislation of the Secretary to approve or reject contracts or revisions. Commentator pointed out that other sections of the 293 copies are considering basic requirements for the conclusion and submission of contracts.

The bureau reviewed §293. 3 and deleted a link to the signing of the parties.

One of the commenters added to Article 293, paragraph (3, but also "Agreement, other documents, conflicts, global agreements, or arbitration ruling, but not limited to these, corrections from other agreements." I proposed to do.

The bureau refused to include the proposed words in Article 293, Paragraph 3. It is noted that the change of §293. 4, §293. 7, and §293. 21 mentions the changes caused by the dispute solution, judging, reconciliation, or other changes caused by other solutions outside the federal court.

Multiple commentators recommend that Article 293, paragraph (3) also add the wording "Approval of both parties".

The Ministry of the Ministry keeps the proposed wording §293. The bureau pays attention that the revision of Article 293, Paragraph 7 and Article 293, Paragraph 8 deals with contracts or revisions and requirements for approval.

For a certain number of opinions, review §293. 4, transfer the link to the “Agreement or Other Documents” in paragraphs (A) to paragraph (b), and from the section (b) I advised the station to delete the link to). The commentator stated that these configurations, in effect, could be determined by the tribe autonomously, and would not be "revised".

The Ministry partially agreed to this amendment. The proposed §293. 21, which considers the correction of the agreement by the dispute resolution procedure, is proposed in the proposed §293. A de facto department that neither parties are closed.

Several comments proposed to split §293. 4 (b) into a new section on supplementary agreements. The commentary basically, this section, including the configuration of the contract, between the dialogue that is subject to the next secretariat audit, and between the tribal regulation authorities related to the technical implementation of the contract standard, and the state regulatory authorities. He said that it protects the balance of documents or agreements. The title of the proposed new section is, "What is the case, the preliminary contract and the clause are subject to deliberations and approval." The proposed new section links three new paragraphs and maintains the composition of the text §293. 4 (b).

Comments on § 293.6 Who can submit a compact or amendment?

The Ministry partially agree with the proposed changes, and analyzes the proposed preliminary agreement §293.

Some comments have requested the bureau to culture lightweight adjustments to discuss and approve technical changes.

The ministry has provided another "simplified" procedure for technical fix (printing page 74922). Igrra has a 4 5-day study period to the Secretary, which is still used for technical corrections. Review §293. 4 for a certain number of opinions, transfer the link to the "Agreement or Other Documents" in the section (a) to paragraph (b), and from the (b) paragraph (B). He advised the bureau to delete a link to the striking squad. The commentator stated that these configurations, in effect, could be determined by the tribe autonomously, and would not be "revised".

Comments on § 293.7 When should the Tribe or State submit a compact or amendment for review and approval?

The Ministry partially agree with the proposed changes, and analyzes the proposed preliminary agreement §293.

Some comments have requested the bureau to culture lightweight adjustments to discuss and approve technical changes.

The ministry has provided another "simplified" procedure for technical fix (printing page 74922). Igrra has a 4 5-day study period to the Secretary, which is still used for technical corrections. For a certain number of opinions, review §293. 4, transfer the link to the “Agreement or Other Documents” in paragraphs (A) to paragraph (b), and from the section (b) I advised the station to delete the link to). The commentator stated that these configurations, in effect, could be determined by the tribe autonomously, and would not be "revised".

Comments on § 293.8 What documents must be submitted with a compact or amendment?

The Ministry partially agree with the proposed changes and analyzed the proposed preliminary agreement §293.

Some comments have requested the bureau to culture lightweight adjustments to discuss and approve technical changes.

The ministry has provided another "simplified" procedure for technical fix (printing page 74922). Igrra has a 4 5-day study period to the Secretary, which is still used for technical corrections.

Several commentators questioned whether the authority of the IGR A-based Secretary extends to the "no n-agreement" agreement between the tribe and the state or local government. Commenters pointed out that concluding agreements with local governments on various issues, such as payments after tax, service agreements, and mutual aid agreements, are more useful and most profitable for tribes. The commentator also questions that Article 2933 also includes an agreement that includes a clause related to payment from tribal gaming income. Whether such an agreement is a "contract" or "correction" must be considered and determined according to §293. 4 (c).

The ministry has refused these comments. The ministry pointed out that some states include the requirements for tribes to sign agreements with the local government, and often include payments to the tribes for tax revenue. Some of these agreements aimed to avoid scrutiny by the secretariat and impose taxes and other levies that are not allowed by the tribe. 25USC2710 (B) (2) (B) IGRA uses gaming pure income as a source of funding for the tribal government, provides general welfare of tribes and its members, promotes the economic development of tribes, and donates to charitable organizations. , Gives the tribe the authority to use to help local government funding. However, IGRA in Article 270 (D) (4), Article 25 of the United States Code, "tax, commission, billing, and other assessments for tribes in which state and its political lower agencies participate in class III gaming. Is prohibited from imposing. The proposed §293. 4 (c) process guarantees that these agreements are appropriately examined, and the state is unfairly collected by tax, commission, fee, or other payment through its political and lower agencies. It is designed to eliminate the possibility of pursuing.

There were several opinions calling to limit the application range of 293. 4. Many comments have a subsidy for interpreting the specific provisions of the agreement between the tribes and states, in order to effectively manage and regulate the daily complexity of class III gaming facilities. He explained that it includes the use of an agreement. Comment submits say that consultation draft §293. 4 is between the tribal and state regulations and licensed authorities in order to effectively and efficiently confirm that the tribal class III gaming business complies with the treaty and IGRA. He pointed out that it could be interpreted as other documents used by internal control, memorandum, and parties.

The Department revised § 293. 4 to clarify which documents the Department considers to be “amendments” subject to Secretary oversight.

Other commenters believe that some agreements contain mechanisms by which tribes and states can add games in response to changes in State or Federal law without amending the agreement, and that the consultation plan in § 293. 4 may in fact be interpreted to relate to tribal and State documents for games added pursuant to changes in State or Federal law.

The Department revised § 293. 4 to clarify which documents the Department considers to be “amendments” subject to Secretary oversight.

The Department revised § 293. 4 to be consistent with § 293. 21 to clarify which documents the Department considers to be “amendments” that are subject to Secretary review.

Several commenters expressed concern that the Department’s inclusion of “dispute resolution agreements, settlement agreements, or arbitral awards” in the list of documents subject to secretarial review in § 293. 4 could discourage parties from using potentially cost-effective dispute resolution methods and increase party burdens. Commenters asserted that the pervasiveness of secretarial review of dispute resolution, universal agreements, and arbitral opinions could increase confusion. Commenters further advised the Department to defer to tribes’ decisions as to whether any other documents merit Tribal review.

The Department revised § 293. 4 to be consistent with § 293. 21 to clarify which documents the Department considers to be “amendments” that are subject to Department review.

Other commentators support the list of documents to be verified by the Secretary of §293. 4, and the universal consensus to significantly change the promise of the pledge, supporting the "dispute solution, universal agreement or judge". And an example of arbitration judgment. In this way, the corresponding states may actually file an objection to Igra, and in cases where it is unpleasant, the Secretary's correction will be written. The arbitration committee's conclusion is that if a condition is added to the contract that changes the promise of the tribe that distributes profits, the model will go beyond the conditions of the scrutiny contract by the secretary. In fact, the tribes determined that the arbitration committee's conclusion would introduce the contract content in the contract, and requested the Secretary to judge, but the state refused to certify the arbitration committee as an amendment. There is a commentator who did it.

The bureau has accepted the concerns of commentators. The bureau has virtually acknowledged that the part 293 constituent is intended for data inference and similar environments. In response to these comments, the bureau revised Article 293, Paragraph 4.

Several comments have revised §293. 4 (a) and called on the bureau to delete the wording "regardless of whether it is important or technical."

In 293. 4 (b), this rant is effectively included in the 2008 rules. When adopting the 2008 rules, the ministry excluded the "technical change", but deleted this description in response to comments on the 2008 rules. 73 FR 74005 (December 5, 2008). The bureau determines how most of all comments will regard the recovery as "important", consider it under the management of the Secretary, or not under the control of the Secretary. Explained that he was asked.

One of the comments clarifies §293. 4 (a) and conveys the text of "contract or other documents", and then says "not limited, but includes the following." In addition, he advised the bureau to perform appropriate grammatical editing.

Comments on § 293.9 Where should a compact or amendment be submitted for review and approval?

The station incorporated a composition proposal in the revised §293. 4 (a) and (c).

The bureau changed the proposed §293. 4 (b) number to §293. 4 (c), and the comments were edited to reflect the new section number. Other commentators support the list of documents to be verified by the Secretary of §293. 4, and significantly change the promise of the pledge. Examples of universal agreements and arbitration decisions were listed. In this way, the corresponding states may actually file an objection to Igra, and in cases where it is unpleasant, the Secretary's correction will be written. The arbitration committee's conclusion is that if a condition is added to the contract that changes the promise of the tribe that distributes profits, the model will go beyond the conditions of the scrutiny contract by the secretary. In fact, the tribes determined that the arbitration committee's conclusion would introduce the contract content in the contract, and requested the Secretary to judge, but the state refused to certify the arbitration committee as an amendment. There is a commentator who did it.

Several comments have revised §293. 4 (a) and called on the bureau to delete the wording "regardless of whether it is important or technical."

Comments on § 293.10 How long will the Secretary take to review a compact or amendment?

Comments on § 293.11 When will the 45-day timeline begin?

The station incorporated a composition proposal in the revised §293. 4 (a) and (c).

The bureau changed the proposed §293. 4 (b) number to §293. 4 (c), and the comments were edited to reflect the new section number. Other commentators support the list of documents to be verified by the Secretary of §293. 4, and the universal consensus to significantly change the promise of the pledge, supporting the "dispute solution, universal agreement or judge". And an example of arbitration judgment. In this way, the corresponding states may actually file an objection to Igra, and in cases where it is unpleasant, the Secretary's correction will be written. The arbitration committee's conclusion is that if a condition is added to the contract that changes the promise of the tribe that distributes profits, the model will go beyond the conditions of the scrutiny contract by the secretary. In fact, the tribes determined that the arbitration committee's conclusion would introduce the contract content in the contract, and requested the Secretary to judge, but the state refused to certify the arbitration committee as an amendment. There is a commentator who did it.

Several comments have revised §293. 4 (a) and called on the bureau to delete the wording "regardless of whether it is important or technical."

Comments on § 293.12 What happens if the Secretary does not act on the compact or amendment within the 45-day review period?

The station incorporated a composition proposal in the revised §293. 4 (a) and (c).

The bureau changed the proposed §293. 4 (b) number to §293. 4 (c), and the comments were edited to reflect the new section number.

A certain number of commentators proposed by the station in §293. 4 (c), whether the contract is regarded as "contract" or "correction", or whether to submit it to the Secretary of Discussion and Detailed. Supported the process that the parties could consider. The proposed process is effectively given a proposition to the "state committee's rejection (printing page 74923)", and is regarded as a "management contract" that requires the promotion of NIGC. There is a commentator that it will determine whether or not.

Several comments suggested to §293. 4 (c) to the Bureau to take a configuration that indicates the issue period of the submitted document and the issuance period of the rejection notification.

The ministry has added a 6 0-day study period to reach a conclusion in collaboration with §293. 4.

Based on Article 293, Paragraph 4 (C), the other comments begged the bureau to clarify whether there is an option to submit the definition request.

The criteria for FY2008 in Article 293, Paragraph 6, in effect, the contract has a process that has any opportunity to propose consultation with the secretariat. The applicable part in Article 293, paragraph 6 reported that "the contract or correction party [] has the opportunity to submit an application." Consulting Plan §293. 4 (c) uses similar words and says, "Each party has the opportunity to apply for definition in writing. Each party has the opportunity to apply for a written definition." I mentioned. The bureau will be expelled on any day and eliminates third parties from processes and examinations.

To clarify whether some comments have the definition of letters in the category established by this test or the fact that the material is applied to the department as a basis for the tribal that is not very advantageous for the tribe. , §293. 4 (c) implied in the department to bring a configuration. The commentator also urged the Bureau to consider all kinds of clauses in the basic documents, with the approval of §293. 4 (c) conclusions, which could lead to further disapproval as a contract in collaboration with IGRA.

According to the plan's plan, the decision process based on §293. 4 (c) is another planning that the parties are planning their agreements without sending documents for secretary tests and encouragement or disapproval. It is possible to understand whether a document is regarded as a contract or correction. Historically, it was formed in a way that the department actually provided technical support to the parties and given a message on the encouragement of suspicions indicating a problematic clause. The Bureau suggests that the approval of the conclusions regarding §293. 4 (c) suggests that there is a possibility of retaining such instructions, but the bureau is §293. 4 to urgently seek such instructions. It is forced to review (c).

Several opinions asked the ministry to clarify the method and location of the parties, and requested the ministry to make such requests flexible.

The ministry has revised §293. 9, contracts, revisions, written decisions based on §293. 4 (c), or requests for technical support must be submitted to the Indian Gaming Office specified in §293. 9. I clarified that it would not go away. The ministry also keeps the ministry also reminded that Article 293 (9) has been revised to include an email address "IndianGaming@bia. Gov".

Multiple opinions fix §293. 4 (c), and at the beginning of the decision book, "Yes, this contract is a [treaty / revision] that requires approval of the secretariat" or "No." , The ministry requested that this contract did not fall under [contract / revision]. ... "

The bureau refuses to include the requirements requested in the specified statement of §293. 4 (c). The bureau is urged to use clear, concise, wel l-organized sentences. The ministry satisfies this requirement by describing the submitted documents and simple summers in the ministry in the preface of the decision.

Several opinions have requested that the last sentence of §293. 4 (c) will be revised to "issue a letter to the Secretary's decision." According to comments, this reduces potential ambiguity.

The ministry agreed to amendment to the final sentence of §293. 4 (c).

Several comments have supported a change to §293. 5, and these changes are treated as a kind of change in which the Secretary's approval is exempted before the Federal Gazette is announced in the Federal Gazette. He pointed out that it reflects the practice.

The ministry pays attention to these comments.

Several comment submit asked the bureau to clarify the difference between "changes" and "extensions", which were defined in §293. 2 and applied in §293. 4 and §293. 5. Comments pointed out that the extension could change the "operation and regulation" of the class III gambling business in the tribe. Several opinions asked the ministry to clarify the method and place to submit the request, and requested the ministry to make the submission of such requests flexible.

Several opinions have requested that the last sentence of §293. 4 (c) will be revised to "issue a letter to the Secretary's decision." According to comments, this reduces potential ambiguity.

The ministry agreed to amendment to the final sentence of §293. 4 (c).

The ministry pays attention to these comments.

Several comment submit asked the bureau to clarify the difference between "changes" and "extensions", which were defined in §293. 2 and applied in §293. 4 and §293. 5. Comments pointed out that the extension could change the "operation and regulation" of the class III gambling business in the tribe. Several opinions asked the ministry to clarify the method and location of the parties, and requested the ministry to make such requests flexible.

Several opinions have requested that the last sentence of §293. 4 (c) will be revised to "issue a letter to the Secretary's decision." According to comments, this reduces potential ambiguity.

The ministry agreed to amendment to the final sentence of §293. 4 (c).

The ministry pays attention to these comments.

Comments on § 293.13 Who can withdraw a compact or amendment after it has been received by the Secretary?

One comment suggested that this section provides a mechanism for the tribe and the state to unilaterally recognize the validity of the existing contract if the tribe and the state cannot negotiate or conclude new contracts. Comments pointed out that with such a mechanism, the state could make a proper negotiations in a timely manner and protect the tribe from the risk of the existing contract due to the state negotiations.

The bureau strongly evaluates the writers' concerns, but does not have the authority to create a mechanism to unilaterally extend the effectiveness of the contract. We will work on this position as an advanced practice for providing technical support.

Multiple comments have a contract provisions for automatic extension or automatic extension of the valid period of §293. 5, as a multiple comment submitted by multiple comment submits, will fulfill the validity period of the contract. I wondered.

It notes that the agreement may include a clause that can extend or extend the validity period of the contract under certain conditions. As defined in §293. 2 (E), the bureau should not be considered that the extension or increase of the contract at the time of extension is not considered to be the same as the condition of the contract itself, but to the Federal Gazette in accordance with §293. 5. Is required. The Bureau has revised the extension of the extension to clarify that an extension is a new agreement between the parties to extend the contract and is not the performance of existing functions.

Several comments have revised §293. 5 and requested the bureau to limit the links to the required documents according to §293. 8 (b) and (c), as demanded in the 2008 rules. 。 Comments said that the compliant requirements for all items on §293. 8 would be a burden for tribes seeking extensions.

According to these opinions, the bureau changed the link of §293. 5 to §293. 8. Currently, §293. 5 requires documents required for §293. 8 (a) to (c). It is noted that the provisions of §293. 8 (a) reflect the extension of §293. 2 (e).

Comments on § 293.14 When does a compact or amendment take effect?

In order to expand "Printing Page 74924) and" Start ", the need for the KennisiceS division of the KennisiceS division regarding the extension of exposure agreements is the federal official gazette. As for the announcement, he asked if the process of extension could lead to an unreasonable delay, as it was released by the secretariat and was not subject to discussions toward the 4 5-day period stipulated by law.

The bureau does not agree with this view. The extension applies to the 45th day of the law. The configuration proposed in the §293. 5 of the discussion has clearly clarified that the extension will be effective by publishing an extension in the federal registry. This section is basically a change in the contract period, and is a quick consultation in cooperation with the proposed rules.

Multiple commentators urgently requested the announcement of the extension of the contract, and then apply for an update §293.

The Bureau revised §293. 5 and decided to have 14 days to post a contract extension notice to the Federal Gazette. The bureau is effectively regarded as one of the revisions to be eligible for rapid processing. In addition, §293. 14 is examining the announcement of notifications to the Federal Gazette in cooperation with IGRA.

Comment on § 293.15 Is the Secretary required to disapprove a compact or amendment that violates IGRA?

Several commentators revised §293. 5, as in the extension, and urged the bureau to eliminate repetition.

A proposed configuration is left in the department. The revised contract is to present a new provision that has been corrected to the contract, and is a new contract to be discussed in this way. Extension is a recovery just to change the exposure of the contract and cannot be revised. IGRA has discussed contracts or corrections for 45 days, restricting the authority of the secretary of encouraging or dissatisfaction. The Bureau has advised the parties to apply a rehabilitation contract or a contract with a correction as a better practice to detain a large number of changes for one document. The bureau considers that it is necessary to provide a redundant copy of the tribe or the government's modified contract.

Some opinions have been asking for an explanation of Article 293, Paragraph 6 or Article 293 or other provisions to eliminate the submission of documents to third parties. A certain number of commentators is (printing page 74924), to expand "Start", for this purpose, the need for the KennisiceS division to extend the exposure agreement in the KennisiceS division, the extension of them. He asks for a publication in the Federal Gazette, but it is released by the secretariat and is not subject to discussions toward the 4 5-day period stipulated by law, so whether the extension process leads to an unreasonable delay. I asked.

Multiple commentators urgently requested the announcement of the extension of the contract, and then apply for an update §293.

Comments on § 293.16 When may the Secretary disapprove a compact or amendment?

Several commentators revised §293. 5, as in the extension, and urged the bureau to eliminate repetition.

Some opinions have been asking for an explanation of Article 293, Paragraph 6 or Article 293 or other provisions to eliminate the submission of documents to third parties. In order to expand "Printing Page 74924) and" Start ", the need for the KennisiceS division of the KennisiceS division regarding the extension of exposure agreements is the federal official gazette. As for the announcement, he asked if the process of extension could lead to an unreasonable delay, as it was released by the secretariat and was not subject to discussions toward the 4 5-day period stipulated by law.

Multiple commentators urgently requested the announcement of the extension of the contract, and then apply for an update §293.

Several commentators revised §293. 5, as in the extension, and urged the bureau to eliminate repetition.

Some opinions have been asking for an explanation of Article 293, Paragraph 6 or Article 293 or other provisions to eliminate the submission of documents to third parties.

The bureau has consistently excluded third parties from the process of submitting and considering documents, and will continue to be excluded. The Bureau has been using §293. 6 for a long time so that all of the contractors and changes have been able to submit the necessary documents for consideration and approval by the secretariat. Consulting project §293.

Several comments supported the change proposal of §293. 6.

The ministry pays attention to these comments.

Multiple comments have requested the secretariat to fix §293. 7 to fix the legal status of the secretariat study, in some cases, to more accurately reflect the correction procedures in compact lawsuits. One opinion asked the bureau to replace the phrase "legally configured by the parties," in accordance with the philosophy of "applied tribal law and state law, it was properly configured by the tribe and state." At the end of §293. 7, another comment suggested that the revision was adopted by the Arbitration Committee.

Article 293. 7 has not been changed from the 2008 rules. The expression "legal prisoner" reflects the requirements of the IGRA of Article 2710 (D) (8) (a), Article 293, which is in line with both the tribal law and the state law in Article 2710 (D) (8) (a), part of the United States Law. It matches the requirements of section 8. 293. 4, as described in verse, to fix §293. 7 in order to more accurately reflect how other supplementary agreements can be created. " I added the sentence.

Comments on § 293.17 May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing the application of the Tribe's or the State's criminal and civil laws and regulations?

One opinion has stated that the phrase "legally restrained by the parties" in §293. 7 is inconsistent with §293. 14 because the contract comes into effect only after the contract is notified to the Federal Gazette.

Several comments supported the change proposal of §293. 6.

The ministry pays attention to these comments.

Comments on § 293.18 May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing the allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between the State and the Tribe?

The ministry has revised §293. 7, and has added that it is "applied to the land of the tribe to the state of the tribe, or in accordance with the tribes and states in accordance with the other forced power." IGRA first is the federal government before the fact that contracts or amendments are concluded by the parties, submitted by the Secretary's study, and third, before the contract or amendment "becomes effective". It is obliged to be notified. 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (3) (b). The bureau has consistently excluded third parties from the process of submitting and examining documents, and will be excluded in the future. The Bureau has been using §293. 6 for a long time so that all of the contractors and changes have been able to submit the necessary documents for consideration and approval by the secretariat. Consulting project §293.

Several comments supported the change proposal of §293. 6.

The ministry pays attention to these comments.

In fact, articles that require representation in cooperation with §293. 8 may store the tribal confidential business information, and the department preserves the confidentiality under the confidential work and collaborates with the Information Disclosure Law. A certain number of commentators that defend the disclosure and want to defend.

The Bureau will regularly receive the tribal private business information in accordance with additional disclosure requirements in cooperation with the 2008 rules §293. 8 (d). This information is protected from the disclosure in accordance with the exclusion of 4 of the information free law. In order to disclose any requested information provided by the tribe without counting this, the department may be considered a secret business information and follow up as follows. In consultation with the tribe that presents it to prove something. The Bureau advised to notify the tribes to provide confidential information as an avan t-garde practition, and if there was a request based on the information freedom law, there was a possibility that it would be not disclosed as follows. I'm gonna do it.

Some commentators stated that the items required by §293. 8 were deemed to be the basis for the reconciliation of the contract according to §293. 16 (b) if not. How does a commentator determine whether §293. 8 is satisfied, and §293. 8 adopts or submitted documents to the parties. He asked for an explanation whether it would give the opportunity to remove defects.

The Bureau clarified in §293. 16 (b) that it was necessary to notify the parties the missing documents requested by §293. 8.

Comments on § 293.19 May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing the State's costs for regulating gaming activities?

The bureau is related to §293. 8 in obvious rejection, but in fact, the capabilities of the Secretary of the Secretary of the Substantial Documents are the ability to see the opportunity to give disconnection. I have. Some articles like arbitration are considered sel f-sufficient. Section (Print Page 74925) 293. 16 discusses the discretionary ability of the secretary who refuses contracts or corrections.

In addition, some commentators point out that the tribes can determine that they can make a contract or correction, including arbitration in the protest, and allow the tribe to make a contract or correction in the protest order. We requested the same station to fix it.

The bureau refused to incorporate the requested correction. Article 293, paragraph 8 (b) requires a resolution of a tribe or other documents that confirm that the tribe has been approved for a contract or correction in accordance with the tribal law. It is possible that the Bureau shows that the tribal resolution or accompanying letter is protesting against the tribal "approval", or the tribe does not agree or that it violates IGRA. He pointed out that there is.

One of the commenters questioned the change in synonyms from "he or her" proposed by the station in §293. 8 (c).

The department has performed a stylistic editing, including the use of pronouns regardless of gender, in the only section of the pronoun, §293. 8 (c).

Several comment submits supported the §293. 8 change. The comment submitted by the comments is §293. 4, §293. 21, and §293. 27, which corresponds to some types of auxiliary documents, where the proposed §293. 8 (d) may be referenced or required in contracts or corrections. He pointed out that it is reflected.

The ministry pays attention to these comments.

Several comment submit expressed concern about §293. 8 (d), questioned whether the document required for §293. 8 would be subject to the secretary of the Secretary. Comments pointed out that the Consa Letting Project §293. 4 expanded the decision of the Ministerial Ordinance on Agreement or Amendment by the Secretary, and appeared to be inconsistent with §293. 8 (d). In addition, the comment submitted is the minimum internal control criteria that the §293. 4 and §293. 8 (d) may not be formulated at the time of submitting a gaming tribal decision or / or at the time of the contract submission. He pointed out that he might have said. Comments pointed out that the extensive interpretation of §293. 8 (d) gives unreasonable burden on the tribe and illegally violates the tribal autonomy and sel f-determination. In addition, some commentators pointed out that the tribes could determine that they could make a contract or correction, including arbitration in the protest, and allow the tribe to make a contract or correction in the protest order. We requested the same station to fix (b).

One of the commenters questioned the change in synonyms from "he or her" proposed by the station in §293. 8 (c).

Comments on § 293.20 May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing the Tribe's taxation of gaming?

The department has performed a stylistic editing, including the use of pronouns regardless of gender, in the only section of the pronoun, §293. 8 (c).

The ministry pays attention to these comments.

Several comment submit expressed concern about §293. 8 (d), questioned whether the document required for §293. 8 would be subject to the secretary of the Secretary. Comments pointed out that the Consa Letting Project §293. 4 expanded the decision of the Ministerial Ordinance on Agreement or Amendment by the Secretary, and appeared to be inconsistent with §293. 8 (d). In addition, the comment submitted is the minimum internal control criteria that the §293. 4 and §293. 8 (d) may not be formulated at the time of submitting a gaming tribal decision or / or at the time of the contract submission. He pointed out that he might have said. Comments pointed out that the extensive interpretation of §293. 8 (d) gives unreasonable burden on the tribe and illegally violates the tribal autonomy and sel f-determination. In addition, some commentators point out that the tribes can determine that they can make a contract or correction, including arbitration in the protest, and allow the tribe to make a contract or correction in the protest order. We requested the same station to fix it.

Comments on § 293.21 May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing remedies for breach of the compact?

One of the commenters questioned the change in synonyms from "he or her" proposed by the station in §293. 8 (c).

The department has performed a stylistic editing, including the use of pronouns regardless of gender, in the only section of the pronoun, §293. 8 (c).

The ministry pays attention to these comments.

Several comments have expressed concern about §293. 8 (d), questioning whether the documents required for §293. 8 are subject to the secretary of the Secretary. Comments pointed out that the Consa Letting Project §293. 4 expanded the decision of the Ministerial Ordinance on Agreement or Amendment by the Secretary, and appeared to be inconsistent with §293. 8 (d). In addition, the comment submitted is the minimum internal control criteria that the §293. 4 and §293. 8 (d) may not be formulated at the time of submitting a gaming tribal decision or / or at the time of the contract submission. He pointed out that he might have said. Comments pointed out that the extensive interpretation of §293. 8 (d) gives unreasonable burden on the tribe and illegally violates the tribal autonomy and sel f-determination.

The ministry has revised §293. 8 (d), and in accordance with the state of the United States Law Collection, Article 2710 and 25 CFR, Share 522, this is the tribal gaming order that must be deliberated and approved by the State Indian Gaming Committee. Clarified that the conditions are not applied. Rather than this, the ministry revised §293. 4 and clarified which clause would be considered as a contract or correction to the Secretary's deliberation. The terms specified in Article 293 (D) (d) shall be allowed to be used as a contract or correction that interacts with other documents and agreements, which may be the basis for violating contracts. In some cases, the preliminary documents were used in the state law or tribal government and the tribal Indian territory for illegal imposing of laws.

Some commentators have revised §293. 8 (d), but in fact, genuine documents, such as the tribal freedom or legal modification, composition, or other types of them, and all of these types. He begged the bureau to tie up the configuration, these configurations, and the fact that there is nothing to connect these compositions. Corrections and conversions do not need to be discussed, and sentences are not required by federal law.

Several comments have been proposed that any agreement between the tribe, the state, their institutions or the political unit will be needed by contract or correction if they are complied. It implies in the department to bring a configuration in (D), restricts or restricts questions for payments from tribes, IT organizations or political dispatch squads, or the introduction of unique indians with the tribe. The commenter was considered to be more specialized and alleviated the difficulties that were solved in the §293. 28 of the recommended plan. The comments have begun with the department to cope with the tribal conclusions of providing volunteer payments to local authorities, as recognized by IGRA in 25 U. S. C. 2710 (B) (2) (b) (V). did.

One of the commenters has proposed a group configuration to change the paragraph number and the addition of two new sections. The opinion of the opinion added a reference to the modification caused by the dispute resolution procedure for arbitration. The opinion of the opinion has proposed a new section on the secretary's abilities §293. 8 to cancel the claim. The statement creator still adds a section that requests the Secretary in the direction of 14 business days to deal with the parties when requesting the parties to be adopted without any fact articles required by §293. 8. Request a proposal or §293. 8 refusal.

The section is carved out to make binding the required new provisions of § 293. 8. The Department believes that the required provisions regarding the Secretary's ability to provide disclaimers from claims are not necessary for this purpose, consistent with 25 CFR 1. 2., and therefore the Secretary may provide disclaimers from certain claims. The Department believes that the required conditions regarding the parties' notices providing an opportunity to remove defects reflect the Department's preferred practice. Separately, the preserved language of this provision applies to the Secretary's ability to disallow contracts or modifications, which is considered in § 293. 16.

Several commenters expressed concern with the preposition in § 293. 8(e), arguing that the provision is viewed as vague and miscellaneous, and that in effect, the Department may require documents unrelated to the Secretary from contracts submitted.

Comments on § 293.22 May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing standards for the operation of gaming activity and maintenance of the gaming facility?

The Department maintains that § 293. 8(e) of the consulting plan protects § 293. 8(d) of the 2008 rule. This condition allows the Department to request supplemental information, if necessary, to determine the proportion of IGRA contracts submitted.

Many commenters responded to the Department's 7th Comment Question, "Should the amendment plan make binding provisions requiring the provision or presentation of electronic records?" Commenters urged the Department to make binding provisions allowing document presentation in electronic form, but cautioned against requiring document presentation in electronic form. Commenters stated that in practice, electronic presentation is considered to be the least costly and more exogenous than traditional presentation methods. Commenters argue that reasonable flexibility should be given to the parties when submitting proposed agreements or amendments to the Secretary General. A certain number of commenters pointed out that according to their experience, technical applications for submission are not considered a key issue for the parties, the main negotiations regarding the determination of the contract, and argue for the need for connection with the proposed standard - application for electrical supply.

Comments on § 293.23—Which Has Been Renumbered as 293.24—What factors will be used to determine whether provisions in a compact or amendment are directly related to the operation of gaming activities?

The Department has observed these comments and has included an electrical email address in the review of Indian gambling in § 293. 9. The department said the advisory plan includes the configuration proposed in the 2008 standards, covering electrical performance, style and technical aspects.

A number of commentators reviewed §293. 9 and asked the Bureau to cancel the application of the original "original" on the cardboard media if the parties wish to apply by email. Comment submitteders have virtually acknowledged that the bureau has options for applying for the eccentricity of cardboard media if necessary according to §293. 8 (e). Commenters, like the gaming industry, have said that almost all tribes and state governments use documents signed and proven by electronics.

There were several comments that supported the constituent plan of Section 293. 10.

The ministry follows these opinions.

Multiple comments can enter the form of §293. 11 to the 4 5-day examination stage, which eliminates the application of the instruction of the stamps at the time of receiving the document. He advised the same station. Commenters believe that confirming the date of the document submitted in electrical format is no longer important to prove when the document was accepted. Commenters say that entering the date in the purchased document could lead to a delay in administrative administration.

The category remains to cancel the application for the Indian gambling stamped in the purchased document before the start of the 4 5-day study period of the document submitted in electrical format. The consulting plan §293. 11 reflects §293. 9 and the deletion of crosslinks at the Indian gambling office. Consulting Plan §293. 9 has been revised to link a special address of electric and mail in red skin gambling to make it easier to submit documents by electrical mail. By using the date of the submitted documents autonomously from the method of submitting, all documents can be replaced in a timely manner. A number of commentators reviewed §293. 9, and asked the Bureau to cancel the application of the original "original" on the cardboard media if the parties wish to apply by email. Comment submitteders have virtually acknowledged that the bureau has options for applying for the eccentricity of cardboard media if necessary according to §293. 8 (e). Commenters, like the gaming industry, have said that almost all tribes and state governments use documents signed and proven by electronics.

The Bureau is the provisions of §293. 8 (a), for example, ", for example, the original contract or correction form signed as a tribe, §293. 9", §293. 9 (e), and §293. 9 (e). Based on the evaluation, the bureau will update the request to maintain the document. The Gaming Department in Red-Skind is considered to be an official preservatant and a recorder in the gaming agreement between the tribes in the department and the state. The administrator should keep the demands of the bureau to maintain documents regarding the electrical record.

There were several comments that supported the constituent plan of Section 293. 10.

The ministry follows these opinions.

The category remains to cancel the application for the Indian gambling stamped in the purchased document before the start of the 4 5-day study period of the document submitted in electrical format. The consulting plan §293. 11 reflects §293. 9 and the deletion of crosslinks at the Indian gambling office. Consulting Plan §293. 9 has been revised to link a special address of electric and mail in red skin gambling to make it easier to submit documents by electrical mail. By using the date of the submitted documents autonomously from the method of submitting, all documents can be replaced in a timely manner. A number of commentators reviewed §293. 9 and asked the Bureau to cancel the application of the original "original" on the cardboard media if the parties wish to apply by email. Comment submitteders have virtually acknowledged that the bureau has options for applying for the eccentricity of cardboard media if necessary according to §293. 8 (e). Commenters, like the gaming industry, have said that almost all tribes and state governments use documents signed and proven by electronics.

There were several comments that supported the constituent plan of Section 293. 10.

The ministry follows these opinions.

A certain commentator suggests to the Bureau so that the operation of the Indian gaming has been attached to the applicant to receive an electronic mail receiving the 4 5-day examination period. did.

When the parties show their e-mail address, they linked a certificate of emails and reviewed §293. 11.

Assuming that there is an obvious objection between Article 293, paragraph 11 and Article 293, paragraph (9), the stage of receiving the originally mailed original is whether the 4 5-day study period will occur from the stage of receiving the electronic copy. Some commentators asked to explain whether it would occur.

The advisory proposal reflected the configuration of §293. 9 and §293. 11, and allowed an electrical copy or printed copy. Review Article 293 (9), for example, clarified that even if a copy of the paper medium was presented with the c o-peel sent by electrical mail, it was cleared as an electrical copy. The study period on the 45th is performed from the stage when the Indian Gambling Cabinet of the stamp is attached to the cardboard original paper or the telephone manuscript.

Comments on § 293.24(a)

If the contract or correction is "approved in the power of the law" or "approved", a 4 5-day consideration period has been issued, but what is the legal result? Is there, some commenters are not really clear?

The bureau announced comments on the notice. Thereafter, this notice issued by the 4 5-day study period does not change the date of introduction to contract or correction authority. The date of the introduction of the contract or correction to the jurisdiction of the correction is the date when the document was announced in the Federal Gazette, as described in §293. 14. The contract or correction approved under the jurisdiction of the law is described as the Secretary approved by the Secretary, but the contract or correction is limited to the extent that it complies with the IGRA provision. Reading messages explain the provisions that IGRA thinks that they have not answered.

Many commentators say that the added phrase is effectively a culture of the secretary of the Secretary.

The bureau supports these comments.

One comment has stated that this condition is inconsistent with the Secretary's claim in §293. 10.

The ministry does not agree with this comment. In fact, the criteria proposed in §293. 12 explain whether the Secretary does not keep the conclusion by agreement or correct it for the 4 5-day study period.

Comments on § 293.24(b)

In the comments, some commented, "It's not clear whether you're pretending to connect the process of the stochastic complaints and the process of complaints and reviews."

Authorities have received such comments, but the configuration for linking the appeal and screening to this state is not sophisticated.

One of the commenters stated that in accordance with this provision, it was not clear whether the secretary of the instruction message would affect the publication of the secretary's "approved" contract in the Federal Register. 。

The announcement of the instruction message by the Secretary in cooperation with this provision does not affect the publication of the "approved" contract in the Federal Gazette. Thereafter, this notification issued by the 4 5-day study period does not change the date of introduction to contract or correction authority. The date of the introduction of the contract or correction to the jurisdiction of the correction is the date when the Federal Gazette is notified, as described in §293. 14.

Comments on § 293.24(c)

Several comments have expressed concern that the Secretary has the ability to "cancel the approval" of contracts and corrections through how to publish instruction messages. These comments begged the station to directly see the effects of the instruction message to promote the contract and the question of which provisions were recorded. As the commentator has expressed concerns, if the Secretary does not do anything or publishes the instruction message, the jury has the opportunity to explain the instruction message or the no n-activity of the Secretary, and the contract is provided by Igra. It is deemed invalid, and as a result, the tribes remain without the right to continue gambling according to the contract. One of the commentators has built a unique anxiety between §293. 12 and §293. 15. In the comments, some commented, "It's not clear whether you're pretending to connect the process of the stochastic complaints with the complaint and reviewing process."

Authorities have received such comments, but the configuration for linking the appeal and screening to this state is not sophisticated.

Several comments have expressed concern that the Secretary has the ability to "cancel the approval" of contracts and corrections through how to publish instruction messages. These comments begged the station to directly see the effects of the instruction message to promote the contract and the question of which provisions were recorded. As the commentator has expressed concerns, if the Secretary does not do anything or publishes the instruction message, the jury has the opportunity to explain the instruction message or the no n-activity of the Secretary, and the contract is provided by Igra. It is deemed invalid, and as a result, the tribes remain without the right to continue gambling according to the contract. One of the commentators has built a unique anxiety between §293. 12 and §293. 15. In the comments, some commented, "It's not clear whether you're pretending to connect the process of the stochastic complaints and the process of complaints and reviews."

Authorities have received such comments, but the configuration for linking the appeal and screening to this state is not sophisticated.

Comments on § 293.24—Which Has Been Renumbered as § 293.25—What factors will the Secretary analyze to determine if revenue sharing is lawful?

The bureau accepts comments on this memo. In accordance with IGRA, the bureau has 45 days to end the discussion of whether to approve the class III gambling contract. If the bureau does not take any action in the 45th day, the gambling contract between the tribe and the state will be approved by the power of the law as long as they comply with IGRA. After that, the issue of the charm issued on the 45th day of the study period does not change the date of the contract or correction authority. As described in paragraph 293. 14, the date of introduction to the jurisdiction of contracts or corrections is the date when the public newsletter was published. Contracts or corrections approved under the jurisdiction of this law are listed as the Secretary approved by the Secretary, but the contract or correction is limited to the extent that the contract or correction is compliant with the IGRA's provisions. A powerful notification describes the clause that IGRA does not answer (printing page 74927) according to the rendering of the station.

One commentator does not agree to the context of §293. 12, and the secretar y-general must work only for the study period on the 45th, and after that, we have to work hard. He said that there was no need to issue a doctrine notification.

The bureau does not agree with this explanation. The contract is generally considered to have been approved by the power of the law, and only for the 4 5-day study period. The category does not have the authority to release an instruction message before expiration of the 45th day. yeah.

One of the opinions submitted by the tribe and the state that the agreement between the states does not comply with the provisions of IGRA, the Secretary should guarantee the difference in the agreement, and according to their views, §293. 12 is §293. 12. He states that the approval of the approved clause does not comply with IGRA, and does not warn the IGRA agreement without warning of a state, tribes, or residents. Ta. A statement creator is obliged to disclose the doctrine notifications that indicate all clauses that are not compliant with IGRA after the 45th day, and as a result, this clause is in the power of law. There is no possibility of being approved. " 'Another commentator, "Therefore, there are all opportunities for tribes and contract staff to disagree with the clause of the contract that is not appropriate for those who do not have legitimate power or those who can eliminate contracts. I proposed to the station to add the wording. "

The Bureau partially accepts the comments, correctly modified §293. 12, and has announced that the government will publish a letter that confirms that the contract or correction has been approved under the law due to the expiration of the 4 5-day examination period. 。 The Secretary's letter may show the provisions of the contract that the IGRA violates the "approved" contract. Regarding whether tribes and staff can disagree with the contract provisions that contradict IGRA, the tribes and staff are not legally effective or different from the contract, so what is the tribes or staff? I do not take a position.

One of the comments submitted by this section, "The Secretary does not need to issue a letter, and if the Secretary issues a letter, the letter can play the leading role of the parties in the interpretation of IGRA.

The ministry agrees for this change and excludes the wording from §293. 12. The Secretary will publish a letter confirming that the 4 5-day study period has expired.

Many opinions have requested the Bureau to determine how to issue an "Instructions" and formulate criteria to promote the issuance of "Instructions" uniformly. These opinions have expressed concern that if the Secretary did not need to issue a description document, there would be no description documents, and some tribes could be in unequal situations. These opinions are required to revise §293. 12 and formulate criteria to provide unified issues in the instructions.

The Division accepts a part of the comments, has made appropriate changes to §293. 12, and then the Secretary to publish a letter that confirms that the examination period for 45 days has expired and that the contract or amendment has been approved under the law. Indicates that. The Secretary's letter may include instructions to define the provisions of the "approved" contract that IGRA violates.

One of the comments suggested to the ministry to clarify whether the revised §293. 12 is a change in policy of the ministry or editing.

The bureau pays attention to this comment. Section 293. 12 reflects a change in the policy that stipulates that the letter is issued each time if the contract is regarded and is approved, and among the "deemed approval" contracts, the clause that violates IGRA. Clarify that the instructions to be defined can be included. The Bureau partially accepts the comments, corrects §293. 12 appropriately, and has announced a letter to confirm that the contract or correction has been approved under the law due to the expiration of the 4 5-day study period. Indicates that. The Secretary's letter may show the provisions of the contract that the IGRA violates the "approved" contract. Regarding whether tribes and staff can disagree with the contract provisions that contradict IGRA, the tribes and staff are not legally effective or different from the contract, so what is the tribes or staff? I do not take a position.

The ministry agrees for this change and excludes the wording from §293. 12. The Secretary will publish a letter confirming that the 4 5-day study period has expired.

Many opinions have requested the Bureau to determine how to issue an "Instructions" and formulate criteria to promote the issuance of "Instructions" uniformly. These opinions have expressed concern that if the Secretary did not need to issue a description document, there would be no explanatory documents, and some tribes could be in unequal situations. These opinions are required to revise §293. 12 and formulate criteria to provide unified issues in the instructions.

One of the comments suggested to the ministry to clarify whether the revised §293. 12 is a change in policy of the ministry or editing.

The bureau pays attention to this comment. Section 293. 12 reflects a change in the policy that stipulates that the letter is issued each time if the contract is regarded and is approved, and among the "deemed approval" contracts, the clause that violates IGRA. Clarify that the instructions to be defined can be included. The Bureau partially accepts the comments, correctly modified §293. 12, and has announced that the government will publish a letter that confirms that the contract or correction has been approved under the law due to the expiration of the 4 5-day examination period. 。 The Secretary's letter may show the clause of the "approved" contract that the IGRA violates. Regarding whether tribes and staff can disagree with the contract provisions that contradict IGRA, the tribes and staff are not legally effective or different from the contract, so what is the tribes or staff? I do not take a position.

The ministry agrees for this change and excludes the wording from §293. 12. The Secretary will publish a letter confirming that the 4 5-day study period has expired.

Many opinions have requested the Bureau to determine how to issue an "Instructions" and formulate criteria to promote the issuance of "Instructions" uniformly. These opinions have expressed concern that if the Secretary did not need to issue a description document, there would be no explanatory documents, and some tribes could be in unequal situations. These opinions are required to revise §293. 12 and formulate criteria for providing unified issues in the instructions.

One of the comments suggested to the ministry to clarify whether the revised §293. 12 is a change in policy of the ministry or editing.

The bureau pays attention to this comment. Section 293. 12 reflects a change in the policy that stipulates that the letter will be issued each time if the contract is not regarded and is approved, and among the "deemed approval" contracts, the clause that violates IGRA. Clarify that the instructions to be defined can be included.

One comment has begun to show the latest period in which the Secretary requires the secretary to publish. The commenter fixes §293. 12 to ensure the certainty of the tribes related to the contract criteria, and according to the views of the following departments, to avoid the time cost of negotiating the provisions that contrary to the IGRA. , Important notifications have been asked to predict that the authority must be published within 60 days from the date of approval of the contract.

The bureau agrees some of this opinion. Section 293. 12 stipulates that the Secretary will actually announce the notice after the 45th day, which is for the 90th day from the application date. This period is equivalent to the claim that a public notice will be published in the Federal Gazette of Section 293. 14.

Several opinions have expressed concern that the Secretary did not incorporate accurate legal opportunities for the issuance of an instruction message. As the comment creators have expressed concern, instructions that do not need to be issued in collaboration with IGRA have the opportunity to apply as a roadmap of trial, which is the amount to oppose the plan, and lead the Secretary to the process. There is. The creator of the statement made a proposal to continue the study, asked the Secretary to determine the process of ensuring the confidentiality of the tribe and the state, for example, to tell the lawyer about concerns about the right tribe and state. , Assuming that the provisions do not consider IGRA to discuss the contradiction of suspicion.

The bureau will consider this comment as a record. The Secretary includes the right to broadcast these criteria based on the options of IGRA, 25 U. S. C. 2 and 9 to consider contracts and corrections. This notification, issued after a 4 5-day study period, does not change the date of introduction to contract or correction authority. The contract or correction approved under the jurisdiction of the law is stated as the Secretary approved by the Secretary, but the contract or correction is limited to the extent that it complies with the IGRA provisions. The lead message explains the provisions that the Bureau thinks that IGRA has not answered. In real time, the ministry calls for technical support to tribes and states, but does not prelimize preliminary approval or legal decisions.

One of the commentators is basically a "approval" message that these states, such as California, are applying this message as a compelling method and binding the agreements that are unacceptable. I mentioned.

Comments on § 293.25—Which Has Been Renumbered as § 293.26—May a compact or extension include provisions that limit the duration of the compact?

The bureau partially accepts comments, adds appropriate changes to §293. 12, and notifies the parties that the contract or change has been approved based on this law, and the "deemed approval" contract. It shows that the clause may be described in the letter that violates Igra.

One of the commenters proposed a change in the revised rules to clearly show the principle of issuing a letter "approved" and to clearly show the restrictions on this policy.

One comment pointed out that the state often refused the letter "Approved", "Therefore, the tribe signed the contract (printed page 74928), or the state was then legitimate. As a different power or contract, the bureau calls for the wording revision, indicating that it is possible to compete for the Inconseende clause of the contract, and this additional wording is approved under the law, the state of the "contract. He said it would eliminate the state's false expression, which is a de facto approval of "illegal state in negotiations below.

The bureau pays attention to this opinion. According to IGRA, the Bureau has completed the study within 45 days and approves or approves the class III gambling contract. If the bureau did not take any action during the 45th day, the gambling contract between the tribe and the state would be considered to have been approved based on the law as long as they comply with IGRA. The bureau does not show any views on whether or not the tribes or staff can subsequently objection to the clause of the contract that does not meet the requirements because they are not legally effective or different from the contract.

In Article 293. 12, several commentators have recommended that the tribal government has revised to request powerful letters and legal conclusions under contracts in the Secretary or Soliciter Office.

The bureau pays attention to this comment. The bureau is currently providing technical support to tribes and states, but has not provided prior approval or legal conclusions. The Bureau partially accepts comments, adds appropriate changes to §293. 12, and notifies the parties to the parties that contracts or changes have been approved under this law. Indicates that the provisions of the contract that violate Igra may be described in the letter.

One of the commenters proposed a change in the revised rules to clearly show the principle of issuing a letter "approved" and to clearly show the restrictions on this policy.

The Secretariat has accepted a part of the comment, adds appropriate changes to §293. 12, and publishes a letter to the parties to notify the parties that the contract or amendment has been approved under this law. This letter may show the provisions of the contract for "approval" that IGRA violates. The bureau has refused to indicate directly if the letter includes instructions and restrictions on this policy.

Comments on § 293.26—Which Has Been Renumbered as 293.27—May a compact or amendment permit a Tribe to engage in any form of class III gaming activity?

The bureau pays attention to this opinion. According to IGRA, the Bureau has completed the study within 45 days and approves or approves the class III gambling contract. If the bureau did not take any action during the 45th day, the gambling contract between the tribe and the state would be considered to have been approved based on the law as long as the IGRA was observed. The bureau does not show any views on whether or not the tribes or staff can subsequently objection to the clause of the contract that does not meet the requirements because they are not legally effective or different from the contract.

The bureau pays attention to this comment. The bureau is currently providing technical support to tribes and states, but has not provided prior approval or legal conclusions. The bureau partially accepts comments, adds appropriate changes to §293. 12, and notifies the parties that the contract or change has been approved based on this law, and the "deemed approval" contract. It shows that the clause may be described in the letter that violates Igra.

One of the commenters proposed a change in the revised rules to clearly show the principle of issuing a letter "approved" and to clearly show the restrictions on this policy.

The bureau pays attention to this opinion. According to IGRA, the Bureau has completed the study within 45 days and approves or approves the class III gambling contract. If the bureau did not take any action during the 45th day, the gambling contract between the tribe and the state would be considered to have been approved based on the law as long as the IGRA was observed. The bureau does not show any views on whether or not the tribes or staff can subsequently objection to the clause of the contract that does not meet the requirements because they are not legally effective or different from the contract.

The bureau pays attention to this comment. The bureau is currently providing technical support to tribes and states, but has not provided prior approval or legal conclusions.

It is important for some opinions to issue guidance notifications to explain why the submitted contract has been favorably approved, but describes the reason why it is considered "approved" by legal. He pointed out that these notifications were excellent sources and would improve the negotiations process.

The ministry pays attention to this comment.

Several comments have added "both" to §293. 13, and requested the Ministry to revise the state so that both the tribe and the state must adopt it.

Comments on § 293.27—Which Has Been Renumbered as § 293.28—May any other contract outside of a compact regulate Indian gaming?

The ministry accepts this change. The bureau claims that there are all opportunities to submit a joint statement of withdrawal from contracts and corrections and personal statements of withdrawal.

One commentator advised the bureau to lead an application for an electrical formation.

A commented in the Ministry that the commenter revised §293. 9 and made the tribe to be unilaterally withdrawn after submitting a contract or amendment proposal.

The ministry has rejected the change, and has pointed out that the application remains permanent under the 2008 rules, especially in the 2008 rules, which are obliged to submit an withdrawal application. The contract settlement process according to IGRA stipulates a formal contract between sovereign state, and only in the case of a legitimate reason, or in cases where it is incompatible for the parties, for examination and approval. Submitted.

Several commentators explained the approval of the contract with the power of the law and the results of the subsequent announcements in the Federal Gazette.

The ministry pays attention to these opinions. In fact, the ministry has approved a 4 5-day examination period, and the contract is forced to approve only within the IGRA. 25 USC 2710 (D) (8) (C). In order for a contract to come into effect, it must be announced in the Federal Gazette. 25 USC 2710 (D) (8) (D).

One opinion is to the ministry to fix the period to correct §293. 14 by changing the period to be notified to the Federal Official Gazette to a short period of 90 to 55 days after the contract or the change of contract or the 10th day after approval / disapproval. I requested it.

The bureau has rejected the demands to correct the publicity of the Federal Gazette, which has not been changed from the 2008 rules and is considered reasonable. The ministry pointed out that IGRA did not require a public notice to the Federal Gazette in the case of a contract or amendment.

Several comments agreed to §293. 15's phrase proposals, and explained that the Secretary had the right to approve a contract that violated IGRA, but did not need to approve it. However, many of the commenters who agree with the ministry's proposal have expressed concern that the wording could encourage the future administration to avoid contract failure in appropriate cases. Other comments point out the importance of the approval of the approved contract, so that the tribe can refuse the inappropriate clause of the contract approved through this process or other methods. He said.

The bureau pays attention to the comments. The Ministry will maintain a §293. 15 wording proposal. The ministry is concerned that the forced approval by the Secretary of the Contracts that violates IGRA will limit the freedom of refusal or approval of contracts within 45 days recognized by IGRA. Furthermore, this obligation may cause unexpected results if the ministry and agency do not take measures within 45 days stipulated for the IGRA's violation of the IGRA. The current words are similar to the IGRA's words, and if the Secretary does not take measures within the 45th period, the contract is deemed to have been approved, but it is limited to the inconsistency of IGRA.

Some commentators have expressed concerns about the terms of ministries proposed in §293. 15, and argued that IGRA contracts should be aggressively rejected. Another opinion said that the permission to start a contract that should not be approved is an IGRA violation. The Bureau has rejected the request to revise the announcement of the Federal Gazette, which has not been changed from the 2008 rules and is considered reasonable. The ministry pointed out that IGRA did not require a public notice to the Federal Gazette in the case of a contract or amendment.

Comments on § 293.28—Which Has Been Renumbered as § 293.31—How does the Paperwork Reduction Act affect this part?

Some commentators have expressed concerns about the terms of ministries proposed in §293. 15, and argued that IGRA contracts should be aggressively rejected. Another opinion said that the permission to start a contract that should not be approved is an IGRA violation. The bureau has rejected the demands to correct the publicity of the Federal Gazette, but this has not been changed from the 2008 rules and is considered reasonable. The ministry pointed out that IGRA did not require a public notice to the Federal Gazette in the case of a contract or amendment.

V. Summary of Changes by Section

Several comments agreed to §293. 15's phrase proposals, and explained that the Secretary had the right to approve a contract that violated IGRA, but did not need to approve it. However, many of the commenters who agree with the ministry's proposal have expressed concern that the wording could encourage the future administration to avoid contract failure in appropriate cases. Other comments pointed out the importance of the approval of approved contracts, so that the tribe could reject the inappropriate clause approved or otherwise approved through this process. He said.

A. Proposed Subpart A—General Provisions and Scope

The bureau pays attention to the comments. The Ministry will maintain a §293. 15 wording proposal. The ministry is concerned that the forced approval by the Secretary of the Contracts that violates IGRA will limit the freedom of refusal or approval of contracts within 45 days recognized by IGRA. Furthermore, this obligation may cause unexpected results if the ministry and agency do not take measures within 45 days stipulated for the IGRA's violation of the IGRA. The current wording is similar to the IGRA's wording, and it is stipulated that the contract will have been approved if the Secretary does not take measures within the 45th period, but is limited to the inconsistent range from IGRA.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.1—What is the purpose of the part?

Some commentators have expressed concerns about the government's terms proposed in §293. 15, and argued that IGRA contracts should be aggressively rejected. Another opinion said that the permission to start a contract that should not be approved is an IGRA violation.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.2—How are key terms defined in this part?

The bureau watches the comments. The bureau protects §293. 15's words. The Bureau is given to the secretary of encouraging or recognizing Igrra for the case of a secretary for a violation of Igrra's violation of the company for an invaluable declaration of an invasion. We welcome that it will reduce freedom. Apart from this, this obligation may cause unexpected results if the bureau does not take any action during the 4 5-day study period specified for a contract that violates IGRA. At present, the wording corresponding to IGRA's wording is that if the Secretary does not take any action for the 4 5-day study period, the contract will be approved, but it will only be approved to correspond to IGRA. It is placed in.

The bureau watches the comments. The bureau protects §293. 15 words. The ministry decreases the freedom of actions that Igrra give to the Secretary of the Estimated 4 5-day study period by obliging the Secretary of Igra so as not to confirm the contract that does not comply. Welcome to do. Apart from this, such obligations may cause unexpected consequences if the agreement that violates IGRA is not possible to dispatch the 4 5-day period of the Bureau. Currently, the wording corresponding to IGRA's words is that if the Secretary does not take almost all actions for 45 days, the contract will be approved, but it will only be approved to correspond to IGRA. I am. The Bureau examined §293. 12, actually announced a message that notifies the parties that the contract or reinstatement has been approved in the law power of the law, indicating that this message has a function to maintain instructions. Ta.
The bureau respects these opinions, but this condition is actually consistent with the captivity of the Congress of the Section Awards provided. 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (8) (B) (III).

The Department takes note of the comments. The Department regularly provides technical assistance to tribes and states, including the interpretation and application of Department precedents and past proceedings, case law, and recommendations on leading practices.
Some commenters noted that 293. 24(c)(1) contemplates contract provisions that would limit third-party tribes' rights to conduct gambling.
The Department takes note of these comments.
The Department accepts the view that § 293. 16(b) provides a basis for the Secretary to distinguish contracts when documents required by § 293. 8 have not been submitted. The Department has amended § 293. 16(b) to require written notice of defects, consistent with the Department's longstanding practice of notifying the parties of defects and allowing the parties to cure them. IGRA gives the Secretary the authority to disapprove contracts if they do not meet any of the three specified criteria: 25 USC 2710(d)(8)(B). § 293. 16(B) allows for a presumption that a contract does not meet any of the three specified criteria if the parties do not have a reasonable opportunity to cure the document defects. Several commenters urged the Department to revise § 293. 16(b) to provide that if a party does not submit the required documentation in § 293. 8, the Secretary will return the agreement as incomplete. Commenters advised the Department to clarify that the party will have every option to subsequently re-adopt the agreement or amendment to be returned for failure to submit the required documentation, but in this case, they will be required to undertake all necessary supporting documentation.
One commenter suggested revising § 293. 16 to include a provision that would allow the Secretary to waive provisions of the original agreement or amendments permitted by law when considering an amendment to the agreement if those provisions are not met.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.3—What authority does the Secretary have to approve or disapprove compacts and amendments?

The station refuses to take the proposed post. Igrra has restricted the authority of the Secretary of the Secretary of Contracts or Changes to 45 days. Therefore, the bureau cannot approve or approve contracts or changes retroactively after the 4 5-day examination period expires. Instead, the Bureau's consideration is limited to the document text examined within 45 days. Since the parties have submitted the full text of the contract for consideration, the reorganized and restructed contract is regarded as a new contract. Authorities recommend that the parties use the correction agreement, correction and correction agreement as the best practices for including many corrections in one document. The bureau believes that it is useful for the tribe or state to submit a copy of the reorganized contract.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.4—Are compacts and amendments subject to review and approval?

There were several opinions that supported the proposed §293. 17.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.5—Are extensions to compacts subject to review and approval?

The department pays attention to these comments.

B. Proposed Subpart B—Submission of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts

Some commentators have revised §293. 17, and how the parties have the requirement that these laws and rules are directly related to gambling activity licensing and regulations, indicating that they are needed for this purpose. We proposed to clarify whether it could be satisfied. Commentator pointed out that this position could be added with new ambiguous requirements and could cause confusion.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.6—Who can submit a compact or amendment?

The bureau partially agree with this comment. The Bureau has revised §293. 17, clarifying that the provisions on the application of criminal law and civil law are directly related to gambling activity licensing and regulations, and that the Secretary can demand that it is necessary for this purpose.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.7—When should the Indian Tribe or State submit a compact or amendment for review and approval?

Several commenters looked at §293. 17 and said, "Should the amendment to promote or prohibit the execution of the state decision on the maintenance of employee wages or regular customers?" He answered his third advisory question. The commentator suggested that as a problem of §293. 17 jurisdiction, it could consider the problem of such a state court (or tribal) decision (printing page 74930). The bureau refused to take the proposed post. Igrra has restricted the authority of the Secretary of the Secretary of Contracts or Changes to 45 days. Therefore, the bureau cannot approve or approve contracts or changes retroactively after the 4 5-day examination period expires. Instead, the Bureau's consideration is limited to the document text examined within 45 days. Since the parties have submitted the full text of the contract for consideration, the contract will regard the reorganized and restructed contract as a new contract. Authorities recommend that the parties use the correction agreement, correction and correction agreement as the best practices for including many corrections in one document. The bureau believes that it is useful for the tribe or state to submit a copy of the reorganized contract.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.8—What documents must be submitted with a compact or amendment?

There were several opinions that supported the proposed §293. 17.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.9—Where should a compact or amendment be submitted for review and approval?

The department pays attention to these comments.

C. Proposed Subpart C—Secretarial Review of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts

Proposed Amendments to § 293.10—How long will the Secretary take to review a compact or amendment?

Proposed Amendments to § 293.11—When will the 45-day timeline begin?

Several commenters looked at §293. 17 and said, "Should the amendment to promote or prohibit the execution of the state decision on the maintenance of employee wages or regular customers?" He answered his third advisory question. The commentator suggested that as a problem of §293. 17 jurisdiction, it could consider the problem of such a state court (or tribal) decision (printing page 74930). The station refuses to take the proposed post. Igrra has restricted the authority of the Secretary of the Secretary of Contracts or Changes to 45 days. Therefore, the bureau cannot approve or approve contracts or changes retroactively after the 4 5-day examination period expires. Instead, the Bureau's consideration is limited to the document text examined within 45 days. Since the parties have submitted the full text of the contract for consideration, the reorganized and restructed contract is regarded as a new contract. Authorities recommend that the parties use the correction agreement, correction and correction agreement as the best practices for including many corrections in one document. The bureau believes that it is useful for the tribe or state to submit a copy of the reorganized contract.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.12—What happens if the Secretary does not act on the compact or amendment within the 45-day review period?

There were several opinions that supported the proposed §293. 17.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.13—Who can withdraw a compact or amendment after it has been received by the Secretary?

The department pays attention to these comments.

Proposed Amendments to § 293.14—When does a compact or amendment that is affirmatively approved or approved by operation of law take effect?

Proposed § 293.15—Is the Secretary required to disapprove a compact or amendment that violates IGRA?

Proposed § 293.16—When may the Secretary disapprove a compact or amendment?

D. Proposed Subpart D—Scope of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts

Article 293 (17) responded to the reservation of workers' wages or the performance of a court order, which won the winning cartridge. In §293. 24 (c), the Bureau added a court order to a list of contract clauses that are not directly related to the operation gambling. The bureau said that it was, in effect, the conclusions of the ninth "Chiken Lancer Red Skin Mauk vs California" class, 42 F. 4th 1024 (9th, 2022).

Proposed § 293.17—May a compact include provisions addressing the application of the Tribe's or State's criminal and civil laws and regulations?

Many commentators say the fourth question in the consultation department, "Is the amendment to restrain or prohibit the stat e-prohibited clerks for gambling halls or gambling? Is it only a litigation form?

Proposed § 293.18—May a compact include provisions addressing the allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between the State and the Tribe?

Many commentators have the potential to permit or promote the laws of the state barrel because the state has a technology to apply a limited jurisdiction to impair the sovereignty of the tribe. I have not advised the department to connect. In fact, Igrra is a commentator that is designed to be connected to the division of jurisdiction, which is actually designed to promote the development of powerful tribal governments. Other commentators should actually be the standard jurisdiction, but the Jurispundenois court does not include the ability to take the appropriate claims of the tribe. He has the ability to be assigned to the discretion of negotiations between the state of wishes for the tribe. The commentator is estimated that the tribal court is considered to be the next space for discussions with cartridge, covers delicate claims related to labor discussions and tribal game facilities, and consider the three claims. The precedent that supports is not yet dismantled.

Proposed § 293.19—May a compact include provisions addressing the State's costs for regulating gaming activities?

The ministry respects these opinions. Article 293. 18 is actually evaluating the status of IGRA, which allows tribes and states to distribute criminal law and civil law under the limited value and restrictions prescribed in Article 293. 17. Was proposed to explain. Article 293, paragraph 24 (c) The ministry saw three complaints about the crime proposed.

Proposed § 293.20—May a compact include provisions addressing the Tribe's taxation of gaming?

Some commentators said they supported Igrra and the Case Law in support of the brains in Article 293, Paragraph 18. The commentator states that the proposed conditions could save the tribal judicial system.

Proposed § 293.21—May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing the resolution of disputes for breach of the compact?

Our department also pays attention to this opinion.

Proposed § 293.22—May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing standards for the operation of gaming activity and maintenance of the gaming facility?

Multiple commentators have fluctuated to the need for the proposed §293. 18.

Proposed § 293.23—May a compact or amendment include provisions that are directly related to the operation of gaming activities?

The bureau has followed the comments on this annotation. Based on the IGRA, the provisions of the struggle between criminal and civil trial rights between state and tribes are required to guarantee these laws and rules. 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (3) (C) (II).

Proposed § 293.24—What factors will be used to determine whether provisions in a compact or amendment are directly related to the operation of gaming activities?

Several comments have demanded the department to commit a stereotype that the government is trying to exercise the state judicial rights against tribes or Indians, and that the judicial right is unfair.

Proposed § 293.25—What factors will the Secretary analyze to determine if revenue sharing is lawful?

The ministry respects these opinions. The Bureau has added a provision to conclude these obligations to §293. 24 (c), and is currently considered to be confirmed to be IGRA violations in accordance with §294. 24 (d).

Proposed § 293.26—May a compact or extension include provisions that limit the duration of the compact?

Some commentators implies in the department that the tribes have brought a configuration in the proposed §293. 18 to the state to accept the laws of claims related to gambling facilities or gambling activities. For such a spread, it was as follows.

Proposed § 293.27—May a compact permit a Tribe to engage in any form of class III gaming activity?

The bureau did not accept this opinion. Article 293 The contract or correction clause shall be restrained by contracts or amendments to provide criminal trials between state and tribes and distribution of civil trials necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and rules prescribed in paragraph 17. There are all opportunities.

Article 293, paragraph 18, there were several opinions to the ministry to prohibit the right to judge the state ships on gambling business or tribal facilities.

Proposed § 293.28—May any other contract outside of a compact regulate Indian gaming?

The bureau did not accept this opinion. Contracts or corrections have all the opportunities to restrain criminal law between states and civil laws in order to ensure the compliance with laws and regulations in Article 293, paragraph 17.

Proposed § 293.29—May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing Statewide remote wagering or internet gaming?

Many commentators supported the proposed §293. 19. Commenters say that the state is basically an indirect tax, the state of Igra for coordination costs, and often provide funds as statutory and not a "regulatory function." According to the commentator, unfair stereotypes can definitely negotiate to reduce regulatory costs and to observe tribes to introduce these funds. The fact that commentators are still likely to be seriously rejected from the tribal states remains, and the Ministry of Tribends is calling out to "exclude this path."

Proposed § 293.30—What effect does this part have on pending requests, final agency decisions already issued, and future requests?

The bureau respects these opinions. Article 293. 19 applies to the paid by tribes to the state costs to accept gaming. As described above, the bureau changed the expression "proof of fraud" to "proof of Igrra violation."

Proposed § 293.31—How does the Paperwork Reduction Act affect this part?

Some commentators have expressed concern about the proposed §293. 19 include unfair standards. The commenter questioned the authority of the Secretary to determine unfair, and questioned how to confirm the compliance with such clause during the validity period of the contract.

VI. Procedural Requirements

A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

Igrra has considered a contract within the 4 5-day study period and has given the Secretary of Approval. As part of this study, the Bureau will examine contract conditions, including audit criteria for regulatory cost evaluation. The ministry revised §293. 19 and clarified that the secretary's consideration was limited to contract conditions. The ensure that the compliance with these clause is entrusted to the parties, and in case of the case, the dispute resolution agreement is regulated. As described above, the bureau replaced the expression "proof of unfair" with "proof of Igrra's violation".

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Several comments demanded the concept of "practical and reasonable" and the restrictions on the expenses that the staff can rationally request refunds. The other comments also requested the state to allow the cost to be flexibly combined while restricting the amount of costs.

C. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

The ministry has refused to establish specific restrictions on the types of expenses that may require staff to regulate gambling business. The ministry believes that the provisions of IGRA, which can evaluate regulatory costs, are narrow and basically limited to adjustment of jurisdiction rights. Providing specific definitions reduces the flexibility of the parties when negotiating the division of rational jurisdiction, which meets the needs of the parties. In addition, the Bureau revised §293. 19, and decided to flexibly negotiate the state under the terms of how the state would prove that the total expenses were actually and reasonable.

The Ministry partially agree with the proposed editing, reflecting these comments, has expressed concerns about the fact that §293. did. The commenter questioned the authority of the Secretary to determine unfair, and questioned how to confirm the compliance with such clause during the validity period of the contract.
Several comments demanded the concept of "practical and reasonable" and the restrictions on the expenses that the staff can rationally request refunds. The other comments also requested the state to allow the cost to be flexibly combined while restricting the amount of costs.
Several opinions have requested that the staff ensures that the staff ensures an annual audit review, the proof of actual and reasonable costs, and the regulatory cost adjustment. One comment submitted by the bureau to add a phrase "and Reasonable" to the last sentence of §293. 19 (printed page 74931). Another opinion asked the bureau to add the word "or refuse to provide such a note" in the last sentence of §293. 19.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Ministry partially agreed to the proposed editing, and some commentators expressed concern about §293. The commenter questioned the authority of the Secretary to determine unfair, and questioned how to confirm the compliance with such clause during the validity period of the contract.

E. Takings (E.O. 12630)

F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

The Ministry partially agree with the proposed editing and reflects these comments §293.
The bureau has published this comment. Section 293. 25 is interpreted by IGRA's ministry that prohibits tax, fees, tariffs, or other payments. The IGRA has a term for "State collection through tax on the gaming of the class III tribe" in these parts that are covered to cover the cost of matching [Class III tribal gaming]. Considering that they have the ability to restrain. 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (3) (C) (III). IGRA in Article 2710 (D) (4) includes tax, commission, payment, or other numbers, except for the state that the state agrees in accordance with (3) (C) (III). It is prohibited. The category can evaluate the national IGRA, and the staff can narrow down and limit the staff in consideration of the coordination costs with the gaps adjusted by the legal jurisdiction. Section 293. 25 commits the interpretation of the IGRA prohibition department for tax, collection, tariffs, or other estimates.

H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)

Some commentators supported the proposed §293. 20, and said that the risk of inappropriate clause connected by the fact that clear advice reaches all parties. The commenter supported the connection of the venture standard in the proposed §293. 20. A certain number of opinions requested the Bureau to add the word "estimate" so that the answer to the proposal could be heard as follows. "Including tax provisions by tribal tribes in other forms is an unfair identification."

Some commentators disagreed with the proposed §293. 20. The commentator has expressed concern that the proposed words seem to allow the state to tax on gambling profits. Other comments have said that this is not important, in fact, that the state could urgently demand taxation on tribal gambling.
Many commentators supported the proposed §293. 21 and its malicious standards. Many commentators mentioned the experience in cooperating with countries seeking to comply with the conflicts and agreements that violate IGRA.
Some commentators questioned the Minister's abilities in the conflict outside the Federal Court, arbitration, opinions, or other investigations.
Several commentators have expressed concerns about the proposed §293. 21 grounds. In fact, the commentator said that the list of documents required in this rule was too wide. The other comments are more expensive due to the risk that the proposed §293. 21 encourages the parties to seek the federal court to resolve the dispute and the Secretary may refuse the contract. He suggested that it would prevent further pursuing dispute resolution. Commentator believes that ecumenical aggulation is often done secretly. One commentator asked why the ministry was interested in the dispute solution agreement and the review of the opinion. Another commentator warns that the ministry to test these provisions may hinder the tribal sel f-determination and exercise of sovereignty in treaty negotiations.

The bureau pays attention to these comments. The ministry will work to make it appropriate for all contracts, revisions, agreements, or dispute resolution agreements in conjunction with IGRA. The ministry was appropriately modified §293. 2, §293. 4, §293. 7, and §293. 21, and responded to concerns regarding the secretary review of the treaty correction clause caused by the dispute resolution. The ministry has encouraged the parties to negotiate contracts in a timely and cos t-effective way that matches IGRA.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

For a certain number of comments, §293. 21 was modified, the title was changed, and the bureau was requested to add a word to §293. 21. The suggested title states, "Do you want to contract or recover the clause related to the (...) defaults on dispute?"

J. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The bureau partially agreed to this change. As described above, the bureau changed the expression "proof of unfair" to "proof of Igrra's violation."

K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

Some commentators begged the bureau to clarify whether the relocation options were needed in the contract, without considering the cancellation of the tribe, which was only harmful of the tribe.

L. Clarity of This Regulation

The bureau announced this comment. The bureau takes into account the fact that the contract is a carefully adjusted lon g-term contract between sovereign state. Igrra considers that the contract has all the possibilities of "legal defenses against contract default." In fact, the perfect compilation includes the options that enable the parties to continue to operate in compliance with the contract. If the contract is to make a payment to a country for adjustment costs described in the proposed §293. 19, or to create profits such as §293. 25, the category is ambiguous. Reasons to commit a clause that makes it possible to change the method to an ambiguous method.

One of the commentators, seeking a department to connect to Deduski n-he commented that he had signed a universal contract to keep the parties' strengthened expectations on the already processed sites. The manufacturer in the statement said that the parties claimed that the contract was invalid and had the opportunity to see the fixed labyein.

The bureau is compatible with his grandfather's remarks and connectes for Universal Agryment, which is not submitted for discussions by the secretariat, but in the (print service 74932) federal registry. do not have. The bureau introduced a configuration for clarifying and restricting the size of the test in the proposed §293. 21 and §293. 4. If the parties are eager to see that larg e-scale contracts are considered "change," advice to request a review of §293. 4. Certain comments were modified §293. 21, changed the title, and requested the Bureau to add words to §293. 21. The suggested title states, "Do you want to contract or recover the clause related to the (...) defaults on dispute?"

The bureau partially agreed to this change. As described above, the bureau changed the expression "proof of unfair" to "proof of Igrra's violation."

Some commentators begged the bureau to clarify whether the relocation options were needed in the contract, without considering the cancellation of the tribe, which was only harmful of the tribe.

M. Public Availability of Comments

The bureau is compatible with his grandfather's remarks and connectes for Universal Agryment, which is not submitted for discussions by the secretariat, but in the (print service 74932) federal registry. do not have. The bureau introduced a configuration for clarifying and restricting the size of the test in the proposed §293. 21 and §293. 4. If the parties are eager to see that larg e-scale contracts are considered "change," advice to request a review of §293. 4. For a certain number of comments, §293. 21 was modified, the title was changed, and the bureau was requested to add a word to §293. 21. The suggested title states, "Do you want to contract or recover the clause related to the (...) defaults on dispute?"

List of Subjects 25 CFR Part 293

Some commentators begged the bureau to clarify whether the relocation options were needed in the contract, without considering the cancellation of the tribe, which was only harmful of the tribe.
One of the commentators, seeking a department to connect to Deduski n-he commented that he had signed a universal contract to keep the parties' strengthened expectations on the already processed sites. The manufacturer in the statement said that the parties claimed that the contract was invalid and had the opportunity to see the fixed labyein.
Many comments have supported the proposed §293. 22, expanded these conditions, and demanded that they were more detailed as "maintenance" in detail. Comments explained that some countries actually wanted to expand regulatory standards that had nothing to do with the services of the object. Other comments have actually requested the tribe to accept the tribe to accept the same orders as the state law, and asked the tribes to add appropriate proposals to §293. 22: "[i] If the [i] contract or recovery requires a tribe to accept a stereotype or a similar thing to the parties, it is necessary to demand the stereotyped ideals stipulated in the law or state. These no n-effective stereotypes are connected to accommodate licensing and gaming.
The bureau changed the proposed §293. 23 numbering to §293. 24. The comment was edited to reflect the new section number.

Several commentators supported the proposed §293. 24. According to this condition, the comments have given a better negotiations on the decision of the agreement, and the parties have become separate instruction relatives as Igrra's responsibility, Article 271 (3) (C) (C). He explained that the contract criteria in accordance with will exceed the narrow range of IGRA. The proposed §293. 24, in effect, has a commentator that is, in fact, with the ministry's many years of claims on the existence of a direct connection, and denies the use of the "But for" test.

PART 293—CLASS III TRIBAL-STATE GAMING COMPACT

The ministry respects these opinions.

One of the comments has expressed concern that the bureau would not be called an assistant in an analysis of Article 293. 24 "arbitrary profit." ), There is also an analysis of “relevant” of §293. 24 (C) (4).

The section is paying attention to the comments on this note. Examination of the consistency between Article 293, paragraph 24 (b) (b) and (C) (4), and the "direct relation" used in Article 293, paragraph 24 is reversed in relation to the word "directly related". I confirmed that it would be. Many comments have supported the proposed §293. 22, expanded these conditions, and demanded in detail that they were actually eligible for "maintenance". Comments explained that some countries actually wanted to expand regulatory standards that had nothing to do with the services of the object. Other comments have actually requested the tribe to accept the tribe to accept the same orders as the state law, and asked the tribes to add appropriate proposals to §293. 22: "[i] If the [i] contract or recovery requires a tribe to accept a stereotype or a similar thing to the parties, it is necessary to demand the stereotyped ideals stipulated in the law or state. These no n-effective stereotypes are connected to accommodate licensing and gaming.

The bureau observed the comments, reviewed §293. 22, and linked the necessary proposals. The bureau changed the proposed §293. 23 numbering to §293. 24. The comment was edited to reflect the new section number. Several commentators supported the proposed §293. 24. According to this condition, the comments have given a better negotiations on the decision of the agreement, and the parties have become separate instruction relatives as Igrra's responsibility, Article 271 (3) (C) (C). He explained that the contract criteria in accordance with will exceed the narrow range of IGRA. The proposed §293. 24, in effect, has a commentator that is, in fact, with the ministry's many years of claims on the existence of a direct connection, and denies the use of the "But for" test.

The ministry respects these opinions.

Subpart A—General Provisions and Scope

The section is paying attention to the comments on this note. Examination of the consistency between Article 293, paragraph 24 (b) (b) and (C) (4), and the "direct relation" used in Article 293, paragraph 24 is reversed in relation to the word "directly related". I confirmed that it would be. Many comments have supported the proposed §293. 22, expanded these conditions, and demanded that they were more detailed as "maintenance" in detail. Comments explained that some countries actually wanted to expand regulatory standards that had nothing to do with the services of the object. Other comments have actually requested the tribe to accept the tribe to accept the same orders as the state law, and asked the tribes to add appropriate proposals to §293. 22: "[i] If the [i] contract or recovery requires a tribe to accept a stereotype or a parties, it is necessary to demand the stereotyped ideals stipulated in the law or state. These no n-effective stereotypes are connected to accommodate licensing and gaming.

The bureau observed the comments, reviewed §293. 22, and linked the necessary proposals.

The bureau changed the proposed §293. 23 numbering to §293. 24. The comment was edited to reflect the new section number.

The ministry respects these opinions.

As the commentator advised to link this section, the previously proposed §293. 24 reflects the form of questions and answers in the su b-section D. segment. "The provisions that do not have a direct business for gambling activities are considered to be a violation of IGRA."

The new section contains the number of §293. 23, and the appropriate segments were redesitized.

Multiple comment submits have modified §293. 24, inserted the text of "Activities" or "Activity", and then "Class III Gambling Games" for consistency with other sections of part 293. I advised the station.

The station has added the "activity" or "activity" phrase to §293. 24.

Some commenters have a table of "not related to gambling management", which matches §293. 24 (a), and "not related to the management of gambling" that meets §293. 24 (c). I asked the station to provide it. The commentator advised the bureau to fix or delete the provisions that were not supported by the past conclusions and / or precedent laws.

The bureau issued a table of authorities on data and other provisions.

Multiple commentators are considered to be directly associated with stereotypes and / or, §293. 24 (a), "[In Contract or Fix] clause I advised the bureau to attach a function to explain how it was necessary to execute. The commentator also advised the category to attach the tribes to the tribes of gambling class III, or to attach to the standards of Article 293 to respect the rational definitions of the tribe. The previous proposed §293. 24, as the

This section was carved out to establish certain features that comply with § 293. 24, giving the parties the desired flexibility to enter into certain standards for agreements. Some parties preferred to propose to the Department a simple justification explaining the major or new position as a percentage of their contract or amendment. If necessary, the Department will seek advice on specific provisions of the contract or amendment. Separately, the Department often provides technical assistance to the parties, pointing out important negotiations through the agreement or amendment, provisions that may not comply with IGRA, or provisions that may require emergency supplemental rights. For contracts that require approval by a state agency, it is considered best practice to rely on technical assistance until formal approval by the legislature is considered.

Many commenters responded to the Department's third advisory question, "If the proposed amendments bind or prohibit the implementation of state law orders regarding the retention of wages or benefits of donors' employees or donors, will the patron bind or prohibit the implementation of state law orders?" "The authors of this statement asked the Department to enforce provisions in the contract that would prohibit tribes from complying with state law regarding the retention of volunteer employees and/or benefits. These provisions are 25 U. S. C. § 2710. § 293. 24(d)(3)(c)(vii), commenters explained, does not provide a direct case for gambling operations. Separately, some commenters have argued, and in fact have succeeded, that withholding wage orders issued by state courts do not constitute insolvency for tribes or their employees. Commenters, however, stated that because court-ordered ...

293. 24 (C) (printed matter 74933) Opinions requesting a list of clauses that do not have direct gambling sales, memorandum of mutual understanding with district authorities, or provisions that require the decision on the inte r-government agreement. There was.

The Bureau has added a memorandum of mutual understanding with district authorities or application for an inte r-government agreement to a list of §293. 24 (c) gambling business. The fact that this matches the ninth conclusion is that it is an environment for the occupation of "California opposed to chicken ranch lords", 42 F. 4th1024 (9th Court 2022).

Some commentators are a criminal formed in §293. 24 (c) that do not have a direct case for the gambling business, and in relation to the thir d-class gambling by tribes in the thir d-class gambling. In the claim, the department requested the category to connect to the tribe in the jurisdiction of the city court.

In Article 293, Paragraph 24 (C), the Bureau shall request the theft for theft formed as a result of the strain of the II I-class gambling. Applications for the state court's jurisdiction have been added. This is consistent with the conclusion of Pueblo of Santa v. Nash, 972 F. Supp. 2D 1254 (D. N. M 2013) in New Mexico.

Several commentators urge the station to add a rescue point to §293. 24, cultivate the relatives of the same station to provide notification to negotiations, and the proposed contract status is "IGRA. It was confirmed whether it was regarded as directly related to the implementation of the gaming tribe. Commentator has urged the ministry to further predict the support from the Ministry, with the Red-Kojoshi National Gambling Committee and the US Department of Justice and legal decisions.

The bureau has been stuck in the official culture of its own practice to provide technical support to tribes and states. The Bureau will continue to coordinate its own impact with the Ministry of Justice and the Red Hand Gaming Committee in the securing of IGRA. 293. 24 (C) (printed matter 74933) to add a list of clause that has no direct gambling business, a memorandum of mutual understanding with regional authorities, or a clause that requires a decision on the inte r-agreement agreement. There was an opinion to ask.

The bureau has been stuck in the official culture of its own practice to provide technical support to tribes and states. The Bureau will continue to coordinate its own impact with the Ministry of Justice and the Red Hand Gaming Committee in the securing of IGRA. 293. 24 (C) (printed matter 74933) Opinions requesting a list of clauses that do not have direct gambling sales, memorandum of mutual understanding with district authorities, or provisions that require the decision on the inte r-government agreement. There was.

The bureau has been stuck in the official culture of its own practice to provide technical support to tribes and states. The Bureau will continue to coordinate its own impacts with the Ministry of Justice and the Red Hand Gaming Committee in the securing of IGRA.

Some commentators opposed §293. 24 (a) that they were "directly related to gambling tensions" and contained the provisions of cartridge acts in gambling facilities. Commenters argued that without additional clarifications or past cases and cases, the above examples could cause confusion and could lead to overdose of state authority. Other commentators are issues that regulate the acts of the abov e-mentioned cartridge, as states are trying to ban alcohol and smoking in tribal facilities, but to supply alcohol to facilities approved by staff. He pointed out that it includes issues that lead to controversial negotiations with the relevant state, such as requesting. Other commentators have revised the example list of §293. 24 (a) and reflect the problems that do not cause "directly related to gambling tribes" disputes, such as the minimum age limit and the transport of gaming equipment and equipment. I'm doing it.

The bureau paid to the comments. The bureau has presented all authorities to confirm examples listed in §293. 24 (a). The bureau has also revised a list of "directly related to gambling tribes" so that the lawsuit is not induced. The fact that the theme is in the list of the subject of the "directly associated" theme in Article 293, paragraph 24 (a) means that the state claims the requirements for "directly related" theme. Note that there is no. [6]

Some commentators recommend editing the §293. 24 (a) style for the consistency with §293. 24 (c).

293. Article 24 was revised for consistency.

According to a comment submit, §293. 24 (a )'s reference to the behavior of customers may include the illegal behavior of customers, including transactions in gambling facilities and no n-gambling facilities. The creator of the comment asked the Bureau to give opinions on the provisions related to the criminal jurisdiction.

Our department pays attention to this comment. 293. 24 (A) has been deleted the word "customer behavior". In addition, criminal trials are being considered in §293. 17.

Subpart B—Submission of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts

Several comments requested that the tribal infrastructure project was useful for the tribe, and requested that Article 293, paragraph 24 (B) includes a tribal infrastructure project. some commentators opposed §293. 24 (a) that they were "directly related to gambling tensions", including the provisions of cartridge acts in gambling facilities. Commenters argued that without additional clarifications or past cases and cases, the above examples could cause confusion and could lead to overdose of state authority. Other commentators are issues that regulate the acts of the abov e-mentioned cartridge, as states are trying to ban alcohol and smoking in tribal facilities, but to supply alcohol to facilities approved by staff. He pointed out that it includes issues that lead to controversial negotiations with the relevant state, such as requesting. Other commentators have revised the example list of §293. 24 (a) and reflect the problems that do not cause "directly related to gambling tribes" disputes, such as the minimum age limit and the transport of gaming equipment and equipment. I'm doing it.

Some commentators recommend editing the §293. 24 (a) style for the consistency with §293. 24 (c).

293. Article 24 was revised for consistency.

Our department pays attention to this comment. 293. 24 (A) has been deleted the word "customer behavior". In addition, criminal trials are being considered in §293. 17.

Several comments requested that the tribal infrastructure project was useful for the tribe, and requested that Article 293, paragraph 24 (B) includes a tribal infrastructure project. Some commentators opposed §293. 24 (a) that they were "directly related to gambling tensions" and contained the provisions of cartridge acts in gambling facilities. Commenters argued that without additional clarifications or past cases and cases, the above examples could cause confusion and could lead to overdose of state authority. Other commentators are issues that regulate the acts of the abov e-mentioned cartridge, as states are trying to ban alcohol and smoking in tribal facilities, but to supply alcohol to facilities approved by staff. He pointed out that it includes issues that lead to controversial negotiations with the relevant state, such as requesting. Other commentators have revised the example list of §293. 24 (a) and reflect the problems that do not cause "directly related to gambling tribes" disputes, such as the minimum age limit and the transport of gaming equipment and equipment. I'm doing it.

Some commentators recommend editing the §293. 24 (a) style for the consistency with §293. 24 (c).

293. Article 24 was revised for consistency.

Our department pays attention to this comment. 293. 24 (A) has been deleted the word "customer behavior". In addition, criminal trials are being considered in §293. 17.

Several comments requested that the tribal infrastructure project was useful for the tribe, and requested that Article 293, paragraph 24 (B) includes a tribal infrastructure project.

Subpart C—Secretarial Review of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts

The Department agrees with these comments. The Department has stated that, in effect, infrastructure projects may generate benefits for tribes. The Department has included tribal infrastructure in § 293. 24(b) and emphasized that these projects need not be viewed as "only as relating precisely to the conduct of gambling tribes" or as conferring gambling operations.

Several commenters urged the Department to remove the word "arbitrarily" from § 293. 24(b). Commenters essentially stated that the verb "arbitrary benefit" is problematic and would lead to a flagrant excess of State capacity.

The Department has removed the word "arbitrarily" from § 293. 24(b).

One commenter urged the Department to revise § 293. 24(c) to read, "Provisions that the Department has the ability to consider, as those without a direct case for gambling, include..."

The Department will accept this proposed revision.

Several commenters expressed concern that the Department's examination of 25 U. S. C. § 2710(d)(3)(c)(vii) in § 293(24(c)(1) to "restrict the right of three tribes to engage in gaming" does not include cases directly involving the operation of gaming operations. A number of commenters cited the Department's review and facilitation of Article 9 in the 1993 Michigan Compact, which in practice approximates in all respects the provisions of the Compact affecting third-party tribes. Others commented that § 293(24(c)(1) has the capacity to bind tribal parity or "most favored nation" provisions. Other commenters advised the Department to remove this condition, stating that it may actually diversify and limit the provisions regarding geographic exclusivity. Others welcomed § 293. 24(c)(1), stating that it is consistent with the Department's longstanding objection to provisions of compacts that, in effect, are intended to limit the rights of third-party tribes in concert with Igla.

The bureau states the comments on this annotation as follows. The Bureau alternately distinguishes agreements with gaming market adjustments throughout the state and agreements that coordinate with IGRA to limit the rights of thir d-party tribes. In Michigan and Arizona, the state and tribes have concluded useful agreements under the nationwide scheme on the gaming market in the gaming market between tribes. These agreements and similar agreements include a share between the tribes to make up for the inequality between the tribes between urban and rural areas. Such agreements include similar or similar clause in the whole state. The bureau has alternately accepted this type of contract with the appropriate IGRA (printed page 74934). [7]

These contracts are not members of the contract, especially in the form of geographical exclusiveness of inte r-tribal competition, in order to realize their own complete rights in collaboration with IGRA. It is a contrasting contract that hinders the scheme. The bureau expressed concern about the previous stage of such a series of contracts, and in some cases did not approve a contract with similar clause. [8] The fact that the bureau did not limit this state to "ant i-competition" or "geographical exclusiveness of inte r-tribal competition" is not yet the possibility of illegally restricting the tribal rights of the third party in accordance with Igra. This is to make the Secretary being able to respond flexibly to other provisions.

The commentator advised the bureau to link the example of "fiscal activities other than a tribal game" to clarify the stereotypes of the station formulated in §293. 24 (B).

The bureau observed the comments, reviewed §293. 22, and linked the necessary proposals.

The Ministry changed the proposed §293. 24 number to §293. 25, and the comments were edited to reflect the new section number. The bureau states the comments on this annotation as follows. The Bureau alternately distinguishes agreements with gaming market adjustments throughout the state and agreements that coordinate with IGRA to limit the rights of thir d-party tribes. In Michigan and Arizona, the state and tribes have concluded useful agreements under the nationwide scheme on the gaming market in the gaming market between tribes. These agreements and similar agreements include a share between the tribes to make up for the inequality between the tribes between urban and rural areas. Such agreements include similar or similar clause in the whole state. The bureau has alternately accepted this type of contract with the appropriate IGRA (printed page 74934). [7]

The bureau changed the proposed §293. 23 numbering to §293. 24. The comment was edited to reflect the new section number.

The Bureau included examples of financial formation other than the tribal games in §293. 24 (c) (8).

The commentator advised the bureau to link the example of "fiscal activities other than a tribal game" to clarify the stereotypes of the station formulated in §293. 24 (B).

The Bureau included examples of financial formation other than the tribal games in §293. 24 (c) (8).

The Ministry changed the proposed §293. 24 number to §293. 25, and the comments were edited to reflect the new section number.

Should the amendment plan include binding provisions that define the types of major concessions that tribes can request from states, except for the defense of state-sanctioned pay-to-play gambling (i. e., exclusivity), for which tribes have the ability to enforce revenue share payments. How will these provisions affect contract award negotiations? "Nearly all commenters are in favor of linking an illustrative list of likely concessions, similar to the list in § 293. 24. Commenters essentially stated that such a list would undoubtedly help identify the types of concessions that the government could offer in lieu of profits in negotiations. Commenters suggested as suitable examples geographic exclusivity, tariffs on mobile sports on state lands, and full governor's approval of a bipartite ministerial order in conjunction with section 2719(b)(1)(a). Other commenters commented that § 293. 24 would be a good fit for the proposed concessions. The Department commented on an illustrative list of likely concessions, similar to the list in the 2010 Act. These commentators argue that, in fact, the State has every opportunity to illegally apply a similar list in order to urgently demand benefits, thereby creating a joint control.

Subpart D—Scope of Tribal-State Gaming Compacts

The Department sees these comments as essentially emphasizing the polite appropriation of benefits in contracts. The Department responds that, for the list of major concessions, both the allocation and appropriation of benefits should be complied with in each case. The Department confirmed the appropriation of benefits in the proxy for major concessions, covering the geographic exclusivity of State-licensed gambling, the exclusivity of mobile or I games on a Statewide basis.[9] [9]The Department cautioned the parties not to negotiate the transfer of major keys that may require the intervention of Federal or State authorities, as this concession may be perceived as illusory.

Many commentators supported the proposed §293. 25. The proposed §293. 25 will determine how to see, how to look at existing precedent laws, and whether shared profits will be regarded as the next exchange or inappropriate tax. A commentator that actually is formulated by the department. Commenters are actually paid as a disguise tax for these district authorities, the decision of the inte r-government agreement with the national political distribution squad that some countries actually want to urgently request. Requests for tribes. The commentator said that it would basically define the aspect of the department that evaluates the consistency of profits, and would be useful for negotiations in the decision of the agreement. Many commentators advised to examine the interest distribution clause of the contract in each case, giving priority to the difficulty of negotiations between tribes and warnings not to consider paranalism.

Article 293. 25 commented that it was a culture of the Bureau's long analysis to evaluate profits. The Bureau is trying to determine an inseparable government agreement, including §293. 4, §293. 8, §293. 25, and §293. 28, including payment to local authorities.

There were also opinions that demanded the definition of "important concessions" and "important financial interests." Commenters are important concessions (1) important for tribes, (2) related to gaming, (3) achieving goals, accepting Igra, and (4) the next negotiations. Rather, he suggested that the government has already negotiated with the tribe in cooperation with IGRA.

The bureau accepted this opinion. In Article 293, Paragraph 2, a new definition of "important concessions" is adopted, and "important concession" means (1) important for tribes, (2) (3) Igra They say that they even sell the target, (4) the government must negotiate in cooperation with Igra.

In Article 293, paragraph 2, a new definition of "important economic interests" is adopted, and the correct "important economic interest" means "(1) the appropriate effect on the tribe, (2) an important concession. (Printing page 74935) (3) It was manufactured in consideration of the fiscal standard of the tribe, (4) the end of the contract, (5) submitted by the tribal or state. It must be proven by economy / market analysis.

Many comments have called for §293. 8 and §293. 25 to include the requirements for the contract tribe to provide the tribes to provide the tribes to provide true profits in which the profit distribution agreement is justified. 。

This section pays attention to this comment. The section has added the necessary applications for §293. 8 and §293. 25. § Article 293, paragraph 8 (e), was revised so that if the contract includes a profit distribution clause, the tribal or state demands that a market test is provided in accordance with the contract. In addition, §293. 25 (b) (2) shows that "the value of a specific important concession provided by the state brings substantial financial interests to the tribe, and the interests stipulated in the treaty. To justify. "

Some commentators asked the ministry spread test to include the main aspects of IGRA's main beneficiaries.

The ministry pays attention to these opinions. Article 293. 25 (B) (3) specifically requires evidence that the tribes are regarded as the main beneficiaries of the gaming business when the parties accept the exchange of interest distribution.

Many commentators talked about their own experiments about using different interes t-distribution agreements. In fact, in response to the Supreme Supreme Court's conclusion on the Supreme Court of Seminol occupation, the interest distribution was an important negotiation strategy for negotiating a reluctant state. Some arguments discussed interest distribution with the district government through the inte r-government agreement. Apart from this, the higher the profit distribution rate based on the total income, the government received more profits than the pure income of the tribe. The commentators have also examined cases in which the state actively reduced the exclusiveness of the tribe without destroying the contract, and did not try to use the state law to protect the exclusiveness of the tribe. Many comments include §293. 8 and §293. 25, the requirements for the contract tribe to provide the tribes to provide the tribe to provide the tribe of the true interests of the profit distribution agreement. I asked for it.

This section pays attention to this comment. The section has added the necessary applications for §293. 8 and §293. 25. § Article 293, paragraph 8 (e), was revised so that if the contract includes a profit distribution clause, the tribal or state demands that a market test is provided in accordance with the contract. In addition, §293. 25 (b) (2) shows that "the value of specific important concessions provided by the state brings substantial financial interests to the tribe, and the interests stipulated in the treaty. To justify. "

Some commentators asked the ministry spread test to include the main aspects of IGRA's main beneficiaries.

Many commentators talked about their own experiments about using different interes t-distribution agreements. In fact, in response to the Supreme Supreme Court's conclusion on the Supreme Court of Seminol occupation, the interest distribution was an important negotiation strategy for negotiating a reluctant state. Some arguments discussed interest distribution with the district government through the inte r-government agreement. Apart from this, the higher the profit distribution rate based on the total income, the government received more profits than the pure income of the tribe. The commentators have also examined cases in which the state actively reduced the exclusiveness of the tribe without destroying the contract, and did not try to use the state law to protect the exclusiveness of the tribe. Many comments have called for §293. 8 and §293. 25 to include the requirements for the contract tribe to provide the tribes to provide the tribes to provide true profits in which the profit distribution agreement is justified. 。

This section pays attention to this comment. The section has added the necessary applications for §293. 8 and §293. 25. § Article 293, paragraph 8 (e), was revised so that if the contract includes a profit distribution clause, the tribal or state demands that a market test is provided in accordance with the contract. In addition, §293. 25 (b) (2) shows that "the value of specific important concessions provided by the state brings substantial financial interests to the tribe, and the interests stipulated in the treaty. To justify. "

Some commentators asked the ministry spread test to include the main aspects of IGRA's main beneficiaries.

The bureau announced this comment. For a long time, he was concerned about relatively large profit distribution, introduced power, including agreement, and did not approve. The awareness of the interest distribution clause has evolved in cooperation with the technologies of the tribal operated in cooperation with the case law and the various profit distribution clauses for more than 30 years. For a long time, the department will provide technical support to the parties for a long time, and will continue to cover the facts of the department, and provide important negotiations related to interest distribution and modern technology.

Many commentators have been shaken by the secretary of "paying special precautions" and committing a stereotype of unfairness in the evaluation of the interest distribution clause. In fact, commentators have announced that the payment of interest distribution is considered an illegal detour-method for IGRA for taxes, fees, tariffs, and other taxes. Other commentators expressed concern about the proposed §293. 25 excuse, and the proposed provisions limit the possibility of tribes that bring meaningful interests for the country for exclusive defense. He warned that it could cause unexpected results, such as redistributing funds for the Nigles tribe. As the commentator has announced, the facts of the departments for expanding profits and uniqueness are doubtful, quotes the ministry in New Mexico and New York, the value of the uniqueness of exposure to these transactions. Under the fluctuation of. The bureau announced such a comment. For a long time, he was concerned about relatively large profit distribution, introduced power, including agreement, and did not approve. The awareness of the interest distribution clause has evolved in cooperation with the technologies of the tribal operated in cooperation with the case law and the various profit distribution clauses for more than 30 years. For a long time, the department will provide technical support to the parties for a long time, and will continue to cover the facts of the department, and provide important negotiations related to interest distribution and modern technology.

Many commentators have been shaken by the secretary of "paying special precautions" and committing a stereotype of unfairness in the evaluation of the interest distribution clause. In fact, commentators have announced that the payment of interest distribution is considered an illegal detour-method for IGRA for taxes, fees, tariffs, and other taxes. Other commentators expressed concern about the proposed §293. 25 excuse, and the proposed provisions limit the possibility of tribes that bring meaningful interests for the country for exclusive defense. He warned that it could cause unexpected results, such as redistributing funds for the Nigles tribe. As the commentator has announced, the facts of the departments for expanding profits and uniqueness are doubtful, quotes the ministry in New Mexico and New York, the value of the uniqueness of exposure to these transactions. Under the fluctuation of. The bureau announced this comment. For a long time, he was concerned about relatively large profit distribution, introduced power, including agreement, and did not approve. The awareness of the interest distribution clause has evolved in cooperation with the technologies of the tribal operated in cooperation with the case law and the various profit distribution clauses for more than 30 years. For a long time, the department will provide technical support to the parties for a long time, and will continue to cover the facts of the department, and provide important negotiations related to interest distribution and modern technology.

The bureau has received comments on this annotation as follows. The proposed criterion is that the income distribution in the contract is illegal as "tax, payment, collection, or other occurrence", which is a culture of the lon g-term analysis of the department to determine this. In order to exceed this range, the court's appropriate conclusion is actually allowed by management. The department is assumed that the evaluation of gain has been substantially corrected in consideration of changes in the Case Law in connection with the Linkon case vs. Schwarzenegger (602 F. 3D 1019, 9th, 2010). There is. The area explains that the area is asking the court to consider the state of the state as an unjust confirmation, and that it is not a suspicious confirmation. I think that the implementation of the case is persuasive, but not essential (quote: in Re Indian Related Copies Valley II), 331 F. 3D 1094, 1112-13 (9th CIR. 2003 ) Is a unique process in Article 2710 (D) (7) (B) (III) (II)).

Some commentators requested the Bureau to expand the confusing stereotypes of §293. 24 (c). Some commentators begged the tribes to link the country's organizational claims as unfair confirmation, agreeing with the "important concession" of the tribes proposed for profit adjustments. This condition is consistent with the analysis of the 9th district conducted by the ninth district in the Linkon Band vs. Schwarzenegger case (602 F. 3D 1019 (9th CIR. 2010)). Other commentators are more unfair, for example, for a specific rate paid by other tribes, for example, by advanced markets, for example, in the state, to the adjacent and past rates. It implies to the department to connect the no n-profit distribution and the status of claims. Other commentators have urged the bureau to link the national unequal attitude to the state estimated evidence of unfairness to the state. The bureau accepts comments on this annotation as follows: The proposed criterion is that the income distribution in the contract is illegal as "tax, payment, collection, or other occurrence", which is a culture of the lon g-term analysis of the department to determine this. In order to exceed this range, the court's appropriate conclusion is actually allowed by management. The department is assumed that the evaluation of gain has been substantially corrected in consideration of changes in the Case Law in connection with the Linkon case vs. Schwarzenegger (602 F. 3D 1019, 9th, 2010). There is. The area explains that the area is asking the court to consider the state of the state as an unjust confirmation, and that it is not a suspicious confirmation. I think that the implementation of the case is persuasive, but not essential (quote: in Re Indian Related Copies Valley II), 331 F. 3D 1094, 1112-13 (9th CIR. 2003 ) Is a unique process in Article 2710 (D) (7) (B) (III) (II)).

Some commentators requested the Bureau to expand the confusing stereotypes of §293. 24 (c). Some commentators begged the tribes to link the country's organizational claims as unfair confirmation, agreeing with the "important concession" of the tribes proposed for profit adjustments. This condition is consistent with the analysis of the 9th district conducted by the ninth district in the Linkon Band vs. Schwarzenegger case (602 F. 3D 1019 (9th CIR. 2010)). Other commentators are more unfair, for example, for a specific rate paid by other tribes, for example, by advanced markets, for example, in the state, to the adjacent and past rates. It implies to the department to connect the no n-profit distribution and the status of claims. Other commentators have urged the bureau to link the national unequal attitude to the state estimated evidence of unfairness to the state. The bureau has received comments on this annotation as follows. The proposed criterion is that the income distribution in the contract is illegal as "tax, payment, collection, or other occurrence", which is a culture of the lon g-term analysis of the department to determine this. In order to exceed this range, the court's appropriate conclusion is actually allowed by management. The department is assumed that the evaluation of gain has been substantially corrected in consideration of changes in the Case Law in connection with the Linkon case vs. Schwarzenegger (602 F. 3D 1019, 9th, 2010). There is. The area explains that the area is asking the court to consider the state of the state as an unjust confirmation, and that it is not a suspicious confirmation. I think that the implementation of the case is persuasive, but not essential (quote: in Re Indian Related Copies Valley II), 331 F. 3D 1094, 1112-13 (9th CIR. 2003 ) Is a unique process in Article 2710 (D) (7) (B) (III) (II)).

The Bureau refused to add an example of dishonest acts and to accept standard "estimation of dishonest acts." As described above, the bureau replaced the expression "proof of dishonesty" with "proof of Igrra's violation." The negotiations in the IGRA agreement concluded include negotiations between two sovereign nations, but in some cases the tribes participate in collective group negotiations with the state. If the tribe refuses the offer offered by the state, the tribe can put out a counter orofer. IGRA stipulates that if the state does not respond to negotiations or performs unreasonably, the tribes can file a lawsuit in the Federal Court in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Bureau will continue to coordinate the IGRA warning with the Judicial and the National Gaming Committee of the Intodal.

Some opinions have revised the §293. 25, and sought to request that the tribes began negotiating income distribution and linked specific payments beyond the income distribution regulations to specific concessions. (1) Tribes (printing pages 74936) demanded specific important concessions that the state do not need to negotiate, and the state proposed it. (2) The cost of a specific important concession proposed by the state brings important economic interests to the tribe and justifies the income distribution required by the contract.

The department accepts the proposed §293. 25 (B) (1) and (2).

One of the commenters, whether the tribe continues to secure the substantial economic benefits to justify the continuation of the income section, and if not, paying the income section is inconsistent with the IGRA. As such, the tribes were asked to include the rules of §293. 25 in §293. 25 that the tribes could be adjusted to the tribes of the contract or legal conclusions on how much it should be adjusted.

The bureau refuses to accept the requested position of §293. 25. The bureau will continue to provide tribes and states, including the identification of advanced experience. The Bureau has listed the tribal or other major committees thoroughly compiling the exclusive conditions of the tribe or other major committees, the protection device in case of violation, and the regular review of specific conditions. The bureau refused to add an example of dishonest acts and to accept the standard "dishonesty". As described above, the bureau replaced the expression "proof of dishonesty" with "proof of Igrra's violation." The negotiations in the IGRA agreement concluded include negotiations between two sovereign nations, but in some cases the tribes participate in collective group negotiations with the state. If the tribe refuses the offer offered by the state, the tribe can put out a counter orofer. IGRA stipulates that if the state does not respond to negotiations or performs unreasonably, the tribes can file a lawsuit in the Federal Court in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Bureau will continue to coordinate the IGRA warning with the Judicial and the National Gaming Committee of the Intodal.

The department accepts the proposed §293. 25 (B) (1) and (2).

The bureau refuses to accept the requested position of §293. 25. The bureau will continue to provide tribes and states, including the identification of advanced experience. The Bureau has listed the tribal or other major committees thoroughly compiling the exclusive conditions of the tribe or other major committees, the protection device in case of violation, and the regular review of specific conditions. The Bureau refused to add an example of dishonest acts and to accept standard "estimation of dishonest acts." As described above, the bureau replaced the expression "proof of dishonesty" with "proof of Igrra's violation." The negotiations in the IGRA agreement concluded include negotiations between two sovereign nations, but in some cases the tribes participate in collective bargaining with the state. If the tribe refuses the offer offered by the state, the tribe can put out a counter orofer. IGRA stipulates that if the state does not respond to negotiations or performs unreasonably, the tribes can file a lawsuit in the Federal Court in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Bureau will continue to coordinate the IGRA warning with the Judicial and the National Gaming Committee of the Intodal.

The department accepts the proposed §293. 25 (B) (1) and (2).

The bureau refuses to accept the requested position of §293. 25. The bureau will continue to provide tribes and states with technical support, including identifying advanced experience. The Bureau has listed the tribal or other major committees thoroughly compiling the exclusive conditions of the tribe or other major committees, the protection device in case of violation, and the regular review of specific conditions.

Several commenters asked the Department to explain that States negotiating contractual agreements consistent with IGRA is not a "significant concession" to revenue sharing.

The Department takes note of these comments. Congress required tribes and states to knowingly negotiate Class III gaming agreements, provided legal safeguards in the event of a state's refusal to negotiate in good faith, and restricted the negotiation of Class III gaming agreements and prohibited states from using the process to impose taxes, fees, payments, or other levies on gaming tribal activities under Title 25, United States Code, Section 2710(d).

Several commenters noted that proposed § 293. 25, while useful for most tribes and states, is in fact a dead letter with no amendments for Seminole.

The Department considered the comments requesting the amendment of the Seminole position above in the general comments section. There, the Department noted that it has long coordinated its actions with the Department of Justice and the India Gaming Commission on ensuring compliance with IGRA.

Several commenters asked the Department to explain how a finding of “unfairness” under § 293. 25 would result in automatic disapproval of a contract or modification.

The Department declined to set a standard for automatic disapproval. As explained above, the Department replaced the phrase “proof of bad faith” with “proof of violation of IGRA.” The Secretary General’s discretion to disapproval or to take no action is contemplated in § 293. 12, § 293. 15, and § 293. 16.

One commenter noted that the proposed position of § 293. 25 is ambiguous when considered in conjunction with § 293. 24 and needs clarification. These two proposed provisions taken together would seem to suggest that the "significant exclusion from the contract" would be limited to the state's requirement to pay a fee.

The Department takes note of these comments. The Department notes that § 293. 24 considers provisions deemed "directly related to gambling" and § 293. 25 - revenue sharing. The Department also notes that the recent Ninth District decision in Chicken Ranch reversed the judicial device for a large allocation to provisions related to gambling in entertainment. The Department finds the Ninth District's argument that a major concession cannot create an issue that is not within the scope pursuant to IGRA persuasive but unenforceable. CHICKEN RANCH OF INDIAN RANGER ME-WOOK AGAINST CALIFORNIA, 42 F. 4th 1024 (9th District, 2022)

The bureau changed the proposed §293. 25 number to §293. 26. The comment was edited to reflect the new section number.

Several comments supported the proposed §293. 26, and basically interpreted that the contract was required to be quite long or a lifetime. Comment submits say that the negotiations process can be prolonged, and urgently need a great deal of resource cost.

The bureau respects these opinions.

Several comments supported the venture-standard connection in the proposed §293. 26. A certain number of comments sought to add the wording "estimate" so that the proposal answer could be heard as follows. "Refusing negotiations on shor t-term extensions that enable lon g-term contracts or negotiations is an unfair identification."

The bureau keeps the proposed configuration, although it keeps this comment. As described above, the bureau changed the expression "unfair evidence" to "evidence of Igrra violation."

A comment submitted by a comment called for at least 15 years to limit the concept of "lon g-term" to a minimum number of "shor t-term" concepts.

The bureau rejected a lon g-term definition of "at least 15 years", but adopted a shor t-term definition proposal of "at least one year".

Multiple opinions clarify that just because there is a contract with the tribe, when the current contract expires, the state of the state will not be delayed to negotiate a new or amendment agreement. So, I begged the station.

Footnotes

The bureau has shown this view. In fact, Igrra in Article 25 (D) (3) (a), Article 2710 (3) (A), acknowledges the government's radio negotiating the tribe with the tribe. The contract period does not exempt the government's direct responsibilities against IGRA.

The bureau changed the proposed §293. 26 number to §293. 27. The comment was r e-edited to reflect the new section number.

Some commentators pointed out that this situation would actually help the tribes to adjust the gambling territory, and to help them.

The bureau complies with these comments. The station has changed the proposed §293. 25 number to §293. 26. The comment was edited to reflect the new section number.

The bureau respects these opinions.

The bureau keeps the proposed configuration, although it keeps this comment. As described above, the bureau changed the expression "unfair evidence" to "evidence of Igrra violation."

A comment submitted by a comment called for at least 15 years to limit the concept of "lon g-term" to a minimum number of "shor t-term" concepts.

The bureau rejected the lon g-term definition of "at least 15 years", but adopted a shor t-term definition proposal of "at least one year".

Multiple opinions clarify that just because there is a contract with the tribe, when the current contract is expired, the state of the state will not be directly duty to negotiate a new or amendment agreement. So, I begged the station.

The bureau changed the proposed §293. 26 number to §293. 27. The comment was r e-edited to reflect the new section number.

Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer

Last modified: 27.08.2024

This part contains: (a) Procedures that Indian Tribes and States must use when submitting Tribal-State gaming compacts and compact amendments to the Department. Gaming Compacts. Policy Letter Class III Tribal State Gaming Compacts, Director 06/14/22, Zuni Tribe Tribal State Gaming Compact · Federal Register Link. (b) Compact or Tribal-State Gaming Compact means an intergovernmental agreement executed between Tribal and State governments under IGRA that establishes.

Play

accepted