It is also notable that most commenters supported the changes to proposed § 293.3, which asserted the Secretary’s authority under IGRA to approve compacts or amendments and references § 293.15 for the Secretary’s authority to disapprove compacts or amendments. In jumping ahead to § 293.15, the Department adds a subsection (b) that would allow the Secretary to disapprove a compact or amendment if the submittal does not contain the documents required under § 293.8 because the Compact would not have been “validly entered into” absent these documents. As such the final rule states: “The Secretary may disapprove a compact or amendment only if: (a) It violates: (1) Any provision of IGRA; (2) Any other provision of Federal law that does not relate to jurisdiction over gaming on Indian lands; or (3) The trust obligations of the United States to Indians; or (b) The documents required in § 293.8 are not submitted and the parties have been informed in writing of the missing documents and are provided with an opportunity to supply those documents.” The Department also codified the proposed changes to § 293.4, discussing whether compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval. This includes the addition of a subsection (c), which provides a process by which the parties to a compact may seek a determination as to whether an agreement or document is a compact or an amendment. Based upon comments received, the Department clarified that the timeline for the Department’s response is within 30 days of the Department’s receipt of this request. The Department also clarified that if the Department does determine that the agreement or document is a compact or amendment, it must be resubmitted for review. Among the many other amendments to the final rule, including minor changes related to clarification or section number redesignation, the Department also amended § 293.25, now proposed under § 293.27, discussing the factors that the Secretary will analyze to determine whether revenue sharing is lawful. The Department chose to refuse to incorporate comments that suggested that the final rule should provide specific examples of the Meaningful Concessions or Substantial Economic Benefits . Instead, the final rule states that the Secretary will analyze the following factors to determine if revenue sharing is lawful: “(a) A compact or amendment may include provisions that address revenue sharing in exchange for a State's meaningful concessions resulting in a substantial economic benefit for the Tribe. (b) The Department reviews revenue sharing provisions with great scrutiny beginning with the presumption that a Tribe's payment to a State or local government for anything beyond § 293.18 regulatory fee is a prohibited “tax, fee, charge, or other assessment.” In order for the Department to approve revenue sharing the parties must show through documentation, such as a market study or other similar evidence, that:
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs