#  Brian Snopkowski

7303 Norman Road

North Tonawanda, NY 14120

22 July 2008

Ms. Paula Hart, Acting Director

Office of Indian Gaming

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary

Policy and Economic Development

1849 C Street, NW

Mail Stop 3657-MIB

Washington, DC 20240

Dear Ms. Paula Hart,

This letter is providing comments on "Class III Tribal State Gaming
Compact Process" proposed rule identification number 1076-AE99.

(1) Section 293.4 What authority does the Secretary have to approve or
    disapprove compacts and amendments? *In this section only the
    Secretary's authority it approve compacts and amendments is
    discussed. No mention of the Secretary's authority to disapprove
    compacts or amendments is made. I recommend that section 293.15 be
    cited in this section showing the Secretary's authority to
    disapprove compacts and amendments.\
    *

(2) Section 293.6 Are Technical amendments subject to review and
    approval? *This section by itself is basically clear but when read
    in conjunction with section 293.7, I believe it causes confusion. In
    this section it states that technical, non-substantive amendments do
    not require Secretarial approval while Section 293.7 states
    amendments are subject to review and approval without specifically
    exempting technical, non-substantive amendments. Additionally, no
    mention is made if a technical amendment needs to be reviewed or
    not.*

(3) Section 293.7 Are extensions of compacts and amendments subject to
    review and approval? *This section has me somewhat confused. What is
    the difference between an "extension" of a compact and an
    "amendment" of a compact? Are "extensions" of compacts somehow
    requested differently than "amendments"? Isn't an "extension" just
    an "amendment" to the timeframe of the compact? Additionally, I see
    nowhere in the IGRA which gives the Secretary the authority to
    review/approve/disapprove an "extension" of a compact.*

Not-with-standing my above comments, it is my recommendation that
sections 293.6 and 293.7 be rewritten and a new section 293.8 be
included since I believe that as written they could be open to incorrect
interpretation and cause confusion. I propose the following revised
sections:

Section 293.6 Are compacts subject to review and approval? Yes, compacts
are subject to review and approval by the Secretary.

Section 293.7 Are amendments subject to review and approval? Yes,
substantive amendments are subject to review and approval by the
Secretary. A substantive amendment is one that potentially implicates
any of the three statutory reasons available to the Secretary to
disapprove a compact listed in section 293.15. However, technical,
non-substantive amendments can be agreed upon by the parties without
requiring Secretarial review or approval under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act.

Section 293.8 Are extensions to compacts subject to review and approval?
Yes, extensions to compacts are subject to review and approval by the
Secretary.

I have included this new section only to retain all of the information
submitted in the Federal Register in sections 293.6 and 293.7. It is
still my opinion that the IGRA does not provide the Secretary the
authority to review, approve or disapprove and "extensions" to compacts.

If my changes are accepted it would require renumbering of sections
203.8 through 293.17 of your original proposal.

Sincerely,