subsection directs the Secretary to look at what is happening, not what might happen in the future. Second, this is the Secretary’s position as set forth in the December 22, 2010 decision. The Secretary’s brief reasserts that “the regulations are clear, and contain no provision for an expression of future intent with an undefined time frame.” There is no doubt that throughout the proceedings the Tribe has operated the Win-River Casino. Thus, according to the Secretary, whether the Tribe intended to close the Win-River Casino if it prevailed on its application was “irrelevant.” The Department’s interpretation of its own regulation is controlling because it is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the statute. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the Tribe has not argued, and the
holding that a secretarys interpretation of a departments regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding that deference is owed to an agencys interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation citation and quotation marks excluded holding that courts should defer to agencys interpretation of its own regulations if not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation