[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 53 (Friday, March 17, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14461-14469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-6603]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 290

RIN 1076-AD74


Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is establishing regulations 
to implement Section 11(b)(3) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
(IGRA). This rule establishes procedures for the submission, review, 
and approval of tribal revenue allocation plans for the distribution of 
net gaming revenues from tribal gaming activities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take effect on April 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Pierskalla, Management Analyst, 
Office of Indian Gaming Management, at 202-219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IGRA, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq., was 
signed into law on October 17, 1988. Pursuant to Section 11(b)(3)(B), 
25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(3)(B), of IGRA, the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) is charged with the review and approval of tribal revenue 
allocation plans relating to the distribution of net gaming revenues 
from a tribal gaming activity. These regulations establish a method for 
the submission, review and approval of tribal revenue allocation plans.
    The IGRA provides that net gaming revenues from class II and class 
III gaming may be distributed in the form of per capita payments to 
members of the Indian tribe provided the Indian tribe has prepared a 
Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan which is approved by the Secretary. On 
December 21, 1992, the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) 
issued Guidelines to Govern the Review and Approval of Tribal Revenue 
Allocation Plans. As outlined in IGRA, the Guidelines require that the 
Indian tribe must dedicate a significant share (or portion) of net 
gaming revenues for economic development and governmental purposes, 
that the interests of minors and other legally incompetent persons 
entitled to receive per capita payments must be protected and 
preserved, and that per capita payments are subject to Federal income 
taxes. The AS-IA does not mandate the distribution of net gaming 
revenues to individual tribal members. However, it is essential that 
Indian tribes choosing to make per capita payments comply with the 
requirements of IGRA. The proposed rule was published on June 7, 1996 
(61 FR 29044). A notice to extend the comment period was published on 
March 7, 1997 (62 FR 5588). Comments received during the comment period 
ending August 6, 1996, and March 24, 1997, were considered in the 
drafting of this final rule.

Review of Public Comments

    Fifty-three comments were submitted in response to the June 7, 
1996, Federal Register publication of the proposed rule, 25 CFR 290, 
and the March 7, 1997, Federal Register publication to extend the 
comment period.

Section 290.1  Purpose

    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.2  Definitions--Governing Document

    One comment recommended adding a definition for the term 
``governing document.''
    Response: This comment was not adopted. Some tribes do not have 
constitutions or other written governing documents. Some tribes which 
do have written governing documents have also developed substantial 
bodies of tribal law interpreting those documents. Accordingly, we have 
substituted the phrase ``applicable tribal law'' as a more inclusive 
term than the phrase ``governing document'' in the definition of 
``Member of an Indian tribe'' and elsewhere. It was unnecessary, 
therefore, to define the term ``governing document.''

Section 290.2  Definitions--Legal Incompetent

    One comment suggested that the definition of the term ``legal

[[Page 14462]]

incompetent'' include individuals declared by tribal or BIA Social 
Services to be in need of ``supervised accounts'' based on documented 
conditions such as incarceration, physical conditions, and mental/
emotional conditions.
    Response: This comment was not adopted but the definition is 
amended to add ``or as established by the tribe'' following tribal 
justice systems, to allow the tribe to determine whether an individual 
is in need of a supervised account.
    Another comment suggested that ``legal incompetent'' be defined as 
an individual beneficiary eligible to participate in a per capita 
benefit program.
    Response: This comment was not adopted. We believe it is 
inconsistent with IGRA. The IGRA refers to payments from net gaming 
revenues as per capita payments, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710(b)(3), not 
payments ``in a per capita benefit program.''

Section 290.2  Definitions--Member of an Indian Tribe

    One comment supported the proposed definition.
    One comment objected to the use of ``consistently maintained'' 
because the usage was subject to Federal review of who is an Indian.
    Another comment suggested that this definition was not sufficient 
since it may include individuals who are not enrolled in the tribe.
    Several comments stated that the definition needs to be changed 
because it is too broad, invites argument, conflict, and potential 
litigation because it will entangle BIA in membership determinations.
    Response: BIA agrees with the comments that membership 
determinations are internal tribal matters that should be decided by 
the tribe. Under Sec. 290.23, if there are disputes arising from tribal 
determinations of who is a member eligible to receive per capita 
payments from net gaming revenues, such disputes should be resolved in 
tribal forums. The revision is based on a presumption that there will 
always be requirements for membership, whether in a constitution, 
ordinance, resolution, court decision, custom and tradition or some 
combination thereof. Together, to whatever degree they exist for a 
particular tribe, these sources of law will form the ``applicable 
tribal law'' for that tribe. The revision breaks the definition into 
two paragraphs based upon whether a particular tribe maintains a tribal 
roll. Paragraph (1), in effect, requires that a person be listed on the 
tribal rolls if rolls are kept, and paragraph (2) requires that the 
person be recognized as a member by the tribal governing body if rolls 
are not kept. Recognition by the governing body becomes the proof of 
membership in the absence of rolls.

Section 290.2  Definitions--Per Capita

    Several comments recommended that the definition of the term ``per 
capita'' include or be distinguished from other payments made to 
individuals under special tribal programs from net gaming revenues.
    Response: This recommendation was adopted and the definition is 
amended to clarify other payments set aside by the tribe for special 
purposes or programs.
    Another comment suggested that the term ``per capita'' be defined 
as a benefit paid or to be paid in the future to all members of the 
tribe.
    Response: This comment was not adopted because IGRA refers to 
payments from net gaming revenues as per capita payments, 25 U.S.C. 
2710(b)(3), and not as ``per capita benefits.'' The definition of the 
term is modified to ``Per Capita Payment'' for clarification purposes, 
and amended to reflect that the term ``payment'' includes money or 
other thing of value.

Section 290.3  Information Collection

    This section is added as a requirement under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The information collection 
requirements contained in 290.12, 290.17, 290.24 and 290.26 have been 
approved by the OMB and assigned clearance number 1076-0152, expiration 
date March 31, 2000.

Section 290.4  What is a Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan?

    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.5  Who Approves Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans?

    Section 290.5, formerly Sec. 290.3, is renumbered and amended to 
clarify who will review and approve tribal revenue allocation plans.
    One comment recommended that Indian tribes should not be required 
to seek Federal approval for the allocation of tribal dollars because 
such approval is insulting, paternalistic and diminishes tribal 
sovereignty.
    Another comment requested that small one time payments, i.e. $100-
$500, be excluded from the submission, review and approval of a tribal 
revenue allocation plan.
    Response: These comments were not adopted. Congress has mandated 
that tribes submit and receive approval of tribal revenue allocation 
plans from the Secretary, 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(3)(B). Regulations 
promulgated by BIA must comply with the requirements in IGRA.
    Another comment suggested that the rule permit Indian tribes who 
are not subject to IGRA to adopt tribal revenue allocation plans 
subject to review and approval by the Secretary, and regardless of IGRA 
requirements, permit Indian tribes with gaming revenues to adopt a 
tribal revenue allocation plan in accordance with any applicable 
regulation, subject to the review and approval of the Secretary.
    Response: This comment was not adopted. Unless specifically 
exempted from IGRA by Congress, any tribe is subject to IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 
2703(5), 2710(b)(1) if it is:
    (1) Recognized by the Secretary as eligible for the special 
programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because 
of their status as Indians; and
    (2) Recognized as possessing powers of self-government.

Section 290.6  Who Must Submit a Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan?

    This section, formerly Sec. 290.5 was renumbered due to the 
addition of Sec. 290.3.
    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.7  Must An Indian Tribe Have a Tribal Revenue Allocation 
Plan If It Is Not Making Per Capita Payments?

    This section, formerly Sec. 290.6 was renumbered due to the 
addition of Sec. 290.3.
    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.8  Do Indian Tribes Have to Make Per Capita Payments From 
Net Gaming Revenues to Tribal Members?

    This section, formerly Sec. 290.7 was renumbered due to the 
addition of Sec. 290.3.
    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.9  How May an Indian Tribe Use Net Gaming Revenues If It 
Does Not Have an Approved Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan?

    This section formerly Sec. 290.8 was renumbered due to the addition 
of Sec. 290.3.
    No comments were received on this section.

[[Page 14463]]

Section 290.10  Is an Indian Tribe in Violation of IGRA If It Makes Per 
Capita Payments to Members From Net Gaming Revenues Without an Approved 
Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan?

    Section 290.10  combines former Secs. 290.9 and 290.24 to address 
the consequences of making per capita payments without an approved 
tribal revenue allocation plan.
    One comment requested that the rule identify the ramifications for 
non-compliance and the procedures that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
would use to enforce the rule.
    Response: This comment was not adopted because enforcement 
procedures have not been discussed with DOJ, 25 U.S.C. 2716(c). The DOJ 
and the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 
2713 (b)(1), 25 U.S.C. 2710 (d)(1)(A)(ii), and 25 U.S.C. 2710 
(b)(3)(A)-(D), have authority to enforce the per capita requirements of 
IGRA.

290.11  May an Indian Tribe Distribute Per Capita Payments From Net 
Gaming Revenues Derived from Either Class II or Class III Gaming 
Without a Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan?

    This section, formerly Sec. 290.10, was renumbered due to the 
addition of Sec. 290.3.
    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.12  What Information Must the Tribal Revenue Allocation 
Plan Contain?

    This section, formerly Sec. 290.11, was renumbered due to the 
addition of Sec. 290.3.
    One comment questioned the need for this section, but after review 
agreed that the section merely stated what must be in the plan and that 
other sections discussed the topics in more detail. Paragraph (a) 
requires that tribes prepare a tribal revenue allocation plan that 
includes a percentage breakdown of the uses to which net gaming 
revenues will be allocated. The percentage breakdown must total 100 
percent.
    One comment requested clarification that only a percentage 
breakdown of uses is required and not actual budget figures.
    Response: This comment was not adopted because that requirement is 
already specified in paragraph (a).
    Paragraph (b) The revenue allocation plan must meet the following 
criteria:
    No comments were received on this paragraph.
    Paragraph (b)(1) formerly 290.11 paragraph (b)(1) is removed.
    Eight comments were received objecting to the limitation of 50 
percent of the net gaming revenues be used for per capita payments and 
recommended reconsideration or elimination of the section.
    Response: This recommendation was adopted. Each tribal revenue 
allocation plan will be reviewed by the appropriate Bureau official 
(ABO) on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with IGRA and 25 CFR 
part 290.
    Paragraph (b)(1) is revised due to the deletion of Sec. 290.11 
(b)(1) of the proposed rule.
    One comment suggested that this section, in addition to funding 
tribal government operations or programs and promoting tribal economic 
development, mandates that the tribe must also provide for the general 
welfare of the Indian tribe and its members; to donate to charitable 
organizations or to help fund operations of local government agencies.
    Another comment recommended that the term ``significant'' be 
defined.
    Response: These comments have been adopted in part to require the 
tribe to reserve an adequate portion of net gaming revenues for one or 
more of the purposes set forth in the IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2710 (b)(2)(B).
    Paragraph (b)(2) formerly paragraph Sec. 290.11 (b)(3) is revised 
due to the deletion of Sec. 290.11(b)(1) of the proposed rule.
    One comment suggested that this section was open ended and needed 
to outline specific requirements the Secretary must review as required 
by IGRA.
    This comment was adopted to require detailed information to allow 
the ABO to determine compliance with this section and IGRA.
    Paragraph (b)(3) combines former Secs. 290.11(b)(4) and 290.15 
because they refer to the disbursement of minors' and legal 
incompetents' per capita payments to the parents or legal guardians of 
such minors or legal incompetents.
    Several comments questioned why a minor's or legal incompetent's 
shares must be made available to his/her parent or legal guardian and 
whether the parents or legal guardians should be accountable for the 
funds they receive.
    Response: This comment was not adopted because the IGRA requires 
the per capita payments to be disbursed to the parents or legal 
guardians of such minors or legal incompetents in such amounts as 
necessary for the health, education, or welfare, of the minor or other 
legally incompetent. It is up to the tribe to establish a method for 
the accountability of the funds.
    One comment suggested that the rule address the following: (1) A 
tribe disperses funds to a parent or legal guardian and the parent or 
legal guardian fails to use the funds for the minor or legal 
incompetent. Has the tribe met its obligation to protect and preserve 
the shares allocated to minors and legal incompetents? (2) Precautions 
that a tribe may take to protect and preserve the shares allocated to 
minors and legal incompetents? (3) Circumstances under which a tribe 
should refuse to disperse funds to the parent or legal guardian of a 
minor or legal incompetent?
    One comment recommended that Secs. 290.11(b)(4) and 290.15 be cross 
referenced because they appear to require a separate plan for the 
disbursement of minors' and legal incompetents' per capita payments to 
the parents or legal guardians of such minors or legal incompetents.
    One comment suggested this section was open ended and needed more 
specific information as to whether guidance is directed to the field or 
the public.
    Response: These comments were adopted and the new revised paragraph 
(b)(3) includes these requirements.
    Paragraph (b)(4) formerly Sec. 290.11 (b)(5) is renumbered due to 
the deletion of paragraph (b)(1).
    No comments were received on this paragraph.
    Paragraph (b)(5) formerly Sec. 290.11 (b)(6) is renumbered due to 
the deletion of paragraph (b)(1).
    One comment asked whether existing tribal systems fulfill the 
requirement for a forum or process for the resolution of discrepancy in 
expenditure of net gaming revenues or disputes regarding per capita 
payments.
    Response: This comment was not adopted but is amended to read: 
``and must utilize or establish a tribal court system, forum or 
administrative process for resolution of disputes'' following 
eligibility requirements.

Section 290.13  Under What Conditions May an Indian Tribe Distribute 
Per Capita Payments?

    This section, formerly 290.12, was renumbered due to the addition 
of Sec. 290.3.
    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.14  Who Can Share in a Per Capita Payment?

    Section 290.14 combines former Secs. 290.13 and 290.14.
    One comment recommended these sections be combined for 
clarification.
    Response: This comment was adopted, Secs. 290.13 and 290.14 are 
combined because they both refer to the per capita distribution of 
payments.

[[Page 14464]]

Section 290.15  Must the Indian Tribe Establish Trust Accounts With 
Financial Institutions for Minors and Legal Incompetents?

    Section 290.15 formerly Sec. 290.16 is renumbered, the former 
Sec. 290.15 and Sec. 290.11(b)(3) are combined under Sec. 290.12(b)(4).
    One comment suggested the inclusion of the following language: 
``Congress has not mandated any one way for you to protect and preserve 
the interests of minors and legal incompetents, as long as you do not 
distribute benefits currently to the parents or legal guardian in such 
a way that the parents or legal guardian may use the benefits for their 
own purposes unrelated to the minor's or legal incompetent's health, 
education, or welfare needs. You have the flexibility to consider all 
relevant factors, including desired income tax and other consequences 
for the minors and legal incompetents, in deciding how best to 
structure your benefit programs, subject to the requirement that the 
Secretary must review and approve your revenue allocation plan.''
    Response: This comment was not adopted. The IGRA authorizes ``per 
capita payments'' from net gaming revenues, 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(3), not 
``benefits.'' This section has been amended to clarify that the tribe 
may establish trust accounts with financial institutions but should 
explore investment options to structure the accounts to the benefit of 
their members.

Section 290.16  Can the Per Capita Payments of Minors and Legal 
Incompetents be Deposited into Accounts Held by BIA or OTFM?

    Section 290.16 formerly Sec. 290.17 is renumbered, because former 
Secs. 290.15 and 290.11(b)(3) are combined under Sec. 290.12(b)(4).
    One comment indicated that this section is detrimental to the 
health and well being of Indians requiring supervised accounts.
    Another comment concerned the placement of gaming revenues into 
Proceeds of Labor accounts.
    Another comment recommended rewording of the section because trust 
funds are now administered by the Office of Trust Funds Management 
(OTFM).
    Response: Only the last comment has been adopted. This section has 
been amended to clarify that the Secretary will not accept any deposits 
of payments or funds derived from net gaming revenues to any account 
held by BIA or OTFM. It has long been BIA policy to place only funds 
derived from trust assets into Individual Indian Money accounts, Indian 
Moneys Proceeds of Labor Escrow accounts or special deposit funds 
accounts held by BIA. Gaming revenues are not funds derived from trust 
assets or trust resources but are tribal funds under the control of the 
tribe. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, 26 
CFR part 31, require that Indian tribes, not BIA or OTFM, withhold 
taxes for all recipients.

Section 290.17  What Documents Must the Indian Tribe Include With the 
Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan?

    Section 290.17 formerly Sec. 290.18 is renumbered, because former 
Secs. 290.15 and 290.11 (b)(3) are combined under Sec. 290.12 (b)(4).
    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.18  Where Should the Indian Tribe Submit the Tribal Revenue 
Allocation Plan?

    Section 290.18 formerly Sec. 290.19 is renumbered, because former 
Secs. 290.15 and 290.11 (b)(3) are combined under Sec. 290.12 (b)(4).
    One comment suggested a deadline for review by the Superintendent 
be included in the rule.
    Response: This comment was not adopted. The Superintendent's 
limited role in the process is confined to a determination that the 
plan was adopted in accordance with applicable tribal law. There is no 
need for a time deadline for forwarding the plan to the ABO.

Section 290.19  How Long Will the ABO Take to Review and Approve the 
Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan?

    Section 290.19 formerly Secs. 290.20 and 290.21 are combined.
    One comment recommended these sections be combined to identify the 
action and the time limit necessary for review and approval of the plan 
by the ABO.
    Response: This comment has been adopted and is amended to read: 
``How long will the ABO take to review and approve the tribal revenue 
allocation plan.''
    Four comments questioned what would happen after the 90-day period 
if no action is taken by the ABO and what recourse a tribe would have 
if the tribal revenue allocation plan is rejected by the ABO.
    Response: In response to these comments, a new paragraph (c) is 
added to read: ``If the ABO fails to take action within the 60 days you 
may appeal the failure of the ABO to act on your request in accordance 
with the regulations at 25 CFR part 2. A tribal revenue allocation plan 
is not effective without the express written approval of the ABO.'' The 
changes to this section clarify that the ABO should act on the tribal 
revenue allocation plan within 60 days of its submission to the ABO. 
These changes clarify that a failure to act within this time period can 
be appealed under 25 CFR part 2 and that the tribal revenue allocation 
plan is not effective until it has the express written approval of the 
ABO. The reference in the proposed rule to the tribe's governing 
document is omitted in the final rule in order to provide adequate time 
for review by the ABO, to prevent a tribe's shortened review time 
limits from bumping the review of another tribe's plan and because IGRA 
specifically requires approval of the plan by the Secretary. The time 
deadline has been shortened to 60 days to assure prompt consideration 
of the plan.

Section 290.20  When Will the ABO Disapprove a Tribal Revenue 
Allocation Plan?

    Section 290.20 formerly Sec. 290.22 is renumbered.
    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.21  May an Indian Tribe Appeal the ABO's Decision?

    Section 290.21 formerly Sec. 290.23 is renumbered.
    One comment suggested 43 CFR part 4 be included in the appeal 
process.
    Response: No action was taken on this comment. The process set 
forth in 25 CFR part 2, Appeals from Administrative Action provides the 
mechanism for appeal to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, the same 
as 43 CFR part 4.

Section 290.22  How Does the Indian Tribe and its Members Ensure 
Compliance With its Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan?

    Section 290.22 formerly Sec. 290.25 is renumbered.
    One comment requested clarification whether existing tribal systems 
fulfill the requirement for a forum or process for the resolution of 
discrepancy in expenditures of net gaming revenues.
    Response: This comment was not adopted but is amended to include a 
tribal court system, forum or administrative process in the tribal 
revenue allocation plan for reviewing expenditures of net gaming 
revenues and explain how you will correct deficiencies.

[[Page 14465]]

Section 290.23  How Does the Indian Tribe Resolve Disputes Arising From 
Per Capita Payments to Individual Members or Identified Groups of 
Members?

    Section 290.23 formerly Sec. 290.26 is renumbered.
    One comment asked whether existing tribal systems fulfill the 
requirement for a forum or process for the resolution of disputes 
regarding per capita payments.
    Response: This comment was not adopted but is amended to include a 
tribal court system, forum or administrative process to resolve 
disputes arising from per capita distributions.

Section 290.24  Do Revisions/Amendments to a Tribal Revenue Allocation 
Plan Require Approval?

    Section 290.24 formerly Sec. 290.27 is renumbered.
    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.25  What is the Liability of the United States Under This 
Part?

    Section 290.25 formerly Sec. 290.28 is renumbered.
    No comments were received on this section.

Section 290.26  Are Previously Approved Tribal Revenue Allocation 
Plans, Revisions or Amendments Subject to Review in Accordance With 25 
CFR Part 290.

    A new section 290.26 is added in response to the comments 
requesting clarification as to whether or not the submission of a 
revision or amendment to the tribal revenue allocation plan would 
necessitate the review of the entire tribal revenue allocation plan or 
just that portion being revised or amended.

Executive Order 12866

    OMB has determined that this rule is significant. OMB's guidance on 
E.O. 12866 requires that a cost-benefit analysis be done for 
significant rules and that it contain three elements. These elements 
are a statement of record, an examination of alternative approaches, 
and an analysis of costs and benefits.
    Because of the nature of IGRA and this rule, the usual economic 
analysis required by E.O. 12866 is neither appropriate nor needed. The 
intent of E.O. 12866 is to provide decision makers with appropriate 
information to determine that a regulatory action imposing costs and 
yielding benefits, or otherwise having the effects sought by 
authorizing legislation, is both needed and is economically justified. 
Whereas many regulatory actions intervene in the economic system by 
prohibiting or requiring certain actions, IGRA and this rule do 
neither. Instead, they allow tribes to voluntarily allocate gaming 
revenues, including per capita payments to tribal members.
    This rule does nothing to either increase or decrease the revenues 
from gaming operations. It allows tribes to reallocate those revenues 
if they choose to do so. Tribes wishing to allocate gaming revenues as 
allowed by IGRA will incur only the minimal administrative cost of 
preparing and implementing the Allocation Plan required by the rule and 
IGRA. The Secretary of the Interior and Federal employees to whom the 
Secretary's authorities under IGRA are or will be delegated may also 
incur minimal administrative cost in implementing the rule.
    The actual allocations from tribes to individual members do not 
result in costs or benefits as they are defined for purposes of the 
economic analysis required by E.O. 12866. These allocations are 
transfer payments rather than expenditures. Transfer payments, in 
themselves, do not cause the sort of resource allocations that give 
rise to costs and benefits. In this regard, per capita allocations of 
gaming revenues are similar to Social Security payments to individuals.
    These regulations establish a method for the submission, review and 
approval of tribal revenue allocation plans in a timely manner. The 
tribal revenue allocation plans provide for the distribution of tribal 
gaming revenue for tribal use and allow for per capita payments to 
tribal members for private use. The IGRA, Section 2710 (b)(2)(B) 
requires that net gaming revenues from any tribal gaming are not to be 
used for purposes other than, (i) to fund tribal government operations 
or programs, (ii) to provide for the general welfare of the Indian 
tribe and its members; (iii) to promote tribal economic development; 
(iv) to donate to charitable organizations; or (v) to help fund 
operations of local government agencies. Section 2710 (b)(3) of IGRA 
further provides that net revenues may be used to make per capita 
payments to members of the Indian tribe only if, (a) the Indian tribe 
has prepared a plan to allocate revenues for purposes to fund tribal 
government operations or programs; to provide for the general welfare 
of the Indian tribe and its members; to promote tribal economic 
development; to donate to charitable organizations; or to help fund 
operations of local government agencies, (b) the plan is approved by 
the Secretary as adequate, particularly for the purpose to fund tribal 
government operations and programs and to promote tribal economic 
development, (c) the interests of minors and other legally incompetent 
persons who are entitled to receive any of the per capita payments are 
disbursed to the parents or legal guardian of such minors or legal 
incompetents in such amounts as may be necessary for the health, 
education, or welfare of the minor or other legally incompetent person 
under a plan approved by the Secretary and the governing body of the 
Indian tribe; and (d) the per capita payments are subject to Federal 
taxation and tribes notify members of such tax liability when payments 
are made.
    The anticipated expenses or costs to the public or to the tribes 
who submit tribal revenue allocation plans will be minimal. The plans 
will provide for the distribution of net revenues from any tribal 
gaming for tribal use and per capita payments to tribal members for 
private use.
    In accordance with IGRA, each tribe must submit a tribal revenue 
allocation plan if it intends to make per capita payments to members of 
the Indian tribe. The regulations will establish a method for the 
submission, review and approval of a tribal revenue allocation plan. If 
a tribe distributes per capita payments from net gaming revenues 
without an approved tribal revenue allocation plan, the DOJ or the NIGC 
may enforce the per capita requirements of IGRA.
    On December 21, 1992, the AS-IA issued Guidelines to Govern the 
Review and Approval of Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans. As outlined in 
IGRA, the Guidelines require that the Indian tribe must dedicate a 
significant share (or portion) of net gaming revenues for economic 
development and governmental purposes, that the interests of minors and 
other legally incompetent persons entitled to receive per capita 
payments are protected and preserved, and that per capita payments are 
subject to Federal income taxes. The AS-IA does not mandate the 
distribution of net gaming revenues to individual tribal members. 
However, it is essential that Indian tribes choosing to make per capita 
payments comply with the requirements of IGRA.
    The anticipated expenses or costs to the public or to the tribes 
who submit tribal revenue allocation plans will be minimal. The rule 
will not result in an annual gross effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, and therefore is not an economically significant 
regulatory action. The rule will allow any Indian tribe that is 
conducting gaming to prepare a tribal revenue allocation plan for the 
purpose of

[[Page 14466]]

making per capita payments to tribal members from net gaming revenues. 
A tribal revenue allocation plan will not affect the total amount of 
net gaming revenue available to a particular tribe. Without the rule, 
tribes must use net gaming revenues in accordance with Section 2710 
(b)(2)(B), solely for tribal group purposes. With the rule, tribes may 
distribute a portion of the net gaming revenue to tribal members in per 
capita payments, which can be spent for private purposes. The net 
revenue is determined by the success of the tribe's gaming operation. 
Only a portion of the net gaming revenues may be used to make per 
capita payments to tribal members. Without a tribal revenue allocation 
plan, a tribe cannot make per capita payments to members of the tribe 
but must continue to spend all net gaming revenues for the benefit of 
the tribe.
    Currently, there are approximately 225 Indian tribes engaged in 
class II (bingo) and class III (casino) gaming. Although IGRA mandates 
how net gaming revenues are to be used by tribes, it does not require 
tribes to provide to anyone the amounts of net gaming revenues earned 
or distributed. The tribal revenue allocation plan will require that 
tribes provide the Secretary a percentage breakdown of the uses to 
which net gaming revenues are allocated. The total percentage must 
equal 100 percent. To some Indian tribes who were previously 
unsuccessful in attracting businesses to their remote lands, gaming 
revenues now serve as the primary economic development tool available. 
Gaming revenues have enabled tribes to meet and supplement Federal 
funding to meet the needs of their members, by providing funds for 
housing assistance, education assistance, medical assistance, etc.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will 
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
Indian tribes are not considered to be small entities for purposes of 
this Act.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule does not have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Without this 
rule only the tribe may spend net gaming revenues in accordance with 25 
U.S.C. Sec. 2710(b)(2)(B) of IGRA. With this rule a method for the 
submission, review and approval of a tribal revenue allocation plan is 
established to allow a tribe to distribute per capita payments to its 
members from net gaming revenues.
    This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local government 
agencies or geographic regions and does not have significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability to U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises. The rule will provide a method for the 
submission, review and approval of tribal revenue allocation plans to 
allow a tribe to distribute per capita payments to its members from 
some of its net gaming revenues in accordance with IGRA.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local, or tribal government or the private sector. A statement 
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.) is not required because only Indian tribes 
that conduct gaming activities and choose to distribute per capita 
payments from net gaming revenues to its members are required to submit 
tribal revenue allocation plans for review and approval in accordance 
with IGRA. Indian tribes that conduct gaming activities and who choose 
not to distribute per capita payments from net gaming revenues to its 
members are not required to submit a tribal revenue allocation plan to 
utilize net gaming revenues.
    As an alternative to the establishment of regulations, the AS-IA 
issued Guidelines on December 21, 1992, to govern the review and 
approval of Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans. As outlined in IGRA, the 
guidelines require that the Indian tribe must dedicate a significant 
share (or portion) of net gaming revenues for economic development and 
governmental purposes, that the interests of minors and other legally 
incompetent persons entitled to receive per capita payments must be 
protected and preserved, and that per capita payments are subject to 
Federal income taxes. The AS-IA does not mandate the distribution of 
net gaming revenues to individual tribal members. However, it is 
essential that Indian tribes choosing to make per capita payments 
comply with the requirements of IGRA.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    The Department has determined that this rule does not have 
significant ``takings'' implications. The rule does not pertain to 
``taking'' of private property interests, nor does it impact private 
property.

Federalism (E.O. 12612)

    The Department has determined that this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects because it pertains solely to Federal-
tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights and 
responsibilities of States.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    The Department has certified to OMB that these regulations meet the 
applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 
Order (E.O.) 12988.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Statement

    The Department has determined that this rule does not constitute a 
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to 
NEPA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed and approved the 
information collections contained in this rule and assigned them 
approval number 1076-0152. The proposed rule was published on June 7, 
1996, 61 FR 29044, and solicited comments on the information 
collection. The OMB expressed a concern related to the proposed rule 
Secs. 290.11 (b)(3) and (b)(4) [renumbered Secs. 290.12 (b)(2) and 
(b)(3)] indicating that these sections were open ended and needed more 
specific information. In particular, (3) OMB indicated the rule should 
outline specific requirements the Secretary must review as required by 
IGRA and (4) OMB questioned whether guidance is submitted to field 
personnel and/or public.
    Response: Section 290.11(b)(3) is renumbered as Sec. 290.12(b)(2) 
and is amended to read: ``It must contain detailed information to allow 
the ABO to determine that it complies with this section and IGRA 
particularly regarding funding for tribal governmental operations or 
programs and for promoting tribal economic development.'' Section 
290.11(b)(4) is renumbered Sec. 290.12(b)(3) and amended to state that 
because IGRA requires the per capita payments to be disbursed to

[[Page 14467]]

the parents or legal guardians of such minors or legal incompetents in 
such amounts as necessary for the health, education, or welfare, of the 
minor or other legally incompetent, it is up to the tribe to establish 
a method for the accountability of the funds.
    These concerns have been addressed in the rule and are reflected in 
the Paperwork Reduction Act submission.
    Another comment questioned the accuracy of the Department's 
estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information. No 
action was taken on this comment. The comment did not address why the 
cost or hour burden is questioned. Consultation from tribal 
representatives was obtained to determine the estimated burden of the 
collection of information.
    Sections 290.12, 290.17, 290.24 and 290.26 have been amended and 
contain information collection requirements.
    BIA invites the public to comment on the accuracy of the burden 
estimate and to provide suggestions for reducing the burden. Please 
submit your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the 
Interior, OMB Control Number 1076-0152, Washington, DC, 20503, and to 
the Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, 1849 C Street NW, MS 2070-MIB, Washington, DC 20240.
    BIA needs this information to ensure that Tribal Revenue Allocation 
Plans include assurances that certain statutory requirements are met, a 
breakdown of the specific uses to which net gaming revenues will be 
allocated, eligibility requirements for participation, tax liability 
notification and the assurance of the protection and preservation of 
the per capita shares of minors and legal incompetents. BIA will use 
this information to ensure that net gaming revenues are used: (1) to 
fund tribal government operations and programs; (2) to provide for the 
general welfare of the Indian tribe and its members; (3) to promote 
tribal economic development; (4) to donate to charitable organizations; 
and (5) to fund operations of local government agencies. The likely 
respondents to this collection are Indian tribes, bands or groups. The 
estimated annual number of respondents is 50 with collections obtained 
periodically. The total burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average 75-100 hours per response, for 5,000 total hours 
per year, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data resources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the submission. Responses to the collection of 
information are mandatory in order to receive benefits.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires us to tell you that a 
Federal Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.

Drafting Information

    The primary author of this document is Nancy Pierskalla, Management 
Analyst, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior.

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 290

    Gambling, Grant programs--business, Grant programs--Indians, 
Indians--business and finance, Indians--gaming.

    For the reasons given in the preamble, part 290 is added to Chapter 
I of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

PART 290--TRIBAL REVENUE ALLOCATION PLANS

Sec.
290.1   Purpose.
290.2   Definitions.
290.3   Information collection.
290.4   What is a tribal revenue allocation plan?
290.5   Who approves tribal revenue allocation plans?
290.6   Who must submit a tribal revenue allocation plan?
290.7   Must an Indian tribe have a tribal revenue allocation plan 
if it is not making per capita payments?
290.8   Do Indian tribes have to make per capita payments from net 
gaming revenues to tribal members?
290.9   How may an Indian tribe use net gaming revenues if it does 
not have an approved tribal revenue allocation plan?
290.10   Is an Indian tribe in violation of IGRA if it makes per 
capita payments to its members from net gaming revenues without an 
approved tribal revenue allocation plan?
290.11   May an Indian tribe distribute per capita payments from net 
gaming revenues derived from either Class II or Class III gaming 
without a tribal revenue allocation plan?
290.12   What information must the tribal revenue allocation plan 
contain?
290.13   Under what conditions may an Indian tribe distribute per 
capita payments?
290.14   Who can share in a per capita payment?
290.15   Must the Indian tribe establish trust accounts with 
financial institutions for minors and legal incompetents?
290.16   Can the per capita payments of minors and legal 
incompetents be deposited into accounts held by BIA or OTFM?
290.17   What documents must the Indian tribe include with the 
tribal revenue allocation plan?
290.18   Where should the Indian tribe submit the tribal revenue 
allocation plan?
290.19   How long will the ABO take to review and approve the tribal 
revenue allocation plan?
290.20   When will the ABO disapprove a tribal revenue allocation 
plan?
290.21   May an Indian tribe appeal the ABO's decision?
290.22   How does the Indian tribe and its members ensure compliance 
with its tribal revenue allocation plan?
290.23   How does the Indian tribe resolve disputes arising from per 
capita payments to individual members or identified groups of 
members?
290.24   Do revisions/amendments to a tribal revenue allocation plan 
require approval?
290.25   What is the liability of the United States under this part?
290.26   Are previously approved tribal revenue allocation plans, 
revisions or amendments subject to review in accordance with 25 CFR 
part 290?


    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, and 2710.


Sec. 290.1  Purpose.

    This part contains procedures for submitting, reviewing, and 
approving tribal revenue allocation plans for distributing net gaming 
revenues from tribal gaming activities. It applies to review of tribal 
revenue allocation plans adopted under IGRA.


Sec. 290.2  Definitions.

    Appropriate Bureau official (ABO) means the Bureau official with 
delegated authority to approve tribal revenue allocation plans.
    IGRA means the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (Public Law 
100-497) 102 Stat. 2467 dated October 17, 1988, (Codified at 25 U.S.C. 
2701-2721(1988)) and any amendments.
    Indian Tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other 
organized group or community of Indians that the Secretary recognizes 
as:
    (1) Eligible for the speci al programs and services provided by the 
United States to Indians because of their status as Indians; and
    (2) Having powers of self-government.
    Legal incompetent means an individual who is eligible to 
participate in a per capita payment and who has been declared to be 
under a legal disability, other than being a minor, by a court of 
competent jurisdiction, including tribal justice systems or as 
established by the tribe.
    Member of an Indian tribe means an individual who meets the 
requirements established by applicable tribal law for enrollment in the 
tribe and--

[[Page 14468]]

    (1) Is listed on the tribal rolls of that tribe if such rolls are 
kept or
    (2) Is recognized as a member by the tribal governing body if 
tribal rolls are not kept.
    Minor means an individual who is eligible to participate in a per 
capita payment and who has not reached the age of 18 years.
    Per capita payment means the distribution of money or other thing 
of value to all members of the tribe, or to identified groups of 
members, which is paid directly from the net revenues of any tribal 
gaming activity. This definition does not apply to payments which have 
been set aside by the tribe for special purposes or programs, such as 
payments made for social welfare, medical assistance, education, 
housing or other similar, specifically identified needs.
    Resolution means the formal document in which the tribal governing 
body expresses its legislative will in accordance with applicable 
tribal law.
    Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or his/her authorized 
representative.
    Superintendent means the official or other designated 
representative of the BIA in charge of the field office which has 
immediate administrative responsibility for the affairs of the tribe 
for which a tribal revenue allocation plan is prepared.
    Tribal governing body means the governing body of an Indian tribe 
recognized by the Secretary.
    Tribal revenue allocation plan or allocation plan means the 
document submitted by an Indian tribe that provides for distributing 
net gaming revenues.
    You or your means the Indian tribe.


Sec. 290.3  Information collection.

    The information collection requirements contained in Secs. 290.12, 
290.17, 290.24 and 290.26 have been approved by the OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and assigned 
clearance number 1076-0152.


Sec. 290.4  What is a tribal revenue allocation plan?

    It is the document you must submit that describes how you will 
allocate net gaming revenues.


Sec. 290.5  Who approves tribal revenue allocation plans?

    The ABO will review and approve tribal revenue allocation plans for 
compliance with IGRA.


Sec. 290.6  Who must submit a tribal revenue allocation plan?

    Any Indian tribe that intends to make a per capita payment from net 
gaming revenues must submit one.


Sec. 290.7  Must an Indian tribe have a tribal revenue allocation plan 
if it is not making per capita payments?

    No, if you do not make per capita payments, you do not need to 
submit a tribal revenue allocation plan.


Sec. 290.8  Do Indian tribes have to make per capita payments from net 
gaming revenues to tribal members?

    No. You do not have to make per capita payments.


Sec. 290.9  How may an Indian tribe use net gaming revenues if it does 
not have an approved tribal revenue allocation plan?

    Without an approved tribal revenue allocation plan, you may use net 
gaming revenues to fund tribal government operations or programs; to 
provide for the general welfare of your tribe and its members; to 
promote tribal economic development; to donate to charitable 
organizations; or to help fund operations of local government agencies.


Sec. 290.10  Is an Indian tribe in violation of IGRA if it makes per 
capita payments to its members from net gaming revenues without an 
approved tribal revenue allocation plan?

    Yes, you are in violation of IGRA if you make per capita payments 
to your tribal members from net gaming revenues without an approved 
tribal revenue allocation plan. If you refuse to comply, the DOJ or 
NIGC may enforce the per capita requirements of IGRA.


Sec. 290.11  May an Indian tribe distribute per capita payments from 
net gaming revenues derived from either Class II or Class III gaming 
without a tribal revenue allocation plan?

    No, IGRA requires that you have an approved tribal revenue 
allocation plan.


Sec. 290.12  What information must the tribal revenue allocation plan 
contain?

    (a) You must prepare a tribal revenue allocation plan that includes 
a percentage breakdown of the uses for which you will allocate net 
gaming revenues. The percentage breakdown must total 100 percent.
    (b) The tribal revenue allocation plan must meet the following 
criteria:
    (1) It must reserve an adequate portion of net gaming revenues from 
the tribal gaming activity for one or more of the following purposes:
    (i) To fund tribal government operations or programs;
    (ii) To provide for the general welfare of the tribe or its 
members;
    (iii) To promote tribal economic development;
    (iv) To donate to charitable organizations; or
    (v) To help fund operations of local government.
    (2) It must contain detailed information to allow the ABO to 
determine that it complies with this section and IGRA particularly 
regarding funding for tribal governmental operations or programs and 
for promoting tribal economic development.
    (3) It must protect and preserve the interests of minors and other 
legally incompetent persons who are entitled to receive per capita 
payments by:
    (i) Ensuring that tribes make per capita payments for eligible 
minors or incompetents to the parents or legal guardians of these 
minors or incompetents at times and in such amounts as necessary for 
the health, education, or welfare of the minor or incompetent;
    (ii) Establishing criteria for withdrawal of the funds, acceptable 
proof and/or receipts for accountability of the expenditure of the 
funds and the circumstances for denial of the withdrawal of the minors' 
and legal incompetents' per capita payments by the parent or legal 
guardian; and
    (iii) Establishing a process, system, or forum for dispute 
resolution.
    (4) It must describe how you will notify members of the tax 
liability for per capita payments and how you will withhold taxes for 
all recipients in accordance with IRS regulations in 26 CFR part 31.
    (5) It must authorize the distribution of per capita payments to 
members according to specific eligibility requirements and must utilize 
or establish a tribal court system, forum or administrative process for 
resolution of disputes concerning the allocation of net gaming revenues 
and the distribution of per capita payments.


Sec. 290.13  Under what conditions may an Indian tribe distribute per 
capita payments?

    You may make per capita payments only after the ABO approves your 
tribal revenue allocation plan.


Sec. 290.14  Who can share in a per capita payment?

    (a) You must establish your own criteria for determining whether 
all members or identified groups of members are eligible for per capita 
payments.
    (b) If the tribal revenue allocation plan calls for distributing 
per capita payments to an identified group of members rather than to 
all members,

[[Page 14469]]

you must justify limiting this payment to the identified group of 
members. You must make sure that:
    (1) The distinction between members eligible to receive payments 
and members ineligible to receive payments is reasonable and not 
arbitrary;
    (2) The distinction does not discriminate or otherwise violate the 
Indian Civil Rights Act; and
    (3) The justification complies with applicable tribal law.


Sec. 290.15  Must the Indian tribe establish trust accounts with 
financial institutions for minors and legal incompetents?

    No. The tribe may establish trust accounts with financial 
institutions but should explore investment options to structure the 
accounts to the benefit of their members while ensuring compliance with 
IGRA and this part.


Sec. 290.16  Can the per capita payments of minors and legal 
incompetents be deposited into accounts held by BIA or OTFM?

    No. The Secretary will not accept any deposits of payments or funds 
derived from net gaming revenues to any account held by BIA or OTFM.


Sec. 290.17  What documents must the Indian tribe include with the 
tribal revenue allocation plan?

    You must include:
    (a) A written request for approval of the tribal revenue allocation 
plan; and
    (b) A tribal resolution or other document, including the date and 
place of adoption and the result of any vote taken, that certifies you 
have adopted the tribal revenue allocation plan in accordance with 
applicable tribal law.


Sec. 290.18  Where should the Indian tribe submit the tribal revenue 
allocation plan?

    You must submit your tribal revenue allocation plan to your 
respective Superintendent. The Superintendent will review the tribal 
revenue allocation plan to make sure it has been properly adopted in 
accordance with applicable tribal law. The Superintendent will then 
transmit the tribal revenue allocation plan promptly to the ABO.


Sec. 290.19  How long will the ABO take to review and approve the 
tribal revenue allocation plan?

    The ABO must review and act on your tribal revenue allocation plan 
within 60 days of receiving it. A tribal revenue allocation plan is not 
effective without the ABO's written approval.
    (a) If the tribal revenue allocation plan conforms with this part 
and the IGRA, the ABO must approve it.
    (b) If the tribal revenue allocation plan does not conform with 
this part and the IGRA, the ABO will send you a written notice that:
    (1) Explains why the plan doesn't conform to this part of the IGRA; 
and
    (2) Tells you how to bring the plan into conformance.
    (c) If the ABO doesn't act within 60 days, you can appeal the 
inaction under 25 CFR part 2. A tribal revenue allocation plan is not 
effective without the express written approval of the ABO.


Sec. 290.20  When will the ABO disapprove a tribal revenue allocation 
plan?

    The ABO will not approve any tribal revenue allocation plan for 
distribution of net gaming revenues from a tribal gaming activity if:
    (a) The tribal revenue allocation plan is inadequate, particularly 
with respect to the requirements in Sec. 290.12 and IGRA, and you fail 
to bring it into compliance;
    (b) The tribal revenue allocation plan is not adopted in accordance 
with applicable tribal law;
    (c) The tribal revenue allocation plan does not include a 
reasonable justification for limiting per capita payments to certain 
groups of members; or
    (d) The tribal revenue allocation plan violates the Indian Civil 
Rights Act of 1968, any other provision of Federal law, or the United 
States' trust obligations.


Sec. 290.21  May an Indian tribe appeal the ABO's decision?

    Yes, you may appeal the ABO's decision in accordance with the 
regulations at 25 CFR part 2.


Sec. 290.22  How does the Indian tribe ensure compliance with its 
tribal revenue allocation plan?

    You must utilize or establish a tribal court system, forum or 
administrative process in the tribal revenue allocation plan for 
reviewing expenditures of net gaming revenues and explain how you will 
correct deficiencies.


Sec. 290.23  How does the Indian tribe resolve disputes arising from 
per capita payments to individual members or identified groups of 
members?

    You must utilize or establish a tribal court system, forum or 
administrative process for resolving disputes arising from the 
allocation of net gaming revenue and the distribution of per capita 
payments.


Sec. 290.24  Do revisions/amendments to a tribal revenue allocation 
plan require approval?

    Yes, revisions/amendments to a tribal revenue allocation plan must 
be submitted to the ABO for approval to ensure that they comply with 
Sec. 290.12 and IGRA.


Sec. 290.25  What is the liability of the United States under this 
part?

    The United States is not liable for the manner in which a tribe 
distributes funds from net gaming revenues.


Sec. 290.26  Are previously approved tribal revenue allocation plans, 
revisions, or amendments subject to review in accordance with this 
part?

    No. This part applies only to tribal revenue allocation plans, 
revisions, or amendments submitted for approval after April 17, 2000.
    (a) If the ABO approved your tribal revenue allocation plan, 
revisions, or amendments before April 17, 2000, you need not resubmit 
it for approval.
    (b) If you are amending or revising a previously approved 
allocation plan, you must submit the amended or revised plan to the ABO 
for review and approval under this part.

    Dated: October 29, 1999.
Kevin Gover
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-6603 Filed 3-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P