[Final Report, âEvaluation of the Bureau of Indian Affairsâ Process to  Approve Tribal  Gaming Revenue Allocation Plans"]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 2003-I-0055

Title: Final Report, ï¿½Evaluation of the Bureau of Indian Affairsï¿½
       Process to  Approve Tribal  Gaming Revenue Allocation Plansï¿½

June 11, 2003 
Memorandum 
To: Aurene M. Martin 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs 
From: William J. Dolan, Jr. 
Regional Audit Manager, Eastern Region 
Subject: Final Report, ï¿½Evaluation of the Bureau of Indian Affairsï¿½ Process to 
Approve Tribal 
Gaming Revenue Allocation Plansï¿½ (No. 2003-I-0055) 
At the request of the Secretary, we evaluated the process the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) 
uses to review and approve Revenue Allocation Plans (plans) submitted by Indian 
tribes participating 
in gaming operations. 
BIA reviews the plans to ensure that tribes distribute gaming revenues 
responsibly. In 
accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), tribes are expected to 
distribute earnings 
to promote ï¿½tribal economic development, self sufficiency, and strong tribal 
governmentsï¿½ - the 
purpose of IGRA. Tribes must have a plan approved by the Secretary if they 
intend to distribute 
gaming revenues to tribal members - known as per capita payments. 
We concluded that BIAï¿½s approval process contained weaknesses and 
inconsistencies, such as: 
  BIA did not consistently determine whether tribes reserved adequate amounts of 
gaming 
profits for tribal government programs and economic development projects. 
  BIA did not consistently document deliberations made during the review 
process. 
We made three recommendations to improve BIAï¿½s approval process. 
Our evaluation also found that no one monitors tribal compliance with or 
systematically 
enforces against non-compliance with approved plans. Although BIA reviews and 
approves 
plans, it does not have the authority to ensure that tribes actually comply with 
the terms of these 
plans. The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), under authority given to it 
by IGRA, 
may monitor tribal compliance with approved plans and impose civil penalties 
against a tribe for 
making per capita payments that are not in compliance with an approved plan. The 
NIGC, 
however, does not have a mechanism for systematic monitoring of revenue 
distributions to 
ï¿½ext Box: United States Department of the Interior

Office of Inspector General
Eastern Region Audits
381 Elden Street
Suiï¿½ext Box: E-EV-BIA-0071-2002
enable identification of instances of noncompliance. Our report presents three 
options for the 
Department to consider to address the lack of monitoring. 
We received responses to the draft report from the Acting Assistant Secretary 
for Indian 
Affairs, with an attached memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor (Appendix 
3) and from 
the Acting Chief of Staff for the National Indian Gaming Commission (Appendix 
4). Based on 
the responses, we revised the report as appropriate and included additional 
information regarding 
the role of NIGC. Based on the response from the Acting Assistant Secretary, we 
consider the 
recommendations resolved but not implemented. (Appendix 5) 
Since the reportï¿½s recommendations are resolved, no further response to the 
Office of 
Inspector General is required. We would, however, appreciate being informed of 
any action 
taken to establish a process to monitor revenue allocation plans. 
The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector General requires 
that we 
report to Congress semiannually on all reports issued, actions taken to 
implement our 
recommendations, and recommendations that have not been implemented. 
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (703) 487-
8011. 
cc: Deputy Commissioner for Indian Affairs 
Director, Office of Audits and Evaluation 
Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management 
Executive Director, National Indian Gaming Commission
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
Background......................................................................
..............1 
History of Indian Gaming 
...........................................................1 
Legislation.....................................................................
..............2 
Regulations 
................................................................................
.2 
Review and Approval of 
Plans......................................................3 
Process for 
Approval..................................................................3 
Weaknesses in 
Process...............................................................4 
Recommendations 
..........................................................................5 
Monitoring Indian Tribal Compliance ........................................7 
Summary of Responses to the Draft Report................................7 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.............................7 
National Indian Gaming Commission ........................................8 
Office of Inspector General Reply..............................................8 
Options for the Department of the Interior Regarding 
Revenue Allocation 
Plans........................................................9 
Objective, Scope and Methodology ............................................11 
Appendices 
Appendix 1: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Provisions ........13 
Appendix 2: Revenue Allocation Plans ..................................17 
Appendix 3: BIA Response ....................................................19 
Appendix 4: NIGC Response..................................................23 
Appendix 5: Status of Recommendations...............................25 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
BACKGROUND 
History of Indian Gaming 
Indian gaming began in the late 1970s when the Seminole tribe of Florida opened 
a high 
stakes bingo hall. As more tribes began to engage in gaming operations, states 
began filing 
lawsuits opposing tribal gaming. However, the Supreme Court in California v. 
Cabazon Band of 
Mission Indians1 (in 1987) ruled that where state law did not expressly prohibit 
a type of 
gambling, tribes could offer gaming under their own regulatory scheme. 
In October 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act2 (IGRA or 
Act). 
Provisions of the Act that address Indian tribal per capita payments and 
selected authority of the 
NIGC are presented in Appendix 1. Congress intended the Act to establish (1) a 
statutory basis 
for operating and regulating tribal gaming, (2) Federal standards for gaming 
operations on Indian 
lands, and (3) the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) as the Federal 
regulatory 
authority responsible for overseeing the Indian Gaming Industry. 
Gaming has become an important source of income for many tribes. Tribal gaming 
revenues have steadily increased from about $7.5 billion in 1997 to $12.7 
billion in 2001, as 
illustrated in the following chart: 
1 480 U.S. 202 (1987). 
2 25 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 2701-2721 (1988) Legislation 
IGRA requires that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), through authority 
delegated by 
the Secretary of the Interior, review and approve Revenue Allocation Plans. 
These plans must 
detail how tribes intend to allocate profits to fund one or more of the 
following: 
  Tribal government operations or programs. 
  The general welfare of the tribe and its members (which includes payments to 
individual 
tribe members ï¿½ per capita payments). 
  Tribal economic development. 
  Charitable organizations or operations of local government agencies. 
Only tribes that use profits to make per capita payments are required to submit 
these 
plans. Tribes that use earnings solely for government, economic, and charitable 
purposes are not 
required to submit plans because the Act assumes that all funds are directed 
toward these areas, 
promoting tribal government and self-sufficiency. 
IGRA3 also authorizes the NIGC to approve all tribal gaming ordinances including 
those 
regarding the use of gaming revenues pursuant to an approved revenue allocation 
plan. Since the 
approved gaming ordinance identifies the authorized uses of any gaming revenue, 
we believe 
that NIGC can impose civil penalties against tribes for making per capita 
payments that violate 
the approved plan or making per capita payments without an approved plan. 
Regulations 
In March 2000, BIA issued formal regulations4 for tribes to follow when 
preparing their 
allocation plans. Tribes must include: 
  A percentage breakdown of how profits will be distributed. 
  Information showing that the plan complies with IGRA. 
  Provisions to protect the interests of minors and other legally incompetent 
persons. 
  A mechanism to notify tribal members of tax liabilities for per capita 
payments. 
The regulations do not require tribes to submit information to BIA showing 
actual 
distributions of gaming profits. 
3 25 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2710 
4 25 CFR 290.4 
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS 
Process for Approval 
The distribution plan approval process was centralized in the Office of Indian 
Gaming 
Management (OIGM), an entity within BIA, in 1999. As shown below, Indian tribes 
submit 
plans to OIGM through their Agency Superintendents or Regional Directors for 
review. OIGM 
analyzes the plan, obtains a legal review by the Solicitor and forwards it to 
the Deputy 
Commissioner of Indian Affairs for approval. 
Note: According to the OIGM, some Revenue Allocation Plans are submitted by the 
Agency Superintendent while 
other plans are submitted through the Regional Director because some Regions do 
not have designated staff to 
conduct these reviews. 
OIGM does not systematically review every tribeï¿½s proposed use of net gaming 
revenues 
and, therefore, does not assess the adequacy of profit distribution. OIGM 
officials examine a 
tribeï¿½s financial health5 only when a tribe proposes to use 50 percent or more 
of its earnings for 
per capita payments. OIGM has not, however, established standards for measuring 
a tribeï¿½s 
financial health when evaluating proposed distribution of profits. The 
Solicitorï¿½s Office 
ï¿½ext Box:   
5 A review of sufficient depth is needed to determine whether the plan reserves 
enough revenue for funding 
government operations and programs, providing for the ï¿½general welfareï¿½ of the 
tribe or its members, promoting 
economic development, donating to charitable organizations, or helping to fund 
local government operations. (Solicitor) reviews the plans to ensure that they 
comply with IGRA, but the Solicitor does not 
perform an assessment of the tribeï¿½s financial health. 
After OIGM and the Solicitor review a plan, the Deputy Commissioner signs either 
a 
letter of approval or a written notice informing the tribe why the plan does not 
conform to the 
regulations and how to bring the plan into compliance. The BIA will work 
informally with tribes 
to modify plans to obtain approval. 
If a tribe decides to change how it distributes gaming profits, the tribe must 
submit an 
amendment to the existing plan to BIA for approval. After BIA approves a plan, 
however, it 
does not monitor tribal compliance nor does it have the authority to enforce 
penalties if a tribe 
does not comply. 
As of December 2001, of 207 Indian tribes that conducted gaming operations, 
75 submitted gaming-profit distribution plans, acknowledging that they intend to 
use a portion of 
their earnings for per capita payments (Appendix 2 contains a list of these 
tribes). However, BIA 
has no assurance that it knows the actual number of tribes making per capita 
payments. Tribes 
submit plans at their own will, and BIA has no way of ensuring that all tribes 
making per capita 
payments actually submit plans. 
Weaknesses in Process 
BIAï¿½s process for reviewing and approving Revenue Allocation Plans is not 
consistently 
performed and contains flaws. 
Assessing a tribeï¿½s economic health 
BIA is required, by regulation, to determine whether plans reserve adequate 
amounts of 
money to fund tribal government programs and economic development. However, BIA 
does not 
effectively make this determination because it does not require sufficient 
information about a 
tribeï¿½s financial condition. BIA only requests additional information when a 
tribe intends to use 
over 50 percent of its earnings for per capita payments. In order to make an 
accurate assessment 
of each tribeï¿½s financial conditions, BIA needs to secure adequate financial 
information from all 
tribes seeking per capita distribution plan approval. 
There were 75 plans submitted to BIA for approval through September 2002, 73 of 
which 
were approved. Of the 73 approved plans, only 24 contained any information that 
might assist in 
evaluating a tribeï¿½s economic health. Of these 24, only 5 provided comparative 
information 
about gaming profits, tribal enrollment levels, and tribal operations budgets ï¿½ 
all of which are 
essential for a reasoned evaluation of a tribeï¿½s economic health. 
During our evaluation, however, we did find an excellent example of a plan that 
provided 
BIA with sufficient information for approval. One Michigan tribe provided BIA 
with historical 
and projected tribal enrollment; gaming revenues; tribal budgets; historical and 
projected tribal 
services provided; other potential sources of tribal revenue; balances, 
earnings, and projected earnings from capital investment reserve accounts; and 
capacity of gaming operations and other 
related facilities. This allowed BIA to adequately evaluate the proposed 
distribution of earnings. 
Documenting the deliberative process 
BIA did not always document its deliberative process for reviewing and approving 
plans. 
During the review process, BIA did not use checklists to ensure that plans met 
all regulatory 
requirements nor did it consistently maintain records containing reasons for 
approving a plan. 
For example, an Idaho tribeï¿½s file contained only the tribal ordinance and BIAï¿½s 
approval 
letter. Neither of these documents indicated that BIA had performed a 
substantive review of the 
plan. 
In addition, we found that BIA did not: 
  Have a tracking system in place to document when a plan was received, 
reviewed, and approved, or when a tribe was contacted about issues regarding 
its plan. 
  Document standard operating procedures. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs improve its 
approval 
process by: 
1. Amending the applicable regulations to require tribes to submit sufficient 
financial information, modeled after the Michigan tribe, including: historical 
and projected tribal enrollment; gaming revenues; tribal budgets; historical 
and projected tribal services provided; other potential sources of tribal 
revenue; balances, earnings, and projected earnings from capital investment 
reserve accounts; and capacity of gaming operations and other related 
facilities. 
2. Developing and publishing a standard to determine what is ï¿½adequateï¿½ 
funding for each tribeï¿½s government and economic development programs. 
3. Developing and producing written operating procedures for reviewing plans, 
including forms, surnames, documentation of tribal contacts, modifications to 
plans, and final disposition of plans. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ï¿½ext Box: United States Department of the Interior

Office of Inspector General
Eastern Region Audits
381 Elden Street
Sui 
MONITORING INDIAN TRIBAL 
COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS 
Neither the BIA nor the NIGC is monitoring Indian tribes to determine whether 
tribes 
comply with approved revenue allocation plans or whether tribes are making per 
capita 
distributions of gaming revenues without an approved plan. IGRA does not 
specifically provide 
the BIA a mechanism to ensure that tribes making per capita payments actually 
submit plans or 
make payments in compliance with approved plans. While IGRA does provide the 
NIGC 
authority to enforce Indian tribal compliance with the requirements of the Act, 
including the 
revenue allocation plan requirements, NIGC does not have a mechanism for 
monitoring revenue 
distributions. 
An example of problems that can occur when tribes make per capita payments 
without 
approved plans is found in a U.S. District Court case.6 A South Dakota tribe had 
made per capita 
payments to tribal members without a distribution plan approved by the Secretary 
(or BIA). 
Several members who were excluded from the payments filed suit against the 
tribe. The court 
ruled that all of the tribeï¿½s gaming profits be held until the Secretary 
approved a plan, which 
prevented the tribe from using gaming profits for government projects and 
economic 
development, as well as per capita payments. 
Without a process for systematic monitoring of tribal revenue distributions, the 
Secretaryï¿½s approval of the plan serves little practical purpose. The approval 
process is one of 
voluntary self-compliance. 
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT REPORT 
Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Response 
The March 25, 2003, response agreed with the three recommendations. It stated 
that 
proposed amendments to the regulations requiring tribes to submit sufficient 
financial 
information would be developed within 60 days of publication of the final 
report, that a standard 
to determine what is adequate funding for tribal government and economic 
development 
programs would be formulated in conjunction with the proposed amendment, and 
that operating 
procedures for reviewing plans would be prepared pursuant to completion of the 
other two 
actions. In response to a suggestion in our draft report that consideration be 
given to amending 
IGRA to give the Secretary of the Interior authority to enforce compliance with 
approved plans, 
the response stated that such an amendment may not be necessary because ï¿½the 
National Indian 
Gaming Commission (NIGC) already has the authority to enforce compliance with 
provisions of 
IGRA.ï¿½ and that ï¿½BIA would not have the financial resources to monitor 
complianceï¿½ if 
provided the statutory authority to do so. Finally, the response requested that 
the ï¿½Related 
Mattersï¿½ section of the report referring to media coverage and future 
evaluations be deleted from 
the final report. 
Ross v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, 809 F. Supp. 738 (1992). Attached to the 
response from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs was a 
January 30, 2003, memorandum from an Attorney-Advisory in the Office of the 
Solicitor to the 
Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management. The January 30, 2003, memorandum 
stated 
that the Secretary ï¿½might consider seeking an amendment to IGRA in order to 
clarify her 
authority to monitor tribal compliance or enforce against non-compliance with 
RAPs [Revenue 
Allocation Plans]. If so, the regulations could be amended to require tribes to 
submit proof of 
actual distribution of gaming profits.ï¿½ The memorandum stated further that all 
ï¿½tribes who 
dispense per cap payments are required to submit a RAP . . . if they donï¿½t the 
regulation states 
that ï¿½[I]f you refuse to comply, the DOJ or NIGC may enforce this requirementï¿½.ï¿½ 
In addition, 
the memorandum clarified that the Office of the Solicitor does not perform an 
assessment of a 
tribeï¿½s financial health when it reviews proposed plans and amendments. 
National Indian Gaming Commissionï¿½s Response 
In a March 10, 2003, response, the National Indian Gaming Commissionï¿½s Acting 
Chief 
of Staff stated, ï¿½the report should more fully describe the potential 
involvement of the National 
Indian Gaming Commissionï¿½s oversight of revenue allocation plans.ï¿½ In that 
regard, the 
response noted that while NIGC has civil enforcement authority against 
noncompliant tribes, it 
does ï¿½not have a mechanism for systematic monitoring of revenue distributions.ï¿½ 
The Acting 
Chief of Staff also stated the Secretary ï¿½is in the best position to interpret 
an approved RAP and 
make a determination as to whether or not a particular distribution complies 
with the plan.ï¿½ The 
Acting Chief of Staff added that ï¿½the Department may wish to consider 
instituting a reporting 
requirement to facilitate monitoringï¿½ and that NIGC is willing to discuss a 
cooperative 
arrangement for pursuing cases of misuse of gaming revenue identified by the 
Department. 
Office of Inspector Generalï¿½s Reply 
Based on the responses, we modified the report as appropriate. In particular, we 
added to 
the report information about NIGCï¿½s authority to monitor compliance with the Act 
and removed 
the suggestion that consideration be given to seeking an amendment to the Act. 
We also 
changed the report to address the technical issues raised by BIA regarding the 
definition of net 
revenues, the approval process, the role of the Solicitor, and amendments to 
approved revenue 
allocation plans. 
Regarding the NIGCï¿½s comments, the scope of this assignment was the processes 
and 
functions used by the BIA in reviewing and approving plans. We agree that IGRA 
provides 
NIGC and DOJ the authority to enforce the requirements pertaining to revenue 
allocation plans. 
We believe, however, that the enforcement authority is not supported by 
systematic mechanism 
for monitoring compliance and therefore is not effectively exercised. 
OPTIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REGARDING 
REVENUE ALLOCATION PLANS 
As concluded in this report, currently there is a requirement that tribes submit 
revenue allocation plans 
for review and approval, without a systematic mechanism for monitoring 
compliance to this 
requirement. Based on our review of the responses to the draft evaluation 
report, we submit the 
following options to address this issue. In consultation with gaming tribes the 
Department could: 
1. Enter into an agreement with NIGC to implement an oversight process for 
tribal 
compliance with revenue allocation plan requirements. This would require the 
Department to identify a source of funding for the agreement because the NIGC 
Chairman advised us that NIGC currently lacks the resources to finance this 
process. The 
Chairman also said that it is NIGCï¿½s policy to consult with tribes before 
considering an 
effort such as this. 
2. Require all gaming tribes to submit an annual independent audit report to the 
Secretary. 
The audit would determine whether a tribe made per capita payments and, if so, 
complied 
with an approved revenue allocation plan. Currently, gaming tribes that receive 
Federal 
financial assistance for the operation of Indian programs have two audit 
reporting 
requirements: (1) an annual independent audit of the financial statements of 
each gaming 
operation is required (25 CFR 571.13) to be submitted to NIGC and (2) an annual 
or 
biennial audit of a tribeï¿½s financial statements and a schedule of its Federal 
assistance is 
required (Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133) to be submitted to the 
cognizant Federal audit agency. It may be possible to incorporate into the scope 
of one 
of these audits a review of tribal compliance with revenue allocation plan 
requirements. 
3. Seek relief from the requirement for the submission and approval of tribal 
gaming 
revenue allocation plans. 
Future Evaluations 
We have tentatively identified a number of other areas in which IGRA fails to 
confer to 
the Secretary the requisite authority to meet the Departmentï¿½s responsibilities 
under the Act. We 
are undertaking further evaluations to clearly identify the gaps in authority 
that prevent the 
Secretary from carrying out her responsibilities most effectively and ensuring 
that the intent of 
the statute is met. We will issue a comprehensive report with recommendations 
when those 
evaluations are completed. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 
Our objective was to determine whether BIAï¿½s approval process ensures that 
Revenue 
Allocation Plans fulfill the purposes of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. This 
evaluation was 
performed in response to a request from the Secretary. We reviewed BIAï¿½s 
processes and 
procedures used to review and approve plans. We also interviewed officials from 
the BIAï¿½s 
Office of Indian Gaming Management, the Solicitorï¿½s Office, the National Indian 
Gaming 
Commission, and the National Indian Gaming Association. In addition, we analyzed 
statistics 
regarding tribal gaming and per capita distributions, and we reviewed about 
6,235 pages of 
documents containing BIA Revenue Allocation Plan files. We did not obtain 
information 
directly from the tribes or review tribal accounting records to determine actual 
payments made. 
We conducted our evaluation in accordance with the Presidentï¿½s Council on 
Integrity and 
Efficiencyï¿½s Quality Standards for Inspections. Accordingly, we conducted tests 
and reviews of 
records that we considered necessary under the circumstances. 
Neither the OIG nor the General Accounting Office has issued public reports 
within the 
last five years addressing the BIAï¿½s administration of Revenue Allocation Plans. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
Provisions Addressing Tribal Per Capita Payments 
From Net Gaming Revenues 
(25 USC ï¿½ï¿½ 2710, 2713) 
Note: Sections (a) through (b)(1) of 25 USC ï¿½ 2710, were omitted by the OIG as 
not 
applicable to the subject of this report. 
Section 2710 Tribal Gaming Ordinances 
(b)(2) The Chairman [of the National Indian Gaming Commission] shall approve any 
tribal 
ordinance or resolution concerning the conduct or regulation of class II gaming 
on the Indian 
lands within the tribeï¿½s jurisdiction if such ordinance or resolution provides 
that- 
Section (A) omitted. 
(B) Net 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; 
Sections (C) through (F)(ii)(III) omitted 
(3) Net revenues from any class II gaming activities conducted or licensed by 
any Indian tribe 
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 to uses authorized 
by 
paragraph (2)(B); 
(B) The plan is approved by the Secretary as adequate, particularly with respect 
to uses 
described in clause (i) or (iii) of paragraph (2)(B); 
(C) The interests of minors and other legally incompetent persons who are 
entitled to receive 
any of the per capita payments are protected and preserved and 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. 
ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 1
Page 1 of 3

Sections (4) (A) through (c) omitted. 
(d)(1) Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such 
activities are- 
(A) authorized by ordinance or resolution that ï¿½ 
(i) is adopted by the governing body of the Indian tribe having 
jurisdiction over such lands, 
(ii) meets the requirements of subsection (b) of this section, and 
(iii) is approved by the Chairman 
Section 2713 ï¿½ Civil Penalties 
(a) Authority; amount; appeal; written complaint 
(1) Subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the Commission, the 
Chairman shall have authority to levy and collect appropriate civil fines, not 
to 
exceed $25,000 per violation, against the tribal operator of an Indian game or a 
management contractor engaged in gaming for any violation of any provision of 
this chapter, any regulation prescribed by the Commission pursuant to this 
chapter, or tribal regulations, ordinances, or resolutions approved under 
section 
2710 or 2712 of this title. 
(2) The Commission shall, by regulation, provide an opportunity for an appeal 
and 
hearing before the Commission on fines levied and collected by the Chairman. 
(3) Whenever the Commission has reason to believe that the tribal operator of an 
Indian game or a management contractor is engaged in activities regulated by 
this 
chapter, by regulations prescribed under this chapter, or by tribal regulations, 
ordinances, or resolutions, approved under section 2710 or 2712 of this title, 
that 
may result in the imposition of a fine under subsection (a)(1) of this section, 
the 
permanent closure of such game, or the modification or termination of any 
management contract, the Commission shall provide such tribal operator or 
management contractor with a written complaint stating the acts or omissions 
which form the basis for such belief and the action or choice of action being 
considered by the Commission. The allegation shall be set forth in common and 
concise language and must specify the statutory or regulatory provisions alleged 
to have been violated, but may not consist merely of allegations stated in 
statutory 
or regulatory language. 
(b) Temporary closure; hearing 
(1) The Chairman shall have power to order temporary closure of an Indian game 
for 
substantial violation of the provisions of this chapter, of regulations 
prescribed by 
ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 1
Page 2 of 3

the Commission pursuant to this chapter, or of tribal regulations, ordinances, 
or 
resolutions approved under section 2710 or 2712 of this title. 
(2) Not later than thirty days after the issuance by the Chairman of an order of 
temporary closure, the Indian tribe or management contractor involved shall have 
a 
right to a hearing before the Commission to determine whether such order should 
be made permanent or dissolved. Not later than sixty days following such 
hearing, 
the Commission shall, by a vote of not less than two of its members, decide 
whether to order a permanent closure of the gaming operation. 
(c) Appeal from final decision 
A decision of the Commission to give final approval of a fine levied by the 
Chairman or 
to order a permanent closure pursuant to this section shall be appealable to the 
appropriate Federal district court pursuant to chapter 7 of title 5. 
(d) Regulatory authority under tribal law 
Nothing in this chapter precludes an Indian tribe from exercising regulatory 
authority 
provided under tribal law over a gaming establishment within the Indian tribe's 
jurisdiction if such regulation is not inconsistent with this chapter or with 
any rules or 
regulations adopted by the Commission. 
ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 1
Page 3 of 3

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Revenue Allocation Plans Submitted to BIA 
As of September 2002 
Approved 
Plans Tribe 
Date of Last 
Action 
1 Absentee Shawnee of Oklahoma 29-Aug-00 
2 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of California 11-Jan-02 
3 Alturas Rancheria of California 5-Mar-02 
4 Barona Band of Mission Indians of California 28-Dec-00 
5 Berry Creek Rancheria of California 14-Feb-01 
6 Big Sandy Rancheria of California 24-Jul-01 
7 Big Valley Rancheria of California 27-Sep-01 
8 Cahuilla Band of California 19-Mar-02 
9 Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana 3-Nov-98 
10 Coeur d' Alene Tribe of Idaho 21-Mar-01 
11 Colorado River Indian Tribe of Arizona 30-Jun-97 
12 Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 14-Apr-95 
13 Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Oregon 29-Nov-00 
14 Coyote Valley Tribe of California 19-Sep-95 
15 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina 10-Aug-01 
16 Elk Valley Rancheria of California 9-Jan-01 
17 Flandreau Sioux Tribe of South Dakota 29-Apr-99 
18 Fond du Lac of Minnesota 23-Nov-01 
19 Forest County Potawatomi of Wisconsin 10-Aug-01 
20 Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian Community of Arizona 27-Oct-98 
21 Grand Ronde Community of Oregon 9-Nov-99 
22 Grand Traverse Band of Michigan 2-Jun-00 
23 Ho Chunk Nation of Wisconsin 11-Jan-02 
24 Hopland Rancheria of California 1-Oct-97 
25 Jackson Rancheria of California 19-Dec-95 
26 Kalispel Tribe of Washington 11-Jan-02 
27 Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas 24-Jul-01 
28 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 30-May-01 
29 Lac du Flambeau Tribe of Wisconsin 26-Jun-00 
30 Lac Vieux Desert Band of Michigan 14-Dec-94 
31 Little Traverse Bay Bands of Michigan 11-Jan-02 
32 Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota 18-Jan-02 
33 Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin 9-Dec-94 
34 Middletown Rancheria Tribe of Pomo Indians of California 18-Dec-97 
35 Mille Lacs Band of Minnesota 17-Dec-01 
36 Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians of Mississippi 19-Jun-96 
37 Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut 16-Jul-01 
38 Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of California 4-Oct-96 
39 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of Washington 28-Dec-00 
40 Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin 25-Jul-01 
ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 2
Page 1 of 2

41 Pala Band of California 10-Aug-01 
42 Pauma Band of California 1-Apr-02 
43 Prairie Island Indian Community of Minnesota 7-Aug-96 
44 Puyallup 10-Apr-98 
45 Quechan Tribe of Arizona 18-Oct-00 
46 Redding Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 21-Oct-94 
47 Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California 30-Jun-98 
48 Rumsey Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California 19-Dec-95 
49 Sac and Fox Nation of the Mississippi of Iowa 30-May-95 
50 Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma 13-May-97 
51 Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan 28-Mar-01 
52 Salt River Pima Maricopa of Arizona 10-Oct-01 
53 Santa Rosa Indian Community of California 15-Aug-00 
54 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of California 16-May-95 
55 Seminole Tribe of Florida 18-Aug-93 
56 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota 12-Nov-93 
57 Sherwood Valley Rancheria of California 27-Jul-98 
58 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Idaho 11-Jan-02 
59 Siletz Tribe of Oregon 20-Nov-01 
60 Sokaogon Chippewa Tribe of Wisconsin 15-Aug-94 
61 Squaxin Island Tribe of Washington 14-Dec-01 
62 St. Croix Tribe of Wisconsin 7-Jan-98 
63 Stockbridge Munsee Tribe of Wisconsin 25-May-01 
64 Table Mountain Rancheria of California 19-Dec-95 
65 Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona 25-Oct-00 
66 Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona 9-Aug-01 
67 Tunica Biloxi Indians of Louisiana 14-Apr-94 
68 Umatilla Tribe of Oregon 22-Nov-00 
69 Upper Sioux Tribe of Minnesota 26-Jun-96 
70 Viejas Band of Mission Indians of California 18-Dec-95 
71 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 14-Jan-94 
72 Yavapai Prescott Tribe of Arizona 12-Sep-95 
73 Yselta del Sur 2-Jul-97 
Subtotal of Approved Plans: 73 
Denied Plans 
1 Chicken Ranch 30-Nov-00 
2 San Pasqual Band 5-Oct-01 
Subtotal of Denied Plans: 2 
Total Plans: 75 
ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 2
Page 2 of 2

ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 3
Page 1 of 4


ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 3
Page 2 of 4


ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 3
Page 3 of 4

ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 3
Page 4 of 4

ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 4
Page 1 of 2


ï¿½ext Box: Appendix 4
Page 2 of 2

Appendix 5 
Status of Recommendations 
Recommendation Status Action Required 
1 through 3 
Resolved; not 
implemented 
No further response to the Office of 
Inspector General is necessary. The 
recommendations will be referred to 
the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 
Management and Budget for 
tracking of implementation. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank