01-18476. Attorney Contracts With Indian Tribes

AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION:

Final Rule.

SUMMARY:

We are issuing a final rule removing the text of certain sections and thereafter reserving those sections of the regulations pertaining to approval by the Secretary of the Interior of tribal attorney contracts, except for those entered into by the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole) in Oklahoma. Congress repealed our statutory authority for such approvals of tribal attorney contracts as part of the Indian Tribal Economic Development and Contract Encouragement Act of 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

July 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Duncan L. Brown, Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, 1849 C Street, NW., MS 7412 MIB, Washington, DC 20240, telephone [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In 1871, Congress enacted section 2103 of the Revised Statutes, codified at 25 U.S.C. 81 (Section 81). It placed several restrictions, including a requirement for approval by the Secretary of the Interior, on contracts between any person and any Indian tribe or individual Indians for

the payment or delivery of any money or other thing of value, in present or in prospective, or for the granting or procuring any privilege to him, or any other person in consideration of services for said Indians relative to their lands, or to any claims growing out of, or in reference to, annuities, installments, or other moneys, claims, demands, or thing, under laws or treaties with the United States, or official acts of any officers thereof, or in any way connected with or due from the United States.

Section 81 reflected Congressional concern that Indian tribes and individual Indians were incapable of protecting themselves from fraud in their financial affairs. To that end, it also required that the Secretary approve any contracts for legal services between an Indian tribe and an attorney. Congress later confirmed the requirement for Secretarial approval of tribal attorney contracts with the passage of section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, 25 U.S.C. 476 (Section 476 does not apply to the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) in Oklahoma. The Secretary has separate authority for approval of attorney contracts for the Five Civilized Tribes under section 1 of Pub. L. 82-440, 25 U.S.C. 82a.)

In March 2000, Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Economic Development and Contract Encouragement Act of 2000 (the Act), Pub. L. 106-179. The Act generally replaces Section 81 with a new provision that does not include the requirement to approve tribal attorney contracts. (We are publishing final regulations today at 25 CFR part 84 implementing the Act.) Subsection (f) of the Act repeals the portion of 25 U.S.C. 476 concerning approval of tribal attorney contracts. The Act does not address the separate requirement that attorney contracts by the Five Civilized Tribes must be approved by the Secretary.

Because the Act repealed much of our statutory authority for approval of tribal attorney contracts, we are today repealing the corresponding regulations in 25 CFR part 89. We are not repealing the regulations concerning approval of tribal attorney contracts for the Five Civilized Tribes, since Congress left our authority for those approvals in place. We will, however, issue a separate proposed rule, in consultation with the Five Civilized Tribes, to revise these regulations, especially 25 CFR 89.30, in light of the amendments to section 81. We are also not repealing our regulations in part 89 for the payment of tribal attorneys fees.

Consistent with the long-standing principle that the federal trust obligation may not be unilaterally terminated, the Act does not alter those tribal constitutions that require federal approvals for specific tribal actions, such as attorney contracts. Thus, the Secretary must still approve or disapprove attorney contracts if a tribal constitution so requires. The criteria, if any, for approval of such contracts will be those in the tribal constitution and any relevant Federal law. As is its policy, BIA will defer to the tribe's interpretation of its own law regarding such approvals.

Notice and Public Procedure on This Final Rule

As noted above, this final rule is effective on the publication of this notice. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), notice and public comment on this final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. In addition, we have good cause for making this rule effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Notice and public procedure would be impracticable and unnecessary because this rule is merely repealing regulations for which we now have no statutory authority.

Waiting for notice and comment on this final rule would be contrary to the public interest. Some of the comments on the proposed part 84 regulations expressed confusion as to the status of the part 89 regulations that we are repealing today. By making this a final rule effective immediately, we end such confusion.

Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the BIA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations or recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” from an economic or policy standpoint. This final rule is pursuant to a statutory mandate and is consistent with the Department's policy of encouraging tribal self-determination and economic development. The final rule reduces the number of contracts the Department has to review each year. Prior to the amendments enacted under Pub. L. 106-179, tribes had to submit certain contracts for approval by the Secretary of the Interior for which Secretarial approval has now (through enactment of Pub. L. 106-179) been deemed unnecessary. The final rule has no direct or indirect impact on any other agency, does not materially alter the budgetary impact of financial programs, or raise novel legal or policy issues.

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section (b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. The Department of the Interior has determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

A Regulatory Flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is not required for this final rule because it applies only to tribal governments, not State and local governments.

D. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

This final rule is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This finals rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This final rule will not result in a major increase in costs or prices. In fact, it is estimated that the Department will save time and resources through the final rule because the number of contracts submitted for Secretarial approval will be reduced. Therefore, no increases in costs for administration will be realized and no prices would be impacted through the streamlining of the contract approval process within the Department and the BIA. The effect of the final rule is to encourage and foster tribal contracting and, consequently, strengthen tribal self-determination and economic development. This final rule will not result in any significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

E. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

No information or recordkeeping requirements are imposed by this final rule. Accordingly, no OMB clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Federalism

This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

This final rule is categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., because it is of an administrative, legal, and procedural nature. Further, no extraordinary circumstances exist to require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the Act, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. This final rule will not result in the expenditure by the state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.

I. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of May 14, 1998, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (63 FR 27655) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated any potential effects upon Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential adverse effects.

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211—Energy

In accordance with the President's Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355), we have determined that this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This is merely an administrative action (the removal of text of certain sections of regulations concerning attorney contracts) and does not otherwise qualify as significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order.

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 89

• Indians—tribal government

Under 25 U.S.C. 81 and as discussed in the preamble, amend Title 25, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 89—ATTORNEY CONTRACTS WITH INDIAN TRIBES

1. The authority citation for part 89 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; secs. 89.30 to 89.35 also issued under 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, and 82a; secs. 89.40 to 89.43 also issued under 25 U.S.C. 13, 450 et seq.

2. Sections 89.1 through 89.26 of part 89 are removed and reserved.

Dated: July 9, 2001.

Neal A. McCaleb,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.