HEARTH Act Approval of Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Agricultural Leasing Ordinance Leasing Ordinance, 67343-67344 [2023-21299]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Notices
leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162,
Federal courts have applied a balancing
test to determine whether State and
local taxation of non-Indians on the
reservation is preempted. White
Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448
U.S. 136, 143 (1980). The Bracker
balancing test, which is conducted
against a backdrop of ‘‘traditional
notions of Indian self- government,’’
requires a particularized examination of
the relevant State, Federal, and Tribal
interests. We hereby adopt the Bracker
analysis from the preamble to the
surface leasing regulations, 77 FR at
72447–48, as supplemented by the
analysis below.
The strong Federal and Tribal
interests against State and local taxation
of improvements, leaseholds, and
activities on land leased under the
Department’s leasing regulations apply
equally to improvements, leaseholds,
and activities on land leased pursuant to
Tribal leasing regulations approved
under the HEARTH Act. Congress’s
overarching intent was to ‘‘allow Tribes
to exercise greater control over their
own land, support self-determination,
and eliminate bureaucratic delays that
stand in the way of homeownership and
economic development in Tribal
communities.’’ 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682
(May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was
intended to afford Tribes ‘‘flexibility to
adapt lease terms to suit [their] business
and cultural needs’’ and to ‘‘enable
[Tribes] to approve leases quickly and
efficiently.’’ H. Rep. 112–427 at 6
(2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes
would obstruct these express Federal
policies supporting Tribal economic
development and self-determination,
and also threaten substantial Tribal
interests in effective Tribal government,
economic self-sufficiency, and territorial
autonomy. See Michigan v. Bay Mills
Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782, 810
(2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring)
(determining that ‘‘[a] key goal of the
Federal Government is to render Tribes
more self-sufficient, and better
positioned to fund their own sovereign
functions, rather than relying on Federal
funding’’). The additional costs of State
and local taxation have a chilling effect
on potential lessees, as well as on a
Tribe that, as a result, might refrain from
exercising its own sovereign right to
impose a Tribal tax to support its
infrastructure needs. See id. at 810–11
(finding that State and local taxes
greatly discourage Tribes from raising
tax revenue from the same sources
because the imposition of double
taxation would impede Tribal economic
growth).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Sep 28, 2023
Jkt 259001
Similar to BIA’s surface leasing
regulations, Tribal regulations under the
HEARTH Act pervasively cover all
aspects of leasing. See 25 U.S.C.
415(h)(3)(B)(i) (requiring Tribal
regulations be consistent with BIA
surface leasing regulations).
Furthermore, the Federal government
remains involved in the Tribal land
leasing process by approving the Tribal
leasing regulations in the first instance
and providing technical assistance,
upon request by a Tribe, for the
development of an environmental
review process. The Secretary also
retains authority to take any necessary
actions to remedy violations of a lease
or of the Tribal regulations, including
terminating the lease or rescinding
approval of the Tribal regulations and
reassuming lease approval
responsibilities. Moreover, the Secretary
continues to review, approve, and
monitor individual Indian land leases
and other types of leases not covered
under the Tribal regulations according
to the 25 CFR part 162 regulations.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal
interests weigh heavily in favor of
preemption of State and local taxes on
lease-related activities and interests,
regardless of whether the lease is
governed by Tribal leasing regulations
or 25 CFR part 162. Improvements,
activities, and leasehold or possessory
interests may be subject to taxation by
the Soboba Band of Luisen˜o Indians,
California.
Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023–21298 Filed 9–28–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[234A2100DD/AAKC001030/
A0A501010.999900]
HEARTH Act Approval of Prairie Band
Potawatomi Nation Agricultural
Leasing Ordinance Leasing Ordinance
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) approved the Prairie Band
Potawatomi Nation Leasing Ordinance
under the Helping Expedite and
Advance Responsible Tribal
Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH
Act). With this approval, the Tribe is
authorized to enter into agricultural
leases without further BIA approval.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67343
BIA issued the approval on
September 21, 2023.
DATES:
Ms.
Carla Clark, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Division of Real Estate Services, 1001
Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque,
NM 87104, carla.clark@bia.gov, (702)
484–3233.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Summary of the HEARTH Act
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary,
alternative land leasing process
available to Tribes, by amending the
Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955,
25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act
authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter
into business leases of Tribal trust lands
with a primary term of 25 years, and up
to two renewal terms of 25 years each,
without the approval of the Secretary of
the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH
Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into
leases for residential, recreational,
religious or educational purposes for a
primary term of up to 75 years without
the approval of the Secretary.
Participating Tribes develop Tribal
Leasing regulations, including an
environmental review process, and then
must obtain the Secretary’s approval of
those regulations prior to entering into
leases. The HEARTH Act requires the
Secretary to approve Tribal regulations
if the Tribal regulations are consistent
with the Department of the Interior’s
(Department) leasing regulations at 25
CFR part 162 and provide for an
environmental review process that
meets requirements set forth in the
HEARTH Act. This notice announces
that the Secretary, through the Assistant
Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved
the Tribal regulations for the Prairie
Band Potawatomi Nation.
II. Federal Preemption of State and
Local Taxes
The Department’s regulations
governing the surface leasing of trust
and restricted Indian lands specify that,
subject to applicable Federal law,
permanent improvements on leased
land, leasehold or possessory interests,
and activities under the lease are not
subject to State and local taxation and
may be subject to taxation by the Indian
Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR
162.017. As explained further in the
preamble to the final regulations, the
Federal government has a strong interest
in promoting economic development,
self-determination, and Tribal
sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447–48
(December 5, 2012). The principles
supporting the Federal preemption of
State law in the field of Indian leasing
and the taxation of lease-related
interests and activities applies with
equal force to leases entered into under
E:\FR\FM\29SEN1.SGM
29SEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
67344
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Notices
Tribal leasing regulations approved by
the Federal government pursuant to the
HEARTH Act. Section 5 of the Indian
Reorganization Act (IRA), 25 U.S.C.
5108, preempts State and local taxation
of permanent improvements on trust
land. Confederated Tribes of the
Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston
County, 724 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.
2013) (citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v.
Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973)). Similarly,
section 5108 of the IRA preempts State
taxation of rent payments by a lessee for
leased trust lands, because ‘‘tax on the
payment of rent is indistinguishable
from an impermissible tax on the land.’’
See Seminole Tribe of Florida v.
Stranburg, 799 F.3d 1324, 1331, n.8
(11th Cir. 2015). In addition, as
explained in the preamble to the revised
leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162,
Federal courts have applied a balancing
test to determine whether State and
local taxation of non-Indians on the
reservation is preempted. White
Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448
U.S. 136, 143 (1980). The Bracker
balancing test, which is conducted
against a backdrop of ‘‘traditional
notions of Indian self- government,’’
requires a particularized examination of
the relevant State, Federal, and Tribal
interests. We hereby adopt the Bracker
analysis from the preamble to the
surface leasing regulations, 77 FR at
72447–48, as supplemented by the
analysis below.
The strong Federal and Tribal
interests against State and local taxation
of improvements, leaseholds, and
activities on land leased under the
Department’s leasing regulations apply
equally to improvements, leaseholds,
and activities on land leased pursuant to
Tribal leasing regulations approved
under the HEARTH Act. Congress’s
overarching intent was to ‘‘allow Tribes
to exercise greater control over their
own land, support self-determination,
and eliminate bureaucratic delays that
stand in the way of homeownership and
economic development in Tribal
communities.’’ 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682
(May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was
intended to afford Tribes ‘‘flexibility to
adapt lease terms to suit [their] business
and cultural needs’’ and to ‘‘enable
[Tribes] to approve leases quickly and
efficiently.’’ H. Rep. 112–427 at 6
(2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes
would obstruct these express Federal
policies supporting Tribal economic
development and self-determination,
and also threaten substantial Tribal
interests in effective Tribal government,
economic self-sufficiency, and territorial
autonomy. See Michigan v. Bay Mills
Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782, 810
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:46 Sep 28, 2023
Jkt 259001
(2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring)
(determining that ‘‘[a] key goal of the
Federal Government is to render Tribes
more self-sufficient, and better
positioned to fund their own sovereign
functions, rather than relying on Federal
funding’’). The additional costs of State
and local taxation have a chilling effect
on potential lessees, as well as on a
Tribe that, as a result, might refrain from
exercising its own sovereign right to
impose a Tribal tax to support its
infrastructure needs. See id. at 810–11
(finding that State and local taxes
greatly discourage Tribes from raising
tax revenue from the same sources
because the imposition of double
taxation would impede Tribal economic
growth).
Similar to BIA’s surface leasing
regulations, Tribal regulations under the
HEARTH Act pervasively cover all
aspects of leasing. See 25 U.S.C.
415(h)(3)(B)(i) (requiring Tribal
regulations be consistent with BIA
surface leasing regulations).
Furthermore, the Federal government
remains involved in the Tribal land
leasing process by approving the Tribal
leasing regulations in the first instance
and providing technical assistance,
upon request by a Tribe, for the
development of an environmental
review process. The Secretary also
retains authority to take any necessary
actions to remedy violations of a lease
or of the Tribal regulations, including
terminating the lease or rescinding
approval of the Tribal regulations and
reassuming lease approval
responsibilities. Moreover, the Secretary
continues to review, approve, and
monitor individual Indian land leases
and other types of leases not covered
under the Tribal regulations according
to the 25 CFR part 162 regulations.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal
interests weigh heavily in favor of
preemption of State and local taxes on
lease-related activities and interests,
regardless of whether the lease is
governed by Tribal leasing regulations
or 25 CFR part 162. Improvements,
activities, and leasehold or possessory
interests may be subject to taxation by
the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation.
Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023–21299 Filed 9–28–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[BLM_CA_FRN_MO4500173171]
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Redding and Arcata Field Offices
and an Associated Environmental
Impact Statement, California
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA), and the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
prepared a Northwest California
Integrated Draft Resource Management
Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft RMP/EIS) for the
Redding Field Office and Arcata Field
Office. By this notice, the BLM is
providing information announcing the
opening of the comment period on the
Draft RMP/EIS and is announcing the
comment period on the BLM’s proposed
areas of critical environmental concern
(ACECs).
DATES: This notice announces the
opening of a 90-day comment period for
the Draft RMP/EIS beginning with the
date following the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) publication
of its Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
Federal Register. The EPA usually
publishes its NOAs on Fridays.
To afford the BLM the opportunity to
consider comments in the Proposed
RMP/Final EIS, please ensure that the
BLM receives your comments prior to
the close of the 90-day public comment
period or 15 days after the last public
meeting, whichever is later.
In addition, this notice also
announces the opening of a concurrent
60-day comment period for ACECs. The
BLM must receive your ACEC-related
comments by November 28, 2023.
The BLM plans to hold at least one
virtual and at least two in-person public
meetings, in Redding and Arcata,
California during the 90-day public
comment period. The dates and
locations of the meetings will be
announced at least 15 days in advance
through local media, social media,
newspaper, and the ePlanning website
(see ADDRESSES section).
ADDRESSES: The Draft RMP/EIS is
available for review on the BLM
National NEPA Register project website
at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanningui/project/2012803/510.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29SEN1.SGM
29SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67343-67344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21299]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[234A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900]
HEARTH Act Approval of Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
Agricultural Leasing Ordinance Leasing Ordinance
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Prairie Band
Potawatomi Nation Leasing Ordinance under the Helping Expedite and
Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With
this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into agricultural
leases without further BIA approval.
DATES: BIA issued the approval on September 21, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carla Clark, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1001 Indian School Road NW,
Albuquerque, NM 87104, [email protected], (702) 484-3233.
I. Summary of the HEARTH Act
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process
available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of
1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and
enter into business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of
25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act
also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential,
recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of
up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating
Tribes develop Tribal Leasing regulations, including an environmental
review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those
regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the
Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are
consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing
regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review
process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This
notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Prairie
Band Potawatomi Nation.
II. Federal Preemption of State and Local Taxes
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust
and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal
law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory
interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and
local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with
jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble
to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest
in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal
sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles
supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian
leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities
applies with equal force to leases entered into under
[[Page 67344]]
Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant
to the HEARTH Act. Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), 25
U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent
improvements on trust land. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation v. Thurston County, 724 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013)
(citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973)).
Similarly, section 5108 of the IRA preempts State taxation of rent
payments by a lessee for leased trust lands, because ``tax on the
payment of rent is indistinguishable from an impermissible tax on the
land.'' See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Stranburg, 799 F.3d 1324,
1331, n.8 (11th Cir. 2015). In addition, as explained in the preamble
to the revised leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162, Federal courts
have applied a balancing test to determine whether State and local
taxation of non-Indians on the reservation is preempted. White Mountain
Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980). The Bracker
balancing test, which is conducted against a backdrop of ``traditional
notions of Indian self- government,'' requires a particularized
examination of the relevant State, Federal, and Tribal interests. We
hereby adopt the Bracker analysis from the preamble to the surface
leasing regulations, 77 FR at 72447-48, as supplemented by the analysis
below.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local
taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased
under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to
improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to
Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's
overarching intent was to ``allow Tribes to exercise greater control
over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate
bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic
development in Tribal communities.'' 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15,
2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes ``flexibility to
adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs'' and to
``enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.'' H. Rep.
112-427 at 6 (2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express
Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-
determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in
effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial
autonomy. See Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782, 810
(2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (determining that ``[a] key goal of
the Federal Government is to render Tribes more self-sufficient, and
better positioned to fund their own sovereign functions, rather than
relying on Federal funding''). The additional costs of State and local
taxation have a chilling effect on potential lessees, as well as on a
Tribe that, as a result, might refrain from exercising its own
sovereign right to impose a Tribal tax to support its infrastructure
needs. See id. at 810-11 (finding that State and local taxes greatly
discourage Tribes from raising tax revenue from the same sources
because the imposition of double taxation would impede Tribal economic
growth).
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations
under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing. See 25
U.S.C. 415(h)(3)(B)(i) (requiring Tribal regulations be consistent with
BIA surface leasing regulations). Furthermore, the Federal government
remains involved in the Tribal land leasing process by approving the
Tribal leasing regulations in the first instance and providing
technical assistance, upon request by a Tribe, for the development of
an environmental review process. The Secretary also retains authority
to take any necessary actions to remedy violations of a lease or of the
Tribal regulations, including terminating the lease or rescinding
approval of the Tribal regulations and reassuming lease approval
responsibilities. Moreover, the Secretary continues to review, approve,
and monitor individual Indian land leases and other types of leases not
covered under the Tribal regulations according to the 25 CFR part 162
regulations.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in
favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related
activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed
by Tribal leasing regulations or 25 CFR part 162. Improvements,
activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to
taxation by the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation.
Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023-21299 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
