HEARTH Act Approval of Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan, Leasing Ordinance, 92711-92712 [2024-27401]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2024 / Notices Code PHAs UT016 ......................... Housing Authority of Carbon County ....................................................................................................... [FR Doc. 2024–27381 Filed 11–21–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–67–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [256A2100DD/AAKC001030/ A0A501010.999900] HEARTH Act Approval of Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan, Leasing Ordinance Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan 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 agriculture, business, residential, wind and solar, public, religious, and recreational leases without further BIA approval. DATES: BIA issued the approval on November 12, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 Nov 21, 2024 Jkt 265001 Waiver signed 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 Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan. 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 Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal Government pursuant to the HEARTH Act. Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 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 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 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 92711 1/9/2024 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 72,447–48, 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). E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM 22NON1 92712 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2024 / Notices 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 25 CFR part 162. 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 Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan. Wizipan Garriott, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Exercising by delegation the authority of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. 2024–27401 Filed 11–21–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337–15–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [256A2100DD/AAKC001030/ A0A501010.999900] Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Coquille Indian Tribe Fee-toTrust and Gaming Facility Project, City of Medford, Jackson County, Oregon Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 AGENCY: This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency, with the Coquille Indian Tribe (Tribe), City of Medford (City), Jackson County (County), and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) serving as cooperating agencies, intends to file a Final Environmental SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 Nov 21, 2024 Jkt 265001 Impact Statement (FEIS) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in connection with the Tribe’s application to transfer into trust approximately 2.4 acres for gaming purposes in the City of Medford, Jackson County, Oregon (Medford Site). DATES: The Record of Decision for the proposed action will be issued on or after 30 days from the date the EPA publishes its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The BIA must receive any comments on the FEIS before that date. ADDRESSES: By mail or hand delivery to: Bryan Mercier, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Region, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232. Please include your name, return address, and ‘‘FEIS Comments, Coquille Indian Tribe Feeto-Trust and Casino Project’’ on the first page of your written comments. By email to: Tobiah Mogavero, NEPA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, at: tobiah.mogavero@bia.gov, using ‘‘FEIS Comments, Coquille Indian Tribe Fee-to-Trust and Casino Project’’ as the subject of your email. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tobiah Mogavero, NEPA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Region, (435) 210–0509, tobiah.mogavero@bia.gov. Information is also available online at https:// coquille-eis.com. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS was published by the BIA (87 FR 72505) and EPA (87 FR 72482) in the Federal Register on November 25, 2022. The Draft EIS was originally made available for public comment for a 45day period. However, the BIA extended the public comment period for an additional 45-day period that concluded on February 23, 2023, resulting in a total comment period of 90 days. Virtual public hearings were held on December 15, 2022, and January 31, 2023, to collect verbal comments on the Draft EIS. transportation and circulation, land use, public services, noise, hazardous materials, aesthetics, cumulative effects, and indirect and growth inducing effects. The information and analysis contained in the FEIS, as well as its evaluation and assessment of the Preferred Alternative, will assist the Department in its review of the issues presented in the Tribe’s application. Selection of the Preferred Alternative does not indicate the Department’s final decision because the Department must complete its review process. The Department’s review process consists of (1) issuing the notice of availability of the FEIS; (2) issuing a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days following publication of a Notice of Availability of the FEIS by the EPA in the Federal Register; and (3) transfer of the Medford Site in to trust under the Coquille Restoration Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 715 et. seq. Locations where the FEIS is Available for Review: The FEIS is available for review at https://coquille-eis.com. Contact information is listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Public Comment Availability: Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be included as part of the administrative record and responses to comments on the Final EIS. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment that your personal identifying information be withheld from public review, the BIA cannot guarantee that this will occur. Background The following alternatives are considered in the FEIS: (1) Proposed Project; (2) Phoenix Site; (3) Expansion of the Mill Casino; and (4) and No Action/No Development Alternative. The BIA has selected Alternative 1, the Proposed Project, as the Preferred Alternative as discussed in the FEIS. Environmental issues addressed in the FEIS include geology and soils, water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, socioeconomic conditions (including environmental justice), This notice is published pursuant to section 1503.1 of the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500 through 1508) and section 46.305 of the Department of the Interior Regulations (43 CFR part 46), implementing the procedural requirements of the NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371, et seq.), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8. This notice is also published in accordance with 40 CFR 93.155, which provides reporting PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Authority E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM 22NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92711-92712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27401]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[256A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900]


HEARTH Act Approval of Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan, 
Leasing Ordinance

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Bay Mills 
Indian Community, Michigan 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 agriculture, 
business, residential, wind and solar, public, religious, and 
recreational leases without further BIA approval.

DATES: BIA issued the approval on November 12, 2024.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 Bay Mills 
Indian Community, Michigan.

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 Tribal leasing 
regulations approved by the Federal Government pursuant to the HEARTH 
Act.
    Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 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 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 72,447-48, 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).

[[Page 92712]]

    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 25 CFR part 162.
    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 Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan.

Wizipan Garriott,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, Exercising by 
delegation the authority of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2024-27401 Filed 11-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P


This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.