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