Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 24517 

Statutory Background 

For more than two centuries, the 

Federal Government has recognized 

Indian tribes as domestic sovereigns that 

have unique government-to-government 

relationships with the United States. 

Congress has broad authority to legislate 

with respect to Indian tribes, however, 

and has exercised this authority to 

establish a complex jurisdictional 

scheme for the prosecution of crimes 

committed in Indian country. (The term 

‘‘Indian country’’ is defined in 18 U.S.C. 

1151.) Criminal jurisdiction in Indian 

country typically depends on several 

factors, including the nature of the 

crime; whether the alleged offender, the 

victim, or both are Indian; and whether 

a treaty, Federal statute, executive order, 

or judicial decision has conferred 

jurisdiction on a particular government. 

The Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) 

was enacted on July 29, 2010, as Title 

II of Public Law 111–211. The purpose 

of the TLOA is to help the Federal 

Government and tribal governments 

better address the unique public-safety 

challenges that confront tribal 

communities. Section 221(b) of the new 

law, now codified at 18 U.S.C. 1162(d), 

permits an Indian tribe with Indian 

country subject to State criminal 

jurisdiction under Public Law 280, P.L. 

83–280, 67 Stat. 588 (1953) to request 

that the United States accept concurrent 

jurisdiction to prosecute violations of 

the General Crimes Act and the Major 

Crimes Act within that tribe’s Indian 

country. 

Department of Justice Regulation 

Implementing 18 U.S.C. 1162(d) 

On December 6, 2011, 76 FR 76037 

the Department published final 

regulations that established the 

framework and procedures for a 

mandatory Public Law 280 tribe to 

request the assumption of concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction within the 

Indian country of the tribe that is 

subject to Public Law 280. 28 CFR 

50.25. Among other provisions, the 

regulations provide that upon receipt of 

a tribal request the Office of Tribal 

Justice shall publish a notice in the 

Federal Register seeking comments 

from the general public. 

Request by the Los Coyotes Band of 

Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

By a request dated January 8, 2012, 

the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and 

Cupeno Indians located in the State of 

California requested the United States to 

assume concurrent Federal jurisdiction 

to prosecute violations of 18 U.S.C. 1152 

(the General Crimes, or Indian Country 

Crimes, Act) and 18 U.S.C. 1153 (the 

Major Crimes Act) within the Indian 

country of the tribe. This would allow 

the United States to assume concurrent 

criminal jurisdiction over offenses 

within the Indian country of the tribe 

without eliminating or affecting the 

State’s existing criminal jurisdiction. 

Solicitation of Comments 

This notice solicits public comments 

on the above request. 

Dated: April 17, 2012. 

Tracy Toulou, 

Director, Office of Tribal Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9730 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[Docket No. OTJ 100] 

Solicitation of Comments on Request 

for United States Assumption of 

Concurrent Federal Criminal 

Jurisdiction; Hoopa Valley Tribe 

AGENCY: Office of Tribal Justice, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice solicits public 

comments on the Request for United 

States Assumption of Concurrent 

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction recently 

submitted to the Office of Tribal Justice, 

Department of Justice by the Hoopa 

Valley Tribe pursuant to the provisions 

of 28 CFR 50.25. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked and electronic comments 

must be submitted on or before . 

Comments received by mail will be 

considered timely if they are 

postmarked on or before that date. The 

electronic Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) will accept comments 

until Midnight Eastern Time at the end 

of that day. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: 

submit written comments via regular or 

express mail to Mr. Tracy Toulou, 

Director, Office of Tribal Justice, 

Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Room 2310, Washington, 

DC 20530. 

• Fax: submit comments to the 

attention of Mr. Tracy Toulou, Office of 

Tribal Justice, Department of Justice, 

(202) 514–9078 (not a toll-free number). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please contact Mr. Tracy Toulou, 

Director, Office of Tribal Justice, 

Department of Justice, at (202) 514–8812 

(not a toll-free number). To ensure 

proper handling of comments, please 

reference ‘‘Docket No. OTJ 100’’ on all 

electronic and written correspondence. 

The Department encourages all 

comments be submitted electronically 

through http://www.regulations.gov 

using the electronic comment form 

provided on that site. An electronic 

copy of the request for United States 

assumption of concurrent federal 

criminal jurisdiction submitted by the 

Hoopa Valley Tribe is also available at 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

for easy reference. Paper comments that 

duplicate the electronic submission are 

not necessary as all comments 

submitted to http://www.regulations.gov 

will be posted for public review and are 

part of the official docket record. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Posting of Public Comments. Please 

note that all comments received are 

considered part of the public record and 

made available for public inspection 

online at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Such information includes personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name and address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter. 

You are not required to submit 

personal identifying information in 

order to comment on this rule. 

Nevertheless, if you want to submit 

personal identifying information (such 

as your name and address) as part of 

your comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want 

redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information and 

confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. If you 

wish to inspect the agency’s public 

docket file in person by appointment, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

24518 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 

please see the paragraph above entitled 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Statutory Background 

For more than two centuries, the 

Federal Government has recognized 

Indian tribes as domestic sovereigns that 

have unique government-to-government 

relationships with the United States. 

Congress has broad authority to legislate 

with respect to Indian tribes, however, 

and has exercised this authority to 

establish a complex jurisdictional 

scheme for the prosecution of crimes 

committed in Indian country. (The term 

‘‘Indian country’’ is defined in 18 U.S.C. 

1151.) Criminal jurisdiction in Indian 

country typically depends on several 

factors, including the nature of the 

crime; whether the alleged offender, the 

victim, or both are Indian; and whether 

a treaty, Federal statute, executive order, 

or judicial decision has conferred 

jurisdiction on a particular government. 

The Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) 

was enacted on July 29, 2010, as Title 

II of Public Law 111–211. The purpose 

of the TLOA is to help the Federal 

Government and tribal governments 

better address the unique public-safety 

challenges that confront tribal 

communities. Section 221(b) of the new 

law, now codified at 18 U.S.C. 1162(d), 

permits an Indian tribe with Indian 

country subject to State criminal 

jurisdiction under Public Law 280, P.L. 

83–280, 67 Stat. 588 (1953) to request 

that the United States accept concurrent 

jurisdiction to prosecute violations of 

the General Crimes Act and the Major 

Crimes Act within that tribe’s Indian 

country. 

Department of Justice Regulation 

Implementing 18 U.S.C. 1162(d) 

On December 6, 2011, 76 FR 76037 

the Department published final 

regulations that established the 

framework and procedures for a 

mandatory Public Law 280 tribe to 

request the assumption of concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction within the 

Indian country of the tribe that is 

subject to Public Law 280. 28 CFR 

50.25. Among other provisions, the 

regulations provide that upon receipt of 

a tribal request the Office of Tribal 

Justice shall publish a notice in the 

Federal Register seeking comments 

from the general public. 

Request by the Hoopa Valley Tribe 

By a request dated January 17, 2012, 

the Hoopa Valley Tribe located in the 

State of California requested the United 

States to assume concurrent Federal 

jurisdiction to prosecute violations of 18 

U.S.C. 1152 (the General Crimes, or 

Indian Country Crimes, Act) and 18 

U.S.C. 1153 (the Major Crimes Act) 

within the Indian country of the tribe. 

This would allow the United States to 

assume concurrent criminal jurisdiction 

over offenses within the Indian country 

of the tribe without eliminating or 

affecting the State’s existing criminal 

jurisdiction. 

Solicitation of Comments 

This notice solicits public comments 

on the above request. 

Dated: April 17, 2012. 

Tracy Toulou, 

Director, Office of Tribal Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9731 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. Apple, Inc., Hachette 

Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins 

Publishers L.L.C., Verlagsgruppe 

Georg Von Holtzbrinck Gmbh, 

Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC D/B/A 

Macmillan, The Penguin Group, a 

Division of Pearson PLC, Penguin 

Group (USA), Inc., and Simon & 

Schuster, Inc.; Proposed Final 

Judgment and Competitive Impact 

Statement 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed 

Final Judgment, Stipulation and 

Competitive Impact Statement have 

been filed with the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of New York in United States of 

America v. Apple, Inc. et al., Civil 

Action No. 12–CIV–2826. On April 11, 

2012, the United States filed a 

Complaint alleging that the defendants 

agreed to raise the retail price of ebooks, in violation of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The proposed 

Final Judgment, submitted at the same 

time as the Complaint, requires the 

settling defendants—Hachette Book 

Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers 

L.L.C., and Simon & Schuster, Inc.—to 

return pricing discretion to e-book 

retailers and comply with other 

obligations designed to end the 

anticompetitive effects of the 

conspiracy. 

Copies of the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment and Competitive Impact 

Statement are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 

450 Fifth Street NW., DC 20530, Suite 

1010 (telephone: 202–514–2481), on the 

Department of Justice’s Web site at 

http://www.justice.gov/atr, and at the 

Office of the Clerk of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of New York. Copies of these materials 

may be obtained from the Antitrust 

Division upon request and payment of 

the copying fee set by Department of 

Justice regulations. 

Public comment is invited within 60 

days of the date of this notice. Such 

comments, and responses thereto, will 

be published in the Federal Register 

and filed with the Court. Comments 

should be directed to John R. Read, 

Chief, Litigation III Section, Antitrust 

Division, Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– 

307–0468). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement. 

United States District Court for the Southern 

District of New York 

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Apple, 

Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., 

Harpercollins Publishers L.L.C., 

Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck 

GMBH, Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC D/B/A 

Macmillan, The Penguin Group, A Division 

of Pearson PLC, Penguin Group (USA), 

Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 1:12–cv–02826 

Judge: Cote, Denise 

Date Filed: 04/11/2012 

Description: Antitrust 

Complaint 

The United States of America, acting 

under the direction of the Attorney 

General of the United States, brings this 

civil antitrust action against Defendants 

Apple, Inc. (‘‘Apple’’); Hachette Book 

Group, Inc. (‘‘Hachette’’); HarperCollins 

Publishers L.L.C. (‘‘HarperCollins’’); 

Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck 

GmbH and Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC 

d/b/a Macmillan (collectively, 

‘‘Macmillan’’); The Penguin Group, a 

division of Pearson plc and Penguin 

Group (USA), Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Penguin’’); and Simon & Schuster, Inc. 

(‘‘Simon & Schuster’’; collectively with 

Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, 

and Penguin, ‘‘Publisher Defendants’’) 

to obtain equitable relief to prevent and 

remedy violations of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. 

Plaintiff alleges: 

I. Introduction 

1. Technology has brought 

revolutionary change to the business of 

publishing and selling books, including 

the dramatic explosion in sales of ‘‘ebooks’’—that is, books sold to 

consumers in electronic form and read 

on a variety of electronic devices, 

including dedicated e-readers (such as 

the Kindle or the Nook), multipurpose 

tablets, smartphones and personal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES