Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29675 

assembly of the air outlet, or exchanging 

certain attachment screws of the air outlet 

box assembly on each door, as applicable), in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A330–92–3077, Revision 01, dated 

March 29, 2010, or Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A340–92–4078, Revision 01, dated 

April 9, 2010, as applicable. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(i) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 227–1138; fax (425) 

227–1149. Information may be e-mailed to: 

9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

Related Information 

(j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety 

Agency Airworthiness Directive 2010– 

0103R1, dated April 28, 2011; Airbus 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A330–92–3077, 

Revision 01, dated March 29, 2010; and 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–92– 

4078, Revision 01, dated April 9, 2010; for 

related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 13, 

2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12507 Filed 5–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 50 

[Docket No. OAG 142; AG Order No. 3279– 

2011] 

RIN 1105–AB38 

Assumption of Concurrent Federal 

Criminal Jurisdiction in Certain Areas 

of Indian Country 

AGENCY: Office of the Attorney General, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to 

establish the procedures for an Indian 

tribe whose Indian country is subject to 

State criminal jurisdiction under Public 

Law 280 (18 U.S.C. 1162(a)) to request 

that the United States accept concurrent 

criminal jurisdiction within the tribe’s 

Indian country, and for the Attorney 

General to decide whether to consent to 

such a request. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked and electronic comments 

must be submitted on or before July 7, 

2011. Commenters should be aware that 

the electronic Federal Docket 

Management System will not accept 

comments after Midnight Eastern Time 

on the last day of the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Tracy Toulou, Director, Office of 

Tribal Justice, Department of Justice, 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 

2310, Washington, DC 20530. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference OAG 

Docket No. 142 on your correspondence. 

You may submit comments 

electronically or view an electronic 

version of this proposed rule at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Mr. 

Tracy Toulou, Director, Office of Tribal 

Justice, Department of Justice, at (202) 

514–8812 (not a toll-free number). 

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, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter. 

You are not required to submit 

personal identifying information in 

order to comment on this rule. If you 

want to submit personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) 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, 

please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph. 

The reason the Department is 

requesting electronic comments before 

Midnight Eastern Time on the day the 

comment period closes is that the interagency Regulations.gov/Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), which 

receives electronic comments, 

terminates the public’s ability to submit 

comments at Midnight on the day the 

comment period closes. Commenters in 

time zones other than Eastern may want 

to take this fact into account so that 

their electronic comments can be 

received. The constraints imposed by 

the Regulations.gov/FDMS system do 

not apply to U.S. postal comments, 

which will be considered as timely filed 

if they are postmarked before Midnight 

on the day the comment period closes. 

Discussion 

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 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

decision has conferred jurisdiction on a 

particular government. 

Here, three Federal statutes are 

particularly relevant: the General 

Crimes Act (also known as the Indian 

Country Crimes Act), 18 U.S.C. 1152; 

the Major Crimes Act (also known as the 

Indian Major Crimes Act), 18 U.S.C. 

1153; and Public Law 280, Act of Aug. 

15, 1953, Public Law 83–280, 67 Stat. 

588, codified in part as amended at 18 

U.S.C. 1162. Under the General Crimes 

and Major Crimes Acts, which apply to 

most of Indian country, jurisdiction to 

prosecute most crimes in Indian country 

rests with the Federal Government, the 

tribal government, or both concurrently. 

State criminal jurisdiction in Indian 

country is generally limited to crimes 

committed by non-Indians against nonIndian victims, as well as victimless 

crimes committed by non-Indians. 

But there is an important exception to 

this general rule: In certain areas of 

Indian country, Public Law 280 renders 

the General Crimes and Major Crimes 

Acts inapplicable and instead gives the 

States jurisdiction over crimes 

committed by or against Indians. 

Specifically, the Public Law 280 

criminal-jurisdiction provision codified 

at 18 U.S.C. 1162 applies in parts of 

Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

Oregon, and Wisconsin. (Section 

1162(a) expressly exempts some areas of 

Indian country in these States, such as 

the Red Lake Reservation in Minnesota 

and the Warm Springs Reservation in 

Oregon; and some of these States have 

formally ‘‘retroceded’’ jurisdiction over 

other reservations.) In the areas of 

Indian country covered by section 1162, 

which are known as ‘‘mandatory’’ Public 

Law 280 jurisdictions, the Federal 

Government can prosecute violations of 

general Federal criminal statutes that 

apply nationwide, such as Federal 

narcotics laws, but typically cannot 

prosecute violent crimes such as 

murder, assault with a dangerous 

weapon, or felony child abuse. 

In contrast, the Public Law 280 

provision that is codified at 25 U.S.C. 

1321 provides a basis for other States to 

elect to assume criminal jurisdiction in 

Indian country on an optional basis, 

subject to the consent of the affected 

tribe. In the Indian country of these 

tribes, known as ‘‘optional’’ Public Law 

280 jurisdictions, the Department 

understands the applicable statutes to 

provide that the Federal Government 

retains concurrent jurisdiction under 

the General Crimes and Major Crimes 

Acts. See U.S. Department of Justice, 

United States Attorneys’ Manual, tit. 9, 

Criminal Resource Manual § 688 

(Federal Government may exercise 

concurrent criminal jurisdiction in ‘‘the 

so-called ‘option states’ * * * which 

assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Public 

Law 280 after its enactment’’); United 

States v. High Elk, 902 F.2d 660, 661 

(8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (holding 

that Federal courts retain Major Crimes 

Act jurisdiction in those States that 

voluntarily assumed jurisdiction under 

Pub. L. 280); cf. Negonsott v. Samuels, 

507 U.S. 99, 105–06 (1993) (holding that 

a different Federal statute conferred 

criminal jurisdiction on a State without 

divesting the United States of 

concurrent criminal jurisdiction). But cf. 

United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 

669–71 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that a 

1984 ‘‘direct congressional grant of 

jurisdiction over [crimes committed in 

one town in] Indian country’’ vested 

Colorado with exclusive jurisdiction 

akin to mandatory jurisdiction under 

Public Law 280). 

The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 

The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 

(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 of the new law permits an 

Indian tribe with Indian country subject 

to State criminal jurisdiction under 

Public Law 280 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. This jurisdiction will be 

concurrent among the Federal 

Government, the State government, and 

(where applicable) the tribal 

government. Section 221 provides for 

the United States to assume concurrent 

criminal jurisdiction at the tribe’s 

request, and after consultation between 

the tribe and the Attorney General and 

consent to Federal jurisdiction by the 

Attorney General. The State need not 

consent. Once the United States has 

accepted concurrent criminal 

jurisdiction, Federal authorities can 

investigate and prosecute offenses that 

Public Law 280 currently bars them 

from prosecuting. 

Section 221 does not expressly 

require Indian tribes to request that the 

United States accept concurrent 

jurisdiction to prosecute ‘‘all’’ violations 

of the General Crimes and Major Crimes 

Acts within the tribe’s Indian country. 

To the contrary, the statute provides 

that those two Acts ‘‘shall apply in the 

areas of the Indian country of the Indian 

tribe’’ only ‘‘at the request of’’ the tribe 

and ‘‘after consultation with and consent 

by the Attorney General.’’ 18 U.S.C. 

1162(d). Therefore, the Department 

understands section 221 to permit the 

tribe to request and the Attorney 

General, after consultation with the 

tribe, to consent to assumption of 

concurrent Federal jurisdiction over a 

limited set of crimes or over crimes in 

a limited geographic portion of the 

tribe’s Indian country. 

Assumption of Concurrent Federal 

Criminal Jurisdiction 

This rule establishes 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. It also describes the process to 

be used by the Attorney General in 

deciding whether to consent to such a 

request. 

The TLOA provides that the Attorney 

General is the deciding official for 

requests submitted by Indian tribes 

under section 221. Given the potentially 

high volume of requests, the large 

number of Department of Justice 

components and non-Department 

partners that should be conferred with, 

and the detailed tribe-by-tribe analyses 

that will be needed, the Attorney 

General is delegating decisional 

authority under section 221 to the 

Deputy Attorney General. The Office of 

the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) 

will receive recommendations from the 

Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ), the 

Executive Office for United States 

Attorneys (EOUSA), and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), after 

discussions with other Department 

components (including the Bureau of 

Prisons (BOP) and the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS)) and other Federal, tribal, State, 

and local entities. OTJ will handle the 

staffing and tracking of assumption 

requests. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of 

November 6, 2000, the Department has 

held tribal consultations regarding these 

proposed assumption procedures. 

Retrocession of State Criminal 

Jurisdiction 

The process described in this rule is 

separate and distinct from Public Law 

280’s ‘‘retrocession’’ process for 

transferring criminal jurisdiction from 

the State government to the Federal 

Government. See 25 U.S.C. 1323(a). The 

retrocession process is initiated by the 

State, not the tribe. By contrast, the 

process for a tribe to seek assumption of 

concurrent Federal criminal jurisdiction 

under section 221 does not require the 

State’s approval. And unlike 

retrocession, a section 221 assumption 

gives the United States concurrent 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29677 

criminal jurisdiction without 

eliminating the State’s criminal 

jurisdiction. 

After a tribe has submitted a request 

under section 221, the Department will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

inviting input from affected State and 

local law enforcement authorities. But 

ultimately, it is the tribe’s request and 

the Attorney General’s consent that will 

determine whether the United States 

accepts concurrent criminal 

jurisdiction. 

Where Section 221 Does Not Apply 

The process described in this rule 

applies only to Indian country that is 

subject to ‘‘mandatory’’ Public Law 280 

State criminal jurisdiction under 18 

U.S.C. 1162. As indicated above, the 

Department understands that the United 

States already has concurrent 

jurisdiction over General Crimes Act 

and Major Crimes Act violations in 

areas where States have assumed 

criminal jurisdiction under ‘‘optional’’ 

Public Law 280. Accordingly, although 

the TLOA requires the United States to 

assume concurrent criminal jurisdiction 

‘‘[a]t the request of an Indian tribe, and 

after consultation with and consent by 

the Attorney General,’’ 25 U.S.C. 

1321(a)(2), the Department does not 

believe requests by tribes are necessary 

to establish concurrent Federal 

jurisdiction in such areas. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as 

amended, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation. The Department of Justice 

has determined that this rule is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

and, accordingly, this rule has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This regulation 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. The process 

provided under section 221 allows the 

United States to assume concurrent 

criminal jurisdiction over offenses in a 

particular area of Indian country, 

without eliminating or affecting the 

State’s existing criminal jurisdiction, 

and accordingly it imposes no new 

burdens on the State. This regulation 

sets forth the procedural mechanism for 

the Department to consider, in 

consultation with other Federal, tribal, 

State, and local authorities, whether or 

not to consent to a request from an 

individual tribe for the Federal 

Government to assume concurrent 

criminal jurisdiction within that tribe’s 

Indian country. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132 

of August 4, 1999, it is determined that 

this rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in section 3(a) and 

(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 of 

February 5, 1996. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule comports with Executive 

Order 13175 of November 6, 2000. The 

rule has significant tribal implications, 

as it will have substantial direct effects 

on one or more Indian tribes and on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. The 

Department therefore has engaged in 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials in 

developing this rule. More specifically, 

the Department of Justice participated in 

six consultations with tribal officials on 

the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. 

The dates and locations of those tribal 

consultations were as follows: 

• October 14, 2010, in Billings, 

Montana 

• October 20, 2010, in Albuquerque, 

New Mexico 

• October 28, 2010, in Miami, Florida 

• November 16, 2010, in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

• December 8, 2010, in Palm Springs, 

California 

• March 23, 2011, in Hayward, 

Wisconsin 

The last two consultation sessions 

focused on section 221 of Public Law 

111–211, with the March 23, 2011 

consultation expressly addressing a 

draft version of this proposed rule. 

During these consultations, some 

tribal officials expressed a desire to see 

the Attorney General consent to each 

and every tribal request for concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction. Other 

tribal officials raised more specific 

concerns. In direct response to the 

latter, the Department of Justice 

significantly rewrote portions of the 

draft proposed rule. Eight changes are 

particularly noteworthy. 

First, rather than giving priority only 

to those tribal requests received by 

August 31 of any calendar year, the 

proposed rule now gives priority to 

requests received by August 31 or by 

February 28. This change effectively 

doubles the number of annual cycles in 

which the Department will consider 

tribal requests on a prioritized basis. 

Second, the proposed rule now allows 

tribes to ask the United States to assume 

concurrent criminal jurisdiction either 

over all violations of the General Crimes 

and Major Crimes Acts within the tribe’s 

Indian country or over a subset of those 

violations that is clearly defined in the 

tribal request. Thus, requests can now 

focus on a limited set of crimes or on 

crimes in a limited geographic portion 

of the tribe’s Indian country. 

Third, the proposed rule now clarifies 

why it is unnecessary, under the 

Department’s understanding of the 

applicable statutes, for a tribe in an 

‘‘optional’’ Public Law 280 jurisdiction 

to request an assumption of concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction. 

Fourth, the proposed rule now 

clarifies that Federal agencies are to 

supply comments and information 

relevant to each tribal request, rather 

than merely announcing their overall 

support or opposition for each request. 

Fifth, the proposed rule reiterates that 

the assumption of concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction under section 221 

does not require the agreement, consent, 

or concurrence of any State or local 

government. 

Sixth, the proposed rule now 

expressly provides that the 

Department’s Office of Tribal Justice 

may give appropriate technical 

assistance to any tribe that wishes to 

prepare and submit a renewed request, 

following the denial of an earlier 

request. 

Seventh, the proposed rule now states 

that the assumption of concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction will 

commence within six months of the 

decision to assume jurisdiction, if 

feasible, rather than merely mandating 

action within twelve months. 

Eighth and finally, the proposed rule 

now requires that notice of a decision 

consenting to the request for assumption 

of concurrent Federal criminal 

jurisdiction will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Department of Justice thus 

believes that many of the concerns that 

tribal officials expressed about section 

221 and the draft proposed regulation at 

the tribal consultations in 2010 and 

2011 have now been met. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Attorney General, in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this 

regulation and by approving it certifies 

that this regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule provides only a framework for 

processing requests by Indian tribes for 

the assumption of concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction over certain Indian 

country crimes, as provided for by 

section 221. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–4. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; a major increase in costs or prices; 

or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies 

in domestic and export markets. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Section 221 of Public Law 111–211 

permits certain Indian tribes to request 

that the United States accept concurrent 

jurisdiction to prosecute violations of 

the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 1152, 

and the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 

1153, within that tribe’s Indian country. 

This jurisdiction will be concurrent 

among the Federal Government, the 

State government, and (where 

applicable) the tribal government. 

Section 221 provides for the United 

States to assume concurrent criminal 

jurisdiction at the tribe’s request, and 

after consultation between the tribe and 

the Attorney General and consent to 

Federal jurisdiction by the Attorney 

General. The Department of Justice will 

be submitting the information collection 

request set forth below to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review and 

clearance in accordance with the review 

procedures of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. The information collection 

is published to obtain comments from 

the public and affected agencies. 

All comments, suggestions, and 

questions should be directed to Mr. 

Tracy Toulou, Director, Office of Tribal 

Justice, Department of Justice, 950 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2310, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the collection of information 

are encouraged. Comments on the 

information collection-related aspects of 

this rule should address one or more of 

the following four points: 

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

New collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Request to the Attorney General for 

Assumption of Concurrent Federal 

Criminal Jurisdiction. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: No form. Component: Office 

of Tribal Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Tribal governments. 

Other: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Justice is 

publishing a proposed rule to establish 

the procedures for an Indian tribe whose 

Indian country is subject to State 

criminal jurisdiction under Public Law 

280 (18 U.S.C. 1162(a)) to request that 

the United States accept concurrent 

criminal jurisdiction within the tribe’s 

Indian country, and for the Attorney 

General to decide whether to consent to 

such a request. The purpose of the 

collection is to provide information 

from the requesting tribe sufficient for 

the Attorney General to make a decision 

whether to consent to the request. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

collect the required information is: 

Fewer than 350 respondents; 80 hours. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: 28,000 hours. 

Fewer than 350 Indian tribes are 

eligible for the assumption of 

concurrent criminal jurisdiction by the 

United States. The Department of Justice 

does not know how many eligible tribes 

will, in fact, make such a request. Since 

the enactment of the Tribal Law and 

Order Act on July 29, 2010, the 

Department of Justice has received three 

such requests as of April 1, 2011. 

The information collection 

requirements contemplated by this 

proposed rule are new requirements that 

will require a new OMB Control 

Number. The Department is seeking 

comment on these new requirements as 

part of this proposed rule. These new 

requirements will require Indian tribes 

seeking assumption of concurrent 

criminal jurisdiction by the United 

States to provide certain information 

relating to public safety within the 

Indian country of the tribe. 

If additional information is required, 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street, NE., Suite 2E–502, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 50 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Crime, Indians. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, part 50 of chapter I of 

title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is proposed to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 50—STATEMENTS OF POLICY 

1. The authority citation for part 50 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 1162; 

28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 1921 et seq., 

1973c; and Public Law 107–273, 116 Stat. 

1758, 1824. 

2. Section 50.25 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 50.25 Assumption of concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction in certain areas of 

Indian country. 

(a) Assumption of concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction. (1) Section 221 of 

Public Law 111–211 permits the United 

States to accept concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction to prosecute 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29679 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1152 (the General 

Crimes, or Indian Country Crimes, Act) 

and 18 U.S.C. 1153 (the Major Crimes, 

or Indian Major Crimes, Act) within 

areas of Indian country in the States of 

Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

Oregon, and Wisconsin that are subject 

to State criminal jurisdiction under 

Public Law 280, 18 U.S.C. 1162(a), if the 

tribe requests such an assumption of 

jurisdiction and the Attorney General 

consents to that request. Once the 

Attorney General has consented to an 

Indian tribe’s request for concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction, the 

General Crimes and Major Crimes Acts 

shall apply in the Indian country of the 

requesting tribe, and criminal 

jurisdiction over those areas shall be 

concurrent among the Federal 

Government, the State government, and 

(where applicable) the tribal 

government. Assumption of concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction under 

section 221 does not require the 

agreement, consent, or concurrence of 

any State or local government. 

(2) Section 221 also permits the 

United States to accept such concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction in other 

areas of Indian country as to which 

States have assumed optional Public 

Law 280 criminal jurisdiction under 25 

U.S.C. 1321(a), if a tribe so requests and 

after consultation with and consent by 

the Attorney General. The Department 

does not believe, however, that such 

requests are necessary, because the 

Department understands the applicable 

statutes to establish such concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction without 

the need for a request by a tribe or 

acceptance by the United States. 

(b) Request requirements. (1) A tribal 

request for assumption of concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction under 

section 221 shall be made by the chief 

executive official of a federally 

recognized Indian tribe that occupies 

Indian country listed in 18 U.S.C. 

1162(a). For purposes of this section, a 

chief executive official shall include a 

tribal chairperson, president, governor, 

principal chief, or other equivalent 

position. 

(2) The tribal request shall be 

submitted in writing to the Director of 

the Office of Tribal Justice at the 

Department of Justice. The tribal request 

shall explain why the assumption of 

concurrent Federal criminal jurisdiction 

will improve public safety and criminal 

law enforcement and reduce crime in 

the Indian country of the requesting 

tribe. The tribe may ask the United 

States to assume concurrent criminal 

jurisdiction either over all violations of 

the General Crimes and Major Crimes 

Acts within the tribe’s Indian country or 

over a subset of those violations that is 

clearly defined in the tribal request. 

(c) Process for handling tribal 

requests. (1) Upon receipt of a tribal 

request, the Office of Tribal Justice 

shall: 

(i) Acknowledge receipt; 

(ii) Open a file; 

(iii) Promptly publish a notice in the 

Federal Register, seeking comments 

from the general public; 

(iv) Promptly seek comments from the 

relevant United States Attorney’s 

Offices, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, and other Department of 

Justice components that would be 

affected by consenting to the request; 

(v) Promptly seek comments from the 

Department of the Interior (including 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs), the 

Department of Homeland Security, other 

affected Federal departments and 

agencies, and Federal courts; 

(vi) Promptly consult with the 

requesting tribe, consistent with 

applicable Executive Orders and 

Presidential Memoranda on tribal 

consultation; and 

(vii) Promptly seek comments from 

other affected agencies, including State 

and local law enforcement agencies. 

(2) An Indian tribe may submit a 

request at any time. However, requests 

received by February 28 of each 

calendar year will be prioritized for 

decision by July 31 of the same calendar 

year, if feasible; and requests received 

by August 31 of each calendar year will 

be prioritized for decision by January 31 

of the following calendar year, if 

feasible. 

(d) Factors. Factors that may be 

considered in determining whether or 

not to consent to a tribe’s request for 

assumption of concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction include the 

following: 

(1) Whether consenting to the request 

will increase the availability of law 

enforcement resources for the requesting 

tribe, its members, and other residents 

of the tribe’s Indian country. 

(2) Whether consenting to the request 

will improve access to judicial resources 

for the requesting tribe, its members, 

and other residents of the tribe’s Indian 

country. 

(3) Whether consenting to the request 

will improve access to detention and 

correctional resources for the requesting 

tribe, its members, and other residents 

of the tribe’s Indian country. 

(4) Other information received from 

the relevant United States Attorney’s 

Offices, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, and other Department of 

Justice components that would be 

affected by consenting to the request. 

(5) Other information received from 

the Department of the Interior 

(including the Bureau of Indian Affairs), 

the Department of Homeland Security, 

other affected Federal departments and 

agencies, and Federal courts. 

(6) Other information received from 

tribal consultation. 

(7) Other information received from 

other sources, including State and local 

law enforcement agencies. 

(e) Federal comments. (1) The 

deciding official shall consider any 

comments from the relevant United 

States Attorney’s Offices, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, and other 

Department of Justice components. 

(2) The deciding official shall 

consider any comments from the 

Department of the Interior (including 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs), the 

Department of Homeland Security, other 

Federal departments and agencies, and 

Federal courts. 

(f) Tribal comments. The deciding 

official shall consider any comments 

from tribes and other tribal sources. 

(g) Other comments. The deciding 

official shall consider any comments 

from State, local, and other sources, 

although assumption of concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction under 

section 221 does not require the 

agreement, consent, or concurrence of 

any State or local government. 

(h) Decision. (1) The decision whether 

to consent to a tribal request for 

assumption of concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction shall be made by 

the Deputy Attorney General after 

receiving written recommendations 

from the Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ), 

the Executive Office for United States 

Attorneys (EOUSA), and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 

(2) The deciding official will: 

(i) Consent to the request for 

assumption of concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction, as of some future 

date certain within the next twelve 

months (and, if feasible, within the next 

six months), with or without conditions, 

and publish a notice of the consent in 

the Federal Register; 

(ii) Deny the request for assumption of 

concurrent Federal criminal 

jurisdiction; or 

(iii) Request further information or 

comment before making a final decision. 

(3) The deciding official shall explain 

the basis for the decision in writing. 

(4) A denial of a request for 

assumption of concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction is not appealable. 

However, at any time after such a 

denial, a tribe may submit a renewed 

request for assumption of concurrent 

Federal criminal jurisdiction. A 

renewed request shall address the basis 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

for the prior denial. The Office of Tribal 

Justice may provide appropriate 

technical assistance to any tribe that 

wishes to prepare and submit a renewed 

request. 

(i) Retrocession of State criminal 

jurisdiction. Retrocession of State 

criminal jurisdiction under Public Law 

280 is governed by 25 U.S.C. 1323(a) 

and Executive Order 11435 of November 

21, 1968. The procedures for 

retrocession do not govern a request for 

assumption of concurrent Federal 

criminal jurisdiction under section 221. 

Dated: May 16, 2011. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12541 Filed 5–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–07–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0303; FRL–9310–1] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Wyoming 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission from the State of Wyoming 

to demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

requirements of Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires that each state, after a new or 

revised NAAQS is promulgated, review 

their SIPs to ensure that they meet the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure 

elements’’ of section 110(a)(2). The State 

of Wyoming submitted two 

certifications of their infrastructure SIP 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, date 

December 7, 2007 and December 10, 

2009. EPA does not propose to act on 

the State’s May 25, 2007 submission to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, relating to 

interstate transport of air pollution, for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved 

the State’s interstate transport SIP 

submission on May 8, 2008 (73 FR 

26019). EPA is also proposing to 

approve a Wyoming submittal, dated 

May 10, 2011, revising the State’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0303, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2010– 

0303. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I, 

General Information, of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, 

dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What infrastructure elements are required 

under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

IV. How did the State of Wyoming address 

the infrastructure elements of section 

110(a)(2)? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS