Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 4911 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

[222A2100DD/AAKC001030/ 

A0A501010.999900] 

HEARTH Act Approval of Tule River 

Indian Tribe of the Tule River 

Reservation, California Leasing 

Ordinance 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) approved the Tule River Indian 

Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, 

California 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, and wind 

energy evaluation leases without further 

BIA approval. 

DATES: BIA issued the approval on 

December 16, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 

1001 Indian School Road NW, 

Albuquerque, NM 87104, 

sharlene.roundface@bia.gov, (505) 563– 

3132. 

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 Tule River 

Indian Tribe of the Tule River 

Reservation, California. 

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 

72447–48, as supplemented by the 

analysis below. 

The strong Federal and Tribal 

interests against State and local taxation 

of improvements, leaseholds, and 

activities on land leased under the 

Department’s leasing regulations apply 

equally to improvements, leaseholds, 

and activities on land leased pursuant to 

Tribal leasing regulations approved 

under the HEARTH Act. Congress’s 

overarching intent was to ‘‘allow Tribes 

to exercise greater control over their 

own land, support self-determination, 

and eliminate bureaucratic delays that 

stand in the way of homeownership and 

economic development in Tribal 

communities.’’ 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 

(May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was 

intended to afford Tribes ‘‘flexibility to 

adapt lease terms to suit [their] business 

and cultural needs’’ and to ‘‘enable 

[Tribes] to approve leases quickly and 

efficiently.’’ H. Rep. 112–427 at 6 

(2012). 

Assessment of State and local taxes 

would obstruct these express Federal 

policies supporting Tribal economic 

development and self-determination, 

and also threaten substantial Tribal 

interests in effective Tribal government, 

economic self-sufficiency, and territorial 

autonomy. See Michigan v. Bay Mills 

Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782, 810 

(2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) 

(determining that ‘‘[a] key goal of the 

Federal Government is to render Tribes 

more self-sufficient, and better 

positioned to fund their own sovereign 

functions, rather than relying on Federal 

funding’’). The additional costs of State 

and local taxation have a chilling effect 

on potential lessees, as well as on a 

Tribe that, as a result, might refrain from 

exercising its own sovereign right to 

impose a Tribal tax to support its 

infrastructure needs. See id. at 810–11 

(finding that State and local taxes 

greatly discourage Tribes from raising 

tax revenue from the same sources 

because the imposition of double 

taxation would impede Tribal economic 

growth). 

Similar to BIA’s surface leasing 

regulations, Tribal regulations under the 

HEARTH Act pervasively cover all 

aspects of leasing. See 25 U.S.C. 

415(h)(3)(B)(i) (requiring Tribal 

regulations be consistent with BIA 

surface leasing regulations). 

Furthermore, the Federal government 

remains involved in the Tribal land 

leasing process by approving the Tribal 

leasing regulations in the first instance 

and providing technical assistance, 

upon request by a Tribe, for the 

development of an environmental 

review process. The Secretary also 

retains authority to take any necessary 

actions to remedy violations of a lease 

or of the Tribal regulations, including 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4912 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2022 / Notices 

terminating the lease or rescinding 

approval of the Tribal regulations and 

reassuming lease approval 

responsibilities. Moreover, the Secretary 

continues to review, approve, and 

monitor individual Indian land leases 

and other types of leases not covered 

under the Tribal regulations according 

to the Part 162 regulations. 

Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal 

interests weigh heavily in favor of 

preemption of State and local taxes on 

lease-related activities and interests, 

regardless of whether the lease is 

governed by Tribal leasing regulations 

or Part 162. Improvements, activities, 

and leasehold or possessory interests 

may be subject to taxation by the Tule 

River Indian Tribe of the Tule River 

Reservation, California. 

Bryan Newland, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01877 Filed 1–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1296] 

Certain Adalimumab, Processes for 

Manufacturing or Relating to Same, 

and Products Containing Same; Notice 

of Institution of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

December 17, 2021, under section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on 

behalf of AbbVie Inc. of Chicago, 

Illinois; AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. of 

Bermuda; and AbbVie Operations 

Singapore Pte. Ltd. of Singapore. A 

supplement to the complaint was filed 

on January 4, 2022. The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleges violations of 

section 337 based upon the importation 

into the United States and the sale of 

certain adalimumab, processes for 

manufacturing or relating to same, and 

products containing same by reason of 

the misappropriation of trade secrets 

and tortious interference with 

contractual relations, the threat or effect 

of which is to destroy or substantially 

injure an industry in the United States. 

The complainant requests that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue a 

limited exclusion order and cease and 

desist orders. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. Hearing impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons 

with mobility impairments who will 

need special assistance in gaining access 

to the Commission should contact the 

Office of the Secretary at (202) 205– 

2000. General information concerning 

the Commission may also be obtained 

by accessing its internet server at 

https://www.usitc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

telephone (202) 205–2560. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: The authority for 

institution of this investigation is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, and in section 210.10 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2021). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

January 25, 2022, Ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States or in the sale of certain 

products identified in paragraph (2) by 

reason of the misappropriation of trade 

secrets and tortious interference with 

contractual relations, the threat or effect 

of which is to destroy or substantially 

injure an industry in the United States; 

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the 

plain language description of the 

accused products or category of accused 

products, which defines the scope of the 

investigation, is ‘‘adalimumab (drug 

substance and drug product), vials, 

prefilled syringes, autoinjectors or other 

presentations containing same, and the 

methods of manufacturing and 

processes for making the same’’; 

(3) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainants are: 

AbbVie Inc., 1 North Waukegan Rd., 

North Chicago, IL 60064 

AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd, Harbour 

Fiduciary Services Limited, Thistle 

House, 4 Burnaby Street, Hamilton 

HM11, Bermuda 

AbbVie Operations Singapore Pte. Ltd., 

23 Tuas South Avenue 6, Singapore 

637022 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Alvotech hf., S#mundargata 15–19, 101 

Reykjavik, Iceland 

Alvotech Germany GmbH, Karl-HeinzBeckurts-Str. 13, 52428, Ju ̈lich, 

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany 

Alvotech Swiss AG, Thurgauerstrasse 54 

Zu ̈rich, 8050 Switzerland 

Alvotech USA Inc., 1201 Wilson Blvd., 

Ste 2130, Arlington, VA, 22209 

Ivers-Lee AG, Kirchbergstrasse 160, 

Burgdorf, Bern, 3400 Switzerland 

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., 5 

Basel Street, Petach Tikva, 49131 

Israel 

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 1090 

Horsham Road, North Wales, PA 

19454 

(c) The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(4) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as 

amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 

2020), such responses will be 

considered by the Commission if 

received not later than 20 days after the 

date of service by the complainants of 

the complaint and the notice of 

investigation. Extensions of time for 

submitting responses to the complaint 

and the notice of investigation will not 

be granted unless good cause therefor is 

shown. 

Failure of a/the respondents to file a 

timely response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES