18384 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Notices 

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 

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 Karuk 

Tribe. 

Bryan Newland, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06675 Filed 3–29–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

[223A2100DD/AAKC001030/ 

A0A501010.999900] 

HEARTH Act Approval of Northfork 

Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California Business Site Leasing 

Ordinance 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) approved the Northfork Rancheria 

of Mono Indians of California Business 

Site 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 business leases without 

further BIA approval. 

DATES: BIA issued the approval on 

March 25, 2022. 

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: 

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 Northfork 

Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Notices 18385 

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 

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 

Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California. 

Bryan Newland, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06673 Filed 3–29–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

[223D0102DM, DS6CS00000, 

DLSN00000.000000. DX6CS25; OMB Control 

Number 1093-New] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Application Requirement for 

States To Apply for Orphaned Well Site 

Plugging, Remediation, and 

Restoration Grant Consideration 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of the Secretary will seek Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval of an emergency clearance of 

a new information collection. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before May 31, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

emergency clearance of a new 

information collection should be sent to 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20240; or by email to 

DOI-PRA@ios.doi.gov. Please reference 

OMB Control Number ‘‘1093-New 

Orphaned Well Grants’’ in the subject 

line of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact William B. Lodder Jr., 

Team Leader, Environmental Cleanup 

and Liability Management Team, Office 

of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance (OEPC), U.S. Department of 

the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20240; by telephone at 

202–208–6128; or by email to 

orphanedwells@ios.doi.gov. Individuals 

in the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all 

information collections require approval 

under the PRA. We may not conduct or 

sponsor and you are not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

As part of our continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burdens, we invite the public and other 

Federal agencies to comment on new, 

proposed, revised, and continuing 

collections of information. This helps us 

assess the impact of our information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. It also 

helps the public understand our 

information collection requirements and 

provide the requested data in the 

desired format. 

We are especially interested in public 

comment addressing the following: 

(1) Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether or not the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES