38778 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 

1The Tribe provided additional information 

concerning the McCabe Allotment on February 21 

and 25, 2022. The Tribe’s submission included: 

Declaration of Elizabeth Kipp, Chairperson of the 

Tribal Council of the Big Sandy Band of Western 

Mono Indians (February 11, 2022) (‘‘Kipp 

Declaration’’), ‘‘The Public Domain Allotment of 

Mary McCabe and the Big Sandy Rancheria: A 

Preliminary Historical Report,’’ G. Russell Overton 

(February 25, 2022) (‘‘Overton Report’’), and ‘‘Tribal 

Jurisdiction over McCabe Allotment,’’ Peebles 

Kidder Bergin & Robinson, LLP (February 25, 2022). 

announcing the permit issuance by 

searching https://www.regulations.gov 

for the permit number listed above in 

this document. For example, to find 

information about the potential issuance 

of Permit No. 12345A, you would go to 

regulations.gov and search for 

‘‘12345A’’. 

V. Authority 

We issue this notice under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), and its implementing regulations. 

Brenda Tapia, 

Supervisory Program Analyst/Data 

Administrator, Branch of Permits, Division 

of Management Authority. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13846 Filed 6–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

Notice of Approved Class III Tribal 

Gaming Ordinance 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is 

to inform the public of the approval of 

Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono 

Indians’ Class III gaming ordinance by 

the Chairman of the National Indian 

Gaming Commission. 

DATES: This notice is applicable June 29, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dena Wynn, Office of General Counsel 

at the National Indian Gaming 

Commission, 202–632–7003, or by 

facsimile at 202–632–7066 (not toll-free 

numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 

25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., established the 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

(Commission). Section 2710 of IGRA 

authorizes the Chairman of the 

Commission to approve Class II and 

Class III tribal gaming ordinances. 

Section 2710 (d) (2) (B) of IGRA, as 

implemented by NIGC regulations, 25 

CFR 522.8, requires the Chairman to 

publish, in the Federal Register, 

approved Class III tribal gaming 

ordinances and the approvals thereof. 

IGRA requires all tribal gaming 

ordinances to contain the same 

requirements concerning tribes’ sole 

proprietary interest and responsibility 

for the gaming activity, use of net 

revenues, annual audits, health and 

safety, background investigations and 

licensing of key employees and primary 

management officials. The Commission, 

therefore, believes that publication of 

each ordinance in the Federal Register 

would be redundant and result in 

unnecessary cost to the Commission. 

Thus, the Commission believes that 

publishing a notice of approved Class III 

tribal gaming ordinances in the Federal 

Register, is sufficient to meet the 

requirements of 25 U.S.C. 2710 (d) (2) 

(B). Every ordinance and approval 

thereof is posted on the Commission’s 

website (www.nigc.gov) under General 

Counsel, Gaming Ordinances within 

five (5) business days of approval. 

On June 22, 2022, the Chairman of the 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

approved Big Sandy Rancheria’s Class 

III Gaming Ordinance. A copy of the 

approval letter is posted with this notice 

and can be found with the approved 

ordinance on the NIGC’s website 

(www.nigc.gov) under General Counsel, 

Gaming Ordinances. A copy of the 

approved Class III ordinance will also 

be made available upon request. 

Requests can be made in writing to the 

Office of General Counsel, National 

Indian Gaming Commission, Attn: Dena 

Wynn, 1849 C Street NW, MS #1621, 

Washington, DC 20240 or at info@

nigc.gov. 

National Indian Gaming Commission. 

Dated: June 23, 2022. 

Michael Hoenig, 

General Counsel. 

June 22, 2022, Elizabeth D. Kipp, 

Chairwoman, Big Sandy Rancheria, 

37387 Auberry Mission Rd., PO Box 

337, Auberry, CA 93602. 

Re: Big Sandy Rancheria Site-Specific 

Tribal Gaming Ordinance 02–01 

Dear Chairwoman Kipp: 

I am writing with respect to the April 

12, 2022, request of the Big Sandy 

Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of 

California to the National Indian 

Gaming Commission to review and 

approve the Tribe’s amended gaming 

ordinance, Ordinance 02–01. The 

amended gaming ordinance was 

adopted by Resolution No. 0122–01 of 

the Tribal Council. 

The amended gaming ordinance 

contains a site-specific section that 

describes the original allotment of Mary 

McCabe (the ‘‘McCabe Allotment’’) as 

land within which the Tribe is 

authorized to conduct gaming. This 

section required the NIGC to consider 

whether the McCabe Allotment would 

constitute Indian lands on which the 

Tribe may conduct gaming activities 

under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act. On May 13, 2022, the NIGC Office 

of General Counsel issued a legal 

opinion concluding that the McCabe 

Allotment constitutes Indian lands on 

which the Tribe may conduct such 

gaming. On May 17, 2022, the 

Department of the Interior, Office of the 

Solicitor, issued its concurrence with 

that opinion. I hereby adopt the 

attached May 13, 2022 Indian lands 

opinion, its associated record, and its 

conclusions. 

Thank you for providing the amended 

gaming ordinance for our review. The 

ordinance is approved as it is consistent 

with the requirements of the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act and NIGC 

regulations. If you have any questions 

concerning this letter, please contact 

Senior Attorney Austin Badger at (202) 

632–7003. 

Sincerely, 

E. Sequoyah Simermeyer 

Chairman 

Memorandum To The Chair 

Through: Michael Hoenig, General 

Counsel, Sharon M. Avery, Associate 

General Counsel. 

From: Austin Badger, Senior Attorney. 

Date: May 13, 2022. 

Subject: Big Sandy Rancheria of 

Western Mono Indians of California— 

(McCabe Allotment) Indian Lands 

Opinion. 

On April 12, 2022, the Big Sandy 

Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of 

California submitted to the NIGC a 

request for approval of an amended 

gaming ordinance.1 Amendments to the 

gaming ordinance include specifying 

that gaming is authorized on ‘‘the north 

half of Lot two of the northwest quarter 

of Section 18, Township 11 South, 

Range 22 East, Mount Diablo meridian, 

in Fresno County, California, being the 

original allotment of Mary McCabe, Sac120 . . . ’’ (McCabe Allotment). This 

Memorandum addresses whether the 

McCabe Allotment qualifies as Indian 

lands under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act on which the Tribe may 

conduct gaming. 

On September 6, 2006, the Office of 

General Counsel opined that the 

McCabe Allotment qualified as Indian 

lands eligible for gaming by the Tribe. 

At that time, the McCabe Allotment was 

held in trust by the United States for the 

benefit of Big Sandy Rancheria tribal 

member Sherrill Anne Esteves. Ms. 

Esteves passed away on June 18, 2019, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 38779 

2 ‘‘In the Matter of the Estate of: Sherrill Anne 

Esteves,’’ Decision, Probate T000169570 (formerly 

P0001695701P) (April 22, 2022). The Decision is 

final unless a petition for rehearing is timely filed 

within 30 days. 

3 25 U.S.C. 2703(4). 

4 25 CFR 502.12. 

5Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 

F.3d 685 at 701–703 (1st Cir. 1993) (IGRA requires 

a threshold showing by tribe that it possesses 

jurisdiction over the lands to satisfy the Act’s 

‘‘having jurisdiction’’ prong). 

6 ‘‘Indian country’’ is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 

as: ‘‘(a) all land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation . . . ; (b) all dependent Indian 

communities . . . ; and (c) all Indian allotments, 

the Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished.’’ 

7See United States v. Roberts, 185 F.3d 1125, 

1131 (10th Cir. 1999) (‘‘’[r]eservation’ status is not 

dispositive and lands owned by the federal 

government in trust for Indian tribes are Indian 

Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1151’’). 

8The Tribe has also provided documentation 

supporting the conclusion that the heirs (Frank 

McCabe, Lester McCabe, and Sherrill Ann Esteves 

(nee McCabe)) of the original allottee, Mary 

McCabe, have ‘‘all identified as Western Mono 

members of the Big Sandy Rancheria.’’ See Overton 

Report, p. 31. 

9National Indian Gaming Commission: 

Definitions under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act, 57 FR 12382, 12388 (1992). 

10 Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay 

Head (Aquinnah), 853 F.3d 618, 626 (1st Cir. 2017). 

11 Kipp Declaration, p. 8. 

12 Kipp Declaration, p. 3. 

and pursuant to a decision of the 

Probate Hearings Division of the 

Department of the Interior’s Office of 

Hearings and Appeals, all of her interest 

in the land will pass to her daughter 

Carolyn Lee.2 The Tribe therefore 

requests our opinion as to whether the 

McCabe Allotment continues to qualify 

as Indian lands eligible for gaming by 

the Tribe as currently held for the 

beneficial interest of the estate, as 

potentially held for the beneficial 

interest of Big Sandy Rancheria tribal 

member Carolyn Lee, and as potentially 

held for the beneficial interest of the 

Tribe should Carolyn Lee and the Tribe 

complete a trust-to-trust transfer to the 

Tribe. After reviewing the status of the 

McCabe Allotment and the effect of 

these potential transfers of beneficial 

interest, we have determined that under 

each scenario the land continues to 

qualify as Indian lands under IGRA on 

which the Tribe may lawfully conduct 

gaming. The Department of the Interior 

Solicitor’s Office has reviewed this legal 

opinion and concurs. 

Background 

The McCabe Allotment was originally 

allotted out of the public domain to 

Mary McCabe, a ‘‘Mono Indian,’’ in 

1920 and immediately placed into trust. 

The McCabe Allotment is currently held 

in trust by the United States for the 

benefit of the estate of tribal member 

Sherrill Anne Esteves. The original heirs 

to the estate were Big Sandy Rancheria 

tribal member Carolyn Lee and Lone 

Pine Paiute-Shoshone tribal member 

Edward Esteves. The decision 

concluding the probate process 

determined that Edward Esteves 

renounced his interest in the parcel in 

favor of Carolyn Lee. The Tribe has 

further indicated that Carolyn Lee and 

the Tribe intend to complete a trust-totrust transfer which would cause the 

McCabe Allotment to be held in trust by 

the United States solely for the benefit 

of the Tribe. 

Applicable Law 

IGRA defines ‘‘Indian lands’’ as: 

(A) all lands within the limits of any 

Indian reservation; and 

(B) any lands title to which is either 

held in trust by the United States for the 

benefit of any Indian tribe or individual 

or held by any Indian tribe or individual 

subject to restriction by the United 

States against alienation and over which 

an Indian tribe exercises governmental 

power.3

NIGC regulations further clarify the 

definition, providing that: 

Indian lands means: 

(a) Land within the limits of an Indian 

reservation; or 

(b) Land over which an Indian tribe 

exercises governmental power and that 

is either— 

(1) Held in trust by the United States 

for the benefit of any Indian tribe or 

individual; or 

(2) Held by an Indian tribe or 

individual subject to restriction by the 

United States against alienation.4

Analysis 

The McCabe Allotment is not within 

the Big Sandy Rancheria. It is currently 

held in trust for the benefit of the estate 

of tribal member Sherrill Anne Esteves. 

To conduct gaming on trust lands 

located outside the exterior boundaries 

of its reservation, IGRA requires a tribe 

to exercise governmental power over 

those trust lands. Therefore, the McCabe 

Allotment constitutes Indian lands if the 

Tribe exercises governmental power 

over it. To exercise governmental power 

over its trust lands, a tribe must first 

possess jurisdiction over those lands.5

Jurisdiction 

Tribes are presumed to possess 

jurisdiction within ‘‘Indian country.’’ 6

Trust land, such as the McCabe 

Allotment, is ‘‘Indian country.’’ 7 And, 

in Opinion of the Solicitor, Sampson 

Johns Allotment (September 26, 1996), 

Interior opined that a tribe would 

possess jurisdiction over a tribal 

member’s allotment unless the ‘‘land in 

question is not owned or occupied by 

tribal members and is far removed from 

the tribal community.’’ 

Here, the McCabe Allotment is held in 

trust for the estate of tribal member 

Sherrill Ann Esteves and is located 

within 12 miles of the Tribe’s 

reservation.8 The Tribe, therefore, has 

jurisdiction over the McCabe Allotment 

for IGRA gaming purposes. 

Our conclusion with respect to 

jurisdiction would not change should 

beneficial ownership of the McCabe 

Allotment transfer to Carolyn Lee or to 

the Tribe. 

Governmental Power 

There are many possible ways and 

circumstances in which a tribe might 

exercise governmental power over its 

land. For this reason, the NIGC has not 

formulated a uniform definition of 

‘‘exercise of governmental power,’’ but 

instead decides whether it is present in 

each case, based upon all the 

circumstances.9 As noted by the First 

Circuit, the exercise of governmental 

power is ‘‘not the achievement of fullfledged self-governance, but merely 

movement in that direction.’’ 10

Here, the Tribe’s Constitution 

provides that the Tribe has jurisdiction 

over any allotment of a tribal member. 

The Tribe provides governmental 

services to off-reservation Indian 

allotments owned or occupied by tribal 

members including the McCabe 

Allotment and other allotments in the 

surrounding area.11 The Tribe requires 

non-Tribal visitors, such as contractors, 

surveyors, and others, to obtain a permit 

before entering off-reservation Indian 

allotments to conduct work on behalf of 

the Tribe or a tribal member allottee.12

The Tribe has therefore demonstrated 

that it exercises governmental power 

over the McCabe Allotment. 

Our conclusion with respect to 

governmental power would not change 

should beneficial ownership of the 

McCabe Allotment transfer to Carolyn 

Lee or to the Tribe. 

Conclusion 

Based upon the foregoing analysis, the 

statutory language of IGRA, and NIGC 

and Interior regulations, the McCabe 

Allotment as currently held by the 

estate of Sherrill Anne Esteves 

constitutes Indian lands eligible for 

gaming by the Tribe under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act. Our conclusion 

with respect to such eligibility for 

gaming by the Tribe would not change 

should the beneficial ownership of the 

McCabe Allotment transfer to Carolyn 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
38780 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 29, 2022 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes is 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s website. Commissioner Johanson 

determined that, in light of the time that has 

transpired since the Commission last conducted full 

reviews of these orders, conducting full reviews 

was warranted. 

2The Commission has found the joint response to 

its notice of institution filed on behalf of Auriga 

Polymers, Inc., Fiber Industries LLC, and Nan Ya 

Plastics Corp., America, domestic producers of 

certain polyester staple fiber, to be individually 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

Lee or to the Tribe. The Department of 

the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

concurs with this opinion. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13866 Filed 6–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–825–826 (Fourth 

Review)] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

South Korea and Taiwan; Scheduling 

of Expedited Five-Year Reviews 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on certain polyester staple fiber 

from South Korea and Taiwan would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. 

DATES: April 8, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alejandro Orozco (202–205–3177), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter 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 (https://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On April 8, 2022, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (87 

FR 119, January 3, 2022) of the subject 

five-year reviews was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews and rules 

of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B 

(19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

Please note the Secretary’s Office will 

accept only electronic filings at this 

time. Filings must be made through the 

Commission’s Electronic Document 

Information System (EDIS, https://

edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paperbased filings or paper copies of any 

electronic filings will be accepted until 

further notice. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the reviews has been 

placed in the nonpublic record, and will 

be made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for these reviews on June 24, 2022. 

A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determinations 

the Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

July 1, 2022 and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year reviews 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the reviews by July 1, 2022. 

However, should the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its reviews, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s Handbook on 

Filing Procedures, available on the 

Commission’s website at https://

www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_

on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates 

upon the Commission’s procedures with 

respect to filings. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined these reviews are 

extraordinarily complicated and 

therefore has determined to exercise its 

authority to extend the review period by 

up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of 

the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 

published pursuant to section 207.62 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 23, 2022. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13830 Filed 6–28–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1306 (Review)] 

Large Residential Washers from China; 

Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year 

Review 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on large residential washers from 

China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. 

DATES: April 8, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ahdia Bavari (202–205–3191), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1