Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 6, 2017 / Notices 42113 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

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 Osage 

Nation. 

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 72,440, 72,447–48 

(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. 465, 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 465 

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, No. 14–14524, 

*13–*17, 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 nonIndians 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 selfgovernment,’’ 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 72,447–48, 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.’’ Id. at 5–6. 

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, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 

2043 (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 2043–44 

(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 Osage 

Nation. 

Dated: July 17, 2017. 

Michael S. Black, 

Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18852 Filed 9–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–583 and 731– 

TA–1381 (Preliminary)] 

Investigations: Cast Iron Soil Pipe 

Fittings From China 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant 

to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

of cast iron soil pipe fittings from China, 

provided for in subheading 7307.11.00 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that are alleged to be 

sold in the United States at less than fair 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
42114 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 6, 2017 / Notices 

value (‘‘LTFV’’) and to be subsidized by 

the government of China. 

Commencement of Final Phase 

Investigations 

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

also gives notice of the commencement 

of the final phase of its investigations. 

The Commission will issue a final phase 

notice of scheduling, which will be 

published in the Federal Register as 

provided in section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, upon notice from 

the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) of affirmative 

preliminary determinations in the 

investigations under sections 703(b) or 

733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary 

determinations are negative, upon 

notice of affirmative final 

determinations in those investigations 

under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the 

Act. Parties that filed entries of 

appearance in the preliminary phase of 

the investigations need not enter a 

separate appearance for the final phase 

of the investigations. Industrial users, 

and, if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level, 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the investigations. 

Background 

On July 13, 2017, the Cast Iron Soil 

Pipe Institute, Mundelein, Illinois, filed 

a petition with the Commission and 

Commerce, alleging that an industry in 

the United States is materially injured 

or threatened with material injury by 

reason of LTFV and subsidized imports 

of cast iron soil pipe fittings from China. 

Accordingly, effective July 13, 2017, the 

Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) 

and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted 

countervailing duty investigation No. 

701–TA–583 and antidumping duty 

investigation No. 731–TA–1381 

(Preliminary). 

Notice of the institution of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public conference to be held in 

connection therewith was given by 

posting copies of the notice in the Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, Washington, DC, 

and by publishing the notice in the 

Federal Register of July 20, 2017 (82 FR 

33515). The conference was held in 

Washington, DC, on August 3, 2017, and 

all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission made these 

determinations pursuant to sections 

703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed 

and filed its determinations in these 

investigations on August 28, 2017. The 

views of the Commission are contained 

in USITC Publication 4722 (September 

2017), entitled Cast Iron Soil Pipe 

Fittings from China: Investigation Nos. 

701–TA–583 and 731–TA–1381 

(Preliminary). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 28, 2017. 

William R. Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18508 Filed 9–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Receipt of Complaint; 

Solicitation of Comments Relating to 

the Public Interest 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has received a complaint 

entitled Certain Synthetically Produced, 

Predominantly EPA Omega-3 Products 

in Ethyl Ester or Re-esterified 

Triglyceride Form, DN 3247; the 

Commission is soliciting comments on 

any public interest issues raised by the 

complaint or complainant’s filing 

pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 

20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The 

public version of the complaint can be 

accessed on the Commission’s 

Electronic Document Information 

System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, 

and will be available for inspection 

during official business hours (8:45 a.m. 

to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server at United 

States International Trade Commission 

(USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The 

public record for this investigation may 

be viewed on the Commission’s 

Electronic Document Information 

System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has received a complaint 

and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure filed on behalf of Amarin 

Pharma, Inc. and Amarin 

Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd. on August 

30, 2017. The complaint alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain synthetically produced, 

predominantly EPA omega-3 products 

in ethyl ester or re-esterified triglyceride 

form. The complaint names as 

respondents Royal DSM NV of The 

Netherlands; DSM Marine Lipids Peru 

S.A.C. of Peru; DSM Nutritional 

Products of Parsippany, NJ; DSM 

Nutritional Products Canada, Inc. of 

Canada; Ultimate Biopharma 

(Zhongshan) Corporation of China; 

Marine Ingredients AS of Norway; 

Marine Ingredients LLC of Bethel, PA; 

Golden Omega S.A. of Chile; Golden 

Omega USA LLC of Aliso Viejo, CA; 

Nordic Pharma, Inc. of Norway; Croda 

Europe Ltd. of The United Kingdom; 

Croda Inc. of Edison, NJ; Tecnologica de 

Alimentos S.A. of Peru; Nature’s Bounty 

of Ronkonkoma, NY; Nordic Naturals of 

Watsonville, CA; Pharmavite LLC of 

Northridge, CA; Innovix Pharma Inc. of 

Calabasas, CA and J.R. Carlson 

Laboratories, Inc. of Arlington Heights, 

IL. The complainant requests that the 

Commission issue a general exclusion 

order, a limited exclusion order, a cease 

and desist order, and impose a bond 

upon respondents’ alleged infringing 

articles during the 60-day Presidential 

review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1337(j). 

Proposed respondents, other 

interested parties, and members of the 

public are invited to file comments, not 

to exceed five (5) pages in length, 

inclusive of attachments, on any public 

interest issues raised by the complaint 

or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should 

address whether issuance of the relief 

specifically requested by the 

complainant in this investigation would 

affect the public health and welfare in 

the United States, competitive 

conditions in the United States 

economy, the production of like or 

directly competitive articles in the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES