Proposed Finding for Federal Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey Indian Tribe, 3860-3862 [2014-01349]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3860
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Notices
has the burden to present evidence that
it meets the mandatory criteria in
section 83.7. Petitioner #119b does not
meet criterion 83.7(e), which requires
that the petitioner’s members descend
from a historical Indian tribe or tribes
that combined and functioned as a
single autonomous political entity.
Pursuant to guidance issued in 2008, the
proposed finding is issued on the basis
of Petitioner’s failure to satisfy 83.7(e).
See 73 Fed. Reg. 30146, 30148 (May 23,
2008). If following an evaluation of the
evidence and argument submitted
during the comment period it is
determined that the petitioner meets the
criterion, then the Assistant Secretary
will issue an amended proposed finding
evaluating all seven criteria.
The petitioner submitted a
membership list, separately certified by
its governing body in February 2011,
identifying 203 adult and minor
members. As required under criterion
83.7(e), the membership list furnished
each member’s full name (including
maiden name), date of birth, and
residential address, with minor
omissions. The current members
represent part of the larger group to
which North Carolina provided
recognition as a tribe in 1986. The
evidence does not demonstrate that
Sallie M. (Smith) Lewis or the historical
landowners allegedly near Potecasi
Creek were Indian, Meherrin Indian, or
members of a Meherrin Indian or other
Indian tribe. The petitioner has not
documented, nor has the OFA
identified, a historical Indian tribe, or
tribes that combined, from which its
members descend. The petitioner also
has not provided sufficient evidence to
verify descent from those individuals it
asserted were Meherrin. The evidence
in the record does not demonstrate that
any of the petitioner’s members descend
from a historical Indian tribe. Therefore,
the petitioner does not meet the
requirements of criterion 83.7(e).
Based on this preliminary factual
determination, the Department proposes
not to extend Federal acknowledgment
as an Indian tribe to Petitioner #119b
known as the Meherrin Indian Tribe. A
report summarizing the evidence,
reasoning, and analyses that are the
basis for the PF will be provided to the
petitioner and interested parties, and is
available to other parties upon written
request as provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h).
Requests for a copy of the summary
evaluation should be addressed to the
Federal Government as instructed in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice. The
summary evaluation and the Federal
Register notice are also available
through https://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/
AS–IA/OFA/RecentCases/index.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:50 Jan 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
Publication of this notice of the PF in
the Federal Register initiates a 180-day
comment period during which the
petitioner and interested and informed
parties may submit arguments and
evidence to support or rebut the
evidence relied upon in the PF.
Comments on the PF should be
addressed to both the petitioner and the
Federal Government as required by 25
CFR 83.10(i) and as instructed in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice by the
date listed in the DATES section of this
notice.
Commenters should be aware that
personal identifying information in their
comments—such as address, telephone
number, or email address—may be
made publicly available at any time.
Commenters may request that the
Department withhold any personal
identifying information from public
review, but the Department cannot
guarantee that it can do so.
During the comment period, the
Meherrin petitioner and the interested
parties may request in writing that the
AS–IA hold a formal, on-the-record
technical assistance meeting as
provided by the acknowledgment
regulations at 25 CFR 83.10(j)(2). Such
requests must include a proposed
agenda of topics and must be received
by the Department within 60 calendar
days of the publication of this Federal
Register notice.
The regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(k),
provide the petitioner a minimum of 60
days to respond to any submissions on
the PF received from interested and
informed parties during the comment
period. After the expiration of the
comment and response periods
described above, the Department will
consult with the petitioner concerning
establishment of a schedule for
preparation of the final determination
(FD). The AS–IA will publish the FD of
the petitioner’s status in the Federal
Register as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(l),
at a time that is consistent with that
schedule.
Dated: January 16, 2014.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014–01353 Filed 1–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–G1–P
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[DR.5A211.IA000414]
Proposed Finding for Federal
Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey
Indian Tribe
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Finding.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Interior (Department) gives notice that
the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs
(AS–IA) proposes to determine that the
petitioner known as the Pamunkey
Indian Tribe (Petitioner #323), 331
Pocket Road, King William, VA 23086,
c/o Mr. Kevin M. Brown, is an Indian
tribe within the meaning of Federal law.
This notice is based on a proposed
finding (PF) that the petitioner satisfies
the seven mandatory criteria for
acknowledgment set forth in the
applicable regulations, and thus, meets
the requirements for a government-togovernment relationship with the
United States.
DATES: Comments on this PF are due on
or before July 22, 2014. The petitioner
then has until September 22, 2014 to
respond to those comments. The
Department must receive requests for a
formal, on-the-record technical
assistance meeting by February 20,
2014. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice for
more information about these dates.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the PF and/or
requests for a copy of the report of the
summary evaluation of the evidence
should be addressed to the Office of the
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs,
Attention: Office of Federal
Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution
Avenue NW., Mail Stop 34B–SIB,
Washington, DC 20240. Interested and
informed parties who make submissions
to the Assistant Secretary—Indian
Affairs (AS–IA) must also provide
copies of their comments to the
petitioner at Pamunkey Indian Tribe, c/
o Mr. Kevin M. Brown, 331 Pocket
Road, King William, VA 23086.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.
Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal
Acknowledgment, (202) 513–7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 25
CFR 83.10(h), the Department gives
notice the AS–IA proposes to determine
that the Pamunkey Indian Tribe is an
Indian tribe within the meaning of
Federal law. This notice is based on a
determination that the petitioner
satisfies all seven mandatory criteria set
forth in part 83 of 25 CFR 83(a) through
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Notices
(g), and thus meets the requirements for
a government-to-government
relationship with the United States.
The Department publishes this notice
in the exercise of authority that the
Secretary of the Interior delegated to the
AS–IA by 209 DM 8.
A group known as the Pamunkey
Indian Tribe submitted a letter of intent
to petition for Federal acknowledgment
as an Indian tribe to the AS–IA. The
Department received the letter of intent
on June 29, 2009. The Department
designated this group as Petitioner #323.
The Pamunkey petitioner submitted its
first documentation that included a
narrative as well as some documents
outlined in the petitioner’s narrative.
The Department received this material
on October 14, 2010, and received an
additional petition submission on
December 7, 2011. The group claimed to
descend from the historical Pamunkey
Indian tribe of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The historical Pamunkey
Indian tribe occupied a land base in
King William County, VA, formally
defined during the Colonial Era in the
1600s and shown as ‘‘Indian Town’’ on
a 1770 map, which still exists today as
a state reservation in the same location.
The Department conducted an initial
review of the petition, determined the
petitioner was ready for consideration
and placed the Pamunkey petitioner on
the ‘‘ready, waiting for active
consideration list’’ on January 3, 2012.
In response to the petitioner’s request
for expedited processing on July 5,
2011, the Department began a review for
expedited processing on January 16,
2012, and recommended a waiver of the
priority provisions of the regulations for
the Pamunkey petitioner. On July 20,
2012, the Acting AS–IA approved the
waiver under the May 23, 2008,
directive (73 FR 30147) and moved the
petitioner to the top of the ready list.
Thereafter, OFA received three
additional petition submissions from
the Pamunkey petitioner on March 28,
April 12, and July 11, 2012.
The Department placed the Pamunkey
petitioner on active consideration for
the PF on August 21, 2012, and received
a submission of additional petitioner
documents from the group during the 60
days following (on October 19, 2012), as
allowed by the directive of March 31,
2005 (70 FR 16513). The Department
will consider any additional material
that it received after the submission
deadline of October 21, 2012, for the
final determination (FD), pursuant to
that 2005 directive.
The acknowledgment process is based
on the regulations at 25 CFR part 83.
Under these regulations, the petitioner
has the burden to present evidence that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:50 Jan 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
it meets the seven mandatory criteria in
section 83.7. The PF finds that the
Pamunkey petitioner satisfies all seven
mandatory criteria for acknowledgment:
83.7(a), 83.7(b), 83.7(c), 83.7(d), 83.7(e),
83.7(f), and 83.7(g).
If ‘‘substantial evidence’’
demonstrates the petitioner had
‘‘unambiguous’’ previous Federal
acknowledgment as an Indian tribe,
then the requirements of some of the
acknowledgment criteria in section 83.7
are modified by the provisions of
section 83.8(d). The Pamunkey
petitioner has not claimed, and the
Department has not located evidence,
that the Federal Government took any
action clearly premised on
identification of the petitioner as a tribal
political entity and recognition of a
relationship between that entity and the
United States. Therefore, the
Department did not evaluate the
petitioner under 25 CFR 83.8.
Criterion 83.7(a) requires that external
observers have identified the petitioner
as an American Indian entity on a
substantially continuous basis since
1900. External observers consistently
identified the petitioning group during
these years as the ‘‘Pamunkey Indian
Tribe,’’ or as a ‘‘tribe,’’ a ‘‘band,’’ a
‘‘group,’’ or a ‘‘settlement’’ of Pamunkey
Indians. They usually associated the
identified group with a state Indian
reservation in Virginia. As such
identifications of the petitioning group
were made in almost all of the years
since 1900, the petitioner meets
criterion 83.7(a).
Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a
predominant portion of the petitioning
group has comprised a distinct
community since historical times. The
evidence in the record demonstrates
that a predominant portion of the
Pamunkey petitioner has maintained
interaction and significant social
relationships through history. From
1789 until 1899, the petitioner satisfies
the requirements with a combination of
evidence under criterion 83.7(b)(1).
Such evidence includes the group’s
concern about maintaining the
exclusivity of the settlement, its
assertion of a collective Indian identity
that lasts for more than 50 years, and
members joining the Colosse Baptist
Church as a group. Additional evidence
includes the knowledge of people across
kin groups, communication and
interaction among members, and
significant rates of marriage within the
group. Combined, this evidence meets
criterion 83.7(b) before 1900. From 1900
until the present, the petitioner satisfies
the requirements via the ‘‘cross-over’’
provision of criterion 83.7(b)(2)(v), as
the petitioner demonstrated criterion
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3861
83.7(c) using evidence described in
83.7(c)(2).
Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the
petitioning group has maintained
political influence over its members as
an autonomous entity since historical
times. The evidence for 1789 to 1899
shows the Pamunkey Indians had a
functioning decision-making process.
The Pamunkey group used this political
process to represent its interests to
outsiders, approved any actions taken
by the trustees appointed by the state to
supervise the tribe, had a code of laws
that dealt with issues of importance to
the group, such as legal residency on the
reservation, and mobilized to protect its
resources. For the period 1900 to the
present, the group demonstrated control
over residence rights on the reservation,
imposition of sanctions to control
individuals’ behavior, and control and
allocation of group resources. This
evidence in the record for 1900 until the
present is specified in 83.7(c)(2), which
also satisfies criterion 83.7(b) for that
time.
Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the
petitioner provide a copy of its
governing document including its
membership criteria. The petitioner
submitted a copy of its governing
document which includes it
membership criteria. Therefore, the
Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion
83.7(d).
Criterion 83.7(e) requires that the
petitioner’s members descend from a
historical Indian tribe or from historical
Indian tribes which combined and
functioned as a single autonomous
political entity. For this PF, the
Department defines the historical
Pamunkey Indian tribe as 81 Indian
individuals named on any one of six
King William County, Virginia, tax lists
of personal property owners at Indian
Town between 1787 and 1802; three
Pamunkey petitions to the Virginia state
legislature dated 1798, 1812, and 1836;
and one Colosse Baptist Church record
of ‘‘descendants of an Indian tribe on
Indian Island’’ circa 1835. The October
18, 2012, Pamunkey membership list
includes 203 living members, both
adults and minors. The evidence in the
record shows that 162 of these members,
or 80 percent, demonstrated descent
from members of the historical
Pamunkey Indian tribe. Therefore, the
Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion
83.7(e).
Criterion 83.7(f) requires that the
petitioner’s membership be composed
principally of persons who are not
members of another federally
recognized Indian tribe. The Department
found no evidence that any of the
petitioner’s current members are
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3862
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Notices
enrolled with any federally recognized
Indian tribe. Therefore, the petitioner
meets criterion 83.7(f).
Criterion 83.7(g) requires that the
petitioner not be subject to
congressional legislation that has
terminated or forbidden the Federal
relationship. The Department found no
record that the petitioner was subject of
legislation terminating or forbidding the
Federal relationship. Therefore, the
Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion
83.7(g).
Based on this PF, the Department
proposes to acknowledge as an Indian
tribe the petitioner known as the
Pamunkey Indian Tribe.
A report summarizing the evidence,
reasoning, and analyses that are the
basis for the PF will be provided to the
petitioner and interested parties, and is
available to other parties upon written
request as provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h)
or available on the Department of the
Interior’s Web site at https://
www.doi.gov. Requests for a copy of the
summary evaluation of the evidence
should be addressed to the Federal
Government as instructed in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
Publication of this notice of the PF in
the Federal Register initiates a 180-day
comment period during which the
petitioner and interested and informed
parties may submit arguments and
evidence to support or rebut the
evidence relied upon in the PF.
Comments on the PF should be
addressed to both the petitioner and
Federal Government as required by 25
CFR 83.10(i) and as instructed in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice by the
date listed in the DATES section of this
notice.
The regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(k),
provide the petitioner a minimum of 60
days to respond to any submissions on
the PF received from interested and
informed parties during the comment
period. After the expiration of the
comment and response periods
described above, the Department will
consult with the petitioner concerning
establishment of a schedule for
preparation of the FD. The AS–IA will
publish the FD of the petitioner’s status
in the Federal Register as provided in
25 CFR 83.10(l), at a time that is
consistent with that schedule.
Dated: January 16, 2014.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014–01349 Filed 1–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–G1–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:50 Jan 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[14X/A11220000.224200/AAK4004800/
AX.480ADM1.0000]
Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation
Projects
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of rate adjustments.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) owns, or has an interest in,
irrigation projects located on or
associated with various Indian
reservations throughout the United
States. We are required to establish
irrigation assessment rates to recover the
costs to administer, operate, maintain,
and rehabilitate these projects. We are
notifying you that we have adjusted the
irrigation assessment rates at several of
our irrigation projects and facilities to
reflect current costs of administration,
operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation.
SUMMARY:
Effective Date: The irrigation
assessment rates shown in the tables as
final were effective as of January 1,
2013.
DATES:
For
details about a particular BIA irrigation
project or facility, please use the tables
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section to contact the regional or local
office where the project or facility is
located.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
A Notice
of Proposed Rate Adjustment was
published in the Federal Register on
October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63850) to
propose adjustments to the irrigation
assessment rates at several BIA
irrigation projects. The public and
interested parties were provided an
opportunity to submit written
comments during the 60-day period that
ended December 17, 2012.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Did the BIA defer or change any
proposed rate increases?
No.
Did the BIA receive any comments on
the proposed irrigation assessment rate
adjustments?
Written comments were received
related to the proposed rate adjustment
for the San Carlos Irrigation Project for
2014 and the Wind River Irrigation
Project for 2013.
What issues were of concern to the
commenters?
One commenter raised concerns
specific to the San Carlos Irrigation
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Project on the proposed rates about the
following issues: (1) The methodology
for the O&M rate setting; and (2) the
timely receipt of information for
commenting, budget formulation and
accounting, items related to staffing,
contract payments, cylinder gate
replacement, permits and leasing,
reserve account, and reservoir area
capacity.
One commenter raised concerns
specific to the Wind River Irrigation
Project on the proposed rates about the
following issues: (1) Opposing a rate
increase based on the project’s asserted
inability to deliver water to many
portions of the system as well as to
maintain equitable access to paying
users; and (2) postponing a rate increase
while a cooperative agreement is
considered by an irrigator’s group.
The Following Comments Are Specific
to the San Carlos Irrigation Project
Written comments relating to the FY
2014 proposed O&M rate for the San
Carlos Irrigation Project–Joint Works
(SCIP–JW) were received by letter dated
December 17, 2012, from the San Carlos
Irrigation and Drainage District
(District). The District raised several
issues in its letter. The BIA’s summary
of the District’s issues and the BIA’s
responses are provided below.
Comment: The commenter questioned
the methodology by which BIA
establishes O&M rates and the schedule
for consultation meetings with the
commenter.
Response: The methodology used by
the BIA to determine a 2014 O&M rate
was reasonable. Based on a review of
historical income receipts and
expenditures, a budget of projected
income receipts and expenditures was
developed approximately two years
before the O&M assessments are
collected and expenses are incurred.
The BIA relies on financial reports
generated by the Financial and Business
Management System for reviewing past
expenditures and projecting a future
budget and expenditures. Procurement
files and records maintained by the
SCIP–JW were also reviewed and
considered. For example, with regard to
development of the FY 2014 budget, the
BIA reviewed: (1) The year-end
reconciled income and expenditure
information for 2010 and 2011; (2)
available income and expenditure
information for 2012; (3) previous
budget projections for 2012; and (4)
other information relevant to potential
future expenses, such as cost
information for replacement of the
Coolidge Dam cylinder gates.
The BIA has provided the District
with draft budget and supporting
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3860-3862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01349]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[DR.5A211.IA000414]
Proposed Finding for Federal Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey
Indian Tribe
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (Department) gives notice that
the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) proposes to determine
that the petitioner known as the Pamunkey Indian Tribe (Petitioner
323), 331 Pocket Road, King William, VA 23086, c/o Mr. Kevin
M. Brown, is an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This
notice is based on a proposed finding (PF) that the petitioner
satisfies the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment set forth in
the applicable regulations, and thus, meets the requirements for a
government-to-government relationship with the United States.
DATES: Comments on this PF are due on or before July 22, 2014. The
petitioner then has until September 22, 2014 to respond to those
comments. The Department must receive requests for a formal, on-the-
record technical assistance meeting by February 20, 2014. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice for more information
about these dates.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the PF and/or requests for a copy of the report
of the summary evaluation of the evidence should be addressed to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of
Federal Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Mail Stop 34B-
SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Interested and informed parties who make
submissions to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) must
also provide copies of their comments to the petitioner at Pamunkey
Indian Tribe, c/o Mr. Kevin M. Brown, 331 Pocket Road, King William, VA
23086.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of
Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513-7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 25 CFR 83.10(h), the Department gives
notice the AS-IA proposes to determine that the Pamunkey Indian Tribe
is an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is
based on a determination that the petitioner satisfies all seven
mandatory criteria set forth in part 83 of 25 CFR 83(a) through
[[Page 3861]]
(g), and thus meets the requirements for a government-to-government
relationship with the United States.
The Department publishes this notice in the exercise of authority
that the Secretary of the Interior delegated to the AS-IA by 209 DM 8.
A group known as the Pamunkey Indian Tribe submitted a letter of
intent to petition for Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe to the
AS-IA. The Department received the letter of intent on June 29, 2009.
The Department designated this group as Petitioner 323. The
Pamunkey petitioner submitted its first documentation that included a
narrative as well as some documents outlined in the petitioner's
narrative. The Department received this material on October 14, 2010,
and received an additional petition submission on December 7, 2011. The
group claimed to descend from the historical Pamunkey Indian tribe of
the Commonwealth of Virginia. The historical Pamunkey Indian tribe
occupied a land base in King William County, VA, formally defined
during the Colonial Era in the 1600s and shown as ``Indian Town'' on a
1770 map, which still exists today as a state reservation in the same
location.
The Department conducted an initial review of the petition,
determined the petitioner was ready for consideration and placed the
Pamunkey petitioner on the ``ready, waiting for active consideration
list'' on January 3, 2012. In response to the petitioner's request for
expedited processing on July 5, 2011, the Department began a review for
expedited processing on January 16, 2012, and recommended a waiver of
the priority provisions of the regulations for the Pamunkey petitioner.
On July 20, 2012, the Acting AS-IA approved the waiver under the May
23, 2008, directive (73 FR 30147) and moved the petitioner to the top
of the ready list. Thereafter, OFA received three additional petition
submissions from the Pamunkey petitioner on March 28, April 12, and
July 11, 2012.
The Department placed the Pamunkey petitioner on active
consideration for the PF on August 21, 2012, and received a submission
of additional petitioner documents from the group during the 60 days
following (on October 19, 2012), as allowed by the directive of March
31, 2005 (70 FR 16513). The Department will consider any additional
material that it received after the submission deadline of October 21,
2012, for the final determination (FD), pursuant to that 2005
directive.
The acknowledgment process is based on the regulations at 25 CFR
part 83. Under these regulations, the petitioner has the burden to
present evidence that it meets the seven mandatory criteria in section
83.7. The PF finds that the Pamunkey petitioner satisfies all seven
mandatory criteria for acknowledgment: 83.7(a), 83.7(b), 83.7(c),
83.7(d), 83.7(e), 83.7(f), and 83.7(g).
If ``substantial evidence'' demonstrates the petitioner had
``unambiguous'' previous Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe,
then the requirements of some of the acknowledgment criteria in section
83.7 are modified by the provisions of section 83.8(d). The Pamunkey
petitioner has not claimed, and the Department has not located
evidence, that the Federal Government took any action clearly premised
on identification of the petitioner as a tribal political entity and
recognition of a relationship between that entity and the United
States. Therefore, the Department did not evaluate the petitioner under
25 CFR 83.8.
Criterion 83.7(a) requires that external observers have identified
the petitioner as an American Indian entity on a substantially
continuous basis since 1900. External observers consistently identified
the petitioning group during these years as the ``Pamunkey Indian
Tribe,'' or as a ``tribe,'' a ``band,'' a ``group,'' or a
``settlement'' of Pamunkey Indians. They usually associated the
identified group with a state Indian reservation in Virginia. As such
identifications of the petitioning group were made in almost all of the
years since 1900, the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(a).
Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the
petitioning group has comprised a distinct community since historical
times. The evidence in the record demonstrates that a predominant
portion of the Pamunkey petitioner has maintained interaction and
significant social relationships through history. From 1789 until 1899,
the petitioner satisfies the requirements with a combination of
evidence under criterion 83.7(b)(1). Such evidence includes the group's
concern about maintaining the exclusivity of the settlement, its
assertion of a collective Indian identity that lasts for more than 50
years, and members joining the Colosse Baptist Church as a group.
Additional evidence includes the knowledge of people across kin groups,
communication and interaction among members, and significant rates of
marriage within the group. Combined, this evidence meets criterion
83.7(b) before 1900. From 1900 until the present, the petitioner
satisfies the requirements via the ``cross-over'' provision of
criterion 83.7(b)(2)(v), as the petitioner demonstrated criterion
83.7(c) using evidence described in 83.7(c)(2).
Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the petitioning group has
maintained political influence over its members as an autonomous entity
since historical times. The evidence for 1789 to 1899 shows the
Pamunkey Indians had a functioning decision-making process. The
Pamunkey group used this political process to represent its interests
to outsiders, approved any actions taken by the trustees appointed by
the state to supervise the tribe, had a code of laws that dealt with
issues of importance to the group, such as legal residency on the
reservation, and mobilized to protect its resources. For the period
1900 to the present, the group demonstrated control over residence
rights on the reservation, imposition of sanctions to control
individuals' behavior, and control and allocation of group resources.
This evidence in the record for 1900 until the present is specified in
83.7(c)(2), which also satisfies criterion 83.7(b) for that time.
Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the petitioner provide a copy of
its governing document including its membership criteria. The
petitioner submitted a copy of its governing document which includes it
membership criteria. Therefore, the Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion
83.7(d).
Criterion 83.7(e) requires that the petitioner's members descend
from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which
combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. For
this PF, the Department defines the historical Pamunkey Indian tribe as
81 Indian individuals named on any one of six King William County,
Virginia, tax lists of personal property owners at Indian Town between
1787 and 1802; three Pamunkey petitions to the Virginia state
legislature dated 1798, 1812, and 1836; and one Colosse Baptist Church
record of ``descendants of an Indian tribe on Indian Island'' circa
1835. The October 18, 2012, Pamunkey membership list includes 203
living members, both adults and minors. The evidence in the record
shows that 162 of these members, or 80 percent, demonstrated descent
from members of the historical Pamunkey Indian tribe. Therefore, the
Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion 83.7(e).
Criterion 83.7(f) requires that the petitioner's membership be
composed principally of persons who are not members of another
federally recognized Indian tribe. The Department found no evidence
that any of the petitioner's current members are
[[Page 3862]]
enrolled with any federally recognized Indian tribe. Therefore, the
petitioner meets criterion 83.7(f).
Criterion 83.7(g) requires that the petitioner not be subject to
congressional legislation that has terminated or forbidden the Federal
relationship. The Department found no record that the petitioner was
subject of legislation terminating or forbidding the Federal
relationship. Therefore, the Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion
83.7(g).
Based on this PF, the Department proposes to acknowledge as an
Indian tribe the petitioner known as the Pamunkey Indian Tribe.
A report summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are
the basis for the PF will be provided to the petitioner and interested
parties, and is available to other parties upon written request as
provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h) or available on the Department of the
Interior's Web site at https://www.doi.gov. Requests for a copy of the
summary evaluation of the evidence should be addressed to the Federal
Government as instructed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
Publication of this notice of the PF in the Federal Register
initiates a 180-day comment period during which the petitioner and
interested and informed parties may submit arguments and evidence to
support or rebut the evidence relied upon in the PF. Comments on the PF
should be addressed to both the petitioner and Federal Government as
required by 25 CFR 83.10(i) and as instructed in the ADDRESSES section
of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.
The regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(k), provide the petitioner a minimum
of 60 days to respond to any submissions on the PF received from
interested and informed parties during the comment period. After the
expiration of the comment and response periods described above, the
Department will consult with the petitioner concerning establishment of
a schedule for preparation of the FD. The AS-IA will publish the FD of
the petitioner's status in the Federal Register as provided in 25 CFR
83.10(l), at a time that is consistent with that schedule.
Dated: January 16, 2014.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014-01349 Filed 1-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P
