[Federal Register: May 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 31142-31143]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30my08-73]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Amended Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Pointe-au-
Chien Indian Tribe (PACIT) of Louisiana
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of amended proposed finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), the Department of the Interior
(Department) gives notice that the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs
(AS-IA) proposes to determine that the Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe, c/
o Charles Verdin, P.O. Box 416, Montegut, Louisiana 70377, is not an
Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law.
This notice is based on a determination that the petitioner does
not satisfy all seven of the criteria set forth in Part 83 of Title 25
of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR Part 83), specifically
criteria 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and 83.7(e), and therefore, does not meet
the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the
United States.
DATES: Comments on this amended proposed finding are due on or before
November 26, 2008. Publication of this notice of the amended proposed
finding 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 amended proposed finding. Interested or informed parties
must provide a copy of their comments to the petitioner. The
regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(k), provide petitioners a minimum of 60 days
to respond to any submissions on the amended proposed finding received
from interested and informed parties during the comment period.
ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for a copy 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of
Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513-7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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.
The Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe (PACIT), Petitioner 56b,
claims to be the continuation of a historical Indian community on a
bayou in south-central Louisiana that was originally settled in the
mid-19th century. PACIT has 682 members. It has a written constitution
as its governing document. PACIT's membership criteria require its
members to descend from an individual living in the Bayou ``Pointe-au-
Chien'' Indian settlement in 1900. It has described its members as
descendants of the historical Chitimacha, Acolapissa, Atakapa, Choctaw,
and Biloxi Indian tribes, but its members and their ancestors have been
called ``Houma'' Indians since at least 1907. The petitioner's current
organization was incorporated under Louisiana law in 1993 as the
``Documented Houma Tribe'' and adopted the name ``Pointe au Chien
Indian Tribe'' in 1995, adding hyphens to its name in 2005. Most of
PACIT's members previously had been members of the United Houma Nation
(UHN), Petitioner 56, which received a negative proposed
finding in 1994.
PACIT submitted a letter of intent to petition for Federal
acknowledgment in 1996. The Department advised the PACIT petitioner in
1997 of its decision to issue an ``amended Proposed Finding'' for
PACIT, saying that, ``[p]rocedurally, PACIT is being treated as a
petitioner with a proposed finding. * * *'' The Department informed the
PACIT petitioner that it would treat the petitioner as being ``covered
by the documented petition which was previously submitted'' by the UHN
petitioner. The Department set a time period for PACIT to comment on
the UHN proposed finding and submit its
[[Page 31143]]
own petition documentation. On November 10, 1997, the Department
received petition documentation from the PACIT petitioner. The
Department notified PACIT that evaluation of its petition began on
February 4, 2005, and a period to submit additional materials would
close on April 15, 2005. The PACIT petitioner submitted petition
documentation to the Department by April 15, 2005.
This notice is based on a determination that PACIT does not satisfy
all of the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7.
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.
This amended proposed finding reaches the following conclusions for
each of the mandatory criteria in 25 CFR Part 83.7:
The PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(a).
This amended proposed finding concludes that identifications of a
``Houma'' population or group when combined with other identifications
of a Pointe au Chien settlement or group of the ``Houma'' provides
evidence sufficient to demonstrate the substantially continuous
identification of the petitioner as an Indian entity since 1900.
Therefore, the PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of this
criterion.
The PACIT petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(b). This amended proposed finding concludes the PACIT petitioner
has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion
because the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that its ancestors
and others associated with them constituted a community before 1830.
This finding concludes the PACIT petitioner meets this criterion
between 1830 and 1940 on the basis of the conclusions contained in the
1994 proposed finding on the UHN petitioner and that it meets this
criterion since 1940 on the basis of the evidence available for this
amended proposed finding. Because the evidence in the record does not
show that the petitioning group existed as a community from historical
times to the present, the PACIT petitioner has not demonstrated that it
meets the requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(c). This amended proposed finding concludes the PACIT petitioner
has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion
because there is insufficient evidence that it maintained political
influence over its historical ancestors before 1830. This finding
concludes the PACIT petitioner meets this criterion between 1830 and
1940 on the basis of the conclusions contained in the 1994 proposed
finding on the UHN petitioner. For the period since 1940, the evidence
available for this amended proposed finding is sufficient to
demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion only since 1988.
Because the evidence in the record is insufficient to show that the
petitioning group has maintained political influence over group members
from historical times to the present, the PACIT petitioner has not
demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(d).
The PACIT petitioner provided current governing documents that describe
its governing procedures and membership criteria, and, therefore, meets
the requirements of this criterion.
The PACIT petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(e). The petitioner submitted a certified membership list
identifying 682 members. An analysis of selected members demonstrates
that most of them descend from at least one of two individual
historical ``Indians,'' but those historical individuals have not been
shown to be a part of a historical Indian tribe, or of historical
Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single tribal entity.
The evidence in the record has not demonstrated that the PACIT
petitioner's members descend from a historical Indian tribe and,
therefore, the PACIT petitioner does not meet the requirements of this
criterion.
The PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(f).
The names of current PACIT members do not appear on rolls of federally
recognized Indian tribes reviewed for this amended proposed finding.
Additionally, the PACIT petitioner requires its members to disavow
membership in any other Indian group, and its submission included
disavowals for 84 percent of the 682 PACIT members. Because evidence in
the record indicates that the petitioning group is composed principally
of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American
Indian tribe, the PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of this
criterion.
The PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(g).
Because no evidence has been submitted or located that indicates the
petitioner, its members, or their ancestors have been the subject of
congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden a
relationship with the Federal Government as Indians or as an Indian
tribe, the PACIT petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion.
As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h), a report summarizing the evidence,
reasoning, and analyses that are the basis for the amended proposed
finding will be provided to the petitioner and interested parties, and
is available to other parties upon written request.
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.
The AS-IA will publish the final determination of the petitioner's
status in the Federal Register as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1), at a
time that is consistent with that schedule.
Dated: May 22, 2008.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8-12153 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P
