80 FR 39144 - Final Determination for Federal Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey Indian Tribe

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 130 (July 8, 2015)

Page Range		39144-39150
FR Document		2015-16711

The Department of the Interior (Department) gives notice the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) has determined to acknowledge the Pamunkey Indian Tribe (Petitioner #323) as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that affirms the reasoning, analysis, and conclusions in the Proposed Finding (PF), as modified by additional evidence. The petitioner has submitted more than sufficient evidence to satisfy each of the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment set forth in the regulations under 25 CFR 83.7, and, therefore, meets the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Based on the limited nature and extent of comments and consistent with prior practices, the Department did not produce a separate detailed report or other summary under the criteria pertaining to this final determination (FD). The proposed finding, as supplemented by this notice, is affirmed and constitutes the FD.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39144-39150]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16711]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[156A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G]

Final Determination for Federal Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey
Indian Tribe

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of final determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (Department) gives notice the
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) has determined to
acknowledge the Pamunkey Indian Tribe (Petitioner #323) as an Indian
tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a
determination that affirms the reasoning, analysis, and conclusions in
the Proposed Finding (PF), as modified by additional evidence. The
petitioner has submitted more than sufficient evidence to satisfy each
of the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment set forth in the
regulations under 25 CFR 83.7, and, therefore, meets the requirements
for a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
Based on the limited nature and extent of comments and consistent with
prior practices, the Department did not produce a separate detailed
report or other summary under the criteria pertaining to this final
determination (FD). The proposed finding, as supplemented by this
notice, is affirmed and constitutes the FD.

DATES: This determination is final and will become effective on October
6, 2015, pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(4), unless the petitioner or an
interested party files a request for reconsideration under Sec. 83.11.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the Federal Register notice should be
addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs,
Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution Avenue
NW., MS: 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. The Federal Register notice is
also available through www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/OFA/RecentCases/index.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of
Federal Acknowledgment (OFA), (202) 513-7650.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department publishes this notice in the
exercise of authority the Secretary of the Interior delegated to the
AS-IA by 209 DM 8. The Department issued a PF to acknowledge Petitioner
#323 on January 16, 2014, and published notice of that preliminary
decision in the Federal Register on January 23, 2014, pursuant to part
83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR part 83) (79
FR 3860). This FD affirms the PF and concludes that the Pamunkey Indian
Tribe, c/o Mr. Kevin M. Brown, 331 Pocket Road, King William, VA 23086,
fully satisfies the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment as an
Indian tribe. Since the promulgation of the Department's regulations in
1978, the Department has reviewed over 50 complete petitions for
Federal acknowledgment. OFA experts view this petition and the
voluminous and clear documentation as truly extraordinary. Based on the
facts and evidence, Petitioner #323 easily satisfies the seven
mandatory criteria.
Publication of the PF in the Federal Register initiated the 180-day
comment period provided in the regulations at Sec. 83.10(i). The
comment period closed July 22, 2014. Neither the Pamunkey petitioner
nor other parties asked for an on-the-record technical assistance
meeting under Sec. 83.10(j)(2). The petitioner submitted comments
certified by its governing body, and a third party submitted comment on
the PF during the comment period. The Department also received 10
letters from trade associations and businesses that raised concerns
over the potential impact acknowledgment of the petitioner might have
on tax revenues to the Commonwealth and on their own economic interests
should the petitioner venture into commercial enterprises. Three of
these letters were received after the close of the comment period. Not
all of the correspondence was copied to the petitioner as is required
for comment under Sec. 83.10(i). The correspondence did not address
the evidence or analysis in the PF, is not substantive comment on
whether the petitioner meets the mandatory criteria, and is therefore
not further addressed in this FD. Further, as provided under Sec.
83.10(l)(1), untimely comment cannot be considered. The petitioner
submitted its response to the third-party comment and some of the
correspondence before the close of the 60-day response period on
September 22, 2014.
As part of the consultation process provided by the regulations at
Sec. 83.10(k)(1), the OFA wrote a letter to the petitioner and
interested parties on October 16, 2014, followed by contact

[[Page 39145]]

with the petitioner's attorney. These communications informed the
petitioner and interested parties that the Department planned to begin
active consideration of all comments and the petitioner's response on
November 3, 2014, and to issue a FD on or before March 31, 2015. The
Department received no objections to this schedule. On March 27, 2015,
the Department notified the petitioner and interested parties that the
deadline for issuing the FD was extended 90 days to on or before July
29, 2015, to allow the Office of the AS-IA additional time based on the
AS-IA's overall workload and travel schedule.
In addition to the record for the PF, this FD reviews and considers
the arguments and evidence submitted as comments by the petitioner and
third parties as well as the petitioner's response to the third-party
comment. This FD addresses the third-party arguments under the
appropriate criteria below. Because the PF addressed in detail the
wealth of evidence showing how it is more than sufficient to fully
satisfy the criteria, as well as some of the arguments presented in the
third-party comment, this FD supplements, and must be read in
conjunction with, the PF.
The third party comment that specifically addresses the PF was co-
authored by the organizations ``Stand Up for California!'' and MGM
National Harbor (Stand Up for California! and MGM 2014). Its Attachment
1 contains documents that are the same as, similar to, or related to
documents that were already in the record and considered in the
Department's PF. This commenter presents three issues in particular
that do not relate to any specific criterion. None of these three
issues merits a revision in the evaluation and conclusions under the
criteria nor justifies the delay in issuing the FD. First, the
commenter discussed the Department's proposed changes to the
acknowledgment regulations (79 FR 30766, May 29, 2014) and proposes
that the Department should not proceed with the issuance of the
Pamunkey FD until the Department ``resolves what standards are
sufficiently `objective' for establishing that an American Indian group
exists as an Indian Tribe '' (Stand Up for California! and MGM 2014,
3). The comment does not challenge the existing regulations, and in
fact refers to the existing regulatory criteria as ``longstanding,
clearly defined criteria that have been in effect since 1978.'' (Stand
Up for California! and MGM 2014, 3-4). This issue does not merit delay
in issuing the FD. The existing regulations remain in effect until July
30, 2015, and the Department's authority to promulgate them has been
universally affirmed by the courts. Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana
v. Babbitt, 255 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 2001); James v. United States Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Western
Shoshone Business Council v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 1993). In
Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana, the unanimous opinion authored by
Judge Posner squarely rejected a challenge to the Department's
authority to promulgate the Federal acknowledgment regulations,
explaining ``Recognition is, as we have pointed out, traditionally an
executive function. When done by treaty it requires the Senate's
consent, but it never requires legislation, whatever power Congress may
have to legislate in the area.'' In addition, as a general matter, a
proposed rule does not preclude action under existing regulatory
authority. Delay, therefore, is not appropriate. This decision is
issued under the rules in effect at the time of this decision. The
revisions to the federal acknowledgment regulations have now been
finalized and published, but they are not effective until July 31,
2015. (80 FR 37862, July 1, 2015). In any event, the Pamunkey
petitioner had the choice to suspend review pending revision of the
regulations, and they chose to proceed under the regulations as they
currently exist.
Second, the commenter maintains that the Pamunkey petitioner is in
violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) because its membership
standards specifically prohibit its members from marrying African-
Americans (Stand Up for California! and MGM 2014, 5-7). The commenter
maintains that prohibiting female members from voting and holding
office are violations of the ICRA as well. The ICRA applies to
federally recognized tribes, and thus does not apply to a petitioner,
which by definition is not a federally recognized tribe. Further, the
petitioner's submission in response to the PF and third-party comment
indicates that it has removed the designation ``male'' with regard to
voting members, changed all male pronouns in this document to include
both male and female pronouns, and deleted the first section of its
``Ordinances'' document, which had mandated that members marry only
persons of ``white or Indian blood.'' These changes address the
specific concerns raised by the third party. Finally, the Department
notes that it examines the evidence in its historical context for
purposes of the evaluation under the criteria. The Commonwealth of
Virginia's history is relevant to the historical context. For example,
interracial marriage was a crime in the Commonwealth of Virginia until
the United States Supreme Court struck down that law in 1967. Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Although such historical evidence often
offends today's sensibilities, it is, nonetheless, evidence to be
analyzed. This argument does not merit a revision to the evaluation or
conclusions under the criteria.
Finally, the commenter takes issue with the 2008 notice issued by
the AS-IA providing guidance and direction to OFA on an interpretation
of the acknowledgment regulations. The commenter objects that this
notice allows petitioners to document their claims of continuous tribal
existence only since 1789, rather than at first sustained contact,
which in this case would have been nearly 200 years prior with the
founding of the Jamestown colony in 1607 (72 FR 30146). According to
the commenter, the AS-IA's ``illegal guidance'' resulted in an improper
finding by the Department (Stand Up for California! and MGM 2014, 7-
11). The AS-IA's 2008 directive is an interpretation of the
regulations, not a change to the regulations, and it is within the
authority of the AS-IA to make such interpretations and offer such
guidance., Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015). The
commenter did not provide evidence that the petitioner did not exist
before 1789, and other evidence in the record actually supports the
finding of continued existence since first sustained contact. In fact,
even though it was not required to do so, the petitioner submitted
considerable evidence that the 1789 population at Indian Town connects
to the Pamunkey population described by politicians, travelers, and the
Colony of Virginia from the mid-1600s onward (PIT PF 2014, 4-6, 22-23).
The commenter did not challenge this evidence ``show[ing] that a
Pamunkey Indian tribe or settlement continued throughout the colonial
period,'' nor the documented connection between the 1789 and mid-1600s
``first contact'' population (PIT PF 2014, 5). This general comment
without any evidence does not merit a revision in the evaluation or
conclusions under the criteria.
Although the PF found that the petitioner satisfied all seven
mandatory criteria, the petitioner submitted even more evidence as part
of its comment on the PF. The petitioner's timely comments on the PF
included a 93-page narrative and 4 appendices of exhibits.

[[Page 39146]]

These exhibits included historical documents related to the Pamunkey
church; an updated and separately certified membership list identifying
208 members as of July 19, 2014; an updated genealogical database of
the petitioner's members and their ancestry; 99 ancestor files; and 208
member files (PIT Comments 2014). The petitioner's timely response to
third-party comments included 59 pages of explanatory information on
how it satisfies the criteria and 31 pages of exhibits, primarily
genealogical in content (PIT Response 2014).
The petitioner provided additional new evidence and analyses
addressing community, some revisions to its governing document, and
additional documentation tracing descent from the historical Indian
tribe. The third-party comment provided no new evidence and their
arguments did not merit revision of the PF's conclusions. Although the
PF found that petitioner satisfied the criteria, the petitioner
submitted even more evidence. This FD finds that the general arguments
against the conclusions of the PF are not persuasive and do not
necessitate a change in the reasoning, analyses, and conclusions for
the FD. This FD modifies only a few specific findings in the PF
concerning criterion 83.7(e), based on the information submitted by the
petitioner, but these revised calculations, based on updated and newly
submitted membership information, only strengthen the PF's overall
conclusion that the petitioner meets all seven mandatory criteria. In
summary, the amount and quality of evidence submitted by the petitioner
both prior to and after the PF sets this petition apart as one of the
most well documented petitions ever reviewed by OFA and the Department.
Petitioner's extraordinary amount of quality evidence and documentation
easily satisfies the mandatory criteria for acknowledgment. Therefore,
this FD affirms the PF.

Evaluation Under the Criteria

Criterion 83.7(a) requires that external observers have identified
the petitioner as an American Indian entity on a substantially
continuous basis since 1900. Neither the petitioner's nor third-party
comments explicitly addressed the PF's conclusions that the petitioner
met criterion 83.7(a). The evidence in the record is voluminous and
extraordinary. The evidence identifies Pamunkey as an American Indian
entity by various external observers, including newspaper articles,
state and local officials, and scholars. This evidence shows external
observers identified the Pamunkey petitioner as an American Indian
entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900; therefore, this
FD affirms the PF's conclusions that 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 petitioner met this criterion in the PF from 1789 until 1899
with a combination of evidence under criterion 83.7(b)(1). From 1900 to
the present, the high level of evidence available under criterion
83.7(c)(2) was used to demonstrate community under criterion 83.7(b),
using the ``crossover'' evidence provision under 83.7(b)(2)(v). The PF
did not request additional evidence to demonstrate criterion 83.7(b),
as the comprehensive evidence in the record for the PF more than
satisfies the criterion. Taking nothing for granted, the petitioner
submitted additional new information concerning the Pamunkey Baptist
Church and its role in the historical Pamunkey community. This new
evidence documented that the ``body of individuals residing at Indian
Town'' petitioned the organization to form a new church (the future
Colosse Church) after a theological schism had resulted in the
expulsion of the Lower College Church from the Dover Baptist
Association, circa 1835. Further, when the Dover representatives came
to visit, they met non-Pamunkeys who sought to establish a new
congregation, as well as the Pamunkey group, who had actually initiated
the investigation. The Pamunkey group agreed to attach itself to this
new congregation. The petitioner also referenced some mid-19th century
documents from the chancery court records of Petersburg, VA., that
contain additional information about Lavinia Sampson, a Pamunkey woman
who was discussed in the PF (PIT PF 2014, 38-39). Such information,
although not needed to meet any of the criteria, further described and
corroborated the role of the church in the petitioner's community
before and after the Civil War, and also provided some additional
discussion about Lavinia Sampson's relationship with some of the
Pamunkey still living in King William County. This information
strengthened the conclusions reached in the PF under criterion 83.7(b).
Other new evidence further supports the conclusions reached in the
PF. Department researchers located a copy of the 1864 U.S. Navy court-
martial of William Terrill Bradby, who was convicted of manslaughter
for killing his brother Sterling Bradby in February of that year (NARA,
Court Martial Case Files 1809-1894, NN1665). Previous researchers had
known of the court-martial, but none had been able to locate a copy of
the documents, possibly because it had been filed under the erroneous
name ``Gerrill.'' According to the court-martial documents, several men
elsewhere identified as Indians from King William County lived in a
temporary settlement off the reservation for a short time during the
Civil War (all but one are known to have returned to their homes in
King William County immediately after the war ended). The settlement
was located on Mumford's Island, near Gloucester Point in Gloucester
County, about 50 miles from the Pamunkey reservation. Four other men
(two named on censuses of the Pamunkey reservation and two associated
with the neighboring Mattaponi state Indian reservation) testified that
they also lived on Mumford's Island in 1864. The older men likely
served as civilian boat pilots for the Union Army during their stay
there. Sterling Bradby's wife, Ellen, is specifically identified as
having been at Mumford's Island. This document provides additional
information describing the relations among Pamunkey members and some of
their relatives from the Mattaponi reservation during the 19th century,
and further demonstrates that these members left the reservation as a
group and later returned to it. This new evidence and analysis further
supports the conclusions regarding the social relationships among group
members reached in the PF for criterion 83.7(b).
Stand Up for California! and MGM maintained that the petitioner
should not have been able to satisfy criterion 83.7(b) for a number of
reasons. The commenter maintained that the ``crossover'' evidence from
criterion 83.7(c)(2) used to satisfy criterion 83.7(b) should not have
been used for the period from 1900 to the present because the
reservation population was less than a ``predominant proportion'' of
the group (Stand Up for California! and MGM 2014, 11-12). The
regulations, 83.7(b), define community using the terms ``predominant
portion.'' Section 83.7(b)(2) further provides that a petitioner
``shall be considered to have provided sufficient evidence of
community'' at a given point in time if ``the group has met the
criterion in Sec. 83.7(c) using evidence described in Sec.
83.7(c)(2).'' The regulations under Sec. 83.7(c) or Sec. 83.7(c)(2),
however, do not require that a ``predominant proportion'' of members
live within a limited area, and Sec. 83.7(b)(2) defines the Sec.
83.7(c)(2) evidence as ``sufficient'' to meet Sec. 83.7(b). Therefore,
the third-party

[[Page 39147]]

argument that less than a predominant portion lived on the reservation
does not merit a change in the analysis or conclusions reached in the
PF under criterion 83.7(b). The Sec. 83.7(c)(2) evidence included
multiple relevant and remarkably exceptional examples of the group's
leadership allocating reservation land, determining residence rights,
collecting taxes and fines from residents, and resolving disputes
between members. The third party does not provide any evidence; instead
it argues that the regulations should be applied in an unconventional
manner contrary to the language of the regulations. In summary, the
third party comment does not in any substantive manner undermine the
sufficiency of this substantial body of evidence.
Further, the commenter characterized the migration of members away
from the reservation as the ``steady and deliberate abandonment of the
reservation by Petitioner's members'' (Stand Up for California! and MGM
2014, 13) and maintained that ``there is evidence that affirmatively
establishes that a substantial portion of the petitioner ceased to
participate in the group'' (Stand Up for California! and MGM 2014, 11).
These broad statements are contrary to the truly exceptional evidence
in the record. First, the PF described a core reservation population
throughout the 19th and 20th centuries (PIT PF 40-42, 46-47, 72-79); at
no time was the reservation itself ever ``abandoned,'' even if some
people moved away. Most, if not every, federally recognized Indian
tribe has citizens who do not reside on the tribe's reservation.
Indeed, some federally recognized Indian tribes do not have a
reservation. Second, the PF acknowledged that some people left the
community permanently; however, the PF also noted that other people
left the reservation for various economic opportunities over the years
and described how some of those who left stayed in contact with those
still on the reservation, as well as with others who also left for
economic reasons. This pattern of behavior is entirely consistent with
that of citizens of federally recognized Indian tribes. The PF noted
that members who moved to cities such as Philadelphia often sought out
other Pamunkey who had moved there earlier to help them obtain
employment or a place to live. It also noted that people who moved away
from the reservation returned to visit when they could, and often
returned to live there years later (PIT PF 2014, 54-55).
Indeed, most successful petitioners do not have a state reservation
or a land base. Notwithstanding this basic fact, past Department
findings have noted other communities where people moved away from the
area where a number of members resided for work or other opportunities,
but remained in contact with those relatives still living in a core
community (see findings for Huron Potawatomi and Match-E-Be-Nash-She-
Wish Band of Pottawatomi), and the evidence in the record indicates
that this pattern also occurred with the Pamunkey. In many respects, it
is irrelevant that people left the Pamunkey reservation. What is
relevant for purposes of community is the evidence in the record that
other members knew where they were, and often stayed in contact with
them (PIT PF 2014,74-75; 77-78). Likewise, there is no requirement that
all descendants of historical members remain in the membership at
present. Current rules for membership in the group specify a social
connection to the community as well as to current members living on the
reservation (PIT PF 2014, 83-84). That the present membership consists
of members whose families have remained in contact with each other
demonstrates that the group is more than just a group of descendants
with little in common other than a distant genealogical connection. It
is inaccurate to describe the economic migration of members as
``abandonment'' of the group. Virtually every federally recognized
Indian tribe has members who do not live on the reservation. Like those
members of federally recognized Indian tribes, Pamunkey members remain
a part of the community, even though they may no longer live on the
reservation.
The Department finds that the third-party comments do not change
the analysis of the PF's substantial body of evidence and overall
conclusions that a distinct Pamunkey community has existed from
historical times to the present. The evidence in the record is more
than sufficient to satisfy this criterion. Therefore, the Pamunkey
petitioner meets criterion 83.7(b).
Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the petitioning group has
maintained political influence over its members as an autonomous entity
since historical times. ``Autonomous'' is defined in terms of political
influence or authority independent of the control of any other Indian
governing entity. The petitioner met this criterion in the PF. Stand Up
for California! and MGM argued, ``It is impossible to determine from
the evidence in the PF that the Indian community at Pamunkey Island
actually meets the criteria for tribal acknowledgment in 1789, i.e.,
that it existed as a self-governing tribe, rather than simply as an
increasingly assimilated community of Indian families'' (Stand Up for
California! and MGM 2014, 9-10). The commenter contends that the
evidence in the record indicated the Pamunkey were not politically
autonomous in the late 18th and early 19th centuries because of the
involvement of the Pamunkey trustees, whom the commenter describes as
``non-Indians appointed by the Commonwealth'' (Stand Up for California!
and MGM 2014, 10).
While there is some indication that the Commonwealth of Virginia
appointed the trustees before 1799, the legislature then passed an act
specifically authorizing the Indians to directly elect trustees. Even
prior to 1799, there is evidence that the Pamunkey still had some input
into those decisions, and that the choice of trustees was not a matter
for the Assembly alone. The Department also rejects the commenter's
argument because there is more than sufficient evidence in the record
to determine that the Commonwealth considered the Pamunkey a tribe in
1789, and not just a collection of families. That the Commonwealth
established the procedure by which the Pamunkeys themselves selected
trustees to deal with issues specific to the Pamunkey, including the
disposition of land and the resolution of residency rights, indicates
that Virginia recognized the Pamunkey as a political entity.
Further, the extensive evidence demonstrates that the Pamunkey
consulted the trustees on a variety of matters over the years and
valued their advice and recommendations, but the Pamunkey themselves
made the ultimate decisions. The historical record demonstrates that
the trustees served as intermediaries and advisors on legal affairs
between the Pamunkey and the outside world (see, for example, PIT PF
2014, 38 and 60). While various states may have historically passed
laws or appointed trustees for state tribes, the regulations in this
regard simply require that the petitioner exercise political authority
independent of the control of another Indian tribe. In any event, there
is no evidence in the record that the Pamunkey trustees ever exercised
any political authority over the group. The extensive record provided
significant evidence of regular elections of chiefs and councils
throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The highly detailed records
from the 20th century also demonstrate that the group managed its own
affairs and exercised political influence and authority over its
members. Previous acknowledgment decisions establish that the presence
of non-Indian trustees, justices of the

[[Page 39148]]

peace or overseers does not prevent a petitioner from meeting criterion
83.7(c) (Mashpee PF 2006, 14, 37, 89, 98).
The commenter also questioned the PF's description of the Pamunkey
Indian reservation (alternately referred to as ``Pamunkey Island,''
``Indian Island,'' and ``Indian Town'') as a distinctly Pamunkey
community because of the presence of some other Indian individuals and
an unspecified number of non-Indians (Stand Up for California! and MGM
2014, 9-11). Even if other Indians or non-Indians lived on the
reservation, the petitioner has submitted more than sufficient evidence
demonstrating that it maintained a distinct community. The PF did note
that there were other individual Indians and some non-Indians living
among the Pamunkey, and described the Pamunkey settlement as ``very
nearly exclusive,'' although not completely exclusive in the late 18th
and early 19th centuries (PIT PF 2014, 23). The regulations have never
required complete or nearly complete exclusivity. Further, the PF
acknowledged the presence of unauthorized squatters living on the
reservation, but specifically noted that there was no indication that
these squatters ever became part of the Pamunkey community. The PIT
response to the Stand Up for California! and MGM comments stated that
the squatters did not live on Indian Island proper, but lived on other
lands that were then owned by the Pamunkey and later sold (PIT Response
2014, 23). However, there is no indication there was ever an Indian
entity on Indian Island or on any of the land owned by the Pamunkey
separate from the Pamunkey itself. In the case of the families living
on the nearby Mattaponi state Indian reservation, individuals did go
back and forth between the two communities, particularly when they
married a member of the opposite group. The overwhelming evidence in
the record easily demonstrates that there was a distinct self-governing
community residing on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation, which was
autonomous and separate entity from the Mattaponi on its separate state
Indian reservation. All evidence in the record indicates that some
Indian individuals from other tribes lived with or married into the
Pamunkey, but that the Pamunkey reservation remained a distinctly
Pamunkey settlement under the authority of the Pamunkey leaders. This
situation is extraordinarily analogous to many federally recognized
Indian tribes and Indian reservations throughout the United States. As
further support, the regulations provide in Sec. 83.6(e), that
evaluations of petitions shall take into account the limitation
inherent in demonstrating the historical existence of community and
political influence or authority.
Other new evidence further supports the conclusions reached in the
PF. Department researchers located a document within the chancery court
records of King William County, Virginia, which described how the
Pamunkey administered affairs on the reservation at the turn of the
20th century (Miles v. Miles 1907). The reservation treasurer, Pamunkey
member J. T. Dennis, testified in this case and explained that the
Pamunkey council served as a judicial body, adjudicating disputes on
the reservation, and also explained that the council had the authority
to regulate the behavior of members on the reservation. Dennis stated
that the council would allow aggrieved members to take their cases to
the courts of the Commonwealth if the other party did not comply with
the rulings issued by the reservation council, and that the council had
threatened to exercise this authority against the young man in this
particular case if he did not abide by their dictates. Two other
reservation residents also testified that the young man had obeyed the
dictates of the council. Dennis also stated that reservation law did
allow people to be ``put out'' of the tribe if they did not obey the
dictates of the tribal council, and characterized this as ``a pretty
severe punishment.'' Dennis did not say if the young man had been
threatened with being ``put out'' of the tribe, although the
plaintiff's lawyer seems to intimate that he had feared that might
happen if he did not obey the council. This new evidence supplements
the already voluminous and substantial evidence and further underscores
the authority the Pamunkey council held over the reservation residents
even in personal matters, and demonstrates that the members living
there recognized this authority.
The commenter's arguments are unsupported by the voluminous,
substantial evidence in the record, not persuasive, and new evidence in
the record further supports the conclusions reached in the PF that the
petitioning group has maintained political influence and authority over
its members since historical times. This FD affirms the PF's
conclusions. Therefore, the Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion
83.7(c).
Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the petitioning group provide a
copy of its governing document, including its membership criteria. For
the PF, the petitioner submitted a copy of its governing document which
included its membership criteria, satisfying the requirements of
criterion 83.7(d). In its response to comments, the petitioner
submitted an amended governing document, entitled ``Laws of the
Pamunkey Indians,'' and an amended secondary governing document,
entitled ``Ordinances of the Pamunkey Indian Reservation'' (PIT
Response 2014, 60-78, Exhibit 1). The petitioner revised its governing
document (``Laws'') on July 12, 2012, to remove the designation
``male'' with regard to voting members, to modify the qualification for
service on the group's governing body, and to revise rights to
residence on the Pamunkey reservation. On September 4, 2014, the
petitioner changed all male pronouns in this document to include both
male and female pronouns. On August 27, 2014, the petitioner deleted
the first section of its ``Ordinances'' document, which had mandated
that members marry only persons of ``white or Indian blood.''
The documents submitted for the FD provide new evidence under
criterion 83.7(d) concerning how the Pamunkey petitioner governs itself
and determines its membership, supporting the conclusions in the PF.
This FD affirms the PF's conclusions. 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. The PF
found the petitioner met criterion 83.7(e) because it submitted a
separately certified membership list and because 162 of its 203 members
(80 percent) demonstrated descent from members of the historical
Pamunkey Indian tribe. During the comment period, the petitioner
submitted an updated membership list, separately certified by its
governing body, and additional genealogical evidence, that demonstrates
that all of its current 208 members (100 percent) document descent from
members of the historical Pamunkey Indian tribe as of July 19, 2014
(PIT Comment 2014, Appendix 4). Accordingly, the evidence in the record
is more than sufficient to establish that petitioner has satisfied this
criterion. Supplemental genealogical evidence included certified birth
records for 11 members and one member's parent, and parentage
documentation for deceased forebears Robert W. Miles, Ezekiel Langston,
and Daizy/Hazie Bloomfield Allmond (PIT Comment 2014, Appendix 4, Item
5, 47-93).

[[Page 39149]]

The PF found that 41 of the petitioner's 203 members either had not
documented descent from their claimed Pamunkey ancestor, or claimed
ancestors who were not documented as historical Pamunkey Indians. Of
these 41 members, 18 (9 percent of the petitioner's members) did not
document descent from a member of the historical Pamunkey Indian tribe.
This FD finds that of these 18, all have now documented their
generation-by-generation descent from a member of the historical
Pamunkey Indian Tribe. The residual 23 members claimed descent from
Robert W. Miles, whose ancestry had not been traced to a member of the
historical Pamunkey Indian tribe at the time of the PF. With new
evidence submitted by the petitioner for the FD, it is now demonstrated
that Robert W. Miles is the grandson of Pleasant Miles, a documented
member of the historical Indian tribe. All of the residual 23 members
have documented their generation-by-generation descent from Pleasant
Miles through Robert W. Miles for this FD.
Materials the petitioner submitted in the comment period
demonstrated also that some current members descend from an additional
historical Pamunkey Indian individual who was not claimed as their
ancestor for the PF (PIT Comment 2014, Appendix 4, Item 5, 76-82). This
historical individual, known to be a member of the historical Pamunkey
Indian tribe, is Pleasant Miles (b.bef.1815-d.aft.1836), listed on the
1836 petition, and now demonstrated to be the father of Isaac Miles
(b.abt.1828-d.aft.1852) and the grandfather of Robert W. Miles (b.1852-
d.1930). As a result of this new evidence, 40 members of the petitioner
are able to claim descent from Pleasant Miles, and 33 of those 40 have
documented that descent. Of the remaining seven members, one has
documented his descent from Edward Bradby, and the other six have
documented their descent from Edward Bradby and Isaac Miles, Jr., other
qualifying historical Pamunkey Indian ancestors.
Stand Up for California! and MGM argued that the PF did not
satisfactorily document Matilda Brisby (aka Brisley or Bradby) as a
historical Pamunkey Indian (Stand Up for California! and MGM 2014, 14-
16). The PF reported that Matilda Brisby was listed on the 1835 Colosse
Baptist Church ``Island List'' of Indians associated with the Pamunkey
Indian community on ``Indian Island,'' which the PF considered as a
list identifying members of the historical Pamunkey Indian tribe (PIT
PF 2014, App. A). The Southern Claims Commission testimony of Matilda
Brisby's grandson, son-in-law, and numerous others, all of whom were
identified as members of the Pamunkey Indian tribe, implied that she
was considered a member of the Pamunkey community (PIT PF 2014, 97-98;
see also discussion under criterion 83.7(b)). The PF concluded this
evidence was sufficient under the reasonable likelihood standard to
identify her as a historical Pamunkey Indian, whether she was born
Pamunkey or was married to a Pamunkey Indian. The commenter argues that
``at most'' the Church record ``establishes that the listed individuals
were Indians and residents of the state reservation'' and further
questions whether Martha A. (Brisby) Page Sampson and Matilda A.
(Brisby) Langston were her daughters. The marriage records of these two
individuals, however, specifically identify Matilda Brisby as their
mother. The commenter does not present any evidence that Matilda Brisby
was non-Indian or other Indian, surmising based on secondary sources
that she may be Mattaponi ``based on close relationship between
Pamunkey and Mattaponi.'' Without any direct evidence, the commenter's
argument is not persuasive. The evidence in the record affirms the
Department's conclusion that Matilda Brisby is Pamunkey Indian.
Of the 164 members of the petitioner claiming descent from Matilda
Brisby, 157 have demonstrated that descent. However, even if Matilda
Brisby were not Pamunkey Indian, it would not change the finding that
petitioner has satisfied this criterion. Based on the evidence
submitted by the petitioner in the comment period, all 164 of those
members also demonstrate descent from one or more of six other
historical Pamunkey Indians--Edward ``Ned'' Bradby (Sr.) (122), William
Bradby (30), James Langston (131), Isaac Miles, Jr. (108), Pleasant
Miles (5), and John Sampson (65). The commenter provides no primary
evidence that these individuals are not Pamunkey Indian, and under the
regulations, the evidence demonstrates they are Pamunkey. Thus, the
commenter's argument regarding Matilda Brisby, even if true, does not
require a change in the conclusions of the PF that the petitioner meets
criterion 83.7(e).
In summary, the petitioner's evidence for 100 percent of its
membership is more than sufficient to demonstrate that it descends from
a historical Indian tribe. For all of the above reasons, the argument
presented by the third party does not result in a change in the
conclusion that Matilda Brisby was a member of the historical Pamunkey
Indian tribe. (This FD notes and corrects an error in the PF that gave
``1850'' instead of ``1820'' as the approximate date of Matilda
Brisby's marriage to Edward Brisby; PIT PF 2014, 97).
The commenter Stand Up for California! and MGM also argued that
demonstrating Matilda Brisby's non-Indian status would result in the
group's failure to meet criterion 83.7(e) because too many members
would no longer have descent from the historical Pamunkey Indian tribe
(Stand Up for California! and MGM 2014, 13). Because evidence the
petitioner submitted for the FD demonstrates all 208 current members
descend from the historical Pamunkey Indian tribe through individuals
other than Matilda Brisby, this argument does not require a change in
the analysis for the FD (PIT Comment 2014, Appendix 4, Membership Files
and Item 5, 47-93; PIT Response 2014, Narrative, 48-50).
The Department's evaluation of new evidence submitted for the FD
further strengthens the overall conclusions reached in the PF under
criterion 83.7(e). For the FD, the Pamunkey petitioner has demonstrated
that 100 percent of its members descend from the historical Pamunkey
Indian tribe, with every member having generation-to-generation
documentation of descent from a member of the historical Pamunkey
Indian tribe. This evidence is more than sufficient to satisfy this
criterion. Therefore, the Pamunkey petitioner fully satisfies criterion
83.7(e).
Criterion 83.7(f) requires the petitioner's membership be composed
principally of persons who are not members of another federally
recognized Indian tribe. The petitioner met this criterion in the PF.
All five of the new members added since the PF stated on consent forms
that they are not enrolled with any federally recognized Indian tribe.
The evidence in the record demonstrates the membership of the
petitioner is composed principally of persons who are not members of
any acknowledged North American Indian tribe. The petitioner and third
party did not submit comments on this criterion. Therefore, the FD
affirms the PF's conclusions that the Pamunkey 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 PF concluded the petitioner met criterion 83.7(g)
because the petitioner did not submit and the Department did not locate
any evidence that Congress has either terminated or forbidden a Federal
relationship with

[[Page 39150]]

the petitioner or its members. The petitioner and third party did not
submit comments on this criterion. Therefore, this FD affirms the PF's
conclusion that the Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion 83.7(g).
This notice is the FD to extend Federal acknowledgment under 25 CFR
part 83 to the Pamunkey Indian Tribe. Under Sec. 83.10(h) of the
regulations, this FD summarizes the evidence, reasoning, and analyses
that form the basis for this decision. In addition to its publication
in the Federal Register, this notice will be posted on the Bureau of
Indian Affairs Web site at http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/OFA/RecentCases/index.htm. Requests for a copy of the FD should be
addressed to the Federal Government as instructed in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice.
After the publication of the FD in the Federal Register, the
Pamunkey petitioner or any interested party may file a request for
reconsideration with the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) under
the procedures in Sec. 83.11 of the regulations. The IBIA must receive
this request no later than 90 days after the publication of the FD in
the Federal Register. The FD will become effective as provided in the
regulation 90 days after the Federal Register publication unless a
request for reconsideration is received within that time.

Dated: July 2, 2015.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-16711 Filed 7-2-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 2015 / Notices 39145

with the petitioner’s attorney. These 30, 2015, and the Department’s under the criteria. The Commonwealth
communications informed the petitioner authority to promulgate them has been of Virginia’s history is relevant to the
and interested parties that the universally affirmed by the courts. historical context. For example,
Department planned to begin active Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana v. interracial marriage was a crime in the
consideration of all comments and the Babbitt, 255 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 2001); Commonwealth of Virginia until the
petitioner’s response on November 3, James v. United States Dep’t of Health United States Supreme Court struck
2014, and to issue a FD on or before & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. down that law in 1967. Loving v.
March 31, 2015. The Department Cir. 1987); Western Shoshone Business Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Although
received no objections to this schedule. Council v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1052 (10th such historical evidence often offends
On March 27, 2015, the Department Cir. 1993). In Miami Nation of Indians today’s sensibilities, it is, nonetheless,
notified the petitioner and interested of Indiana, the unanimous opinion evidence to be analyzed. This argument
parties that the deadline for issuing the authored by Judge Posner squarely does not merit a revision to the
FD was extended 90 days to on or before rejected a challenge to the Department’s evaluation or conclusions under the
July 29, 2015, to allow the Office of the authority to promulgate the Federal criteria.
AS–IA additional time based on the AS– acknowledgment regulations, explaining Finally, the commenter takes issue
IA’s overall workload and travel ‘‘Recognition is, as we have pointed out, with the 2008 notice issued by the AS–
schedule. traditionally an executive function. IA providing guidance and direction to
In addition to the record for the PF, When done by treaty it requires the OFA on an interpretation of the
this FD reviews and considers the Senate’s consent, but it never requires acknowledgment regulations. The
arguments and evidence submitted as legislation, whatever power Congress commenter objects that this notice
comments by the petitioner and third may have to legislate in the area.’’ In allows petitioners to document their
parties as well as the petitioner’s addition, as a general matter, a proposed claims of continuous tribal existence
response to the third-party comment. rule does not preclude action under only since 1789, rather than at first
This FD addresses the third-party existing regulatory authority. Delay, sustained contact, which in this case
arguments under the appropriate criteria therefore, is not appropriate. This would have been nearly 200 years prior
below. Because the PF addressed in decision is issued under the rules in with the founding of the Jamestown
detail the wealth of evidence showing effect at the time of this decision. The colony in 1607 (72 FR 30146).
how it is more than sufficient to fully revisions to the federal acknowledgment According to the commenter, the AS–
satisfy the criteria, as well as some of regulations have now been finalized and IA’s ‘‘illegal guidance’’ resulted in an
the arguments presented in the third- published, but they are not effective improper finding by the Department
party comment, this FD supplements, until July 31, 2015. (80 FR 37862, July (Stand Up for California! and MGM
and must be read in conjunction with, 1, 2015). In any event, the Pamunkey 2014, 7–11). The AS–IA’s 2008 directive
the PF. petitioner had the choice to suspend is an interpretation of the regulations,
The third party comment that not a change to the regulations, and it
review pending revision of the
specifically addresses the PF was co- is within the authority of the AS–IA to
regulations, and they chose to proceed
authored by the organizations ‘‘Stand make such interpretations and offer
under the regulations as they currently
Up for California!’’ and MGM National such guidance., Perez v. Mortgage
exist.
Harbor (Stand Up for California! and Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015).
MGM 2014). Its Attachment 1 contains Second, the commenter maintains The commenter did not provide
documents that are the same as, similar that the Pamunkey petitioner is in evidence that the petitioner did not
to, or related to documents that were violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act exist before 1789, and other evidence in
already in the record and considered in (ICRA) because its membership the record actually supports the finding
the Department’s PF. This commenter standards specifically prohibit its of continued existence since first
presents three issues in particular that members from marrying African- sustained contact. In fact, even though
do not relate to any specific criterion. Americans (Stand Up for California! and it was not required to do so, the
None of these three issues merits a MGM 2014, 5–7). The commenter petitioner submitted considerable
revision in the evaluation and maintains that prohibiting female evidence that the 1789 population at
conclusions under the criteria nor members from voting and holding office Indian Town connects to the Pamunkey
justifies the delay in issuing the FD. are violations of the ICRA as well. The population described by politicians,
First, the commenter discussed the ICRA applies to federally recognized travelers, and the Colony of Virginia
Department’s proposed changes to the tribes, and thus does not apply to a from the mid-1600s onward (PIT PF
acknowledgment regulations (79 FR petitioner, which by definition is not a 2014, 4–6, 22–23). The commenter did
30766, May 29, 2014) and proposes that federally recognized tribe. Further, the not challenge this evidence ‘‘show[ing]
the Department should not proceed with petitioner’s submission in response to that a Pamunkey Indian tribe or
the issuance of the Pamunkey FD until the PF and third-party comment settlement continued throughout the
the Department ‘‘resolves what indicates that it has removed the colonial period,’’ nor the documented
standards are sufficiently ‘objective’ for designation ‘‘male’’ with regard to connection between the 1789 and mid-
establishing that an American Indian voting members, changed all male 1600s ‘‘first contact’’ population (PIT PF
group exists as an Indian Tribe ’’ (Stand pronouns in this document to include 2014, 5). This general comment without
Up for California! and MGM 2014, 3). both male and female pronouns, and any evidence does not merit a revision
The comment does not challenge the deleted the first section of its in the evaluation or conclusions under
existing regulations, and in fact refers to ‘‘Ordinances’’ document, which had
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

the criteria.
the existing regulatory criteria as mandated that members marry only Although the PF found that the
‘‘longstanding, clearly defined criteria persons of ‘‘white or Indian blood.’’ petitioner satisfied all seven mandatory
that have been in effect since 1978.’’ These changes address the specific criteria, the petitioner submitted even
(Stand Up for California! and MGM concerns raised by the third party. more evidence as part of its comment on
2014, 3–4). This issue does not merit Finally, the Department notes that it the PF. The petitioner’s timely
delay in issuing the FD. The existing examines the evidence in its historical comments on the PF included a 93-page
regulations remain in effect until July context for purposes of the evaluation narrative and 4 appendices of exhibits.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:49 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM 08JYN1

39148 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8, 2015 / Notices

peace or overseers does not prevent a evaluations of petitions shall take into petitioner submitted a copy of its
petitioner from meeting criterion 83.7(c) account the limitation inherent in governing document which included its
(Mashpee PF 2006, 14, 37, 89, 98). demonstrating the historical existence of membership criteria, satisfying the
The commenter also questioned the community and political influence or requirements of criterion 83.7(d). In its
PF’s description of the Pamunkey authority. response to comments, the petitioner
Indian reservation (alternately referred Other new evidence further supports submitted an amended governing
to as ‘‘Pamunkey Island,’’ ‘‘Indian the conclusions reached in the PF. document, entitled ‘‘Laws of the
Island,’’ and ‘‘Indian Town’’) as a Department researchers located a Pamunkey Indians,’’ and an amended
distinctly Pamunkey community document within the chancery court secondary governing document, entitled
because of the presence of some other records of King William County, ‘‘Ordinances of the Pamunkey Indian
Indian individuals and an unspecified Virginia, which described how the Reservation’’ (PIT Response 2014, 60–
number of non-Indians (Stand Up for Pamunkey administered affairs on the 78, Exhibit 1). The petitioner revised its
California! and MGM 2014, 9–11). Even reservation at the turn of the 20th governing document (‘‘Laws’’) on July
if other Indians or non-Indians lived on century (Miles v. Miles 1907). The 12, 2012, to remove the designation
the reservation, the petitioner has reservation treasurer, Pamunkey ‘‘male’’ with regard to voting members,
submitted more than sufficient evidence member J. T. Dennis, testified in this to modify the qualification for service
demonstrating that it maintained a case and explained that the Pamunkey on the group’s governing body, and to
distinct community. The PF did note council served as a judicial body, revise rights to residence on the
adjudicating disputes on the Pamunkey reservation. On September 4,
that there were other individual Indians
reservation, and also explained that the 2014, the petitioner changed all male
and some non-Indians living among the
council had the authority to regulate the pronouns in this document to include
Pamunkey, and described the Pamunkey
behavior of members on the reservation. both male and female pronouns. On
settlement as ‘‘very nearly exclusive,’’
Dennis stated that the council would August 27, 2014, the petitioner deleted
although not completely exclusive in
allow aggrieved members to take their the first section of its ‘‘Ordinances’’
the late 18th and early 19th centuries
cases to the courts of the document, which had mandated that
(PIT PF 2014, 23). The regulations have
Commonwealth if the other party did members marry only persons of ‘‘white
never required complete or nearly
not comply with the rulings issued by or Indian blood.’’
complete exclusivity. Further, the PF
the reservation council, and that the The documents submitted for the FD
acknowledged the presence of council had threatened to exercise this provide new evidence under criterion
unauthorized squatters living on the authority against the young man in this 83.7(d) concerning how the Pamunkey
reservation, but specifically noted that particular case if he did not abide by petitioner governs itself and determines
there was no indication that these their dictates. Two other reservation its membership, supporting the
squatters ever became part of the residents also testified that the young conclusions in the PF. This FD affirms
Pamunkey community. The PIT man had obeyed the dictates of the the PF’s conclusions. Therefore, the
response to the Stand Up for California! council. Dennis also stated that Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion
and MGM comments stated that the reservation law did allow people to be 83.7(d).
squatters did not live on Indian Island ‘‘put out’’ of the tribe if they did not Criterion 83.7(e) requires that the
proper, but lived on other lands that obey the dictates of the tribal council, petitioner’s members descend from a
were then owned by the Pamunkey and and characterized this as ‘‘a pretty historical Indian tribe or from historical
later sold (PIT Response 2014, 23). severe punishment.’’ Dennis did not say Indian tribes which combined and
However, there is no indication there if the young man had been threatened functioned as a single autonomous
was ever an Indian entity on Indian with being ‘‘put out’’ of the tribe, political entity. The PF found the
Island or on any of the land owned by although the plaintiff’s lawyer seems to petitioner met criterion 83.7(e) because
the Pamunkey separate from the intimate that he had feared that might it submitted a separately certified
Pamunkey itself. In the case of the happen if he did not obey the council. membership list and because 162 of its
families living on the nearby Mattaponi This new evidence supplements the 203 members (80 percent) demonstrated
state Indian reservation, individuals did already voluminous and substantial descent from members of the historical
go back and forth between the two evidence and further underscores the Pamunkey Indian tribe. During the
communities, particularly when they authority the Pamunkey council held comment period, the petitioner
married a member of the opposite over the reservation residents even in submitted an updated membership list,
group. The overwhelming evidence in personal matters, and demonstrates that separately certified by its governing
the record easily demonstrates that there the members living there recognized body, and additional genealogical
was a distinct self-governing community this authority. evidence, that demonstrates that all of
residing on the Pamunkey Indian The commenter’s arguments are its current 208 members (100 percent)
Reservation, which was autonomous unsupported by the voluminous, document descent from members of the
and separate entity from the Mattaponi substantial evidence in the record, not historical Pamunkey Indian tribe as of
on its separate state Indian reservation. persuasive, and new evidence in the July 19, 2014 (PIT Comment 2014,
All evidence in the record indicates that record further supports the conclusions Appendix 4). Accordingly, the evidence
some Indian individuals from other reached in the PF that the petitioning in the record is more than sufficient to
tribes lived with or married into the group has maintained political establish that petitioner has satisfied
Pamunkey, but that the Pamunkey influence and authority over its this criterion. Supplemental
reservation remained a distinctly members since historical times. This FD genealogical evidence included certified
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Pamunkey settlement under the affirms the PF’s conclusions. Therefore, birth records for 11 members and one
authority of the Pamunkey leaders. This the Pamunkey petitioner meets criterion member’s parent, and parentage
situation is extraordinarily analogous to 83.7(c). documentation for deceased forebears
many federally recognized Indian tribes Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the Robert W. Miles, Ezekiel Langston, and
and Indian reservations throughout the petitioning group provide a copy of its Daizy/Hazie Bloomfield Allmond (PIT
United States. As further support, the governing document, including its Comment 2014, Appendix 4, Item 5, 47–
regulations provide in § 83.6(e), that membership criteria. For the PF, the 93).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:49 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM 08JYN1

Document Created: 2018-02-23 09:12:32
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 09:12:32

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice of final determination.
Dates		This determination is final and will become effective on October 6, 2015, pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(4), unless the petitioner or an interested party files a request for reconsideration under Sec. 83.11.
Contact		R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA), (202) 513-7650.
FR Citation		80 FR 39144

80 FR 39144 - Final Determination for Federal Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey Indian Tribe

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBureau of Indian Affairs

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 130 (July 8, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs