[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 105 (Friday, May 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31140-31142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Amended Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Biloxi, 
Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM) of Louisiana

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of amended proposed finding.

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

[[Page 31141]]

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 Biloxi, Chitimacha Confederation 
of Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM), c/o Randy Verdun, 114 Retreat Drive, Bourg, 
Lousiana 70343, 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), 83.7(d), 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 Biloxi, Chitimacha Confederation of Muskogees, Inc. (BCCM), 
Petitioner 56a, is a confederation of three subgroups each of 
which claims to be the continuation of a historical Indian community on 
a specific bayou in south-central Louisiana: The Bayou Lafourche Band, 
Grand Caillou/Dulac Band, and Isle de Jean Charles Band. BCCM has 2,545 
members in its three subgroups. BCCM's subgroups have adopted 
constitutions, but BCCM has not submitted a governing document for the 
confederation. BCCM claims to descend from the historical Biloxi, 
Chitimacha, Acolapissa, Atakapa, and Choctaw tribes, but its members 
and their ancestors have been called ``Houma'' Indians since at least 
1907. The petitioner's current organization was formed in 1995. Most of 
BCCM's members previously had been members of the United Houma Nation 
(UHN), Petitioner 56, which received a negative proposed 
finding in 1994.
    BCCM submitted a letter of intent to petition for Federal 
acknowledgment in 1995. The Department advised the BCCM petitioner in 
1996 of its decision to issue an ``amended Proposed Finding'' for BCCM, 
saying that, ``[p]rocedurally, BCCM is being treated as a petitioner 
with a proposed finding. * * *'' The Department informed the BCCM 
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 BCCM to comment on the 
UHN proposed finding and submit its own petition documentation. On 
November 6, 1996, BCCM submitted comments on the UHN petition plus its 
own petition documentation. BCCM submitted additional petition 
documentation on May 15, 1997. The Department notified BCCM that 
evaluation of its petition began on February 4, 2005, and a period to 
submit additional materials would close on April 15, 2005. Three 
subgroups of BCCM separately submitted petition documentation to the 
Department by April 15, 2005.
    This notice is based on a determination that BCCM 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 BCCM 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 settlements or groups of the ``Houma'' associated with the 
petitioner's subgroups provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate the 
substantially continuous identification of the subgroups of the 
petitioner as Indian entities since 1900. Therefore, the BCCM 
petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion.
    The BCCM petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 
83.7(b). This amended proposed finding concludes the BCCM petitioner 
has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion. 
The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's 
ancestors and others associated with them constituted a community 
before 1830. This finding concludes the BCCM 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, there is sufficient evidence for the Isle de Jean 
Charles subgroup of the petitioner, but the evidence in the record is 
not sufficient to show that all of the petitioner's subgroups, or the 
petitioner as a whole, meet the requirements of this criterion. Because 
the evidence in the record does not show that the petitioning group has 
existed as a community from historical times to the present, the BCCM 
petitioner has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this 
criterion.
    The BCCM petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 
83.7(c). This amended proposed finding concludes the BCCM petitioner 
has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of this criterion. 
There is insufficient evidence the petitioner maintained political 
influence over its historical ancestors before 1830. This finding 
concludes the BCCM 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, there is 
sufficient evidence for the Isle de Jean Charles subgroup of the 
petitioner only since the 1990's. Thus, the evidence in the record is 
insufficient to show that the petitioner's subgroups meet the 
requirements of this criterion since 1940. The available evidence is 
not sufficient to show that the petitioner's confederation currently 
maintains political influence over its members. 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 BCCM petitioner has not demonstrated that it meets 
the requirements of this criterion.
    The BCCM petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 
83.7(d). The petitioner, a confederation comprising three subgroups, 
lacks a governing document for the confederation or a statement 
describing in full how the confederation governs itself and defines its 
membership criteria, and did not respond to a

[[Page 31142]]

request for this document. The three subgroups of the BCCM petitioner 
submitted current and former governing documents describing their 
individual governing procedures and membership criteria. All three 
subgroups require descent from historical Indians, but do not identify 
which historical Indians. In the absence of a BCCM governing document, 
or a descriptive statement, the BCCM petitioner does not meet the 
requirements of this criterion.
    The BCCM petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 
83.7(e). The three subgroups of the petitioner submitted separate 
membership lists identifying a total of 2,545 members. The GCD 
subgroup's membership list lacked certification, and the ``Grand 
Council'' governing body of the petitioner did not separately certify 
the three subgroups' lists. The regulations require that the 
petitioner's governing body separately certify its current, complete 
membership list. An analysis of selected members demonstrates that more 
than half 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 
tribes which combined and functioned as a single tribal entity. The 
evidence in the record has not demonstrated that the BCCM petitioner's 
members descend from a historical Indian tribe. Therefore, the 
petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(e).
    The BCCM petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(f). 
The names of current BCCM members do not appear on rolls of federally 
recognized Indian tribes reviewed for this amended proposed finding. 
Additionally, each of the BCCM petitioner's subgroups requires its 
members to disavow membership in any other Indian group, and their 
submissions included disavowals for 89 percent of the 2,545 BCCM 
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 BCCM petitioner meets the 
requirements of this criterion.
    The BCCM 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 BCCM 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. E8-12155 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P