[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61023-61027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27764]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]
Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Georgia
Tribe of Eastern Cherokee
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (Department) gives notice that
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, exercising
the authority of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs has determined
that the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee (GTEC) is not 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) that the petitioner does not satisfy the
seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment set forth in the applicable
regulations. Therefore, it does not meet 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 Government is not producing a separate detailed report
or other summary under the criteria to accompany this Final
Determination (FD), because neither the petitioner nor interested
parties have submitted significant new evidence or analysis that
changes the conclusions in the PF. The PF, as supplemented by this
notice, is affirmed. This notice constitutes the FD.
DATES: This FD is final and will become effective on March 26, 2018,
unless the petitioner or an interested party files a request for
reconsideration pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Reckord, Acting Director, Office
of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA), (202) 513-7650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), the Department
publishes this notice in the exercise of authority delegated by the
Secretary of the Interior to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs (PDAS-IA) by 209 DM 8. The Department issued a PF not to
acknowledge the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee (GTEC), Petitioner
#41, on May 6, 2016, and published notice of the PF in the Federal
Register on May 13, 2016. This FD affirms the PF that the Georgia Tribe
of Eastern Cherokee, P.O. Box 1411, Dahlonega, GA 30533, c/o Mr.
Coleman J. Seabolt, does not meet the seven mandatory criteria for
acknowledgment as an Indian Tribe. The petitioner seeks Federal
acknowledgment as an Indian Tribe under 25 CFR part 83, ``Procedures
for Federal Acknowledgment of Indian tribes,'' dated July 1, 2015. The
petitioner was under active consideration when the revised rule was
published. It chose by letter of October 24, 2015, signed by its
governing body, to have its petition evaluation completed under the
superseded Federal acknowledgment regulations as published in 25 CFR
part 83, revised as of April 1, 1994, as permitted in 83.7(b) of the
2015 Federal acknowledgment regulations. This FD is issued in accord
with that request.
Publication of notice of the PF in the Federal Register initiated
the 180-day comment period provided in the regulations at Sec.
83.10(i). Neither GTEC nor other parties asked the AS-IA to hold an on-
the-record technical assistance meeting under Sec. 83.10(j)(2). After
two 180-day extensions and one 90-day extension requested by the
petitioner, the comment period closed and GTEC submitted its comments
on August 7, 2017. Principal Chief Bill John Baker of the Cherokee
Nation, P.O. Box 948, Tahlequah, Oklahoma 74465, submitted a two-page
letter dated November 12, 2016, to OFA and provided a copy to GTEC, as
required by the regulations per Sec. 83.10(i). Chief Baker's letter
supported the Department's PF not to acknowledge GTEC, but it did not
contain new evidence or analysis.
The acknowledgment regulations at Sec. 83.10(k) provide a
petitioner 60 days to respond to comments on the PF from interested or
informed parties. The petitioner's attorney submitted a response to
Chief Baker's comments in the form of a letter postmarked October 2,
2017, within the regulatory deadline ending October 6, 2017. In a
letter dated October 11, 2017, OFA informed the petitioner that it
would move forward with the FD per Sec. 83.10(1) on Wednesday, October
18, 2017, and issue a FD on or before Monday, December 18, 2017. The
publication of this FD in the form of a Federal Register notice
complies with that letter.
The petitioner submitted one three-ring binder containing its
comments on the PF. It included narratives, chronologies arranged under
the seven mandatory criteria, photocopies of Georgia laws, one oral
history transcript, and a photograph of unnamed school children. These
materials made reference to ``supplement folders . . . included in the
original petition,'' received in OFA February 14, 2002, and already
evaluated in the PF. The binder also included a single page of eleven
names of spouses either of current members or of ancestors. It claimed
these spouses had Cherokee ancestry from ``Cherokee bloodlines'' that
were different from the Cherokee lines of descent analyzed in the PF.
GTEC did not submit vital records, charts, or other genealogical
evidence and analysis tracing these eleven spouses generation by
generation to Indian ancestors in the Cherokee Nation before the final
Removal in 1838, nor did the petitioner
[[Page 61024]]
include any of the living spouses on its membership list.
This FD reviews and evaluates the petitioner's comments together
with the record for the PF and third party comments to determine if
they change the Department's reasoning, analysis, and conclusions under
Sec. Sec. 83.8 and 83.7. The PF found that the petitioner did not have
unambiguous previous Federal acknowledgment and did not meet criteria
83.7(a), (b), and (c). The petitioner met criteria (d), (e), (f) and
(g). The petitioner's comments contain the same, similar, or related
documents already in the PF record. Because the PF is posted on OFA's
website and already addressed in detail most of these documents,
readers should read this FD in conjunction with the PF.
The petitioner's comments raise the issue of pre-removal laws of
the State of Georgia prohibiting the pre-removal Cherokee Nation from
meeting in council, governing, or applying its laws within State
boundaries, which Georgia considered included all of the territory
simultaneously claimed by the Cherokee Nation. The Department's
researchers evaluated Georgia laws pertaining to Indians, including the
1828 Act of the Georgia Assembly, which OFA sent to the petitioner
during the comment period. The petitioner's leaders had told the
Department's researchers during a field visit before issuing the PF and
then in its September 29, 2017, comments that the Department should
consider these laws, which the State repealed in 1970, as a
``mitigating factor'' when evaluating their petition. The regulations
at Sec. 83.6(e) direct the Government to take into account
``historical situations and time periods for which evidence is
demonstrably limited or not available'' and the ``limitations inherent
in demonstrating the historical existence of community and political
influence or authority.'' Some evidence--war, illiteracy,
discrimination, and, as in this case, hostile actions by States and
localities--may hinder interactions and limit documentation, causing
fluctuations in activity or documentation. Gasoline costs during the
Great Depression and rationing during WWII, for example, limited some
petitioners from meeting, but after the war, interactions became common
again, and petitioners affected by such events have been acknowledged
(see Cowlitz Indian Tribe). For purposes of evaluating the available
evidence for purposes of continuous existence, there is a difference,
however, between fluctuations in available evidence and activity over
time, and both the absence of evidence for extended periods or the
cessation of activity over time--in this case for more than 170 years.
Here, the Department does not find a fluctuation because the period of
inactivity was so long and the petitioner fundamentally represents a
newly created descendant organization. Even after the law's repeal in
1970, GTEC did not provide sufficient evidence to meet all seven
criteria.
After considering the petitioner's comments, the Department
concludes that the materials submitted for the FD are essentially the
same as those the petitioner provided previously and do not alter the
overall conclusions of the PF. Even considering limitations in
providing historical evidence, and taking into account the State laws,
the Department concludes that at no time from 1838 to the present does
the evidence demonstrate that GTEC formed a community distinct from
non-Indians, established an autonomous governing entity, or had
contemporary external identifications as an Indian entity. Thus, the
petitioner does not meet the requirements for acknowledgment as an
Indian Tribe under the regulations. This FD affirms the PF.
Unambiguous Previous Federal Acknowledgment: Previous Federal
acknowledgment means ``action by the Federal Government clearly
premised on identification of a tribal political entity and indicating
clearly the recognition of a relationship between that entity and the
United States'' (Sec. 83.1). Such unambiguous Federal acknowledgment
must be demonstrated through substantial evidence. (Sec. 83.8(a)).
This FD finds that evidence in the record does not show that the
Federal Government took action clearly indicative of recognition of a
political relationship between the United States and the petitioner as
an Indian Tribe at any time.
The PF found that the petitioner's ancestors ``separated''
individually from the Cherokee ``Nation when they did not remove with
it.'' It also found that the petitioner is not ``the same tribe that
treated with the United States and was removed in 1838 and is still a
federally recognized tribe.'' In its response, GTEC did not submit new
evidence that GTEC's ancestors--largely a single extended family known
as the ``Davises''--with other Cherokee Indians, who did not remove,
evolved from the Cherokee Nation since 1838 to become GTEC. The PF
advised the petitioner to demonstrate that ``it has evolved as a group
out of the Cherokee Nation after 1838'' in order to be evaluated under
Sec. 83.8. The petitioner did not submit such evidence. It submitted a
new list of eleven spouses either of members or of ancestors, whom the
petitioner claims were Cherokee in its response to the PF. However, it
did not demonstrate that they were descendants of Cherokee Indians who
formed a distinct Cherokee entity in Georgia with the petitioner's
ancestors from 1838 to the present. Thus, the petitioner has not
demonstrated that it is either a continuation of the recognized
Cherokee Nation or a portion of the Cherokee Nation that has evolved
and existed continuously since the Cherokee Removal, as required by
Sec. 83.8 of the 1994 regulations. Moreover, there is no evidence that
the United States has ever unambiguously acknowledged the petitioner,
any of its individual ancestors, or the Davis family, as a distinct
tribal entity at any time. The reasoning, analysis, and conclusions
pertaining to previous acknowledgment under Sec. 83.8 in the PF are
affirmed. Because this FD finds that the Petitioner did not provide
substantial evidence that demonstrates unambiguous previous Federal
acknowledgment as an Indian Tribe, the provisions of Sec. 83.8(d) do
not modify the requirements of the mandatory acknowledgment criteria
83.7(a) through (c).
Historical Indian Tribe: The PF maintains that the historical
Indian Tribe for this finding is the Cherokee Nation as it existed
before 1838. The Department's analysis finds that the petitioner does
not represent an entity existing within the Cherokee Nation that
evolved over time to form a distinct Cherokee community in Georgia.
There is also a lack of evidence showing the existence of a separate
Cherokee entity in northern Georgia, or an Indian entity composed of
the petitioner's ancestors. Therefore, the historical Indian Tribe
remains the Cherokee Nation as it existed before 1838.
The petitioner's Indian ancestors and more than 90 percent of its
members represent a multi-generation extended family founded in 1808 at
the marriage of Cherokee ancestor Rachel Martin to non-Indian Daniel
Davis. Their descendants, who self-identified as ``the Davises'' or
``the Family,'' resided in a part of the historical territory of the
Cherokee Nation, now Lumpkin County, Georgia, before 1838. Rachel
Martin and her ten children were citizens of the Cherokee Nation in
Georgia, and Daniel Davis held a special status as her spouse. The PF
found that GTEC's ancestors interacted before 1838 with politically
influential Cherokee families, who formed a political network that
advanced their interests within the Cherokee Nation. After the Removal,
22 Cherokee families stayed in Lumpkin County and nearby areas but did
not form a Cherokee community with the
[[Page 61025]]
Davises nor establish a political organization comprising Cherokee
still in Georgia. Instead, GTEC's Davis ancestors lived in a rural
neighborhood with non-Indians, with whom they interacted and often
married. These Davises viewed their non-Indian in-laws, in-laws'
families, and neighbors as part of their community. All attended the
same churches and schools, and were buried in the same cemeteries. GTEC
names the same Davis family heads as GTEC leaders from 1838 to the
present as it had identified for the PF and describes their political
activities--as sheriff, running for political office, voting in a
district block, and dealing with moonshiners--in the wider community.
The Davises were not distinct socially or politically from non-Indian
neighbors or in-laws. A much smaller portion of the membership--about 8
percent--trace their Cherokee ancestry only from Pinkney Howell, who
resided in the Cherokee Nation before the Removal, but did not remove.
Evidence shows that these descendants of Howell participated in
neighborhood activities, which included the Davises and non-Indians,
and are enrolled in the petitioner.
Criterion 83.7(a) requires that external observers have identified
the petitioner as an American Indian entity on a substantially
continuous basis since 1900. The petitioner does not present new
material in its response to the PF; it simply revisits the materials
already in the record. The petitioner argues that these documents
``prove that the tribe has been identified in a continuous manner''
since 1900. GTEC also contends that since Georgia law prevented its
ancestors from forming an Indian community or political organization
from 1838 to 1970, it could not have been identified. The petitioner
believes that this legal limitation should be treated as a ``mitigating
factor'' in weighing its evidence under the regulations. This argument
is not persuasive, however, since shortly after Removal, ``on December
29, 1838, the Georgia legislature granted citizenship to 22 families''
of Cherokees in the State. The petitioner's ancestors, the Davises,
were one of the 22 families named in this law, which allowed them and
their descendants in Georgia to ``enjoy all the rights and privileges
that appertain and belong to the free citizens of this State.'' Thus,
the prior state laws that hindered, disabled, and harassed the Cherokee
government and people, would not apply to those 22 named families that
remained in the State. These Cherokees, including the petitioner's
ancestors, could now enjoy all the rights of other free citizens of
Georgia and no longer had to suffer ``all disabilities heretofore
imposed upon said persons of the Cherokee tribe of Indians.'' In
addition, as free citizens, the State's Black codes applied previously
to Indians, beginning in the early 1800s, no longer applied to these
named families. Evidence is insufficient to show that any of those
remaining 22 families, formed a group, even informally, following the
Removal of the Nation in 1838, which external sources could have
identified.
This FD finds insufficient evidence in the record of substantially
continuous identifications of GTEC from 1900 to the present. Therefore,
the petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion Sec.
83.7(a). Many of the documents submitted relate to portions of the
historical Cherokee Nation's history leading up to and through the
Removal era and identify Cherokee individuals on various historical
lists. There are few original, contemporary documents relating to the
period after 1900 as required by this criterion. Some such records
identify individuals as Indian, but few contain contemporary
identifications of an Indian entity in Lumpkin County, where most of
the petitioner's ancestors lived, from 1900 to the present.
Identifications in the record are from 1977 to 1981, and again from
1996 to 2001, but it is insufficient to satisfy criterion Sec.
83.7(a), which requires identifications ``on a substantially continuous
basis since 1900,'' and which has been interpreted as requiring an
identification every ten-year period. Further, there is a lack of
available evidence identifying the group even after the date it
incorporated in 1977. There are many claims of lawsuits and court
actions, but very little evidence was actually submitted for the
record. Many of the records that may have been intended to address
criterion Sec. 83.7(a) appear to be self-identifications generated by
present members of the petitioner, ``at present'' (and not since 1900
to the present), or retrospective accounts, or identifications of
individual Indian descendants, and not of a group. None of these
identifications are acceptable evidence under this criterion. The
petitioner does not meet criterion Sec. 83.7(a) based on evidence and
analysis in the PF and this supplemental analysis addressing the
evidence in the summary and response. This FD affirms the PF under
criterion Sec. 83.7(a).
The PF found that GTEC failed to meet both criteria 83.7(b) and
(c). Criterion 83.7(b) requires that GTEC has been a distinct community
from historical times to the present, and criterion 83.7(c) requires
that it has maintained autonomous political influence since historical
times within that community. The petitioner's comments on the PF
contains no new evidence or other analysis--other than its arguments
concerning the effects of State laws on their social and political
organization--that, when evaluated with evidence for the PF, would
change the PF's conclusions on criteria 83.7(b) and (c). GTEC does not
have the kinds of evidence listed in Sec. 83.7(b), such as significant
rates of in-group or patterned out-marriage rates, significant rates of
informal social interaction within a distinct Indian group comprising
its members, persistent group identity, or exclusive settlements, nor
did it offer any suitable alternative forms of evidence that it was a
distinct community. Furthermore, it does not have evidence to satisfy
criterion 83.7(c), such as the group being politically autonomous and
able to mobilize significant numbers of members or resources for group
purposes, or a membership that considers issues acted upon or actions
taken by leaders of governing bodies to be of particular importance to
the membership. There is no evidence of leaders or councils allocating
group resources, settling disputes, making decisions, or influencing
behavior within an Indian group beyond their families.
GTEC contends that Georgia law prohibited its ancestors from
forming an Indian community or political organization from the final
Removal in 1838 to 1970, which should be treated as a ``mitigating
factor'' in weighing its evidence under the regulations. The PF
discusses in detail Georgia's hostility to the Cherokee Nation and the
post-removal laws that made GTEC's Indian ancestors free and citizens
of the State on a par with White citizens and removed legal barriers to
participation in non-Indian society. In sum, as discussed above, these
laws did not apply to the petitioner's ancestors who became citizens in
1838, and in any event were repealed in 1970. GTEC lacks evidence that
its ancestors attempted to socialize or interact with the 21 other
known Indian families in Georgia. There is no evidence that they formed
an informal social group, church, historical society or institution
that would have served as a base for a political organization of some
kind. Even after 1970, when some GTEC members and others claiming
Indian descent attempted to establish a formal organization, they were
initially unable to identify an existing group of
[[Page 61026]]
Cherokee to organize. Because the record lacks evidence that its
members and ancestors continuously maintained a distinct Indian
community and autonomous political organization for more than 170 years
including at present, it cannot meet criteria (b) or (c), even
considering Sec. 83.6.
GTEC also claims in its comments that eleven particular spouses of
the Davises or Howells are also Cherokee descendants through ``families
with Indian heritage'' other than Davis or Howell, but it submitted no
documents showing that these individuals descend from other Indians in
the Cherokee Nation before Removal. No additional Indian ancestry was
found for any of these spouses. Eight of these spouses descend from the
Davises or Howells, and no Indian ancestry was found for the remaining
three spouses, as far as the Department could determine based on the
evidence in the record. Most of these spouses, including those whom the
petitioner claimed had other Indian ``blood lines,'' had ancestors who
resided in the small rural community where the Davis descendants lived
after 1838. If any of these spouses are living, they are not on GTEC's
membership list.
GTEC describes herbal medicine, Indian-style crafts, and
traditional cooking, but these activities are not based in a distinct
community and often are not different from non-Indians in Georgia. GTEC
also claims members maintained a named, collective Indian identity, but
evidence after 1838, including oral histories and news articles, quote
GTEC's ancestors and members identifying as Cherokee descendants, not
as members of an existing Indian entity. GTEC submitted no evidence to
show its current activities involve most of its members. The petition
describes the annual picnic as a family reunion, which underscores the
petitioner as an extended family, not a community. GTEC failed to show
it has maintained a distinct community comprising its members and their
Indian ancestors at any time after 1838 and thus does not meet
criterion (b).
The PF found that the petitioner did not meet Criterion 83.7(c)
from 1838 to the present. As described in more detail above in the
summary of the PF, criterion (c) requires petitioners to be an
autonomous political entity in which members and leaders have
continuously maintained a political relationship with each other. The
Indian descendants from their rural neighborhood did not form an
autonomous political entity, characterized by meaningful political
relationships between leaders and followers to make decisions, resolve
conflicts, manage resources, cooperate on projects, or function
politically in any way. GTEC's comments did not include new documents
dating between 1838 and 1925 about the churches, cemeteries, and
schools in their neighborhood that would show these institutions were
run by a GTEC entity. They did not submit new evidence that
demonstrates autonomous political activity within any other institution
or Cherokee entity.
The petitioner's comments also do not reverse the PF that found
there was insufficient evidence that the petitioner's membership
supports GTEC leaders or informs their actions since 1838, nor after
1970, when the State statutes the petitioner claims blocked any
political activity by Indians were repealed. In 1976, the Georgia
Assembly created a ``Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee,'' but it was an
entirely new entity that had never before existed, comprising persons
claiming Cherokee descent--often without evidence proving their
claims--from throughout Georgia. The legislation did not require
applicants to be part of an already existing Indian entity. This State-
created group was not the petitioner, although some of its original
leaders would later form the petitioner, also named GTEC. As discussed
in the PF, leadership in the original group in the 1970s does not show
leadership in GTEC. Furthermore, the PF found that since 1980, the
petitioner's named leaders have quarreled and only focused
intermittently (including a more than ten-year period of inactivity) on
gaining Federal acknowledgment and on combating other groups or
individuals claiming to be the State-recognized entity. The evidence
available on these activities was insufficient to demonstrate political
influence or authority within GTEC. The petitioner did not submit new
evidence that would cure deficiencies detailed in the PF. It did not
submit evidence that demonstrates the petitioner maintained political
influence or authority over its members, which meets criterion (c) at
any time after 1838. This FD affirms the conclusions of the PF that the
petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(c) for
political authority.
Criterion 83.7(d) requires a copy of the group's present governing
document, including its membership criteria. The petitioner provided
evidence that satisfied the requirements of criterion 83.7(d) for the
PF. This FD affirms the conclusions of the PF that the petitioner meets
the requirements of Criterion 83.7(d).
Criterion (e) requires that the petitioner's membership consists of
individuals who descend from a historical Indian Tribe or from
historical Indian Tribes, which combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity. The PF found that GTEC met this criterion.
The PF found that about 90 percent (413 of 458) of those persons listed
on its current membership list, dated August 10, 2013, descend from the
historical Indian Tribe, the Cherokee Nation as it existed before the
Cherokee Removal. These members descend through Rachel Martin, a
citizen of the historical Cherokee Nation before 1838, and her non-
Indian husband Daniel Davis, and a small percentage descend as well or
solely from Pinkney Howell, a Cherokee descendant who resided in
Lumpkin County after the Removal. However, the petitioner's response
did not supplement the record with evidence for the 10 percent of the
current members who did not provide the necessary evidence to
demonstrate their own lines of descent as the PF suggested, so the PF
calculation that 90 percent (413 of 458) of those persons listed on its
membership list, dated August 10, 2013, descend from the historical
Cherokee Nation as it existed before the final Removal in 1838 remains
unchanged.
The petitioner submitted as part of its response a list of eleven
names of spouses of current members or of ancestors. None of these
spouses alive in 2013 when the membership list was certified by the
governing body appear on it. The petitioner claims that these spouses
had possible alternate Cherokee ancestry not connected to the Davises
or Howells, but the petitioner did not provide evidence demonstrating
generation-by-generation descent to the Cherokee Nation before 1838.
The OFA was unable to locate evidence from publically available records
to demonstrate under the reasonable likelihood standard that it is more
likely than not that there are any new lines of Cherokee descent in the
membership based on the ancestry of these eleven individuals. This FD
affirms the conclusions of the PF that the petitioner meets the
requirements of criterion 83.7(e).
Criterion (f) requires that the membership of the petitioner be
composed principally of persons who are not members of any federally
acknowledged Indian Tribe. The PF found that 13 GTEC members were
enrolled in the Cherokee Nation, a federally recognized Tribe in
Oklahoma, and no members were enrolled in the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians, a federally recognized Indian Tribe in North Carolina. Ninety-
seven percent (445 of 458) of the GTEC members are
[[Page 61027]]
not members of any federally acknowledged Indian Tribe. Because the
GTEC petitioner is composed principally of persons who are not members
of other federally-recognized Indian Tribes, it therefore meets this
criterion.
Criterion (g) requires that neither the petitioner nor its members
are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly
terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship. The PF stated that
the petitioner met criterion (g), and neither the petitioner nor other
party submitted new evidence to change that conclusion. Therefore, the
petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(g).
This Federal Register notice under 25 CFR part 83 is the FD to deny
Federal acknowledgment to the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee
petitioner. The petitioner does not satisfy all seven of the mandatory
criteria in Sec. 83.7, and therefore, the AS-IA declines to
acknowledge that the petitioner is an Indian Tribe under Sec.
83.10(m). As provided in Sec. 83.10(h) of the regulations, this FD
summarizes the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that form the bases
for this decision. In addition to its publication in the Federal
Register, this notice will be posted on the Department's Indian Affairs
website at www.bia.gov.
This FD on GTEC will become a final and effective agency action 90
days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register,
unless the petitioner or interested party files a request for
reconsideration under the procedures in Sec. 83.11, with the Interior
Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA). The IBIA must receive this request no
later than 90 days of the publication of this Federal Register notice.
The final determination will become effective as provided in the
regulations 90 days from the Federal Register publication unless a
request for reconsideration is filed within that time period.
Dated: December 14, 2017.
John Tahsuda,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, Exercising the
Authority of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2017-27764 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P