[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 888-889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-298]
[[Page 888]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Reconsidered Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment
of the Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc.
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11(h)(3), notice is hereby given that
the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs Ada E. Deer signed a
reconsidered final determination which affirms the decision of January
16, 1996, to decline to acknowledge that the Ramapough Mountain
Indians, Inc. (RMI), P.O. Box 478, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430-0478,
exists as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. The
reconsidered final determination was issued following full
consideration of four issues identified by the Interior Board of Indian
Appeals (IBIA) and which the Secretary of the Interior requested the
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs to address. The group does not
satisfy three of the seven criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7, and
therefore does not meet the requirements for a government-to-government
relationship with the United States.
DATES: As provided by 25 CFR 83.11(h)(3), this reconsidered final
determination will become effective January 7, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the reconsidered final determination
should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240, Attention:
Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, MS 4603-MIB.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Reckord, Chief, Branch of
Acknowledgment and Research, (202) 208-3592.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in the exercise of
authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to
the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (the Assistant Secretary) by
209 DM 8. A notice proposing to decline to acknowledge the Ramapough
Mountain Indians was published in the Federal Register on December 8,
1993. Under the 1978 regulations for Federal acknowledgment of Indian
tribes, the petitioner had not met four of the mandatory criteria
(83.7(a), (b), (c), and (e)). The original 180-day comment period was
extended until May 8, 1995. The 60-day comment period for the
petitioner to respond to third-party comments ended on July 10, 1995.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) began the final determination
process on September 18, 1995. The final determination, made under the
1994 revised regulations, concluded that the RMI failed to meet three
of the mandatory criteria (83.7(b), (c), and (e)). It was signed on
January 16, 1996, and a notice was published in the Federal Register,
on February 6, 1996, (Vol. 61, No. 25, 4476). The RMI filed a request
for reconsideration with the IBIA, on May 6, 1996.
The IBIA affirmed the Department of the Interior's (the Department)
final determination on July 18, 1997. At the same time, the IBIA asked
the Secretary to consider whether four specific issues identified by
the IBIA constituted grounds for reconsideration of the final
determination. On September 29, 1997, the Secretary requested the
Assistant Secretary to address the four issues raised by the IBIA and
issue a ``reconsidered determination.'' Three of the four questions
concerned issues of due process. The fourth issue involved the
interpretation of criterion 83.7(b) of the Federal acknowledgment
regulations (25 CFR Part 83). On November 7, 1997, the Assistant
Secretary signed a reconsidered final determination, which affirms and
supplements the final determination and supersedes specific points in
the final determination. A brief discussion of the four issues
discussed in the reconsidered final determination follows.
The first issue considered by the Assistant Secretary was whether
the BIA had refused to furnish copies of the anthropologist's field
notes to the RMI and, if so, whether this was a denial of due process
and constituted a basis for reconsideration of the final determination.
The RMI correspondence files were thoroughly reviewed, as well as notes
taken on telephone conversations and the notes retained from meetings
with the RMI. There was no evidence that the RMI had requested the
anthropologist's field notes and no evidence that the field notes had
been denied to the RMI. The Assistant Secretary determined that there
was no denial of due process and, therefore, this was not a cause for
reconsideration of the final determination.
The second issue considered by the Assistant Secretary was whether
the BIA failed to provide consultation concerning the date of beginning
the final determination evaluation process and, if so, whether this
failure violated the RMI's rights to due process and constituted a
basis for reconsideration. The Secretary determined that the intent of
Sec. 83.10(l) is to allow the BIA to inform the petitioner of the
proposed time frame for beginning or completing the final determination
evaluation if a long administrative delay is expected before the final
determination evaluation will begin, or when new evidence submitted by
the petitioner is so extensive that the evaluation will require more
than the regulatory 60-day period. The BIA did not expect any delays in
beginning the final determination evaluation because personnel were
available to do the work immediately. Further, the amount and character
of the evidence submitted by the RMI in its response to the proposed
finding were such that it could be evaluated within the 60-day
timeframe. The Department also considered the reasons delineated in the
RMI's requests to suspend the final determination process and notified
the RMI in writing of its decision to continue with the evaluation. The
final determination was issued within the 60-day regulatory time-frame.
The Assistant Secretary determined that written notification, without
prior oral consultation, was not a denial of due process and was not
grounds for reconsideration of the final determination.
The third issue evaluated by the Assistant Secretary was whether
the BIA had misled the RMI concerning RMI's required research. The
Assistant Secretary also considered whether failure to notify the RMI
of a change in the Assistant Secretary's conclusions on criterion
83.7(b) between the proposed finding and the final determination was a
denial of due process. The Assistant Secretary also evaluated whether
either of these matters constituted grounds of reconsideration.
The petitioner was told to focus its research on the pre-1850 time
period since there was no evidence that its members descended from an
historical Indian tribe. However, a review of the administrative files
showed that the RMI were notified in several letters and in meetings
with the BIA staff that they had to address all four of the criteria
not met at the time of the proposed finding. These letters and the
proposed finding clearly show that the RMI had actual notice that there
was insufficient evidence for community from historical times to the
present. The proposed finding technical reports and the summary under
the criteria pointed to this lack of evidence. The Assistant Secretary
determined that there was no denial of due process on this point and no
grounds for reconsideration.
The proposed finding concluded that the RMI did not meet criterion
83.7(b) at any point in time. The final
[[Page 889]]
determination concluded that the RMI met criterion 83.7(b) between 1870
and 1950, but not before 1870 and not after 1950. The change in the
Assistant Secretary's conclusions between the proposed finding and
final determination was the result of a change in the wording of
criterion 83.7(b) in the 1994 revised regulations, in conjunction with
the BIA researchers' discovery of new, supplementary evidence that RMI
had maintained a community from 1870 to 1950, including a church
register which showed a high rate of endogamy among the petitioner's
ancestors from 1878 to 1918. The RMI was not harmed by this change
between the proposed finding and the final determination, but in fact
benefited from the refined conclusions in the final determination. The
Assistant Secretary is not required to notify petitioners of changes in
conclusions between a proposed finding and a final determination before
the final determination is signed. The Assistant Secretary determined
that, while there had been a change in conclusions between the proposed
finding and the final determination, failure to notify the RMI of the
change was not a denial of due process and is not grounds for
reconsideration.
With regard to the fourth issue, the IBIA asked the Secretary to
clarify whether or not the Department required petitioners to live in a
``village-like setting'' in order to meet the requirements of criterion
83.7(b) and, if so, to make this requirement invalid. The Assistant
Secretary clarified in the reconsidered final determination that
neither the Department nor the regulations require petitioners to live
in a ``village-like setting.'' The regulations do require that
petitioner's maintain a community from the time of first-sustained
contact with non-Indians to the present. The reconsidered final
determination discusses the fact that evidence demonstrating that a
petitioner's members live in a ``village-like setting'' and maintain
consistent interaction with the remainder of the membership may be
sufficient evidence to meet criterion 83.7(b), but it is not required
(83.7(b)(2)). There are many other forms of evidence that may be used
to demonstrate that petitioner's members have maintained social
relations with each other (83.7(b)(1)). The reconsidered final
determination also corrected an error in the final determination's
summary of the proposed finding's conclusions about the residential
distribution of the RMI members.
The reconsidered final determination supplements the original final
determination and supersedes it to the extent the original is
inconsistent with the reconsidered final determination. In conjunction
with the original final determination, the reconsidered final
determination is an amended final determination for the RMI petitioner.
Dated: December 30, 1997.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 98-298 Filed 1-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M