[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