[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 2004)]
[Pages 35667-35671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-14394]



Bureau of Indian Affairs

Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Nipmuc 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of final determination.


SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(m), notice is given that the 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs declines to 
acknowledge a group known as The Nipmuc Nation, petitioner 69A, c/o Mr. 
Walter Vickers, 156 Worcester-Providence Road, Suite 32, Sutton Place 
Mall, Sutton, Massachusetts 01590, as an Indian tribe within the 
meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a final 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(a), (b), (c), and (e), and, 
therefore, does not meet the requirements for a government-to-
government relationship with the United States.

DATES: Unless a request for reconsideration is filed pursuant to 25 CFR 
83.11, this determination is final and will become effective on 
September 23, 2004, pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(4).

[[Page 35668]]

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under delegated authority, the Secretary of 
the Interior (Secretary) ordered, through the Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs (AS-IA), the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs (PD AS-IA) ``to execute all documents, including 
regulations and other Federal Register notices, and perform all other 
duties relating to Federal recognition of Native American tribes.'' 
Pursuant to this order, the PD AS-IA makes the determination regarding 
the petitioner's status, as defined in the acknowledgment regulations, 
as one of the duties delegated by the Secretary to the AS-IA (209 
Department Manual 8), and from the AS-IA to the PD AS-IA (Secretarial 
Order No. 3252).
    A notice of a proposed finding (PF) to decline to acknowledge 
petitioner 69A was published in the Federal Register on October 1, 
2001. The notice was based on a determination that petitioner 69A did 
not satisfy all seven of the mandatory criteria set forth in part 83 of 
title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR part 83), 
specifically criteria 83.7(a), (b), (c) and (e), and, therefore, did 
not meet the requirements for a government-to-government relationship 
with the United States.
    The petitioner and third parties, Connecticut, the Town of 
Sturbridge, Massachusetts, and Peter Silva submitted comments in 
response to the PF on September 30, 2002. The petitioner submitted a 
response to the third party comments on November 11, 2002. The 
petitioner at the same time submitted a response to petitioner 69B's 
comments on its own PF, treating them as a comment on the 69A PF.
    This FD rejects petitioner 69A's argument that it has had 
continuous State recognition with a reservation. For at least 107 
years, there was no State recognized Indian entity and no State 
supervision. The State relationship with the Hassanamisco Indians (as 
well as with the Dudley/Webster Indians) ended with the Massachusetts 
Enfranchisement Act of 1869. A limited relationship was created between 
petitioner 69A and Massachusetts after the establishment of the 
Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs (MCIA) in 1976. In addition, 
most of the petitioner's current membership does not descend from the 
Hassanamisco Indians (also known as the Grafton Indians) (only 2 
percent of petitioner 69A's current members have Hassanamisco 
    The Sisco family, one of the families in petitioner 69A retains 
ownership, as a family, of 2 1/2 acres of the land originally reserved 
for the Hassanamisco Indians. The Hassanamisco reservation was sold in 
1727, except for 500 acres, which was divided in 1727-1730 among seven 
Hassanamisco proprietary families, who were given individual title. The 
land was not the common property of a tribal entity and the State did 
not hold title to the reserved Hassanamisco property. There was no 
common fund, but, rather, each proprietary family owned a share in the 
funds received from sale of the land. The continuous State recognition 
with a reservation in the Historical Eastern Pequot and Schaghticoke 
Tribal Nation final determinations is clearly distinct from that 
alleged by petitioner 69A concerning its relationship with 
    The evidence in the record for this FD does not include continuous 
external identifications of a Hassanamisco Nipmuc entity broader than 
the Hassanamisco proprietary descendants for the period 1900-1979. An 
external identification of this Hassanamisco entity is not the same as 
an external identification of the current petitioner. Petitioner 69A is 
substantially different from the entity that was being identified, the 
Hassanamisco descendants constituting only 11 of the petitioner's 526 
members (see further discussion under criterion 83.7(e)).
    The majority of the external identifications from 1900 through 1979 
only referred to the Sisco family property called the ``Hassanamisco 
Reservation'' in Grafton, Massachusetts, and to some of its residents. 
Some external identifications also referred by name to descendants of 
the other Hassanamisco proprietary families, none of whose descendants 
are enrolled in petitioner 69A. Therefore, this documentation does not 
provide identifications of the petitioner. It provides substantially 
continuous identification of a continuing Hassanamisco entity only in 
the limited sense of identifying some Hassanamisco descendants, of whom 
only the Sisco family are part of the petitioner, from 1900 through 
    Occasional associations of Dudley/Webster Nipmuc descendants with 
Hassanamisco are mentioned by external observers during the period from 
1900 to 1979, but these occurred primarily in the context of pan-Indian 
activities in New England rather than being identifications of an 
Indian entity which was antecedent to the current petitioner, 69A.
    External identifications of an entity that comprised the various 
elements of petitioner 69A (and, for some portions of the period, 
additional elements no longer included in the petitioner's membership) 
were found by the PF to exist only from the mid-1970s to the present. 
The FD affirms this conclusion.
    The ancestors of the large majority of the present membership of 
petitioner 69A were not part of the Hassanamisco entity identified by 
external observers during the period from 1900 through the mid-1970s. 
Consequently, those identifications do not apply to petitioner 69A as 
defined by its current membership list. They were not otherwise 
identified separately as an Indian entity. Therefore, petitioner 69A 
does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(a).
    The evidence submitted for the FD indicates that from 1785 to 1869 
and from 1869 through the early 1950s there continued to be a limited 
community made up of some of the descendants of the original 
Hassanamisco proprietary families, not including the Gigger 
(Hassanamsico) family line. The focus of this community of Hassanamisco 
descendants was not in Grafton, although the ``Hassanamisco 
Reservation'' property owned by the Sisco family continued to be an 
important symbol, but rather among the descendants residing in the city 
of Worcester, Massachusetts.
    Some tenuous ties were re-established between the Sisco family and 
the Giggers beginning in the 1920s, and some ties were established 
between the Siscos and one Dudley/Webster family by the 1920s.
    The evidence does not bear out the petitioner's argument that a 
community of Dudley/Webster descendants had ``coalesced'' around some 
of the Hassanamisco families by the 1920s. The only family of Dudley/
Webster descent which had clearly become associated with, and 
interacted socially with, any of the Hassanamisco proprietary families 
by the 1920s was that of George Wilson and his siblings (Pegan/Wilson 
family line), who had moved to Worcester prior to World War I. This 
association continued through the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. However, 
from 1900 to 1930 there is little or no evidence showing interaction 
between the Pegan/Wilson family members and other Dudley/Webster 
descendants or between Pegan/Wilson family members and petitioner 69A's 
other ancestors who are not descendants of either Hassanamisco or 
Dudley/Webster (e.g., Curliss/Vickers). Thus most of the petitioner's 
ancestors were not associated with the community of some

[[Page 35669]]

Hassanamisco descendants focused around Worcester, nor were they 
documented to be interacting among themselves elsewhere.
    Sisco family interaction with two other Dudley/Webster families 
(Jaha and Belden) during the 1920s and 1930s appears to have taken 
place only in the context of pan-Indian organizations rather than 
within a community context. The membership of these organizations also 
included non-Nipmuc Indians and non-Indians.
    The other family lines of Dudley/Webster descent who now have 
members in petitioner 69A are not documented to have associated with 
Hassanamisco by the 1920s at all (for example, Sprague/Henries, 
Sprague/Nichols). There is no evidence in the record for this FD that 
any of these family lines developed any significant social ties to any 
Hassanamisco entity prior to the activities of Zara CiscoeBrough in the 
1960s and 1970s. There is also little evidence for social ties between 
Hassanamisco and the large body of Curliss/Vickers descendants during 
this period. The Curliss/Vickers descend from an individual identified 
in the 1861 Earle Report as a ``Miscellaneous Indian,'' not part of 
Hassanamisco, Dudley/Webster or any other tribe.
    The attenuated Worcester-based community which was continuous with 
the Hassanamisco proprietary entity ceased to exist with the deaths of 
several of the older members in the 1950s. The children and 
grandchildren of these older members did not play any significant role 
in the organizations that formed under the leadership of Zara 
CiscoeBrough from the early 1960s onward, and were not part of the 
petitioner as it existed from the mid-1970s until it greatly expanded 
its membership in the 1990s. The evidence does not show interaction 
from 1900 to 1953 between the Hassanamisco descendants described above 
and the ancestors of most of the Dudley/Webster or Curliss/Vickers 
descendants who comprise most of the petitioner's current membership. 
At the same time, the large majority of the persons who were shown to 
have been interacting during that period do not have descendants in 
petitioner 69A.
    Of the original Hassanamisco proprietary families, the only one 
that has continued to function more or less continuously within the 69A 
petitioner as it has evolved, and its immediate antecedents since the 
1950s, is the Sisco family itself (11 individuals out of 526 members). 
Descendants of the Gigger line and two other Hassanamisco lines, the 
Scott and Hemenway families, did not appear on the membership lists of 
the 69A petitioner until 1996 or 1997, respectively. These three 
Hassanamisco families were dropped from its membership list by the 
petitioner in 2002 because the petitioner determined that these family 
lines did not meet its membership requirement, which it created after 
the PF, to demonstrate participation in the petitioner's community as 
the petitioner defined it for the FD.
    The contemporary documentation concerning Zara CiscoeBrough's 
creation of lists of Nipmuc in the 1960s and 1970s does not provide 
good evidence to show that she viewed this process as enrolling an 
existing community, as the petitioner contends. The evolving 
``governing documents'' of the period are consistent with the process 
of expanding the definition of the Nipmuc group she was using beyond 
the Hassanamisco to include families with which she had little or no 
previous contact.
    Petitioner 69A's argument concerning community from the mid-1970s 
to the present rests in part on the argument that the ``historical 
community'' that they describe as existing from the 1920s to the mid-
1970s continued to exist up until the present. The petitioner argues 
that this community continued to exist after the sharp membership 
expansion that began in 1990 under the Nipmuc Tribal Acknowledgment 
Project (NTAP) which more than doubled the size of the petitioner. The 
resulting expanded membership list, of 1,602 names, dated 1997, was in 
place at the time of the PF and was only reduced in 2002, by petitioner 
69A, shortly before the petitioner's submission of its comments on the 
PF. Petitioner 69A's comments and the accompanying documentation do not 
show that the persons on the 2002 69A membership list, who are claimed 
to be a continuation of the 1920s community, made a distinction between 
themselves and those who were on the much larger 69A membership list 
from 1990 to 2002 and were subsequently removed from the membership 
    Petitioner 69A states that the 2002 list was created by reducing 
the 1997 list through a process of research in which the petitioner 
considered evidence to demonstrate social ties as well as ancestry from 
specific family lines. This final determination concludes that the 
petitioner, as defined by the 2002 membership list, does not 
demonstrate sufficient social ties to meet the requirements of 
criterion 83.7(b). Many of the examples that petitioner 69A listed as 
showing informal social interaction and social relationships among the 
present membership actually concerned formal meetings or political 
participation, or only involved close kin of the speaker and, thus, did 
not provide evidence for community for 69A as a whole. There were some 
examples which indicate broader social ties, between family lines, but 
these examples were too limited in extent to demonstrate that the 
petitioner meets criterion 83.7(b). There was relatively little 
information to demonstrate these ties for the substantial body of 
Curliss/Vickers descendants, a third of the membership. The family 
lines themselves are genealogical constructs, categories of individuals 
sharing a common ancestor, and were not demonstrated to be social units 
whose members interacted. The evidence in the record does not 
substantiate the petitioner's claims of distinct, shared cultural 
traditions within the membership.
    The conclusion in the PF that the petitioner does not exist as a 
community is affirmed as applying to petitioner 69A, even as it has 
redefined itself for the FD. Petitioner 69A does not meet the 
requirements of criterion 83.7(b).
    The evidence does not indicate that political influence and 
authority existed within a Hassanamisco entity between 1785 and 1900 at 
a level sufficient to meet criterion 83.7(c). The community that 
existed among the Hassanamisco proprietary descendants during the 
periods from 1785 through 1869 and from 1869 to 1900 was not at a 
sufficiently high level to provide carry-over evidence under criterion 
    The other major components or families antecedent to petitioner 69A 
(Dudley/Webster and Curliss/Vickers desendants) were not associated 
with Hassanamisco when the tribe was identified in the official State 
report (Earle Report) in 1861. They have not been shown to have 
amalgamated with all or part of the Hassanamisco subsequent to 1861 and 
prior to 1900 within the meaning of the 25 CFR part 83 regulations. 
Therefore, petitioner 69A does not meet criterion 83.7(c) prior to 
    For the period from 1900 to 1961, the evidence in the record does 
not demonstrate that a Hassanamisco tribal community that included the 
majority of the ancestors of petitioner 69A, as currently defined, 
existed in any definable sense. Through the late 1950s, there continued 
to be a tenuous community of descendants of the Hassanamisco 
proprietary families (excluding the Giggers) who maintained a 
connection with one another as well as maintaining a public identity in 
connection with the ``Hassanamisco

[[Page 35670]]

reservation'' and the annual Indian Fairs held there. Within this 
group, the evidence clearly indicates that the Sisco family had a 
certain primacy of place. However, there is no indication that they 
maintained a bilateral political relationship with the other 
proprietary descendants, much less with the larger group of Dudley/
Webster and Curliss/Vickers descendants antecedent to the family lines 
currently comprising most of the petitioner's membership.
    Most of the ``political'' events and activities cited by the 
petitioner took place, from the 1920s through the late 1950s, in the 
context of pan-Indian organizations in New England. The leaders of 
these organizations did not exercise political authority or influence 
over the people who would have been in the ``1920s community'' as now 
defined by petitioner 69A, nor is there evidence that the ancestors of 
most of petitioner 69A's members belonged to these organizations. The 
majority of the people who were in these organizations do not have 
descendants in petitioner 69A. Thus, they did not provide a venue for 
any bilateral political relationship among leaders and followers 
antecedent to petitioner 69A.
    Zara CiscoeBrough from the 1960s to 1980 sought to expand the 
Hassanamisco Foundation, an organization limited to the immediate Sisco 
family, that she had created in 1961 to control the Hassanamisco land 
and support a museum. CiscoeBrough expanded the foundation, beginning 
in 1969, in order to ensure that the Sisco family's land remained in 
Indian hands after her death. The revised 1969 Hassanamisco Foundation 
bylaws and the circa 1980 Hassanamisco-Nipmuc Tribe governing documents 
expanded the membership beyond the Sisco family to include anyone of 
any kind of Nipmuc descent. The lists created in 1975 and 1977 by Zara 
CiscoeBrough in concert with this effort were not the enrollment of an 
extant community which maintained a bilateral political relationship 
with the Hassanamisco Foundation or the Hassanamisco council.
    Although the petitioner nominally included the Chaubunagungamaug 
Band (CB) organization, petitioner 69B, from the latter's formation in 
1981 until its withdrawal from the Nipmuc Nation in 1996, in practice 
the CB functioned as a separate organization. Consequently, for 
purposes of this evaluation, the CB is treated as a separate entity. 
Evidence concerning political influence within petitioner 69A is 
evaluated in terms of the Hassanamisco organization until 1990. After 
1990 until 2002, evidence concerning political influence is evaluated 
in terms of the greatly expanded organization which was created 
beginning in 1990 and which continued until the membership was reduced 
by approximately two-thirds in 2002.
    Concerning the Hassanamisco council from 1978 to 1996, there is 
little data in the record to show a connection between the council and 
the general memberships of the Hassanamisco or Nipmuc Nation 
organizations. There was at best limited evidence to show that council 
members were ``family representatives,'' or that there was 
communication from them to anyone other than immediate family members. 
Although for some years there were annual membership meetings of the 
Hassanamisco organization, the evidence is that attendance at these 
meetings was small and primarily limited to council members. There was 
only limited evidence that the issues dealt with by the Hassanamisco 
council were of importance to the members.
    There was no evidence in the record that the expansion of the 
petitioner's membership under NTAP beginning in 1990, to more than 
twice the estimated size of the Hassanamisco organization in 1988, was 
a political issue for those within the Hassanamisco membership as it 
had been defined beginning in the mid-to late 1970s. The narrowing of 
the enrollment in 2002 came about as a response to the PF against 
acknowledgment of petitioner 69A, which concluded that this expanded 
membership was not a community, not as the result of membership 
opinion. There was no evidence in the record that the reduction was 
made along the lines of a division within an existing community. 
Additional evidence that the Hassanamisco council did not exercise 
political influence in an existing community was there was no evidence 
there was any membership comments or questions concerning its 
dissolution in 1996 in favor of the larger Nipmuc Nation Tribal Council 
(NNTC). Thus, there is no evidence in the record that the Hassanamisco 
organization as it existed before the expansion was itself a community 
within which political influence existed.
    The evaluation of evidence for political influence within 
petitioner 69A from 1961 to the present must take into account both the 
lack of evidence for a community at any point and the greatly 
fluctuating nature and size of the membership, the claimed ``ommunity'' 
in which political influence might have been exercised. This FD finds 
that there was no community over which political influenced was 
exercised by Zara CiscoeBrough from the 1960s to 1982, nor, following 
her, by the Hassanamisco council until its dissolution in 1996, nor, by 
NTAP and the NNTC over the expanded membership between 1990 and 2002, 
nor for the present membership, by the present governing body of 
petitioner 69A.
    The limited available information about membership opinion, 
possible political issues, and participation in conflicts from 1990 to 
2002 is not relevant political data to demonstrate political processes 
within the ``Hassanamisco community.'' Many of the largest and most 
active meetings drew from the broader membership, as it was presented 
for the PF, which is no longer part of petitioner 69A and was not part 
of the Hassanamisco organization before 1990. This broader membership 
consisted in large part of persons who were not of either Hassanamisco, 
Dudley/Webster or Curliss/Vickers ancestry, nor did they descend from 
the petitioner's claimed 1920s community. A number of petitioner 69A's 
leaders from 1990 until 2002 were drawn from this broader membership, 
which was the majority of petitioner 69A's members during that time 
    There was only limited evidence in the record to show that 
conflicts were over issues of concern to the membership and that 
interest in them was widespread among the members of the Hassanamisco, 
CB, and NTAP organizations. Even if there was sufficient evidence that 
there were conflicts over issues of concern to the membership, these 
conflicts would not provide evidence under criterion 83.7(c) because 
there is no evidence to show either that these conflicts occurred 
within a community or that they were ``xternal conflicts'' between two 
    The evidence for this FD is that none of the three units that 
combined into the Nipmuc Nation under the NNTC in 1994 (Hassanamisco, 
CB and NTAP) were communities nor exercised political influence within 
their respective memberships, nor was the overall Nipmuc Nation 
membership as it was defined by the 1997 69A membership list a 
community within which political influence was exercised. There is no 
evidence in the record that the Hassanamisco council and NTAP 
represented different political constituencies which might have 
expressed different views.
    Although there is some evidence from 1990 to 1998 of conflict and 
membership opinion concerning the development of a governing document, 
and the definition of membership used under NTAP and NNTC, there was no

[[Page 35671]]

evidence that leaders of NTAP, its predecessor, the Federal Recognition 
Committee, or the NNTC had any followers or represented any 
constituency within the membership as it was defined at any point.
    The conclusion in the PF is affirmed. Therefore, petitioner 69A 
does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(c).
    Petitioner 69A has submitted a copy of its current governing 
document, a 2001 Constitution, and membership criteria, including a 
``Nipmuc Nation Tribal Roll Policies and Procedures'' manual that was 
approved by the council on January 14, 2002. Therefore, petitioner 69A 
meets criterion 83.7(d).
    Petitioner 69A submitted a revised membership list which listed 526 
individuals as members. The list was certified by resolution of 
petitioner 69A's governing council on September 23, 2002. Applying the 
revised membership requirements contained in the 2001 constitution and 
the 2002 ``Policies and Procedures'' manual, the petitioner reduced its 
membership from 1,602 at the time of the PF to 526 members for the FD.
    With respect to criterion 83.7(e), the requirement under the 
regulations is 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.'' In this case, there was no amalgamation 
by which two tribes combined and functioned as a single autonomous 
political entity.
    Petitioner 69A argues that their ancestors living in the 1920s 
constituted a community that had ``oalesced'' around Hassanamisco by 
the 1920s. Their position is that the community included their 
ancestors, living in the 1920s, who descended from the Dudley Indians 
identified on the 1861 Earle Report, descended from the ``Miscellaneous 
Indian'' category on the 1861 Earle Report, descended from Connecticut 
Indians, or descended from a few other Indian ancestors living in the 
1920s, as well as their ancestors living in the 1920s who descended 
from the Hassanamisco Indians identified on the 1861 Earle Report. The 
evidence does not support the assertion that such a ``oalesced'' entity 
had come into being by the 1920s (see previous discussion under 
criteria 83.7(b) and 83.7(c)).
    The available evidence indicates that the Dudley/Webster Indians 
and the Hassanamisco Indians were separate tribes which did not combine 
into one tribe historically. The members of these two separate 
historical tribes were identified in the Earle Report of 1861.
    The evidence for this FD demonstrates that 2 percent of the members 
(11 of 526) have Indian ancestry from Arnold/Sisco family who were part 
of the historical Hassanamisco/Grafton Nipmuc tribe that was identified 
in 1861. The evidence for this FD demonstrates that 53 percent of its 
members (277 of 526) descend from six families (Jaha, Humphrey, Belden, 
Pegan/Wilson, Pegan, and Sprague) who were identified as Dudley/Webster 
Indians in 1861. Neither the 2 percent of the members who descend from 
the Hassanamisco tribe as it existed in 1861, nor the 53 percent that 
descend from the separate Dudley/Webster tribe as it existed in 1861, 
is sufficient, based on precedent, to meet the requirements of 
criterion 83.7(e) for descent from a historical tribe.
    Thirty-four percent of the petitioner's members have Indian 
ancestry from an individual identified as a ``Miscellaneous Indian'' on 
the Earle Report, 8 percent have Indian descent from individuals 
identified as Connecticut Indians, and 3 percent have other Indian 
ancestry. Therefore, 45 percent of the petitioner's membership do not 
have documented ancestry from either the historical Hassanamisco tribe 
or the historical Dudley/Webster tribe.
    The petitioner has not demonstrated descent from a single 
historical tribe or from tribes that combined or amalgamated 
historically and therefore does not meet criterion 83.7(e).
    No members of petitioner 69A are known to be dually enrolled with 
any federally acknowledged American Indian tribe. Therefore, petitioner 
69A meets criterion 83.7(f).
    There has been no Federal termination legislation with regard to 
petitioner 69A. Therefore petitioner 69A meets criterion 83.7(g).
    Under section 83.10(m), the PD AS-IA is required to decline to 
acknowledge that a petitioner exists as an Indian tribe if the 
petitioner fails to satisfy any one of the seven mandatory criteria for 
Federal acknowledgment. The evidence in the record, including the 
evidence submitted by petitioner 69A, did not demonstrate that it meets 
criteria 83.7(a), (b), (c), and (e). Therefore, petitioner 69A, The 
Nipmuc Nation, does not satisfy the requirements to be acknowledged as 
an Indian tribe with a government-to-government relationship with the 
United States.
    This determination is final and will become effective September 23, 
2004, unless a request for reconsideration is filed pursuant to section 
83.11. The petitioner or any interested party may file a request for 
reconsideration of this determination with the Interior Board of Indian 
Appeals (section 83.11(a)(1)). These requests must be received no later 
than 90 days after publication of the PD AS-IA's determination in the 
Federal Register (section 83.11(a)(2)).

    Dated: June 18, 2004.
Aurene M. Martin,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-14394 Filed 6-24-04; 8:45 am]