71732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 

5th day following onset of laying, as 

determined by NPS staff monitoring a 

reference site. A second harvest at the 

same sites could occur within nine days 

of the first harvest. If inclement weather, 

logistics, or other issues prevented a 

first harvest visit within five days of 

onset of laying, only one harvest would 

be allowed in that year. No harvest 

visits would occur after June 15 of any 

year. The harvest plan would include, at 

a minimum, vessel(s) to be used to 

access harvest sites, tentative itinerary 

for harvest date(s), harvest locations, 

and names of harvesters. Information in 

this plan would be used to prepare any 

necessary Park permits including 

regulatory exemptions to 36 CFR 

13.1178. 

Victor W. Knox, 

Acting Regional Director, Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29536 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–HX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Proposed Finding Against Federal 

Acknowledgment of the Tolowa Nation 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed finding. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Interior (Department) gives notice that 

the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs 

proposes to determine that the Tolowa 

Nation, of Fort Dick, CA is not an Indian 

tribe within the meaning of Federal law. 

This notice is based on a determination 

that the group does not meet one of the 

seven mandatory criteria for a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the United States. This proposed 

finding is based on one criterion alone. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed finding by May 23, 2011. 

We must receive any request for a 

technical assistance meeting by January 

24, 2011. See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice for 

more information about these dates. 

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the 

proposed finding or requests for a copy 

of the report to the Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., MS: 34B–SIB, 

Washington, DC 20240. Parties who 

make comments on the proposed 

finding must also provide a copy of 

their comments to the petitioner. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. 

Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment, (202) 513–7650. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to 25 CFR 83.10(h), the Department 

gives notice that the AS–IA proposes to 

determine that the Tolowa Nation, P.O. 

Box 213, Fort Dick, CA 95538, c/o Ms. 

Sharon Sligh, is not an Indian tribe 

within the meaning of Federal law. This 

notice is based on a preliminary finding 

that the petitioner fails to satisfy one of 

the seven mandatory criteria for 

acknowledgment set forth in 25 CFR 

83.7(a) through (g), and thus, does not 

meet the requirements for a governmentto government relationship with the 

United States. 

The Tolowa Nation, Petitioner #85, 

submitted a letter of intent to petition 

for Federal acknowledgment on 

September 11, 1982. It submitted partial 

documentation on March 22, 1983, and 

made subsequent submissions in 1983, 

1986, 1987, 1996, and 1999. The 

Department provided technical 

assistance in 1988 and in 1995. The 

petition was ready for evaluation on 

August 3, 2009. 

To evaluate unambiguous previous 

Federal acknowledgment under 25 CFR 

83.8, OFA’s review of Petitioner #85’s 

narrative and documentation revealed 

three factors for consideration: the 

establishment of the Klamath 

Reservation from 1855 to 1861 and the 

Smith River Reservation from 1862 to 

1869; the establishment of the Smith 

River, Elk Valley, and Resighini 

Rancherias in 1906, 1908, and 1938 

respectively; and Federal interaction 

with the Del Norte Indian Welfare 

Association (DNIWA) from 1941 

through 1968. 

There is not substantial evidence in 

the record to show previous 

unambiguous Federal acknowledgment 

of the Athabascan-speaking Indians, 

residing in the villages in Del Norte 

County, California, known as ‘‘Tolowa,’’ 

either as separate entities or as one 

entity that included the ancestors of 

Petitioner #85. Evidence is also 

insufficient to show that the petitioner 

evolved from the Indian groups at the 

Klamath Reservation established in 

1855, or at the Smith River lease in 

1862, or from the Resighini Rancheria. 

Unambiguous Federal 

acknowledgment of the Elk Valley and 

Smith River Rancherias, which include 

descendants of Athabascan-speaking 

Tolowas from Del Norte County, 

California, continues to the present day. 

Because a group of the petitioner’s 

ancestors did not enroll at these 

rancherias and did not evolve as a group 

from them, Petitioner #85 has not 

shown unambiguous previous Federal 

acknowledgment based on the 

government’s acknowledgment of the 

Smith River and Elk Valley Rancherias. 

The Federal Government never 

recognized DNIWA as a tribal political 

entity. There is no substantial evidence 

of unambiguous previous Federal 

acknowledgment in the record. 

Therefore, the petitioner is evaluated 

under 25 CFR 83.7. Whether the 

petitioner is eligible to be evaluated 

under 83.8 of the regulations is subject 

to reconsideration based on new 

evidence at the time of an amended 

proposed finding, if any, or the final 

determination. 

Petitioner #85 maintains that its 

membership and its ancestors existed 

continuously as a tribe of Indians 

descended from the Tolowa, an 

Athabascan-speaking group of Indians 

residing in Del Norte County, California. 

The petitioner maintains that its 

members specifically are the 

descendants of those Tolowa who were 

not enrolled at the Smith River and Elk 

Valley Rancherias. 

In order to meet criterion 83.7(b) a 

petitioner must demonstrate that a 

predominant portion of its group 

comprises a distinct community and has 

existed as a community from historical 

times until the present. Petitioner #85 

did not provide sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate the petitioner’s ancestors 

existed as a distinct community from 

first sustained contact in 1853 to 1903, 

before the rancherias formed. The 

evidence shows that some of Petitioner 

#85’s ancestors were involved in 

interaction indicative of a social 

community, but does not to show that 

they constituted an entity distinct from 

the others, or were part of any entity 

evolving from the people described in 

the record. For the period 1903 through 

1949, Department researchers examined 

recollections from this time gathered 

from interviews conducted during their 

site visit in 2010, as well as Federal 

census material, BIA enrollments, and 

BIA correspondence to document 

further DNIWA’s activities and informal 

social interaction. Researchers also 

consulted BIA enrollments conducted 

by Henry Roe Cloud in 1939. The 

evidence is insufficient to show that the 

petitioner’s ancestors evolved as a 

distinct community from 1903 through 

the 1930s, after the Elk Valley and 

Smith River Rancherias formed, or later. 

DNIWA, claimed by the petitioner as its 

precursor, did not function as a distinct 

community from its alleged beginnings 

in the 1930s through the 1980s. The 

evidence for this time does not support 

the assertion by Petitioner #85 that 

DNIWA provided leadership over an 

evolving entity that included both the 

ancestors of Petitioner #85 and the 

Smith River or Elk Valley Rancherias, or 

that it evolved into the petitioner in the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 71733 

early 1980s. Evidence for this time is 

insufficient to show the existence or 

evolution of a community distinct from 

these rancherias and ancestral to the 

petitioner. 

Finally, the evidence does not show 

the petitioner’s membership functioning 

as a community from 1980 to the 

present. Petitioner #85 thus did not 

provide sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that its members interact 

with each other, outside of the 

organization itself, or that there are 

significant social relationships within 

its membership and that its members are 

differentiated from, and identified as 

distinct from, nonmembers. A 

comparison of Petitioner #85’s 

membership lists shows a high 

variability and turnover between 1986 

and 1996, with the 2009 membership 

list reflecting a remnant of the 1996 

membership. Such high variability or 

turnover is indicative of individuals or 

families recruited by the leadership 

from a population which has little other 

involvement in the petitioner’s 

organization. This indication is further 

supported by interviewee accounts, and 

the fact that very few individuals who 

were not on successive membership 

lists joined Smith River Rancheria 

between 1991 and 1995, as some of the 

petitioner maintained. Petitioner #85 

does not meet the requirements of 

criterion 83.7(b), based upon the 

materials submitted by the petitioner 

and developed by Department 

researchers during active consideration 

of this petition. 

The evidence in the record is 

insufficient to demonstrate that 

Petitioner #85 meets the criterion 

83.7(b), one of the seven mandatory 

criteria of the regulations for a 

determination that the petitioning group 

is an Indian tribe. In accordance with 

the regulations, the failure to meet all 

seven criteria requires a determination 

that the petitioning group is not an 

Indian tribe within the meaning of 

Federal law (§ 83.6(d), § 83.10(m)). 

Therefore, the Department proposes to 

decline to acknowledge Petitioner #85 

as an Indian tribe. 

According to the Assistant 

Secretary—Indian Affairs Office of 

Federal Acknowledgment; Guidance 

and Direction Regarding Internal 

Procedures of May 23, 2008: 

If during the evaluation of a petition on 

active consideration it becomes apparent that 

the petitioner fails on one criterion, or more, 

under the reasonable likelihood of the 

validity of the facts standard, OFA may 

prepare a proposed finding or final 

determination not to acknowledge the group 

on the failed criterion or criteria alone, 

setting forth the evidence, reasoning, and 

analyses that form the basis for the proposed 

decision. (73 FR 30147) 

The burden of providing sufficient 

evidence under the criteria in the 

regulations rests with the petitioner, 25 

CFR 83.5(c). Because Petitioner #85 has 

not met criterion § 83.7(b) as a distinct 

community, it is not necessary for the 

Department to make conclusions 

regarding the other six mandatory 

criteria. 

This proposed finding is based on the 

evidence currently in the record. 

Additional evidence may be submitted 

during the comment period that follows 

publication of this finding. If new 

evidence provided during the comment 

period results in a reversal of this 

conclusion, the Assistant Secretary— 

Indian Affairs will issue an amended 

proposed finding evaluating all seven 

criteria. (73 FR 30147) 

Publication of the Assistant 

Secretary’s PF 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 conclusions in the 

PF (25 CFR 83.10(i)). Comments should 

be submitted in writing to the address 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

notice. Interested or informed parties 

must provide copies of their 

submissions to the petitioner. The 

regulations at 25 CFR 83.10(k) provide 

petitioner with a minimum of 60 days 

to respond to any submissions on the PF 

received from interested and informed 

parties during the comment period. 

At the end of the periods for comment 

and response on a PF, the Assistant 

Secretary will consult with the 

petitioner and interested parties to 

determine an equitable timeframe for 

consideration of written arguments and 

evidence. The Department will notify 

the petitioner and interested parties of 

the date such consideration begins. 

After consideration of the written 

arguments and evidence rebutting or 

supporting the PF and the petitioner’s 

response to the comments of interested 

parties and informed parties, the 

Assistant Secretary will either issue an 

amended proposed finding or make a 

final determination regarding the 

petitioner’s status. The Department will 

publish a summary of this 

determination in the Federal Register. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: November 18, 2010. 

George T. Skibine, 

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary— 

Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29585 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–G1–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement 

Requirements for Measurement 

Facilities Used for the Royalty 

Valuation of Processed Natural Gas 

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior. 

ACTION: Notice summarizing the 

requirements of royalty measurement 

equipment at gas plants and other 

processing facilities. 

SUMMARY: This notice provides 

information regarding the 

responsibilities of lessees, operators, 

and lessees’ representatives with respect 

to the measurement of Federal 

production at gas processing plants 

when royalty is reported and paid on 

processed gas at or downstream of the 

plant tailgate under 30 CFR 1206.153. 

This equipment includes any metering, 

sampling, or recording devices 

associated with the measurement of 

inlet production, residue gas, fuel gas, 

flare gas, condensate, natural gas 

liquids, or any other products recovered 

from Federal production. 

DATES: Effective Date: This notice 

becomes effective December 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have any questions regarding this 

Federal Register notice, please contact 

Mr. Kelly Johnson, Production 

Development Office, Gulf of Mexico, by 

telephone at (504) 736–2682 or by email at kelly.johnson@boemre.gov. To 

obtain copies of the most recent gas 

plant inspection records in the Gulf of 

Mexico Region, please contact Ms. 

Kathy Bell at (504) 736–2838 or by email at kathy.bell@boemre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) at 30 CFR 1202.151(a)(1)(ii), 

pertaining to royalty on processed gas, 

provides that royalty must be paid on 

the value of ‘‘residue gas and all gas 

plant products resulting from processing 

the gas produced from a lease subject to 

this subpart.’’ Since the measurement of 

production at gas plants and separation 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES