Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Notices 60099 

Property Number: 61200540004 

Status: Excess 

Comment: 840 sq. ft., needs rehab, off-site 

use only 

Oklahoma 

Maintenance Site 

Route 1 

Tupelo Co: Coal OK 74572–

Landholding Agency: GSA 

Property Number: 54200540003 

Status: Excess 

Comment: 5046 sq. ft. office, 2000 sq. ft. 

garage, 336 sq. ft. storage, easement 

restrictions 

GSA Number: 7–B–OK–0571 

Vermont 

Former Border Station 

70 Main Street 

Newport Co: VT 05857—

Landholding Agency: GSA 

Property Number: 54200540004 

Status: Excess 

Comment: 5015 sq. ft., most recent use—

office, possible asbestos/lead paint 

GSA Number: 1–F–VT–439 

Unsuitable Properties 

Buildings (by State) 

California 

Bldg. 1781 

Marine Corps Base 

Camp Pendleton Co: CA 92055–

Landholding Agency: Navy 

Property Number: 77200540001 

Status: Excess 

Reasons: Secured Area Extensive 

deterioration 

Bldgs. 76, 477, 720 

Naval Air Station 

Lemoore Co: CA 93246–

Landholding Agency: Navy 

Property Number: 77200540002 

Status: Unutilized 

Reason: Extensive deterioration 

Bldgs. 398, 399, 404 

Naval Base Point Loma 

San Diego Co: CA 

Landholding Agency: Navy 

Property Number: 77200540003 

Status: Unutilized 

Reason: Extensive deterioration 

Bldgs. 388, 389, 390, 391 

Naval Base Point Loma 

San Diego Co: CA 

Landholding Agency: Navy 

Property Number: 77200540004 

Status: Unutilized 

Reason: Extensive deterioration 

Illinois 

Bldg. 2C 

Naval Station 

Great Lakes Co: IL 60088–2900 

Landholding Agency: Navy 

Property Number: 77200540005 

Status: Excess 

Reason: Secured Area 

Michigan 

Natl Biological Control Lab 

2534 S. 11th Street 

Niles Co: MI 49120–

Landholding Agency: GSA 

Property Number: 54200540002 

Status: Excess 

Reason: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or 

explosive material 

GSA Number: 1–A–MI–824 

New Jersey 

Facility No. 2 

Naval Weapons Station 

Cape May Co: NJ 

Landholding Agency: Navy 

Property Number: 77200540006 

Status: Excess 

Reason: Extensive deterioration 

North Carolina 

Bldg. 216 

Tract 42–101 

Blowing Rock Co: Watauga NC 28605–

Landholding Agency: Interior 

Property Number: 61200540001 

Status: Unutilized 

Reason: Extensive deterioration 

Texas 

Bldg. 1732 

Naval Air Station 

Corpus Christi Co: Neuces TX 

Landholding Agency: Navy 

Property Number: 77200540007 

Status: Excess 

Reasons: Secured Area Extensive 

deterioration 

[FR Doc. 05–20450 Filed 10–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–29–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Reconsidered Final Determination To 

Decline To Acknowledge the Eastern 

Pequot Indians of Connecticut and the 

Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of 

Connecticut 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Associate Deputy Secretary (ADS) 

has determined that the Eastern Pequot 

Indians of Connecticut and the 

Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of 

Connecticut do not satisfy all seven 

criteria for acknowledgment as an 

Indian tribe in 25 CFR 83.7. This 

Reconsidered Final Determination 

(RFD) is final and effective upon the 

date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11(h)(3). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The procedures defined 

by this notice are effective on October 

14, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. 

Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment, MS: 34B–SIB, 1951 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20240, phone (202) 513–7650. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published in the exercise of 

authority delegated by the Secretary of 

the Interior to the Associate Deputy 

Secretary by Secretarial Order 3259, 

February 8, 2005, as amended on 

August 11, 2005. 

This notice is based on a 

determination that the Eastern Pequot 

Indians of Connecticut (EP) and the 

Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of 

Connecticut (PEP) do not satisfy all 

seven mandatory criteria for 

acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7. 

A notice of the proposed finding to 

acknowledge the EP was published in 

the Federal Register on March 31, 2000, 

together with a notice of the proposed 

finding to acknowledge the PEP (65 FR 

17294–17304). The original 180-day 

comment period on these proposed 

findings was extended twice at the 

request of the State of Connecticut 

(State). The actual closing of the 

comment period, August 2, 2001, was 

established as part of a scheduling order 

entered by the Federal District Court for 

Connecticut in Connecticut v. Dept. of 

the Interior, (No. 3:01–CV–88–AVC) (D. 

Conn. 2001). 

The Department published final 

determinations (FDs) to acknowledge 

the two petitioners, EP and PEP, as one 

group, known as the Historical Eastern 

Pequot Tribe, in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44234). 

On September 24, 2002, a group 

known as the ‘‘Wiquapaug Eastern 

Pequot Tribe’’ (WEP) filed a request for 

reconsideration of the FDs with the 

Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA), 

and on September 26, 2002, the State 

and the Towns of Ledyard, North 

Stonington, and Preston, Connecticut 

(Towns) also filed requests for 

reconsideration of the FDs with the IBIA 

under the provision of 25 CFR 83.11. 

On May 12, 2005, the IBIA vacated 

and remanded the FDs for 

reconsideration pursuant to 25 CFR 

83.11(d)(2) and (e)(10). The IBIA ruled 

that the FDs incorrectly relied on ‘‘the 

State’s continuous relationship and 

implicit recognition of the Eastern 

Pequot as a political entity as 

‘additional evidence’ in support of 

demonstrating criteria 83.7(b) and 

83.7(c) when the other evidence for a 

particular time period was insufficient’’

(41 IBIA 17). The IBIA concluded: ‘‘that 

the State and Towns have satisfied their 

burden of proof to show that a 

substantial portion of the evidence 

relied upon in the Assistant Secretary’s 

determination was unreliable or of little 

probative value’’ (41 IBIA 23). 

The IBIA decision identified items 

and issues to be addressed on 

reconsideration. In the first three issues 

60100 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Notices 

(IBIA items 1–3), the use of ‘‘state 

recognition’’ generally as evidence for 

criterion 83.7(b) or 83.7(c), the use of 

‘‘implicit’’ state recognition in the FDs, 

and the non-citizenship status of the 

Eastern Pequot, the IBIA rejected the use 

made in the EP and PEP FDs of the 

historically continuous state 

relationship with the Eastern Pequot as 

evidence for criteria 83.7(b) and 83.7(c). 

The IBIA decision described the bases 

on which the state relationship could 

provide probative evidence, requiring a 

more specific articulation of how the 

state relationship reflected community 

and political influence as defined in 25 

CFR 83.1 within the petitioners (41 IBIA 

18). 

The IBIA also referred items outside 

its jurisdiction as possible grounds for 

reconsideration. Item 4 referred by the 

IBIA, the State claim that absent the 

state relationship there was insufficient 

evidence to satisfy criterion 83.7(b) 

‘‘community’’ in the 20th century. The 

RFD determined that the FDs had 

already evaluated and rejected the 

claims made by the State concerning 

this evidence. Therefore, Item 4 was not 

grounds to reconsider criterion 83.7(b) 

for community in the 20th century. 

The RFD accepted Item 5 concerning 

evidence of a single political entity post1973 as grounds for reconsideration. 

This item also affected the evaluation of 

the evidence under criterion 83.7(b) 

during the period 1973 to 2002 when 

the general conclusions about the state 

relationship were a factor in the FD. The 

RFD evaluated the specific state 

relationship with the Eastern Pequot 

after 1973 and concluded that it did not 

provide evidence concerning bilateral 

political processes within the Eastern 

Pequot as a single entity. The RFD 

concluded that a the Eastern Pequot as 

a single entity meets 83.7(b) and 83.7(c) 

from 1973 to the early 1980’s. The RFD 

further found that EP and PEP had 

become separate groups in the early 

1980’s. It is the Department’s policy not 

to encourage splits within recognized 

tribes, a policy equally applicable to 

groups that may be acknowledged. Here, 

the separation occurred after the 

petitioning process had started and was 

in the lifetimes of the adult 

membership. Because of the recentness 

of the split, EP and PEP neither 

separately or together demonstrate 

existence as a community, nor the 

exercise of political authority or 

influence from historical times until the 

present. 

The RFD evaluated the arguments and 

evidence presented by the parties before 

the IBIA concerning two 1873 

documents (Item 6). Based on this 

evaluation, the RFD modified the 

analysis in the FDs on the issue of the 

two 1873 documents, but otherwise 

confirmed the FDs. As to Item 7, the 

RFD corrected an erroneous reference in 

the FDs concerning evidence of 

residence on the reservation in the 19th 

century, but did not change the ultimate 

conclusion of the analysis in the FDs, 

that the historical tribe met criterion 

83.7(b) for the colonial to 1873 period. 

Item 8 concerning acknowledgment of 

a single tribe based on two 

acknowledgment petitioners, and Item 

9, concerning tribal membership, raised 

issues that were addressed fully in the 

FDs and did not merit reconsideration. 

Item 10 concerned due process and 

notice concerning the PFs’ conclusions 

regarding the post-1973 period. The 

RFD concluded that the parties received 

actual notice and all due process 

required in order to submit argument 

and evidence in response to the 

proposed findings. 

Therefore, Item 10 was not a ground 

for reconsideration. Item 11 concerned 

the February 11, 2000 notice, which 

limited BIA research to that necessary 

for verification and evaluation, and 

alleged procedural irregularities. The 

RFD concluded, as litigated in 

Connecticut v. Dept. of the Interior, that 

the notice concerned internal agency 

procedures that did not affect the 

regulations or any parties’ substantive or 

procedural rights. Item 11 was not a 

ground for reconsideration of the FDs. 

Numerous courts have upheld the 

Federal acknowledgment regulations 

and the Department’s authority to issue 

them. Therefore, Item 12 was not a 

ground for reconsideration of the FDs. 

The RFD reviewed the various 

arguments of the WEP referred by IBIA 

as outside its jurisdiction and found that 

none was a basis for reconsideration of 

the FDs. 

The RFD reevaluated and reweighed 

the evidence in the record in accordance 

with the IBIA decision and the above 

conclusions concerning the other items 

referred by IBIA. On the mandatory 

criteria, the RFD revised the evaluation 

of criteria 83.7(b) and 83.7(c). 

Criterion 83.7(b) ‘‘community’’: The 

RFD reviewed the evaluation of 

criterion 83.7(b) from colonial times 

through the twentieth century (until 

1973) in the FDs, and found that the FDs 

did not rely on state recognition as 

evidence in concluding that there was 

sufficient evidence for criterion 83.7(b). 

There was more than sufficient evidence 

to demonstrate criterion 83.7(b) for that 

time period without the use of the state 

relationship. There was no reason to 

reconsider that portion of the FDs, 

which is, therefore, affirmed in the RFD. 

The RFD reconsidered the post-1973 

evidence concerning community. The 

historical Eastern Pequot tribe, 

including the families antecedent to the 

EP and PEP petitioners, met the 

requirements of criterion 83.7(b) from 

colonial times through the early 1980’s 

as a single community. The petitioners 

were not separate communities in this 

time period. The loss of the Jackson 

family, who bridged the divide between 

the various family lines, the formation 

of two separate organizations that 

encompassed the membership, and the 

lack of social interaction and cohesion 

between those families in the EP 

membership and those in the PEP 

membership, demonstrated that there 

were two separate groups, represented 

by the EP and PEP petitioners, had 

formed in the early 1980s. In addition, 

as discussed in criterion 83.7(c), the 

state relationship did not provide 

evidence of a single political system. 

Therefore, the FD incorrectly relied on 

a single political system as evidence for 

a single community post-1973. The 

Eastern Pequot separation was a recent 

one and occurred within the lifetime of 

most of the adult members of the two 

groups. The two separate communities 

that existed after 1983 were not the 

same community as existed previously, 

although they shared a common origin. 

The two groups did not demonstrate 

existence as a community from 

historical times to 2002. The RFD 

concluded that EP and PEP separately or 

together did not meet criterion 83.7(b) 

from historical times until the present, 

notwithstanding that as a single group, 

the historical Eastern Pequot from 

which the petitioners derived, met 

criterion 83.7(b) from early colonial 

times until the early 1980s. 

Criterion 83.7(c) ‘‘political authority 

or influence’’: The RFD reviewed the 

evidence for political authority and 

found that the FDs did not rely on the 

state relationship as evidence for 

criterion 83.7(c) before 1913. Criterion 

83.7(c) was demonstrated by other 

evidence for the colonial to 1913 period. 

Consequently, the conclusions in the 

FDs that the historical Eastern Pequot 

tribe, including the families antecedent 

to the EP and PEP petitioners, met 

criterion 83.7(c) until 1913 as a single 

group is affirmed. The petitioners did 

not separately exercise political 

influence in this time period because 

only a single community existed within 

which political influence was exercised 

and the evidence for political influence 

encompassed the entire community. 

The RFD concluded that the 

petitioners did not meet criterion 83.7(c) 

from 1913 to 1973 as one group. 

Whereas the FDs relied on state 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Notices 60101 

recognition in general as evidence 

during this period, based on the 

reasoning in the IBIA decision, the 

evidence for this period was 

reevaluated. The RFD concluded that 

there was insufficient evidence that 

there was political influence or 

authority within the group as a whole or 

in any portion of it between 1913 and 

1973. This reevaluation concluded that 

there was insufficient evidence for 

Atwood I. Williams’s leadership of all or 

a part of the group, and of interactions 

with the State that showed political 

activity within the group. The state 

relationship did not provide evidence in 

this time period. 

The FDs relied on the state 

relationship as evidence and concluded 

that historical Eastern Pequot met 

criterion 83.7(c) from 1973 to 2002 as 

one group. Based on the reevaluation in 

accord with the IBIA decision, without 

reliance on the state relationship, the 

RFD concluded that the two petitioners 

meet criterion 83.7(c) as one group from 

1973 to the early 1980’s, and did not 

exercise political authority and 

influence as one group after that time. 

The two separate groups did not meet 

criterion 83.7(c) because of the 

recentness of the evolution and split 

into two separate groups, represented by 

the EP and PEP petitioners. No evidence 

was submitted concerning the 

petitioners after the date of the FDs to 

the IBIA, and the RFD did not evaluate 

them after that date. 

Criteria 83.7(a),(d),(e),(f), and (g): The 

reevaluation of the post-1973 period in 

the grounds described in Item 5 resulted 

in the conclusion that the two 

petitioners formed separate 

communities after the early 1980’s, 

rather than a single group. The 

evaluations of criteria 83.7(a),(d),(e),(f) 

and (g) have been revised to reflect this 

conclusion. The evaluations of criteria 

83.7(a),(d),(e),(f), and (g) were not 

otherwise affected because they did not 

rely on the state relationship as 

evidence. Both petitioners met these 

criteria as separate groups. 

The RFD is final and effective upon 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register, pursuant to 25 

CFR 83.11(h)(3). 

Dated: October 11, 2005. 

James E. Cason, 

Associate Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20720 Filed 10–12–05; 2:26 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Reconsidered Final Determination To 

Decline To Acknowledge the 

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Associate Deputy Secretary has 

determined that the Schaghticoke Tribal 

Nation (STN) does not satisfy all seven 

criteria for acknowledgment as an 

Indian tribe in 25 CFR 83.7. Upon the 

date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11(h)(3), the 

Reconsidered Final Determination 

(RFD) is final and effective for the 

Department of the Interior (Department). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The procedures defined 

by this notice are effective on October 

17, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. 

Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment (OFA), MS: 34B–SIB, 

1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240, phone (202) 

513–7650. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published in the exercise of 

authority delegated by the Secretary of 

the Interior to the Associate Deputy 

Secretary by Secretarial Order 3259, 

February 8, 2005, as amended on 

August 11, 2005. 

This notice is based on a 

determination that the Schaghticoke 

Tribal Nation (STN) does not satisfy all 

of the seven mandatory criteria for 

acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7. 

Several lawsuits filed in the Federal 

courts affected the history and 

administrative handling of the 

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation petition. 

Two of these were land claims suits 

under the Non-Intercourse Act, 

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Kent 

School Corp., Inc., Civil No. 3:98 

CVO1113 (PCD) and Schaghticoke 

Tribal Nation v. Connecticut Light and 

Power Company, Civil No. 3:00 

CV00820 (PCD). The third lawsuit is 

United States of America v. 43.47 Acres 

of Land, et al., Civil No. H–85–

1078(PCD), filed on December 16, 1985, 

in which the U.S. sought to condemn 

certain lands on the Schaghticoke 

Reservation to become part of the 

Appalachian Trail. All three lawsuits 

involve the question of whether the STN 

is an Indian tribe. 

The Department conducted its 

evaluation of this petitioner under a 

court-approved negotiated agreement 

between the Department, STN, and 

parties to the several, concurrent 

lawsuits mentioned above. This 

scheduling order, entered May 8, 2001, 

and subsequently amended, established 

timelines for submission of materials to 

the Department and deadlines for 

submission of comments, issuance of a 

proposed finding (PF), and issuance of 

a final determination (FD) which 

superseded the provisions of the 

acknowledgment regulations, 25 CFR 

part 83. 

The Department published notice of 

the STN PF on December 11, 2002, and 

found against acknowledgment of STN. 

Following the comment and response 

periods and the submission of new 

evidence, the Department concluded, 

relying in part on the state relationship 

and a calculation of marriage rates 

within the Schaghticoke as carryover 

evidence for criterion 83.7(c), that STN 

met all the seven mandatory criteria for 

acknowledgment as an Indian tribe. In 

accordance with the court-approved 

negotiated schedule, on January 8, 2003, 

the Department provided the petitioner 

and interested parties with a copy of the 

Federal Acknowledgment Information 

Resource (FAIR) database used for the 

STN PF, together with the scanned 

images of documents that OFA 

researchers added to the administrative 

record in the course of preparing the 

STN PF, including materials that OFA 

requested from the State and the STN. 

The Department issued the STN FD 

acknowledging the STN as an Indian 

tribe on January 29, 2004, and notice of 

the STN FD appeared in the Federal 

Register on February 5, 2004 (69 FR 

5570). On May 3, 2004, the State of 

Connecticut (State), jointly with the 

Kent School Corporation, Connecticut 

Light and Power Company, the towns of 

Kent, Danbury, Bethel, New Fairfield, 

Newton, Ridgefield, Stamford, 

Greenwich, Sherman, Westport, Wilton, 

Weston, and the Housatonic Valley 

Council of Elected Officials, the 

Coggswell family group (CG), and the 

Schaghticoke Indian Tribe (SIT) 

petitioning group filed timely requests 

for reconsideration of the STN FD with 

the Interior Board of Indian Appeals 

(IBIA). 

On May 12, 2005, the IBIA vacated 

the STN FD and remanded it to the 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs for 

further work and reconsideration. The 

IBIA decision addressed a number of 

issues within the context of the related 

Federal acknowledgment decision of the 

Historical Eastern Pequot FD that was 

also vacated and remanded to the 

Department on May 12, 2005. IBIA 

linked the two cases because of their 

reliance on state recognition as