69776 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Notices 

notice on its procedures for terminating 

Origination Approval Agreements with 

FHA lenders and placement of FHA 

lenders on Credit Watch status (an 

evaluation period). In the May 17, 1999 

notice, HUD advised that it would 

publish in the Federal Register a list of 

mortgagees, which have had their 

Origination Approval Agreements 

terminated. 

Termination of Origination Approval 

Agreement: Approval of a mortgagee by 

HUD/FHA to participate in FHA 

mortgage insurance programs includes 

an Origination Approval Agreement 

(Agreement) between HUD and the 

mortgagee. Under the Agreement, the 

mortgagee is authorized to originate 

single family mortgage loans and submit 

them to FHA for insurance 

endorsement. The Agreement may be 

terminated on the basis of poor 

performance of FHA-insured mortgage 

loans originated by the mortgagee. The 

termination of a mortgagee’s Agreement 

is separate and apart from any action 

taken by HUD’s Mortgagee Review 

Board under HUD’s regulations at 24 

CFR part 25. 

Cause: HUD’s regulations permit HUD 

to terminate the Agreement with any 

mortgagee having a default and claim 

rate for loans endorsed within the 

preceding 24 months that exceeds 200 

percent of the default and claim rate 

within the geographic area served by a 

HUD field office, and also exceeds the 

national default and claim rate. For the 

24th review period, HUD is terminating 

the Agreement of mortgagees whose 

default and claim rate exceeds both the 

national rate and 200 percent of the 

field office rate. 

Effect: Termination of the Agreement 

precludes that branch(s) of the 

mortgagee from originating FHA-insured 

single family mortgages within the area 

of the HUD field office(s) listed in this 

notice. Mortgagees authorized to 

purchase, hold, or service FHA insured 

mortgages may continue to do so. 

Loans that closed or were approved 

before the termination became effective 

may be submitted for insurance 

endorsement. Approved loans are (1) 

those already underwritten and 

approved by a Direct Endorsement (DE) 

underwriter employed by an 

unconditionally approved DE lender 

and (2) cases covered by a firm 

commitment issued by HUD. Cases at 

earlier stages of processing cannot be 

submitted for insurance by the 

terminated branch; however, they may 

be transferred for completion of 

processing and underwriting to another 

mortgagee or branch authorized to 

originate FHA insured mortgages in that 

area. Mortgagees are obligated to 

continue to pay existing insurance 

premiums and meet all other obligations 

associated with insured mortgages. 

A terminated mortgagee may apply for 

a new Origination Approval Agreement 

if the mortgagee continues to be an 

approved mortgagee meeting the 

requirements of 24 CFR 202.5, 202.6, 

202.7, 202.8 or 202.10 and 202.12, if 

there has been no Origination Approval 

Agreement for at least six months, and 

if the Secretary determines that the 

underlying causes for termination have 

been remedied. To enable the Secretary 

to ascertain whether the underlying 

causes for termination have been 

remedied, a mortgagee applying for a 

new Origination Approval Agreement 

must obtain an independent review of 

the terminated office’s operations as 

well as its mortgage production, 

specifically including the FHA-insured 

mortgages cited in its termination 

notice. This independent analysis shall 

identify the underlying cause for the 

mortgagee’s high default and claim rate. 

The review must be conducted and 

issued by an independent Certified 

Public Accountant (CPA) qualified to 

perform audits under Government 

Auditing Standards as provided by the 

Government Accountability Office. The 

mortgagee must also submit a written 

corrective action plan to address each of 

the issues identified in the CPA’s report, 

along with evidence that the plan has 

been implemented. The application for 

a new Agreement should be in the form 

of a letter, accompanied by the CPA’s 

report and corrective action plan. The 

request should be sent to the Director, 

Office of Lender Activities and Program 

Compliance, 451 Seventh Street, SW., 

Room B133–P3214, Washington, DC 

20410–8000 or by courier to 490 

L’Enfant Plaza, East, SW., Suite 3214, 

Washington, DC 20024–8000. 

Action: The following mortgagees 

have had their Agreements terminated 

by HUD: 

Mortgagee name Mortgagee branch address HUD office 

jurisdictions 

Termination 

effective date 

Home ownership centers 

Alethes LLC ...................... 8601 RR 2222 BLD–1, Austin, TX 78730 ................... San Antonio, TX ............... 9/06/2005 Denver. 

BSM Financial LP ............. 16479 Dallas Parkway, Ste. 211, Addison, TX ........... Houston, TX. .................... 10/6/2005 Denver. 

BSM Financial LP ............. 16479 Dallas Parkway, Ste. 211, Addison, TX 75001 San Antonio, TX ............... 10/6/2005 Denver. 

Century Mortgage Corporation.1730 Mount Vernon Rd., Atlanta, GA 30338 .............. Atlanta, GA. ...................... 9/6/2005 Atlanta. 

Everett Financial Inc ......... 17290 Preston Road, Ste. 300, Dallas, TX 75252 ..... Fort Worth, TX .................. 10/6/2005 Denver. 

Infinity Mortgage Corporation.1117 Perimeter Center W., Suite 201, Atlanta, GA 

30338.

Atlanta, GA. ...................... 10/6/2005 Atlanta. 

Lending Street LLC ........... 1619 South Kentucky St., Amarillo, TX 79102 ........... Lubbock, TX. .................... 10/6/2005 Denver. 

Mortgage Pros LLC .......... 12335 North Rockwell Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 

73142.

Oklahoma City, OK ........... 9/06/2005 Denver. 

Pioneer Mortgage Services LLC.795 E 340 S, American Fork, UT 84003 .................... Salt Lake City, UT ............ 10/06/2005 Denver. 

Plainscapital McAfee Mortgage Company.1370 NW 114th St., Ste. 205, Clive, IA 50325 ........... Des Moines, IA ................. 9/06/2005 Denver. 

Dated: November 4, 2005. 

Frank L. Davis, 

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Housing. 

[FR Doc. E5–6333 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Proposed Finding Against Federal 

Acknowledgment of the St. Francis/ 

Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), 

notice is hereby given that the Assistant 

Secretary—Indian Affairs (AS–IA), 

proposes to determine that the St. 

Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of 

Vermont, P.O. Box 276, Swanton, 

Vermont, c/o Ms. April Merrill, is not an 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Notices 69777 

Indian tribe within the meaning of 

Federal law. This notice is based on a 

determination that the petitioner does 

not satisfy criteria 83.7(a), 83.7(b), 

83.7(c) and 83.7(e), and thus, does not 

meet the requirements for a governmentto-government relationship with the 

United States. 

DATES: Publication of the AS–IA’s notice 

of the proposed finding in the Federal 

Register initiates a 180-day comment 

period during which the petitioner, 

interested and informed parties, and the 

public may submit arguments and 

evidence to support or rebut the 

evidence relied upon in the proposed 

finding. Interested or informed parties 

must provide a copy of their comments 

to the petitioner. The regulations, 25 

CFR 83.10(k), provide petitioners a 

minimum of 60 days to respond to any 

submissions on the proposed findings 

received from interested and informed 

parties during the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed 

finding or requests for a copy of the 

summary evaluation of the evidence 

should be addressed to the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, 

1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240, Attention of the 

Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 

Mail Stop 34B–SIB. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. 

Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment, (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, of 

February 8, 2005, as amended on 

August 11, 2005. 

The acknowledgment process is based 

on the regulations at 25 CFR part 83, 

first issued in 1978 and revised in 1994. 

Under these regulations, the petitioner 

has the burden to present evidence that 

it meets the seven mandatory criteria in 

section 83.7. 

Pursuant to section 83.6(c), ‘‘the 

documented petition must include 

thorough explanations and supporting 

documentation in response to all of the 

criteria.’’ Furthermore, section 83.6(d) 

provides that a petition will be turned 

down for a lack of evidence. This notice 

of proposed finding is based on a 

determination that the St. Francis/ 

Sokoki Band of Abenkis of Vermont 

(SSA), Petitioner #68, does not satisfy 

all seven of the mandatory criteria for 

acknowledgment as an Indian tribe 

described in 25 CFR 83.7. 

The SSA submitted a letter of intent 

to petition for Federal acknowledgment 

on March 28, 1980. The AS–IA placed 

the petitioner on active consideration on 

February 4, 2005. 

The SSA petitioner claims to have 

descended as a group mainly from the 

Missisquoi, a historical Western 

Abenaki Indian tribe. During the 

colonial period (approximately 1600–

1800), the Missiquoi occupied the Lake 

Champlain region near the present-day 

town of Swanton in Franklin County in 

northwestern Vermont. The available 

evidence in the historical record 

indicates that by 1800 the disruption 

caused by colonial wars and non-Indian 

settlement had forced almost all the 

Western Abenakis in northern New 

England (including Vermont) to relocate 

to the Saint Francis River area of 

Quebec, Canada, and become part of the 

St. Francis [Odanak] village of Canadian 

Indians. The petitioner, however, 

contends that its ancestors remained 

behind in northwestern Vermont after 

1800, or moved to Canada until it was 

‘‘safe’’ to return. The petitioner also 

maintains that its ancestors lived 

‘‘underground,’’ hiding their Native 

American identity to avoid drawing the 

attention of their non-Indian neighbors, 

until the 1970’s. The details of this 

claimed process of living 

‘‘underground,’’ however, are not 

explained by the petitioner. Some of the 

available documentation indicates that 

some of the group’s ancestors moved 

from various locations in Quebec, 

Canada, to the United States over the 

course of the 19th century, but the 

available evidence does not demonstrate 

that the petitioner or its claimed 

ancestors descended from the St. 

Francis Indians of Quebec, another 

Indian group in Canada, a Missisquoi 

Abenaki entity in Vermont, or any other 

Western Abenaki group or Indian entity 

from New England in existence before 

or after 1800. The available evidence 

indicates that no external observers 

from 1800 to 1975 described the 

petitioner or its claimed ancestors, or 

any group of Indians, as an Indian entity 

or a distinct Indian community in 

northwestern Vermont. 

The SSA petitioner does not meet 

criterion 83.7(a), which requires that it 

has been identified as an American 

Indian entity on a substantially 

continuous basis since 1900. The 

available evidence demonstrates that no 

external observers identified the SSA 

petitioner or a group of its ancestors as 

an Indian entity from 1900 to 1975. 

External sources, including Federal 

authorities, State agencies, local 

governments, scholars, newspapers, 

periodicals, and Indian organizations, 

have identified SSA as some form of 

Indian entity only on a regular basis 

since 1976. Based on the available 

evidence, therefore, the SSA has not 

been identified on a substantially 

continuous basis since 1900, and does 

not meet criterion 83.7(a). The SSA 

petitioner is encouraged to submit 

documentation demonstrating that it has 

been identified as an Indian entity from 

1900 to 1975. The current record 

suggests that it formed only recently in 

the middle 1970’s. 

The SSA does not meet criterion 

83.7(b), which requires that a 

predominant portion of the petitioning 

group comprises a distinct community 

and has existed as a community from 

historical times until the present. The 

available evidence does not demonstrate 

a predominant portion of the SSA 

petitioning group’s members or its 

claimed ancestors have maintained 

consistent interaction and significant 

social relationships throughout history. 

Instead, the evidence demonstrates that 

the SSA petitioner is a collection of 

individuals of claimed (but not 

demonstrated) Indian ancestry with 

little or no social or historical 

connection with each other before the 

early 1970’s. The available evidence 

also establishes that the petitioner’s 

claimed ancestors and current members 

have not maintained at least a minimal 

distinction from other populations in 

the northwestern Vermont area and 

Lake Champlain region from historical 

times to the present. 

The available evidence does not 

demonstrate the SSA petitioner has a 

historical or social connection to any 

Western Abenaki entity in existence 

before 1800. The petitioner has not 

provided sufficient evidence to establish 

that a predominant portion of its 

claimed ancestors were interacting as a 

group before 1800. Indeed, it is not 

known from the available evidence what 

these claimed ancestors were doing 

before they moved to Vermont over the 

course of the 19th century. Thus, the 

petitioner does not meet the 

requirements of criterion 83.7(b) before 

1800. 

A major problem with the evidence 

SSA submitted to demonstrate 

community for its claimed 19th century 

ancestors is the use of family-name 

variations to construct its ancestral 

family lines. The petitioner developed 

these names from family names found 

mainly on 19th century lists of St. 

Francis Indians at Odanak in Quebec, a 

historical group from which only a very 

small number of SSA’s current members 

actually claim descent. It appears that 

the SSA petitioner took the family 

names of current members and searched 

for variations of those names on lists of 

Saint Francis Indians. The SSA 

petitioner also searched for further 

69778 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Notices 

variations of those family names in local 

church, town, land, school, and census 

records from the 19th century in the 

Franklin County area of Vermont, or 

from the ‘‘oral traditions’’ of its 

members. Once the petitioner perceived 

what it believed were similarities 

between the name of a present-day 

family and names on these historical 

records, it designated the family as part 

of an ‘‘Abenaki’’ community in the 

Franklin County area during the 19th 

century. 

The use of such a methodology to 

demonstrate consistent interactions and 

significant social relationships for SSA’s 

claimed ancestral families is 

unpersuasive. Using this process means 

that the families were identified as part 

of a claimed ancestral community based 

on the presumption that individuals 

with perceived similar names had 

shared social interactions, and not 

because the record actually 

demonstrated consistent interactions 

and social relationships among them. 

In addition, the SSA petitioner has 

not submitted the documentation it 

used to create the lists of claimed 

ancestral families. Instead, the 

petitioner described the contents of 

various town, church, and census 

records, and submitted abstracted lists 

of various family names of claimed 

ancestors. Copies of the actual primary 

documents from which the petitioner 

claimed to have extracted this 

information were not submitted. 

Further, the SSA petitioner did not 

provide most of the interviews, field 

notes, or genealogical materials 

referenced in its narratives. The 

petitioner is encouraged to submit 

copies of these documents for 

verification and analysis. 

Moreover, the petitioner has not 

provided sufficient evidence to explain 

how the claimed ancestral families 

which shared these family name or 

surname variations were consistently 

interacting in a way that would meet the 

requirements of criterion 83.7(b). For 

example, the petitioner has submitted 

little or no primary documentation from 

the 19th century to show these claimed 

ancestral families had significant 

marriage rates within the group, 

significant social relationships (formal 

or informal) connecting individual 

ancestors, important cooperative labor 

or other economic activities among 

claimed ancestors, or noteworthy sacred 

or secular behavior involving most of 

the group. It is also unclear if most of 

the claimed ancestral families from the 

19th century actually have descendants 

in SSA’s current membership. 

The petitioner has also described or 

provided abstracted lists of family 

names from four categories of evidence: 

local historical accounts, church and 

town records, Federal census data, and 

genealogical research on Abenaki family 

names, which it claims demonstrates 

the existence of its ancestral community 

in northwestern Vermont during the 

19th century. It has not submitted 

copies of the documents referenced in 

the four groups of evidence and is 

encouraged to do so. Despite the lack of 

primary documentation, an evaluation 

of the limited available evidence does 

not indicate the four categories of 

evidence demonstrate that a 

predominant portion of the group’s 

claimed ancestors comprised a distinct 

community during the 19th century. 

Rather, the evaluation reveals that many 

of the petitioner’s claimed ancestral 

families began migrating to Vermont as 

individual families, beginning slowly in 

a disconnected fashion in the early 19th 

century, and continuing in a very 

gradual manner until well into the 20th 

century. Many came from unknown 

places in Quebec or separate locations 

throughout the Canadian province. 

Others came from Massachusetts, New 

York, Connecticut, or Rhode Island. 

There is no available evidence showing 

these families interacted with each other 

as part of a community in Canada or 

elsewhere in the United States. There is 

also no evidence to demonstrate that the 

claimed ancestors migrated to Vermont 

as a group or acted as part of a 

community distinct in some way from 

the wider society after they arrived in 

Vermont. Thus, the petitioner does not 

meet the requirements of criterion 

83.7(b) from 1800 to 1900. 

The information presented by the 

petitioner does not indicate the 

presence of a group or a community of 

the petitioner’s claimed ancestors from 

1900 to the early 1970’s; rather, it 

indicates only that some of the current 

petitioner’s claimed ancestors lived in 

Franklin County, Vermont (particularly 

in the Town of Swanton) during the 

20th century. The petitioner submitted 

very few copies of primary documents 

such as birth certificates, land records, 

or census enumerations, choosing 

instead to submit abstracts of this 

information. These abstracts, however, 

are inadequate for the purposes of the 

Department’s verification research and 

evaluation, which require copies of 

original documents. Furthermore, on 

several occasions when original 

documents were located by the 

Department or submitted by the State of 

Vermont, they did not contain the 

information the petitioner claimed. 

Information provided by the 

petitioner and located by the 

Department does not demonstrate that 

the ancestors claimed by the petitioner 

formed an ‘‘enclave’’ in the Town of 

Swanton, Vermont. Some claimed 

ancestors lived on the streets defined as 

making up an area of the town referred 

to as ‘‘Back Bay,’’ but others lived 

elsewhere in the town, and nonmember 

families also appear to have lived on 

these streets. The petitioner has not 

demonstrated the existence of a distinct 

community within Swanton, Vermont, 

consisting of the petitioner’s ancestors, 

or that those ancestors constituted a 

‘‘community-within-a-community’’

among the French-Canadian or Roman 

Catholic families in the town. The 

petitioner also has not demonstrated 

that assorted references to ‘‘Abenaki’’

Indians refer to their ancestors, rather 

than to Abenaki from New England and 

Canada who traveled to the area to hunt, 

fish, or sell crafts. 

The group maintains that it did not 

keep membership lists before the 1970’s 

and the initial organization of the SSA. 

However, the petition lacks the type of 

evidence which, in the absence of 

formal lists, would help to define the 

makeup of a community, such as lists of 

attendees at meetings or other 

gatherings, letters detailing interaction 

among people in religious or social 

organizations, or journals describing the 

participation by people in rituals such 

as baptisms, marriages, and funerals. 

Without this information, it is not 

possible to determine who was 

supposed to have been a member of this 

‘‘group’’ before the 1970’s. Membership 

standards since the 1970’s indicate a 

very fluid group, with few clearlydefined, consistent standards for 

membership. 

After the formal organization of the 

SSA in the early 1970’s, the group 

became a more organized body, with an 

emphasis on providing services such as 

after-school programs and vocational 

training through the Abenaki Self-Help 

Association, Incorporated (ASHAI), the 

group’s social-welfare organization. The 

group has also introduced some 

elements of Western Abenaki and panIndian culture into their gatherings, and 

has actively sought to establish relations 

with other non-federally recognized 

groups and recognized Indian tribes 

(both in Canada and the United States). 

These developments notwithstanding, 

the group has not displayed a level of 

community that would meet criterion 

83.7(b) from 1975 to the present. The 

social and cultural elements are of 

recent introduction, and there is not 

enough information to indicate that 

these events are of more than symbolic 

value to the group as a whole, rather 

than to a few involved members. 

Although the SAA group has organized 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Notices 69779 

events that allow its members to meet 

and socialize, the petitioner has not 

demonstrated that a significant portion 

of its membership regularly associate 

with each other. The lack of 

documentation also makes it difficult to 

determine who among the membership 

has participated in the group’s various 

activities. 

The SSA petitioner has not 

demonstrated that a distinct community 

of the petitioner’s ancestors existed in 

Franklin County, Vermont, during the 

19th century, and has not satisfied the 

requirements for criterion 83.7(b) at any 

time before 1975. Further, the group has 

not provided sufficient evidence of 

community to establish that it meets 

criterion 83.7(b) since 1975. Therefore, 

the petitioner has not met the 

requirements of criterion 83.7(b). 

The SSA petitioner does not meet 

criterion 83.7(c), which requires that it 

has maintained political influence or 

authority over its members as an 

autonomous entity from historical times 

until the present. The SSA petitioner 

claims it expressed political influence 

mainly through ‘‘family bands’’ before 

the formation of its council in the 

middle of the 1970’s. The available 

evidence from potential antecedent 

entities, however, indicates that the 

historical Western Abenaki actually had 

a well-developed political organization 

during the colonial period consisting of 

a ‘‘civil chief’’ and a ‘‘war chief’’. The 

‘‘civil chief’’ presided over a ‘‘great 

council’’ composed of the ‘‘war chief’’

and the ‘‘elders’’ of the families. At the 

Saint Francis (Odanak) village in 

Quebec during the 1700’s, the ‘‘council’’

contained a ‘‘grand chief’’ and several 

other ‘‘chiefs’’. The names and political 

activities of most of these leaders are not 

well known. However, historical records 

reveal two well-documented political 

figures among the Western Abenaki 

before 1800—Chiefs Grey Lock and 

Joseph-Louis Gill. Grey Lock gained 

prominence in the first half of the 18th 

century, and Joseph-Louis Gill in the 

latter half. Yet, as described previously 

under criterion 83.7(b), the available 

evidence does not demonstrate the 

current petitioner or its claimed 

ancestral families descended as a group 

from any Western Abenaki tribe either 

in Quebec and/or Vermont. Thus, 

evidence of political activity for 

Western Abenaki chiefs like Grey Lock 

and Joseph-Louis Gill (or an unnamed 

Abenaki ‘‘chief’’ identified in a 1765 

lease as the late husband of a widow 

named ‘‘Charlotte’’) during the colonial 

period does not demonstrate political 

influence among the SSA’s claimed 

ancestors. The petitioner has also not 

provided other evidence of what its 

specific claimed ancestors might have 

been doing as a group to exercise 

political influence before 1800. 

The evidence presented for the 19th 

century is also inadequate. The 

petitioner has not submitted evidence to 

demonstrate what its claimed ancestors 

were doing between 1800 and 1875 to 

exercise political influence or authority 

across the group, particularly as many of 

the people identified as the ancestors of 

the petitioner were living in various 

towns across Quebec, Canada, during 

this time. For 1875 to 1900, the 

petitioner claimed that individuals such 

as Nazaire St. Francis, Sr., and Cordelia 

(Freemore) Brow served as informal 

leaders of a group of their claimed 

ancestors in the ‘‘Back Bay’’ area of the 

Town of Swanton, Vermont; however, 

the petitioner has not demonstrated that 

any of these individuals exercised 

authority over a group of the petitioner’s 

claimed ancestors. For the first 75 years 

of the 20th century, the petitioner has 

presented little evidence demonstrating 

informal leadership among any portion 

of the petitioner’s claimed ancestors. 

Information describing Nazaire St. 

Francis, Jr., Gene Cote, and Cordelia 

(Freemore) Brow as informal leaders 

must be supplemented with additional 

information if the petitioner wishes to 

substantiate its claims. The petitioner 

has not demonstrated informal or formal 

political authority among a group of its 

claimed ancestors at any time before 

1975, and therefore, does not satisfy the 

requirements for criterion 83.7(c) for 

this time period. 

During the 1970’s, SSA appears to 

have become politically active after its 

formal organization. In addition to 

ASHAI, the group also formed a ‘‘tribal 

council.’’ Under the leadership of 

‘‘chiefs’’ Homer St. Francis and Leonard 

Lampman, the group began their 

petition for Federal acknowledgment, 

instituted some social and cultural 

programs, and engaged the state of 

Vermont in a number of legal battles. 

However, the petition lacks evidence to 

demonstrate that participation in the 

group’s political processes was 

widespread across the membership of 

the group. The lack of sign-in sheets 

from meetings is problematic because it 

is difficult to demonstrate who exactly 

was involved in the group’s various 

meetings. Further, the lack of 17 years 

of minutes from ASHAI and the lack of 

11 years of ‘‘tribal council’’ meeting 

minutes (as well as redacted ASHAI and 

council minutes spanning 8 and 9 years 

respectively) makes it difficult to 

understand what issues were important 

to the group and who was participating 

in the group’s political organization. 

The petitioner has not demonstrated 

that the organization formed after 1975 

has a bilateral relationship between the 

membership and the elected (or 

appointed) governing body, in which 

the leadership acknowledges and 

responds to the concerns of the 

membership. Rather, the evidence 

indicates that political influence is 

limited to the actions of a small number 

of members pursuing an agenda with a 

minimal amount of input from the 

membership. Therefore, the petitioner 

has not satisfied the requirements of 

criterion 83.7(c) since 1975. 

The SSA petitioner meets criterion 

83.7(d), which requires the petitioner to 

submit its governing document, 

including its membership criteria. The 

petitioner submitted a copy of its 

constitution, which defines its 

procedures by which it governs its 

affairs and its members, and which 

requires members to document descent 

from (1) an Abenaki family listed on the 

1765 James Robertson lease; or (2) 

Abenaki ancestors as determined by the 

petitioner’s governing body. 

The SSA petitioner does not meet 

criterion 83.7(e), which requires that the 

petitioner’s members descend from a 

historical Indian tribe or from tribes that 

combined and functioned as a single 

autonomous political entity. Eight 

current members (less than 1 percent of 

the group) have documented descent 

from a historical individual identified in 

the 19th century as a member of the St. 

Francis Abenaki tribe at Odanak, 

Quebec, Canada, but have not 

documented descent from historic 

individuals identified as members of the 

Missisquoi Abenaki. None of the 

petitioner’s remaining 1,163 members 

have documented descent from any of 

the presumed Abenaki persons listed on 

the 1765 James Robertson lease or from 

any persons identified on any other list, 

census, or primary or reliable secondary 

document as members of a historical 

Missisquoi Abenaki or historical 

Western Abenaki Indian tribe, or any 

other historical tribal entity. Therefore, 

the petitioner does not satisfy the 

requirements of criterion 83.7(e). 

Criterion 83.7(e) also requires that the 

petitioner submit an official 

membership list of all known current 

members, and that the petitioner’s 

governing body provide a separate 

certification of that membership list. 

The petitioner’s official membership list 

of August 9, 2005, which needs to be 

separately certified by the petitioner’s 

governing body, contained 2,506 entries, 

but only 1,171 individuals on that list 

were members who had submitted 

signed application forms and provided 

documentation required by the 

petitioner. 

69780 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Notices 

The SSA petitioner meets criterion 

83.7(f), which requires that a petitioning 

group be comprised principally of 

persons who are not members of any 

acknowledged North American Indian 

tribe. The petitioner has indicated that 

a number of current members are not 

listed on the group’s current 

membership list. Thus, this conclusion 

for criterion 83.7(f) does not apply to 

those individuals whose names were 

not submitted. 

The SSA petitioner meets criterion 

83.7(g) because there is no evidence in 

the record that the petitioner or its 

members have been explicitly 

terminated or forbidden a Federal 

relationship by an act of Congress. 

Based on this preliminary factual 

determination, the Department proposes 

not to extend Federal Acknowledgment 

as an Indian Tribe under 25 CFR Part 83 

to the petitioner known as the St. 

Francis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of 

Vermont. 

As provided by 25 CFR 83.1(h) of the 

regulations, a report summarizing the 

evidence, reasoning, and analyses that 

are the basis for the proposed decision 

will be provided to the petitioner and 

interested parties, and is available to 

other parties upon written request. 

Comments on the proposed finding 

and/or requests for a copy of the report 

of evidence should be addressed to the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs, 1951 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240, 

Attention: Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment, Mail Stop 34B–SIB. 

Comments on the proposed finding 

should be submitted within 180 

calendar days from the date of 

publication of this notice. The period 

for comment on a proposed finding may 

be extended for up to an additional 180 

days at the AS–IA’s discretion upon a 

finding of good cause (83.10(i)). 

Comments by interested and informed 

parties must be provided to the 

petitioner as well as to the Federal 

government (83.10(h)). After the close of 

the 180-day comment period, and any 

extensions, the petitioner has 60 

calendar days to respond to third-party 

comments (83.10(k)). This period may 

be extended at the AS–IA’s discretion, 

if warranted by the extent and nature of 

the comments. 

After the expiration of the comment 

and response periods described above, 

the Department will consult with the 

petitioner concerning establishment of a 

schedule for preparation of the final 

determination. The AS–IA will publish 

the final determination of the 

petitioner’s status in the Federal 

Register as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1), 

at a time that is consistent with that 

schedule. 

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

James E. Cason, 

Associate Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–22756 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GI–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[UT–030–06–1610—PH–241A] 

Notice of Resource Advisory 

Committee Meeting Cancellation 

AGENCY: Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument (GSENM), Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM), 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Cancellation of Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument 

Advisory Committee (GSENMAC) 

Meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument Advisory 

Committee (GSENMAC) meeting 

scheduled for November 15 and 16, 

2005 is cancelled. 

DATES: Two days of meetings were 

scheduled for November 15 and 16, 

2005, at the GSENM Visitor Center, 

Conference Room, 745 HWY 89 East, 

Kanab, Utah. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Crutchfield, Public Affairs Officer, 

GSENM Headquarters Office, 190 East 

Center, Kanab, Utah 84741; phone (435) 

644–4310, or email 

larry_crutchfield@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

and the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), the 

GSENMAC was scheduled to meet on 

November 15 and 16, 2005, in Kanab, 

Utah, at the GSENM Visitor Center, 745 

HWY 89 East, Kanab, Utah. The meeting 

has been cancelled and will be 

rescheduled at a later date. 

Dated: November 10, 2005. 

Dave Hunsaker, 

Monument Manager, Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument. 

[FR Doc. 05–22787 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease, UTU 

18726 

November 9, 2005. 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 

Section 371(a) of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, the lessee, Del-Rio Resources, 

Inc., timely filed a petition for 

reinstatement of oil and gas lease 

UTU18726 in Uintah County, Utah. The 

lessee paid the required rental accruing 

from the date of termination, June 1, 

2002. 

No leases were issued that affect these 

lands. The lessee agrees to new lease 

terms for rentals and royalties of $5 per 

acre and 162⁄3 percent, respectively. The 

lessee paid the $500 administration fee 

for the reinstatement of the lease and 

$155 cost for publishing this notice. 

The lessee met the requirements for 

reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(e) 

of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 [30 

U.S.C. 188(e)]. We are proposing to 

reinstate the lease, effective the date of 

termination subject to: 

• The original terms and conditions 

of the lease; 

• The increased rental of $5 per acre; 

• The increased royalty of 162⁄3

percent; and 

• The $155 cost of publishing this 

notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David H. Murphy, Acting Chief, Branch 

of Fluid Minerals at (801) 539–4122. 

David H. Murphy, 

Acting Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals. 

[FR Doc. 05–22776 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DK–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection for 1029–0063 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing 

that the information collection request