A Granular Analysis of Public Comments to the 2022 Proposed NAGPRA Revisions

It may state two separate claims as one.

The remaining 18 comments on consultation had a mixed response, with some suggesting changes or clarifications.

“The remaining 18 comments had a mixed response, with some suggesting changes or clarifications to the language or requesting that the primacy of the obligation to consult be made explicit throughout the rule.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The comments were publicly available but their quantity and format presented barriers to access, making it difficult to get an overall impression of demographic or feedback trends among respondents.

“Although the comments were publicly available, their quantity and format presented barriers to access.Interested parties could search for and read individual comments, but it was difficult to get an overall impression of demographic or feedback trends among respondents.”

• Also stated in: § Methods · plain

  “These comments are publicly available on the federal rulemaking docket but must be read or downloaded one by one.”

• Also stated in: § Methods · plain

  “Although the website has a search function, it results in incomplete capture of a given word or topic, because some comments were uploaded as unsearchable PDFs.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

36 of Native respondents (51%) commented on civil penalties, with 14 raising concerns about consistency/speed of enforcement, independence of assessment, penalty amounts, or anonymity.

“Just over half (n = 36) of Native respondents registered comments on the civil penalties portion of the rule, with 14 raising concerns about the consistency and speed of the enforcement of civil penalties, the independence of the process of assessment reports, penalty amounts, or wording that precludes anonymity in reporting.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

50% of respondents found the proposed two-year timeline unrealistic, and 40% suggested edits such as timeline expansion or Tribally directed timelines.

“Opposition was expressed in a variety of ways to the timelines put forth in the proposed rule: 50% of respondents found the proposed two-year timeline unrealistic, and 40% suggested edits such as a timeline expansion, Tribally directed timelines, or both.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

At least three comments requested explicit reiteration of deference language or raised concerns that other language conflicted with the principle.

“At least three comments requested explicit reiteration of the language of deference at various other points throughout the rules or raised concerns that other language conflicted with the principle of deference.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Just 55% of comments were identifiable as stakeholders and 40% as Native stakeholders.

“Although comments were submitted from a wide array of respondents, just 55% were identifiable as stakeholders and 40% as Native stakeholders (either individual or entity).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The DOI referenced its Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Threshold Analyses, the benefit of increased short-term costs for long-term benefits, and resources to reduce burden.

“In response to these concerns, the DOI referenced their Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Threshold Analyses, the benefit of increased short-term costs for long-term benefits, and the resources they do and will provide to reduce burden.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Unresolved concerns as of January 2024 included confusion over possession/control vs custody, civil penalties' reporting/review and fine amounts, cost/resource burdens from timelines, and scope of Ancestral remains definition.

“Central concerns remaining unresolved as the new regulations took effect in January 2024 included the following: confusion over possession or control versus custody, the civil penalties' reporting/review process and fine amounts, cost and resource burdens placed on Native nations by the regulation's timelines, and the scope of the definition of Ancestral remains.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The question of whether true repair can take place with noncompliant institutions when penalties for noncompliance are inconsequential is pervasive.

“And the question of whether true repair can take place with noncompliant institutions when the penalties for noncompliance are inconsequential is pervasive.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Of the 181 comments submitted, 10 entries were assessed as duplicates and excluded, and one letter was sent on behalf of six Native nations, each given its own entry, reducing the total sample to 176 respondents.

“Of the 181 comments submitted to the federal government, 10 entries were assessed as duplicates and excluded from analysis, and one letter was sent on behalf of six Native nations, each of which was given its own entry in the dataset.This reduced the total sample to 176 respondents.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The number of individual respondents in the demographic analysis was 87.

“Individual respondent demographics (n = 87).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The DOI responded by expanding the timeline to five years in the Final Rule and stressed the intention is not to impose deadlines on descendant communities but to hold museums and federal agencies to a greater standard of due diligence.

“The DOI responded by expanding the timeline to five years in the Final Rule and stressed that the intention of the regulations is not to impose deadlines on descendant communities but to hold museums and federal agencies to a greater standard of due diligence than was previously mandated.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The DOI made minor edits to clarify language in the introduction but kept the language of deference despite opposition from non-Native respondents.

“The DOI made some minor edits to clarify language in the introduction to the rules but kept the language of deference despite some opposition from non-Native respondents.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The question of resource drain, present since NAGPRA was signed into law, has not gone away.

“The question of resource drain, present since NAGPRA was signed into law, has not gone away”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Of the 80 individuals classified as non-stakeholders, 2 were professors of non-NAGPRA fields, 10 were students, 51 provided no other contextual biographical data, and 17 entered comments anonymously.

“Of the 80 individuals classified as non-stakeholders, two identified themselves as professors of non-NAGPRA related fields (English and history), 10 identified as students (four college, two graduate, two high school), 51 identified themselves by name but provided no other contextual biographical data, and 17 entered their comments anonymously.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Comments from Native nations overwhelmingly celebrated shifts in regulatory language that expanded deference to traditional knowledge and placed the process and pace of decision-making and timelines in their hands.

“Comments from Native nations overwhelmingly celebrated shifts in regulatory language that expanded deference to traditional knowledge and placed the process and pace of decision-making and timelines in their hands.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The total number of respondents in the demographic analysis was 167.

“Total respondent demographics (n = 167).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

181 written comments were submitted to regulations.gov on the proposed NAGPRA revisions, representing input from Native nations, the general public, universities, museums, and other individuals and entities engaged in NAGPRA work.

“181 written comments on the proposed changes were submitted to regulations.gov,representing input from Native nations, the general public, universities, museums, and other individuals and entities engaged in NAGPRA work.”

• Also stated in: § Methods · plain

  “Over a comment period of 105 days, 181 written comments on the Proposed Rule were submitted to regulations.gov.Comments represented input from Native nations, the public, universities, museums, and other individuals and entities engaged in NAGPRA work.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

An additional 18 (10%) comments did not pertain directly to the regulations and could not be classified.

“An additional 18 (10%) comments did not pertain directly to the regulations and thus could not be classified.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Combined into a single document, comments added up to more than 300 pages of text and varied in length from four words to over 43,000 words.

“Combined into a single document, comments added up to more than 300 pages of text and varied in length from four words to over 43,000 words.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Many comments from stakeholders were addressed in edits to the proposed rule.

“Although many comments from stakeholders were addressed in edits to the proposed rule”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The new timelines in the Final Rule are perceived by some to increase the burden on descendant communities.

“the new timelines are perceived by some to increase the burden on descendant communities.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Most objections to cost/resource burdens related to the agency's cost estimates, lack of funding since the Act, difficulty accessing grant funds, and onus on Native nations under proposed timelines.

“Most objections related to the agency's cost estimates, the general lack of funding for the mandate since the Act passed, the difficulty of accessing limited grant funds (the time and resource infrastructure required to apply for grants), and the onus placed on Native nations under the proposed timelines.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The DOI pointed out that the definition of human remains is intentionally broad to include DNA samples, tissue samples, hair, etc.

“It also pointed out that the definition of human remains is intentionally broad as to include DNA samples, tissue samples, hair, et cetera.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The format and nature of the comments made it difficult for any interested party to generate a gestalt impression of public opinion.

“Public comments offered a unique window into the perspectives of all NAGPRA stakeholders at a key inflection point, although the format and nature of these comments made it difficult for any interested party to generate a gestalt impression of public opinion.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Penalty amounts were critiqued as too low to offer sufficient deterrence to noncompliance.

“Penalty amounts were critiqued as too low to offer sufficient deterrence to noncompliance.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The DOI declined in the Final Rule to increase the base penalty amount and clarified that civil penalty payments go to the general account of the US Treasury.

“The DOI declined in the Final Rule to increase the base penalty amount and clarified that payments for civil penalties go to the general account of the US Treasury.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Social reckonings have led to increased journalistic and public scrutiny, which has resulted in overdue institutional reckonings on the possession and treatment of archaeological collections.

“Social reckonings have led to increased journalistic and public scrutiny (Ayers 2021;Demby and Devarajan 2021;Hudetz and Brewer 2023;Jaffe et al. 2023), which in turn has resulted in overdue institutional reckonings on the possession and treatment of archaeological collections.”

• cites Ayers 2021Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Demby and Devarajan 2021Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Hudetz and Brewer 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The proposed rule represented the most substantive changes to the guidelines governing repatriation since the passage of the original regulations in 1995.

“With new definitions and accelerated timelines for entities holding Native American materials, the proposed rule represented the most substantive changes to the guidelines governing repatriation since the passage of the original regulations in 1995.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The insights contained in the public comments were not accessible to anyone lacking the time or capability to read, sort, and summarize every comment.

“But those insights were not accessible to anyone without the time or capability to read, sort, and summarize every comment.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Materials that could not exist without past or present possession of physical remains can continue to be used for education, research, and profit after the physical remains are repatriated.

“At issue are materials that could not exist without the past or present possession of physical remains and that can continue to be used for education, research, and profit after the physical remains from which they are derived have been repatriated.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Slight differences in counts between the present analysis and the NPS analysis in the Final Rule can be attributed to differences in methodology and the subjectivity that inevitably asserts itself in a qualitative data context.

“Slight differences in counts between the present analysis and that conducted by the National Park Service that appears in the Final Rule can be attributed to differences in methodology and the subjectivity that inevitably asserts itself in a qualitative data context.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The National Park Service included an analysis of public comments received on the rule in the Final Rule.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Although a subjective measure, overall attitude toward the regulations was assigned to one of four broad categories.

“Although a subjective measure, overall attitude toward the regulations was assigned to one of four broad categories.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

NAGPRA implementation has always faced fundamental challenges: the stark complexity of the process, the diverse array of stakeholders implicated by its mandate, and the often-conflicting goals and priorities of those stakeholders.

“Fundamental challenges to the work of NAGPRA implementation have always been the stark complexity of the process, the diverse array of stakeholders implicated by its mandate, and the oftenconflicting goals and priorities of those stakeholders.”

• cites Chari and Lavallee 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The data used in this work are publicly available at the government website https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NPS-2022-0004.

“Data used are publicly available at the following government website: https://www.regulations. gov/docket/NPS-2022-0004.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The overall sentiment among Tribal communities was one of perseverance and frustration, of success tempered by roadblocks and dismay.

“The overall sentiment among Tribal communities-for which NAGPRA represented the opportunity to rectify theft and desecration, reclaim culture, and in doing so reaffirm their sovereign identity-was one of perseverance and frustration, of success tempered by roadblocks and dismay (Chari and Lavallee 2013).”

• cites Chari and Lavallee 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Biological anthropology and archaeology are currently undergoing discipline-wide paradigm shifts congruent with a broader cultural movement toward acknowledging and repairing systemic inequalities rooted in the foundations of the United States.

“Biological anthropology and archaeology are currently undergoing discipline-wide paradigm shifts, congruent with a broader cultural movement toward acknowledging and repairing systemic inequalities rooted in the foundations of the United States as a country (de la Cova et al. 2024).”

• cites de la Cova et al. 2024 sourceNot checked yet

  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

NAGPRA implementation has been mixed-at times incredibly successful but often a fraught, uphill battle.

“Yet, despite these clarifications, implementation has been mixed-at times incredibly successful but often a fraught, uphill battle (Chari and Lavallee 2013).”

• cites Chari and Lavallee 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The NAGPRA practitioners of today are an engaged community invested in delivering on the Act's higher aims to the best of their ability.

“the NAGPRA practitioners of today are an engaged community, invested in delivering on the Act's higher aims to the best of their ability.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

NAGPRA practitioners are in many ways at the forefront of the reorganization and reimagining that will result from these reckonings because successful models for repatriation and restorative justice abound in our history.

“NAGPRA practitioners in many ways are at the forefront of the reorganization and reimagining that will result from these reckonings because successful models for repatriation and restorative justice abound in our history, even as the need to continue to push the work forward remains (Domeischel and Neller 2024).”

• cites Domeischel and Neller 2024 sourceNot checked yet

  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Public comments offered a unique window into the perspectives of all NAGPRA stakeholders at a key inflection point.

“Public comments offered a unique window into the perspectives of all NAGPRA stakeholders at a key inflection point, although the format and nature of these comments made it difficult for any interested party to generate a gestalt impression of public opinion.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: NAGPRA is and has been subject to variable interpretations despite agency attempts to clarify its definitions and guidelines.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Some language in the Final Rule invites overly broad interpretations that might allow institutions to skirt obligations to Native nations.

“Some of the language invites overly broad interpretations that might allow institutions to skirt obligations to Native nations.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

If lacking an assistant or surplus time, it was difficult for any single practitioner to obtain an accurate or objective picture of attitudes toward the impending regulatory changes.

“If lacking an assistant or a surplus of time to aggregate the number of comments submitted over a relatively short period of time, it was difficult for any single practitioner to obtain any kind of accurate or objective picture of attitudes toward the (presumed) impending regulatory changes.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: NAGPRA is and has been subject to variable interpretations despite agency attempts to clarify its definitions and guidelines.