This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

35296 

Vol. 79, No. 119 

Friday, June 20, 2014 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agriculture Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1206 

[Document Number AMS–FV–14–0047] 

Mango Promotion, Research, and 

Information Order; Section 610 Review 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

Department of Agriculture. 

ACTION: Notice of regulatory review and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) 

plans to review the Mango Promotion, 

Research, and Information Order 

(Order). The review will be conducted 

under criteria contained in Section 610 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 19, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this notice. Comments may 

be submitted on the Internet at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov or to the 

Promotion and Economics Division, 

Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, 

USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW., Room 1406–S, Stop 0244, 

Washington, DC 20250–0244; facsimile: 

(202) 205–2800. All comments should 

reference the document number and the 

date and page number of this issue of 

the Federal Register and will be made 

available for public inspection, 

including name and address, if 

provided, in the above office during 

regular business hours or it can be 

viewed at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeanette Palmer, Marketing Specialist, 

Promotion and Economics Division, 

Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, 

USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW., Room 1406–S, Stop 0244, 

Washington, DC 20250–0244; telephone: 

(202) 720–9915; facsimile (202) 205– 

2800; or electronic mail: 

Jeanette.Palmer@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Order 

(7 CFR part 1206) is authorized under 

the Commodity Promotion, Research, 

and Information Act of 1996 (Act) (7 

U.S.C. 7411–7425). 

The Order became effective on 

November 3, 2004. It is administered by 

the National Mango Board (Board) with 

oversight by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). The program is 

financed by an assessment of three 

quarters of a cent per pound on first 

handlers and importers of 500,000 

pounds or more of mangos annually. 

The Order specifies that first handlers 

are responsible for submitting 

assessments to the Board on a monthly 

basis and maintaining records necessary 

to verify their reporting. Importers are 

responsible for paying assessments on 

mangos imported for consumption in 

the United States through the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection. The 

purpose of the Order is to carry out an 

effective, continuous, and coordinated 

program of promotion, research, and 

information designed to strengthen 

mangos’ competitive position, and to 

maintain and expand the domestic 

market for mangos. 

The Board is composed of 18 

members as follows: 8 Importers; 2 

domestic producers; 1 first handler; and 

7 foreign producers. Nominations for 

importer, domestic producer, and first 

handler members are solicited by 

importers, domestic producers, and first 

handlers, respectively. Nominations for 

foreign producer members are solicited 

from foreign producers and foreign 

producer associations. Members are 

appointed to the Board by the Secretary 

of Agriculture and serve a term of three 

years. 

The AMS published in the Federal 

Register on March 24, 2006, (71 FR 

14827) its plan to review certain 

regulations, including the mango 

program, under criteria contained in 

section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601– 

612). Because many AMS regulations 

impact small entities, AMS decided, as 

a matter of policy, to review certain 

regulations which, although they may 

not meet the threshold requirement 

under section 610 of the RFA, warrant 

review. According to the schedule 

published in 2006, this notice and 

request for comments is made for the 

Order. 

The purpose of the review is to 

determine whether the Order should be 

continued without change, amended, or 

rescinded (consistent with the 

objectives of the Act) to minimize the 

impacts on small entities. AMS will 

consider the following factors: (1) The 

continued need for the Order; (2) the 

nature of complaints or comments 

received from the public concerning the 

Order; (3) the complexity of the Order; 

(4) the extent to which the Order 

overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with 

other Federal rules, and, to the extent 

feasible, with State and local 

regulations; and (5) the length of time 

since the Order has been evaluated or 

the degree to which technology, 

economic conditions, or other factors 

have changed in the area affected by the 

Order. 

Written comments, views, opinions, 

and other information regarding the 

Order’s impact on small businesses are 

invited. 

Dated: June 16, 2014. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14398 Filed 6–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

43 CFR Part 50 

[145D0102DM DS61400000 

DLSN00000.000000 DX.61401] 

RIN 1090–AB05 

Procedures for Reestablishing a 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With the Native Hawaiian 

Community 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; solicitation of comments. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) is considering whether to 

propose an administrative rule that 

would facilitate the reestablishment of a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the Native Hawaiian community, 

to more effectively implement the 

special political and trust relationship 

that Congress has established between 

that community and the United States. 

The purpose of this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is to 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 35297 

solicit public comments on whether and 

how the Department of the Interior 

should facilitate the reestablishment of 

a government-to-government 

relationship with the Native Hawaiian 

community. In this ANPRM, the 

Secretary also announces several public 

meetings in Hawaii and several 

consultations with federally recognized 

tribes in the continental United States to 

consider these issues. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before August 19, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this ANPRM by any of the methods 

listed below. 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions on the Web site for 

submitting comments. 

2. U.S. mail, courier, or hand delivery: 

Office of the Secretary, Department of 

the Interior, Room 7329, 1849 C Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Strylowski, Office of the Secretary, 

telephone (202) 208–3071 (not a toll-free 

number), john_strylowski @ios.doi.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comment 

Please direct all comments to 

Regulation Identifier Number 1090– 

AB05. The Department of the Interior 

intends to include all comments 

received in the public docket without 

change, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the Department of the Interior 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to the 

Department of the Interior without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the Department of the Interior 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the 

Department of the Interior cannot read 

your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the Department of the 

Interior may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, 

avoid any form of encryption, and be 

free of any defects or viruses. 

The Secretary is considering whether 

to propose an administrative rule that 

would facilitate the reestablishment of a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the Native Hawaiian community. 

We are interested in hearing from 

leaders and members of the Native 

Hawaiian community and of federally 

recognized tribes in the continental 

United States. We also welcome 

comments and information from the 

State of Hawaii and its agencies, other 

government agencies, and other 

members of the public. 

To be most useful, and most likely to 

inform decisions on the content of a 

potential administrative rule, comments 

should: 

—Be specific; 

—Be substantive; 

—Explain the reasoning behind the 

comments; and 

—Address the issues outlined in the 

ANPRM. 

For the purpose of this ANPRM, we 

are seeking input solely on questions 

related to a potential administrative rule 

to facilitate the reestablishment of a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the Native Hawaiian community. 

Because promulgating a rule would not 

(1) alter the fundamental nature of the 

political and trust relationship 

established by Congress between the 

United States and the Native Hawaiian 

community, (2) authorize compensation 

for past wrongs, or (3) have any direct 

impact on the status of the Hawaiian 

home lands, we are not seeking 

comments on those topics. 

Furthermore, at this time, we are not 

seeking comments on what the contents 

of a reorganized Native Hawaiian 

government’s constitution or other 

governing document (if one were 

adopted) might include, how that Native 

Hawaiian government might be 

structured, or what powers that Native 

Hawaiian government might exercise. 

Rather, we are seeking comments 

solely on five threshold questions: 

• Should the Secretary propose an 

administrative rule that would facilitate 

the reestablishment of a government-togovernment relationship with the Native 

Hawaiian community? 

• Should the Secretary assist the 

Native Hawaiian community in 

reorganizing its government, with which 

the United States could reestablish a 

government-to-government 

relationship? 

• If so, what process should be 

established for drafting and ratifying a 

reorganized Native Hawaiian 

government’s constitution or other 

governing document? 

• Should the Secretary instead rely 

on the reorganization of a Native 

Hawaiian government through a process 

established by the Native Hawaiian 

community and facilitated by the State 

of Hawaii, to the extent such a process 

is consistent with Federal law? 

• If so, what conditions should the 

Secretary establish as prerequisites to 

Federal acknowledgment of a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the reorganized Native Hawaiian 

government? 

In addition to receiving comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, 

U.S. mail, courier services, and hand 

delivery, we will conduct a series of 

public meetings on the islands of 

Hawaii, Kauai, La ̄nai, Maui, Molokai, 

and Oahu, and a series of in-person 

consultations with federally recognized 

tribes in the continental United States. 

We will announce locally the time and 

place of each meeting and will give 

public notice of each tribal consultation. 

At these meetings and consultations, we 

will accept both oral and written 

communications. We strongly encourage 

Native Hawaiian organizations and 

federally recognized tribes in the 

continental United States to hold their 

own meetings to develop comments on 

the issues outlined in this ANPRM, and 

to share the outcomes of those meetings 

with us. 

All of the citations listed in this 

ANPRM will be available on the 

Department of the Interior’s Office of 

Native Hawaiian Relations’ Web site at 

http://www.doi.gov/ohr/. 

Background 

The United States has a unique 

political and trust relationship with 

federally recognized tribes across the 

country, as set forth in the United States 

Constitution, treaties, statutes, 

Executive Orders, administrative 

regulations, and judicial decisions. The 

Federal government’s relationship with 

these tribes is guided by a trust 

responsibility—a long-standing, 

paramount commitment to protect their 

unique rights and ensure their wellbeing, while respecting their tribal 

sovereignty. In recognition of that 

special commitment—and in fulfillment 

of the solemn obligations it entails—the 

United States, acting through the 

Department of the Interior, has 

developed processes to help tribes in 

the continental United States to 

reorganize their governments and to 

establish government-to-government 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35298 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

relationships with the United States. 

Strong tribal governments have proved 

critical to tribes’ capacity to exercise 

their inherent sovereign powers and 

sustain prosperous and resilient Native 

American communities. And, although 

we must not ignore the history of 

mistreatment and destructive policies 

that have done great harm to so many 

tribal communities, it is undeniable that 

the government-to-government 

relationships between tribes and the 

United States that have flourished 

during the last half century, in the 

current era of tribal self-determination, 

have been enormously beneficial not 

only to Native Americans but to all 

Americans. Yet the benefits of the 

government-to-government relationship 

have long been denied to one place in 

our Nation, even though it is home to 

one of the world’s largest indigenous 

communities: Hawaii. 

Over many decades, Congress has 

enacted more than 150 statutes 

recognizing and implementing a special 

political and trust relationship with the 

Native Hawaiian community. Among 

other things, these statutes create 

programs and services for members of 

the Native Hawaiian community that are 

in many respects analogous to, but 

separate from, the programs and 

services that Congress has enacted for 

federally recognized tribes in the 

continental United States. But during 

this same period, the United States has 

not partnered with Native Hawaiians on 

a government-to-government basis, at 

least partly because there has been no 

formal, organized Native Hawaiian 

government since 1893, when the 

United States helped overthrow the 

Kingdom of Hawaii. 

In recent years, the Department has 

increasingly heard from Native 

Hawaiians who assert that their 

community’s opportunities to thrive 

would be significantly bolstered by 

reorganizing a sovereign Native 

Hawaiian government that could engage 

the United States in a government-togovernment relationship, exercise 

inherent sovereign powers of selfgovernance and self-determination, and 

enhance the implementation of 

programs and services that Congress has 

created specifically to benefit the Native 

Hawaiian community. 

We would now like to hear from 

leaders and members of the Native 

Hawaiian community and of federally 

recognized tribes in the continental 

United States about whether, and how, 

the Department should facilitate the 

reestablishment of a government-togovernment relationship with the Native 

Hawaiian community. Meaningful 

consultation and collaboration with 

both the Native Hawaiian community 

and the federally recognized tribes in 

the continental United States will be 

essential to the Department in 

developing any policy regarding 

potential reestablishment of a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the Native Hawaiian community. 

See Presidential Memorandum for the 

Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies on Tribal Consultation, 74 FR 

57881 (Nov. 5, 2009). And as stated 

above, we also welcome comments and 

information from the State of Hawaii 

and its agencies, other government 

agencies, and other members of the 

public. 

The Relationship Between the United 

States and the Native Hawaiian 

Community 

At the time of the first documented 

encounter between Native Hawaiians 

and Europeans in 1778, ‘‘the Native 

Hawaiian people lived in a highly 

organized, self-sufficient subsistence 

social system based on a communal 

land tenure system with a sophisticated 

language, culture, and religion.’’ 20 

U.S.C. 7512(2); accord 42 U.S.C. 

11701(4). Although the indigenous 

people shared a common language, 

ancestry, and religion, the eight islands 

were governed by four independent 

chiefdoms until 1810, when the islands 

were unified under one Kingdom of 

Hawaii. See Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 

495, 500–01 (2000). 

Throughout the nineteenth century 

and until 1893, the United States 

‘‘recognized the independence of the 

Hawaiian Nation,’’ ‘‘extended full and 

complete diplomatic recognition to the 

Hawaiian Government,’’ and entered 

into several treaties with the Hawaiian 

monarch. 42 U.S.C. 11701(6); accord 20 

U.S.C. 7512(4); see Rice, 528 U.S. at 504 

(citing treaties and conventions that the 

two countries signed in 1826, 1849, 

1875, and 1887). But during that same 

period, westerners became 

‘‘increasing[ly] involve[d] . . . in the 

economic and political affairs of the 

Kingdom,’’ leading to the overthrow of 

the Kingdom in 1893 by a small group 

of non-Hawaiians, aided by the United 

States Minister to Hawaii and the 

Armed Forces of the United States. Rice, 

528 U.S. at 501, 504–05. After the 

overthrow, the Republic of Hawaii 

ceded its land to the United States, and 

Congress passed a joint resolution 

annexing the islands in 1898. See id. at 

505. The Hawaiian Organic Act, enacted 

in 1900, established the Territory of 

Hawaii, placed ceded lands under 

United States control, and directed that 

proceeds from the lands be used to 

benefit the inhabitants of Hawaii. Act of 

Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, 31 Stat. 141. 

By 1919, the decline in the Native 

Hawaiian population—by some 

estimates from several hundred 

thousand in 1778 to only 22,600—led 

the Secretary to recommend to Congress 

that land be set aside to help Native 

Hawaiians reestablish their traditional 

way of life. See H.R. Rep. No. 839, 66th 

Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1920); 20 U.S.C. 

7512(7). This recommendation resulted 

in enactment of the Hawaiian Homes 

Commission Act (HHCA), which 

designated approximately 200,000 acres 

of land for homesteading by Native 

Hawaiians. Act of July 9, 1921, ch. 42, 

42 Stat. 108; see also Rice, 528 U.S. at 

507 (HHCA’s stated purpose was ‘‘to 

rehabilitate the native Hawaiian 

population’’) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 839, 

at 1–2). 

When Hawaii was admitted to the 

Union in 1959, Congress vested 

authority in the State to administer 

HHCA lands subject to certain 

limitations. 73 Stat. 4 (1959). Congress 

also placed additional lands into a trust 

to be managed by the State for purposes 

that included ‘‘the betterment of the 

conditions of native Hawaiians, as 

defined in the [HHCA], as amended.’’ 

Id. at 6. Congress further detailed the 

Secretary’s responsibilities with respect 

to the HHCA lands and the HHCA itself 

in the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery 

Act, 109 Stat. 357 (1995). 

Since Hawaii’s admission to the 

Union, Congress has enacted dozens of 

statutes on behalf of Native Hawaiians 

pursuant to the United States’ 

recognized political relationship and 

trust responsibility. Congress has: 

• Established special Native 

Hawaiian programs in the areas of 

health care, education, loans, and 

employment. See, e.g., Native Hawaiian 

Health Care Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. 

11701–11714; Native Hawaiian 

Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 7511–7517; 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 29 

U.S.C. 2911; Native American Programs 

Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 2991–2992. 

• Enacted statutes to preserve Native 

Hawaiian culture, language, and 

historical sites. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 

396d(a); Native American Languages 

Act, 25 U.S.C. 2901–2906; National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 

U.S.C. 470a(d)(6). 

• Extended to the Native Hawaiian 

people many of ‘‘the same rights and 

privileges accorded to American Indian, 

Alaska Native, Eskimo, and Aleut 

communities’’ by classifying Native 

Hawaiians as ‘‘Native Americans’’ under 

numerous Federal statutes. 42 U.S.C. 

11701(19); see, e.g., American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1996– 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 35299 

1996a. See generally 20 U.S.C. 7512(13) 

(noting that ‘‘[t]he political relationship 

between the United States and the 

Native Hawaiian people has been 

recognized and reaffirmed by the United 

States, as evidenced by the inclusion of 

Native Hawaiians’’ in many statutes); 

accord 114 Stat. 2968–69 (2000); 114 

Stat. 2874–75 (2000). 

In a number of enactments, Congress 

has expressly identified Native 

Hawaiians as ‘‘a distinct and unique 

indigenous people with a historical 

continuity to the original inhabitants of 

the Hawaiian archipelago,’’ 42 U.S.C. 

11701(1); accord 20 U.S.C. 7512(1), with 

whom the United States has a ‘‘special’’ 

‘‘trust’’ relationship, 42 U.S.C. 

11701(15), (16), (18), (20); 20 U.S.C. 

7512(8), (10), (11), (12). 

In 1993, Congress enacted a joint 

resolution to acknowledge the 100th 

anniversary of the overthrow of the 

Kingdom of Hawaii and to offer an 

apology to Native Hawaiians. 107 Stat. 

1510 (1993). In that Joint Resolution, 

Congress acknowledged that the 

overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii 

thwarted Native Hawaiian efforts to 

exercise their rights to ‘‘selfdetermination’’ and ‘‘inherent 

sovereignty,’’ and stated that ‘‘the 

Native Hawaiian people are determined 

to preserve, develop, and transmit to 

future generations their ancestral 

territory, and their cultural identity in 

accordance with their own spiritual and 

traditional beliefs, customs, practices, 

language, and social institutions.’’ Id. at 

1512–13; see also 20 U.S.C. 7512(20). In 

light of those findings, Congress 

‘‘express[ed] its commitment to 

acknowledge the ramifications of the 

overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in 

order to provide a proper foundation for 

reconciliation between the United States 

and the Native Hawaiian people.’’ 107 

Stat. 1513 (1993). 

Following a series of hearings and 

meetings with the Native Hawaiian 

community in 1999, the U.S. 

Departments of the Interior and Justice 

issued ‘‘From Mauka to Makai: The 

River of Justice Must Flow Freely,’’ a 

report on the reconciliation process 

between the Federal government and 

Native Hawaiians. The report 

recommended as its top priority that 

‘‘the Native Hawaiian people should 

have self-determination over their own 

affairs within the framework of Federal 

law.’’ Department of the Interior and 

Department of Justice, From Mauka to 

Makai 4 (2000). 

In 2000, in Rice v. Cayetano, while 

addressing aspects of the legal status of 

Native Hawaiians under one provision 

of Hawaii state law, the Supreme Court 

assumed, without deciding, that the 

United States ‘‘may treat the native 

Hawaiians as it does the [organized] 

Indian tribes.’’ 528 U.S. at 518–19. Rice 

involved a distinctive state law that 

limited the right to vote for the trustees 

of the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs to 

‘‘Hawaiians,’’ defined as ‘‘any 

descendant of the aboriginal peoples 

inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands which 

exercised sovereignty and subsisted in 

the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, and 

which peoples thereafter have 

continued to reside in Hawaii.’’ Haw. 

Rev. Stat. 10–2 (1993). The Court 

invalidated that state-law provision on 

the ground that, rather than 

implementing a political classification 

designed to promote the self-governance 

of a quasi-sovereign tribal entity, it used 

a racial classification in violation of the 

Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits 

States from denying or abridging United 

States citizens’ right to vote on account 

of race or color. See Rice, 528 U.S. at 

514, 518–22. 

In recent statutes, Congress has again 

recognized that ‘‘Native Hawaiians have 

a cultural, historic, and land-based link 

to the indigenous people who exercised 

sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands, 

and that group has never relinquished 

its claims to sovereignty or its sovereign 

lands.’’ 114 Stat. 2968 (2000); see also 

id. at 2966; 114 Stat. 2872, 2874 (2000); 

118 Stat. 445 (2004). Congress has 

consistently enacted programs and 

services expressly and specifically for 

the Native Hawaiian community that 

are, in many respects, analogous to, but 

separate from, the programs and 

services that Congress has enacted for 

federally recognized tribes in the 

continental United States. As Congress 

has explained, it ‘‘does not extend 

services to Native Hawaiians because of 

their race, but because of their unique 

status as the indigenous peoples of a 

once sovereign nation as to whom the 

United States has established a trust 

relationship.’’ 114 Stat. 2968 (2000). 

Although Congress has repeatedly 

acknowledged its special political and 

trust relationship with the Native 

Hawaiian community since the 

overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii 

more than a century ago, the Federal 

government has not maintained a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the Native Hawaiian community as 

an organized, sovereign entity. 

Reestablishing a government-togovernment relationship with a 

reorganized sovereign Native Hawaiian 

government that has been acknowledged 

by the United States could enhance 

Federal agencies’ ability to implement 

the established relationship between the 

United States and the Native Hawaiian 

community, while strengthening the 

self-determination of Hawaii’s 

indigenous people and facilitating the 

preservation of their language, customs, 

heritage, health, and welfare. 

The Federal government has long 

consulted with Native Hawaiians under 

several Federal statutes, including the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, 16 U.S.C. 470a(d)(6)(B), 470h– 

2(a)(2)(D); the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 

U.S.C. 3002(c)(2); and the Hawaiian 

Home Lands Recovery Act, 109 Stat. 360 

(1995). And for decades, Native 

Hawaiians have sought to formally 

reorganize a government through a 

community- or State-facilitated process. 

In recent years, there have been calls 

from the Native Hawaiian community 

for the Federal government to ‘‘assist 

with the creation of a Native Hawaiian 

[governing] entity’’ to address the legal 

status of the community and to 

reestablish a government-to-government 

relationship, in part to more effectively 

implement the special political and 

trust relationship between the United 

States and the Native Hawaiian 

community. Department of the Interior 

& Department of Justice, From Mauka to 

Makai 17 (2000). 

In 2001, a group of Native Hawaiian 

individuals and organizations brought 

suit challenging Native Hawaiians’ 

exclusion from the Department’s 

acknowledgment regulations (25 CFR 

part 83), which establish a uniform 

process for Federal acknowledgment of 

Indian tribes. The Ninth Circuit upheld 

the geographic limitation in the part 83 

regulations, concluding that there was a 

rational basis for the Department to 

distinguish between Native Hawaiians 

and tribes in the continental United 

States, given the history of separate 

congressional enactments regarding the 

two groups and the unique history of 

Hawaii. The Ninth Circuit also noted 

the question whether Native Hawaiians 

‘‘constitute one large tribe . . . or 

whether there are, in fact, several 

different tribal groups.’’ Kahawaiolaa v. 

Norton, 386 F.3d 1271, 1283 (9th Cir. 

2004). The court expressed a preference 

for the Department to apply its expertise 

to ‘‘determine whether native 

Hawaiians, or some native Hawaiian 

groups, could be acknowledged on a 

government-to-government basis.’’ Id. 

Also in 2004, Congress authorized the 

Department’s Office of Native Hawaiian 

Relations to discharge the Secretary’s 

responsibilities for matters related to the 

Native Hawaiian community. See 118 

Stat. 445–46 (2004). 

Legislation has been proposed in 

Congress to reorganize a single Native 

Hawaiian governing entity to which the 

United States could relate on a 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35300 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

government-to-government basis. In 

2010, during the Second Session of the 

111th Congress, nearly identical Native 

Hawaiian government reorganization 

bills were passed by the House of 

Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 

245 to 164 (H.R. 2314), reported 

favorably by the Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs (S. 1011), and strongly 

supported by the Administration (S. 

3945). In a letter to the Senate 

concerning S. 3945, the Secretary and 

the Attorney General stated: ‘‘Of the 

Nation’s three major indigenous groups, 

Native Hawaiians—unlike American 

Indians and Alaska Natives—are the 

only one that currently lacks a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the United States. This bill 

provides Native Hawaiians a means by 

which to exercise the inherent rights to 

local self-government, selfdetermination, and economic selfsufficiency that other Native Americans 

enjoy.’’ 156 Cong. Rec. S10990, S10992 

(Dec. 22, 2010). 

The 2010 House and Senate bills 

provided that the Native Hawaiian 

government ‘‘shall be vested with the 

inherent powers and privileges of selfgovernment of a native government 

under existing law,’’ including the 

inherent powers ‘‘to determine its own 

membership criteria [and] its own 

membership’’ and to negotiate and 

implement agreements with the United 

States or with the State of Hawaii. The 

bills would have required protection of 

the civil rights and liberties of Natives 

and non-Natives alike, as guaranteed in 

the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 

U.S.C. 1301 et seq., and would have 

barred the Native Hawaiian government 

and its members from conducting 

gaming activities under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 

et seq., or other authority. The bills 

further would have provided that the 

Native Hawaiian government and its 

members would not be eligible for 

Federal Indian programs and services 

unless Congress had expressly declared 

them eligible. And S. 3945 expressly left 

untouched the privileges, immunities, 

powers, authorities, and jurisdiction of 

federally recognized tribes in the 

continental United States. 

The bills would have acknowledged 

the existing special political and trust 

relationship between Native Hawaiians 

and the United States, and would have 

established a process for reorganizing a 

Native Hawaiian governing entity. Some 

in Congress, however, expressed a 

preference not for recognizing a 

reorganized Native Hawaiian 

government by legislation, but for 

applying the Department’s Federal 

acknowledgment process to the Native 

Hawaiian community. See, e.g., S. Rep. 

No. 112–251, at 45 (2012); S. Rep. No. 

111–162, at 41 (2010). 

The State of Hawaii, in Act 195, 

Session Laws of Hawaii 2011, expressed 

its support for reorganizing and 

federally recognizing a Native Hawaiian 

government, while also providing for 

state recognition of the Native Hawaiian 

people as ‘‘the only indigenous, 

aboriginal, maoli people of Hawaii.’’ 

Haw. Rev. Stat. 10H–1 (2013); see Act 

195, sec. 1, Sess. L. Haw. 2011. In 

particular, Act 195 established a process 

for compiling a roll of qualified Native 

Hawaiians in order to facilitate the 

development of a reorganized Native 

Hawaiian governing entity by the Native 

Hawaiian community. See Haw. Rev. 

Stat. 10H–3–4 (2013); id. 10H–5 (‘‘The 

publication of the roll of qualified 

Native Hawaiians . . . is intended to 

facilitate the process under which 

qualified Native Hawaiians may 

independently commence the 

organization of a convention of qualified 

Native Hawaiians, established for the 

purpose of organizing themselves.’’); 

Act 195, secs. 3–5, Sess. L. Haw. 2011. 

In addition, Native Hawaiian 

community representatives have asked 

the Department to provide an 

administrative avenue to facilitate 

reestablishing a government-togovernment relationship between that 

community and the United States. Most 

recently, in comments on the 

Department’s discussion draft of 

potential revisions to the Federal 

acknowledgment regulations in 25 CFR 

part 83, which expressly do not apply 

outside the continental United States, 

several Native Hawaiian organizations 

requested an analogous administrative 

process for the Native Hawaiian 

community. See, e.g., http://

www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xraca/

documents/text/idc1-023645.pdf. 

This ANPRM seeks input on whether 

the Secretary should promulgate an 

administrative rule that would facilitate 

the reestablishment of a government-togovernment relationship with the Native 

Hawaiian community. The goals of the 

rule would be to more effectively 

implement the special political and 

trust relationship between Native 

Hawaiians and the United States, which 

Congress has long recognized, and to 

better implement programs and services 

that Congress has created to benefit the 

Native Hawaiian community. The rule 

could focus on either: 

• A Federal process to assist the 

Native Hawaiian community in 

reorganizing a government; or 

• Reestablishing a government-togovernment relationship with a Native 

Hawaiian government reorganized 

through a process established by the 

Native Hawaiian community and 

facilitated by the State of Hawaii. This 

process would have to be consistent 

with Federal law. 

Who should be eligible to participate in 

reorganizing a native hawaiian 

government? 

If the Department were to proceed 

with an administrative rule to assist the 

Native Hawaiian community in 

reorganizing a Native Hawaiian 

government, the rule would not 

determine who ultimately would be a 

citizen or member of that government. 

For that reason, this ANPRM does not 

concern the question of how a Native 

Hawaiian constitution or other 

governing document should define a set 

of membership criteria. Presumably, a 

Native Hawaiian government would 

exercise its sovereign prerogative and, 

operating under its own constitution or 

other governing document, could define 

its membership criteria without regard 

to whether any person participated, or 

had been eligible to participate, in the 

government’s initial reorganization 

(unless Federal legislation provided 

otherwise). See Santa Clara Pueblo v. 

Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55–56 (1978) 

(holding that tribes are ‘‘distinct, 

independent political communities, 

retaining their original natural rights in 

matters of local self-government,’’ with 

the power to regulate ‘‘their internal and 

social relations, . . . to make their own 

substantive law in internal matters’’ 

such as membership, and ‘‘to enforce 

that law in their own forums’’) (citations 

and internal quotation marks omitted); 

id. at 72 n.32 (‘‘A tribe’s right to define 

its own membership for tribal purposes 

has long been recognized as central to 

its existence as an independent political 

community.’’). 

But a Federal administrative rule 

concerning reorganization of a Native 

Hawaiian government would need to 

determine who can participate in the 

reorganization, including who would be 

eligible to assist in drafting a 

constitution or other governing 

document, and who would be eligible to 

vote in a ratification referendum. In 

discussing that issue, commenters may 

wish to consider observations made by 

members of the Supreme Court in Rice 

v. Cayetano, which invalidated a voting 

law of the State of Hawaii under the 

Fifteenth Amendment. Rice, 528 U.S. at 

518–22. Concurring in the judgment, 

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Souter, 

concluded that the voting qualification 

was impermissible because the state 

statute ‘‘defines the electorate in a way 

that is not analogous to membership in 

an Indian tribe.’’ Id. at 526. Justice 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 35301 

Breyer contrasted the state law’s 

‘‘broad’’ definition of ‘‘Hawaiian’’— 

which he noted would ‘‘includ[e] 

anyone with one ancestor who lived in 

Hawaii prior to 1778, thereby including 

individuals who are less than one fivehundredth original Hawaiian (assuming 

nine generations between 1778 and the 

present)’’—with membership definitions 

for various tribes in the continental 

United States, which, for example, focus 

on whether individuals and their 

parents are ‘‘regarded as Native’’ by a 

Native village or group to which they 

claim membership, or whether 

individuals have ‘‘an ancestor whose 

name appeared on a tribal roll . . . in 

the far less distant past [such as 1906, 

1936, 1937, or 1968, rather than 1778].’’ 

Id. at 526–27 (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted). While Justice 

Breyer acknowledged that ‘‘a Native 

American tribe has broad authority to 

define its membership,’’ in his view the 

voting qualification created by the State 

of Hawaii went ‘‘well beyond any 

reasonable limit’’ on the State’s power 

to create such a definition and was ‘‘not 

like any actual membership 

classification created by any actual 

tribe.’’ Id. at 527. 

In defining the persons who would be 

eligible to participate in any 

reorganization of a Native Hawaiian 

government, certain other legislative 

approaches may be instructive. For 

example, in the Hawaiian Homes 

Commission Act (HHCA), Congress 

exercised its trust responsibility to set 

aside Hawaiian home lands for 

homesteading by ‘‘native Hawaiians,’’ a 

category Congress defined as ‘‘any 

descendant of not less than one-half part 

of the blood of the races inhabiting the 

Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.’’ Act 

of July 9, 1921, ch. 42, sec. 201(a)(7), 42 

Stat. 108; see id. sec. 207, 42 Stat. 110– 

11. Congress later consented to 

amendments that would permit a 

lessee’s spouse, child, or grandchild 

who is of at least 25% Native Hawaiian 

ancestry to acquire the lease. 100 Stat. 

3143 (1986) (consenting to, inter alia, 

Act 272, Sess. L. Haw. 1982); 111 Stat. 

235 (1997) (consenting to, inter alia, Act 

37, Sess. L. Haw. 1994). 

A second approach is found in the 

State of Hawaii’s Act 195, Session Laws 

of Hawaii 2011, legislation designed to 

facilitate the reorganization of a Native 

Hawaiian government. As amended in 

2012 and 2013, Act 195 provides that 

‘‘qualified Native Hawaiians’’ can 

participate in reorganizing a Native 

Hawaiian government, where the term 

‘‘qualified Native Hawaiian’’ is defined 

to mean an individual 18 years or older 

who has maintained a significant 

cultural connection to the Native 

Hawaiian community and who: 

• Is determined to be a descendant of 

the aboriginal peoples who, before 1778, 

occupied and exercised sovereignty in 

the Hawaiian islands, the area that now 

constitutes the State of Hawaii; 

• Is determined to be one of the 

indigenous native peoples of Hawaii 

and to be eligible in 1921 for the 

programs authorized by the Hawaiian 

Homes Commission Act of 1920, or a 

direct lineal descendant of that 

individual; or 

• Meets the ancestry requirements of 

Kamehameha Schools or of any 

Hawaiian registry program of the office 

of Hawaiian affairs. 

See Haw. Rev. Stat. 10H–3(a)(2) (2013) 

The state law does not specify the 

documents or evidence that the Native 

Hawaiian Roll Commission should 

deem adequate to verify ancestry or to 

verify that an individual ‘‘[h]as 

maintained a significant cultural, social, 

or civic connection to the Native 

Hawaiian community.’’ Id. 10H– 

3(a)(2)(B). In a 2013 amendment, the 

legislature further instructed the Native 

Hawaiian Roll Commission to ‘‘include 

in the roll of qualified Native Hawaiians 

all individuals already registered with 

the State as verified Hawaiians or Native 

Hawaiians through the office of 

Hawaiian affairs as demonstrated by the 

production of relevant office of 

Hawaiian affairs records’’; those 

individuals do not have to certify that 

they have maintained a connection to 

the Native Hawaiian community or wish 

to be included in the roll of qualified 

Native Hawaiians. Id. 10H–3(a)(4). 

Another possible approach is found in 

legislation proposed in Congress to 

reorganize a Native Hawaiian 

government. The Native Hawaiian 

Government Reorganization Act of 2010 

contained requirements that were 

similar to state Act 195’s requirements, 

as to both ancestry and cultural, social, 

or civic connection to the community. 

This Federal legislation provided 

considerable detail about the 

documentation an individual would 

have to provide to demonstrate both 

ancestry and the kinds of significant 

cultural, social, or civic connections 

that evidence an individual’s 

membership in the political community. 

The legislation stated that ancestry 

could be verified by presenting certain 

types of documentary evidence of lineal 

descent, identifying a lineal ancestor on 

the Kingdom of Hawaii’s 1890 Census, 

or producing sworn affidavits from at 

least two ‘‘qualified Native Hawaiian 

constituents’’ (for those lacking birth 

certificates under certain 

circumstances). See S. 3945, sec. 

8(c)(1)(B)–(C), 111th Cong., 2d Sess. 

(2010). 

The Federal legislation further 

provided that an individual could 

demonstrate a significant cultural, 

social, or civic connection to the Native 

Hawaiian community if he or she 

satisfied at least two of ten criteria 

relating to current state of residence, 

eligibility to be a beneficiary of 

programs under the Hawaiian Homes 

Commission Act, residence on or 

ownership interest in ‘‘kuleana land,’’ 

participation in Hawaiian language 

schools or programs, membership in 

Native Hawaiian membership 

organizations, and regard as Native 

Hawaiian by the Native Hawaiian 

community. See S. 3945, sec. 3(12)(E), 

111th Cong., 2d Sess. (2010); see id. sec. 

3(10) 

This ANPRM seeks input on which 

individuals, as members of the Native 

Hawaiian community, should be eligible 

to participate in the process of 

reorganizing a sovereign Native 

Hawaiian government that could 

reestablish a relationship with the 

Federal government. The ANPRM does 

not seek input on the membership or 

citizenship criteria that the Native 

Hawaiian community may adopt in its 

constitution or other governing 

document; that decision belongs to the 

Native Hawaiian community. 

Frameworks for Reorganization, Roll 

Preparation, and Acknowledgment 

The Department’s existing regulatory 

frameworks for reorganizing, preparing 

rolls for, and acknowledging Indian 

tribes in the continental United States 

may inform the analogous processes that 

Native Hawaiians may ultimately 

propose for reorganization or 

acknowledgment. Tribal officials have 

worked with these regulatory provisions 

for decades, and their experiences likely 

will be helpful in responding to this 

ANPRM. 

The Department has established a 

regulatory framework for members of 

Indian tribes to adopt new governing 

documents and reorganize their tribal 

governments. The framework includes 

procedures that identify eligible voters, 

provide notice to those voters, provide 

equal opportunities to participate, 

establish minimum participation 

standards to ensure that the outcome of 

the voting reflects the will of the 

majority, and provide for the Secretary’s 

approval of the governing document. 

See 25 CFR part 81. 

Federal regulations also provide a 

framework for the Secretary to compile 

rolls for some tribes for limited 

purposes. Those regulations provide for 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35302 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

public notice of the preparation of the 

roll, procedures for enrollment, and an 

opportunity to appeal adverse decisions. 

See 25 CFR parts 61 and 62. 

The Department’s regulatory 

framework for Federal acknowledgment 

of Indian tribes, found in 25 CFR Part 

83, establishes uniform administrative 

standards and procedures for 

identifying, defining, and 

acknowledging those Indian groups that 

exist as tribes. Id. 83.2. The regulations 

require evidence of community—such 

as shared cultural or social activities, 

residence in a defined geographic area, 

marriages within the group, shared 

language, kinship systems, or 

ceremonies, and significant social 

relationships among members—and 

evidence of political influence, such as 

widespread knowledge and involvement 

in political processes, and leaders who 

take action on matters that most of the 

membership consider important. Id. 

83.7(b) and (c). If these and other 

mandatory criteria are met, tribal 

existence is acknowledged. Id. 83.6(c) 

and 83.10(m). Indeed, Congress has 

expressly found that administrative 

acknowledgment under procedures set 

forth in a Federal regulation such as Part 

83 is a valid method for recognizing an 

Indian tribe with which the United 

States can maintain a government-togovernment relationship. See 108 Stat. 

4791 (1994). 

The acknowledgment of the Indian 

group under part 83 recognizes or 

reaffirms a special political and trust 

relationship with the United States. 

Here, however, the Native Hawaiian 

community already has a 

congressionally recognized special 

political and trust relationship with the 

United States, but lacks an organized 

governing body, a constitution, settled 

membership criteria, and a complete 

membership list, which petitioners 

under part 83 have. The experiences of 

tribes in the continental United States 

with part 83, like their experiences with 

the other parts of title 25 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations discussed above, 

nonetheless may provide useful 

guidance for the Native Hawaiian 

community. For example, the 

mandatory criteria in part 83 help 

clarify what constitutes a political 

community. 

Given the Native Hawaiians’ unique 

situation, one of the topics on which 

this ANPRM seeks input is whether and 

how to promulgate a distinct regulatory 

framework for the Native Hawaiian 

community, for purposes such as: 

• Identifying those persons of Native 

Hawaiian descent who are part of the 

political community and should be 

eligible to participate in the 

reorganization by virtue of verifiable 

cultural, social, or civic connection to 

the Native Hawaiian community; and 

• Identifying procedures for adopting 

a constitution or other governing 

document, should the Native Hawaiian 

community indicate that it would like to 

do so. 

Federal Programs and Services 

As described above, Congress has 

consistently enacted programs and 

services expressly and specifically for 

the Native Hawaiian community that 

are, in many respects, analogous to, but 

separate from, the programs and 

services that Congress has enacted for 

federally recognized tribes in the 

continental United States. Generally, 

Native Hawaiians have not been eligible 

for Federal Indian programs and 

services unless Congress expressly and 

specifically declared them eligible. 

Consistent with that approach, the 

Department of the Interior does not 

foresee that a Federal rule to facilitate 

the reestablishment of a government-togovernment relationship with the Native 

Hawaiian community would alter or 

affect the programs and services that the 

United States currently provides to 

federally recognized tribes in the 

continental United States. Congress has 

enacted more than 150 statutes 

expressly affecting Native Hawaiians, 

and it is these laws that define the scope 

of Federal programs and services for 

Native Hawaiians. 

Consultation With Federally Recognized 

Tribes in the Continental United States 

Given that the Secretary is 

considering whether to propose an 

administrative rule to facilitate the 

reestablishment of a government-togovernment relationship with an 

indigenous people, the knowledge, 

expertise, and input of officials from 

federally recognized tribes in the 

continental United States, including 

those tribes that have reorganized their 

own sovereign governments or have 

reestablished a government-togovernment relationship with the 

United States, will be important. So, 

along with a series of public meetings in 

Hawaii, we will conduct a series of 

formal, in-person consultations with 

officials of federally recognized tribes in 

various regions of the continental 

United States during the publiccomment period for this ANPRM. We 

will give public notice of each tribal 

consultation, and we will accept both 

oral and written communications. Tribal 

consultations on this ANPRM will be 

conducted in accordance with Executive 

Order 13175, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 

2000); the Presidential Memorandum for 

the Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies on Tribal Consultation, 74 FR 

57881 (Nov. 9, 2009); and the 

Department of the Interior Policy on 

Consultation with Indian Tribes. 

If the Department ultimately decides 

to issue a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), the NPRM’s 

preamble will include a tribal summary 

impact statement that reflects comments 

received from tribal officials in response 

to this ANPRM. Publication of an NPRM 

also would open a second round of 

tribal consultation and another formal 

comment period to allow for further 

input and refinements before publishing 

a final rule. 

Description of the Information 

Requested 

We are particularly interested in 

receiving comments on the following 

questions relating to an administrative 

rule we may develop concerning the 

potential reestablishment of a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the Native Hawaiian community: 

General Questions 

1. Should the Secretary propose an 

administrative rule that would facilitate 

the reestablishment of a government-togovernment relationship with the Native 

Hawaiian community? 

2. What role, if any, should the 

Department of the Interior—exercising 

the authorities described in 25 U.S.C. 2, 

25 U.S.C. 9, 43 U.S.C. 1457, and other 

statutes—play in facilitating the 

reestablishment of a government-togovernment relationship with the Native 

Hawaiian community? 

3. Should there be a reorganization of 

a Native Hawaiian government in order 

to reestablish and maintain a 

government-to-government relationship 

between the Native Hawaiian 

community and the United States? 

4. If a Native Hawaiian government is 

reorganized, under what conditions 

should the Secretary federally 

acknowledge it and thus reestablish a 

government-to-government 

relationship? 

5. What features, including any 

within 25 CFR parts 61, 62, 81, and 83 

or other regulations, should the 

Secretary incorporate in a proposed 

administrative rule addressing potential 

reorganization or acknowledgment of a 

Native Hawaiian government? 

Criteria for Inclusion on the Roll of 

Persons Eligible To Participate in the 

Reorganization 

6. If the Secretary were to propose a 

rule to assist in reorganizing a Native 

Hawaiian government, what should be 

the criteria for persons to be included 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 2014 / Proposed Rules 35303 

on the roll of those eligible to 

participate in reorganizing this 

government? (This roll would determine 

which persons are eligible to participate 

in reorganizing a Native Hawaiian 

government; it would not determine 

which persons ultimately could become 

members or citizens of a reorganized 

sovereign Native Hawaiian government.) 

7. To be included on the roll, what 

should constitute adequate evidence or 

verification that a person has Native 

Hawaiian ancestry? 

8. To be included on the roll, what 

should constitute adequate evidence or 

verification that a person has a 

significant cultural, social, or civic 

connection to the Native Hawaiian 

community? 

9. To be included on the roll, what 

significance, if any, should be given to 

the fact that a person is potentially 

eligible under the Hawaiian Homes 

Commission Act (HHCA), Act of July 9, 

1921, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 108, as amended? 

To the extent that this is a relevant 

criterion, what process should be used 

to identify persons who are potentially 

eligible under the HHCA, as amended? 

The Process for Preparing a Roll of 

Persons Eligible To Participate in the 

Reorganization 

10. If the Secretary were to propose a 

rule to assist in reorganizing a Native 

Hawaiian government, what should be 

the process for preparing a roll of 

persons who would be eligible to 

participate in reorganizing a Native 

Hawaiian government? 

11. What role, if any, should the 

Secretary play in establishing, 

operating, or approving the process for 

preparing such a roll? 

12. What role, if any, should be 

played by the Native Hawaiian Roll 

Commission established under Hawaii 

state law to prepare the Kanaiolowalu 

registry? 

Drafting a Constitution for a Native 

Hawaiian Government 

13. If the Secretary were to propose a 

rule to assist in reorganizing a Native 

Hawaiian government, what should be 

the process for drafting a constitution or 

other governing document for a Native 

Hawaiian government, and what should 

be the Secretary’s role in providing such 

assistance? 

14. How should the drafters of a 

constitution or other governing 

document be selected? 

Ratifying and Approving a Constitution 

for a Native Hawaiian Government 

15. If the Secretary were to propose a 

rule to assist in reorganizing a Native 

Hawaiian government, what should be 

the process for ratifying and approving 

a constitution or other governing 

document for a Native Hawaiian 

government? 

16. Should there be a minimum 

turnout requirement for any referendum 

to ratify a Native Hawaiian constitution 

or other governing document? 

17. In addition to being ratified by a 

majority of all qualified Native 

Hawaiians who participate in a 

ratification referendum, should a Native 

Hawaiian constitution or other 

governing document also have to be 

ratified by a majority of all qualified 

Native Hawaiians who participate in the 

ratification referendum and are 

potentially eligible under the HHCA, as 

amended? 

18. Should the Secretary have the 

responsibility to approve or disapprove 

a Native Hawaiian constitution or other 

governing document? If so, what factors, 

if any, other than consistency with 

Federal law, should be considered? For 

example, should the Secretary’s 

approval depend on substantive issues 

(e.g., the constitution’s safeguards for 

civil rights and liberties), procedural 

issues (e.g., lost or destroyed ballots, 

wrongful denial of ballots, etc.), or both? 

Federal Acknowledgment of an Already 

Reorganized Native Hawaiian 

Government 

19. Should reorganization of a Native 

Hawaiian government occur through a 

process established by the Native 

Hawaiian community and facilitated by 

the State of Hawaii, rather than through 

a Federal process? This non-Federal 

process would have to be consistent 

with Federal law and satisfy conditions 

established by the Secretary as 

prerequisites to Federal 

acknowledgment. We seek views on 

each of the following as a potential 

condition for Federal acknowledgment 

of a Native Hawaiian government that 

has already been reorganized through a 

community-established, State-facilitated 

process: 

• Acknowledgment by the State of 

Hawaii. 

• A Native Hawaiian constitution (or 

other governing document) that— 

Æ Safeguards the civil rights and 

liberties of Natives and non-Natives 

alike, as guaranteed in the Indian Civil 

Rights Act of 1968, as amended, 25 

U.S.C. 1301–1304; 

Æ Has been ratified by a majority vote 

of ‘‘qualified Native Hawaiians,’’ as 

defined in Haw. Rev. Stat. 10H–3(a) 

(2013); and 

Æ Has also (and perhaps 

simultaneously) been ratified by a 

majority vote of ‘‘qualified Native 

Hawaiians’’ who are potentially eligible 

under the HHCA, as amended. 

• Any other criterion that should be 

included as a condition for Federal 

acknowledgment of an already 

reorganized Native Hawaiian 

government. 

Michael L. Connor, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14430 Filed 6–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–93–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2013–0101: 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AZ77 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. 

Distinct Population Segment of the 

Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct 

Population Segment Boundary 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the September 26, 2013, proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

the contiguous U.S. distinct population 

segment (DPS) of the Canada lynx (Lynx 

canadensis) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We also announce the availability of a 

draft economic analysis (DEA) and a 

draft environmental assessment of the 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat for the contiguous U.S. DPS of 

the Canada lynx, and an amended 

required determinations section of the 

proposal. We are reopening the 

comment period to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment 

simultaneously on the proposed rule, 

the associated DEA, the draft 

environmental assessment, and the 

amended required determinations 

section. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted, as 

they will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule. 

DATES: In order to fully consider and 

incorporate public comment, the 

Service requests submittal of comments 

by close of business on July 21, 2014. 

Comments submitted electronically 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS