Processes and Procedures for Issuing Guidance Documents, 56504 [2020-18481]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56504
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 178 / Monday, September 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
In opposing the proposal, the ABA
stated that defining a CSA as a ‘‘single
local community’’ is unreasonable and
unlawful. The ABA largely relied on the
District Court opinion, which was
unanimously reversed by the Circuit
Court. The ABA provided examples of
CSAs that it believes might not be a
WDLC and contended that CSAs have a
‘‘daisy-chain nature’’ in which opposite
ends have little connection. It then
stated that the Circuit Court indicated
that some CSAs might not be a WDLC
and thus could be challenged on an ‘‘as
applied’’ basis. The ABA further stated
that the term ‘‘local community’’ should
not automatically include a CSA.
Rather, it stated that any presumption
that a CSA is a local community should
be rebuttable. The ABA further stated
that the Board should not adopt these
provisions while litigation remains
pending, including the possibility of an
appeal to the Supreme Court.
After reviewing the comments in light
of the unanimous Circuit Court decision
to affirm the Board’s adoption of a CSA
as a presumptive community, the Board
has determined that it is appropriate
and consistent with the Act to amend
the Chartering Manual to allow a CSA
to be re-established as a presumptive
WDLC. Much of the ABA’s argument
relied on the District Court decision that
was unanimously rejected by the threejudge Circuit Court panel. In applying
Chevron, the Circuit Court stated: ‘‘We
appreciate the District Court’s
conclusions, made after a thoughtful
analysis of the Act. But we ultimately
disagree with many of them. In this
facial challenge, we review the rule not
as armchair bankers or geographers, but
rather as lay judges cognizant that
Congress expressly delegated certain
policy choices to the NCUA. After
considering the Act’s text, purpose, and
legislative history, we hold the agency’s
policy choices ‘entirely appropriate’ for
the most part. Chevron, 467 U.S. at
865.’’ 63 With respect to CSAs, the
Circuit Court, in rejecting the District
Court’s analysis, stated:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
In addition to being consistent with the
Act’s text, the Combined Statistical Area
definition rationally advances the Act’s
underlying purposes. In the 1998
amendments, Congress made two relevant
findings about purpose. First, legislators
found ‘‘essential’’ to the credit-union system
a ‘‘meaningful affinity and bond among
63 Am. Bankers Ass’n, 934 F.3d at 656. See also
with respect to CSAs: ‘‘The NCUA possesses vast
discretion to define terms because Congress
expressly has given it such power. But the authority
is not boundless. The agency must craft a
reasonable definition consistent with the Act’s text
and purposes; that is central to the review we apply
at Chevron’s second step. Here, the NCUA’s
definition meets the standard.’’ Id. at 664.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Sep 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
members, manifested by a commonality of
routine interaction [;] shared and related
work experiences, interests, or activities [;] or
the maintenance of an otherwise wellunderstood sense of cohesion or identity.’’
§ 2, 112 Stat. at 914. Second, Congress
highlighted the importance of ‘‘credit union
safety and soundness,’’ because a credit
union on firm financial footing ‘‘will enhance
the public benefit that citizens receive.’’ 64
The Circuit Court explicitly rejected
the ABA’s assertion that CSAs have a
‘‘daisy chain’’ nature, linking multiple
metropolitan areas that have nothing to
do with those at opposite ends of the
chain. As the court stated:
[T]he NCUA’s definition does not readily
create general, widely dispersed regions. Cf.
First Nat’l Bank III, 522 U.S. at 502
(indicating that community credit unions
may not be ‘composed of members from an
unlimited number of unrelated geographical
units’. Combined Statistical Areas are
geographical units well-accepted within the
government. See [81 FR at 88414]. Because
they essentially are regional hubs, the
Combined Statistical Areas concentrate
around central locations. . . . The NCUA
rationally believed that such ‘real-world
interconnections would qualify as the type of
mutual bonds suggested by the term ‘local
community.’ . . . Thus, the agency
reasonably determined that Combined
Statistical Areas ‘‘simply unif[y], as a single
community,’’ already connected neighboring
regions. [See 81 FR at 88,415.] 65
The ABA’s misinterpretation of the
Chevron doctrine was further
repudiated by the entire Circuit Court,
which rejected the ABA’s petition for a
rehearing en banc. The Board
emphasizes that the ABA repeatedly
misstates the regulatory framework for
approving a presumptive community,
both in its court filings and in its
comment letter on the proposed rule.
Under the regulatory provisions in the
Chartering Manual, established by
notice-and-comment rulemaking, there
is no automatic approval of an
application based on a CSA. Rather, an
applicant would have to establish in its
application that it can serve the entire
community, as documented in its
business and marketing plan. A further
constraint on any such CSA or portion
thereof is that its population cannot
exceed 2.5 million people. As the
Circuit Court noted:
We might well agree with the District Court
that the approval of such a geographical area
would contravene the Act. But even so, the
Association would need much more to
mount its facial pre-enforcement challenge in
this case. As the Supreme Court repeatedly
has held, ‘‘the fact that petitioner can point
to a hypothetical case in which the rule
might lead to an arbitrary result does not
64 Id.
65 Id.
PO 00000
at 665–66.
at 666–67.
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
render the rule’’ facially invalid. Am. Hosp.
Ass’n v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606, 619 (1991); see
also EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
(EME Homer), 572 U.S. 489, 524 (2014) (‘‘The
possibility that the rule, in uncommon
particular applications, might exceed [the
agency]’s statutory authority does not
warrant judicial condemnation of the rule in
its entirety.’’); INS v. Nat’l Ctr. for
Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 188
(1991) (‘‘That the regulation may be invalid
as applied in s[ome] cases . . . does not
mean that the regulation is facially invalid
because it is without statutory authority.’’);
cf. Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 29
(2003) (‘‘Virtually every legal (or other) rule
has imperfect applications in particular
circumstances.’’).
Here, the Association’s complaint and
the District Court’s accompanying worry
strike us as too conjectural. The NCUA
must assess the ‘‘economic advisability
of establishing’’ the proposed credit
union before approving it, [12 U.S.C.
1754], and as part of the assessment, the
organizers must propose a ‘‘realistic’’
business plan showing how the
institution and its branches would serve
all members in the local community, see
[12 CFR. part 701, app. B, ch. 1 section
IV.D.] The Association has failed to
demonstrate the plausibility of a local
community that is defined like the
hypothetical narrow, multi-state strip
and accompanies a realistic business
plan. And if the agency were to receive
and approve such an application, a
petitioner can make an as-applied
challenge. See, e.g., EME Homer, 572
U.S. at 523–24; Buongiorno, 912 F.2d at
510.66
Thus, existing regulatory provisions
guard against the extreme examples
posited by the ABA, which claims
incorrectly that the Board must approve
them under the Chartering Manual. The
Board agrees with the ABA and the
Circuit Court that any application for a
presumptive community, including one
based on a CSA, can be challenged on
an as applied, case-by-case basis. Given
this regulatory framework, which is
subject to judicial review, the Board
agrees with the Circuit Court’s reasoning
in concluding that re-establishing the
CSA as a presumptive community is
entirely consistent with the express
authority delegated to the Board by
Congress. This provision also advances
the Act’s dual purposes of promoting
common bonds while addressing safety
and soundness considerations by
ensuring that FCUs remain
economically viable.
66 Id.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM
at 668.
14SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 178 (Monday, September 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18481]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
National Endowment for the Humanities
45 CFR Part 1173
RIN 3136-AA42
Processes and Procedures for Issuing Guidance Documents
AGENCY: National Endowment for the Humanities; National Foundation on
the Arts and the Humanities.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth the National Endowment for the
Humanities' (NEH) internal policies and procedures governing the
issuance of guidance documents as required by Executive Order 13891,
``Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance
Documents'' (E.O. 13891).
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 14, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisette Voyatzis, Deputy General
Counsel, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-
8322; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
NEH is adopting this final rule pursuant to E.O. 13891,\1\ which
requires federal agencies to finalize regulations, or amend existing
regulations as necessary, that set forth processes and procedures for
issuing guidance documents. In compliance with E.O. 13891, this final
rule establishes NEH's policy, procedures, and responsibilities for
issuing guidance documents in order to ensure that the agency performs
the required review and clearance before issuance and follows all
stages of the rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 84 FR 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Compliance
Administrative Procedure Act of 1946
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency may waive the
normal notice and comment procedures if the action is a rule of agency
organization, procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This
final rule merely incorporates the requirements set forth in E.O. 13891
into NEH's internal policy and procedures for issuing guidance
documents. Accordingly, NEH has concluded that there is good cause to
publish this rule without prior public notice and comment.
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and E.O. 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not significant under E.O. 12866.
E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under E.O. 12866.
E.O. 13132, Federalism
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform
This rulemaking meets the applicable standards set forth in section
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this final rule is
written in clear language designed to help reduce litigation.
E.O. 13175, Indian Tribal Governments
Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, NEH evaluated this final rule and
determined that it will not have any potential effects on Federally
recognized Indian Tribes.
E.O. 12630, Takings
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this rulemaking does not have
significant takings implications. Therefore, a takings implication
assessment is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
This rulemaking will not have a significant adverse impact on a
substantial number of small entities, including small businesses, small
governmental jurisdictions, or certain small not-for-profit
organizations.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rulemaking does not impose an information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This action contains no provisions
constituting a collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rulemaking does not contain a Federal mandate that will result
in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
This final rule will not have a significant effect on the human
environment.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and
organization and does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of nonagency parties. Accordingly, it is not a ``rule'' as
that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), and the
reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
E-Government Act of 2002
All information about NEH required to be published in the Federal
Register may be accessed at www.neh.gov. The website https://www.regulations.gov contains electronic dockets for NEH's rulemakings
under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.
Plain Writing Act of 2010
To ensure this final rule was written in plain and clear language
so that it can be used and understood by the public, NEH modeled the
language of this final rule on the Federal Plain Language Guidelines.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR 1173
Administrative practice and procedure.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Endowment for the
Humanities adds 45 CFR part 1173 to read as follows:
PART 1173--PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES FOR ISSUING GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Sec.
1173.1 Purpose and scope.
1173.2 Definition of guidance document.
1173.3 Review and clearance.
1173.4 Requirements for clearance.
1173.5 Public access to guidance documents.
1173.6 Waiver of publication of guidance documents.
1173.7 Good faith cost estimates.
1173.8 Definition of significant guidance document.
1173.9 Procedures for significant guidance documents.
1173.10 Notice-and-comment procedures.
1173.11 Petitions to withdraw or modify guidance.
1173.12 Rescinded guidance.
1173.13 Exigent circumstances.
1173.14 Reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
(GAO).
1173.15 No judicial review or enforceable rights.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 20 U.S.C. 956.
Sec. 1173.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) This part prescribes general procedures that apply to guidance
documents issued by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
(b) This part governs all NEH employees and contractors
(collectively, NEH staff) involved with all phases of issuing NEH
guidance documents.
(c) This part applies to all NEH guidance documents in effect on or
after October 14, 2020.
Sec. 1173.2 Definition of guidance document.
(a) For purposes of this part, the term guidance document means any
agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future
effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy
on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of
a statute or regulation, but does not include the following:
(1) Rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under 5 U.S.C.
553 or similar statutory provisions;
(2) Rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C.
553(a);
(3) Rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;
(4) Decisions of agency adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554 or similar
statutory provisions;
(5) Internal guidance directed to the issuing agency or other
agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the
behavior of regulated parties;
(6) Internal executive branch legal advice or legal opinions
addressed to executive branch officials;
(7) Agency statements of specific applicability, including advisory
or legal opinions directed to particular parties about circumstance-
specific questions (e.g., case or investigatory letters responding to
complaints, warning letters), notices regarding particular locations or
facilities (e.g., guidance pertaining to the use, operation, or control
of a government facility or property), and correspondence with
individual persons or entities (e.g., congressional correspondence),
except documents ostensibly directed to a particular party but designed
to guide the conduct of the broader regulated public;
(8) Legal briefs, other court filings, or positions taken in
litigation or enforcement actions;
(9) Agency statements that do not set forth a policy on a
statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a
statute or regulation, including speeches and individual presentations,
editorials, media interviews, press materials, or congressional
testimony that do not set forth for the first time a new regulatory
policy;
(10) Guidance pertaining to military or foreign affairs functions;
(11) Grant solicitations and awards;
(12) Contract solicitations and awards; or
(13) Purely internal agency policies or guidance directed solely to
NEH staff or other federal agencies that are not intended to have
substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties.
Sec. 1173.3 Review and clearance.
All NEH guidance documents, as defined in Sec. 1173.2, require
review and clearance in accordance with this part. All agency guidance
documents must be reviewed and cleared by NEH's Office of the General
Counsel (OGC).
Sec. 1173.4 Requirements for clearance.
The NEH OGC's review and clearance of guidance documents shall
ensure that each guidance document the agency proposes to issue
satisfies the following requirements:
(a) The guidance document complies with all relevant statutes and
regulations (including any statutory deadlines for agency action);
(b) The guidance document identifies or includes:
(1) The term ``guidance'' or its functional equivalent;
(2) A concise name for the guidance document;
(3) The NEH office or division issuing the guidance document;
(4) A unique identifier, including, at a minimum, the date of
issuance, title of the document, and a number assigned by NEH's OGC
(or, in the case of a significant guidance document, the Z-RIN
(regulatory identification number));
(5) The general topic that the guidance document addresses;
(6) Citations to applicable statutes and regulations;
(7) A statement noting whether the guidance is intended to revise
or replace any previously issued guidance and, if so, sufficient
information to identify the previously issued guidance; and
(8) A concise summary of the guidance document's content.
(c) The guidance document avoids using mandatory language, such as
``shall,'' ``must,'' ``required,'' or ``requirement,'' unless the
language is describing an established statutory or regulatory
requirement or is addressed to NEH staff and will not foreclose NEH's
consideration of positions advanced by affected private parties;
(d) The guidance document is written in plain and understandable
English; and
(e) All guidance documents include a clear and prominent statement
declaring that the contents of the document do not have the force and
effect of law, are not meant to bind the public in any way, and the
document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding
existing requirements under the law or NEH's policies.
Sec. 1173.5 Public access to guidance documents.
NEH will:
(a) Oversee the creation of a guidance portal on the agency's
website;
(b) Ensure all effective guidance documents, identified by a unique
identifier as described in Sec. 1173.4(b)(4), are on the guidance
portal in a single, searchable, indexed database, and available to the
public;
(c) Note on the agency's guidance portal that guidance documents
lack the force and effect of law, except as authorized by law or as
incorporated into a contract;
(d) Maintain and publish on NEH's guidance portal a means for the
public to comment electronically on any guidance documents that are
subject to notice-and-comment procedures, and to submit requests
electronically for issuance, reconsideration, modification, or
rescission of guidance documents in accordance with Sec. 1173.11;
(e) Include on the agency's guidance portal the date on which all
guidance documents were posted to the website and a hyperlink to all
guidance documents;
(f) Receive and address complaints from the public that NEH is not
following the requirements of OMB's Good Guidance Bulletin or that NEH
is improperly treating a guidance document as a binding requirement;
(g) Note on the agency's guidance portal that any guidance document
not posted on the guidance portal is rescinded, and that neither the
agency nor a party may cite, use, or rely on any guidance document that
is not posted on the guidance portal, except to establish historical
facts; and
(h) Include a link to this part on the agency's guidance portal.
Sec. 1173.6 Waiver of publication of guidance documents.
(a) Sections 1173.5(b) and (e) do not apply to guidance documents
for which a waiver has been applied from the OMB Director pursuant to
Subsection 3(c) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13891.
(b) Requests for waivers must be written and signed by a senior
policy official at the agency.
Sec. 1173.7 Good faith cost estimates.
(a) NEH will, to the extent practicable, make a good faith effort
to estimate the likely economic cost impact of the guidance document to
determine whether the document might be significant.
(b) When assessing or explaining whether it believes a guidance
document is significant, NEH will, at a minimum, provide the same level
of analysis that would be required for a major determination under the
Congressional Review Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See OMB Memorandum M-19-14, Guidance on Compliance with the
Congressional Review Act (April 11, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) When OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
determines that a guidance document will be economically significant,
NEH will conduct and publish an assessment of the potential costs and
benefits of the regulatory action (which may entail a regulatory impact
analysis) of the sort that would accompany an economically significant
rulemaking, to the extent reasonably possible.
Sec. 1173.8 Definition of significant guidance document.
(a) The term significant guidance document means a guidance
document that will be disseminated to regulated entities or the general
public and that may reasonably be anticipated:
(1) To lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more or adversely affect in a material way the United States economy, a
sector of the United States economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities;
(2) To create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action that another federal agency has taken or planned;
(3) To alter materially the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) To raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
E.O. 12866, as further amended.
(b) The term significant guidance document does not include the
categories of documents excluded by this part or any other category of
guidance documents that NEH's OGC, in consultation with OIRA, has
exempted in writing.
Sec. 1173.9 Procedures for significant guidance documents.
(a) NEH will make an initial, preliminary determination about a
guidance document's significance. Thereafter, NEH will submit the
document to OIRA to determine whether a guidance document is
significant, unless the guidance is otherwise exempted from such a
determination by the Administrator of OIRA.
(b) If OIRA designates a guidance document as significant, NEH will
submit the guidance document to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866 prior
to issuing it; and NEH will process significant guidance in compliance
with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including
significant regulatory actions, as set forth in E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563,
E.O. 13609, E.O. 13771, and E.O. 13777.
(c) The NEH Chairperson signs or approves significant guidance
documents.
Sec. 1173.10 Notice-and-comment procedures.
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all proposed
NEH guidance documents determined to be significant guidance documents
within the meaning of Sec. 1173.8 will be subject to the following
informal notice-and-comment procedures.
(a) NEH's OGC will:
(1) Publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that a
draft of the proposed guidance document is publicly available;
(2) Post the draft guidance document on its website, at
www.neh.gov/guidance;
(3) Invite public comment on the draft document for a minimum of
thirty (30) days; and
(4) Prepare and post a public response to major concerns raised in
the comments, as appropriate, on its guidance portal, either before or
when the guidance document is finalized and issued.
(b) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section will not
apply to any significant guidance documents or categories of
significant guidance documents for which NEH's OGC finds--in
consultation with OIRA, the proposing NEH office/division, and the NEH
Chairperson--good cause that notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (and
incorporates the finding of good cause and a brief statement of reasons
therefor in the issued guidance).
(c) Where appropriate, NEH's OGC may recommend to the NEH
Chairperson that a particular guidance document that is otherwise of
importance to the agency's interests should also be subject to the
informal notice-and-comment procedures described in paragraph (a) of
this section.
Sec. 1173.11 Petitions to withdraw or modify guidance.
(a) Any person may submit a petition to NEH requesting withdrawal
or modification of any effective guidance document by writing to the
NEH Office of the General Counsel at: [email protected], or National
Endowment for the Humanities, Attn: Office of the General Counsel, 400
Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20506.
(b) The petition must:
(1) Describe the nature of the request and provide the title or
substance of the guidance you are requesting that NEH withdraw or
modify; and
(2) Explain, with justification, how the document should be
modified or why the document should be withdrawn.
(c) NEH will review each request and determine whether to grant the
request or deny it in whole or in part. NEH will respond to all
requests in a timely manner, but no later than ninety (90) days after
receipt of the request.
Sec. 1173.12 Rescinded guidance.
(a) NEH's OGC, in consultation with the NEH office/division that
issued the guidance document, shall determine whether to rescind a
guidance document.
(b) Once rescinded, NEH will remove the hyperlink to the guidance
document from the guidance portal. The agency will list on the guidance
portal, for at least one year after rescission, the guidance document's
name, title, unique identifier, and date of rescission.
(c) No NEH office/division or NEH staff may cite, use, or rely on
guidance documents that are rescinded, except to establish historical
facts.
Sec. 1173.13 Exigent circumstances.
In emergency situations, or when NEH is required by statutory
deadline or court order to act more quickly than normal review
procedures allow, NEH will notify OIRA as soon as possible and, to the
extent practicable, comply with the requirements of this part at the
earliest opportunity. Wherever practicable, NEH should schedule its
proceedings to permit sufficient time to comply with the procedures set
forth in this part.
Sec. 1173.14 Reports to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office (GAO).
Unless otherwise determined in writing, NEH will, upon issuing a
guidance document, submit a report to Congress and GAO in accordance
with the procedures described in the Congressional Review Act.
Sec. 1173.15 No judicial review or enforceable rights.
This part is intended to improve the internal management of the
National Endowment for the Humanities. As such, it is for the use of
NEH personnel only and is not intended to, and does not, create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in
equity by any party against the United States, its agencies or other
entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Dated: August 18, 2020.
Caitlin Cater,
Attorney-Advisor, National Endowment for the Humanities.
[FR Doc. 2020-18481 Filed 9-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
