Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agency Investigations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ACUS regulation committee reviews draft recommendations on agency investigative procedures
Summary
The Administrative Conference of the United States regulation committee reviewed draft recommendations aimed at clarifying agency investigative procedures — enforcement manuals, transparency, response times and appeal processes — and agreed to refine language on coordination, publication and compulsory process nexus ahead of the next meeting.
Members of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) Regulation Committee met to review draft recommendations on agency investigative procedures, pressing staff to clarify how enforcement manuals, public disclosure, response timelines and compulsory processes should work in practice.
Kaja Novotsky, ACUS deputy research director, opened the meeting and said the group is considering three recommendation projects ahead of the June plenary session. Helen Seracio, chair of the regulation committee, guided discussion through the draft text and meeting protocols.
The committee heard a short presentation from consultant Arum Gavor, who said the research was designed to produce a cross‑agency snapshot and that the data‑collection phase closed in late July/early August 2024. "And I'm available to answer any and all questions you have," Gavor told the committee.
Discussion focused on several recurring themes: whether agencies should publish enforcement manual content online and what exemptions might apply; the point at which an agency formally "initiates" an investigation versus informal or ongoing data ingestion; how and when agencies should communicate deadlines and permit extensions for information requests; and how compulsory tools (subpoenas, letters of inquiry) should be tied to particular conduct.
On transparency, staff proposed that enforcement manuals include information that helps regulated parties and the public understand investigative procedures while allowing for narrowly drawn exceptions where release could undermine enforcement. Members debated whether references to prior ACUS work on algorithmic tools should be a footnote or integrated into the text.
On timing, members pressed for clearer wording about whether agencies must decide to coordinate with other agencies before initiating an investigation or may do so while "conducting" one. The committee agreed the report should define the triggering point for investigations more precisely.
On information requests, the committee agreed to add or clarify a requirement that agencies specify the deadline for responding and include procedures for requesting extensions; members also moved language on available challenge or appeal processes earlier in the recommendation so subjects know options up front.
For compulsory processes, members asked that mandatory requests be tied to the specific conduct that gave rise to the request and, where practicable, include temporal or statutory nexus information so the target understands what is sought and why.
No formal votes were taken. Staff said they will circulate a revised draft incorporating the edits and welcomed additional comments by email. The committee confirmed its next meeting for March 28 and adjourned after approximately an hour and a half.
The committee's further work will focus on precise drafting to balance transparency, operational utility for agencies, protection of sensitive enforcement tactics, and clarity for regulated entities on response and appeal processes.
