Notice2026-08118
Frontline Decision Making in the Adjudication of Applications; Request for Comments
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 27, 2026
Issuing agencies
Administrative Conference of the United States
Abstract
The Office of the Chairman of ACUS is requesting public input on frontline decision making in the adjudication of applications for benefits, loans, grants, licenses, and the like. "Frontline decision making" refers to processes that agencies use to render an initial determination, often based on a review of the application and supporting documentation, which precedes a hearing before an administrative law judge or other agency adjudicator. Responses to this request may inform an ongoing ACUS project, Frontline Decision Making in the Adjudication of Applications, which, if warranted, may recommend best practices for agencies to use.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 80 (Monday, April 27, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22488-22489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08118]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 2026 /
Notices
[[Page 22488]]
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
Frontline Decision Making in the Adjudication of Applications;
Request for Comments
AGENCY: Administrative Conference of the United States.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Chairman of ACUS is requesting public input
on frontline decision making in the adjudication of applications for
benefits, loans, grants, licenses, and the like. ``Frontline decision
making'' refers to processes that agencies use to render an initial
determination, often based on a review of the application and
supporting documentation, which precedes a hearing before an
administrative law judge or other agency adjudicator. Responses to this
request may inform an ongoing ACUS project, Frontline Decision Making
in the Adjudication of Applications, which, if warranted, may recommend
best practices for agencies to use.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than 10:00 a.m. (ET) June 26,
2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e881868e87a8898b9d9bc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="40292e262f00212335336e272f36">[email protected]</span></a> (with
``Frontline Decision Making in the Adjudication of Applications'' in
the subject line of the message), or by U.S. Mail addressed to
Frontline Decision Making in the Adjudication of Applications,
Administrative Conference of the United States, 1120 20th Street NW,
Suite 706 South, Washington, DC 20036. ACUS will ordinarily post
comments on the project web page as they are received. Commenters
should not include information, such as personal information or
confidential business information, that they do not wish to appear on
the ACUS website. For the full ACUS public comment policy, please visit
<a href="https://www.acus.gov/policy/public-comment-policy">https://www.acus.gov/policy/public-comment-policy</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lea Robbins, Attorney Advisor,
Administrative Conference of the United States, 1120 20th Street NW,
Suite 706 South, Washington, DC 20036; Telephone (202) 480-2080; email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deb2acb1bcbcb7b0ad9ebfbdabadf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9859b868b8b80879aa9888a9c9ac78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C.
591-596, established the Administrative Conference of the United
States. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness
of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies and makes
recommendations to agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial
Conference of the United States for procedural improvements (5 U.S.C.
594(1)). For further information about the Conference and its
activities, see <a href="http://www.acus.gov">www.acus.gov</a>.
Frontline Decision Making in the Adjudication of Applications
Many federal programs involve the adjudication of applications for
benefits, loans, grants, licenses, and the like. In many of these
programs, parties are legally entitled to an opportunity for a hearing
before a federal agency adjudicator such as an administrative law judge
(ALJ) or administrative judge (AJ).
Before proceeding to a hearing, many agencies first attempt to
adjudicate applications and resolve cases through processes--sometimes
referred to as ``frontline''--that are less trial-like. For example,
upon receiving an application, agency personnel may work with the
applicant to develop an adequate record for decision making. A
``frontline'' decision maker--not an ALJ or AJ--may then render an
initial determination based on a review of the application and
supporting documentation.
ACUS is undertaking a project to examine and identify best
practices for frontline decision making in the adjudication of
applications for benefits, loans, grants, licenses, and the like in
which there is a later opportunity for a hearing before a federal
agency adjudicator. Among other topics, the project studies the
personnel involved in frontline processes; the processes used to
develop records and decide cases prior to the hearing stage; the
relationship between frontline and hearing-level proceedings, including
how evidence obtained and findings made in frontline proceedings may be
used at the hearing level; the development and communication of
relevant policies; quality assurance and strategies for promoting
timeliness; and interactions between frontline components and other
agency components, including those responsible for more formal
adjudication and policy development.
Specific Topics for Public Comment
ACUS welcomes views, information, and data on all aspects of
frontline decision making in the adjudication of applications in which
there is a later opportunity for a hearing. For this project, ACUS
intends to research frontline decision making at agencies such as the
Social Security Administration; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office;
the Department of Veterans Affairs; the U.S. Small Business
Administration; and the Department of Labor. However, this request for
comments is not limited to frontline adjudications of applications at
those agencies. ACUS also seeks specific feedback on the following
questions related to frontline decision making.
1. If you have, or represented someone who has, submitted an
application for benefits, a loan, a grant, a license, or the like in
which there is a later opportunity for a hearing before an ALJ or
another federal agency adjudicator, what was your experience with the
personnel involved in the frontline adjudication of that application?
Were you aware of the titles or credentials of the frontline personnel
(e.g., job titles, professional licensure, qualifications)? How much
communication did you have with the frontline personnel?
2. Did you submit evidence to the frontline personnel and, if so,
how was it submitted? Was it clear how the frontline decision maker
considered the evidence you submitted when he or she adjudicated your
or your client's application?
3. Did the frontline personnel obtain other evidence and, if so,
how and from whom did they obtain it? Was it clear how the frontline
decision maker considered that evidence when he or she adjudicated your
or your client's application?
4. Did you want to, and if so, were you able to review the record
compiled
[[Page 22489]]
by the frontline personnel before a decision was made?
5. How would you describe your overall experience during the
frontline adjudication of your or your client's application? Did you
appeal the frontline decision? If so, did you have a hearing on your or
your client's application before an ALJ or another agency adjudicator?
6. If you appealed the frontline decision, did you have a hearing
before an ALJ or another agency adjudicator? If you had a hearing
before an ALJ or another agency adjudicator, how did the adjudicator
consider the frontline decision and consider the record compiled by
frontline personnel? Did you receive clear information before or during
the hearing about how the adjudicator would consider the frontline
decision and record when deciding the appeal?
7. Are you aware of agency policies (e.g., rules, guidance,
manuals, memorandums) that govern how frontline personnel interact with
applicants or how they interact with other ALJs or other agency
adjudicators who may hear appeals from frontline decisions?
8. Are you aware of agency policies that govern the following:
a. Development and communication of relevant policies (including
training);
b. Assuring adequate input from the applicant;
c. Identifying and reducing administrative burdens in the evidence-
gathering process;
d. Quality assurance and strategies for promoting timeliness; and
e. Standards governing appeals.
10. Are there any agency policies regarding frontline decision
making that you think are especially beneficial? In your experience,
are there any agency policies regarding frontline decision making that
have presented challenges, are unclear, or are applied inconsistently?
11. Are there particular facts, situations, concerns or goals that
you think would be helpful for agencies to consider when they develop
and implement policies on frontline decision making? For example, how
should agencies:
a. Strike a balance between allowing frontline decision makers
flexibility to decide individual cases fairly, accurately, and
efficiently while ensuring policies are applied consistently across all
cases?
b. Leverage the on-the-ground experience and expertise of frontline
personnel when formulating policies or managing programs;
c. Strike a balance between efficient and timely decision making
and fair and accurate decision making?
d. Use automation, including but not limited to artificial
intelligence?
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 595.
Dated: April 22, 2026.
Shawne C. McGibbon,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2026-08118 Filed 4-24-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6110-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 27, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.