Bureaucracy Times

All the news fit to be declassified.

Category: Regulatory Affairs

  • Federal Register Watch: October 1, 2026

    The State Department published a rule today removing Syria from the list of countries subject to a blanket denial policy under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, shifting defense-export licensing for Syria from automatic refusal to case-by-case review.

    • State Department — Syria Country Policy Revision removes Syria from ITAR’s list of countries subject to a blanket denial policy, letting license requests for defense-related exports be adjudicated case by case instead of refused automatically. The shift follows an August 19 decision to adopt a new Syria defense-trade policy after the administration determined that statutory prerequisites, including rescinding Syria’s terrorism-support designation, had been met. Because foreign-affairs rules are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirement, the change took effect the same day it was published, with no public comment period before the licensing shift took hold.
    • State Department — The same day, the agency proposed a broader review of the U.S. Munitions List, the register of defense articles and technologies subject to export controls, that would remove certain items from the list, rewrite definitions, and add a new licensing exemption. The agency frames the changes as cutting regulatory burden while sharpening ITAR’s focus on the most sensitive technologies, and it is taking comments through November 30, a 60-day window that gives industry and arms-control watchers a chance to flag any items they think are being deregulated too loosely before the rule is finalized.
    • Department of Homeland Security — DHS published three coordinated notices adjusting immigration-related fees for Fiscal Year 2027 under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1): one covering USCIS-administered fees, one raising the fee ICE charges aliens ordered removed in absentia or apprehended between ports of entry to $5,300, and one adjusting CBP’s parole, ESTA, and EVUS fees. H.R. 1 requires these fees to be adjusted for inflation every year, so the coordinated rollout across three components is the law’s routine annual mechanics rather than a new policy choice, but the increases are still a real cost that takes effect October 16 for people moving through the immigration system.
    • Federal Trade Commission — The FTC proposed a new rulemaking on impersonation of government and businesses aimed at search engines, social media platforms, and other digital marketplaces that the agency says “further” impersonation scams, a notable expansion from targeting scammers directly to targeting the platforms that carry their ads and listings. The FTC already finalized a narrower impersonation rule in 2024 covering people who pose as government agencies or businesses directly, so reopening the subject under nearly the same name is worth watching for how far the agency intends to stretch its unfair-or-deceptive-practices authority to cover platforms that did not themselves commit the impersonation. Comments are due November 30.
    • Agriculture Department, Rural Business-Cooperative Service — USDA finalized a rewrite of the Rural Energy for America Program that flips the grant model: instead of applying for funding before building a project, applicants must now complete construction first and apply afterward with twelve months of documented energy production or savings data, with awards based on actual results rather than projections. USDA says the rule is exempt from standard notice-and-comment because it concerns grants, but the agency accepted comments through November 2 anyway, a short 33-day window for a rule that is already effective October 16, meaning public input arrives after the policy is locked in rather than before it. The rewrite also drops state-level competitions for a single national scoring process, which could disadvantage smaller or first-time applicants who lack the capital to build speculatively before knowing whether they will be funded.
    • Nuclear Regulatory Commission — The NRC opened a four-week public notice period on an application from SMR, LLC, a Holtec International subsidiary, for a phased construction permit and limited work authorization to build two small modular reactors, Pioneer Units 1 and 2, at the former Palisades Energy Center in Michigan. A limited work authorization lets a company begin site preparation and certain construction activities before the NRC finishes reviewing the full construction permit, meaning the site could start ground work on a new reactor build while the broader licensing case is still pending, a sequencing the NRC has leaned on more often as it works to speed the nuclear buildout the administration has pushed for.

    Editorial note: We screened all 112 documents published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2026, before selecting the items above. Excluded as routine: nearly thirty agency information-collection notices submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act; a dozen antidumping and countervailing-duty preliminary determinations, five-year sunset reviews, and administrative-review initiations spanning products from air compressors to graphite electrodes; four self-regulatory-organization (stock exchange) rule filings from CME, Investors Exchange, and the Texas Stock Exchange; routine Coast Guard safety zones and special local regulations; six airworthiness directives; five FERC notices of filings and related orders; advisory-committee renewal, meeting, and nomination notices; and two correction notices to Medicare payment rules.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • The Surface Transportation Board Keeps Forgetting How to Lock Its Doors

    The Surface Transportation Board regulates freight rail rates, oversees railroad mergers, and adjudicates disputes over who gets to run trains through whose backyard. It is a small, obscure independent agency that most Americans have never heard of and will never have reason to contact. It is also, according to its own contracted auditor, an agency that cannot hold onto basic cybersecurity discipline for more than twelve consecutive months.

    Every year since at least 2017, the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General has hired Williams Adley & Company to run STB through the federal government’s standard information security checkup, the one required by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act. Every year, the verdict has been the same word, ineffective. What makes the fiscal year 2026 report interesting is not that STB failed again. It is that STB had, for one brief shining reporting period, actually started to look like it was getting its act together, and then visibly did not.

    A Small Agency’s One Good Year

    To understand FY2026’s regression you first have to see the year it regressed from. The FY2025 audit reads almost warmly by federal oversight standards. Williams Adley wrote that STB “made improvements, since the previous reporting period” and closed five of nine outstanding recommendations. Identity and access management jumped to a calculated 3.67, edging into “Managed and Measurable” territory, the top tier the government considers genuinely effective. STB’s business impact analyses, the documents that are supposed to tell an agency which systems it absolutely cannot afford to lose, went from Level 3 to Level 4. Contingency plan testing for its two core systems, the General Support System and the Dynamic Case Management System, actually happened, complete with after-action reports. Management’s own response practically glowed, welcoming an audit that showed the program “continues to improve, year over year.”

    None of that survived contact with FY2026.

    The Metrics That Fell Off a Cliff

    The new report documents four specific reporting metrics that regressed in maturity level from the prior year, not stagnated, regressed. Business impact analyses fell from Level 4 to Level 2. Contingency plan testing fell from Level 3 to Level 2, because STB simply did not run the required annual exercises for any of its three in-scope systems this time, not the General Support System, not the case management platform, not even its Amazon Web Services environment. Cybersecurity risk management strategy dropped from Level 3 to Level 2 because two of four sampled Risk Acceptance Forms, the paperwork documenting known vulnerabilities STB has formally decided to live with, expired without anyone bothering to renew, reassess, or justify them. And identity authentication for ordinary, non-privileged users cratered from Level 4 all the way to Level 2.

    That last one is worth sitting with, because it is not an abstract maturity-model score, it is a paperwork failure with a name, the Personal Identity Verification exception process. STB employees are supposed to log in using PIV cards, the standard federal smart-ID credential mandated since a 2004 Bush-era directive. Some employees get exceptions, for legitimate reasons like a malfunctioning card or a pending new-hire issuance. Auditors sampled seven such exceptions. Four had no documented justification for being on the list at all. Three belonged to users who had working PIV cards and valid certificates the whole time, meaning STB’s own systems knew these people didn’t need an exception and left them on it anyway. This is not a resourcing problem in the abstract sense STB’s management response keeps invoking. It is a report nobody ran.

    STB’s Own Explanation, and Its Limits

    To its credit, STB does not dispute any of this. Managing Director Rachel Campbell’s response concurs with all four new recommendations and does not contest a single finding, which is more candor than some agencies manage. The explanation offered, repeated almost verbatim across domain after domain in the report, is resource constraints, budget reductions, limited personnel, competing workload demands. Auditors accepted this at face value and built it directly into the recommendation language itself, asking STB to “evaluate the impact of resource constraints” rather than simply fix the underlying control.

    There is something almost structurally convenient about that framing. A recommendation to study your own resource constraints and develop an action plan is not the same as a recommendation to actually restore PIV enforcement or run a contingency test. It buys another reporting cycle. It is worth noting that STB’s Data Protection and Privacy, Configuration Management, and Incident Response domains all held roughly steady this year, meaning the agency did not lose ground everywhere, only in the specific places where somebody has to remember to do a recurring task on a calendar. Inventory maintenance stayed strong; supply chain risk management stayed flat and mediocre at Level 2 for two straight years, the one condition that has been open long enough it barely counts as news anymore.

    Nine Years Is a Long Time to Draft an Architecture Document

    The most damning artifact in either report is not a new finding at all. It is recommendation 2021-1, first issued in fiscal year 2021, calling on STB to develop an enterprise architecture that actually incorporates information security into its planning. It was still open in FY2025. It is still open in FY2026. STB’s own target completion date for finally addressing it is now June 30, 2029, eight years after the recommendation was written, for a document. Recommendation 2024-9, about implementing federal logging requirements, took a different and stranger path to closure: the underlying OMB memorandum it was based on got rescinded and replaced by newer guidance before STB ever complied, so Williams Adley simply marked it closed as moot. STB didn’t fix the problem. The problem changed definitions out from under it.

    Put the two years side by side and the shape of the story becomes obvious. This is not an agency in crisis, and it is not an agency that has never tried. It is a small regulator with a demonstrably competent core, evidenced by real jumps in maturity when it applies itself, that cannot sustain that application from one fiscal year to the next once attention moves elsewhere. The PIV exception list did not get worse because someone at STB made a bad decision. It got worse because nobody checked it. For an agency whose entire regulatory mission rests on making sure railroads keep their paperwork current and their safety obligations honored, there is a certain grim symmetry in watching it fail the same test on itself, twice in two years, in opposite directions.

  • FDA Is Rewriting the Rulebook on Animal Testing. Congress Changed It Four Years Ago

    The Food and Drug Administration announced Monday that it is updating federal regulations to make clear that drug developers can use alternatives to animal testing before medicines are tested in humans.

    There is just one wrinkle.

    Congress changed the underlying law nearly four years ago.

    The FDA’s new direct final rule replaces regulatory references to “animal tests” and “animal studies” with broader terms such as “nonclinical tests” and “nonclinical studies.” It also removes language that the agency says could suggest animal testing is the only acceptable method for producing safety information.

    The change opens the regulatory vocabulary to technologies that sound considerably more 2026 than the rules they are replacing. Those include human-cell systems, organs-on-chips, computer modeling and other New Approach Methodologies, commonly known as NAMs.

    But the FDA is not suddenly abandoning animal testing. And drug companies did not wake up Monday with an authority Congress had never given them.

    The statutory change dates to 2022.

    Congress Got There First

    The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022, enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2023, amended federal drug law to replace references to animal testing with the broader concept of “nonclinical tests.”

    Congress also defined what that meant.

    The law recognized testing conducted in vitro, in silico, in chemico and through nonhuman in vivo methods. In plain English, the statutory framework could encompass laboratory testing involving cells, computer-based modeling, chemical testing and traditional animal studies.

    Animal testing remained an option. It simply stopped being the only category written into the statute.

    FDA’s regulations, however, continued using older terminology.

    Now, in September 2026, the agency is cleaning that up.

    According to the FDA, the new rule brings its regulations into alignment with the 2022 law and removes wording that could leave developers with the impression that animal studies were the required path for generating certain safety evidence.

    That distinction matters.

    The FDA explicitly says the rule does not prohibit animal studies, reduce existing evidentiary standards or impose new requirements or costs on drug developers. Instead, it clarifies that validated non-animal methods can be used when appropriate for the particular drug and regulatory question.

    In other words, this is less an abolition of animal testing than a regulatory vocabulary lesson four years in the making.

    Why the Words Matter

    Changing terminology in the Code of Federal Regulations can sound like the sort of administrative housekeeping best enjoyed with a strong cup of coffee.

    But in this case, the words can have practical consequences.

    Drug developers deciding how to design expensive safety studies do so within an elaborate regulatory system. If the statute says one thing while the implementing regulations continue referring specifically to animal studies, uncertainty can influence how sponsors design those studies and what evidence they believe FDA expects to see.

    FDA itself acknowledges the problem.

    The agency says clearer terminology and regulatory expectations can reduce avoidable uncertainty for sponsors preparing the evidence needed to begin human clinical trials.

    That raises an obvious question.

    If Congress broadened the statutory framework in 2022, what happened during the years in which FDA regulations continued using terminology the agency now says could suggest animal testing was the only acceptable approach?

    The answer will require more than Monday’s press release.

    FDA Provides 25 Places to Start Looking

    Alongside the rule, FDA launched a database containing 25 examples of New Approach Methodologies already found in publicly available agency review materials.

    That may ultimately prove more interesting than the terminology change itself.

    The examples provide a starting point for examining how drug developers have actually used alternative testing methods and how FDA reviewers treated that evidence.

    It also provides a way to begin measuring the transition rather than simply announcing one.

    Which companies used NAMs? What methods did they use? Were animal studies reduced or replaced? How did FDA evaluate the alternative evidence? And how frequently were these approaches being used while the agency’s regulations still contained the older language?

    Those are questions worth following.

    The Rule Is Not Quite Final Yet

    There is another bit of regulatory machinery still running.

    FDA published the change as a direct final rule while simultaneously issuing a companion proposed rule and opening a public-comment period.

    If the agency receives significant adverse comments, it says it will withdraw the direct final rule and proceed through the traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking process using the companion proposal.

    If that does not happen, the updated terminology can move forward without another full round of rulemaking.

    Either way, the direction is clear.

    Congress changed federal law in 2022 to recognize that the evidence supporting human drug trials does not necessarily have to come from animal studies. Technology continued advancing. Drug developers began using newer methodologies. FDA has now assembled examples showing those methods in practice.

    And in 2026, the regulations are finally getting new vocabulary to match.

    For a regulatory system preparing to embrace organs-on-chips and sophisticated computer models, apparently one of the first modernization projects was updating the nouns.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Federal Register Watch: September 30, 2026

    The Treasury Department and the IRS published temporary regulations today spelling out how Trump Accounts, the new tax-advantaged children’s savings accounts, will actually be established and funded, including a provision letting the Treasury Secretary open an account automatically for an eligible child even if no parent has done so first.

    • Treasury Department / IRS — Trump Accounts temporary regulations lay out how the new accounts are established, including automatic enrollment of eligible children by the Treasury Secretary when a parent hasn’t opened one. That automatic-enrollment default is worth noting because it’s a different starting point than most federal benefit programs use, which typically require someone to apply; here the account can exist before a family has taken any action, raising practical questions about how parents will be notified and how they take control of an account opened on a child’s behalf.
    • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — NHTSA finalized the SAFE Vehicles Rule III, recalibrating Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for model years 2022 through 2031 and revising how vehicles are classified for compliance purposes. The agency says the changes are needed “to ensure compliance with law,” language that signals this final rule is closing out a legal vulnerability in how the standards were set rather than simply updating them on schedule, and the classification changes matter because they can shift which fuel-economy target a given vehicle model is actually held to.
    • Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control — OFAC tightened the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, eliminating the “U-turn” exception that let U.S. banks process certain Cuba-linked payments passing through the American financial system and ending authorization for group people-to-people and professional-meeting travel, carrying out a June 2025 presidential directive. The same day, OFAC also issued a brand-new Cuba Sanctions Regulations part implementing a separate May 2026 executive order, while noting that fuller definitions and general licenses are still to come; publishing the enforcement mechanism before the interpretive guidance that explains exactly what it covers is the kind of sequencing worth watching for how banks and travelers are expected to comply in the meantime.
    • Office of Management and Budget — OMB published the formal notice of a presidential rescissions package sent to Congress on September 25, proposing to cancel $810 million in already-appropriated funds across the Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice departments, plus international assistance programs. Filing this notice starts a 45-day clock under the Impoundment Control Act during which Congress can approve the cuts or let the proposal lapse, but the administration can hold the money back while that clock runs, a mechanism that has drawn scrutiny in past rescissions fights over whether it lets the executive branch withhold spending Congress already approved.
    • Treasury Department — Treasury issued an interim final rule setting the forms and procedures the new Stablecoin Certification Review Committee will use to decide whether a state’s stablecoin regulatory regime counts as “substantially similar” to the federal framework under the GENIUS Act, a call that determines whether state-chartered stablecoin issuers can operate under state rather than federal oversight. Issuing the procedures as an interim final rule means they take effect immediately without the advance public comment period ordinarily used to shape a new agency process, though Treasury says it will accept comments and may revise the rule later, worth watching given how much rides on the Committee’s decisions.
    • U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — USCIS finalized new EB-5 immigrant investor fees and folded in provisions from the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 that Congress passed but USCIS is only now codifying into fee regulations. The rule follows a proposed version published back in October 2025, and that roughly year-long gap is a useful reminder of how long even routine fee rulemakings take to finalize, regardless of how long the underlying statute has already been law.

    Editorial note: We screened all 118 documents published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2026, before selecting the items above. Excluded as routine: roughly two dozen agency information-collection notices submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act; seven antidumping and countervailing-duty proceedings, sunset reviews, and court-decision notices; seven self-regulatory-organization (stock exchange) rule filings, including a batch of near-identical liquid-cooled-cabinet fee changes across four Nasdaq exchanges; sixteen NAGPRA repatriation and inventory-completion notices; a cluster of OFAC general-license republications spanning the Venezuela, Iran, and Russia sanctions programs; advisory-committee and closed-meeting notices; and three Presidential disaster-declaration amendments.

  • We Asked America.gov 15 Questions the Government Already Answered. It Did Surprisingly Well.

    The federal government launched a new artificial intelligence system Tuesday with an ambitious proposition: instead of making Americans figure out which agency, office, subagency, program, website, form and acronym possesses the thing they need, perhaps the government could figure that out for them.

    It is called America.gov, and on its first night in operation, Bureaucracy Times decided to give it a test.

    Not a test involving the capital of Nebraska or how to renew a passport. We gave it questions from our own reporting, including obscure federal contracts, nuclear waste, contaminated nickel, pension reporting requirements, used cooking oil, veterans benefits fraud, classified Pentagon clocks, voter records and one of the strangest securities disputes to pass through FINRA in recent years.

    The result was not what we expected.

    America.gov did remarkably well.

    Across 15 questions for which Bureaucracy Times had independently established an answer, established that no public answer exists, or possessed information unavailable to the general public, America.gov produced nine answers we classified as correct and six that were substantially correct but incomplete.

    We identified no fabricated answers.

    Not one.

    For an artificial intelligence system introduced by the federal government, an institution that has occasionally demonstrated an almost artisanal commitment to making simple information difficult to obtain, that deserves some credit.

    America.gov did have problems. It sometimes failed to retrieve information buried inside federal reports. Some of its statistics were years behind newer government figures. It occasionally found one government source while overlooking another containing the missing answer.

    And, in one particularly delightful encounter with the machinery of modern government, America.gov prevented us from asking about a federal contract because it apparently mistook the government’s own contract number for our personal information.

    Still, after an evening spent deliberately trying to make the new system stumble, the most consistent behavior we encountered was something increasingly valuable in the age of generative artificial intelligence:

    When America.gov did not know something, it generally said so.

    A New Front Door With 29,000 Rooms

    The General Services Administration unveiled America.gov on September 29 as what it calls a new digital “front door” to federal information and services.

    According to GSA’s launch announcement, America.gov combines information from more than 29,000 government websites with AI-enhanced search technology. Instead of navigating the federal government’s sprawling collection of agency websites, GSA says Americans will eventually be able to use a single interface to find information and conduct transactions.

    The White House goes further.

    Its September 29 fact sheet says Americans can currently “ask any question” and receive an up-to-date answer. Eventually, the administration says, people will be able to complete transactions including passport renewals and Medicare enrollment without being dispatched back into what the White House rather accurately calls a “maze of websites.”

    President Donald Trump also signed an executive order directing GSA, the National Design Studio and the Office of Management and Budget to establish America.gov as the central entry point for covered federal services.

    The government, in other words, has created a website designed to spare Americans from having to understand how the government created its websites.

    There is a certain elegance to that.

    There is also an immediate accountability question.

    What, exactly, are those 29,000 websites?

    GSA’s announcement does not provide the inventory or explain what it counts as a website. A domain could be a website. So could a subdomain. An agency might operate multiple applications or collections beneath one domain. And saying that America.gov “combines information” from 29,000 websites does not tell us whether every document hosted on those sites is searchable by the system.

    As our experiment would demonstrate, that distinction matters.

    Bureaucracy Times sent GSA a media inquiry Tuesday night asking for the inventory, the definition used to arrive at the 29,000 figure, the inclusion criteria, update frequency, source-ranking methodology and information about the AI models and providers operating the system.

    We also asked about records retention, system instructions, configuration changes and whether America.gov was designed and tested for research uses such as locating FOIA offices and federal records.

    The inquiry was sent at 9:50 p.m. Eastern. We will update this article if GSA responds.

    America.gov Has Been Here Before

    The name is new to many Americans. The domain is not.

    America.gov previously belonged to a State Department public-diplomacy operation intended largely for international audiences.

    A 2011 Senate Foreign Relations Committee record states that the old America.gov was transitioned to the State Department’s IIP Digital operation and archived on April 1, 2011.

    It was not an obscure little government webpage when it disappeared.

    According to the Senate record, America.gov had averaged approximately 1.67 million monthly page views and 925,288 monthly visitors, with 63.52 percent of visits coming from outside the United States.

    The federal government has therefore resurrected the address of what was once an American public-diplomacy operation and turned it into an AI gateway for Americans trying to navigate their own government.

    Washington does recycle.

    Sometimes it even recycles websites.

    Our Test Was Not Random

    We wanted to know whether America.gov could do more than tell someone where to renew a passport.

    Could a journalist use it?

    Could a researcher?

    Could an ordinary citizen trying to understand an inspector general report, federal contract or regulatory requirement use the government’s new front door to find information scattered through the federal bureaucracy?

    Rather than invent trivia questions, we selected 15 questions from Bureaucracy Times reporting and research conducted during the past month.

    That gave us something unusually useful when testing an AI system: a control.

    For some questions, we already knew the answer from federal records.

    For others, our reporting had established that the answer was not publicly available.

    In several cases, we possessed agency correspondence America.gov should not have access to at all.

    We recorded the responses and compared them against our existing reporting. Answers were classified as correct, partially correct, incorrect, unsupported or no answer. A separate category was created when America.gov’s safeguards prevented a question from being submitted.

    The final score was nine correct and six partially correct.

    There were no answers we classified as incorrect or unsupported.

    There were no hallucinations we could identify.

    That last finding deserves more attention than the score.

    When America.gov Couldn’t Find the Answer

    The system’s weaknesses appeared quickly.

    We asked how many separated Customs and Border Protection contractors retained system access after separation and how many contractor separation records were delayed more than 30 days.

    America.gov located the correct 2026 Department of Homeland Security inspector general report.

    Then it stopped.

    It said the available material did not provide the requested counts and suggested opening the full OIG report.

    The numbers are 1,208 and 623.

    America.gov had found the building but apparently couldn’t get into the room where the numbers were kept.

    A similar problem emerged when we asked how much the federal government has paid from the Judgment Fund because the Department of Energy failed to begin accepting commercial spent nuclear fuel in 1998.

    America.gov reconstructed the history accurately. It found totals of approximately $3.7 billion through fiscal 2013, $7.4 billion through fiscal 2018 and $10.1 billion as of September 30, 2022.

    It correctly distinguished those payments from DOE’s projected future liability.

    But our reporting had already located a newer figure of approximately $12.2 billion.

    America.gov’s answer was accurate as far as it went. It simply did not go far enough.

    The same happened when we asked how much commercial spent nuclear fuel is currently stored around the country. America.gov found official figures ranging from roughly 86,000 to more than 90,000 metric tons and correctly explained that there is no operating permanent federal repository.

    Newer federal information puts the inventory above 95,000 metric tons.

    Again, the problem was not fabrication.

    It was freshness.

    Then It Found the Nickel

    We turned up the difficulty.

    DOE has spent decades dealing with thousands of tons of radioactively contaminated nickel at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky.

    Bureaucracy Times had previously identified a curious discrepancy. An older DOE environmental assessment described 8,500 contaminated nickel ingots weighing approximately 9,350 short tons. Later DOE documents described approximately 9,700 tons.

    We asked America.gov for both figures.

    It found them.

    More impressively, the system corrected a chronological assumption embedded in our question rather than obediently accepting it. It explained that the earlier environmental assessment was the contemporaneous source and then located the later 9,700-ton figure.

    America.gov went one better.

    It found that DOE was still citing approximately 9,700 tons of contaminated nickel in a November 2025 Expression of Interest.

    That was a genuine research result.

    For a system less than a day old, searching through decades of obscure nuclear cleanup documents, it was impressive.

    Then we gave it a federal contract number.

    And America.gov decided we had gone too far.

    Please Remove the Government’s Personal Information

    We asked:

    How much recyclable-material credit did DOE receive under Contract DE-AC05-97OR22576 at the East Tennessee Technology Park?

    America.gov would not allow the question to be submitted.

    The contract number, DE-AC05-97OR22576, was highlighted in red.

    The interface instructed us: “Remove personal information before sending.”

    We preserved a screenshot.

    To be precise, our test establishes only that this particular public federal contract identifier triggered America.gov’s personal-information safeguard. It does not establish that all federal contract numbers will do so.

    But federal research depends heavily on identifiers. Contract numbers, solicitation numbers, docket numbers, case numbers, grant numbers, award identifiers and FOIA tracking numbers are the connective tissue of the government’s public record.

    A research system that occasionally mistakes those identifiers for private information could have a meaningful limitation.

    So we removed the contract number and tried again.

    America.gov immediately found the correct BNFL contract.

    It identified the original $238 million fixed-price agreement, approximately 129,000 tons of potentially reusable metal, $12 million in approved upward price adjustments and a roughly $40 million claim associated with DOE’s moratorium on releasing recycled nickel.

    It could not find the figure we wanted.

    Our previous research identified a recyclable-material credit of $55,569,748 in contract documentation.

    America.gov had once again arrived remarkably close to the answer without retrieving the particular fact buried in the record.

    The Questions With No Answers

    Then something interesting happened.

    America.gov began performing better when we asked questions that did not have public answers.

    We asked how much DOE has spent storing the contaminated Paducah nickel since the proposed sale failed decades ago.

    We do not know.

    America.gov did not know either.

    “I cannot invent that number,” it responded.

    That sentence may be the most important thing America.gov told us all night.

    We asked how many Form 10 attrition events involving frozen pension plans the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation receives each year.

    PBGC recently waived certain reporting requirements after saying its review showed such events rarely warranted additional scrutiny, but the agency did not publish the annual count underlying that conclusion. Bureaucracy Times sent PBGC a media inquiry seeking precisely that data earlier this month.

    America.gov found the technical update, explained the reporting requirements and correctly concluded that the annual figure could not be established from the published information.

    It did not grab some other PBGC statistic and force it into the hole.

    Then we asked whether federal renewable-fuel regulations require producers to prove that used cooking oil was lawfully obtained from the restaurant or original owner before generating Renewable Identification Numbers.

    America.gov correctly distinguished EPA’s feedstock documentation requirements from proof of lawful ownership.

    We followed with an even nastier question: Can stolen used cooking oil qualify for the Section 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit if a fuel producer unknowingly purchases it?

    Bureaucracy Times has already asked Treasury and the IRS essentially that question.

    We have not found a definitive public answer.

    Neither did America.gov.

    It explained what Section 45Z requires, identified the relevant recordkeeping requirements and then stopped.

    It did not convert the absence of a prohibition into eligibility.

    It did not convert the absence of an eligibility provision into prohibition.

    That is exactly what an information system should do.

    It Also Knew What It Shouldn’t Know

    One of our tests involved Zachary Hess Dawson, who pleaded guilty in a federal prosecution involving more than $350,000 in fraudulently obtained VA benefits.

    Bureaucracy Times previously submitted a FOIA request to the VA Office of Inspector General seeking records concerning how the alleged fraud was detected and how the benefits continued.

    VA OIG denied our request under FOIA Exemption 7(A), citing the pending criminal proceeding.

    We asked America.gov why VA OIG denied access.

    It couldn’t answer.

    That was the correct response.

    The denial letter was sent directly to us. America.gov found the prosecution and the OIG investigation, but it could not find a public agency determination explaining our particular denial.

    Rather than infer that the pending prosecution was probably the reason, America.gov said it could not state why the request was denied.

    We then asked how VA continued paying Dawson from 2017 through 2025 and whether his arrest or incarceration triggered discovery of the alleged fraud.

    Again, America.gov found the known facts and refused to construct a causal story from them.

    The public record does not answer those questions.

    Neither did the machine.

    For journalists accustomed to watching generative AI confidently connect two dots with a third dot it just invented, restraint is worth noticing.

    The Classified Clocks Exposed Another Weakness

    Not every miss involved an obscure historical document.

    Earlier this month, the Department of War inspector general released an audit concerning security controls over Defense Regional Clocks.

    All 10 recommendations are classified.

    We asked America.gov why.

    It correctly determined that the government has not publicly disclosed the underlying classification rationale. It also found the original project announcement showing that the audit began after Hotline allegations.

    But America.gov said it could not verify publicly that there were 10 recommendations.

    That information is sitting on another government website.

    Oversight.gov publicly lists the report and identifies 10 recommendations, each classified.

    Here, America.gov successfully searched one portion of the federal information ecosystem while missing another federal source containing the information it lacked.

    That is an important limitation for a service advertised as combining information from more than 29,000 government websites.

    What does “combines” mean?

    Our test suggests it does not necessarily mean that every relevant piece of information across those sites will be retrieved and synthesized for every query.

    Public Records Still Matter

    We saw the same boundary when we asked whether Virginia election officials had provided voter-list products to organizations involved in an overseas-voter mail inquiry.

    America.gov correctly explained Virginia’s restrictions on distributing voter information and said it could not verify that such a transfer occurred.

    We knew something it didn’t.

    Virginia’s Department of Elections had already responded to our records request saying it found no responsive records for the requested voter-list products involving the specified organizations.

    That isn’t a failure by America.gov.

    It is a reminder of what the system cannot replace.

    Search can tell a journalist what the government has published.

    A records request can establish what the government has not.

    America.gov may make federal research considerably easier. It does not eliminate the need to ask agencies questions they haven’t already answered on the internet.

    The bureaucracy lives to see another FOIA.

    The MMTLP Test

    Our fourteenth question concerned MMTLP, the ticker symbol at the center of a years-long dispute involving FINRA’s December 2022 trading halt.

    America.gov accurately reconstructed FINRA’s stated reason for imposing a U3 extraordinary-event halt, including the settlement problem surrounding the distribution of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons shares.

    But it failed to locate a separate systems coding error involving MMTLP that FINRA subsequently acknowledged and that Bureaucracy Times had already identified during earlier reporting.

    Again, the prominent portion of the record was easy to find.

    The less prominent official disclosure was not.

    America.gov’s source discipline nevertheless held. It encountered investor allegations concerning other supposed errors and refused to characterize those allegations as official FINRA findings.

    Another partial answer.

    Another refusal to manufacture the missing piece.

    One Last Trap

    Our final question concerned the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.

    We asked for aggregate payroll and employer-paid personnel costs processed by the Interior Business Center for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.

    We don’t have those numbers yet. They are part of an ongoing records inquiry.

    America.gov found something that looked tantalizingly close: NSF budget tables showing USARC personnel compensation and benefits.

    For fiscal 2024, it found approximately $1.008 million.

    A less careful system could have handed us that number.

    America.gov didn’t.

    It explicitly distinguished budgeted personnel compensation and benefits from actual payroll and employer-paid costs processed through IBC.

    “I cannot confirm those IBC figures from these official sources,” it said.

    Correct.

    America.gov Wins Round One

    This was not a comprehensive technical evaluation.

    Fifteen questions cannot establish the overall accuracy of an AI system drawing information from a federal web environment that GSA says encompasses more than 29,000 websites. Our questions were also deliberately unusual. They came from the kinds of federal audits, contracts, regulatory disputes and records inquiries Bureaucracy Times spends its time digging through.

    But that was the point.

    We weren’t interested in whether America.gov could tell us how to apply for Social Security.

    We wanted to know what happened when a citizen walked through the government’s shiny new front door carrying a shovel.

    The answer, after one evening of testing, is encouraging.

    America.gov was not omniscient. It missed current figures. It sometimes failed to retrieve facts from reports it had correctly identified. It failed on some cross-government searches. And its privacy safeguard apparently looked at a Department of Energy contract number and decided we were trying to disclose someone’s personal information.

    There is work to do.

    But the failure we expected to find never arrived.

    We could not get America.gov to make something up.

    Several of our hardest questions were hard precisely because the answers remain unknown. America.gov consistently recognized that distinction. It found related evidence, explained what that evidence established and stopped before turning inference into fact.

    For researchers and journalists, that characteristic may ultimately matter more than whether every answer is immediately complete.

    Completeness can be investigated.

    A confident fabrication can send the investigation in the wrong direction entirely.

    There are also larger accountability questions still unanswered. GSA says America.gov draws from more than 29,000 government websites, but we have asked for the inventory behind that claim. We want to know how sources are selected and ranked, how quickly information is updated, which AI models are involved, how configuration changes are documented and what records are preserved when the system’s behavior changes.

    Those questions became particularly relevant on launch day. The Associated Press reported that America.gov initially answered several politically sensitive questions using government information, then began refusing some of those questions while President Trump was still speaking at the launch event. That does not tell us why the behavior changed or who changed it. It does demonstrate why configuration histories and change logs for a federal information system matter.

    GSA itself maintains an agency-wide AI directive requiring risk management, transparency and lifecycle accountability for covered AI systems. America.gov is now a very public test of what those principles mean when artificial intelligence becomes an intermediary between citizens and their government.

    And this is only the beginning.

    The White House says America.gov will eventually move beyond answering questions and begin conducting government transactions. Passport renewals and Medicare enrollment are among the services promised.

    At that point, accuracy will become something more than a search-quality metric.

    For now, though, America.gov has been online for one day.

    We spent its first evening feeding it questions about radioactive nickel, stolen cooking grease, pension reporting, classified clocks, securities regulation, federal payrolls, benefits fraud and a contract number it apparently wished we had kept to ourselves.

    It survived.

    More importantly, when it didn’t know the answer, it usually had the good sense to say so.

    For the federal government’s new AI front door, that is a surprisingly good place to start.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Federal Register Watch: September 29, 2026

    The Federal Register’s September 29 issue ran to 116 documents, and the one that will matter most in a year is a pair of Federal Reserve proposals that start building the rulebook for bank-issued stablecoins. The same issue also carried two final rules, from the Education Department and the Small Business Administration, that took effect the same day they were published and skipped public comment entirely, plus a thirty-year-old advisory committee that needed a full “reestablishment” instead of a routine renewal.

    • Federal Reserve: two proposed rules start building the GENIUS Act stablecoin regime. The Fed proposed a general framework for supervising the “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” that fall under its jurisdiction, including a ban on bundling stablecoin services with other bank products, and a companion rule spelling out exactly how a state member bank asks for approval to let a subsidiary issue a stablecoin. Congress passed the GENIUS Act to bring stablecoins under bank-style oversight for the first time, so these are the rules that will actually decide which banks can get into the business and what strings come attached; because this is the first real test of a brand-new statute, how the Fed defines its terms here will shape the stablecoin market for years. (Implementing the Federal Reserve Board’s Responsibilities Under the GENIUS Act, document 2026-19860; Application Procedures for Board-Supervised Insured Depository Institutions Seeking Approval for a Subsidiary To Issue Payment Stablecoins, document 2026-19899)
    • Education Department repeals the 2024 Title IX rule, effective the same day, with no public comment. The Department’s final rule undoes the prior administration’s 2024 Title IX regulations and restores the text that existed before that rulemaking, touching more than twenty sections of 34 CFR Part 106. It took effect on September 29, the day it was published, because the Department invoked a “good cause” exception, arguing that notice-and-comment would be “contrary to the public interest” since it would delay updating the CFR. Comment periods exist so schools, students, and advocacy groups can flag problems before a rule takes hold; skipping one entirely on a rule this consequential, and making it effective immediately rather than the usual 30 or 60 days out, is the kind of shortcut that tends to draw a legal challenge over whether “good cause” really applied. (Recodification of Title IX Rules, document 2026-19929)
    • SBA strips affirmative-action provisions from its nondiscrimination rules, also effective immediately with no comment period. The rule rescinds or revises four provisions of 13 CFR Part 112, arguing the existing language encourages racial classifications that aren’t “narrowly tailored” enough to survive current equal-protection case law. SBA used a different legal shortcut than Education did, an Administrative Procedure Act exception for rules touching federal loans, grants, and benefits, but landed on the same result: no advance notice, no chance for small businesses or grant recipients to comment on a rule that changes the legal standards they have to follow, and it applies as soon as it’s published. Two same-day-effective, comment-free final rules landing in the same day’s Register, on unrelated topics but the same procedural pattern, is worth watching as a signal of how this administration is choosing to move fast on rules it considers legally exposed. (Removing Constitutional Concerns From SBA Programs, document 2026-19878)
    • Interior “reestablishes” a 30-year-old Alaska oil-spill advisory committee instead of simply renewing its charter. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee, created by the 1991 legal settlement between the U.S. and Alaska, has advised on commercial fishing, tourism, subsistence hunting, and wildlife recovery in Prince William Sound continuously since 1992. Federal advisory committees are normally kept alive through routine rechartering under the Federal Advisory Committee Act; needing a full “reestablishment” for a body with that long and continuous a track record suggests its charter lapsed rather than being renewed on schedule, though the notice itself never explains why. Public comments on the reestablishment are due October 6, about a week after publication. (Reestablishment of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee, document 2026-19933)
    • Justice Department raises immigration court fees under this year’s budget law. The Executive Office for Immigration Review announced the fiscal year 2027 inflation adjustment to fees immigrants and their attorneys pay on certain DHS forms filed in immigration court, fees that exist because of a provision in this year’s budget reconciliation law rather than a standard appropriation. Because these fees now fund part of immigration court operations directly, the size of each year’s adjustment is a small but real gauge of how much the administration is leaning on user fees, instead of congressional appropriations, to keep the immigration court system running. (Inflation Adjustment for EOIR OBBBA Fees for Certain DHS Forms; Fiscal Year 2027, document 2026-19841)

    This edition reflects all 116 documents published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2026. Excluded as routine: standard OMB/PRA information-collection notices (roughly two dozen), SEC self-regulatory-organization rule filings (eleven, from exchanges and clearinghouses including Nasdaq, Cboe, IEX, LCH SA, and the Depository Trust Company), antidumping and countervailing-duty proceedings (four, covering methionine, oil country tubular goods, wooden fence pickets, and boltless steel shelving), routine safety-zone, fishery, and environmental-review notices, Sunshine Act meeting announcements, individual DEA registration Decision and Order notices, Privacy Act computer-matching notices for state Lifeline eligibility verification, disaster-declaration notices, and other individually routine administrative filings.

  • Federal Register Watch: September 28, 2026

    The Federal Aviation Administration used today’s Federal Register to shut down a long-running exemption program for twin-engine Cessna aircraft, revoking permission for single-pilot operation after an internal review turned up what the agency called “widespread non-compliance.”

    Six items from today’s 101-document Federal Register docket stood out for institutional significance or for details that raise a “why now” question. Here is what to know.

    • Federal Aviation Administration — The FAA announced it is ceasing new exemptions that had allowed certain twin-engine Cessna models, which normally require two pilots, to fly with only one. The agency said a compliance review of exemption holders found “widespread non-compliance,” though it did not detail what the violations were. Because the exemption functioned as a waiver from the aircraft’s own type certification, revoking it means operators who had been flying single-pilot must now add a co-pilot or ground the aircraft, and the notice gives little detail on how quickly that transition has to happen. Read the notice.
    • Department of Housing and Urban Development — HUD is raising the upfront guarantee fee on its Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program from 1.00 to 1.50 percent of the loan amount, and adding a new 1.00 percent fee, up from zero, on loans made under the program’s Skilled Workers Demonstration track. Because that guarantee fee gets folded into a borrower’s closing costs, the increase directly raises what it costs Native American homebuyers to use this government-backed loan product. The change takes effect October 1, just three days after publication, a compressed runway that leaves lenders and applicants little time to adjust loans already in process. Read the notice.
    • Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families — HHS renamed and revised the records system covering unaccompanied immigrant children, redesignating it the “ORR Unaccompanied Alien Children Bureau Administrative Program Records” and, per the notice, “streamlining” the routine uses that govern who outside the agency can receive the data. A routine use is the specific legal permission a Privacy Act system carries to share personal information without the subject’s consent, so broadening it expands who can access records on a particularly vulnerable population. The notice does not spell out which new parties or purposes the streamlined language covers, which is the detail worth watching for. Read the notice.
    • Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary — DoD established a new Privacy Act system of records, the Abuse Incident Reporting System, to centralize tracking of child abuse, neglect, and domestic abuse cases department-wide for what the notice describes as policy development and trend analysis. Standing up a new department-wide case-tracking database is a notable institutional move on its own, and the filing is worth watching for what access controls and retention limits eventually accompany it, details a system-of-records notice is not required to spell out up front. Read the notice.
    • Environmental Protection Agency — EPA finalized a rule expanding two federally designated ocean dredged-material disposal sites off Corpus Christi, Texas, about six months after proposing the change in March. A final rule is the last procedural step before an action takes legal effect, so the expanded disposal boundaries are now in force. That proposal-to-final timeline is fast by the standards of Clean Water Act ocean-dumping site designations, which more typically take a year or longer to work through comment and review. Read the notice.
    • Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary — DoD authorized its Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories to create a new tier of “Senior Business Technical Manager” positions, classified above the General Schedule’s top GS-15 level, to advise commanding officers and senior executives on business and technology operations. This is the second Federal Register notice this year establishing the same position structure, following one published in January, and neither notice explains why the program needed a second round of authorization within the same year. Read the notice.

    This edition draws on all 101 documents published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2026. Excluded without an anomaly signal: routine advisory-committee and fishery-council meeting notices, OMB/PRA information-collection requests, foreign-built-vessel coastwise-trade petitions, antidumping and countervailing-duty proceedings, SEC self-regulatory-organization fee filings, airworthiness directives, and museum-exhibition cultural-property determinations.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Federal Register Watch: September 25, 2026

    The U.S. Postal Service used an interim final rule to move most of its environmental-review procedures out of binding federal regulation and into guidance it can revise on its own, taking effect the same day it was published rather than waiting on the comment period it opened alongside it.

    • United States Postal Service — an environmental-review rulebook moves out of binding regulation, effective immediately. USPS published an interim final rule rewriting how it complies with the National Environmental Policy Act, relocating most of its detailed review procedures out of the Code of Federal Regulations and into guidance documents the agency can revise without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Because it issued this as an interim final rule rather than a proposed one, the changes took effect on publication day even though USPS is voluntarily taking comments through October 26; ordinarily the public would get to weigh in before a change like this became binding, not after. The agency points to a recent Supreme Court decision describing NEPA as a “modest procedural requirement” and to congressional amendments passed in 2023 and 2025 as its legal footing for the rewrite.
    • Treasury/Office of Foreign Assets Control — a Syria policy shift becomes binding law with no public notice. OFAC amended its Terrorism List Governments Sanctions Regulations to eliminate a Syria-specific general license, formally catching the sanctions code up to Syria’s earlier removal from the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. The office skipped notice-and-comment rulemaking entirely under the “foreign affairs function” exception, the standard justification sanctions regulators use to put changes into effect without the public input that most rules require; that means a decision with real diplomatic consequences became enforceable law without anyone outside government getting a chance to weigh in on how it was carried out.
    • NASA — a penalty freeze traces back to last year’s shutdown. NASA announced it will keep its civil monetary penalties at 2025 levels for 2026 rather than adjusting them for inflation as the law requires each year, because the Bureau of Labor Statistics never published the October 2025 consumer price index data the calculation depends on. That gap traces back to last fall’s lapse in federal appropriations, which halted BLS data collection for weeks; under governmentwide guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, agencies across the federal government are freezing their penalty tables at 2025 levels instead, a small sign that routine regulatory housekeeping is still catching up nearly a year after the shutdown ended.
    • ATF/Department of Justice — a 23-year-old rule gets finished the same day a new one proposes to loosen it. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives finalized regulations it first issued as interim rules back in 2003, working through public comments that had been sitting since that year to lock in background-check, licensing, and delivery-verification requirements under the Safe Explosives Act. The same day, the bureau proposed a separate rule that would loosen how explosives must be stored, eliminating an entire category of required storage magazines and giving industry a 60-day comment window, the standard period regulators allow for the public to weigh in before a final version can take effect; ATF estimates the change would save industry roughly $4.9 million over ten years. Closing out a two-decade-old rulemaking and proposing to loosen the same category of rules on the same day is a pairing worth noticing, whatever the reason behind the timing.
    • Treasury/OFAC — a second same-day rule, and a second time comment was skipped. OFAC also consolidated its scattered civil and criminal sanctions-penalty provisions into a single regulatory framework, again invoking the foreign-affairs exception to bypass public comment on the grounds that the change is purely organizational and doesn’t alter any existing sanctions program. Two rules from the same office on the same day, both skipping comment under the same justification, is enough of a pattern to flag, since that exception rests entirely on the agency’s own say-so that a change is non-substantive rather than on any outside review.
    • Justice Department — ten petitions for new rules, all denied in one notice. DOJ published a single notice denying ten separate petitions filed under the Administrative Procedure Act asking the department to begin rulemakings covering immigration enforcement, health care, and firearms licensing, some of which had been pending since 2021. For several of the immigration-related denials, the department cited “alignment with current executive orders” as part of its reasoning, a reminder that a formal petition for rulemaking, one of the few tools the public has for forcing an agency to consider a specific change, can be turned down for policy reasons and not only legal ones.

    This edition draws on the full day’s Federal Register docket for September 25, 2026: 104 documents across 31 agencies. Excluded as routine: fifteen Securities and Exchange Commission self-regulatory-organization filings, agency information-collection and OMB/Paperwork Reduction Act notices, foreign-trade-zone and antidumping/countervailing-duty determinations, disaster declarations, Sunshine Act meeting notices, and four recurring CAFTA-DR textile-availability determinations.

  • Federal Register Watch: September 24, 2026

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission opened a proposed “wholesale revision” of its reactor-licensing and oversight rules today, on a docket where the Commerce Department also imposed an immediate, backdated import restriction on stockpiled polysilicon and the Federal Trade Commission quietly rewrote a cluster of its own internal procedural rules.

    • Nuclear Regulatory Commission — a “wholesale revision” of reactor oversight, not a routine update. The NRC published a proposed rule, Regulatory Enhancements for Reactor Licensing, Decommissioning, and Operational Oversight, describing it as part of a broader regulatory rewrite ordered by Executive Order 14300. Comments are due by November 9, giving the public and the nuclear industry roughly six weeks to weigh in before the agency can finalize anything; the notice itself offers few specifics on what would actually change, which makes that comment window the main opportunity to find out before the rule takes firmer shape.
    • Commerce/Industry and Security Bureau — an import restriction effective two days before it was published. The bureau’s temporary final rule restricting imports of polysilicon and its derivatives, aimed at companies it says are stockpiling the material ahead of tariff adjustments set for December 4 under Presidential Proclamation 11052, is listed as effective September 22 even though it only appeared in today’s Federal Register. A “temporary final rule” skips the advance notice-and-comment process that normally precedes a regulation, and a retroactive effective date compounds that: importers were bound by new registration, monitoring, and waiver requirements before they had any public notice the rule was coming.
    • NRC — the Air Force gets a binding order after mishandling a radioactive source. The commission issued a confirmatory order to the Department of the Air Force, locking in commitments the service made during mediation over a “stuck source event” at the panoramic irradiator at Kirtland Air Force Base. A confirmatory order converts a settlement’s promises — here, fixing the Air Force’s Radioisotope Committee, updating operating procedures, and strengthening safety culture — into a legally enforceable requirement, so a future lapse becomes a violation rather than just a broken promise; it’s a rare instance of one federal agency formally disciplining another over its handling of radioactive material.
    • FTC — two final rules the same day, one dropping a conflict-of-interest check, the other rewriting how the commission votes. One rule eliminates the agency’s post-employment clearance rule, which had required departing staff to clear a review before representing outside parties before the commission; a companion rule, effective the same day, revises how the FTC calculates a quorum, restores page limits for opening briefs, and adds new requirements for commissioner disqualification motions, among other procedural changes. Both took effect immediately with no advance comment period, and dropping an ethics screen the same day the commission also touches its own quorum and disqualification rules is the kind of pairing worth a second look, even without any sign of what prompted it.
    • Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review Board — most of what agencies wanted kept secret, stayed secret. The board’s latest Notice of Formal Determination on Records Release reports that NARA proposed withholding 450 pages across three cold-case incidents, then withdrew 25 of those requests after consultation; the board approved 424 of the remainder, about 94 percent, while clearing 2,987 pages in full and 63 pages in part for release. The board must publish these decisions within 14 days under the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018, and a high approval rate for the agencies’ own withholding requests is worth tracking edition to edition to see whether it holds.
    • HHS/Administration for Children and Families — $20 million to one nonprofit, no competition. The Office of Refugee Resettlement’s Refugee Program Bureau announced its intent to award a single-source cooperative agreement worth up to $20 million to the International Rescue Committee for a “National Virtual Program for Professional Advancement,” serving up to 1,334 refugees who arrived in the United States specifically between September 1 and September 30, 2026. A single-source notice is the government’s required public disclosure that it plans to skip competitive bidding, giving other providers a brief window to object before the award is locked in; the unusually narrow one-month arrival window for eligible refugees is the detail worth watching for in future notices.

    This edition draws on the full Federal Register docket for September 24, 2026: 106 documents in all. Excluded as routine: dozens of foreign-trade-zone subzone and production-activity notices, a batch of SEC self-regulatory-organization rule filings, antidumping and countervailing-duty determinations, routine EPA air-plan approvals and NESHAP information-collection renewals, controlled-substance manufacturer and importer registration notices, standard OMB/Paperwork Reduction Act information-collection comment requests, and routine agency meeting notices.

    Fediverse Reactions