Reports & Testimonies

  • GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed.

    GAO’s recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented. You can explore open recommendations by searching or browsing.

    GAO's priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. These recommendations are labeled as such. You can find priority recommendations by searching or browsing our open recommendations below, or through our mobile app.

  • Browse Open Recommendations

    Explore priority recommendations by subject terms or browse by federal agency

    Search Open Recommendations

    Search for a specific priority recommendation by word or phrase



  • Governing on the go?

    Our Priorities for Policy Makers app makes it easier for leaders to search our recommendations on the go.

    See the November 10th Press Release


  • Have a Question about a Recommendation?

    • For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
    • For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
  • « Back to Results List Sort by   

    Results:

    Subject Term: "Federal rulemaking"

    17 publications with a total of 56 open recommendations including 6 priority recommendations
    Director: Susan Fleming
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better position DOT and FHWA to effectively guide the transformation of federal surface transportation programs to a more performance-oriented approach, and to help states and MPOs overcome anticipated challenges, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator of FHWA to take the following two actions: 1. Develop a formal TPM implementation plan to include overarching implementation goals, specific actions FHWA plans to take to help states and MPOs successfully implement TPM, and corresponding timelines. 2. Publicly communicate this plan and approach to build a shared understanding of the goals and purpose of the transformation with its grantees.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Susan Fleming
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To leverage and build upon the ongoing efforts within individual DOT modal administrations and to address concerns raised by experts regarding collaboration and coordination, data quality and analytics, regulation development, project delivery processes, and addressing emerging issues, the Secretary of Transportation should: (1) conduct a department-wide review of DOT's current efforts to address these concerns; and (2) develop an action plan with specific steps to implement improvements, as identified, in these areas.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Susan Fleming
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    4 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: As DOT, in response to the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, conducts additional evaluation and analysis of ECP brakes and updates the regulatory impact analysis, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to take into account, in the updated regulatory impact analysis conducted in response to the FAST Act, potential uncertainty in key variables and assumptions, such as, but not limited to, fuel prices and future rail traffic of crude oil and ethanol, discuss this uncertainty, and present ranges of possible scenarios.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOT disagreed with this recommendation, asserting that we based our findings for this recommendation only on the views of industry and experts interviewed as part of our review. However, our justification for this recommendation is primarily based on data that DOT received from railroads, on what DOT reported in the rulemaking documents, and on clear criteria from OMB and others for conducting such analyses. To fully implement this recommendation, DOT should update its 2015 ECP Brake rule and the supporting regulatory impact analyses for ECP brakes, DOT should provide a range of possible scenarios and acknowledge uncertainty in certain estimates which could help increase confidence in those estimates and address stakeholder concerns.
    Recommendation: As DOT, in response to the FAST Act, conducts additional evaluation and analysis of ECP brakes and updates the regulatory impact analysis, the Secretary of Transportation should direct FRA and PHMSA to create a plan to collect data from railroads' ongoing and future operational experiences using ECP brakes. The plan should include details on how the agency will work with railroads to collect this data, ensure that such data are reliable, and analyze these data to conduct a retrospective analysis of the ECP brakes requirement that could help inform any potential future actions regarding ECP brakes.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions DOT has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: As DOT, in response to the FAST Act, conducts additional evaluation and analysis of ECP brakes and updates the regulatory impact analysis, if, based on its updated analysis, DOT promulgates a new rule on the applicable ECP brake system requirements, the Secretary of Transportation should direct FRA and PHMSA to require that freight railroads, once they equip with ECP brakes in response to the requirement, collect and provide data to FRA on their ongoing operational experience with ECP brakes.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions DOT has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: As DOT, in response to the FAST Act, conducts additional evaluation and analysis of ECP brakes and updates the regulatory impact analysis, the Secretary of Transportation should direct FRA and PHMSA to publish information--including data inputs, formulas, and results of all simulations and assumptions regarding DOT's use of the LS-DYNA model used and related analyses to support the 2015 final rule--that would allow a third party to fully assess and replicate the analysis.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions DOT has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Michelle Sager
    Phone: (202) 512-6806

    8 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should communicate more clearly the limitations of information not published in the IRB to taxpayers. Such action could include adding clarifying language to some pieces of information not published in the IRB, like FAQs, and amending policies and procedures, such as the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), to clarify when IRS information should contain a statement regarding its legal authority and whether the item can be used or cited as precedent.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, IRS has informed GAO that it has implemented the recommendation. GAO is in the process of verifying that the recommendation was successfully implemented.
    Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should amend current policies and procedures for drafting guidance to include factors to consider when deciding what type of guidance to issue and procedures for documenting those decisions internally.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, IRS has informed GAO that it has implemented the recommendation. GAO is in the process of verifying that the recommendation was successfully implemented.
    Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop policies and procedures to help guidance-drafting teams assess whether non-regulatory guidance should be considered a rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and in turn major, and document those assessments internally.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, IRS has informed GAO that it has implemented the recommendation. GAO is in the process of verifying that the recommendation was successfully implemented.
    Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should take action to ensure that required steps are consistently documented during key phases of the non-regulatory guidance process, as defined in the Chief Counsel Directives Manual.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, IRS has informed GAO that it has implemented the recommendation. GAO is in the process of verifying that the recommendation was successfully implemented.
    Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury should examine the relevance of the long-standing agreement that exempts certain IRS regulations from executive order requirements and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) oversight; and if relevant, make publicly available any reaffirmation of the agreement and the reasons for it.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: Treasury agreed with this recommendation. As of March 2017, Treasury stated that it has been reviewing IRS regulations in light of GAO's recommendations. Treasury also stated that Treasury and OMB have been assessing and discussing the relevance of the long-standing agreement that exempts certain IRS regulations from executive order requirements, but are waiting for key new appointees, including the OIRA administrator, to formalize the discussions.
    Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury should examine the relevance of the long-standing agreement that exempts certain IRS regulations from executive order requirements and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) oversight; and if relevant, make publicly available any reaffirmation of the agreement and the reasons for it.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, OMB has not responded to GAO's request for information about any actions taken to implement this recommendation.
    Recommendation: The Director of Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury should develop a process to ensure that OIRA has the information necessary to determine whether IRS rules are major under CRA and significant under E.O.12866. Consideration should be given on ways to solicit public comments on the potential effects of proposed regulations and non-regulatory guidance, including measures of economic impacts, and on how to document internally the consideration of significant comments by both IRS and OIRA.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury
    Status: Open

    Comments: Treasury agreed with this recommendation. As of March 2017, Treasury stated that it has been reviewing IRS regulations in light of GAO's recommendations. Treasury also stated that Treasury and OMB have been assessing and discussing the relevance of the long-standing agreement that exempts certain IRS regulations from executive order requirements, but are waiting for key new appointees, including the OIRA administrator, to formalize the discussions.
    Recommendation: The Director of Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Treasury should develop a process to ensure that OIRA has the information necessary to determine whether IRS rules are major under CRA and significant under E.O.12866. Consideration should be given on ways to solicit public comments on the potential effects of proposed regulations and non-regulatory guidance, including measures of economic impacts, and on how to document internally the consideration of significant comments by both IRS and OIRA.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, OMB has not responded to GAO's request for information about any actions taken to implement this recommendation.
    Director: James C. Cosgrove
    Phone: (202) 512-7114

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help improve CMS's process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, the Administrator of CMS should better document the process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, including the methods used to review RUC recommendations and the rationale for final relative value decisions.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS better document the process, including the methods used to review recommendations from the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) and the rationale for final relative value decisions. CMS concurred with this recommendation, stating that CMS establishes relative values for new, revised, and potentially misvalued physicians' services based on its review of a variety of sources of information, including the RUC. CMS officials told us the agency continues to improve the transparency of its process by proposing and finalizing changes to the process in the annual rule for the Physician Fee Schedule. Officials also told us that the agency is developing a means of displaying the direct practice expense inputs component of relative values in a consistent manner that will allow for greater transparency and documentation of the process, since currently the RUC recommends direct practice expense inputs to CMS through inconsistent formats that are not conducive to public transparency. Officials estimated that this process will take several years to complete. In order to close this recommendation as implemented, CMS will need to demonstrate that it has improved its internal and external documentation of its process for establishing relative values. As of August 2016, CMS has not provided any additional information about actions to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To help improve CMS's process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, the Administrator of CMS should develop a process for informing the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the RUC, as CMS already does for potentially misvalued services identified by CMS or other stakeholders.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS develop a process for informing the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), as CMS already does for potentially misvalued services identified by CMS or other stakeholders. CMS did not concur with this recommendation, asserting that the RUC is completely independent of CMS, and as such CMS has no authority to set the RUC's agenda for which services are reviewed. CMS reiterated their non-concurrence in February 2016. CMS officials noted that they recognize that some stakeholders, including those who are not participants in the RUC process, may not be aware of the new, revised, and potentially misvalued services that are under review by CMS prior to the establishment of interim final values in a final rule. For this reason and others, CMS proposed and finalized a change in its process for establishing or revising relative values for new, revised, or potentially misvalued services. Beginning in 2016, CMS will begin including proposed values for some of services in the annual proposed rulemaking for the Physician Fee Schedule, which means that the changes in values for these services will be open for public comment prior to them being finalized. In 2017, changes in values for almost all services will be included in the proposed rule for the Physician Fee Schedule. We continue to believe that CMS needs to inform the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the RUC, as the agency does for potentially misvalued services identified by other stakeholders for review. While the elimination of most interim final values in 2017 will allow stakeholders to comment on values before they become effective, we believe it is still important for CMS to inform stakeholders of those services identified by the RUC as potentially misvalued before CMS received RUC recommendations for these services and subsequently publishes the values in the proposed rule each year. Doing so would give stakeholders more time to provide input on values for services if they so choose before CMS included its proposed values in the annual proposed rulemaking, and we worded our recommendation to allow CMS to determine how to inform stakeholders of these services without delaying the timing of its revision of misvalued services.
    Recommendation: To help improve CMS's process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, the Administrator of CMS should incorporate data and expertise from physicians and other relevant stakeholders into the process as well as develop a timeline and plan for using the funds appropriated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS incorporate data and expertise from physicians and other relevant stakeholders into the process, as well as develop a timeline and plan for using the funds appropriated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA). CMS concurred with this recommendation, stating that stakeholders have the opportunity each year to nominate potentially misvalued services for review through a public nomination process. In order to develop a timeline and plan for using the funds appropriated by PAMA, CMS is assessing the research conducted by two external contractors to determine the most effective and fiscally responsible way to use the funds. This work is ongoing, and CMS is using this work to understand the data collection limitations that exist and help inform the development of a timeline for the use of PAMA funds. CMS anticipates releasing a contract solicitation prior to the end of the calendar year. In order to close this recommendation as implemented, CMS will need to demonstrate that it has incorporated data and expertise from relevant stakeholders and has developed a timeline and plan for using the funds appropriated by PAMA. As of August 2016, CMS has not provided any additional information about actions to address this recommendation.
    Director: Alicia Puente Cackley
    Phone: (202) 512-8678

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness, Congress should consider transferring the oversight of the markings of toy and imitation firearms in 15 U.S.C. 5001 from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (within the Department of Commerce) to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: This matter is an action identified in GAO's annual Duplication and Cost Savings reports. There has been no legislative action identified. The Gun Look-Alike Case Act, H.R. 3224, which was introduced on July 27, 2015, in the 114th Congress, would transfer the authority to regulate the markings of toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms in section 5001 of title 15 of the U.S. Code from NIST to CPSC, as GAO suggested in November 2014. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the United States House of Representatives, and did not pass out of committee. As of March 1, 2017, the bill has not been reintroduced in the 115th Congress.
    Recommendation: To improve existing coordination of oversight for consumer product safety, Congress should consider establishing a formal comprehensive oversight mechanism for consumer product safety agencies to address crosscutting issues as well as inefficiencies related to fragmentation and overlap such as communication and coordination challenges and jurisdictional questions between agencies. Different types of formal mechanisms could include, for example, creating a memorandum of understanding to formalize relationships and agreements or establishing a task force or interagency work group. As a starting point, Congress may wish to obtain agency input on options for establishing more formal coordination.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: This matter is an action identified in GAO's annual Duplication and Cost Savings reports. There has been no legislative action identified. No legislation was introduced as of March 1, 2017, that would establish a collaborative mechanism to facilitate communication across the relevant agencies and to help enable them to collectively address crosscutting issues, as GAO suggested in November 2014. Some of the agencies with direct regulatory oversight responsibilities for consumer product safety reported that they continue to collaborate to address specific consumer product safety topics. However, without a formal comprehensive oversight mechanism, the agencies risk missing opportunities to better leverage resources and address challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap.
    Director: Michelle Sager
    Phone: (202) 512-6806

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve transparency in the rulemaking process, provide agencies and the public with information on why regulations are considered to be significant regulatory actions, and promote consistency in the designation of rules as significant regulatory actions, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should work with agencies to clearly communicate the reasons for designating a regulation as a significant regulatory action. Specifically, OMB should encourage agencies to clearly state in the preamble of final significant regulations the section of Executive Order 12866's definition of a significant regulatory action that applies to the regulation.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: In a May 14, 2015 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Director of OMB stated that nothing in the Executive Order 12866 prevents agencies from identifying the particular relevant definition of significance in rules, and that some rules do contain this information. However, OMB believes it is appropriate to leave agencies flexibility in how they comply with Executive Order 12866, since such specific procedures for including such information is not a requirement of the Executive Order itself. As of February 2017, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not taken action. We will continue to monitor this to see whether action is taken.
    Director: Susan Fleming
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    1 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To address the increased risk posed by new gathering pipeline construction in shale development areas, the Secretary of Transportation, in conjunction with the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, should move forward with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address gathering pipeline safety that addresses the risks of larger-diameter, higher-pressure gathering pipelines, including subjecting such pipelines to emergency response planning requirements that currently do not apply.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: PHMSA has drafted proposed regulations for both gas and hazardous liquid gathering pipelines. Specifically, PHMSA published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking to separately address safety issues associated with hazardous liquid gathering pipelines in October 2015 and gas gathering pipelines in April 2016. These proposed regulations partly address our recommendation by proposing new rules to address risks posed by new gathering pipeline construction, but do not fully address our recommendation to subject these pipelines to emergency response planning requirements, particularly for hazardous liquid pipelines. As of October 2016, PHMSA has determined that it needs one year's worth of data before it can begin assessing what regulations are needed to fully address the risks of hazardous liquid pipelines.
    Director: J. Alfredo Gomez
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    5 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve future adherence to OMB guidance for conducting RIAs, the EPA Administrator should enhance the agency's review process for RIAs to ensure the transparency and clarity of information presented for selected elements in and across RIAs.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of 2016 EPA had not enhanced these aspects of Regulatory Impact Analyses nor did it express that it planned to do so. GAO will continue to monitor any EPA progress on this recommendation and update its status accordingly.
    Recommendation: To clarify the relationship between OMB Circular A-4 and an Interagency Working Group's Technical Support document for estimating the effects of changes in carbon dioxide emissions, and the approach agencies should use when informing decision makers and the public of their findings, the Director of OMB should consider continuing monitoring the economic literature and working with agencies to identify approaches for presenting social cost of carbon estimates with other analytical results that have been discounted at different rates to help agencies more transparently communicate about the circumstances unique to assessing the long-term effects of changes in carbon dioxide emissions.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: In a March 2016 update, OMB reported that the Interagency Working Group continues to monitor the economic literature and will also consider whether there are any new approaches for presenting social cost of carbon estimates with other analytical results that have been discounted at different rates that would help agencies more transparently communicate about the circumstances unique to assessing the long-term effects of changes in carbon dioxide emissions. It added that, as the National Academy of Sciences Committee may address the appropriate use of discount rates in calculating and presenting the social cost of carbon in Phase 2 of its report, it would be prudent to wait for Phase 2 of the report before making changes in this area to ensure that such changes are fully informed by any Committee recommendations. GAO will continue to monitor the Interagency Working Group's progress toward implementing this recommendation.
    Recommendation: In addition, to enhance the usefulness of EPA's RIAs, the EPA Administrator should identify and prioritize for research key categories of benefits and costs that the agency cannot currently monetize that, once monetized, would most enhance the agency's ability to consider economic trade-offs associated with different regulatory alternatives.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: EPA is making progress in the spirit of this recommendation and GAO is keeping this recommendation open until we can determine how EPA is using the SAB's work to develop its regulatory impact analyses.
    Recommendation: To clarify the relationship between OMB Circular A-4 and an Interagency Working Group's Technical Support document for estimating the effects of changes in carbon dioxide emissions, and the approach agencies should use when informing decision makers and the public of their findings, the Director of OMB should consider clarifying the relationship between OMB Circular A-4 and the Technical Support Document by increasing the visibility of relevant language in the Technical Support Document.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: In a March 2016 update, OMB said that in the Interagency Working Group's next update of the Technical Support Document, the Interagency Working Group will consider further clarification of the relationship between OMB Circular A-4 and the Technical Support Document through increasing the visibility of relevant language in the Technical Support Document. OMB did not specify the time frame for the next update. GAO will continue to monitor the Interagency Working Group's progress toward implementing this recommendation.
    Recommendation: In addition, to enhance the usefulness of EPA's RIAs, the EPA Administrator should continue efforts to update and improve the agency's approach to estimating employment effects.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: EPA is making progress in the spirit of this recommendation and GAO is keeping the recommendation open until seeing the outcome of these efforts in the form of an updated Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.
    Director: Mathew J.Scirè
    Phone: (202) 512-8678

    6 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better ensure the viability and safety of manufactured housing produced in accordance with the HUD Code, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development should develop a plan to assess how FHA financing might further promote the affordability of manufactured homes and identify the potential for better securitization of manufactured housing financing.

    Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better ensure the viability and safety of manufactured housing produced in accordance with the HUD Code, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development should strengthen the oversight of inspections and enforcement-related activities by (1) consistently documenting actions taken to resolve recommendations from completed audits and the outcome of such actions, (2) completing a Transition Plan for the monitoring contractor activity, and (3) exploring the feasibility of developing a cost-effective systematic process for collecting and evaluating information on the content of complaints.

    Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better ensure that Congress, stakeholders, and agencies have complete information about changing costs and whether a fee needs to be changed, HUD should complete the necessary rulemaking changes to allow the Office of Manufactured Housing Programs to adjust its label fees from the $39 per label toward levels up to the congressionally authorized level that better reflect the current levels of manufactured home production, while considering the impact that such fees may have on the industry; put in place a process for regular fee reviews to determine whether the fees currently being charged will allow the program to respond to spikes and surges in label fee revenue and to identify any factors that may drive label fee revenue instability; and identify any additional sources of funding that may mitigate initial revenue shortfalls and the program's fixed and variable costs.

    Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better ensure that Congress, stakeholders, and agencies have complete information about changing costs and whether a fee needs to be changed, HUD should assess the feasibility, including an analysis of the benefits and costs, of putting in place user fees for its dispute resolution and installation programs.

    Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better ensure that Congress, stakeholders, and agencies have complete information about changing costs and whether a fee needs to be changed, HUD should establish the goals for use of reserves of the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund, and the minimum and maximum thresholds for the reserves appropriate for meeting these goals.

    Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better ensure the viability and safety of manufactured housing produced in accordance with the HUD Code, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should develop and implement a plan for updating construction and safety standards for manufactured homes on a timely, recurring basis to include: (1) addressing unresolved issues related to defining and developing sufficient economic analyses tied to proposed changes to the construction and safety standards; and (2) ensuring sufficient resources and capacity within HUD and the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee and its administering organization; or if such a plan cannot be devised and implemented, identify and report to Congress on alternative methods of ensuring the quality, durability, safety, and affordability of manufactured homes, including the possibility of relying more extensively on existing industry standards.

    Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Gomez, Jose A
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that EPA's oversight of the class II program is effective at protecting drinking water sources from the underground injection of large amounts of wastewater that will be produced with increasing domestic oil and gas production, and to support nationwide reporting goals until the national UIC database is complete, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should (1) improve the 7520 data for reporting purposes, as well as to help with quality assurance for the national UIC database, by developing and implementing a protocol for states and regions to enter data consistently and for regions to check 7520 data for consistency and completeness to ensure that data collected from state and EPA-managed class II programs are complete and comparable for purposes of reporting at a national level, and (2) in the interim, develop a method to use the 7520 database to report UIC data, including data on class II wells, until the national UIC database is fully populated with state data.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: In November 2016, EPA said that its 7520 database is current as of 2014 and the quality assurance process has been completed. It is developing a method to use the database to report aggregated national data on the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.
    Recommendation: To ensure that EPA's oversight of the class II program is effective at protecting drinking water sources from the underground injection of large amounts of wastewater that will be produced with increasing domestic oil and gas production, and to ensure that EPA maintains enforcement authority of state program requirements, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should (1) conduct a rulemaking to incorporate state program requirements, and changes to state program requirements, into federal regulations, and (2) at the same time, evaluate and consider alternative processes to more efficiently incorporate future changes to state program requirements into federal regulations without a rulemaking.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: EPA agrees with GAO's analysis that state program requirements and changes should be approved and codified in federal regulations. However, EPA does not agree with GAO's recommendation to conduct one comprehensive rulemaking to achieve this. In November 2016, EPA officials said they will continue to explore alternative methods for maintaining federal enforceability under the current statutory provisions; it plans to finish its efforts in January 2017. GAO will continue to monitor this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To ensure that EPA's oversight of the class II program is effective at protecting drinking water sources from the underground injection of large amounts of wastewater that will be produced with increasing domestic oil and gas production, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should evaluate and revise, as needed, UIC program guidance on effective oversight to identify essential activities that EPA headquarters and regions need to conduct to effectively oversee state and EPA managed programs.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: In November 2016, EPA stated that it has developed a national framework for oversight of the UIC program and to transfer knowledge to new staff. EPA said that it will continue to evaluate whether to update its guidance. We are continuing to monitor EPA's progress on this recommendation.
    Director: Charlie Jeszeck
    Phone: (202) 512-7215

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve IRS's enforcement and compliance efforts, decrease the administrative and financial burden of maintaining both electronic and paper-based form processing systems, and reduce plan reporting costs, Congress should consider providing the Department of the Treasury with the authority to require that the Form 5500 series be filed electronically.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of 5/31/17, Congress has taken no action.
    Recommendation: To improve the usefulness, reliability, and comparability of Form 5500 data for all stakeholders while limiting the burden on the filing community, the Secretaries of DOL and Treasury, and the Director of PBGC should consider implementing the findings from our panel when modifying plan investment and service provider fee information, including: (1) revising Schedule H plan asset categories to better match current investment vehicles and provide more transparency into plan investments; (2) revising the Schedule of Assets attachments to create a standard searchable format; (3) developing a central repository for EIN and PN numbers for filers and service providers to improve the comparability of form data across filings; (4) clarifying Schedule C instructions for direct, eligible indirect, and reportable indirect compensation so plan fees are reported more consistently and, as we recommended in the past, better align with the 408(b)(2) fee disclosures; and (5) simplifying and clarify Schedule C service provider codes to increase reporting consistency.

    Agency: Department of Labor
    Status: Open

    Comments: In 2016, DOL in coordination with IRS and PBGC has implemented cross-year edit checks into EFAST in an effort to improve the consistency in key identifying information, such as the EIN, Plan Number and Plan Name. These checks aim to verify identifying information submitted on the Form 5500 and to notify the filer and government agencies of inconsistencies, which affords filers the ability to review and modify crucial identifying information prior to submission. Additionally, if the filer chooses to submit data that may contain inconsistent information, the edit test indicators provide government users with the ability to more readily detect filings containing potential errors in the identifying information for further review and correction. DOL has also collaborated with PBGC and IRS in issuing proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Series in a Notice of Proposed Forms Revisions. The deadline for public comment ended December 5, 2016. The proposed revisions in the Notice reflect efforts of DOL, IRS, and PBGC to improve the Form 5500 reporting for filers, the public, and the agencies by among other things, (1) modernizing financial information filed by regarding plans; (2) updating fee and expense information on plan service providers with a focus on harmonizing annual reporting requirement with DOL's 408(b)(2); financial disclosure requirements; (3) enhancing the ability to mine data files on annual returns/reports; and (4) improving compliance with ERISA and the Code through selected new questions regarding plan operation, service provider relationships, and financial management of plans. Specifically, in the Notice the agencies propose that Schedule H report assets held and assets disposed of during the plan year to provide more transparency and a more complete report of plan's annual investments and that that the Schedule of Assets be revised to require reporting of assets held through direct filing entities. Additionally, the agencies are proposing revisions to the Schedule H, Schedule of Assets that require filers to complete standardized Schedules in a format enabling data to captured electronically. This requirement would enable importation of information from the Schedules of Assets into structured databases that DOL would make available to the public from each year's Form 5500 Series filing. The agencies are also proposing to add clarifying definitions and instructions to improve the consistency of Form 5000 responses. This includes clarification of conventions to identify filers by name and identifying numbers to help mitigate confusion about legal identities with which plans transact and improve comparability of form data across filings. In addition, the agencies also propose revisions to Schedule C to require reporting of indirect compensation for service provider subject to 408(b)(2) requirements and for all compensation that is required to be disclosed. Further, the Schedule C instructions would be clarified to track more closely with the language of the 408(b)(2) regulations. The agencies are also proposing to limit the codes for Schedule C and requiring the filer to more simply indicate all types of services for each provider identified. Additionally, they propose a requirement to indicate all the types of fees/compensation separately when reporting sources of compensation from parties other than plan and plan sponsor. The agencies are reviewing the public comments and expect the process to continue through 2017. While the Agencies have made considerable efforts to address our recommendation in the proposed revisions to the Form 5500, they have not made any decisions on whether to make changes to the forms or DOL regulations, and have not decided on a timeline for implementation of any changes to the form or DOL regulations that the Agencies ultimately may decide to adopt. We will close this recommendation once the revision is final.
    Recommendation: To improve the usefulness, reliability, and comparability of Form 5500 data for all stakeholders while limiting the burden on the filing community, the Secretaries of DOL and Treasury, and the Director of PBGC should consider implementing the findings from our panel when modifying plan investment and service provider fee information, including: (1) revising Schedule H plan asset categories to better match current investment vehicles and provide more transparency into plan investments; (2) revising the Schedule of Assets attachments to create a standard searchable format; (3) developing a central repository for EIN and PN numbers for filers and service providers to improve the comparability of form data across filings; (4) clarifying Schedule C instructions for direct, eligible indirect, and reportable indirect compensation so plan fees are reported more consistently and, as we recommended in the past, better align with the 408(b)(2) fee disclosures; and (5) simplifying and clarify Schedule C service provider codes to increase reporting consistency.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury
    Status: Open

    Comments: In 2016, DOL in coordination with IRS and PBGC has implemented cross-year edit checks into EFAST in an effort to improve the consistency in key identifying information, such as the EIN, Plan Number and Plan Name. These checks aim to verify identifying information submitted on the Form 5500 and to notify the filer and government agencies of inconsistencies, which affords filers the ability to review and modify crucial identifying information prior to submission. Additionally, if the filer chooses to submit data that may contain inconsistent information, the edit test indicators provide government users with the ability to more readily detect filings containing potential errors in the identifying information for further review and correction. IRS has also collaborated with DOL and PBGC in issuing proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Series in a Notice of Proposed Forms Revisions. The deadline for public comment ended December 5, 2016. The proposed revisions in the Notice reflect efforts of DOL, IRS, and PBGC to improve the Form 5500 reporting for filers, the public, and the agencies by among other things, (1) modernizing financial information filed by regarding plans; (2) updating fee and expense information on plan service providers with a focus on harmonizing annual reporting requirement with DOL's 408(b)(2); financial disclosure requirements; (3) enhancing the ability to mine data files on annual returns/reports; and (4) improving compliance with ERISA and the Code through selected new questions regarding plan operation, service provider relationships, and financial management of plans. Specifically, in the Notice the agencies propose that Schedule H report assets held and assets disposed of during the plan year to provide more transparency and a more complete report of plan's annual investments and that that the Schedule of Assets be revised to require reporting of assets held through direct filing entities. Additionally, the agencies are proposing revisions to the Schedule H, Schedule of Assets that require filers to complete standardized Schedules in a format enabling data to captured electronically. This requirement would enable importation of information from the Schedules of Assets into structured databases that DOL would make available to the public from each year's Form 5500 Series filing. The agencies are also proposing to add clarifying definitions and instructions to improve the consistency of Form 5000 responses. This includes clarification of conventions to identify filers by name and identifying numbers to help mitigate confusion about legal identities with which plans transact and improve comparability of form data across filings. In addition, the agencies also propose revisions to Schedule C to require reporting of indirect compensation for service provider subject to 408(b)(2) requirements and for all compensation that is required to be disclosed. Further, the Schedule C instructions would be clarified to track more closely with the language of the 408(b)(2) regulations. The agencies are also proposing to limit the codes for Schedule C and requiring the filer to more simply indicate all types of services for each provider identified. Additionally, they propose a requirement to indicate all the types of fees/compensation separately when reporting sources of compensation from parties other than plan and plan sponsor. The agencies are reviewing the public comments and expect the process to continue through 2017. While the Agencies have made considerable efforts to address our recommendation in the proposed revisions to the Form 5500, they have not made any decisions on whether to make changes to the forms or DOL regulations, and have not decided on a timeline for implementation of any changes to the form or DOL regulations that the Agencies ultimately may decide to adopt. We will close this recommendation once the revision is final.
    Recommendation: To improve the usefulness, reliability, and comparability of Form 5500 data for all stakeholders while limiting the burden on the filing community, the Secretaries of DOL and Treasury, and the Director of PBGC should consider implementing the findings from our panel when modifying plan investment and service provider fee information, including: (1) revising Schedule H plan asset categories to better match current investment vehicles and provide more transparency into plan investments; (2) revising the Schedule of Assets attachments to create a standard searchable format; (3) developing a central repository for EIN and PN numbers for filers and service providers to improve the comparability of form data across filings; (4) clarifying Schedule C instructions for direct, eligible indirect, and reportable indirect compensation so plan fees are reported more consistently and, as we recommended in the past, better align with the 408(b)(2) fee disclosures; and (5) simplifying and clarify Schedule C service provider codes to increase reporting consistency.

    Agency: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
    Status: Open

    Comments: In 2016, DOL in coordination with IRS and PBGC has implemented cross-year edit checks into EFAST in an effort to improve the consistency in key identifying information, such as the EIN, Plan Number and Plan Name. These checks aim to verify identifying information submitted on the Form 5500 and to notify the filer and government agencies of inconsistencies, which affords filers the ability to review and modify crucial identifying information prior to submission. Additionally, if the filer chooses to submit data that may contain inconsistent information, the edit test indicators provide government users with the ability to more readily detect filings containing potential errors in the identifying information for further review and correction. PBDC has also collaborated with DOL and IRS in issuing proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Series in a Notice of Proposed Forms Revisions. The deadline for public comment ended December 5, 2016. The proposed revisions in the Notice reflect efforts of DOL, IRS, and PBGC to improve the Form 5500 reporting for filers, the public, and the agencies by among other things, (1) modernizing financial information filed by regarding plans; (2) updating fee and expense information on plan service providers with a focus on harmonizing annual reporting requirement with DOL's 408(b)(2); financial disclosure requirements; (3) enhancing the ability to mine data files on annual returns/reports; and (4) improving compliance with ERISA and the Code through selected new questions regarding plan operation, service provider relationships, and financial management of plans. Specifically, in the Notice the agencies propose that Schedule H report assets held and assets disposed of during the plan year to provide more transparency and a more complete report of plan's annual investments and that that the Schedule of Assets be revised to require reporting of assets held through direct filing entities. Additionally, the agencies are proposing revisions to the Schedule H, Schedule of Assets that require filers to complete standardized Schedules in a format enabling data to captured electronically. This requirement would enable importation of information from the Schedules of Assets into structured databases that DOL would make available to the public from each year's Form 5500 Series filing. The agencies are also proposing to add clarifying definitions and instructions to improve the consistency of Form 5000 responses. This includes clarification of conventions to identify filers by name and identifying numbers to help mitigate confusion about legal identities with which plans transact and improve comparability of form data across filings. In addition, the agencies also propose revisions to Schedule C to require reporting of indirect compensation for service provider subject to 408(b)(2) requirements and for all compensation that is required to be disclosed. Further, the Schedule C instructions would be clarified to track more closely with the language of the 408(b)(2) regulations. The agencies are also proposing to limit the codes for Schedule C and requiring the filer to more simply indicate all types of services for each provider identified. Additionally, they propose a requirement to indicate all the types of fees/compensation separately when reporting sources of compensation from parties other than plan and plan sponsor. The agencies are reviewing the public comments and expect the process to continue through 2017. While the Agencies have made considerable efforts to address our recommendation in the proposed revisions to the Form 5500, they have not made any decisions on whether to make changes to the forms or DOL regulations, and have not decided on a timeline for implementation of any changes to the form or DOL regulations that the Agencies ultimately may decide to adopt. We will close this recommendation once any revision are made final.
    Director: Woods, William T
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To make guidance for contract consolidation consistent with current law, the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of General Services should act expeditiously to update or establish agency guidance for consolidated contracts after the Small Business Administration rulemaking is completed.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and said it plans to update its acquisition regulation for consolidated contracts after the Small Business Administration (SBA) rule is finalized and changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) are complete. The SBA's final rule was issued in October 2013. This change was incorporated in the FAR in September 2016. As of August 2017, DOD had not provided an update on actions taken to update the defense acquisition regulation.
    Director: Trimble, David C
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    3 open recommendations
    including 3 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To better position EPA to collect chemical toxicity and exposure-related data and ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, while balancing its workload, the Administrator of EPA should consider promulgating a rule under TSCA section 8, or take action under another section, as appropriate, to require chemical companies to report chemical toxicity and exposure-related data they have submitted to the European Chemicals Agency.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, EPA is better positioned to take action to require chemical companies to report chemical toxicity and exposure-related data submitted to the European Chemicals Agency due to passage of the new TSCA law, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Since the law was signed by the President on June 22, 2016, EPA finalized a rule to establish the agency's process for evaluating high priority chemicals to determine whether or not they present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment and finalized a rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured or processed in the US over the past 10 years. However, EPA has not yet carried out actions consistent with the substance of our recommendation. Once EPA has carried out such actions, we will reassess the status of this open recommendation.
    Recommendation: To better position EPA to collect chemical toxicity and exposure-related data and ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, while balancing its workload, the Administrator of EPA should consider promulgating a rule under TSCA section 8, or take action under another section, as appropriate, to require chemical companies to report exposure-related data from processors to EPA.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, EPA is better positioned to take action to require chemical companies to report exposure-related data from processors to EPA due to passage of the new TSCA law, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Since the law was signed by the President on June 22, 2016, EPA has completed some implementation activities, including finalizing a rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured or processed in the US over the past 10 years. However, EPA has not yet carried out actions consistent with the substance of our open recommendation. Once EPA has carried out such actions, we will reassess the status of this open recommendation.
    Recommendation: To better position EPA to collect chemical toxicity and exposure-related data and ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, while balancing its workload, and to better position EPA to ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, the Administrator of EPA should direct the appropriate offices to develop strategies for addressing challenges that impede the agency's ability to meet its goal of ensuring chemical safety. At a minimum, the strategies should address challenges associated with: (1) obtaining toxicity and exposure data needed to conduct ongoing and future TSCA Work Plan risk assessments, (2) gaining access to toxicity and exposure data provided to the European Chemicals Agency, (3) working with processors and processor associations to obtain exposure-related data, (4) banning or limiting the use of chemicals under section 6 of TSCA and planned actions for overcoming these challenges--including a description of other actions the agency plans to pursue in lieu of banning or limiting the use of chemicals, and (5) identifying the resources needed to conduct risk assessments and implement risk management decisions in order to meet its goal of ensuring chemical safety.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, EPA is better positioned to take action to require chemical companies to report chemical toxicity and exposure data, analyze the data, take necessary actions, and identify the resources needed for evaluating and managing risk to ensure chemical safety due to passage of the new TSCA law, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Since the new law was signed by the President on June 22, 2016, EPA finalized a rule to establish the agency's process for evaluating high priority chemicals to determine whether or not they present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment and finalized a rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured or processed in the U.S. over the past 10 years. However, EPA has not yet carried out actions consistent with the substance of our recommendation, including actually obtaining the data necessary to make risk-informed regulatory decisions, and then making those decisions as appropriate. Once EPA has carried out such actions, we will reassess the status of this open recommendation.
    Director: Emrey Arras, Melissa H
    Phone: (617)788-0534

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better balance the benefits of expedited rulemaking procedures with the benefits of public comments that are typically part of regular notice-and-comment rulemakings, and improve the quality and transparency of rulemaking records, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Chairman of Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), should issue guidance to encourage agencies to respond to comments on final major rules, for which the agency has discretion, that are issued without a prior notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: In comments on the draft report, OMB disagreed with GAO's recommendation. OMB stated that it did not believe it was necessary to issue guidance on this topic at that time. In July 2014, OMB said that it had no further comments on this recommendation. As of June 2017, OMB had not provided any additional responses to GAO's requests for an update on the status of this recommendation.
    Director: Scire, Mathew J
    Phone: (202) 512-8678

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better ensure that air ventilation systems in manufactured homes perform as specified and meet the HUD Code, HUD should develop an appropriate method to test and validate the performance of the ventilation system as part of the HUD certification process.

    Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Status: Open

    Comments: In March 2017, HUD stated that it has not developed a test to validate the performance of the whole-house ventilation specification. We continue to believe that developing such a test will better ensure that air ventilation systems in manufactured homes perform as specified and meet the HUD Code.
    Director: Clowers, Angela N
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    11 open recommendations
    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To strengthen the rigor and transparency of their regulatory analyses, the federal financial regulators should take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and consistently applied.

    Agency: National Credit Union Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, NCUA told us that it is nearing completion of agency internal policies that standardize and institutionalize the rulemaking process within NCUA. According to agency officials, these policies will document NCUA's current practice related to OMB's regulatory analysis guidance. The policies will be issued to appropriate staff by the end of 2016. At that time, we will review the policies to review the extent to which they incorporate the practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance.
    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency: National Credit Union Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, NCUA noted that all of the agency's regulations are reviewed at least every three years, during an established rotation, so that every year one-third of the agency's regulations are open to comment from the public. NCUA reported that it recently launched a comprehensive multi-year project to update the agency's main data collection and analytic systems. Agency officials stated that the updates will ensure that the agency collects the data needed to assess the effectiveness and impact of applicable regulations. We will continue to monitor NCUA's progress in updating its information systems for purposes of retrospective reviews.
    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
    Status: Open

    Comments: In March 2017, the federal banking regulators sent Congress their report of the second Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA). Under EGRPRA, the regulators must jointly conduct a review of their regulations every 10 years and consider whether any of the regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. The regulators included within their review's scope some regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. To carry out the EGRPRA review, the regulators generally solicited public comments on their covered regulations through Federal Register notices and public outreach meetings. Although the regulators addressed some of the issues raised by EGRPRA commenters to reduce regulatory burden, they generally focused on identifying regulatory burdens, as required by the law, and not on measuring the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act regulations to assess the extent to which they are achieving their intended purposes. For this reason, our recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To strengthen the rigor and transparency of their regulatory analyses, the federal financial regulators should take steps to better ensure that the specific practices in OMB's regulatory analysis guidance are more fully incorporated into their rulemaking policies and consistently applied.

    Agency: Federal Reserve System
    Status: Open

    Comments: We sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in May 2016 regarding the status of the recommendation, but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts, the federal financial regulators have begun to take steps to address challenges associated with promulgating hundreds of new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act. To maximize the usefulness of the required retrospective reviews, the federal financial regulatory agencies should develop plans that determine how they will measure the impact of Dodd-Frank Act regulations--for example, determining how and when to collect, analyze, and report needed data.

    Agency: Federal Reserve System
    Status: Open

    Comments: In March 2017, the federal banking regulators sent Congress their report of the second Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA). Under EGRPRA, the regulators must jointly conduct a review of their regulations every 10 years and consider whether any of the regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. The regulators included within their review's scope some regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. To carry out the EGRPRA review, the regulators generally solicited public comments on their covered regulations through Federal Register notices and public outreach meetings. Although the regulators addressed some of the issues raised by EGRPRA commenters to reduce regulatory burden, they generally focused on identifying regulatory burdens, as required by the law, and not on measuring the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act regulations to assess the extent to which they are achieving their intended purposes. For this reason, our recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
    Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency: Federal Reserve System
    Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
    Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, CFTC officials stated that FSOC has written protocols for consulting on rules for which coordination is required under the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, in May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To enhance interagency coordination on regulations issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC should work with the federal financial regulatory agencies to establish formal coordination policies that clarify issues such as when coordination should occur, the process that will be used to solicit and address comments, and what role FSOC should play in facilitating coordination.

    Agency: National Credit Union Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, NCUA stated that it continues to work closely with the other federal financial agencies regarding rulemaking, and formally coordinates with them during joint rulemaking initiatives. Agency officials said they would comply with any future coordination guidance provided by FSOC. In May 2015, FSOC created the Regulations and Resolutions Committee to identify potential gaps in regulation that could pose risks to the U.S. financial stability. The committee's duties include serving as a forum for information sharing and coordination among the FSOC staff, member agencies and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate, regarding domestic financial services policy development, and consulting, as appropriate, on the development of regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority. While the committee's duties should help promote greater collaboration, they do not constitute a formal rulemaking coordination policy addressing, for example, when coordination should occur, processes for soliciting and addressing comments, and FSOC role in facilitating coordination among and between the financial regulators. In its 2010 comment letter, FSOC noted that it provides a forum for interagency collaboration and consultation, in part through its committees, and has not indicated any plans to develop a formal rulemaking coordination policy as we recommended, in part because of its need to preserve the independence of the regulators. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.