Recommendation: The Assistant General Counsel should provide additional information on the process OACP uses to investigate potential consumer protection violations, to assess risk, and to pursue enforcement actions and establish a timeframe for doing so. Such transparency could be provided through the handbook that OACP is currently drafting or through other public means such as providing additional information on its website. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Office of Aviation Consumer Protection
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Assistant General Counsel should take steps to provide transparency and clarity into the results of OACP's enforcement of consume including investigations that do not result in a consent order. Such information could be aggregated data about cases, investigations, or warning letters. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Office of Aviation Consumer Protection
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of USPTO should develop an agency-wide approach to collect information to help evaluate outreach efforts and overall effectiveness of USPTO services aimed at assisting small businesses and inventors that seek to obtain intellectual property protections. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Commerce: Patent and Trademark Office
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: As SBA develops the partnership agreement as required by the Small Business Innovation Protection Act of 2017, the Associate Administrator for SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development should document how SBA and USPTO will coordinate and leverage existing resources. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: As SBA develops the partnership agreement as required by the Small Business Innovation Protection Act of 2017, the Associate Administrator for SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development should develop ways to track SBDC implementation of intellectual property training with USPTO. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: As SBA develops the partnership agreement as required by the Small Business Innovation Protection Act of 2017, the Associate Administrator for SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development should clarify the office's roles and responsibilities in helping SBDCs provide intellectual property training with USPTO. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: SBA's Associate Administrator for Government Contracting and Business Development should develop a central repository for PCRs to store the supporting documentation for the data they report on their activities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: SBA's Associate Administrator for Government Contracting and Business Development should ensure that SBA submits required reports to Congress on PCRs' assignments and activities. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator should ensure Commercial Market Representatives clearly and consistently document compliance reviews and maintain these records. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator of the Office of Entrepreneurial Development should reevaluate the SBDC funding application requirements, including reexamining the funding estimate SBDCs are required to use and considering other changes that could reduce administrative burdens on SBDCs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration in the agencies' interagency agreement for the joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA and USDA partially concurred with this recommendation. FDA stated that it concurred with the intent of incorporating the seven leading practices into the interagency agreement, and both agencies said that they are open to incorporating the practices into their development of the structure for joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. However, the agencies stated that they did not agree to revise the agreement at this time. FDA and USDA stated that the agreement is a general framework and that incorporating the leading practices would constitute an inappropriate level of detail. Instead, the agencies stated that they believe it would be most valuable to incorporate the leading practices into a more detailed joint framework or standard operating procedure they plan to issue. We appreciate the agencies' willingness to incorporate the leading practices for effective collaboration into their efforts. The March 2019 interagency agreement states that the agencies have the ability to modify it as needed and will review the agreement every 3 years to determine whether they should modify or terminate it. Therefore, the agencies are due to revisit the agreement in March 2022, if not sooner. Regarding the agencies' concern that incorporating the leading practices in the interagency agreement would add an inappropriate level of detail, we note that, as we state in our report, the existing agreement already partially incorporates each of the seven leading practices. We continue to believe that FDA and USDA should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration into their interagency agreement for the joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. Developing a more detailed joint framework or standard operating procedure in accordance with the existing interagency agreement that incorporates those leading practices would meet the intent of our recommendation to improve the effectiveness of the agencies' collaboration.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration in the agencies' interagency agreement for the joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: FDA and USDA partially concurred with this recommendation. FDA stated that it concurred with the intent of incorporating the seven leading practices into the interagency agreement, and both agencies said that they are open to incorporating the practices into their development of the structure for joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. However, the agencies stated that they did not agree to revise the agreement at this time. FDA and USDA stated that the agreement is a general framework and that incorporating the leading practices would constitute an inappropriate level of detail. Instead, the agencies stated that they believe it would be most valuable to incorporate the leading practices into a more detailed joint framework or standard operating procedure they plan to issue. We appreciate the agencies' willingness to incorporate the leading practices for effective collaboration into their efforts. The March 2019 interagency agreement states that the agencies have the ability to modify it as needed and will review the agreement every 3 years to determine whether they should modify or terminate it. Therefore, the agencies are due to revisit the agreement in March 2022, if not sooner. Regarding the agencies' concern that incorporating the leading practices in the interagency agreement would add an inappropriate level of detail, we note that, as we state in our report, the existing agreement already partially incorporates each of the seven leading practices. We continue to believe that FDA and USDA should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration into their interagency agreement for the joint oversight of cell-cultured meat. Developing a more detailed joint framework or standard operating procedure in accordance with the existing interagency agreement that incorporates those leading practices would meet the intent of our recommendation to improve the effectiveness of the agencies' collaboration.

Recommendation: As the three cell-cultured meat working groups move forward, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration, such as identifying specific outcomes and a way to monitor and evaluate progress toward outcomes. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, FDA officials agreed with this recommendation. We will follow up to determine what steps they take to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: As the three cell-cultured meat working groups move forward, the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, should more fully incorporate the seven leading practices for effective collaboration, such as identifying specific outcomes and a way to monitor and evaluate progress toward outcomes. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, USDA officials agreed with this recommendation. We will follow up to determine what steps they take to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, should clearly document in their interagency agreement, or other publicly available document, which agency will oversee cell-cultured seafood other than catfish. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, FDA officials agreed with this recommendation. We will follow up to determine what steps they take to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, should clearly document in their interagency agreement, or other publicly available document, which agency will oversee cell-cultured seafood other than catfish. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, USDA officials agreed with this recommendation. We will follow up to determine what steps they take to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for the Office of Disaster Assistance should identify and document risks associated with its disaster response and plans to mitigate these risks in its disaster planning documentation. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration: Office of Disaster Assistance
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SBA agreed with the recommendation. SBA noted that relevant agency offices would collaborate to identify and document known risks associated with SBA's disaster response and implement a risk-informed approach to its direct response and recovery operations.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for the Office of Disaster Assistance should identify the key elements of a disaster action plan and provide additional guidance to staff on how to incorporate these elements into future action plans. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Small Business Administration: Office of Disaster Assistance
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SBA agreed with the recommendation. SBA noted that the agency would develop the key elements of and templates for a disaster action plan, provide guidance to field operations centers, and update the agency's Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Plan.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for the Office of Disaster Assistance should update its outreach plan to include information on region-specific risks or challenges, such as those encountered after the 2017 hurricanes. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Small Business Administration: Office of Disaster Assistance
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for the Office of Disaster Assistance should establish metrics to measure the success of its outreach efforts during the response to a disaster. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Small Business Administration: Office of Disaster Assistance
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for the Office of Capital Access should evaluate the implementation of the Express Bridge Loan Pilot Program to determine why so few loans have been made and if any design changes may be warranted before the end of the pilot. Such an evaluation could include assessing SBA's outreach efforts and seeking feedback from lenders. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Small Business Administration: Office of Disaster Assistance
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Financial Assistance should review and enhance guidance for the Microloan Program to ensure definitions of data collected, such as income, are clear and instructions are comprehensive for data needed, such as for borrower business outcomes and technical assistance. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Directors of the Office of Financial Assistance and Office of Program Performance, Analysis, and Evaluation should develop a performance target to assess the Microloan Program's progress in achieving its statutory purpose of assisting women, low-income, veteran, and minority entrepreneurs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Directors of the Office of Financial Assistance and Office of Program Performance, Analysis, and Evaluation should ensure that appropriate advance planning occurs during the development of the new Microloan Program data reporting system by involving relevant offices within SBA in system design and considering data needed to assess program performance. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator should explore opportunities for additional interagency collaboration and information sharing with other federal agencies that engage in microlending activities, such as Treasury and USDA, and take steps to implement new collaborative efforts as warranted. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Financial Assistance should examine ways to incorporate public reporting of additional Microloan Program information into the design of the new data reporting system. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator should assign and document clear roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines for headquarters offices' implementation of SBA's plan for addressing the White House Initiative on HBCUs in a timely manner. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator of the Office of Entrepreneurial Development should take and document steps to ensure that the office's reporting mechanisms collect the information needed to establish a baseline for, and also inform future monitoring and assessment of, efforts to support HBCUs. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrators of the Office of Entrepreneurial Development and Office of Field Operations should communicate planned efforts to support HBCUs, including expectations, goals, and related measures, to the district offices and Small Business Development Centers with HBCUs in their service areas. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should work with the Commissioner of FDA to develop a mechanism to facilitate coordination with relevant nonfederal stakeholders, including state, local, and tribal governments, on actions related to date labels as part of their efforts to reduce food loss and waste. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA agreed with our recommendation and is planning actions to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should work with the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a mechanism to facilitate coordination with relevant nonfederal stakeholders, including state, local, and tribal governments, on actions related to date labels as part of their efforts to reduce food loss and waste. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA agreed with our recommendation and is taking actions to implement the recommendation. For example, as of August 2020, FDA said it is meeting regularly with USDA and EPA to coordinate activities including to clarify and communicate information on food date labels. FDA also named a representative to the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) Food Recovery Committee. FDA is encouraging the Committee to explore how date labels on packaged foods can create a barrier to food donation and to track state legislative activities related to date labeling of food. We will update the status of this recommendation as FDA makes more progress.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should take additional steps to address inconsistency in its written comments to generic drug applicants—including the clarity of writing and the content of comments—among reviewers, such as requiring additional training for reviewers. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. As of August 2020, FDA stated that it is evaluating methods to improve the clarity and content of primary reviewer comments by developing and providing training and work aids on written communication to ensure that FDA conveys deficiency comments in a clear and consistent manner to applicants. FDA noted that best practices on ensuring consistency in deficiency comments will be shared with primary reviewers. In addition, FDA stated that the agency is reviewing current training and providing coaching for secondary reviewers to exchange, compare, discuss, and improve the content and consistency of common deficiencies communicated in primary reviewer comments.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should assess the extent to which the timing of brand-name drug companies' drug labeling changes affect the approval of generic drug applications in the first review cycle, and take steps, as appropriate, to limit the effect of brand-name drug labeling changes on pending generic drug applications. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: FDA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. As of August 2020, FDA reported that it is identifying and assessing examples of applications in which the brand-name drug company submitted a supplemental application for a labeling change that impacted the timeline of the generic drug approval. After gathering data, FDA officials stated that they will assess what particular actions could address this issue, including whether FDA has the authority to take any such identified actions.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB should communicate to CRAs its expectations regarding reasonable procedures for assuring maximum possible accuracy of consumer report information. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In a January 2020 update, CFPB reemphasized statements made in its comment letter, including its expectation for CRAs to fully comply with applicable federal consumer financial laws and the role of case law in providing guidance to CRAs. CFPB additionally noted that its publicly available examination procedures discuss factors that CFPB will consider in evaluating compliance with the reasonableness standard under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). CFPB stated that since publication of the report, it has taken actions to convey expectations to CRAs, including holding a joint workshop with FTC in December 2019 on consumer reporting accuracy and publishing a Supervisory Highlights special edition focused on consumer reporting. More direct communication of CFPB's expectations can provide CRAs with clearer information on what actions might constitute a FCRA violation and how CRAs should comply with the reasonableness standard. We maintain that providing additional information to CRAs about its expectations for key FCRA requirements could help CFPB to promote consistency and transparency in its supervisory approach and that the recommendation should be addressed.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB should communicate to CRAs its expectations regarding reasonable investigations of consumer disputes. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In a January 2020 update, CFPB restated the requirements for a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and noted that court cases have articulated what qualifies as a reasonable investigation. CFPB also noted that a 2011 FTC report summarizes how the courts and FTC have interpreted these obligations, and that CFPB issued a bulletin on reasonable investigations in September 2013. CFPB stated that it has and will continue to communicate its expectations to CRAs regarding applicable provisions of FCRA. We maintain that providing additional information to CRAs about its expectations for key FCRA requirements could help CFPB to promote consistency and transparency in its supervisory approach and that the recommendation should be addressed.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB should provide written clarification to nonbank private student loan lenders on their authorities under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to offer private student loan rehabilitation programs that include removing information from credit reports. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, CFBP does not plan to act on this recommendation because the law does not require nonbank private student loan lenders to seek CFPB's approval of student loan rehabilitation programs. CFPB stated that if a financial institution chooses to offer a private student loan rehabilitation program it would be protected under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We maintain that clarification from CFPB that nonbank lenders have the authority to offer these programs could--depending on CFPB's interpretation--result in additional lenders offering rehabilitation programs that would allow more borrowers the opportunity to participate, or it could help ensure that only those entities CFPB has interpreted as being eligible to offer programs are doing so.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB, after consulting with the prudential regulators and relevant industry groups, should provide written clarification on what information in a consumer's credit report constitutes a private student loan reported "default" that may be removed after successful completion of a private student loan rehabilitation program. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, CFPB stated that action on this recommendation is premature pending ongoing work by an industry association on what information may be removed from a credit report after successful completion of a private student loan rehabilitation program. We will continue to follow up with CFPB on its monitoring of this effort and consultation with relevant regulators.

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator or her designee should (1) develop a process for periodically reviewing Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) data to determine the extent to which agencies are awarding WOSB program set-asides under ineligible North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and (2) take steps to address any issues identified, such as providing targeted outreach or training to agencies making awards under ineligible codes. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2019, SBA analyzed FPDS-NG data to review the use of ineligible NAICS codes in the WOSB program. SBA officials also noted that they plan to conduct these reviews on an ongoing basis. As part of their May 2019 analysis, SBA identified federal agencies that had used ineligible NAICS codes. As of October 2019, SBA officials said that they were taking steps, including drafting presentation materials, to provide training on NAICS codes to agencies and planned to present quarterly at the Small Business Procurement Advisory Council FY 2020 meetings. SBA officials also noted that they had also provided training on NAICS codes as part of its FY 2019 performance reviews of procurement centers.

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator should establish a process that ensures documentation of states' compliance with the total match requirement before grant closeout. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SBA generally agreed with GAO's findings and concurred with our recommendations. In response to our draft report, agency officials said SBA will establish a process that ensures documentation of state recipients' compliance with the total match requirement before grant closeout. In September 2019, officials told us this process will include assigning SBA program office responsibilities for ensuring recipient compliance related to the cost match. In March 2020, SBA officials said they were still working on implementing changes to address our recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor the agency's implementation of this process.

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator should develop a process to determine states' compliance with the cash match requirement. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SBA generally agreed with our findings and concurred with our recommendations. In response to our draft report, agency officials said they would develop a process to determine state's compliance with the cash match requirement. In September 2019, officials told us the process will apply to both grants specialists and program officers, and ensure the cost match is appropriately applied. In March 2020, SBA officials said they were still working on implementing changes to address our recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor the agency's implementation of this process.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB should identify additional sources of information, such as through registering CRAs or leveraging state information, that would help ensure the agency is tracking all CRAs that meet the larger participant threshold. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, CFPB staff noted that they have reviewed state CRA registration information available to them, are working to obtain additional state registration information, and are exploring additional ways to leverage the information. GAO will continue to monitor CFPB's progress in leveraging additional sources of information that would help identify larger participant CRAs.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB should assess whether its process for prioritizing CRA examinations sufficiently incorporates the data security risks CRAs pose to consumers, and take any needed steps identified by the assessment to more sufficiently incorporate these risks. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, CFPB staff noted that they were assessing whether, and if so, how and when, to incorporate data security risks into their supervisory prioritization. As part of that evaluation, CFPB is assessing whether those processes should incorporate data security risks CRAs pose to consumers in light of the agency's statutory authorities, supervisory responsibilities, and resources. GAO will continue monitoring CFPB's assessment of prioritization of CRA data security risks.

Recommendation: Congress should consider providing the Federal Trade Commission with civil penalty authority for the privacy and safeguarding provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to help ensure that the agency has the tools it needs to most effectively act against data privacy and security violations. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not passed legislation to provide FTC with civil penalty authority for the privacy and safeguarding provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB should implement a systematic process for prioritizing risks to consumers and considering how to use the bureau's available policy tools—such as rulemaking, supervision, enforcement, and consumer education—to address these risks. Such a process could incorporate principles from the prior One Bureau process, such as an assessment of the extent of potential harm to consumers in financial markets, to prioritize the most significant risks. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, CFPB staff told us that the CFPB Director approved a proposal to implement a short-term policy prioritization exercise. According to a memorandum describing this exercise, CFPB anticipates that it will involve CFPB's Strategy Office engaging members of cross-bureau working groups to review and update priorities related to addressing risks to consumers. According to CFPB staff, the working groups will need up to a few months to complete this work, and the results should be available in the second quarter of 2020. To fully address this recommendation, CFPB needs to make further progress in implementing this planned prioritization exercise, including by demonstrating steps taken to prioritize risks to consumers and considering how to use CFPB's various policy tools to address these risks.

Recommendation: The Office of the Secretary should assess the feasibility and cost of updating its airline case management system to address data and reporting limitations, and to undertake those updates that are cost effective and feasible. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to update its case management tracking system. As of June, 2020, DOT has not provided an update regarding the status of its efforts to implement this recommendation. DOT indicated the agency would provide a response in the coming months, citing delays with workloads due to COVID-19. Once DOT provides a response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Office of the Secretary should establish performance measures for each of its objectives for its five key airline-compliance activities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to establish appropriate performance measures. As of June, 2020, DOT has not provided an update regarding the status of its efforts to implement this recommendation. DOT indicated the agency would provide a response in the coming months, citing delays with workloads due to COVID-19. Once DOT provides a response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Office of the Secretary should capture feedback directly from airline passengers or identify other mechanisms to capture passengers' perspectives to inform DOT's education efforts. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to capture feedback directly from consumers. As of June, 2020, DOT has not provided an update regarding the status of its efforts to implement this recommendation. DOT indicated the agency would provide a response in the coming months, citing delays with workloads due to COVID-19. Once DOT provides a response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Office of the Secretary should develop performance measures for DOT's efforts to educate airline passengers. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to develop appropriate performance measures for DOT's efforts to educate airline passengers. As of June, 2020, DOT has not provided an update regarding the status of its efforts to implement this recommendation. DOT indicated the agency would provide a response in the coming months, citing delays with workloads due to COVID-19. Once DOT provides a response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator or her designee should complete the design and implementation of a comprehensive evaluation of the Small Business Procurement Scorecard aligned with key attributes of effective program evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the revised scorecard in measuring agency performance and promoting small business procurement opportunities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator or her designee should institute a process to review Small Business Procurement Scorecards for accuracy prior to publication and a mechanism for publicly identifying when issued scorecards have been revised. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of SBA should conduct and document reviews of staff compliance with procedures associated with HUBZone certification and recertification. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, SBA officials told us that the agency is re-aligning resources and developing standards to reflect new processing times for certifications and recertifications, which will include revised employee performance elements and quarterly performance reviews. When SBA has completed these changes, we will assess whether the agency is conducting and documenting reviews of staff compliance.

Recommendation: The NIST Associate Director for Laboratory Programs should update NIST policy to include periodic comprehensive management review of the agency's measurement services to assess gaps and ensure alignment with stakeholders' needs, and take steps to ensure that the Associate Director completes the review of NIST's standards development activities (Recommendation 1).

Agency: Department of Commerce: National Institute of Standards and Technology
Status: Open

Comments: NIST concurred with this recommendation and, as of May 2020, had taken some steps to implement it. Specifically, NIST provided information indicating it uses multiple information sources to identify potential measurement service gaps. For example, the Associate Director for Laboratory Programs (ADLP) reviews quarterly reports from NIST's laboratory divisions that include information on measurement services. The ADLP may identify measurement service gaps as part of this review. Also, the NIST Measurement Services Council serves the ADLP in an advisory role to identify and address NIST-wide issues related to the quality, relevance, performance, operations, and resources allocated to the health and improvement of NIST measurement services. The Council produces an annual report that addresses the health of NIST's measurement services, including potential changes needed to meet future customer needs. Further, NIST employees may suggest new services through processes established in suborder 5901.01. Many of these efforts also include consideration of potential gaps in NIST's participation in standards development activities. Additionally, NIST Order 5301.00 delegates responsibility to review standards activities and participation across several levels of NIST management. Although these actions may help identify gaps in NIST's participation in standards development activities as well as identify gaps in the measurement services it provides, it is not clear how or whether they fulfill the periodic review of the effectiveness of NIST's participation in documentary standards activities that the ADLP is to conduct under NIST's standards participation policy. We will update our evaluation of NIST's implementation of this recommendation when the agency provides additional information on how the activities described above fulfill the effectiveness review called for by NIST's policy, or provides information documenting that the ADLP has conducted such a review.

Recommendation: The Administrator of SBA should use its on-site and off-site reviews to routinely collect information on lenders' use of credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring of lender practices related to the credit elsewhere requirement. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: For the second and third recommendations, related to lender's use of the credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring of lender practices, on June 11, 2019, SBA provided information on 7(a) lender reviews and summary reports. On September 27, 2019, we discussed these recommendations and SBA's responses with an SBA official. Specifically, we discussed the role of statistical sampling in addressing lender practices and SBA's selection of lenders for further review. On November 22, 2019, an SBA official stated that the agency plans to provide additional documentation in six months to further support actions taken. We will continue to monitor SBA's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of SBA should analyze information on lenders' use of credit elsewhere criteria obtained from its reviews to identify lenders that may be at greater risk of noncompliance and to inform its selection of lenders for further review for credit elsewhere compliance. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: For the second and third recommendations, related to lender's use of the credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring of lender practices, on June 11, 2019, SBA provided information on 7(a) lender reviews and summary reports. On September 27, 2019, we discussed these recommendations and SBA's responses with an SBA official. Specifically, we discussed the role of statistical sampling in addressing lender practices and SBA's selection of lenders for further review. On November 22, 2019, an SBA official stated that the agency plans to provide additional documentation in six months to further support actions taken. We will continue to monitor SBA's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In a May 2018 letter, the Acting Director of the Bureau stated that the Bureau has previously issued principles that include reasonable and practical means for consumers to dispute and resolve instances of unauthorized payments conducted in connection with or as a result of authorized or unauthorized data sharing access. The letter notes that the Bureau is committed to monitoring developments in data aggregation markets and will continue to assess how the Bureau's consumer protection principles may be best realized, including engaging in discussions with other relevant federal and state financial regulators. In October 2018, Bureau staff advised us that they made a presentation on existing consumer protections that would appear to be applicable to consumers using data aggregators at the June 28, 2018 meeting of the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group, which includes OCC, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration. They noted they are monitoring private sector efforts related to resolving data aggregation issues and that additional discussions among the regulators about these issues will be held in the future. We will recontact the agency in the future to obtain information on additional actions it has taken. In January 2020, GAO met with CFPB to discuss the recommendation and potential outcomes that could close the recommendation. CFPB officials stated that they will be hosting a public forum on data aggregation in February 2020. They noted that results from the public forum could include action related to the data aggregation recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In a May 2018 letter, the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board noted that the Federal Reserve recognizes the importance of working together to determine how best to encourage socially beneficial innovation in the marketplace, while ensuring that consumers' interests are protected. The letter noted that the Federal Reserve staff have been meeting with other regulators and industry participants. The Chair states that the Federal Reserve will continue to facilitate and engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in these and other settings to help market participants address the important issues surrounding reimbursement for consumers who use financial account aggregators and experience unauthorized transactions. In October 2018, Federal Reserve staff advised us that issues related to data aggregation were discussed at a June 28, 2018 meeting of the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group, which includes OCC, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They noted that they are monitoring private sector efforts related to resolving data aggregation issues and expect to hold additional discussions among the regulators about these issues in the future. In March 2019, the agency noted that it continues to collaborate on this issue. As of February 2020, the agency had no further updates on this recommendation. We plan to follow up with Federal Reserve staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In November 2018, FDIC staff confirmed that they have engaged in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators regarding issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services and associated liability issues. We followed up in April 2019 and they confirmed that their collaboration had yet to produce outcomes that would satisfy the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2018, NCUA staff indicated that staff from their agency had recently participated in a discussion forum with other federal regulators and other stakeholders on fintech, and, in particular, account aggregation challenges. They stated that they intend to continue to engage other regulators and related industry stakeholders on fintech topics and emerging technology that can have an impact on credit unions and their consumers. In October 2018, NCUA staff advised us that they have been discussing issues related to data aggregation at meetings of the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group, which includes OCC, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. In November 2019, NCUA staff said that the agency continues to participate in meetings through the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group and had taken part in a Data Symposium held by the San Francisco Federal Reserve. We plan to follow up with NCUA staff to obtain updates on these efforts and resulting outcomes in the future.

Recommendation: The Comptroller of the Currency should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: In a May 2018 letter, OCC noted that its staff have met with the other banking regulators and with market participants about account aggregation issues in the past. In October 2018, OCC staff advised us that issues related to data aggregation were discussed at a June 28, 2018 meeting of the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group, which includes OCC, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. We followed up in January 2020 and they confirmed that their collaboration had yet to produce outcomes that would satisfy the recommendation. We plan to follow up with OCC staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration should formally evaluate the feasibility and benefit of establishing an office of innovation or clear contact point, including at least a website with a dedicated email address. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NCUA officials told us that in August 2018 the agency established a working group to formally evaluate the feasibility of establishing a dedicated work unit to oversee and lead fintech and innovation efforts, including creating a website and monitoring a dedicated e-mail account. NCUA officials indicated that as of November 2019 the working group was deliberating key considerations related to establishing a dedicated work unit. We plan to follow up with NCUA staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should formally evaluate the feasibility and benefits to their regulatory capacities of adopting certain knowledge-building initiatives related to financial innovation. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In a May 2018 letter, the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board noted that the Federal Reserve recognizes the importance of formally increasing its knowledge base related to financial innovation. The letter noted that the Federal Reserve has recently organized two nationwide teams of experts tasked with monitoring fintech and related emerging technology trends as they relate to its supervisory and payment system mandates, respectively. These new teams include representation from all of the Federal Reserve System's Reserve Banks and have leadership from Board staff. These teams' critical objectives include ensuring that fintech-related information is shared across the Federal Reserve System and is used to inform relevant supervisory, policy, and outreach strategies. As of February 2020, the agency had no updates on this recommendation. We plan to follow up with Federal Reserve staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should formally evaluate the feasibility and benefits to their regulatory capacities of adopting certain knowledge-building initiatives related to financial innovation. (Recommendation 13)

Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Status: Open

Comments: We followed up in January 2020 and CFTC described its efforts to address this recommendation, which were encouraging. We are awaiting documentation of these efforts and when we confirm the agency's actions, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration should formally evaluate the feasibility and benefits to their regulatory capacities of adopting certain knowledge-building initiatives related to financial innovation. (Recommendation 15)

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NCUA officials told us that, as of November 2019, the internal working group that the agency established in August 2018 was evaluating the feasibility and benefits of adopting certain knowledge-building initiatives related to financial innovation. Specifically, the working group was assessing initiatives such as stakeholder outreach, research and collaboration opportunities, grants and other technical assistance, and existing supervisory tools. We plan to follow up with NCUA staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB should issue public information on its plans for reviewing regulations applicable to banks and credit unions, including information describing the scope of regulations the timing and frequency of the reviews, and the extent to which the reviews will be coordinated with the federal depository institution regulators as part of their periodic EGRPRA reviews. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: CFPB staff noted in a letter in April 2018 that CFPB had issued requests for information (RFI) on the regulations their agency had adopted and inherited from other agencies. These requests seek public comment on the need to amend these regulations. They noted that they included in their spring and fall 2017 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda descriptions of two initiatives intended to review their regulations to identify opportunities to modernize and streamline provisions. In addition, they noted they had created an internal task force to coordinate and bolster continuing efforts to identify and relieve regulatory burdens. They stated that they would continue to publish information on their plans for reviewing regulations as appropriate. We plan to continue following up with CFPB to determine the extent to which they have published information on their plans to review the burden of their agency's regulations.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Investment and Innovation within SBA should work with participating agencies to implement the Commercialization Benchmark or, if that is not feasible, revise the benchmark so that it can be implemented (Recommendation 2).

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: SBA agreed with the recommendation. As of January 2020, SBA officials said they plan to continue working with participating agencies to determine a feasible way to implement the Commercialization Benchmark. According to SBA officials, SBA is leading an interagency Commercialization Working Group with participating agency officials and has implemented a commercialization reporting tool on the SBIR.gov site. Agency officials participating in the interagency working group have identified challenges with a single model for the benchmark and are working to resolve the issues.

Recommendation: Once reliable data are available, the Coast Guard, or another agency identified by the working group, should assess the rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities to determine whether certain factors--including vessel length and region of operation, among other things--affect these rates. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not concur with our recommendation that the Coast Guard assess the rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities to determine whether certain factors-such as vessel length and region of operation-affect these rates. DHS officials stated that the Coast Guard has limited resources and capabilities to conduct such assessments and noted that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studies marine incidents to identify causal factors in fishing vessel casualties, which could more effectively determine casualty rates. The Coast Guard uses this information to update and develop commercial fishing vessel safety standards and policy, as appropriate. GAO agrees that NIOSH plays an important role in identifying commercial fishing fatalities and regional risk factors, but such assessments typically focus on fatalities in specific fisheries, and generally did not consider such factors as vessel length or whether the vessel has been classed. As of July 2020, Coast Guard officials stated the Coast Guard continues to work with other Federal partners on data collection strategies through the established work group to determine the best reliable data in order to establish credible rates of casualties, injuries, and fatalities in the commercial fishing vessel industry. This recommendation will remain open pending a decision by the working group on the appropriate agency to conduct these assessments.

Recommendation: The Coast Guard should issue regulations or guidance to clarify and implement the alternative-to-class approach. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendation that the Coast Guard issue regulations or guidance to clarify and implement the alternative-to-class approach. As of November 2018, the Coast Guard made a presentation to the commercial fishing industry clarifying the alternative-to-class approach as it relates to commercial fishing vessels including discussion topics such as understanding the language of 46 USC 4503 and State Licensed Naval Architect and Marine Engineers' scope of responsibilities when incorporating standards equivalent to those prescribed by a classification society. As of June 2020, Coast Guard officials stated they have formalized work instruction guidance regarding implementation of the alternative-to-class approach. This guidance is expected to be released by the end of 2020.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency should comply with sections 15(k)(2), (k)(7), (k)(11), and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(2), related to the compensation and seniority of the person heading the OSDBU office, DOD concurred with this part of the recommendation. Agency officials stated that the agency requested that DOD seek Congressional approval to authorize a new Senior Executive Service position for the OSDBU director, and the agency has been waiting for this authorization to make this change. An agency official said that DLA recently hired a new Office of Small Business Programs director at the GS-15 equivalent level. This hire is not consistent with the requirements of section 15(k)(2). We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation. For section 15(k)(7), related to supervisory duties, DOD did not concur with this part of the recommendation. An agency official said that the management structure of DLA and its subordinate elements precludes assigning supervisory authority by the DLA OSBP over all agency personnel involved in small business functions. The official said that DOD OSDP is working to submit legislative proposals for the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. These proposals may address DLA's compliance with section 15(k)(7). For section 15(k)(11), related to advise on insourcing, DOD concurred with this part of the recommendation and said that future insourcing actions will be coordinated with the DLA OSBP as required. The agency official said that as of August 10, 2018, there have not been any insourcing actions. DOD provided a memo documenting that a future update of DOD policy will include language about complying with section 15(k)(11) requirement. The information provided is sufficient to close this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(17), related to responding to undue restrictions on the ability of small businesses to compete, DOD concurred with this part of the recommendation. DOD provided a memo that includes information on how the agency will comply with the section 15(k)(17) requirements and that these procedures will be included in a future DOD policy update. The information provided is sufficient to close this part of the recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Agriculture should comply with sections 15(k)(2), (k)(15), and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(2), related to the compensation and seniority of the person heading the OSDBU office, and for section 15(k)(15), related to collateral duties, on September 13, 2018, an agency official stated that the agency currently does not have an OSDBU director. The official stated that the agency does not have an estimate for when this would occur because the director is appointed by the White House. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(17), related to undue restriction on the ability of small businesses to compete, an agency official stated that the OSDBU is working on an internal policy which will include guidelines for action. The official stated that the estimated completion date is January 2019. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address this part of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Army should comply with section 15(k)(8) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, related to assigning small business technical advisors, because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Defense should comply with sections 15(k)(5) and (k)(8) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(5), related to identifying and addressing bundling of contract requirements, DOD did not concur with this part of the recommendation because it said that no contracting or bundling occurs at the level of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because if DOD believes that the situation of this office supports that it is in compliance with section 15(k)(5), the agency should report to Congress on how it believes it is in compliance, and seek any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(8), related to assigning small business technical advisors, DOD did not concur with this part of the recommendation because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this part of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Education should comply with sections 15(k)(3) and (k)(11) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(3), related to reporting to the agency head or deputy head, an agency official stated that a deputy secretary was confirmed in May 2018 but that the previous OSDBU director was no longer with the agency and a new director would be appointed to the OSDBU director position. The agency official also said that once a new OSDBU director is assigned, the deputy secretary will provide oversight to the OSDBU director including signing the director's performance appraisal. We will continue to monitor the Department of Education's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(11), related to advise on insourcing, on July 20, 2018, an agency official provided guidance on insourcing which states that the OSDBU will review and advise on any decision to convert an activity performed by a small business concern to an activity performed by a federal employee. The information provided is sufficient to close as implemented this part of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Energy should comply with sections 15(k)(3), (k)(8), and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Interior should comply with sections 15(k)(11) and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Navy should comply with section 15(k)(8) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, related to assigning small business technical advisors, because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Treasury should comply with sections 15(k)(8) and (k)(11) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should comply with sections 15(k)(3), (k)(8), and (k)(11) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: For section 15(k)(3), related to reporting requirement (head of agency or deputy head), a VA official stated that the agency has changed the reporting relationship of the OSDBU director. The official stated that the Deputy Secretary will now act as rating Official for the Executive Director, OSDBU, and will sign the initial draft rating. The official also provided a Senior Executive Leaders FY 2018 Rating Scheme (dated January 2018) which shows that the Deputy Secretary rates and reviews the OSDBU director. The information provided is sufficient to close as implemented this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(8), related to assigning small business technical advisors, an agency official stated that VA has circulated a draft Memorandum of Understanding for concurrence which would address among other things, the extent of supervisory authority to be exercised over the Small Business Technical Advisor personnel by the Executive Director, OSDBU, while the advisor personnel remain employees of the contracting activity. The official stated that VA's revised target completion date for this effort is September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor VA's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(11), related to advise on in-sourcing, as of January 18, 2018, VA updated its Small Business Procurement Review Program Policy to include language about the role of the OSDBU as it relates to the requirements for section 15(k)(11). A VA official also stated that the policy was distributed by email to VA's acquisition workforce and was also posted to the agency's intranet on February 12, 2018. The official stated that this policy has been distributed to OSDBU staff and provided a copy to GAO. The information provided is sufficient to close as implemented this part of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management should comply with sections 15(k)(2), (k)(8), and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should comply with sections 15(k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(6), (k)(8), (k)(11), and (k)(15) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To address control weaknesses and related program-integrity risks we identified in Lifeline, the Chairman of FCC should require Commissioners to review and approve, as appropriate, spending above the budget in a timely manner.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: On November 16, 2017, FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed to adopt a self-enforcing budget mechanism for the Lifeline program. However, as of January 2020, FCC has not yet adopted a decision on this proposal.

Recommendation: To address control weaknesses and related program-integrity risks we identified in Lifeline, the Chairman of FCC should establish time frames to evaluate compliance plans and develop instructions with criteria for FCC reviewers how to evaluate these plans to meet Lifeline's program goals.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: According to the FCC as of January 28, 2020, the agency does not currently have a schedule to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address control weaknesses and related program-integrity risks we identified in Lifeline, the Chairman of FCC should develop an enforcement strategy that details what violations lead to penalties and apply this as consistently as possible to all Lifeline providers to ensure consistent enforcement of program violations; the strategy should include a rationale and method for resource prioritization to help maximize the effectiveness of enforcement activities.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: FCC's enforcement must remain flexible in order to be responsive to the ever changing variants that Universal Service Fund violations may take. According to the FCC, as with all Commission matters, the Chairman may indicate agency priorities in terms of subject matter, but the Chairman does not dictate which cases the Enforcement Bureau pursues. The Office of the Chairman, in consultation with the Enforcement Bureau, has articulated priorities with respect to enforcement activities in the Lifeline area including, but not limited to: 1. Detection and elimination of willful attempts to defraud the Lifeline Program by claiming support subsidies for ineligible or fictitious subscribers. 2. Detection and elimination of unlawful claims for enhanced support for Tribal areas. 3. Detection and elimination of carrier collections of multiple support subsidies for duplicative subscribers, regardless of the source of duplications. 4. Detection and elimination of carrier failures to de-enroll inactive or ineligible subscribers. The Enforcement Bureau has focused its enforcement efforts in line with these priorities and has taken a number of actions since the publication of GAO-17-538.

Recommendation: To address our findings regarding the USF, the Chairman of FCC should take action to respond to USAC requests for guidance and address pending requests concerning USF contribution requirements to ensure the contribution factor is based on complete information and that USF pass-through charges are equitable.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: According to the FCC, the FCC is scheduled to complete implementing this recommendation in December 2021.

Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD is implementing the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements to the OIGs, the Inspectors General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement the requirements themselves or delegate the implementation of the requirements to the investigative services.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Naval Inspector General
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. In June 2020, we requested information on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm the actions the Navy has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD is implementing the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements to the OIGs, the Inspectors General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement the requirements themselves or delegate the implementation of the requirements to the investigative services.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. As of July 2020, the Army had drafted a memorandum that would delegate the requirements to the investigative services or program office. We will update the status of this recommendation after the Army issues the final memorandum.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should conduct periodic reviews of the processes DOD components follow to approve agreements and take oversight actions, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would implement a new standard operating procedure for DOD's Mentor-Protege Program component program managers. According to DOD, the new standard operating procedure would require each component program manager to provide quarterly program management review reports to DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, in addition to annual and monthly reporting, as required by Appendix I of DOD's policies and procedures for the Mentor-Protege Program. DOD's new Standard Operating Procedure would also centralize the implementation of the Mentor Protege Program and, according to DOD, would create process efficiency, and enhanced oversight of the program. The new Standard Operating Procedure would also include a new standardized checklist each Mentor-Protege Program component would utilize to approve mentor protege agreements. The standardized checklist would also include the company North American Industry Classification System code, a mentor approval letter, and a fully completed copy of the mentor protege agreement signed by both parties. Last, DOD would then determine program improvement, once the aforementioned controls are implemented and monitored for effectiveness. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should complete actions to develop performance goals and related measures that are consistent with the program's stated purpose.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that Mentor-Protege Program components would establish goals for the Mentor Protege Program and those goals would be focused on the Industrial Base and Technology Transfer categories. In addition, DOD stated that it would establish additional surveillance requirements to ensure prime and subcontract opportunities are afforded to the proteges and that instituting a baseline performance goal for all components will ensure the Program achieves the intent desired by Congress. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new goals or standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: In the event that Congress again requires an agency to provide affected individuals with identity theft insurance in response to a breach of sensitive personal data, Congress should consider permitting the agency to determine the appropriate level of that insurance.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, Congress had not enacted legislation for which our Matter for Congressional Consideration would be applicable.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should, to the extent feasible, conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of the various identity theft services relative to alternatives, and revise OMB's guidance to federal agencies in light of this analysis.

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

Comments: As we reported in GAO-19-230, we contacted OMB several times between May 2018 and early March 2019 to update the status of this recommendation, and again in July 2020, but as of July 2020, OMB had not responded with an update.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should explore options to address the risk of duplication in federal agencies' provision of identity theft services in response to data breaches, and take action if viable options are identified.

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

Comments: No executive action identified. As of July 2020, OMB had not responded to GAO's request for an update.

Recommendation: To help state credit union supervisors and privately insured credit unions better interpret Regulation I and inform consumers when an institution is not federally insured, CFPB should issue guidance to clarify whether drive-through windows require disclosures.

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: CFPB agreed with this recommendation. As of January 2020, CFPB said it had explored options for addressing the recommendation and determined it would require notice-and-comment rulemaking. CFPB said that because the agency had other, higher regulatory priorities, it did not currently have plans to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help state credit union supervisors and privately insured credit unions better interpret Regulation I and inform consumers when an institution is not federally insured, CFPB should issue guidance to describe what constitutes clear and conspicuous disclosure, including minimum signage dimensions and font size for disclosures.

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: CFPB agreed with this recommendation. As of January 2020, CFPB said it had explored options that would most effectively and efficiently provide guidance regarding Regulation I and said that notice-and-comment rulemaking would be necessary to address GAO's recommendation with regard to "clear and conspicuous" disclosures. CFPB said that because the agency had other, higher regulatory priorities, it did not currently have plans to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help state credit union supervisors and privately insured credit unions better interpret Regulation I and inform consumers when an institution is not federally insured, CFPB should issue guidance to explain and provide examples of which communications are advertising.

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: CFPB agreed with this recommendation. As of January 2020, CFPB said it had explored options that would most effectively and efficiently provide guidance regarding Regulation I and said that notice-and-comment rulemaking would be necessary to address GAO's recommendation. CFPB said that because the agency had other, higher regulatory priorities, it did not currently have plans to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the transparency and accountability over the compensation paid to WYO companies and set appropriate compensation rates, the FEMA administrator should take into account WYO company characteristics that may impact companies' expenses and profits when developing the new compensation methodology and rates.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: According to FEMA officials, FEMA is responding to this recommendation as part of its development of a final rule on WYO compensation practices, required by the Biggert-Waters Act. FEMA issued a Notice of Proposed Ruling on July 8, 2019 seeking comments by September 6, 2019 regarding possible approaches to incorporate actual flood expense data into the WYO payment methodology.

Recommendation: To help improve the Five-Star System's ability to enable consumers to understand nursing home quality and make distinctions between high- and low- performing homes, the Administrator of CMS should add information to the Five-Star System that allows consumers to compare nursing homes nationally.

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

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation. CMS officials told us in July 2019 that they do not plan to implement this recommendation. We maintain that adding national comparison information is important.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that the property, equipment, and software transactions are properly tracked and capitalized or expensed as appropriate, the Director of CFPB should direct the program offices to require vendors to provide detailed invoices with costs broken out by project.

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: During our fiscal year 2019 audit, we continued to find control deficiencies over CFPB's accounting for its property, equipment, and software. CFPB was still in the process of working with its Office of Procurement and program offices to require more detailed invoices with costs broken out by project. We will continue to evaluate CFPB's actions to address this recommendation during our fiscal year 2020 financial statement audit.

Recommendation: In order to improve FDA's strategic planning for regulatory science efforts, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to develop and document measurable goals, such as targets and time frames, for its regulatory science efforts so it can consistently assess and report on the agency's progress in regulatory science efforts.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2018, the agency described the actions of committees developed by each of the centers to oversee their regulatory science activities. In July 2019, the agency indicated that it was revisiting its strategic regulatory science priorities as part of its cyclical strategic planning process, and the centers and various offices have taken steps to address the recommendation. In an August 2020 written response, the agency reported that a committee had undertaken a review its 2011 regulatory science strategic plan that will result in the issuance of an accountability framework--an internal document outlining the type of information that FDA centers and offices will provide to the agency's Chief Scientist to demonstrate progress made in addressing relevant focus areas of regulatory science. FDA reported that its goal was to complete this work by the end of December 2020. However, FDA still needs to document steps taken by these centers to develop measurable goals, and the agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open. GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to improve FDA's strategic planning for regulatory science efforts, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to systematically track funding of regulatory science projects across each of its priority areas.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2018 and July 2019, the agency described actions taken by each center to better track its regulatory science funding. However, FDA still needed to complete these activities and document that funds are systematically tracked across each of the priority areas. In an August 2020 written response, the agency reported that there continue to be efforts to improve tracking of funds for regulatory science projects in priority areas. Specifically, it described the development of an accountability framework-an internal document outlining the type of information that FDA centers and offices will provide to the agency's Chief Scientist to demonstrate progress made in addressing relevant focus areas of regulatory science. According to FDA, as part of the internal accountability framework, it will track regulatory science projects. FDA reported that its goal was to complete this work by the end of December 2020. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that FHFA has adequate authority to ensure the safety and soundness of the enterprises and to clarify its supervisory role, Congress should consider granting FHFA explicit authority to examine third parties that do business with and play a critical role in the operations of the enterprises.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken action on this matter.

Recommendation: The Chairman of FCC should review joint sales agreements (JSA) filed in stations' public inspection files to identify stations involved in those JSAs and take action to ensure that each station involved has filed its JSA as required.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, FCC had not performed a review of joint sales agreements (JSA) as GAO recommended, and an FCC official stated that FCC had no plans to perform such a review. FCC issued a public notice in 2016 reminding stations of their obligation to file JSAs in their public inspection files in 2016. This recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: Congress should consider whether additional changes to the financial regulatory structure are needed to reduce or better manage fragmentation and overlap in the oversight of financial institutions and activities to improve (1) the efficiency and effectiveness of oversight; (2) the consistency of consumer and investor protections; and (3) the consistency of financial oversight for similar institutions, products, risks, and services. For example, Congress could consider consolidating the number of federal agencies involved in overseeing the safety and soundness of depository institutions, combining the entities involved in overseeing the securities and derivatives markets, transferring the remaining prudential regulators' consumer protection authorities over large depository institutions to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the optimal role for the federal government in insurance regulation, among other considerations.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: At least two bills have been introduced in the 115th Congress that would change the financial regulatory structure, to some degree, to address fragmented and overlapping regulatory authorities among agencies, as GAO suggested in February 2016. The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10) was introduced on April 26, 2017, passed the House in June 2017 and the Senate held hearings in July 2017. Among other things, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 calls for the federal financial regulatory agencies to implement policies and procedures to minimize the duplication of effort with respect to enforcement actions. For example, it eliminates the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to supervise and examine financial institutions and also eliminates the regulatory and enforcement authority of the agency with respect to unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices by depository institutions. Such actions could help reduce fragmentation and overlap in the financial regulatory structure. In addition, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155) was introduced on November 16, 2017 and passed in the Senate in March 2018. The bill, to some extent, may help address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the financial regulatory structure. For example, the bill helps to address fragmentation in insurance oversight by finding that the federal agencies and office involved in insurance regulation should achieve consensus with state insurance regulators when they participate in negotiations on insurance issues before any international forum of financial regulators or supervisors, and create an advisory committee to discuss and report on insurance policy issues including international issues. GAO will continue to monitor the reform efforts to determine the extent to which they could help to address fragmentation and overlap between the federal financial regulatory agencies and reduce opportunities for inefficiencies in the regulatory process and inconsistencies in how regulators conduct oversight activities over similar types of institutions, products, and risks.

Recommendation: Congress should consider whether legislative changes are necessary to align FSOC's authorities with its mission to respond to systemic risks. Congress could do so by making changes to FSOC's mission, its authorities, or both, or to the missions and authorities of one or more of the FSOC member agencies to support a stronger link between the responsibility and capacity to respond to systemic risks. In doing so, Congress could solicit information from FSOC on the effective scope of its collective designation authorities, including any gaps.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: While some legislative action has been taken that may alter FSOC's authorities, it is not clear that the legislation would address GAO's February 2016 suggestion. The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10) was introduced on April 26, 2017, passed the House in June 2017, and the Senate held hearings in July 2017. The bill would change FSOC's authorities by repealing its authorities to designate non-bank financial institutions and financial market utilities (i.e., payment, clearing, and settlement systems) as "systemically important." In addition, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155) was introduced on November 16, 2017 and passed in the Senate in March 2018. The bill may alter some of FSOC's authorities. However, it is unclear if these acts would alter FSOC's mission to better align it with its authorities to respond to systemic risk or addresses a gap in systemic risk mitigation mechanisms. Without legislative changes that would align FSOC's authorities with its mission, FSOC may lack the tools it needs to comprehensively address systemic risks that may emerge and a gap will continue to exist in the mechanisms for mitigating systemic risks. GAO will continue to monitor the reform efforts to determine the extent to which they help to align FSOC's authorities with its mission to respond to systemic risks.

Recommendation: To enhance the effectiveness of its preparations for conducting a retrospective review of its QM regulations, HUD should develop a plan that identifies the metrics, baselines, and analytical methods to be used. Furthermore, to account for and help mitigate the limitations of existing data and the uncertain availability of enhanced datasets, HUD should include in its plan alternate metrics, baselines, and analytical methods that could be used data were to remain unavailable.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2017, HUD noted that it does not currently collect data on the annual percentage rate (APR) for each loan that would allow for a perfect comparison to the average prime offer rate. According to HUD, its Office of Housing has on its long-term list of systems priorities to collect specific information from the Uniform Closing Data that could be used to conduct such a comparison. However, HUD stated that it has not received adequate funding to meet these systems enhancements. According to HUD, it is considering the feasibility and potential utility of alternative data sources or the use of a proxy in an appropriate methodology. For instance, whether it may be possible to approximate the APR based upon the note rate and information on closing costs that is collected in the current data system, or alternatively, whether the APR could be obtained or approximated through matching Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data for FHA loans. In a September 2020 email, HUD officials stated that HUD has certain unique considerations for review of its own QM rule as compared to the other federal agencies covered in the GAO report. HUD officials explained that HUD's QM rule implemented certain changes intended to conform with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) rule and constituted only a small subset of FHA's overall requirements related to underwriting and loan characteristics. According to HUD officials, HUD's QM rule was intended to make conforming changes to FHA's requirements, as statutorily required, in order to bring them into greater alignment with the new CFPB-promulgated QM rule requirements. They stated that HUD assesses FHA loan performance on an ongoing basis through a variety of mechanisms including the annual audit requirement and monitoring of the overall market and mortgage portfolio. According to the HUD officials, these mechanisms are used to assess the need for adjustments in underwriting criteria and mortgage insurance premiums as well as to assess the health and risks to safety and soundness of the MMIF Fund. HUD officials said that given these considerations, there is no specific stand-alone full evaluation of the HUD QM rule planned at this time.

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. 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. This bill was not reintroduced in the 115th Congress and, as of March 2020, has not been reintroduced by the 116th Congress. Continued regulation of the marking of toy and imitation firearms by NIST rather than CPSC does not leverage each agency's expertise and therefore may not be the most efficient use of scarce federal resources.

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. As of March 2020, no legislation was identified 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.

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: According to HUD officials, Ginnie Mae and FHA met to discuss their manufactured housing programs and produced a white paper. Once we receive a copy of the white paper, we will determine if it addresses our recommendation.

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: As of March 2018, HUD stated that the Office of Manufactured Housing Programs continues to work toward fully implementing both the installation and dispute resolution programs in the default states using two new contractors for these purposes. As the implementation of these programs continues to mature, HUD stated that its Office of Manufactured Housing Programs will be monitoring program requirements and service delivery and gathering data that it can use in assessing the feasibility of putting in place user fees for these programs. We will continue to monitor HUD's progress in implementing our recommendation.

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: In response to this recommendation, as of March 2018, HUD plans to consider user fee reserve best practices in evaluating any carryover balances and developing future operating budgets for its manufactured housing programs. The Office of Manufactured Housing Programs plans on reviewing best practices and determining next steps ideally by the end of Fiscal Year 2019. We continue to believe that setting clear goals for the reserve and clarifying how those reserves will be used helps ensure accountability and transparency both to Congress and users of fee-based programs. We will continue to monitor HUD's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: To strengthen federal oversight of facilities with ammonium nitrate, the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of EPA should direct OSHA and EPA, respectively, to consider revising their related regulations to cover ammonium nitrate and jointly develop a plan to require high risk facilities with ammonium nitrate to assess the risks and implement safeguards to prevent accidents involving this chemical.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: On December 9, 2013, OSHA issued a Request for Information seeking, among other things, comments on potential revisions to its Process Safety Management standard and its Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard. The Request for Information specifically invited comments on safe work practices for storing, handling, and managing ammonium nitrate and on regulatory requirements to improve its approach to preventing the hazards associated with ammonium nitrate. As of July 2017, OSHA reports it has completed a Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Review Act panel to gather feedback from small businesses on updating its Process Safety Management (PSM) regulation. During the panel, the agency discussed the option of adding ammonium nitrate to the list of chemicals covered by PSM and collected comments. As of June 2018, the PSM rulemaking is on the regulatory agenda under Long Term Action. According to OSHA officials, the agency will continue to collect comments on the option of adding ammonium nitrate to the list of highly hazardous chemicals covered by the PSM regulations as dictated by the rulemaking process. We will close this recommendation when OSHA decides what action to take as a result of the rulemaking process.

Recommendation: To strengthen federal oversight of facilities with ammonium nitrate, the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of EPA should direct OSHA and EPA, respectively, to consider revising their related regulations to cover ammonium nitrate and jointly develop a plan to require high risk facilities with ammonium nitrate to assess the risks and implement safeguards to prevent accidents involving this chemical.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2017, EPA issued a final rule to modify its Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations. The agency decided not to propose any revisions to the list of regulated substances and therefore, did not address ammonium nitrate in the revised regulations.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to consider updating regulations for the storage of ammonium nitrate taking into consideration, as appropriate, other related standards and current practices.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: OSHA previously (December 3, 2014) issued guidance to Regional Administrators to assist OSHA officials in enforcing the ammonium nitrate storage requirements in the Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard. In addition, on December 9, 2013, OSHA issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking, among other things, comments on potential revisions to the Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard, which includes ammonium nitrate storage requirements. According to OSHA officials, the agency discussed the option of adding ammonium nitrate to the list of chemicals covered by the Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations and collected comments. As of June 2018, the PSM rulemaking is on the regulatory agenda under Long-Term Action. We will close this recommendation when the agency decides what action to take as a result of the rulemaking process.

Recommendation: Congress should consider strengthening the current consumer privacy framework to reflect the effects of changes in technology and the marketplace--particularly in relation to consumer data used for marketing purposes--while also ensuring that any limitations on data collection and sharing do not unduly inhibit the economic and other benefits to industry and consumers that data sharing can accord. Among the issues that should be considered are: (1) the adequacy of consumers' ability to access, correct, and control their personal information in circumstances beyond those currently accorded under FCRA; (2) whether there should be additional controls on the types of personal or sensitive information that may or may not be collected and shared; (3) changes needed, if any, in the permitted sources and methods for data collection; and (4) privacy controls related to new technologies, such as web tracking and mobile devices.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not taken action on this matter.

Recommendation: To better enable CPSC to target unsafe consumer products, Congress may wish to amend section 29(f) of CPSA to allow CPSC greater ability to enter into information-sharing agreements with its foreign counterparts that permit reciprocal terms on disclosure of nonpublic information.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 15, 2020, Section 29 of CPSA had not been amended since 2008. In 2013, a bill was introduced (S.1887) but not passed. That bill would have allowed "the Commission, when sharing information under the federal-state cooperation program with a foreign government agency for official law enforcement or consumer protection purposes, to authorize a foreign government agency to make that information available to another agency of the same foreign government (including a political subdivision of that foreign government that is located within the same territory or administrative area as the agency disclosing the information) if an appropriate official of the foreign government agency disclosing the information certifies (by prior agreement, memorandum of understanding with the CPSC, or other written certification) that it will establish and apply specified confidentiality restrictions under the Consumer Product Safety Act."

Recommendation: To reduce the varying interpretations of LRRA, which have led to uncertainty and disagreements among RRGs and state insurance regulators, and at the same time continue to facilitate the formation and efficient operation of RRGs, Congress may wish to consider clarifying certain LRRA provisions. For example, clarifying whether (1) RRG registration requirements beyond those currently specified in LRRA are permitted in nondomiciliary states and (2) fees in addition to premium and other taxes could be charged to RRGs by nondomiciliary states in which they operate. Congress may also wish to consider providing a more specific definition of the types of insurance coverage permitted under LRRA.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, Congress had not taken actions to clarify the provisions we had noted within the Liability Risk Retention Act as causing some uncertainty among risk retention groups and state insurance regulators.

Recommendation: As HHS implements its current and forthcoming efforts to make transparent price information available to consumers, HHS should determine the feasibility of making estimates of complete costs of health care services available to consumers through any of these efforts.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2013, CMS released average inpatient hospital charge information for more than 3,000 hospitals that receive Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System payments for the 100 most frequently billed discharges using DRGs from FY2011 and corresponding average Medicare payments. Shortly thereafter CMS also released outpatient charges. In April 2014, CMS also released data on payments to physicians under Medicare part B. This represents an effort to provide price transparency, although these are not complete cost estimates according to our definition in this report. As of September 2015, we are awaiting an update from HHS on the status of this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: As HHS implements its current and forthcoming efforts to make transparent price information available to consumers, HHS should determine, as appropriate, the next steps for making estimates of complete costs of health care services available to consumers.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, we are awaiting an update from HHS on the status of this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FDA's overseas offices are able to fully meet their mission of helping to ensure the safety of imported products, the Commissioner of FDA should ensure, as it completes its strategic planning process for the overseas offices, that it develops a set of performance goals and measures that can be used to demonstrate overseas office contributions to long-term outcomes related to the regulation of imported products and that overseas office activities are coordinated with the centers and Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA).

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In June and July 2018 FDA reported on its recent efforts to assess the effectiveness of the foreign offices' contributions to drug-safety related outcomes. Among other things, the agency developed new performance measures for these offices along with a monitoring and evaluation plan and conducted an assessment of the foreign offices to help set their objectives and ensure the right balance of personnel, skillsets, and resources. However, FDA still had to develop intermediate outcomes to link with final outcomes. In August 2020, the agency indicated that because of a reorganization and strategic planning effort for its Office of Global Policy and Strategy, it was still revising and updating its measures and its approach to evaluating impact in 2020 to align with a five-year strategic plan completed in March 2020. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator, EPA, should take a number of steps to further protect the American public from elevated lead levels in drinking water. Specifically, to improve EPA's ability to oversee implementation of the lead rule and assess compliance and enforcement activities, EPA should ensure that data on water systems' test results, corrective action milestones, and violations are current, accurate, and complete.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change on the status of this recommendation. In June 2019, EPA reported to GAO that its tools for improving data about water systems compliance are not complete, though some states and laboratories have been exploring and testing incremental versions of them. EPA reported in a previous update that the agency had been working with states through face-to-face trainings and webinars on the reporting of milestone data. GAO will continue to monitor these efforts and reevaluate whether water systems' test results, corrective action milestones and violations are current, accurate and complete subsequent to the completion of the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal and the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime, described briefly below. However, until these new tools are complete, the status of this recommendation remains open. According to EPA, as of June 2018, SDWIS Prime has been available for exploring and testing, following incremental interim releases, since early 2018. In addition, EPA stated that SDWIS Prime will continue to be available for exploring and testing until the first production release anticipated for mid-2020.The agency has also focused on promoting electronic reporting of drinking water data through the development of the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP). In June 2019, EPA stated that as of May 31, 2019, 10 states and more than 200 laboratories were using CMDP. According to EPA, as a result of using CMDP, these states reported a 30-70 percent reduction in staff time for data processing and a 90-99 percent reduction in errors for data.

Recommendation: To provide more efficient, consistent, and effective federal oversight of the nation's food supply, Congress should consider commissioning the National Academy of Sciences or a blue ribbon panel to conduct a detailed analysis of alternative organizational food safety structures and report the results of such an analysis to Congress.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (2002 Farm Bill) established a national Food Safety Commission charged with making specific recommendations for drafting legislative language. Among other things, the Commission was to make recommendations on how to improve the food safety system, create a harmonized, central framework for managing federal food safety programs, and enhance the effectiveness of federal food safety resources. However, as of January 2017, as far as current staff can ascertain, the Commission was never formed, and no recommendations were ever produced. Thus, although Congress acted to create a food safety commission through legislation, the substance of our matter--recommendations for analyzing alternative food safety structures--was not implemented. GAO subsequently made the same matter for congressional consideration in several later products, and the matter also appeared in the annual GAO Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation Report. As of March 2020, it remained unaddressed.