Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct EPA officials responsible for appointing advisory committee members to follow a key step in its appointment process—developing and including draft membership grids in appointment packets with staff rationales for proposed membership—for all committees. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, EPA restated its reasons for disagreeing with this recommendation. (EPA's rationale for disagreeing was originally stated in a June 2019 letter included in an appendix in our report.) We will provide updated information regarding this recommendation when it becomes available.

Recommendation: EPA's Designated Agency Ethics Official should direct EPA's Ethics Office, as part of its periodic review of EPA's ethics program, to evaluate—for example, through audits or spot-checks—the quality of financial disclosure reviews for special government employees appointed to EPA advisory committees. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2019, EPA notified GAO that it expects to launch an electronic financial disclosure reporting system for special government employees in January 2021. Once financial disclosure forms for these individuals are available electronically, EPA's Ethics Office will be better positioned to audit or review the forms, according to EPA officials. In addition, the electronic filing system should minimize errors (e.g. failing to record the date that the form was received) made by filers and reviewers, according to EPA officials.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should consistently document CEBR program-wide goals to clarify intended program results. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, OJP reported that it is building a logic model for the CEBR program that will provide the basis for addressing this recommendation. According to OJP, this logic model will more clearly align CEBR program goals and objectives with permitted program activities and associated performance measures. OJP had originally planned to finalize this logic model by March 2020 and share it--including any resulting changes in how program goals are articulated--with the CEBR stakeholder community in advance of the fiscal year 2021 grant cycle, beginning October 1, 2020. In June 2020, OJP reported that the CEBR program was transferred from OJP's National Institute of Justice to OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance. As a result, OJP reported that plans to finalize and communicate the CEBR logic model have been postponed. GAO will follow-up with OJP in the winter of 2020-2021 to obtain documentation on the logic model and how they are communicating it. This will enable GAO to determine if the model--and OJP's efforts to communicate it to stakeholders--meets the intent of the recommendation by consistently documenting CEBR program-wide goals and clarifying intended results.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should ensure that performance measures for each CEBR program-wide goal fully reflect appropriate attributes of successful performance measures. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, OJP reported that it is reviewing each CEBR program performance measure as part of its process for creating a CEBR program logic model. According to OJP, the purpose of this review is to ensure the measures are meaningful and have the right attributes. In June 2020, OJP reported that, as appropriate, updated performance measures will be included in the fiscal year 2021 CEBR grant program solicitation--which they anticipate releasing in early 2021. GAO will follow-up with OJP in the spring of 2021 to obtain documentation of changes to performance measures, and to determine whether updated performance measures meet the intent of the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should document which employee positions have been delegated certification (final signature) authority for confidential financial disclosure reports and specify required levels of review and approval. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, OJP provided a memo sent by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP to OJP components, dated March 2020. This memo states that supervisors are to review and sign reports, and notes that secondary supervisors may review and sign reports as Final Reviewing Officials, but it is not mandatory. This is a positive step, but does not fully meet the intent of the recommendation because it is not clear if immediate supervisors have been delegated final signature authority. Specifically, there are two places for signature on the reports (1) "Signature and Title of Supervisor/Other Intermediate Reviewer," and (2) "Signature and Title of Agency's Final Reviewing Official" (certification). According to Office of Government Ethics' regulation and guidance, review and signature of a supervisor or other intermediate reviewer is optional, but review and signature of a Final Reviewing Official-who has been delegated authority to certify reports-is required. OJP's memo states that secondary supervisors may sign as Final Reviewing Officials (i.e. have been delegated this authority), but OJP's memo is not clear if immediate supervisors have also been delegated authority to certify reports as Final Reviewing Officials. To address this discrepancy and enable GAO to close this recommendation as "implemented," OJP needs to clarify who has been delegated authority to certify reports as Final Reviewing Officials.

Recommendation: The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should (1) clarify its guidance to grantees to specify what their requirements are under 28 C.F.R. pt. 69 with regard to obtaining lobbying certification documents, and obtaining and forwarding to OJP lobbying disclosure forms, from tiers beneath them; and (2) design a control to follow-up with grantees to help ensure they are meeting these requirements. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, OJP reported that it plans to (1) issue guidance to all OJP funding recipients to remind them of lobbying disclosure requirements and provide instructions for how to submit the disclosures, and (2) implement an updated in-depth monitoring checklist whereby OJP can ensure applicable lobbying disclosure forms are collected and submitted to OJP. OJP stated that it plans to take these steps by October 1, 2020. GAO will follow-up in late 2020 to obtain and review all relevant documentation and ensure that these steps meet the intent of the recommendation.

Recommendation: Congress should consider legislation requiring comprehensive and timely information on political appointees serving in the executive branch to be collected and made publicly accessible. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, no bills have been introduced related to this matter. When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Small Business Administration should implement procedures to track and verify that required employees complete initial ethics training and that completion of this training is documented. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: SBA officials provided documentation, including internal operating procedures for certifying and tracking initial ethics training, to support that they have taken initial steps to address our recommendation. In a letter dated September 13, 2019, SBA's Designated Agency Ethics Official stated that, since February 2019, SBA has used those procedures to document the provision of initial ethics training to political appointees. In that letter, SBA stated that it planned to provide additional documentation to GAO to support this action. When we receive this documentation, we will assess the implementation of SBA;s new procedures to confirm that, in operation, these procedures meet the intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should direct the Departmental Ethics Office, in conjunction with the Chief Human Capital Officer, to develop, document, and implement a strategic workforce planning process that aligns with its ongoing departmental reorganization and that is tailored to the specific needs of the ethics program. As part of this process, Interior should monitor and assess the critical skills and competencies that its ethics program needs presently and is projected to need in the future. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In a letter dated September 10, 2019, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget stated that Interior concurred with this recommendation and is in the process of reorganizing the Department's ethics program, including working with the Chief Human Capital Officer to develop and implement strategic workforce planning. Interior expects to complete this action by December 31, 2021. When we can confirm what actions Interior has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should ensure that the department's ethics program policies and procedures are documented and easily accessible to program staff. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In a letter dated September 10, 2019, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget stated that Interior concurred with this recommendation and is in the process of developing ethics program policies and procedures. Interior expects to complete this action by December 31, 2021. Once finalized, Interior plans to make ethics program policies and procedures easily accessible to the program staff. When we can confirm what actions Interior has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To improve oversight of school finances and provide better information to schools and the public about its monitoring efforts, the Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid should update the composite score formula to better measure schools' financial conditions and capture financial risks.

Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, Education published updated regulations related to the financial responsibility composite score that include steps to address some of the limitations identified in our report. For instance, these regulations incorporate changes to better align the composite score calculations with recently updated accounting standards related to leases. In additional, these regulatory changes are designed to curb the ability of schools to manipulate their composite scores by clarifying what is considered "long-term debt" and requiring schools to disclose in their financial statements the terms of the debt and certify that the funds were used for capitalized assets rather than to fund operations. However, these regulatory updates do not fully address the current limitations of the composite score formula. For example, they do not reflect several other changes in accounting standards identified in our report or incorporate new financial metrics that would provide a broader indication of schools' financial health, such as liquidity, historical trend analysis, or future projections. Education has stated that it intends to explore further updates to the composite score methodology in future regulatory actions, and we will continue to monitor these efforts.

Recommendation: To improve oversight of school finances and provide better information to schools and the public about its monitoring efforts, the Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid should improve guidance to schools about how the financial composite score is calculated, for example, by updating current guidance to include explanations about common areas of confusion and misinterpretation for schools.

Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open

Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation and that additional general guidance to schools would be helpful. The department also stated that it will update the guidance in its Federal Student Aid Handbook and may provide answers and related guidance to some frequently asked questions on its website. As of October 2019, Education had not completed these actions.

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 strengthen the scenario design process, the Federal Reserve should assess--and adjust as necessary--the overall level of severity of its severely adverse scenario by expanding consideration of the trade-offs associated with different degrees of severity.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had initiated two projects that would allow a more efficient evaluation of multiple scenarios, including assessing trade-offs associated with different levels of scenario severity. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on these projects, which remain in progress. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of these projects and any additional actions it takes that may be responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve understanding of the range of potential crises against which the banking system would be resilient and the outcomes that might result from different scenarios, the Federal Reserve should assess whether a single severe supervisory scenario is sufficient to inform CCAR decisions and promote the resilience of the banking system. Such an assessment could include conducting sensitivity analysis involving multiple severe supervisory scenarios--potentially using CCAR data for a cycle that is already complete, to avoid concerns about tailoring the scenario to achieve a particular outcome.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had initiated two projects that would allow a more efficient evaluation of multiple scenarios. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on these projects, which remain in progress. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of these projects and any additional actions it takes that may be responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the Federal Reserve's ability to manage model risk and ensure that decisions based on supervisory stress test results are informed by an understanding of model risk, the Federal Reserve should design and implement a process to test and document the sensitivity and uncertainty of the model system's output--the post-stress capital ratios used to make CCAR quantitative assessment determinations--including, at a minimum, the cumulative uncertainty surrounding the capital ratios and their sensitivity to key model parameters, specifications, and assumptions from across the system of models.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had previously initiated multiple projects to fully respond to our recommendation, several of which were now complete. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on the remaining projects, which remain in various stages of completion. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of these projects and, once we receive documentation demonstrating the completion of responsive actions, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the Federal Reserve's ability to manage model risk and ensure that decisions based on supervisory stress test results are informed by an understanding of model risk, the Federal Reserve should design and implement a process to communicate information about the range and sources of uncertainty surrounding the post-stress capital ratio estimates to the Board during CCAR deliberations.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had previously initiated a project to fully respond to our recommendation. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on the project, but as of February 2020, had not provided documentation fully supporting implementation of a process consistent with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of this project, and we will update the status of this recommendation once we receive documentation demonstrating the completion of responsive actions.

Recommendation: To improve the Federal Reserve's ability to manage model risk and ensure that decisions based on supervisory stress test results are informed by an understanding of model risk, the Federal Reserve should design and implement a process for the Board and senior staff to articulate tolerance levels for key risks identified through sensitivity testing and for the degree of uncertainty in the projected capital ratios.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had previously initiated a project to fully respond to our recommendation. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on the project, but as of February 2020, had not provided documentation fully supporting implementation of a process consistent with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of this project, and we will update the status of this recommendation once we receive documentation demonstrating the completion of responsive actions.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of the SEC's conflict minerals disclosure rule, the Secretary of Commerce should submit to the appropriate congressional committees a plan outlining steps that Commerce will take, with associated time frames, to (1) assess the accuracy of the independent private sector audits (IPSA) and other due diligence processes described under section 13(p) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (2) develop recommendations for the process used to carry out such audits, including ways to improve the accuracy of the audits and establish standards of best practices for such audits; and (3) acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry out these responsibilities.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In response to this recommendation, Commerce indicated in an October 25, 2016 letter to GAO that it has developed a three-step approach which parallels the three distinct elements of the recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, Commerce needs to submit the said three-step plan, including associated timeframes for their completion, to the appropriate congressional committees. Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act defines "appropriate committees" to mean the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Finance, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate. In a January 2018 email, a Commerce official indicated to GAO that the agency had reviewed the 19 IPSA audits filed by companies in 2016, and the agency plans to complete a review of the 16 IPSA audits filed in 2017 by the end of FY 2018. However, the official noted that the "Department will not undertake the development of recommendations and best practices while the SEC is revising its rule." Commerce cited SEC staff's recent updated guidance and ongoing reviews of the conflict minerals rule, among other things, as their primary reason. However, the SEC staff's updated guidance also clarified that the guidance "does not express any legal conclusion on the rule" and is "subject to any further action that may be taken by the Commission." Therefore, the rule is still in effect, according to SEC staff. We requested a status update in October 2019 and Commerce responded: "In National Association of Manufacturers v. United States SEC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135732 (2017), the District Court for the District of Columbia declared an element of the relevant SEC rule unconstitutional, necessitating that the SEC determine how that decision affects overall implementation of the Conflict Minerals rule. Until the SEC completes its deliberative process, makes such determination, and implements any necessary revisions to the rule, the Department does not intend to undertake additional work under Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act with regard to the assessment of the accuracy of the audits and other due diligence processes or recommendations regarding the audits. After which point, the Department will assess how the SEC determination and any revisions to the rule affect the Department's plans for implementing GAO's recommendation."

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and completeness of Amtrak's financial reporting and to provide Congress with accurate information to make funding decisions, the President of Amtrak should ensure that Amtrak's depreciation expenses are appropriately allocated to its lines of business once the underlying capital asset data are determined reliable.

Agency: National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, Amtrak had not allocated its depreciation costs to its lines of business, as we recommended. In 2019, Amtrak stated that federal law required Amtrak to allocate and report its capital spending by line of business. Amtrak further stated that depreciation expense is a good proxy for capital spending and that the changed reporting requirements eliminated the need to report depreciation by line of business. In addition, although Amtrak's external auditor did not find any material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in Amtrak's fiscal year 2019 audited financial statement-the most recent available-those statements do not allocate Amtrak's depreciation costs to its various business lines. We will update this recommendation's status with any new information from Amtrak.

Recommendation: In addition, to better inform congressional decision making regarding the funding of Northeast Corridor infrastructure improvements, the Northeast Corridor Commission should work with its members to establish criteria for its members to use in selecting and prioritizing capital projects to be included in future editions of its 5-year capital plan.

Agency: Northeast Corridor Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, the Northeast Corridor (NEC) Commission and its members had yet to establish criteria for selecting and prioritizing capital projects in its 5-year capital plan. The Commission staff told GAO that it had developed potential criteria for selecting projects for both regional and NEC-wide priorities to be included the Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan, Fiscal Years 2020 - 2024, published in April 2019 and updated in December 2019. However, those potential criteria were not formally adopted by the Commission members. Specifically, the Commission's proposed criteria for selecting NEC-wide priorities included projects that would prevent the potential severing of the Northeast Corridor and advance state-of-good repair. Proposed criteria for regional priorities included projects that would increase train capacity and improve passenger access to rail services. While the proposed criteria were not used to select or prioritize projects in the Capital Investment Plan, Fiscal Years 2020 - 2024, the plan presented the proposed criteria as "benefits" for the projects in that plan. While this information may be helpful to stakeholders in understanding some of the rationale for the inclusion of projects in the plan, it does not demonstrate that the Commission and its members have established formal criteria for selecting and prioritizing projects, as GAO recommended. GAO will continue to monitor the Commission's progress in addressing this recommendation.

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

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of 05/01/2019, Congress has taken no action.

Recommendation: To improve the usefulness, reliability, and comparability of Form 5500 data for all stakeholders while limiting the burden on the filing community, the Secretaries of DOL and Treasury, and the Director of PBGC should consider implementing the findings from our panel when modifying plan investment and service provider fee information, including: (1) revising Schedule H plan asset categories to better match current investment vehicles and provide more transparency into plan investments; (2) revising the Schedule of Assets attachments to create a standard searchable format; (3) developing a central repository for EIN and PN numbers for filers and service providers to improve the comparability of form data across filings; (4) clarifying Schedule C instructions for direct, eligible indirect, and reportable indirect compensation so plan fees are reported more consistently and, as we recommended in the past, better align with the 408(b)(2) fee disclosures; and (5) simplifying and clarify Schedule C service provider codes to increase reporting consistency.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: As August 2018, DOL continues to accept meetings with interested stakeholders on issues related to its 5500 Modernization Project. However, EBSA does not at this time have an expected next action date for this project. The decision was made in the development and clearance of its Spring 2018 regulatory agenda to classify this project as a long-term action.

Recommendation: To improve the usefulness, reliability, and comparability of Form 5500 data for all stakeholders while limiting the burden on the filing community, the Secretaries of DOL and Treasury, and the Director of PBGC should consider implementing the findings from our panel when modifying plan investment and service provider fee information, including: (1) revising Schedule H plan asset categories to better match current investment vehicles and provide more transparency into plan investments; (2) revising the Schedule of Assets attachments to create a standard searchable format; (3) developing a central repository for EIN and PN numbers for filers and service providers to improve the comparability of form data across filings; (4) clarifying Schedule C instructions for direct, eligible indirect, and reportable indirect compensation so plan fees are reported more consistently and, as we recommended in the past, better align with the 408(b)(2) fee disclosures; and (5) simplifying and clarify Schedule C service provider codes to increase reporting consistency.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To improve the usefulness, reliability, and comparability of Form 5500 data for all stakeholders while limiting the burden on the filing community, the Secretaries of DOL and Treasury, and the Director of PBGC should consider implementing the findings from our panel when modifying plan investment and service provider fee information, including: (1) revising Schedule H plan asset categories to better match current investment vehicles and provide more transparency into plan investments; (2) revising the Schedule of Assets attachments to create a standard searchable format; (3) developing a central repository for EIN and PN numbers for filers and service providers to improve the comparability of form data across filings; (4) clarifying Schedule C instructions for direct, eligible indirect, and reportable indirect compensation so plan fees are reported more consistently and, as we recommended in the past, better align with the 408(b)(2) fee disclosures; and (5) simplifying and clarify Schedule C service provider codes to increase reporting consistency.

Agency: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: Congress may wish to consider instituting a penalty on non-material advisor promoters for failing to provide investor lists to IRS within a specified time period when requested, comparable to the 20-business-day requirement for material advisors.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, we have not identified legislative action in the 114th or 115th Congress or any enacted legislation since 2011 amending section 6111 (disclosure of reportable transactions including the definition of a material advisor), section 6112 (requirement to keep lists of investors) or section 6708 (imposing the penalty for failure to maintain and provide lists to IRS).

Recommendation: To improve reporting on the results of examinations on ATAT issues, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should separately track the tax amounts recommended, assessed, and collected between ATAT issues and non-ATAT issues.

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

Comments: As of December 2019, IRS did not plan on taking any further actions to track examination results for ATAT versus non-ATAT issues, as GAO recommended in May 2011. In July 2012, IRS told GAO that although it agreed with GAO's May 2011 recommendation, resource and capability constraints preclude it from capturing information in this way. GAO maintains that tracking examination results for ATAT versus non-ATAT issues would provide IRS management with the data needed to make informed judgments about program effectiveness and resource allocations. IRS has taken steps to check whether taxpayers file all required ATAT-related disclosure obligations. In February 2013, IRS implemented a new indicator and matching process to regularly review whether taxpayers are meeting their ATAT-related filing obligations. Additionally, IRS developed a procedure to evaluate the completeness of ATAT-related disclosure forms and follow up on incomplete forms as necessary and updated the Internal Revenue Manual to reflect these changes. Developing and implementing these new processes and procedures will provide IRS with additional information for determining whether the disclosures are made as required and are complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should direct the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, working in coordination with the Controller of OMB's Office of Federal Financial Management, to establish written policies and procedures to help ensure that major treaty and other international agreement information is properly identified and reported in the CFS. Specifically, these policies and procedures should require that agencies develop a detailed schedule of all major treaties and other international agreements that obligate the U.S. government to provide cash, goods, or services, or that create other financial arrangements that are contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of future events (a starting point for compiling these data could be the State Department's Treaties in Force).

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should direct the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, working in coordination with the Controller of OMB's Office of Federal Financial Management, to establish written policies and procedures to help ensure that major treaty and other international agreement information is properly identified and reported in the CFS. Specifically, these policies and procedures should require that agencies classify all such scheduled major treaties and other international agreements as commitments or contingencies.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should direct the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, working in coordination with the Controller of OMB's Office of Federal Financial Management, to establish written policies and procedures to help ensure that major treaty and other international agreement information is properly identified and reported in the CFS. Specifically, these policies and procedures should require that agencies disclose in the notes to the CFS amounts for major treaties and other international agreements that have a reasonably possible chance of resulting in a loss or claim as a contingency.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should direct the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, working in coordination with the Controller of OMB's Office of Federal Financial Management, to establish written policies and procedures to help ensure that major treaty and other international agreement information is properly identified and reported in the CFS. Specifically, these policies and procedures should require that agencies disclose in the notes to the CFS amounts for major treaties and other international agreements that are classified as commitments and that may require measurable future financial obligations.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should direct the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, working in coordination with the Controller of OMB's Office of Federal Financial Management, to establish written policies and procedures to help ensure that major treaty and other international agreement information is properly identified and reported in the CFS. Specifically, these policies and procedures should require that agencies take steps to prevent major treaties and other international agreements that are classified as remote from being recorded or disclosed as probable or reasonably possible in the CFS.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.