Recommendation: The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Administrator of USAID, should develop performance indicators that would enable State to assess progress toward the strategic objectives and goal of the U.S. conflict minerals strategy going forward. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
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 Labor should direct its subagencies, other than ETA, to design and implement a process to manage and administer grantees' compliance with the Stevens Amendment, including determining to what extent to provide guidance to grantees on calculations. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In responding to the report, DOL stated that it concurs with the recommendation. DOL's subagency, OSHA, provided written comments and stated that it generally agreed with GAO's recommendation. On March 3, 2020, DOL staff said the agency will provide an update to its response to this recommendation, along with responses to open recommendations from other GAO reports, in several months.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Education should design and implement a process to manage and administer grantees' compliance with the Stevens Amendment, including determining to what extent to provide guidance to grantees on calculations. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: In a subsequent response to the report, Education stated that it concurred with GAO's recommendation and is considering enhancing its current approach to overseeing compliance with the Stevens Amendment through post-award monitoring activities. On March 9, 2020, an Education Department Official stated that the planned date that work is due to be completed by the applicable program office is 9/30/2020. According to the official, the work will promote consistency across applicable grant programs and enhance their monitoring efforts. The official further stated that Education will develop general monitoring guidance to further check on compliance with the Stevens Amendment for implementation across Education's grantmaking Principal Offices. As a part of monitoring, program offices will be expected to review the Stevens Amendment statutory requirements with grantees and plans to reiterate that grantees are required to disclose for their grant project the percent of the costs financed with federal funds, the federal dollar amount, and the percentage and dollar amount financed by nongovernmental funds when issuing statements, press releases, bid solicitations, and other documents describing their grant project. Education also plans to remind grantees that they must document how the dollar amounts and percentages were calculated in the disclosures and maintain this documentation with their grant file. We will update the action taken in response to this recommendation when further action is confirmed.

Recommendation: To more fully address the requirements identified in the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should develop metrics for assessing adherence to applicable principles in carrying out statutorily required functions.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: For all eleven functions, DHS has measures that evaluate compliance with five (1, 2, 5, 6, 7) of the nine principles and considered whether measures and applicability were appropriate for the other four principles. In February 2020, DHS stated that it does not measure any functions' adherence with principle #8 related to safeguarding against unauthorized access or #9 regarding compliance with policies, regulations, and laws related to privacy and civil liberties. Specifically, the agency stated these two principles are a steady state consideration across all mission areas and functions and have no associated identified measure. For the remaining two principles, DHS did not provide measures that were related to prioritizing activities based on level of risk (#3) or ensuring that appropriate consideration of coordination with subject matter experts from industry, academia, and national labs (#4). As such, DHS does not have appropriate means for assessing the eleven functions against those two principles. However, in March 2020, DHS stated that the metrics for 2020 were different than those in 2019. Officials are in the process of creating a mapping between the previously provided metrics and those for 2020. We will review this mapping and determine if the aforementioned is still applicable with the new metrics.

Recommendation: To more fully address the requirements identified in the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should establish methods for monitoring the implementation of cybersecurity functions against the principles on an ongoing basis.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: For all 11 functions, DHS stated they have a means of evaluating compliance with five (1, 2, 5, 6, 7) of the nine principles. Once DHS provides specific evidence of data tracked in support of the aforementioned compliance measures, we will review to determine if they have closed this recommendation.

Recommendation: To more fully address the requirements identified in the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should integrate information related to security incidents to provide management with more complete information about NCCIC operations.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2018, DHS invited GAO to observe a vendor's demonstration of the anticipated Unified Workflow Solution (UWS) that officials stated could support closure of this recommendation, when implemented. In February 2020, DHS stated that their planning and design efforts are ongoing and are on track for deployment of a Minimal Viable Product in April 2020. Once DHS has developed and implemented the UWS, we will review their efforts to determine the extent to which the agency has integrated information related to security incidents.

Recommendation: To more fully address the requirements identified in the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should determine the necessity of reducing, consolidating, or modifying the points of entry used to communicate with NCCIC to better ensure that all incident tickets are logged appropriately.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, DHS said that they will provide GAO with a list of the entry points into the NCCIC service desk as well as the standard operating procedures (SOP) and process for quality assurance and quality control. Additionally, the development of the NCCIC Unified Workflow Solution (UWS) could impact this recommendation as well. In February 2020, DHS stated that their planning and design efforts are ongoing and are on track for deployment of a Minimal Viable Product in April 2020. Once DHS has developed and implemented the UWS, we will review their efforts to determine the extent to which the agency has integrated information related to security incidents.

Recommendation: To more fully address the requirements identified in the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should take steps to ensure the full representation of the owners and operators of the nation's most critical cyber-dependent infrastructure assets.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, DHS stated that while no alerts or advisories are sent only to Section 9 entities, they do have various forms and mechanisms that Section 9 entities receive cybersecurity information: through HSIN Communities of Interest, the CISCP program, the applicable Sector Specific Agencies, and the applicable Section Information Sharing and Analysis Centers. Further analysis of the membership of the aforementioned forums and mechanisms is needed to determine the extent of Section 9 representation.

Recommendation: To more fully address the requirements identified in the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should establish plans and time frames for consolidating or integrating the legacy networks used by NCCIC analysts to reduce the need for manual data entry.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019 DHS stated that the legacy Help Desk and operational activity tracking tools continue to be assessed and requirements identified for configuration into the Unified Workflow Solution (UWS). In February 2020, DHS stated that their planning and design efforts are ongoing and are on track for deployment of a Minimal Viable Product in April 2020. Once DHS has developed and implemented the UWS, we will review their efforts to determine the extent to which the agency has integrated information related to security incidents.

Recommendation: To continue the agency's efforts to improve state and local emergency preparedness for rail accidents involving hazardous materials, the Secretary of Transportation should, after the rulemaking is finalized, develop a process for regularly collecting information from state emergency response commissions on the distribution of the railroad-provided hazardous-materials-shipping information to local planning entities.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT published the Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains final rule in February 2019. As of September 2020, PHMSA indicated that it wanted to close out the recommendation by adding 2 questions to the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness grant application asking SERCs whether they receive information on High-Hazard Flammable Train operations and whether they are disseminating this information to local planning entities. OMB is currently reviewing the additional information request. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address the recommendation.

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 better ensure that FBI whistleblowers have access to recourse under DOJ's regulations should the individuals experience retaliation, and to minimize the possibility of discouraging future potential whistleblowers, the Attorney General should clarify in all current relevant DOJ guidance and communications, including FBI guidance and communications, to whom FBI employees may make protected disclosures and, further, explicitly state that employees will not have access to recourse if they experience retaliation for reporting alleged wrongdoing to someone not designated in DOJ's regulations.

Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In response to our report, in December 2016, Congress passed and the President signed the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-302, which, among other things, provides a means for FBI employees to obtain corrective action for retaliation for disclosures of wrongdoing made to supervisors and others in the employees' chain of command. Following this, the FBI worked closely with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) to develop a training that clearly identifies to whom FBI employees may make protected disclosures. In addition, the FBI issued an aligned policy directive and two fact sheets detailing whistleblower rights. In October 2018, a DOJ official reported to us that the department was in the process of updating its regulations and, in February 2020, DOJ officials confirmed that the updated regulation was in the departmental clearance process but they could not provide an estimate for when it would be finalized. As a result, as of February 2020, DOJ's regulations have not been updated and are inconsistent with the current statute and FBI's guidance and training; as such, the problem of unclear or conflicting guidance to FBI employees still needs to be addressed. To address this recommendation, DOJ would need to update its regulations and ensure that all relevant guidance is clear and consistent across the department.

Recommendation: To improve the management of DHS FOIA requests, the Secretary of DHS should direct the Chief FOIA Officer to improve reporting of FOIA costs by including salaries, employee benefits, non-personnel direct costs, indirect costs, and costs for other offices.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, we have followed up with the department to request documentation but have not yet received evidence of DHS's planned actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the management of DHS FOIA requests, the Secretary of DHS should direct the Chief FOIA Officer to direct USCIS and Coast Guard to fully implement the recommended FOIA processing system capabilities and the section 508 requirement.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, we have followed up with the department to request documentation but have not yet received evidence of DHS's planned actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the management of DHS FOIA requests, the Secretary of DHS should direct the Chief FOIA Officer to determine the viability of re-establishing the service-level agreement between the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to eliminate duplication in the processing of immigration files. If the benefits of doing so would exceed the costs, re-establish the agreement.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, we have followed up with the department to request documentation but have not yet received evidence of DHS's planned actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better protect plan sponsors and participants who use managed account services, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for the EBSA to consider the fiduciary status of managed account providers when they offer services on an opt-in basis and, if necessary, make regulatory changes or provide guidance to address any issues.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL concurred with this recommendation and agreed to review existing guidance and consider whether additional guidance is needed in light of the various business models we described. On April 8, 2016, DOL issued a final rule that clarified that anyone providing advice that is individualized or specifically directed to a participant pertaining to a decision to take, or refrain from taking, a distribution from the plan is a fiduciary. According to DOL, this final rule will better protect plan participants by requiring service providers who provide investment advice to act in their clients' best interest, preventing the erosion of their retirement savings by fees and substandard performance attributable to conflicts of interest. In 2018, a court ruling vacated this regulation; there is legal uncertainty surrounding the regulation and its effect regarding fiduciary duties,

Recommendation: To help sponsors who offer managed account services or who are considering doing so better protect their 401(k) plan participants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to require plan sponsors to request from record keepers more than one managed account provider option, and notify the Department of Labor if record keepers fail to do so.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with a regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant-directed individual account plans. However, in Spring 2017, DOL removed this project as an active project on its regulatory agenda. GAO believes requiring plan sponsors to ask for more than one choice of a provider may be an effective method of broadening plan sponsors' choices of managed account providers. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors and participants more effectively assess the performance of managed accounts, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to amend participant disclosure regulations to require that sponsors furnish standardized performance and benchmarking information to participants. To accomplish this, EBSA could promulgate regulations that would require sponsors who offer managed account services to provide their participants with standardized performance and benchmarking information on managed accounts. For example, sponsors could periodically furnish each managed account participant with the aggregate performance of participants' managed account portfolios and returns for broad-based securities market indexes and applicable customized benchmarks, based on those benchmarks provided for the plan's designated investment alternatives.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with (1) its regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant directed individual account plans and (2) open proposed rulemaking project involving the qualified default investment alternative and participant-level fee disclosure regulations. In Spring 2017, the project on brokerage windows was removed as an active project on DOL's regulatory agenda, and the project on qualified default investment alternatives was moved to the long-term action category. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors and participants more effectively assess the performance of managed accounts, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to amend service provider disclosure regulations to require that providers furnish standardized performance and benchmarking information to sponsors. To accomplish this, EBSA could promulgate regulations that would require service providers to disclose to sponsors standardized performance and benchmarking information on managed accounts. For example, providers could, prior to selection and periodically thereafter, as applicable, furnish sponsors with aggregated returns for generalized conservative, moderate, and aggressive portfolios, actual managed account portfolio returns for each of the sponsor's participants, and returns for broad-based securities market indexes and applicable customized benchmarks, based on those benchmarks provided for the plan's designated investment alternatives.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with (1) its regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant directed individual account plans and (2) open proposed rulemaking project involving the qualified default investment alternative and participant-level fee disclosure regulations. In Spring 2017, the project on brokerage windows was removed as an active project on DOL's regulatory agenda, and the project on qualified default investment alternatives was moved to the long-term action category of DOL's regulatory agenda. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors who offer managed account services or who are considering doing so better protect their 401(k) plan participants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to provide guidance to plan sponsors for selecting and overseeing managed account providers that addresses: (1) the importance of considering multiple providers when choosing a managed account provider, (2) factors to consider when offering managed accounts as a Qualified Default Investment Alternative or on an opt-in basis, and (3) approaches for evaluating the services of managed account providers.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with a regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant-directed individual account plans. However, in Spring 2017, DOL removed this project as an active project on its regulatory agenda. GAO continues to believe that plan sponsors would benefit from additional guidance for selecting and overseeing managed account providers. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

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 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: 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 better ensure that economically similar outcomes are taxed similarly and minimize opportunities for abuse, the Secretary of the Treasury should undertake a study that compares the current approach to alternative approaches for the taxation of financial derivatives. To determine if changes would be beneficial, such a study should weigh the tradeoffs to IRS and taxpayers that each alternative presents, including simplicity, administrability, and economic efficiency.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: Treasury disagreed with this recommendation based on the fact that many outside studies already exist and IRS did not comment. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in December 2017 did not include any requirements that Treasury study alternative approaches for the taxation of financial derivatives. However members of Congress have released proposals for a mark-to-market tax system, which would include financial derivatives. GAO continues to maintain that further study is needed in coordination with IRS and will continue to monitor the climate for such a study.

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 Congress may wish to consider broadening IRS's ability to use math error authority (MEA), with appropriate safeguards against misuse of that authority.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as we suggested in February 2010. Section 208 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113 enacted in December 2015) gave IRS the authority to use math error authority if (1) a taxpayer claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) during the period in which a taxpayer is not permitted to claim such credit as a consequence of either having made a prior fraudulent or reckless claim; or (2) a taxpayer omitted information required to be reported because the taxpayer made prior improper claims of the Child Tax Credit or the AOTC. In addition, Congress expanded math error authority for the First-Time Homebuyer Credit in November 2009. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what we suggested in February 2010, we maintain that a broader authorization of math error authority with appropriate controls would enable IRS to correct obvious noncompliance, would be less intrusive and burdensome to taxpayers than audits, and would potentially help taxpayers who underclaim tax benefits to which they are entitled. If Congress decides to extend broader math error authority to IRS, controls may be needed to ensure that this authority is used properly such as requiring IRS to report on its use of math error authority. The Administration also requested that Congress expand IRS's math error authority as part of the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2021. Specifically, the Administration requested authority to correct a taxpayer's return in the following circumstances: 1) the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of January 2020, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority. We continue to believe that Congress should broaden IRS's math error authority with appropriate safeguards in order to help reduce the tax gap, which is the difference between tax amounts that taxpayers should have paid and what they actually paid .

Recommendation: In order to better assess whether changes are needed in the way IRS administers activities not engaged in for profit provisions, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should take steps to estimate the extent of activities not engaged in for profit noncompliance from its ongoing research programs.

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

Comments: IRS agreed to research sole proprietor noncompliance, as GAO recommended in September 2009. It is focusing on those who improperly claim business losses (i.e., not profits). IRS's Office of Research, Analysis and Statistics is using the reporting compliance study of Form 1040 filers to gather the data on such noncompliant business losses. This research covered sampled tax returns filed for tax years 2009, 2010, and 2011 and used audits of the sampled tax returns that are filed for each tax year. In November 2016, IRS research officials provided the initial rough estimates of the percentage of disallowed losses and associated dollar amounts for all 3 tax years but as of December 2019, they had not yet indicated how these estimates helped IRS to understand the nature of the tax noncompliance. The officials cautioned that their ability to develop the estimates depends on the number of observations that can be applied from each tax year. This research, when completed, could help IRS to identify noncompliant sole proprietor issues and take action to reduce losses.

Recommendation: To develop timely chemical risk information that EPA needs to effectively conduct its mission, the Administrator, EPA, should require the Office of Research and Development to re-evaluate its draft proposed changes to the IRIS assessment process in light of the issues raised in this report and ensure that any revised process periodically assesses the level of resources that should be dedicated to this significant program to meet user needs and maintain a viable IRIS database.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of February 2020, EPA officials indicated that the IRIS Program had almost completed internal review of a "Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments," intended to guide staff through the sequential stages of the IRIS assessment process and ensure consistency across assessments. The Handbook, when finalized and used by staff, codifies the agency's effort to reevaluate their assessment process, but doesn't address the resources that should be dedicated to the IRIS Program. A workforce plan that includes both staff and budget resources consistent with user needs is necessary. As we reported in March 2019, the program has made strides utilizing project management software and project management techniques that enable the IRIS Program to better plan assessment schedules and utilize staff. However, we also reported in March 2019 that the President's budget requests since fiscal year 2018 have repeatedly cut the budget by as much as 40 percent for the Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) area, of which IRIS is a part. While these cuts were not enacted by Congress, the President's fiscal year 2021 budget request again cuts the HERA program by 34 percent, or approximately $12.7 million dollars. These cuts could have an impact on the IRIS program's ability to meet EPA program and regional office needs, if enacted by Congress.