Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Navy provides additional information in the annual President's budget exhibits associated with CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal to facilitate improved transparency and accountability. Additions should, at a minimum, include the CVN 65 funding estimate across the Future Years Defense Program, activities planned or performed for applicable fiscal years, tracking of total cost and high level changes in cost and schedule from the prior year with explanations for changes, and if applicable, contract type, awardee, award value, and award and completion date estimates. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation, stating that the Navy would develop and submit additional cost, schedule, and contract information to supplement existing budget exhibits and continue this reporting through completion of the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act enacted on August 13, 2018. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to include information on each dismantlement and disposal of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier occurring or planned to occur during the period of the future years defense program submitted to Congress with that budget. For each ship, this includes (1) a summary of activities and significant developments in connection with the dismantlement and disposal; (2) a detailed description of cost and schedule performance against the baseline for the dismantlement and disposal, including a description of and explanation for any variance from such baseline; and (3) a description of the funding amounts requested, or expected to be requested, for the dismantlement and disposal for prior, current, and future fiscal years. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a schedule of work and requesting funding for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal plans in 2023 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to obtain an independent cost estimate, performed by DOD's Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation or the Naval Center for Cost Analysis, for both the naval shipyard and full commercial options before choosing a dismantlement and disposal approach for CVN 65. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would obtain independent cost estimates through the Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) for both the naval shipyard and full commercial CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal options before a final decision is made on which option the Navy will pursue. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also said the Navy is working directly with the Center for Naval Analyses, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and CAPE to gather and review independent cost estimates for commercial dismantlement and updated naval shipyard cost estimates. The commercial and naval shipyard estimates will be reviewed and assessed by CAPE prior to the Navy making a decision on which option to pursue. CAPE's written report assessing the commercial and naval shipyard estimates is expected to combine with the ongoing EIS to directly inform the Navy's decision for CVN 65. We will continue to monitor the status of independent cost estimate activities for CVN 65 until the estimates have been completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to complete a risk management plan prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare a risk management plan for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of a contract or the provision of funds. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that if the Navy selects the commercial dismantlement option for CVN 65, the Navy anticipates identifying potential risks and mitigations in February 2021 for CVN 65 dismantling to support independent cost estimate development, with risk management plan approval to follow in July 2022. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's efforts to complete a risk management plan as the department works toward a decision for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to approve a cost and schedule baseline prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare and approve a cost and schedule baseline for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of any contract or the provision of funds for the effort. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department on August 13, 2018, as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that provides a cost and schedule baseline for the dismantlement and disposal of nuclear powered aircraft carriers approved by Navy leadership. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a cost and schedule baseline for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal in 2022 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: As the Board of Governors implements plans to develop an ERM framework, it should include a component to identify and assess risks of regulatory capture across the LISCC program. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors reported to us that it was developing its ERM framework. The Board added that it was establishing a Board Risk Committee (comprised of senior leaders) to oversee its ERM program and serve as the central forum for addressing Board-wide risk issues. The Board also said that it has begun to implement a number of strategic components of the ERM framework. In August 2019, the Board stated that in their view, the ERM framework they are developing would not significantly alter the management processes that the Board and System have in place under the LISCC program that continue to work effectively. The Board reported to us that it has continued to develop the ERM program with guidance of the Board Risk Committee, which meets quarterly, and continues to serve as the central forum for Board-wide risk issues and oversight of the ERM program. In August 2020, the Board added that it would take several years to develop the ERM program. The Board also will continue to implement strategic components of the ERM framework throughout the Board.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should finalize and implement program-wide guidance for the LISCC Reserve Banks on implementing LISCC policies. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2019 update. In August 2019, the Board of Governors told us that the LISCC supervisory program had taken several steps to "finalize and implement program-wide guidance for the LISCC Reserve Banks on implementing LISCC policies." The Board reported that in 2017 it had issued a near-final LISCC program manual, which they said will memorialize all aspects of the LISCC supervisory program. The Board added the updated manual will reflect the results of a self-assessment of the LISCC Program's first full year of operations under the LISCC core program model, and the initial implementation of the new Large Financial Institution Ratings Framework. The Board also said that, since the last update, the LISCC supervisory program's operating policies, procedures, and templates for the conduct of supervisory activities have been completed and implemented.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should streamline its conflict-of-interest disclosure review process for participants in the LISCC program, such as by storing disclosure information in compatible electronic systems. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that they were assessing the feasibility of integrating existing electronic systems. They added that they have drafted guidance that develops a LISCC-specific conflicts of interest and examiner credential program that will seek to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of conflicts of interest rules for all staff, both at the Board and the Reserve Banks, that participate in the LISCC supervisory program. They said that the Board plans to issue this guidance and begin implementation of a more consistent and centralized disclosure review approach in 2018. In addition, they said that they have begun collecting and storing conflicts of interest disclosure information for all LISCC participants, including Board LISCC staff, in one electronic system. They added that they have provided initial training to Board LISCC staff on the disclosure review process and the electronic system to ensure consistent collection of conflicts of interest data for all LISCC participants.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should systematically collect and maintain information on the institutions supervisory employees work for before they are hired by the Federal Reserve and their employment destination when they leave. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that they had implemented policies intended to mitigate the risk that an employee may be influenced by prior employment or the prospect of future employment and place their private interests ahead of the organization's supervisory mission. As an example, they said that recently the Federal Reserve broadened the scope of post-employment restrictions applicable to senior examiners. They added that the Board has begun to develop a more systematic approach to collect and monitor pre- and post-employment data through the use of an electronic system. They said that this updated electronic system is scheduled to be released, for both Board and Reserve Banks use, in 2019.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should conduct a periodic self-assessment of ethics programs, policies, and procedures that apply to LISCC program participants. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that their Ethics program staff and Supervision & Regulation staff are jointly assessing the current ethics programs, policies, and procedures applicable to LISCC program participants. The Federal Reserve expects to finalize and implement new conflicts of interest policies and procedures applicable to LISCC participants in 2019.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should revise and publicly issue OMB guidance--through an update to its Circular No. A-11, a memorandum, or other means--to provide time frames and associated milestones for implementing the federal program inventory. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for implementing some of the federal program inventory requirements. In that guidance, OMB states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to leverage federal spending data reported on USASpending.gov as required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. Those data can be presented at the program activity level, and therefore could meet the inventory requirements to present program-level spending data. However, OMB's guidance does not yet present any time frames or milestones for meeting other inventory requirements, such as describing the purpose of each program or how it contributes to the agency's mission and goals. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should consider--as OMB determines its strategy for resumed implementation of the federal program inventory--using a systematic approach, such as the information architecture framework, to help ensure that GPRAMA requirements and our past recommendations for the inventory are addressed. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB states that it and agencies will meet some of the federal inventory requirements by leveraging the spending data reported on USASpending.gov. The guidance notes that this information is provided in a structured information architecture format on USASpending.gov. In July 2019, OMB staff told us that they considered an information architecture approach in response to our past reports on the topic. However, OMB has not yet clarified in guidance or elsewhere how the information architecture format of USASpending.gov-which is currently focused on spending data-could be used to meet additional information reporting requirements and our past recommendations related to the inventory. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should work with the Performance Improvement Council to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews beyond agency priority goals, such as for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies, that have led to performance improvements. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. OMB and the PIC, in guidance provided through Circular No. A-11 and the Goal Playbook respectively, have encouraged agencies to expand their use of data-driven reviews beyond agency priority goals. In March 2019, OMB staff told us that they would work with the PIC to provide agencies with case studies and other resources that could help expand their use of data-driven reviews, should agencies choose to do so. However, as of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have not yet identified and shared practices related to expanding the use of those reviews as we recommended. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the FCC should establish quantifiable goals and related measures--performance indicators, targets, and timeframes--for its enforcement program and annually publish the results to demonstrate the performance of this program and improve transparency regarding FCC's enforcement priorities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In 2018, FCC included quantifiable goals and related measures for its enforcement program in FCC's Fiscal Year 2019 Performance Plan, which is included in FCC's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Estimate to Congress. FCC plans to publish the results in its Fiscal Year 2019 Performance Report. FCC expects to release this report in March 2020.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the FCC should establish, and make publically available, a communications strategy outlining the agency's enforcement program for external stakeholders, to improve engagement with the telecommunications community on the purposes, objectives, and processes the Enforcement Bureau employs to achieve its mission. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2019, FCC has yet to take action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that agencies complete important DCOI planning documentation and that the initiative improves governmental efficiency and achieves intended cost savings, the Director of OMB should direct the Federal chief information officer to formally document a requirement for agencies to include plans, as part of existing OMB reporting mechanisms, to implement automated monitoring tools at their agency-owned data centers.

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

Comments: In June 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued an updated Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) policy that encouraged federal agencies to implement automated monitoring tools at agency-owned data centers using more than 100 kilowatt hours of electricity. However, the updated policy did not require agencies to document a plan for implementing the tools as we recommended. As of January 2020, we have not received further update from OMB and the recommended action has not yet been taken. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) agreed with our recommendation and described planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department noted that, as part of its effort to consolidate, define, and establish a plan to deploy an enterprise-wide automated monitoring tool, it had identified two component agencies that would offer a data center infrastructure management tool as a service. The department added that this approach would allow it to monitor and report cost savings and avoidances more efficiently. In November 2019, Commerce reported that it had 73 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 73, only seven had implemented the required advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 66 of its agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that it established plans to implement automated monitoring tools at its 78 department-owned tiered data centers and planned to evaluate whether its 68 department-owned non-tiered data centers should be consolidated or closed. In November 2017 correspondence to GAO, the department further stated that, for the non-tiered centers projected to remain open, it expected to complete plans for automated server utilization by September 30, 2019. In November 2019, Energy reported that it had 92 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, of which the Office of Management and Budget exempted three from optimization requirements by. However, of the remaining 89 data centers, only 37 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 52 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that HHS would direct its operating and staff divisions to acquire and install automated monitoring tools in all agency-owned data centers by the close of fiscal year 2018. In November 2019, HHS reported that it had 35 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. Of those 35, 22 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 12 of its agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of the Interior (Interior) partially concurred with our recommendation. Specifically, the department stated that it was committed to completing its plan on schedule, but that its ability to meet the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all department-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018 depended on many factors and variables, including the availability of funding and other resources. Nevertheless, in October 2017 correspondence to GAO, the department stated that it expected to complete planning for the deployment of automated monitoring in agency-owned data centers by September 30, 2018 and to complete implementation by December 31,2023. The letter noted that Interior would prioritize implementation at major tiered data centers, with implementation at other data centers as budgets permitted. In November 2019, Interior reported that it had 55 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, one of which OMB exempted from optimization requirements. However, of the remaining 54 data centers, only 17 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 37 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) agreed with our recommendation and, in November 2017 correspondence to GAO, described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that its Office of the Chief Information Officer would create a plan of action to address the multi-layer requirements applicable to the department. Transportation expected to develop a plan of action that addressed the Office of Management and Budget's August 2016 Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) guidance memorandum. The department expected to implement its plan by September 30, 2018. In November 2019, Transportation reported that it had 17 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 17 data centers, only one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 17 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, the Department of the Treasury reported that it had 16 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 16 data centers, only four had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 12 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with our recommendation, and in November 2017 correspondence to GAO, described completed and planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department stated that it's Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) was developing a plan to fully comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018. According to the department, OI&T had taken a series of actions such as determining a strategy to meet OMB reporting requirements and reviewing the existing automated tools in use at VA. As part of its planning effort, OI&T was analyzing its data centers, collecting data through a web-based portal and automated tools, and implementing change management processes to manage IT assets in VA data centers. According to the department, OI&T expected to complete a written comprehensive plan by November?30, 2017. In May 2018, VA indicated that it had engaged OMB in discussions regarding how to classify its data centers and that the comprehensive plan would be completed by October 2018. In November 2019, VA reported that it had 279 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, of which OMB exempted 67 from optimization requirements and another 204 were pending OMB review to determine whether they would also be exempt. However, of the remaining eight data centers, none had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining eight agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State agreed with our recommendation and described completed and planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department stated that it performed an analysis of tools, including shared services and commercial-off-the-shelf products. The department also stated that it was developing an acquisition strategy based on its research and planned to pursue a commercially available product. However, the department noted that budgetary constraints may delay the acquisition until fiscal year 2019 or later. In October 2019, staff from State's Office of the Chief Information Officer reported that 3,897 of the department's 4,137 servers (94.2 percent) had monitoring tools installed. In January 2020, the staff indicated that the department planned to continue installing tools as funds were available, with the goal of completing installation by the end of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) described planned actions to address our recommendation. Specifically, the agency detailed plans to address OMB's requirements, such as leveraging EPA's current investment in a network monitoring tool and the intent to procure and deploy a data center infrastructure management tool by the end of fiscal year 2018. However, in December 2018, EPA determined it will leverage its current network monitoring tool for server utilization monitoring. The agency expects to have most data center servers monitored by the end of CY 2019. Once servers are monitored, the agency said that it will follow the most current OMB guidance to report required metrics. In November 2019, EPA reported that it had four agency-owned data centers that the agency planned to keep open. However, of those four data centers, one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the agency about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining three agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) stated that it partially concurred with our recommendation and described plans to address it. Specifically, the agency stated that it plans to consolidate its remaining data centers into two main locations by the end of fiscal year 2018. OPM further stated that this consolidation will obviate the need to implement automated monitoring tools at the data centers that are closing. Finally, the agency noted that it is implementing automated monitoring tools at the designated core data centers. In November 2019, OPM reported that it had two agency-owned data centers that the agency planned to keep open. However, of those two data centers, only one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the agency about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining agency-owned data center. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of CBP should identify and collect additional performance information on the impact of the ISF rule data, such as the identification of shipments containing contraband, to better evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2018, the CBP liaison informed GAO that offices within CBP are collaborating on a plan to assess additional performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program. On June 13, 2018, the CBP liaison stated that CBP staff continue to work on additional performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program and noted, in particular, are analyzing data to: (1) identify the number of unmanifested containers and determine how/if they were mitigated before arrival; (2) determine the number of times C-TPAT companies were identified and given targeting benefits, but did not receive the same treatment based on manifest information; and (3) identify the number of times potential terrorism matches were made against an ISF entities vs. the number of times not matched using the same manifest data. In March 2019, the CBP liaison stated that the new estimated completed date for this recommendation is the end of 2019. This recommendation will remain open until CBP's planned actions are completed and meet the intent of GAO's recommendation. In late February 2020, CBP liaison staff informed GAO that they are continuing to work on this recommendation, which they expect to complete by March 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should direct the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, working in coordination with the Controller of OMB, to improve corrective action plans for (1) treaties and international agreements, (2) additional audit procedures for intragovernmental activity and balances, and (3) the Reconciliation Statements so that they include sufficient information to address the control deficiencies in these areas effectively.

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), we determined that this recommendation remained open. Treasury believes that its current remediation plan, including its various corrective action plans (CAPs), is comprehensive, appropriate, and effective, with robust and ongoing monitoring processes in place. However, we continue to note that the CAPs in these three areas do not include sufficient steps to effectively address related control deficiencies involving processes used to prepare the CFS. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services to design policies and procedures to reasonably assure that all award recipients required to submit single audit reports do so in accordance with OMB guidance.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. As of February 3, 2020, FNS stated that it has made revisions to the agency audit manual to meet the intent of the recommendation. In a section of the manual devoted to Cognizant and Awarding Agency Responsibilities (2 CFR 200.513), FNS is adding a bullet that states that the Federal awarding agency must "ensure that audits are completed and reports are received in a timely manner and in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR 200.512(a)." FNS plans on releasing the full agency audit manual to FNS users in final by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. We believe that FNS's corrective actions will help FNS to meet the intent of our recommendation with regards to designing policies. However, to fully meet the intent of the recommendation, in addition to revising policies, FNS also needs to implement procedures to ensure staff are following the revised policies. We will assess these efforts once completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services to revise policies and procedures to reasonably assure that management decisions contain the required elements and are issued timely in accordance with OMB guidance.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. As of February 3, 2020, FNS stated that it has made revisions to the agency audit manual to meet the intent of the recommendation. In a section of the manual devoted to Cognizant and Awarding Agency Responsibilities (2 CFR 200.513), FNS stated that it is expanding upon an existing bullet that states that the Federal awarding agency must "issue a management decision on audit findings within six months after receipt of the audit report....". FNS indicated this section of the manual will be expanded to include the four elements that a management decision must clearly state in writing as prescribed in 2 CFR 200.521(a). FNS plans on releasing the full agency audit manual to FNS users in final by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. We believe that FNS's corrective actions will help FNS to meet the intent of our recommendation with regards to designing policies. However, to fully meet the intent of the recommendation, in addition to revising policies, FNS also needs to implement procedures to ensure staff are following the revised policies. We will assess these efforts once completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services to design and implement policies and procedures for identifying and managing high-risk and recurring single audit findings using a risk-based approach.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. As of February 3, 2020, FNS stated that it has made revisions to the agency audit manual to meet the intent of the recommendation. In a section of the manual devoted to Cognizant and Awarding Agency Responsibilities (2 CFR 200.513), FNS is adding a bullet stating that the cognizant agency is responsible for "developing a risk-based approach to manage high-risk and recurring single audit findings to identify problems so that adequate resources can be dedicated to address the problem." FNS plans on releasing the full agency audit manual to FNS users in final by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. We believe that FNS's corrective actions will partially help FNS to meet the intent of our recommendation with regards to designing policies. When designing policies, we believe FNS also needs to clearly provide guidance on the risk management strategy over high-risk and recurring single audit findings, including the steps to follow for identifying problem areas and setting priorities for addressing them. To fully meet the intent of the recommendation, in addition to revising policies, FNS also needs to implement procedures to ensure staff are following the revised policies. We will assess these efforts once completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretary for Rural Development to design policies and procedures to reasonably assure that all award recipients required to submit single audit reports do so in accordance with OMB guidance.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Development (RD) concurred with our recommendation. To address the GAO recommendation, in February 2020, RD stated that it has developed a disbursement report that will capture disbursements equal to or greater than $750,000 and is currently documenting that process and creating instructions for the program areas. RD indicated that it plans to complete these actions by June 30, 2020. We will assess these efforts once completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretary for Rural Development to revise policies and procedures to reasonably assure that management decisions contain the required elements and are issued timely in accordance with OMB guidance.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Development (RD) concurred with our recommendation. To address the GAO recommendation, in February 2020, RD stated it has developed a Management Decision Manual template that the program areas will use and is currently creating instructions for the program areas. RD indicated that it plans to complete these actions by June 30, 2020. We will assess these efforts once completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretary for Rural Development to design and implement policies and procedures for identifying and managing high-risk and recurring single audit findings using a risk-based approach.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Development (RD) concurred with our recommendation. To address the GAO recommendation, in February 2020, RD stated that it has developed a process to rate each single audit finding. According to RD, the ratings will be tracked in an Access Database, where it will generate reports indicating reoccurring and high-risk findings by borrower and by program. RD indicated that it plans to complete these actions by June 30, 2020. We will assess these efforts once completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should direct the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Community Planning and Development to design and implement policies and procedures for identifying and managing high-risk and recurring single audit findings using a risk-based approach.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) stated that it did not agree with GAO's emphasis on high risk/recurring single audit findings. Nevertheless, in March 2019, HUD's CPD stated that it is working towards a redesigned model for analyzing risk as a basis for monitoring. In August 2020, HUD informed us that CPD is finalizing the beta test for the risk model. Although the risk model will be further defined and enhanced in fiscal year 2021 for fiscal year 2022, CPD plans to roll out the beta test of the risk model to develop the fiscal year 2021 risk rankings. Single audit will be one factor that is included in calculating the risk scores. CPD will validate and assess the results of the beta test and make adjustments as needed. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should direct the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public and Indian Housing to design and implement policies and procedures for identifying and managing high-risk and recurring single audit findings using a risk-based approach.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) agreed with this recommendation. On May 7, 2018, PIH stated that it had implemented a Risk Based Approach Tool designed to identify and manage high-risk and recurring single audit findings. The Risk Based Approach tool was intended to track and focus on audit findings reported as material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and was designed to determine the resources needed and available to assist in mitigating the audit findings. However, in March 2019, PIH informed us that in late 2018, PIH began to work toward repositioning goals, priorities and identification of key risk indicators. PIH stated that it is now focused on aligning risk indicators to the HUD and PIH priorities. PIH priorities for fiscal year 2019 include addressing Public Housing Authorities insolvency which may be identified through an Independent Public Accountant audit or through other means. PIH stated that it no longer uses the assessment tool that included over 100 risk indicators. PIH indicated that it has a revised risk mitigation framework proposal that will be presented to the Enterprise Risk Counsel in the near future. In fiscal year 2020, we have sent additional follow-up questions to the agency and are currently waiting for a response. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the certification of adequate incremental development, the Secretaries of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury should direct their CIOs to establish a department policy and process for the certification of major IT investments' adequate use of incremental development, in accordance with OMB's guidance on the implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to establish a department policy and process for the certification of major IT investments' use of incremental development. Specifically, in September 2020, HHS officials reported that they have established a draft policy and anticipate publishing the finalized guidance by March 2021. We will continue to evaluate HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the certification of adequate incremental development, the Secretaries of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury should direct their CIOs to establish a department policy and process for the certification of major IT investments' adequate use of incremental development, in accordance with OMB's guidance on the implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, an official from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) reported that the department had developed draft guidance to address our recommendation, but did not provide time frames for when the guidance would be finalized. Until the department establishes a CIO certification policy, Treasury will not be able to fully ensure adequate implement of, or benefit from, incremental development practices. We will continue to evaluate Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of BLM's efforts to track and deter unauthorized grazing, the Secretary of the Interior should direct the Director of BLM to amend the regulations on unauthorized grazing use--43 C.F.R. Subpart 4150 (2005)--to establish a procedure for the informal resolution of violations at the local level, or follow the existing regulations by sending a notice of unauthorized use for each potential violation as provided by 43 C.F.R. 4150.2(a) (2005).

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, BLM is reviewing comments from the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor on the revised grazing handbook. In addition, BLM will need to develop and roll-out a communication strategy and plan. Therefore, the recommendations will not be fully implemented until December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of BLM's efforts to track and deter unauthorized grazing, the Secretary of the Interior should direct the Director of BLM to record all incidents of unauthorized grazing, including those resolved informally.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, BLM is reviewing comments from the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor on the revised grazing handbook. In addition, BLM will need to develop and roll-out a communication strategy and plan. Therefore, the recommendations will not be fully implemented until December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of BLM's efforts to track and deter unauthorized grazing, the Secretary of the Interior should direct the Director of BLM to revise the agency's Unauthorized Grazing Use Handbook to make it consistent with 43 C.F.R. pt. 4100 (2005).

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, BLM is reviewing comments from the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor on the revised grazing handbook. In addition, BLM will need to develop and roll-out a communication strategy and plan. Therefore, the recommendations will not be fully implemented until December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of the Forest Service's efforts to track and deter unauthorized grazing, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of the Forest Service to adopt an unauthorized grazing penalty structure that is based, similar to BLM's, on the current commercial value of forage.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, Washington Office staff are finalizing directive revisions affecting the change in the excess and unauthorized use fee structure and preparing them for tribal consultation. It is anticipated that the 120-day tribal consultation period will begin concurrent with the publication in the Federal Register of a 60-day notice and comment period for the revised directives. It is expected that the revisions would be ready to be implemented prior to the beginning of the 2021 grazing fee year that begins March 1, 2021.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs; and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management should direct their CIOs to factor active risks into their IT Dashboard CIO ratings.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that it updated its CIO evaluation methodology to measure active risks in areas such as budget variance, performance, policy and governance compliance, risk management, and contract risk. HHS submitted a draft version of this methodology in June 2018. Upon reviewing this documentation, however, we did not see evidence that the department was factoring active risks into its CIO ratings. In May 2019, HHS officials stated that they planned to update their CIO rating methodology to focus on active risk; however, department documentation from August 2020 stated that the new CIO rating methodology is still in draft form and is not finalized. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs; and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management should direct their CIOs to factor active risks into their IT Dashboard CIO ratings.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that the department was amending its CIO rating review process to ensure that active risks are factored into its IT Dashboard CIO ratings. In August 2020, VA submitted documentation for this new process; however, this documentation did not state how the department incorporates active risks into its investments' CIO ratings. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, the Interior, State, and Veterans Affairs; and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management should direct their CIOs to factor active risks into their IT Dashboard CIO ratings.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with the recommendation, and, in an October 2017 response, stated that it currently evaluates risk as part of its IT governance activities. In March 2019, State informed us that its Bureau of Information Resource Management was developing a new policy and associated guidance for calculating its CIO risk ratings; however, as of September 2020, we have not received this new documentation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct their CIOs to ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that it updated its CIO evaluation methodology to measure active risks in areas such as budget variance, performance, policy and governance compliance, risk management, and contract risk. According to HHS, these risk areas reflect both internal and external risks that affect an investment's ability to accomplish its goals. HHS submitted a draft version of this methodology in June 2018. While this documentation showed that HHS factored investment qualities related to overall project riskiness, it did not specify that active investment risks were also being factored as part of the evaluation. Without an additional focus on active risk, this methodology is unlikely to ensure that HHS's CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment. In May 2019, HHS officials stated that they planned to update their CIO rating methodology; however, per HHS documentation dated August 2020, this new methodology is still in draft form and is not finalized. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct their CIOs to ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that it will ensure that CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing its investments. In August 2020, VA submitted documentation for an updated CIO ratings process; however, this process documentation did not state how the department incorporates active risks into its investments' CIO ratings. Without a consideration of active risks, VA's CIO rating process may not produce ratings that reflect the level of risk facing VA's investments. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the Dashboard ratings more accurately reflect risk, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, the Treasury, Veterans Affairs; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should direct their CIOs to ensure that their CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment relative to that investment's ability to accomplish its goals.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with the recommendation and has provided information on how investment risk is evaluated as part of its IT governance activities. In March 2019, State informed us that its Bureau of Information Resource Management was developing a new policy and associated guidance for calculating its CIO risk ratings; however, as of September 2020, we have not received this new documentation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To help ensure continued progress in the implementation of effective cloud computing SLAs, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs should direct appropriate officials to develop SLA guidance and ensure key practices are fully incorporated as the contract and associated SLAs expire.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the department was in the process of addressing it. Specifically, a HHS official reported in August 2020 that the department had created a team to address cloud computing best practices and intended to finalize guidance on SLA key practices by June 2021. We will continue to evaluate the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure continued progress in the implementation of effective cloud computing SLAs, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs should direct appropriate officials to develop SLA guidance and ensure key practices are fully incorporated as the contract and associated SLAs expire.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, an official from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) reported that the department was in the process of addressing the recommendation. Specifically, a Treasury official reported that the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer was working with the Treasury Senior Procurement Executive to incorporate the key practices identified in our report into Treasury acquisition policy, which was expected to be completed by January 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure continued progress in the implementation of effective cloud computing SLAs, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs should direct appropriate officials to develop SLA guidance and ensure key practices are fully incorporated as the contract and associated SLAs expire.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the department was in the process of addressing it. In August 2020, a VA official reported that the department's Office of Information Technology was working to re-write existing SLA documentation following a review from the Office of Inspector General but did not provide a date when the guidance would be finalized. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of federal efforts to monitor wild, native bee populations, the Secretary of Agriculture, as a co-chair of the White House Pollinator Health Task Force, should coordinate with other Task Force agencies that have monitoring responsibilities to develop a mechanism, such as a federal monitoring plan, that would (1) establish roles and responsibilities of lead and support agencies, (2) establish shared outcomes and goals, and (3) obtain input from relevant stakeholders, such as states.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2019, USDA had taken relevant and positive actions but had not yet fully implemented GAO's February 2016 recommendation for monitoring wild, native bees. According to a senior USDA official, a Native Bee Monitoring Steering Committee composed of representatives from four USDA agencies is developing a response to the recommendation. According to the official, the steering committee has taken or plans to take several steps regarding a monitoring plan. First, the steering committee held a stakeholder listening session in June 2017 to obtain public opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring program is important, (2) the type of information and data needed to adequately conduct monitoring, and (3) how the public would like to see the monitoring data used. Highlights of the input received at the listening session and the goals of the national monitoring plan were discussed in a symposium held in November 2017 at the National Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting. USDA gathered additional recommendations from symposium participants based on monitoring programs for other declining species of concern, such as birds, bats, and butterflies. Second, the steering committee drafted a prospectus that will delineate activities being conducted by relevant federal agencies with responsibilities for surveying species of concern, including plans to coordinate activities and outline individual roles and responsibilities towards facilitating a national monitoring plan. According to the senior official, the committee worked with USDA officials to ask other federal agencies associated with the Pollinator Task Force to summarize their current and future activities in support of monitoring native bee populations. The committee completed its report entitled The Current State of Federal Agency Coordination in Monitoring Native Bee Health in January 2019. Third, the steering committee held a "Scientists' Summit" in April 2018 at the National Conservation Training Center. The purpose was to obtain scientific expert opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring strategy is needed; (2) what such a monitoring strategy would measure and be used for; (3) standard minimum protocols that would improve data quality and sharing; and (4) databases that could be used to house data from a monitoring strategy. Participants included university and governmental experts on bees, statisticians, modelers and ecologists, and conservation biologists assessing other species in decline. Workshop discussion leaders subsequently drafted for publication in a scientific journal a whitepaper with recommendations on a U.S. national native bee monitoring strategy. However, as of October 2019, according to senior USDA officials, the white paper had not yet been accepted for publication. We support the agencies' efforts to date to implement the recommendation. However, we believe that the agencies must take additional steps to improve the effectiveness of federal efforts to monitor wild, native bee populations and will continue to monitor their actions. In 2020, according to a senior USDA official, a National Native Bee Monitoring Research Coordination Network is being formed to address GAO's recommendation to develop a federal monitoring plan for wild, native bees, with the project expected to begin in spring 2020. Some USDA officials told us that without a team to coordinate a monitoring plan, individual agency efforts may be ineffective in providing the needed information in trends on wild, native bees in the United States. The project is scheduled to be completed in 3 years.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD to develop a timetable with milestones and identify and allocate resources for adopting electronic records management for all 10 regional offices.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: According to EPA officials, the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD) established an agency-wide electronic grants record workgroup in fiscal year 2016. The workgroup identified the contents of the electronic grant file, technical options, and evaluation criteria. OGD completed its alternatives analysis for scope, general approach, and requirements in fiscal year 2017 and EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD to implement plans for adopting an up-to-date and comprehensive IT system by 2017 that will provide accurate and timely data on agencywide compliance with grants management directives.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: Implementation efforts are ongoing. According to EPA officials, OGD is conducting a multi-modular project to upgrade the agency's grants management IT system. EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions), which had been targeted for deployment in March 2020. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of Defense should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that review meetings are led by the agency head or COO.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD officials previously told us that they interpreted relevant guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide them with flexibility to delegate responsibility for conducting these reviews. However, as of July 2020, OMB's guidance continues to clearly state that the agency head and/or Chief Operating Officer, with support of the Performance Improvement Officer, are responsible for leading agency reviews. In May and June 2020, DOD officials described to us meetings that agency officials used to review progress on each of the agency's priority goals. However, neither the Secretary nor Deputy Secretary of Defense were involved in those review meetings. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of State should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that progress on each APG is reviewed in an in-person review meeting at least quarterly.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The State Department concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us actions the agency has taken to conduct reviews consistent with what we recommended. For example, they provided a document confirming that officials reviewed one of the priority goals in an in-person meeting. However, they did not provide documentation to demonstrate that review processes for the agency's other priority goals are held in-person or at least quarterly. We have requested, but as of April 2020 have not received, this additional documentation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of State should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that the reviews are led by the agency head or COO.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The State Department did not agree or disagree with this recommendation and, as of March 2020, has taken limited actions to address it. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us how the Chief Operating Officer (COO) is involved in reviewing progress on one of the agency's priority goals. However, as of April 2020, the State Department has not provided documentation we requested to corroborate the COO's involvement in this review, or reviews for the agency's other priority goals. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Commerce should ensure a reliable department-wide inventory of mobile service contracts is developed and maintained.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Commerce had not implemented this recommendation. In July 2018, the department provided an inventory that shows, by service provider and department component, the number of devices per rate plan and monthly rate; however, the inventory did not include the number of voice minutes, gigabytes of data, and text messages allowed per line per month. Furthermore, the department had not demonstrated that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Commerce should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the department had not addressed the recommendation. In July 2018, the department described steps it was taking to identify lines that were inactive for a period of three or more continuous months (zero usage). However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has established documented procedures that address the elements of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Defense should ensure an inventory of mobile devices and services is established department-wide (i.e., all components' devices and associated services are accounted for).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of January 2020, the department had not implemented it. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that such an inventory has merits, but that maintaining one comes at considerable expense and effort. The department also stated, in 2016, that while it does not maintain a single, centralized device level inventory, the military departments track and manage their own devices and services . As we stated in our report, the inventory need not be generated centrally at the headquarters level; the department can compile a comprehensive inventory using its components' complete inventories. As of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that all its components had inventories of unique devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Defense should ensure a reliable department-wide inventory of mobile service contracts is developed and maintained.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense stated that it partially concurred with our recommendation; and has taken steps to address it. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that developing an inventory of mobile device contracts has merits, especially in a time of restricted government spending. The department also described several efforts it had undertaken to enhance mobile device management. However, as we stated in our report, any approach to managing mobile device contracts will be hampered by the lack of complete information on the contracts that are already in place. In August 2018, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department had not demonstrated that the inventory included all its components' mobile service contracts. In August 2019, the department described steps it was taking to ensure that it has a complete inventory of mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of December 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services had not implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Homeland Security developed an asset and inventory management plan for managing devices under its enterprise blanket purchase agreement. The plan includes procedures for assessing devices for zero usage; however, it does not include procedures for assessing over and under usage. The department also has not demonstrated that it has established procedures for devices not covered by its enterprise blanket purchase agreement.We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of the Interior should ensure an inventory of mobile devices and services is established department-wide (i.e., all components' devices and associated services are accounted for).

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of the Interior has not demonstrated that it has fully implemented this recommendation. As of January 2020, the department demonstrated that only one of its components, the Bureau of Reclamation, had an inventory of mobile devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of the Interior should ensure a reliable department-wide inventory of mobile service contracts is developed and maintained.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Interior had not demonstrated that it had fully addressed this recommendation. In August 2019, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Attorney General should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Justice has made progress implementing this recommendation; however, more remains to be done. Specifically, in response to our findings, in April 2015, the department's Chief Information Officer issued a memo that required components to establish procedures for regular reviews of invoices for wireless services to identify unused and underused devices or services, as well as any over-usage charges to service plans. One of the components we reviewed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, established procedures in July 2016 to monitor mobile device usage. In addition, the Justice Management Division (JMD) established procedures in May 2019 that apply to JMD as well some but not all other components. The other component we reviewed in our report, the Drug Enforcement Agency, had not established procedures that address our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of State should ensure an inventory of mobile devices and services is established department-wide (i.e., all components' devices and associated services are accounted for).

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not demonstrated that it has implemented this recommendation. The department has inventories of mobile device; however, the inventories do not include the services associated with each device. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of State should ensure a reliable department-wide inventory of mobile service contracts is maintained.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not implemented this recommendation. In June 2019, the department said it has a Telecom Expense Management System which can be used to document an inventory of domestic service contracts; however, the department did not provide the inventory. Furthermore, the department did not demonstrate that it has an inventory of international service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Transportation should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Transportation had not addressed the recommendation. In December 2019, an official from the department's Audit Relations and Program Improvement office stated that all the department's telecommunication devices are managed through two programs and that these programs have mechanisms in place to ensure that telecommunications are managed in an effective and efficient manner. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided evidence to demonstrate that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of the Treasury should ensure an inventory of mobile devices and services is established department-wide (i.e., all components' devices and associated services are accounted for).

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, the department stated that it had established enterprise-wide procurement vehicles for mobile devices. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the agency effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure a complete inventory of mobile devices and associated services is established.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not implemented the recommendation. We reported in May 2015, that NASA had an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information which included most, but not all, of the devices used by the agency. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that the agency was in the process of enrolling devices in a new mobile device management tool, and that when the approximately 15 percent of devices that are not currently on NASA's new End-User Services Technology contract are brought on the contract, NASA will have a monthly deliverable depicting the services of all mobile devices. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the agency effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure a reliable inventory of mobile service contracts is developed and maintained.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that NASA had established, on September 1, 2019, the NASA End-User Services and Technology contract to procure mobile services, but as of November 2019, had not yet included 15 percent of its devices on the new contract. We will continue to monitor NASA's efforts to develop and maintain a mobile services contract inventory as described in our report.

Recommendation: To help the agency effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established agency-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that as part of enterprise mobility service contract deliverables, NASA requires monthly reports to monitor and optimize usage (zero, under, and over). NASA's OCIO also stated that the agency established role-based privileges to monitor and report on this activity agency-wide. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has established procedures to assess device usage in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of the Treasury should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, an official from the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that the department was collecting and analyzing information on voice and data utilization. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had established procedures in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the reliability of its cost estimates, as NRC revises its cost estimating procedures, the NRC Chairman should ensure that the agency aligns the procedures with relevant cost estimating best practices identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide and ensure that future cost estimates are prepared in accordance with relevant cost estimating best practices.

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In August 2019, NRC staff reported that the Commission had directed them to revise the guidance and resubmit it to the Commission by January 2020. In February 2020, the NRC staff submitted the revised guidance to the Commission. NRC staff said that following Commission review and approval, they will publish the guidance. We will review the cost-benefit guidance when it is released and determine if it responds to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FSOC is comprehensively identifying and considering companies, the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with FSOC members, should establish procedures to evaluate companies in Stage 2 and Stage 3 under both statutory determination standards when an evaluation in either stage concludes that a company does not meet one of the standards, or document--on a company-specific or more general basis--why the second determination standard is not relevant for determination evaluations.

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

Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance prioritizes an activities-based approach to identifying and addressing potential risks to financial stability and states that FSOC will pursue company-specific determinations only if the activities-based approach is not sufficient. The guidance further states that if FSOC does consider a company-specific determination, its evaluation will focus primarily on the first determination standard. The guidance does not indicate the establishment of procedures to evaluate companies under both determination standards for the purpose of comprehensively identifying and considering companies or to document why the other standard is not relevant. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FSOC is comprehensively identifying and considering companies, the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with FSOC members, should develop a process to collect information necessary for Stage 1 analysis, as appropriate, from certain nonbank financial companies for which public or regulatory information is otherwise unavailable. For example, FSOC could have companies for which such information is unavailable and that meet certain characteristics (such as quantitative thresholds similar to those used in Stage 1) report necessary information to the Office of Financial Research.

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

Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance introduces a new stage 1 of the designation process in which FSOC would notify a nonbank financial company under review and consider available public and regulatory information. While the guidance states that a company under review in stage 1 may submit information it deems relevant to the evaluation, FSOC would not require the company to submit information during stage 1. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the revised guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.

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

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: This matter is an action identified in GAO's annual Duplication and Cost Savings reports. No legislative action identified. The Gun Look-Alike Case Act, H.R. 3224, which was introduced on July 27, 2015, in the 114th Congress, would transfer the authority to regulate the markings of toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms in section 5001 of title 15 of the U.S. Code from NIST to CPSC, as GAO suggested in November 2014. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the United States House of Representatives, and did not pass out of committee. This bill was not reintroduced in the 115th Congress and, as of March 2020, has not been reintroduced by the 116th Congress. Continued regulation of the marking of toy and imitation firearms by NIST rather than CPSC does not leverage each agency's expertise and therefore may not be the most efficient use of scarce federal resources.

Recommendation: To improve existing coordination of oversight for consumer product safety, Congress should consider establishing a formal comprehensive oversight mechanism for consumer product safety agencies to address crosscutting issues as well as inefficiencies related to fragmentation and overlap such as communication and coordination challenges and jurisdictional questions between agencies. Different types of formal mechanisms could include, for example, creating a memorandum of understanding to formalize relationships and agreements or establishing a task force or interagency work group. As a starting point, Congress may wish to obtain agency input on options for establishing more formal coordination.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: This matter is an action identified in GAO's annual Duplication and Cost Savings reports. As of March 2020, no legislation was identified that would establish a collaborative mechanism to facilitate communication across the relevant agencies and to help enable them to collectively address crosscutting issues, as GAO suggested in November 2014. Some of the agencies with direct regulatory oversight responsibilities for consumer product safety reported that they continue to collaborate to address specific consumer product safety topics. However, without a formal comprehensive oversight mechanism, the agencies risk missing opportunities to better leverage resources and address challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to collaborate with each other in defining and identifying programs that contribute to common outcomes.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, revise relevant guidance to provide a time frame for what constitutes "persistent over time" that agencies can use as a decision rule for whether to include short-term efforts as programs.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, define plans for when additional agencies will be required to develop program inventories.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by designating tax expenditure as a program type in relevant guidance.

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

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of October 2020, OMB had not taken action to include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, as GAO recommended in October 2014. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central, government-wide website. The federal program inventory is the primary tool for agencies to identify programs that contribute to their goals, according to OMB's guidance. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In June 2019 and July 2020, OMB issued guidance (Circular No. A-11) that states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. According to OMB, this will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements nor the actions GAO recommended including designating tax expenditures as a program type. By including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying the contributions of tax expenditures to the achievement of their goals.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by developing, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its purpose, and related performance and budget information.

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

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of October 2020, OMB had not taken action to include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, as GAO recommended in October 2014. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central, government-wide website. The federal program inventory is the primary tool for agencies to identify programs that contribute to their goals, according to OMB's guidance. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In June 2019 and July 2020, OMB issued guidance (Circular No. A-11) that states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. According to OMB, this will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements nor the actions GAO recommended including designating tax expenditures as a program type. By including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying the contributions of tax expenditures to the achievement of their goals.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders on their program definition approach and identified programs when developing or updating their inventories.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to identify in their inventories the performance goal(s) to which each program contributes.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, ensure, during OMB reviews of inventories, that agencies consistently identify, as applicable, the strategic goals, strategic objectives, agency priority goals, and cross-agency priority goals each program supports.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

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

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

Comments: In a May 14, 2015 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Director of OMB stated that nothing in the Executive Order 12866 prevents agencies from identifying the particular relevant definition of significance in rules, and that some rules do contain this information. The letter also stated that OMB believes it is appropriate to leave agencies flexibility in how they comply with Executive Order 12866, since such specific procedures for including such information is not a requirement of the Executive Order itself. However, in written comments submitted to GAO in March 2020, OMB stated that there are numerous examples from the past few years of agencies clearly identifying in the preambles of significant regulations the applicable section(s) of EO 12866's significance definition. OMB further stated that it encourages agencies to continue and expand this practice, especially where doing so has been found to improve agency planning for the regulatory process or to otherwise enhance decision-making. When we can further confirm that OMB has taken steps to encourage agencies to include this information in rules, we will provide an update.

Recommendation: To improve the completeness and accuracy of data submissions to the USASpending.gov website, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in collaboration with Treasury's Fiscal Service, should clarify guidance on (1) agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations; (2) the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements to non-classified awards associated with intelligence operations; (3) the requirement that award titles describe the award's purpose (consistent with our prior recommendation); and (4) agency maintenance of authoritative records adequate to verify the accuracy of required data reported for use by USASpending.gov.

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

Comments: OMB has taken several steps related to this recommendation as of December 2019, but have not fully addressed it. Specifically, working with the Department of the Treasury to implement the DATA Act, OMB took partial action on two aspects of the recommendation and are still considering actions on two others. 1) OMB staff said they continue to deliberate on agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations. 2) OMB staff provided a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) addressing the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements for recipient information related to classified or sensitive information. GAO reviewed the FAQ and determined that additional guidance is still needed to ensure complete reporting of unclassified awards as required by FFATA. 3) OMB staff have agreed that it will be important to clarify guidance on how agencies can report on award titles that appropriately describes the awards' purposes and noted that they are working on providing additional guidance to agencies as part of their larger DATA Act implementation efforts. 4) OMB released policy guidance in May 2016 (MPM 2016-03) that identifies the authoritative sources for reporting procurement and award data. However, GAO's review of this policy guidance determined that it does not address the underlying source that can be used to verify the accuracy of non-financial procurement data or any source for data on assistance awards.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should direct the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to identify and take necessary steps to ensure communitization agreements are reviewed within required time frames.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: This recommendation is similar to recommendations in GAO-16-553 regarding the timely review and approval of Indian communitization agreements (CAs). In September 2018, Interior added a tracking module for Indian CAs, as well as other mineral lease agreements, to its Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS). Then in February 2019, BIA officials told us the agency had drafted suggested time frames for the review and approval of Indian CAs for both BIA and BLM. BIA was revising the Onshore Energy and Mineral Lease Management Interagency Standard Operating Procedures to include these time frames. The officials also said that the Indian Energy and Minerals Steering Committee (IEMSC) would meet to discuss the proposed time frames. IEMSC is a committee within Interior that includes senior managers from BIA, BLM, and other agencies with a focus on Indian trust energy and mineral policies and issues. As of February 2020, we were told that BIA officials are still working collaboratively with BLM officials to fully address our recommendation, and that they may be able to provide documentation in April 2020.

Recommendation: To improve the implementation of the act, the Secretary of Agriculture should develop and implement policies and procedures for cost-benefit analyses related to computer matching agreements to include key elements such as personnel and computer costs, as well as avoidance of future improper payments and recovery of improper payments and debts.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: Although department officials have stated that they plan to take actions to address this recommendation, as of July 2019 we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the implementation of the act, the Secretary of Labor should develop and implement policies and procedures for cost-benefit analyses related to computer matching agreements to include key elements such as personnel and computer costs, as well as avoidance of future improper payments and recovery of improper payments and debts.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: Although department officials have stated that they are taking actions to address this recommendation, as of August 2020, we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the implementation of the act, the Secretary of Labor should ensure the DIB reviews cost-benefit analyses to make certain cost savings information for the computer matching program is included before approving CMAs.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: Although department officials have stated that they are taking actions to address this recommendation, as of August 2020, we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the implementation of the act, the Secretary of Labor should ensure the DIB performs annual reviews and submits annual reports on agency computer matching activities, as required by the act.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: Although department officials have stated that they are taking actions to address this recommendation, as of August 2020, we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred

Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

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

Comments: In October 2019, Treasury staff said that steps continue to be taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. In June 2019, the Senate confirmed a new OFR Director. Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We will continue to monitor progress in implementing these steps.

Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

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

Comments: In October 2019 Treasury staff said that steps are being taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway as staff from both entities meet on a weekly basis and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. The Senate confirmed a new OFR director in June 2019. In June 2017, Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We continue to monitor FSOC and OFR actions that would be responsive to clarifying responsibilities for monitoring threats to financial stability.

Recommendation: Congress should consider whether FCC's excess fees (approximately $66 million through fiscal year 2011) should be appropriated for FCC's use, or, if not, what the disposition of these funds should be, and whether to change FCC's annual appropriations language to permit reconciliation of excess collections or to govern FCC's handling of any future excess collections.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of fiscal year 2019, FCC's annual appropriations continued to prohibit the use of any excess fees from the current year or previous years.

Recommendation: To help ensure that CFTC and SEC are strategically positioned to implement the joint report's recommendations and address remaining harmonization opportunities, as CFTC and SEC continue to develop the charter for the Joint Advisory Committee, the Chairmen of CFTC and SEC should take steps to establish, with associated time frames, clearer goals for future harmonization efforts and requirements for reporting and evaluating progress toward these goals. Specifically, the agencies could benefit from formalizing a plan to assess implementation of the joint report's recommendations and harmonization opportunities that may not have been fully addressed by the joint report, such as differences in market structure and investor definitions. Such a plan could include goals for future harmonization efforts, such as time frames for implementing the recommendations; assessment of whether remaining differences in statutes and regulations result in inconsistent regulation of similar products and entities that could lead to opportunities for regulatory arbitrage; and periodic reports to Congress on their progress, including the implementation and impact of the recommendations.

Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2018, the CFTC and SEC Chairmen signed an updated version of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) originally signed in 2008. The new MOU created an updated framework for information sharing to make it easier for the two agencies to share information. A CFTC official noted that the MOU underscored two agencies' commitment to addressing harmonization efforts. In addition, CFTC officials identified examples of harmonization areas where CFTC and SEC have made some additional progress. This recommendation remains open until CFTC identifies steps taken to create a plan for assessing progress on working with SEC on remaining harmonization opportunities.

Recommendation: To address the current information gap in Regulation SHO for prime brokerage arrangements and mitigate the impact of any unintended consequences caused by SEC rules, as well as ensure consistent implementation of SEC rules by the industry, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission should finalize, in an expedited manner upon finalization of the temporary rule, the revised 1994 Prime Broker Letter.

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 4, 2019, the revised Prime Broker letter has not been finalized. Staff from the Reg SHO team in SEC's Trading and Markets division stated that they have regularly and continuously asked the industry for comments on the Prime Broker Letter without receiving any real progress. Their most recent request for comments was emailed to industry counsel on May 22, 2019. Industry counsel acknowledged the request but have yet to provide comments.

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.