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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of CBP should take steps to develop a streamlined enforcement approach to counterfeit goods in small packages. This may include assessing the feasibility and impact of such an approach, including any potential for cost savings. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: FERC should use available information, such as reports by transmission pipeline operators on service interruptions, to identify and assess risks to the reliability of natural gas transmission service. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: FERC should develop and document an approach to respond, as appropriate, to risks it identifies to the reliability of natural gas transmission service. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries should work with the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils, and other councils as appropriate, to develop documented processes for conducting allocation reviews. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Marine Fisheries Service
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce and NOAA agreed with this recommendation and stated that NOAA's NMFS will work to implement it to the extent possible. We will continue to monitor NMFS' efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries should work with the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils, and other councils as appropriate, to specify how the councils will document their allocation reviews, including the basis for their allocation decisions, whether fishery management plan objectives are being met, and what factors were considered in the reviews. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Marine Fisheries Service
Status: Open

Comments: Commerce and NOAA agreed with this recommendation and stated that NOAA's NMFS will work to implement it to the extent possible. We will continue to monitor NMFS' efforts to do so.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration should evaluate whether targeted oversight in response to information received is effective for ensuring compliance with MH/SU parity requirements. If this evaluation determines the current targeted oversight approach results in significant program risks, the Employee Benefits Security Administration should develop a plan to more effectively enforce MH/SU parity requirements and if necessary seek additional oversight authority, as warranted. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor: Employee Benefits Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation. In February 2020, DOL reported that its Employee Benefits Security Administration plans to evaluate its targeted approach to MH/SU parity enforcement. When we confirm what actions DOL has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should evaluate whether targeted oversight in response to information received is effective for ensuring compliance with MH/SU parity requirements for non-federal governmental plans. If this evaluation determines the current targeted oversight approach results in significant program risks, CMS should develop a plan to more effectively enforce MH/SU parity requirements and if necessary seek additional oversight authority, as warranted. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, HHS reported that CMS has developed a two-part evaluation to determine whether targeted oversight of non-federal governmental plans is effective for enforcing MH/SU parity requirements. According to HHS, this evaluation will include (1) a review of non-federal governmental plan documents for compliance with MH/SU parity requirements and (2) a survey of state enforcement authority and regulatory best practices for ensuring MH/SU parity compliance. As of August 2020, HHS reported that the first part of the CMS evaluation is underway.

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

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) should improve how FNS gathers information on the effectiveness of SNAP-Ed interventions, in order to ensure that these interventions are meeting program goals. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA generally agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that FNS has efforts underway to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill requirement that the department report annually on the level of coordination between its nutrition education programs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretaries for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and for Research, Education, and Economics to develop a formal mechanism, such as a designated individual or group of individuals, for providing cross-department leadership for USDA's nutrition education efforts and facilitating cross-program information sharing. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA generally agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that FNS has efforts underway to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill requirement that the department report annually on the level of coordination between its nutrition education programs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Under Secretaries for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and for Research, Education, and Economics to identify and implement mechanisms to fully leverage the department's nutrition expertise for its nutrition education efforts. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA generally agreed with this recommendation. The agency noted that FNS has efforts underway to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill requirement that the department report annually on the level of coordination between its nutrition education programs.

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

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of DOT's Office of Aviation Analysis should provide periodic external reporting, at a time interval DOT determines appropriate, to the public and policymakers, on the effects of antitrust immunity—based on the range of monitoring activities undertaken by DOT—including whether grants of immunity have achieved anticipated benefits and the status of remedies—such as airport slot divestitures—imposed as part of DOT's approval. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Office of Aviation Analysis
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, DOT provided information on updates to how research and other information on antitrust immunity is shared on its web site. We are reviewing this information to determine if it is sufficient to close the recommendation.

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

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection should, in coordination with the federal banking regulators and with input from relevant stakeholders, communicate in writing to fintech lenders on the appropriate use of alternative data in the underwriting process, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the agencies) issued an interagency statement on the use of alternative data in credit underwriting. The statement broadly highlights some potential benefits and risks of using alternative data and encourages firms to responsibly use alternative data, but does not provide firms or banks with specific direction on the appropriate use of alternative data, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. We will continue to monitor the agencies' actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and with input from relevant stakeholders, communicate in writing to banks that engage in third-party relationships with fintech lenders on the appropriate use of alternative data in the underwriting process, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In December 2019, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the agencies) issued an interagency statement on the use of alternative data in credit underwriting. The statement broadly highlights some potential benefits and risks of using alternative data and encourages firms to responsibly use alternative data, but does not provide firms or banks with specific direction on the appropriate use of alternative data, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. We will continue to monitor the agencies' actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and with input from relevant stakeholders, communicate in writing to banks that engage in third-party relationships with fintech lenders on the appropriate use of alternative data in the underwriting process, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In December 2019, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the agencies) issued an interagency statement on the use of alternative data in credit underwriting. The statement broadly highlights some potential benefits and risks of using alternative data and encourages firms to responsibly use alternative data, but does not provide firms or banks with specific direction on the appropriate use of alternative data, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. We will continue to monitor the agencies' actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Comptroller of the Currency should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and with input from relevant stakeholders, communicate in writing to banks that engage in third-party relationships with fintech lenders on the appropriate use of alternative data in the underwriting process, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In December 2019, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the agencies) issued an interagency statement on the use of alternative data in credit underwriting. The statement broadly highlights some potential benefits and risks of using alternative data and encourages firms to responsibly use alternative data, but does not provide firms or banks with specific direction on the appropriate use of alternative data, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. We will continue to monitor the agencies' actions related to this recommendation.

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of HHS should establish numeric enrollment targets for healthcare.gov, to ensure it can monitor its performance with respect to its objectives. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS does not concur with this recommendation. In October 2018, the agency noted that there are numerous external factors, such as the state of the economy and plan premiums, that may affect the number of people who decide to enroll in coverage. HHS also stated that it does not believe that numeric enrollment targets are relevant to assess the performance of objectives related to a successful open enrollment period. We continue to believe that the development of numeric enrollment targets is important for effective monitoring of the program and management of its resources. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided any additional information about steps to implement this recommendation. The status of this recommendation will be reconsidered once relevant action is taken.

Recommendation: Should the agency continue to focus on enhancing the consumer experience as a goal for the program, the Secretary of HHS should assess other aspects of the consumer experience, such as those it previously identified as key, to ensure it has quality information to achieve its goal. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurs with this recommendation, and in October 2018, stated that as it is looking for ways to improve the consumer experience, it will consider focusing its assessment on other aspects of the consumer experience as needed. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided evidence of any additional steps it had taken to improve the consumer experience. The status of this recommendation will be reconsidered once relevant action is taken.

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

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should ensure that CMS has complete data on terminations of enrollee coverage for nonpayment of premiums by requiring issuers to report these data. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should provide a transparent process for issuers and CMS to systematically reconcile discrepancies in their data on terminations of enrollee coverage for nonpayment of premiums. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

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

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of FDA should ensure that the FVM Program develops performance measures with associated targets and time frames for all eight of FDA's food safety- and nutrition-related objectives. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, FDA had not fully implemented our recommendation, although the agency reported taking several steps. For example, FDA stated that implementation of Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) based preventive controls standards is a top priority for the agency and a key component of the Foods and Veterinary Medicine Program's strategic plan, and for this reason, FSMA-related performance metrics have been prioritized. In addition, FDA reported that in September 2019, the agency published an online Food Safety Dashboard, whose purpose is to measure the progress of each of the FSMA rules, and FDA provides regular updates to the dashboard to promote transparency to the public. FDA also stated that as of June 2020, the dashboard contains measures related to Preventive Controls and Current Good Manufacturing Practice Rules and Imported Food Safety Program, and it includes data for human and animal food and, in some cases, data starting in FY 2017. FDA added that since the FSMA rules have staggered compliance dates, the measures associated with the rules are developed in phases, and over time, the Food Safety Dashboard will be populated with additional data to show more FSMA-related outcomes. However, the recommendation is not fully implemented since our recommendation included the related objectives within the Foods and Veterinary Medicine Program's strategic plan. In August 2020, FDA told us that given the agency's 2018 reorganization, FDA has aligned the performance measures and dashboard with the FSMA rules, and the current alignment covers most of the food safety objectives within the strategic plan. FDA also reported that it is reviewing the strategic plan to ensure alignment with FDA's current priorities and structure, including the recently released New Era of Smarter Food Safety Blueprint. We will follow up with FDA and provide an update in FY 2021.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of CBP should take steps to evaluate the effectiveness of CBP's IPR enforcement efforts, such as by improving its metrics to track the overall effectiveness of its IPR enforcement efforts, evaluating selected activities to enhance IPR enforcement, and developing a process to assess and share information on port-led initiatives to enhance IPR enforcement (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: CBP concurred with this recommendation. In September 2018, CBP stated that it had established an IPR working group that meets every 4-6 weeks to implement its Fiscal Year 2018 IPR Strategic Plan and develop priorities and metrics. CBP stated that, in these meetings, headquarters and field personnel share information on the results and effectiveness of local and national port initiatives and develop policies for improving IPR enforcement. Additionally, CBP provided evidence that it has begun efforts to improve its tracking of metrics and evaluation of selected activities to enhance IPR enforcement. For example, CBP provided data for 5 of the 16 measurement indicators included in its IPR Strategic Plan. Additionally, the IPR Strategic Plan includes at least 5 action items to assess or evaluate aspects of CBP's IPR enforcement. As of February 2020, CBP officials indicated they are continuing to work on these efforts. We will continue to monitor their implementation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of CBP, in consultation with ICE, should assess what, if any, additional information would be beneficial to share with the private sector and, as appropriate, take action to enhance information sharing, where possible, such as by proposing regulatory revisions or requesting additional legal authorities from Congress. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: CBP concurred with this recommendation. CBP stated that, in May 2018, it briefed the Senate Finance Committee on six policy goals to improve IPR, import safety, and e-commerce enforcement that require additional legislative authority to implement. In December 2018, CBP stated that it had identified the need to establish an information sharing structure for e-commerce as a first step in implementing its E-Commerce Strategy. CBP officials stated that they would work with offices throughout CBP and with key stakeholders in the trade community and the Commercial Customs Advisory Committee (COAC) to build an information sharing structure and identify the necessary statutory and regulatory changes to implement it. CBP said that, when statutory changes have been identified, it will work through the interagency process to make any necessary Congressional recommendations. In January 2020, the Department of Homeland Security published a report that identified actions to combat trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods in conjunction with the private sector. These actions included steps to share additional information with the private sector. For example, the report said that when CBP identifies suspected counterfeit merchandise that is destined for a U.S. fulfillment center or warehouse, it will notify the e-commerce platform or other third-party intermediary operating the facility. This will allow the operator of the fulfillment center or warehouse to remove or destroy any identical items from the same seller in coordination with rights holders. The report also recommends the formation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Consortium to Identify Online Nefarious Actors and a framework for sharing information with sellers, shippers, and other third-party intermediaries. If implemented, these steps could help to enhance information sharing with the private sector. GAO continues to monitor the implementation of these actions.

Recommendation: To help ensure that any future decisions by FCC regarding its efforts under the Communications Act of 1934 are based on comprehensive analysis, the FCC should, as part of its future annual video competition reports, analyze how the ongoing evolution in the video programming market affects competition in the related market for set-top boxes and devices, including how this evolution affects the extent to which consumer choice for devices to access MVPD content remains a relevant aspect of the competitive environment. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, FCC officials said they are taking steps to implement this recommendation and hope to do so by October 2020.

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

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: To improve the oversight of privacy and security controls over the state-based marketplaces, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to define procedures for overseeing state-based marketplaces, to include day-to-day activities of the relevant offices and staff.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The agency concurred with the recommendation and is actively working on addressing the recommendation. We will continue to work with the agency to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the oversight of privacy and security controls over the state-based marketplaces, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to require continuous monitoring of the privacy and security controls over state-based marketplaces and the environments in which those systems operate to more quickly identify and remediate vulnerabilities.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The agency concurred with the recommendation and is actively working on addressing the recommendation. We will continue to work with the agency to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To strengthen FCC's data collection efforts, the Chairman of FCC should develop a strategy to gather additional information on the IP transition to assess the transition's potential effects on public safety and consumers.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, FCC officials said they are exploring options to address this recommendation and hope to have it implemented in fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The FCC should conduct a program evaluation to determine the extent to which the Lifeline program is efficiently and effectively reaching its performance goals of ensuring the availability of voice service for low-income Americans while minimizing the contribution burden on consumers and businesses.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In a 2016 Lifeline modernization order, which FCC adopted March 31, 2016, FCC instructed the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to hire an outside, independent third-party evaluator to complete a program evaluation of the modernized Lifeline program. FCC noted that the program evaluation would enable FCC and the public to have better information about the operation and effectiveness of the Lifeline program. Such an evaluation will likely address our recommendation. FCC's order stipulated that USAC must submit the evaluation's findings to FCC by December 2020. In July 2020, FCC officials told us the evaluation should be complete by October 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation after we receive additional information from FCC.

Recommendation: Depending on the outcome of the litigation, the Secretary of Labor should take steps to ensure the agency will be positioned to conduct a meaningful retrospective review consistent with the Executive Order at an appropriate time. These steps should be taken in consultation with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and could include, for example, identifying metrics that could be used to evaluate the rule, and implementing a plan to gather and analyze the necessary data.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) agreed with this recommendation and reported that it is working to develop data collection plans and explore a potential evaluation that is focused on the Home Care Rule. As part of this effort, WHD noted that it will continue to work with HHS and other federal partners. In FY16, WHD reported that such an evaluation of how stakeholders and affected industries have responded to the rule would be beneficial. However, litigation has delayed implementation and enforcement of the rule significantly, and WHD believes an evaluation at this stage would be premature and would be unlikely to fully and accurately capture stakeholders' responses to the rule and the resulting impacts. Delaying the evaluation would allow WHD to monitor the results of its own investigations and the effects of ongoing compliance assistance, both of which would be extremely difficult to measure at this early stage. In 2017, WHD reported that it will continue to monitor early implementation to determine the appropriate start for any evaluation and lay the groundwork for future assessment, including a plan for how to identify data that would inform such as an assessment. In 2018, WHD reported that it is too early in the implementation phase of the rule to conduct an evaluation of the rule's impact. The Department and WHD continue to engage with HHS to understand stakeholders' responses to the rule. WHD also continues to lay the groundwork for any future assessment by working to identify data sources that would inform such as an assessment.