Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: Seafood
GAO-20-441, Jun 18, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
GAO-20-325, Apr 7, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GAO-20-230, Apr 1, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: Open
Comments: DHS agreed with this recommendation and noted that it plans to work further with DOL to explore options for improving the H-2B visa program and possibly develop proposals for legislative changes.
Agency: Department of Labor: Employment and Training Administration
Status: Open
Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation. DOL said it is prepared to work with DHS to consider options for changing the H-2B program and to provide any technical assistance that Congress may need on this issue. We will monitor the agency's progress to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: Open
Comments: DHS did not agree with this recommendation. DHS said it would continue to work with DOL-as it has done in prior years--if and when Congress delegates the authority to make additional H-2B visas available beyond the statutory cap to DHS. The agency also expressed its view that Congress is better positioned to determine whether and how many additional visas should be made available to meet the needs of U.S. businesses. In fiscal years 2017 through 2020, DHS was authorized to increase the number of H-2B visas beyond the statutory cap, after consulting with DOL to determine that "the needs of American businesses [could not] be satisfied...with United States workers..." In exercising this authority in prior years, DHS stated that "[t]he scope of the assessment called for by the statute [in making this determination] is quite broad, and accordingly delegates the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to identify the business needs [s]he finds most relevant." In light of DHS's broad view of its authority, we continue to believe that it would be appropriate for DHS, in consultation with DOL, to assess the advantages and disadvantages of considering current economic trends in determining the appropriate number of additional H-2B visas to provide. If they determine that using such data would be warranted, the agencies would then be well positioned to implement such an approach if DHS is granted such authority in the future. Moreover, if-as DHS stated in its response to our recommendation-the agency believes that Congress is best suited to determine what increases in visa numbers may be needed to meet the needs of U.S. businesses, consistent with protecting American workers, it may wish to work with Congress to draft a legislative proposal reflecting this view.
Agency: Department of Labor: Employment and Training Administration
Status: Open
Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation. The agency plans to draw on its data on labor market and economic trends to provide technical assistance to DHS on the determination of how many additional H-2B visas to make available.
Agency: Department of Labor: Employment and Training Administration
Status: Open
Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation. DOL noted that while further development of a system for tracking industry and occupational trends in H-2B employer violations is currently on hold due to budgetary constraints, when this system is available it will provide the capacity to take a risk-based approach to selecting employers for audits. We will monitor the agency's progress to implement this recommendation.
GAO-20-216, Mar 31, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
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.
GAO-20-62, Nov 6, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: FDA agreed with our recommendation. In August 2020, FDA told us that the agency is working to review and modify appropriate sections of its Regulatory Procedures Manual to better reflect the importance of foreign suppliers' corrective actions when making decisions to remove a firm from an import alert and identify higher-risk problem areas where more robust information may be needed. In addition, a checklist for import alerts and associated Compliance Management System (database) functionality are under development. According to FDA, the agency is also working to refine internal communications to better assure that firms which have recently been removed from an import alert are also considered for an inspection. Additionally, in November 2019, FDA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on accreditation of laboratories that conduct food testing to support removal from import alert and other purposes. We will continue to monitor FDA's planned actions to determine if they satisfy our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: FDA agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FDA told us that the agency has published some performance metrics and plans to develop additional performance measures and outcome indicators for imported food safety, to support FDA's Strategy for the Safety of Imported Food (Strategy). In addition, after publishing these initial metrics for the Strategy, the agency will develop additional performance metrics. FDA stated that the COVID-19 situation is quite fluid and the agency is unable to project timelines for developing additional performance measures at this time. We will continue to monitor FDA's planned actions to determine if they satisfy our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: FDA agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, FDA told us that the agency remains committed to developing additional performance goals and measures for its imported food safety program. FDA is still reviewing the Import Alert Effectiveness Program and will consider metrics, as appropriate, based on the outcome of that review. FDA stated that the COVID-19 situation is quite fluid and the agency is unable to project timelines for developing additional performance measures at this time. We will continue to monitor FDA's planned actions to determine if they satisfy our recommendation.
GAO-17-443, Sep 15, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: FDA partially agreed with our recommendation. According to FDA, the agency is working on a plan to explore the viability of reaching cooperative arrangements with foreign regulatory bodies concerning imported aqua-cultured seafood. In exploring such arrangements, FDA stated that it will seek to explore a means by which the agency can leverage foreign regulatory bodies' seafood safety programs to provide additional oversight for seafood destined for the United States. According to FDA, such arrangements would be negotiated depending on the country's specific situation. We will continue to monitor FDA's specific efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, FSIS had not yet acted on this recommendation. According to FSIS officials, the agency made a request to the USDA Office of General Counsel for their opinion on the legality of the recommendation. FSIS is waiting for OGC's response to that request. FSIS maintains that the information submitted by foreign countries as part of the equivalence determination that outlines their chemical residue monitoring plans and the review by the FSIS equivalence staff to ensure these countries employ an equivalent level of public health protection as that of the US already addresses this recommendation. We will continue to monitor how FSIS addresses this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: FDA agreed with this recommendation. According to FDA officials, the agency shared its testing methods for two drugs with FSIS and as of as of April 2019, FSIS and FDA were using the same method for measuring and confirming these two unapproved drugs. In August 2020, FDA told GAO that the agencies convene quarterly to discuss emerging and ongoing research needs in laboratory method development and the establishment of drug residue limits in seafood. We commend FDA and FSIS for taking these steps to share information on testing methods. However, GAO found that the agencies continue to use different multi-residue testing methods that look for different numbers of drugs--99 for FSIS and 40 for FDA--which results in the agencies using different maximum residue levels for some drugs. FDA's method can detect drugs that FSIS's does not and can detect some drugs at lower levels. FSIS's multi-residue method can detect 59 more drugs than FDA's method. The agencies do not have any plans to work on a multi-residue method both agencies can use.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: According to FSIS officials in May 2020, the agency coordinates with FDA and EPA to carry out the National Residue Program, which entails testing FSIS-regulated products, including catfish, for chemical compounds of public health concern. FSIS officials indicated that FSIS will continue to use its own test methods that meet the agency's pre-defined quality assurance criteria, are applicable to the particular commodity under its jurisdiction, and fit its business model. Thus, FSIS currently does not have plans to work on a multi-residue method that both it and FDA can use on imported seafood, including catfish, as we have recommended.