What GAO Found The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has taken several steps to address prior GAO recommendations related to its role in caring for unaccompanied children—those that enter the United States without a parent or lawful immigration status. ORR awards grants to providers that operate facilities to house and care for unaccompanied children. In its 2020 report, GAO found that ORR had awarded grants for 219 facilities operating in 25 states. ORR and state licensing agencies each play a role in overseeing facilities and ensuring that they meet health and safety standards, among others. Facilities generally must be licensed to operate in the state. ORR took steps to sufficiently address five GAO recommendations, while ORR has partially addressed four others. The nine recommendations were related to: Ensuring care providers are qualified (three recommendations). GAO's 2020 report found that ORR's grant announcements used to solicit care providers for unaccompanied children were unclear. Specifically, it was unclear what information applicants were to submit on their licensing status and related concerns. This information helps ensure that providers are qualified to care for unaccompanied children. ORR took steps to address two recommendations that staff verify applicants' licensing and performance information. ORR partially addressed a third recommendation by requiring in recent announcements that applicants report any allegations of abuse or neglect or adverse licensing actions. GAO will close this recommendation when ORR clarifies that applicants should report licensing issues at all facilities that they operate. Oversight and monitoring of facilities (three recommendations). GAO's 2020 report also found that ORR did not provide clear instructions to grantees on including state licensing citations in their performance reports to ORR, which is needed for effective oversight of ORR facilities. ORR addressed two of GAO's recommendations by collecting information from its grantees on any state licensing citations and notifying grantees and ORR staff that grantees were required to report this information. ORR also addressed a third recommendation to develop plans to help meet its monitoring goals. Information sharing (two recommendations). In its 2020 report, GAO also found limited information sharing between ORR and state licensing agencies. ORR has partially addressed the recommendations by establishing communication channels and points of contact in some states. GAO will close the recommendations when ORR completes outreach to all states. Tracking post-release services (one recommendation). GAO's 2016 report found that there was limited information available on post-release services that ORR provides. These services include linking families to education and community resources, in-home counseling, and case management. Tracking these services would allow the information to be compiled in summary form and provide useful information to ORR and others. GAO will close this recommendation when ORR completes improvements to its case management system to enable tracking of post-release services. Why GAO Did This Study Thousands of children enter the United States without a parent or guardian and without lawful immigration status each year. Many unaccompanied children have been exposed to trauma and violence and travelled great lengths to get to the United States. In addition, unaccompanied children may be at greater risk becoming child trafficking victims. These children are generally referred to ORR for care by the Department of Homeland Security. ORR is responsible for coordinating and implementing the care and placement of unaccompanied children. In fiscal year 2023, ORR cared for about 119,000 unaccompanied children, according to agency data. This testimony summarizes findings from GAO's 2016 and 2020 reports on ORR's role in the care and release of unaccompanied children. It provides an update on ORR's efforts to address nine recommendations contained in those reports. The reports identified several significant lapses in ORR's implementation of policies and procedures that could affect the quality of care provided to these children. GAO's 2016 and 2020 reports contain a detailed description of the methodology used. Generally, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and ORR policies and monitoring documentation. GAO also obtained the views of a range of relevant stakeholders such as ORR officials, state licensing agencies, staff at grantee facilities, and others. For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)—a component within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—is responsible for security in the nation's transportation systems. To fulfill that responsibility, TSA has statutory authority to issue security directives imposing requirements on industry without providing notice or the opportunity for public comment. In July 2021, GAO reported that in May 2021, TSA began issuing security directives pursuant to this authority in response to a ransomware attack on a U.S. pipeline company. TSA has issued, revised, and extended five security directives requiring various actions to mitigate cyber threats in the freight rail, passenger rail, and pipeline modes. According to TSA, it has done so with industry feedback and federal oversight approval. In November 2024, TSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that, according to TSA, builds on the agency’s performance-based cybersecurity requirements issued via security directives since 2021. TSA stated that this rule proposes to mandate cyber risk management and reporting requirements for certain surface transportation owners and operators. In prior work, GAO identified various challenges to cybersecurity in the transportation systems sector. For example, in January 2024, GAO reported that ransomware was having increasingly devastating impacts in the sector and found that TSA’s security directives did not align with ransomware leading practices. GAO recommended that DHS determine the extent to which the transportation systems sector is adopting leading cybersecurity practices that help reduce the sector's risk of ransomware. As of November 2024, this recommendation was not yet implemented. In addition, in December 2022, GAO found that TSA had taken steps to enhance the cybersecurity of internet-connected devices in the transportation systems sector. However, TSA had not developed metrics to measure the effectiveness of their efforts or conducted sector-wide cybersecurity risk assessments specific to these devices. GAO recommended that TSA develop a sector-specific plan that includes these metrics and include internet-connected devices in such sector-wide assessments. As of November 2024, these recommendations were not yet implemented. Status of GAO Recommendations to DHS or TSA to Improve Surface Transportation Cybersecurity, as of November 2024 Why GAO Did This Study Surface transportation comprises multiple modes—freight rail, passenger rail, and pipelines—and moves billions of passengers and millions of tons of goods each year. Domestic and foreign adversaries likely will continue to threaten the integrity of our nation’s critical infrastructure, including the transportation systems sector. They perceive targeting these sectors would have cascading negative impacts on U.S. industries and citizens, according to a DHS threat assessment. This statement discusses GAO’s portfolio of work on TSA’s efforts to enhance cybersecurity and its progress addressing prior GAO recommendations. This statement is based on prior GAO reports issued from December 2018 through July 2024, along with selected updates on TSA’s efforts to enhance cybersecurity and its progress addressing previous GAO recommendations. For these reports and selected updates, GAO reviewed TSA documentation, analyzed data, and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found Emerging technologies and data capabilities have led to rapid increases in the amount of personally identifiable information (PII) collected, shared, and used. Given the threat posed by these technologies, many federal agencies have taken actions to protect civil rights and civil liberties: All 24 Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 agencies designated an accountable official to oversee protection of civil rights, while seven of 24 designated an official for civil liberties. Sixteen of the 24 agencies reported addressing civil rights and civil liberties protections either in separate policy and procedures or in privacy compliance activities. The remaining eight agencies reported not considering civil rights and civil liberties protections in their policies or compliance activities. The results of GAO's questionnaire sent to the 24 agencies show that the two most frequently mentioned challenges with protecting the public's civil rights and civil liberties were (1) 12 agencies citing complexities in handling protections associated with new and emerging technologies, and (2) 11 agencies reporting a lack of qualified staff possessing needed skills in civil rights, civil liberties, and emerging technologies. Further, eight of the 24 agencies believed that additional government-wide law or guidance would strengthen consistency in addressing civil rights and civil liberties protections. One agency noted that such guidance could eliminate the hodge-podge approach to the governance of data and technology. Existing federal laws and guidance do not provide a comprehensive government-wide and technology agnostic approach to protecting the public's civil rights and civil liberties while using sensitive data. Agencies pointed out that emerging technologies pose new questions and concerns with protecting civil rights and civil liberties. Therefore, it is important for Congress to direct an appropriate federal entity to issue government-wide guidance or regulations that address a broad approach to considering civil rights and civil liberties protections. Until such guidance or regulations are issued, there is an increased risk of agencies' collection, sharing, and use of data potentially violating the public's civil rights and civil liberties. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to examine federal agencies' civil rights and civil liberties protections related to data collection, sharing, and use. This report examines laws and guidance pertaining to civil rights and civil liberties, efforts the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 agencies are taking to protect the public's civil rights and civil liberties when collecting sharing, and using data, and the challenges with protecting civil rights and civil liberties while using personal information.

What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs' Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides veterans with prosthetic services to assist with their mobility, vision, and hearing needs. Veterans seeking prosthetics due to amputation have complex needs and are significant users of health care services. VHA provided prosthetic services to a small but growing female veteran amputee population (almost 3 percent of veteran amputees in fiscal year 2019), who were generally younger than male veteran amputees. VHA has established an individualized patient care approach in its Amputation System of Care that seeks to address the prosthetic needs of each veteran, including accounting for gender-specific factors. VHA officials said that using a standardized, multidisciplinary approach across VHA medical facilities also helps them incorporate the concerns and preferences of female veterans. For example, veterans are provided care by a team that includes a physician, therapist, prosthetist (clinician who helps evaluate prosthetic needs and then designs, fabricates, fits, and adjusts artificial limbs), and other providers as needed. Female veteran amputees GAO spoke with at one VHA medical facility said they were satisfied with their VHA care. However, they also noted a lack of commercially available prosthetic options that VHA providers can use to meet women's needs. Women are generally studied less than their male counterparts in prosthetic and amputee rehabilitation research. VHA designated prosthetics for female veterans a national research priority in 2017. VHA had funded eight related studies as of May 2020: four pertained to lower limb amputation, three pertained to upper limb amputation, and one pertained to wheelchairs. VHA officials noted the ongoing challenge of recruiting study participants due to the small female veteran population. VHA researchers said they employ various tactics to address this challenge, such as using multi-site studies and recruiting participants from the non-veteran population. Why GAO Did This Study Women are the fastest growing veteran subpopulation, with the number of female veterans using VHA health care services increasing 29 percent from 2014 to 2019. Female veterans accounted for an estimated 10 percent of the total veteran population in fiscal year 2019. This statement for the record provides information from GAO's November 2020 report that examined, among other objectives, (1) characteristics of the female veteran population with limb loss and how VHA provides prosthetic services to these veterans; and (2) VHA's research efforts and the challenges that exist in studying prosthetics for female veterans with limb loss. For the November 2020 report, GAO analyzed VHA documents, as well as data from fiscal years 2015 to 2019 on prosthetics and veterans with amputations. GAO interviewed agency officials from VHA central office and officials and female veteran amputees at two VHA medical facilities selected for expertise in amputation care and prosthetics research activities. In addition, GAO interviewed VHA researchers conducting studies on prosthetics for female veterans. For more information, contact Jessica Farb at (202) 512-7114 or farbj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for cleaning up groundwater contamination at 13 sites. The four sites GAO examined are cleaning groundwater to meet drinking water standards based on the intersection of several laws that drive cleanup requirements, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended. In cases where it is technically impractical to meet the standards, EM could seek a waiver. Two of GAO's four selected sites are exploring the use of such waivers, but none have been used as of September 2024. The four sites GAO examined have an estimated groundwater cleanup cost of at least $10 billion over the next 5 decades. However, EM headquarters was unable to identify comprehensive information on the scope, cost, and schedule of groundwater cleanup for all 13 sites because the database combines groundwater and soil cleanup information together. EM protocol states that EM headquarters is responsible for providing technical and policy support for groundwater cleanup. Access to comprehensive scope, cost, and schedule information for groundwater cleanup would enable EM headquarters to better understand the resources needed to meet cleanup requirements. Estimated Completion Dates for Groundwater Cleanup by Selected Site The four sites assess groundwater progress using metrics that attempt to measure the effectiveness of cleanup. However, EM headquarters' performance metrics do not provide useful information on EM's overall groundwater cleanup progress. For example, EM tracks the number of groundwater wells as a progress metric. However, sites may install new wells for a variety of reasons, such as to replace decommissioned wells. Thus, there is not always a direct relationship between new wells and meeting cleanup requirements. EM protocol states that results from performance evaluations should inform EM's planning, budgeting, and execution activities, as well as provide lessons learned for improving management processes. EM is developing new qualitative groundwater performance metrics to consistently track progress at all sites. However, until EM aligns performance metrics with groundwater cleanup goals, decision-makers cannot assess whether billions of dollars in cleanup investments are achieving the desired results. Additionally, by leveraging available site-level performance information, decision-makers could draw useful conclusions about cleanup progress and derive valuable lessons learned. Why GAO Did This Study EM is responsible for addressing hazardous and radioactive waste from nuclear weapons production and energy research at DOE sites. Contaminated groundwater at these sites poses threats to public health and the environment, making groundwater cleanup critical to EM's mission. GAO was asked to review EM's groundwater cleanup efforts. This report examines (1) the groundwater cleanup requirements at selected EM sites; (2) the scope, cost, and schedule for groundwater cleanup; and (3) the extent to which EM measures groundwater cleanup progress. GAO examined four sites selected to represent a variety of facility types at different stages of the cleanup process governed by different regulatory frameworks. GAO examined relevant laws and regulations and reviewed agency documents on groundwater cleanup. GAO interviewed officials from EM, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and state regulators.

What GAO Found GAO identified weaknesses at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System related to escalation of supervisory concerns. Corporate governance and risk management. The Federal Reserve's lack of a regulation or enforceable guidelines under section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act on corporate governance and risk management issues may have contributed to delays in taking more forceful action against Silicon Valley Bank, which failed in March 2023. Such authority may assist the Federal Reserve in taking early regulatory actions against unsafe banking practices before they compromise a bank's capital. Early remediation. The Federal Reserve has not finalized a rule required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (with an effective date of January 2012). The rule was intended to promote earlier remediation of issues at financial institutions. Federal Reserve officials stated that other rules accomplish much of what the act intended but acknowledged that substantive items from the act remain unimplemented. By implementing the act's requirements, the Federal Reserve could align its supervisory tools with congressional intent that it take early action before an institution's financial condition deteriorates. GAO also found weaknesses in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) escalation procedures. Centralized tracking. The absence of a centralized system for tracking supervisory recommendations—that is, communications informing an institution of changes needed in operations or financial condition—limits FDIC's ability to identify emerging risks across the banks it supervises. “Vetting” meetings. Unlike other regulators, FDIC does not have a formalized process to ensure that large bank examination teams and relevant stakeholders are consulted before making changes or decisions, such as escalation decisions. Examiners from two selected banks cited concerns about managers altering conclusions without consulting the examiners or being unreceptive to divergent views. Procedures, such as vetting meetings, requiring managers to consult with large bank examiners and other stakeholders could ensure decisions are grounded in the evidence gathered during examinations. Rotation requirements. Unlike the other regulators, FDIC does not require large bank case managers to rotate after a few years at one institution. Case managers play a key role in the examination process. GAO has previously reported that agencies can mitigate threats to independence by implementing policies that rotate staff in key decision-making roles, thereby reducing the impact of any one employee. Implementing rotation requirements could limit close relationships between FDIC large bank case managers and bank management, helping ensure large bank case managers maintain their supervisory independence. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has procedures for escalating supervisory concerns to enforcement actions, and GAO found that it generally adheres to these procedures. These procedures include collaborative decision-making processes and documentation of divergent views between examiners and supervisors. Why GAO Did This Study Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank were closed in March 2023, and FDIC was named as receiver. The failures raised questions about bank supervision, including whether the banking regulators are adequately escalating supervisory concerns to ensure that banks take prompt action. As part of a series of reports related to these bank failures, GAO was asked to examine the regulators' supervisory practices. Among other objectives, this report examines the processes and policies for escalating supervisory concerns at the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC. GAO analyzed data on the regulators' supervisory concerns opened from 2018 through 2022 and examination documents for a nongeneralizable sample of 60 institutions representing different asset levels and regions. GAO compared regulators' communications of supervisory concerns against their policies and procedures. GAO also reviewed regulators' guidance and interviewed 109 federal bank examiners and seven subject-matter experts.

Why This Matters Chemicals improve our lives through use in products and services, and the number of chemicals in use continues to grow. Sometimes a chemical is determined to be hazardous to people or the environment, yet replacing it with another chemical may introduce new hazards. Understanding the risks and tradeoffs associated with chemical substitution could benefit industry, regulators, and consumers. Key Takeaways It can take years to fully understand whether a chemical is hazardous to people or the environment. Removing hazardous chemicals quickly from the market can lead to replacement with substitutes whose safety risks are largely unknown. Developing best practices and using approaches such as artificial intelligence and manufacturing less- or non-toxic chemical substitutes using green chemistry could help reduce future chemical substitution risks. The Science What is it? When a chemical used in industrial processes or consumer products raises concerns due to known or suspected harmful effects on humans or the environment, regulators or the market may push for replacing it with a substitute chemical. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports there are over 42,000 chemicals currently manufactured, processed, or imported in the U.S., as of May 2024. What are the risks? Because a hazardous chemical may be quickly removed from the market, a substitute could be used that is not well understood and potentially may be found to be equally or more harmful to human health or the environment. For example, bisphenol A (BPA)—used in plastics and other products—raised safety concerns when laboratory testing indicated potential harmful effects related to reproductive systems, obesity, and cancer. Despite decades of study, there is still no consensus about whether BPA exposure is safe at the levels at which people are exposed, and it continues to be used in some products. While some companies have replaced BPA, there are increasing concerns about the health risks of substitutes that are chemically similar to BPA. Thus, consumers may not fully understand safety risks when buying some products labeled "BPA-free." Figure 1. Timeline of Health Risk Research Conducted on BPA Another example involves chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), which were used as refrigerants and in aerosols. When researchers found that CFCs were damaging the earth's ozone layer, regulators acted to ban them. However, some of the substitutes have since been identified as potent greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change. EPA now has a program to assess substitutes for ozone-depleting substances like CFCs. Challenges Understanding long-term effects. Harmful chemical effects may not become apparent for years. In addition, the health risks of a chemical may depend on factors such as a person's health, as well as the amount of time and quantity of exposure. Similarly, the environmental risks of a chemical (e.g., the risks to plants, animals, or water sources from pesticides) may depend on factors such as intended use, application amounts, and disposal methods. Trade-offs by manufacturers. Companies may choose to use a new chemical as a substitute, although they may avoid doing so, in part, because of the regulatory risk review process. Companies may also opt to use an existing chemical as a substitute, but that may not eliminate the potential for similar safety concerns as the original chemical. When deciding among alternatives, companies likely will weigh product performance, costs, and approval timelines in addition to safety. Transparency. Various federal laws require manufacturers to disclose some information about chemicals in products, but there are exceptions. Marketing labels such as "BPA-free" do not require regulatory approval and may lead consumers to choose products containing substitutes that may not be any safer.  Opportunities Developing best practices and using approaches such as artificial intelligence and green chemistry could help reduce future chemical substitution risks. Best practices for evaluating alternatives. Stakeholders, including companies and regulators, could establish common criteria and best practices to help ensure more consistent assessment and documentation of the safety of chemical substitutes. Artificial intelligence (AI). Researchers are developing AI tools to predict the toxicity of new chemicals based on data for existing chemicals. Industry has already used AI to screen potential candidates and help design new, safer substitute chemicals. Green chemistry. Some companies have begun to manufacture less- or non-toxic products using sustainable processes to reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous substances.  Policy Context & Questions How could stakeholders balance the urgency of removing a hazardous chemical from the market with allowing enough time for informed decisions about its substitution? How could consumers be better educated about risks from hazardous chemicals and their substitutes? What kinds of resources could help support the development and approval of safer substitute chemicals? Selected GAO Works Persistent Chemicals: Technologies for PFAS Assessment, Detection, and Treatment, GAO-22-105088. Chemical Innovation: Technologies to Make Processes and Products More Sustainable, GAO-18-307. Selected References Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Guidance on Key Considerations for the Identification and Selection of Safer Chemical Alternatives, (OECD Publishing, 2021). *Risk Evaluations for Existing Chemicals under TSCA,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, last modified May 6, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluations-existing-chemicals-under-tsca. For more information, contact: Karen L. Howard, PhD, at (202) 512-6888 or howardk@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In 2020, the Department of State launched an initiative to transform the Foreign Service promotion process to be more fair, inclusive, and effective. State commissioned a 2021 benchmark study that identified four leading practices to help guide its reform but did not document its assessment of their usefulness. State made changes such as introducing a scoring rubric for promotion panels (known as selection boards) to rate and provide feedback to candidates. GAO found that this change and one other reflected three of the four leading practices identified in the study. State's written assessment of the usefulness of the leading practices, as described in federal internal control standards, could increase employee confidence in the promotion process and provide transparency on the rationale for changes made. State has generally followed but not fully documented its seven broad requirements for the composition of selection boards. For example, State officials told GAO they have met the requirement to “include a substantial number of women” by assigning at least one woman to each selection board. However, they have not documented this definition of the requirement because they said they need flexibility. In addition, State has not expanded the demographic criteria for selection boards to ensure they reflect the composition of the Foreign Service, including ethnicity and disability status, as suggested by a GAO leading practice on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). From 2019 through 2023, selection boards generally included higher representation of women and historically disadvantaged racial groups, but lower representation of historically disadvantaged ethnic groups and people with disabilities, in comparison with the Foreign Service. By considering demographic representation across all selection boards, specifically for ethnicity and disability status, State would better position itself to include varied perspectives in assessing employees for promotion. Composition of Foreign Service Selection Boards Compared with the Foreign Service Population by Disability Status, 2019–2023 Note: Generalists implement U.S. foreign policy. Specialists support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts. Senior Foreign Service is the highest level of the Foreign Service. Why GAO Did This Study The Foreign Service promotion process shapes the face of U.S. diplomacy. State's overarching goal is to make the promotion process fair, inclusive, and effective. However, a 2022 State survey found employees perceived a lack of fairness and objectivity in the promotion process. The fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision for GAO to conduct a comprehensive review of State's promotion process. This report examines the extent to which State has (1) made changes to its promotion process since 2020 and documented its assessment of the usefulness of relevant leading practices and (2) followed its requirements for the composition of selection boards and ensured demographic diversity on these boards. GAO analyzed State data on the composition of employees from 2019 through 2023, reviewed State documents and a State-commissioned benchmark study on leading practices, and interviewed State officials. GAO also reviewed its nine leading practices on DEIA to identify the one that was relevant to State's promotion process.

What GAO Found Similar to the United States, other governments use competitive grants—which require potential grantees to compete for funding through an application process—to help achieve their policy priorities. Selected governments reported that they have undertaken government-wide reforms to help address challenges to grants management. For example: Central department for grants policy: In 2018, the United Kingdom established a central department of grants specialists who help identify and address the needs of the government grants workforce. The department leads and supports excellence in grantmaking government-wide, through policy, training, resources, and innovation. Officials from multiple grantmaking agencies said the department, which now has over 50 staff, has raised the professionalism of grantmaking and ensured the grants workforce government-wide has access to resources and training. Grants shared service center: In 2016, Australia established two grants shared service centers that administer grants on behalf of grantmaking agencies, which has streamlined grants management. The centers handle grants tasks—such as screening applications and processing payments—while the grantmaking agencies make policy and program decisions related to the grant programs—such as selecting grantees and providing them with technical support. Officials from multiple grantmaking agencies said the process is more efficient than administering grants themselves. Officials from the selected governments shared insights on factors that helped facilitate or hinder their implementation of grants management reforms. Based on these insights, GAO identified seven practices that may help facilitate grants management reforms (see figure). Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2023, federal aid to tribal, state, local, and territorial governments—primarily through grants—was $1.1 trillion. This amount represented about 18 percent of total federal spending for that fiscal year. GAO has previously reported on long-standing challenges to grants management. GAO was asked to review grants management reforms undertaken by other governments. This report (1) describes grants management reforms that selected governments implemented to address challenges and (2) identifies practices that helped facilitate selected governments' grants management reforms. To address these objectives, GAO judgmentally selected four governments—those of Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, as well as the European Union—based on economic factors and evidence of competitive grantmaking and grants management reforms. For example, all four governments—similar to the United States—are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and have implemented government-wide grants management reforms within the last 20 years. GAO interviewed central government, grantmaking agency, and other relevant organization officials from all four governments. GAO thematically summarized the interviews to identify common or novel reform efforts and practices to facilitate the reforms. GAO also reviewed relevant documentation from the selected governments, but did not conduct an independent legal analysis of foreign laws. For more information, contact Jeff Arkin at (202) 512-6806 or arkinj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Coast Guard annually rotates over 40 percent of its 40,000 active-duty military personnel to new duty stations. Around 41 percent of Coast Guard units are in remote areas or high vacation rental areas (such as Cape Cod, Massachusetts), or both. U.S. Transportation Command, within the Department of Defense (DOD) administers the shipment and storage of service members' household goods, including for Coast Guard personnel, through the Defense Personal Property Program. Officials from the nine Coast Guard districts told GAO that service members can experience key challenges when rotating to new duty stations. These challenges included limited moving company availability and access to specialized health care (see figure below). Officials told GAO that these challenges can have potential negative impacts on Coast Guard operations, personnel readiness, and retention. For example, delays in arrivals of newly assigned members to replace rotated members can increase workloads for those stationed at some units. Additionally, some newly assigned members may not be able to fully participate in mission-related duties before taking care of personal issues like obtaining dependent care. The Coast Guard has taken some actions to address these challenges, such as helping with researching available places to rent. Duty Station Rotation Challenges and Potential Negative Impacts Identified by Coast Guard Field Unit Officials While the Coast Guard has mechanisms that may collect information on challenges experienced by service members, they are not specifically intended to do so. For example, members may communicate feedback on rotations when preferencing new assignments. However, the Coast Guard does not have a process for collecting service-wide feedback about duty station rotations. Establishing a process to routinely collect and analyze such feedback would position the Coast Guard to better understand rotation challenges and their impact on operations, readiness, and retention, as well as meet service member needs. Why GAO Did This Study To conduct its missions, the Coast Guard assigns service members to numerous locations within and outside the continental U.S., including aboard ships. A committee report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review the Coast Guard rotations process and how DOD supports that process. This report addresses the extent to which the Coast Guard identified challenges with rotations and has taken action to address them, among other things. GAO analyzed Coast Guard and DOD policies and guidance on rotations. GAO also interviewed DOD and Coast Guard officials, including geographically dispersed field unit officials from all nine Coast Guard districts. The information GAO obtained from these interviews is not generalizable, but provided insights and context concerning how the Coast Guard monitors and addresses rotation challenges experienced by service members.

What GAO Found Within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Shadow Wolves program operates on the Tohono O'odham Nation reservation in Sells, Arizona. In January 2024, GAO recommended that ICE define the mission and goals of the program, with input from the Tohono O'odham Nation. GAO also recommended that, after defining the mission and goals of the Shadow Wolves program, ICE should determine the staffing needs for the program on the Tohono O'odham Nation reservation, to include the skills and number of positions necessary. ICE concurred with the recommendations. In July 2024, however, ICE defined the program's mission, but without input from the Tribe. In addition, ICE's defined goals for the program do not align with the program's mission or describe the results it hopes to achieve. Further, though ICE has defined staffing goals for the program, ICE has not yet performed a workforce analysis to determine the program's staffing needs, including the number and type of personnel the unit needs to meet operational demands. GAO maintains that defining the mission and goals of the Shadow Wolves program, with input from the Tohono O'odham Nation, could better position the agency to ensure that Shadow Wolves operations are achieving desired outcomes, and that determining the program's staffing needs would better position ICE to develop recruitment plans. In January 2024, GAO also recommended that ICE update its October 2022 Shadow Wolves recruitment strategy to include measurable goals, timelines, and milestones, and develop a succession plan to address upcoming retirements. ICE concurred with these recommendations and has taken steps to recruit Shadow Wolves, such as making four vacant, funded special agent positions available to hire them. After the unit's membership decreased from eight to six members due to retirements in spring 2024, ICE decided to post the new positions at the GS-9 grade level because, according to ICE officials, this approach would allow the agency to onboard and train recruits more quickly than entry-level hires. However, as of October 2024, ICE had not yet posted a hiring announcement or developed a succession plan. GAO maintains that ICE should (1) develop and document measurable goals, timelines, and milestones so officials can review progress of their recruitment efforts and make any needed adjustments and (2) develop a succession plan to better ensure that experienced Shadow Wolves will be available to train new recruits. In January 2024, GAO also recommended that ICE develop criteria for evaluating possible additional Shadow Wolves locations. ICE concurred with this recommendation and has taken some steps to implement it. In July 2024, it broadly defined elements that would enable it to select new locations, including: the willingness of partnering Tribal Nations, the level of criminal activity, and the availability of funding. However, as of August 2024, ICE had not detailed how it will apply these broad criteria to selecting potential locations. According to ICE, the agency plans to update and finalize its evaluation criteria after it completes the hiring and onboarding process for new Shadow Wolves. ICE officials said they chose this approach because the program is focusing on staffing the Shadow Wolves unit in Sells and that without hiring new members soon, expansion and the program itself are in jeopardy. While the more immediate need is to address Shadow Wolves program staffing needs, we maintain that, moving forward, developing criteria for evaluating and selecting expansion locations could help ensure that ICE evaluates locations consistently while improving transparency of the process. Why GAO Did This Study About 62 miles of the U.S. southwest border is located on the Tohono O'odham Nation reservation, which may be vulnerable to illicit cross-border activity. The Shadow Wolves program began operations in 1974 to address the illegal smuggling of controlled substances from Mexico to this reservation in Arizona and into the interior of the U.S. The Shadow Wolves Enhancement Act, which became law in April 2022, includes a provision for GAO to assess the effectiveness of ICE's strategy for the Shadow Wolves program not later than 1 year after receiving the strategy, and annually for the following 2 years. GAO issued its first report related to this provision in January 2024. This report assesses ICE's (1) efforts to define the program's mission and staffing needs, (2) strategies for recruiting and retaining Shadow Wolves, and (3) planning efforts to expand the program to other tribal lands. GAO analyzed program planning documents and visited the Tohono O'odham Nation reservation to interview ICE officials and Shadow Wolves members.

What GAO Found The transit industry is working to address climate change by lowering greenhouse gas emissions, in part by transitioning to zero-emission buses. According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data, zero-emission buses comprised 2 percent of the bus fleet for large urban transit agencies nationwide in fiscal year 2022 (2,061 zero-emission buses). FTA projects that zero-emission buses or other vehicles in operation will more than triple by fiscal year 2030 (to 7,700). However, officials from FTA and 10 selected transit agencies GAO interviewed generally agreed that several key challenges need to be addressed in the near term, particularly the limited supply of new zero-emission buses. FTA is working with the industry to address bus supply and manufacturing issues, encouraging actions to reduce bus costs and earlier payments on bus orders. Transit agency officials GAO met with said that while workforce issues related to the transition are not an immediate priority, they are taking steps to provide training specific to zero-emission buses, as needed, and to address the ongoing shortage of frontline workers. Transitioning to zero-emission buses will most significantly change the traditional mechanic role, making it more of a technician role that requires the use of electronic equipment to diagnose and address engine error codes, according to FTA officials. All 10 selected transit agencies collaborated with bus manufacturers to design training materials and deliver training to their mechanics. However, these transit agencies said their specific future workforce needs are uncertain, in part, because of unpredictable bus delivery timeframes. They said they plan to continue their existing recruitment and retention strategies, such as partnering with community colleges and offering apprenticeships to address current workforce shortages. FTA is leading several activities to help transit agencies prepare their workforces for zero-emission buses. For example, in 2021, FTA established the Transit Workforce Center to provide direct technical assistance to transit agencies on various workforce issues, including apprenticeships, training, and recruitment. Battery Electric Buses and Charging Equipment, King County Metro Why GAO Did This Study The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act made about $5.6 billion available for the Low or No Emission Grant Program for fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to help transit agencies purchase low- and zero-emission buses, and for related purposes. The successful deployment of zero-emission buses—battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric buses—depends in part on transit agencies having skilled workers to operate and maintain these buses. House Report 117-402 includes a provision for GAO to review workforce development needs as transit agencies transition to zero-emission vehicles. This report describes: (1) the status of transit agencies' transition to zero-emission bus fleets and any challenges they may face meeting transition goals; (2) skill- and workforce-development needs of transit agencies and actions selected agencies are taking to address any workforce gaps; and (3) FTA actions to assist transit agencies in preparing their workforces for zero-emission buses. GAO analyzed FTA data on the nationwide bus fleet as of 2022—the most recent available data—and reviewed applicable statutes, regulations, and agency documents. GAO interviewed 18 transit stakeholders and officials at 10 selected transit agencies to obtain views on zero-emission buses and workforce development needs. GAO selected transit agencies based on factors including agency location and fleet makeup. GAO also interviewed officials at eight transit entities in the Netherlands and United Kingdom about their workforce transitions, as they have high numbers of zero-emission buses in operation. For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah at (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for determining whether drugs are safe and effective. The agency also works with drug sponsors and others to support the development of drugs to treat rare diseases, recognizing the unique challenges involved, such as assessing drug effectiveness in small patient populations. Rare disease drugs must meet the same standards as other drugs to be marketed, but FDA reviewers may apply flexibility in determining the evidence needed to meet the standards. Within FDA, staff in two of the agency's centers—the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)—review drug applications. According to FDA officials, training and engagement with patient groups are among the important strategies to help ensure the agency's staff have the expertise needed to review rare disease drug applications. Agency officials also said that a multi-layer review process helps ensure consistency among reviewers in regulatory decision-making. FDA officials said they are committed to using available flexibilities where appropriate to ensure safe and effective rare disease drugs are approved for marketing. GAO found that FDA has 18 rare disease-specific programs—most initiated since 2019—intended to help address complexities common to rare disease drug development. Each of these programs aimed to do at least one of the following: advance understanding of the diseases, expand stakeholder engagement, or support drug development efforts. FDA Rare Disease-Specific Program Aims FDA is the process of implementing a new Rare Disease Innovation Hub intended to enhance coordination between CDER and CBER and help expedite development and approval of safe and effective drugs for rare diseases. To do so, FDA will develop a cross-center strategic agenda with public input to help shape priorities and initiatives. According to agency officials, this new initiative will include the development of agencywide goals for the agency's rare disease activities. While it is still early, this initiative holds promise for guiding the agency's rare disease activities in a strategic and coordinated fashion. According to FDA, the new initiative will leverage each center's rare disease-focused activities and enhance existing cross-center collaborations. Before the agency announced its new initiative, the two centers focused on developing center-specific goals for their respective rare disease activities. FDA officials said both centers plan to align their goals with agencywide goals once they are defined. Why GAO Did This Study Nearly one in 10 Americans have a rare disease, which is typically defined as any condition affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. There are up to 10,000 rare diseases, however, only 5 percent of rare diseases have FDA-approved treatments. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 includes a provision for GAO to examine FDA activities related to rare disease drug development and approval. This report, among other objectives, describes FDA's strategies to help ensure reviewers have the necessary expertise and use appropriate flexibilities in their reviews, describes FDA's programs to support rare disease drug development, and examines FDA's efforts to coordinate its rare disease efforts. GAO reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and FDA documentation. GAO also interviewed FDA officials, drug sponsors of approved rare disease drugs, and patient advocacy groups representing individuals with rare diseases. For more information, contact John E. Dicken at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Presented is GAO's Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. We made significant accomplishments in FY 2024 (see figure). In the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act, this annual report informs the Congress and the American people about what we have achieved on their behalf. The financial information and the data measuring GAO's performance contained in this report are complete and reliable. This report describes GAO's performance measures, results, and accountability processes for FY 2024. In assessing our performance, we compared actual results against targets and goals that were set in our annual performance plan and performance budget, and that were developed to help carry out our strategic plan. An overview of our annual measures and targets for 2024 is available here, along with links to a complete set of our strategic planning and performance and accountability reports. This report includes a performance and financial snapshot for the American taxpayer for FY 2024, a letter from the Comptroller General, and five parts. Part I: Management's Discussion and Analysis. This section includes a statement attesting to the completeness and reliability of the performance and financial data in this report and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. It includes a summary of our mission, organizational structure, strategies we use to achieve our goals, and processes for measuring our performance. In addition, it discusses our agency-wide performance results and use of resources in FY 2024. It also includes information on management challenges, external factors that affect our performance, and future challenges and priorities. Part II: Performance Information. This section includes details on our performance results by strategic goal in FY 2024 and our targets for FY 2025. Part III: Financial Information. This section includes details on our finances in FY 2024, including a letter from our Chief Financial Officer, audited financial statements and notes, and the reports from our external auditor and Audit Advisory Committee. This section also includes an explanation of the information each of our financial statements conveys. Part IV: Inspector General's (IG) View of GAO's Management Challenges. This section includes our IG's perspective of our agency's management challenges. Part V: Appendixes. This section provides the report's abbreviations and describes how we ensure the completeness and reliability of the data for each of our performance measures. Why GAO Did This Study As a legislative branch agency, GAO is exempt from many laws that apply to executive branch agencies. However, we generally hold ourselves to the spirit of many such laws, including the Government Performance and Results Act and the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. Accordingly, the FY 2024 Performance and Accountability Report provides information on GAO's work, which we consider comparable to that reported by executive branch agencies that choose to prepare annual Performance and Accountability Reports in lieu of separate Agency Financial Reports. For more information, contact Timothy Bowling at 202-512-6100 or BowlingT@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide) establishes standards for the General Services Administration (GSA) and project stakeholders to follow when designing and constructing new federal courthouses. The judiciary made multiple changes in its 2021 revision of the Design Guide, including 16 that GAO determined could affect the size and cost of courthouse projects. Judiciary officials said they made these changes primarily to provide courts with design flexibility and to incorporate policies the judiciary had adopted since 2007, when it last formally revised the Design Guide. GAO analyzed the potential effects of these changes for six recently or nearly completed courthouses and one planned courthouse designed under the 2007 Design Guide. On the basis of this analysis, GAO estimates that the changes would have increased the size of these selected courthouses by almost 6 percent and construction costs by approximately 12 percent, on average, had the courthouses been built using the new 2021 Design Guide. These increases are due, in part, to the increase in judiciary circulation requirements (i.e., the amount of space required for movement of the public, court staff, and prisoners). Judiciary officials stated that the increased circulation requirements were necessary to enhance safety and address concerns that the 2007 circulation requirements did not provide enough space. Estimated Percentage Increases in Size and Construction Costs of Selected Courthouses Resulting from Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide Courthouse location Size increase Construction cost increase Anniston, AL 5.6% 11.4% Charlotte, NC 5.6 13.2 Greenville, SC 4.3 6.5 Harrisburg, PA 6.0 8.5 Huntsville, AL 6.4 16.8 San Antonio, TX 6.7 13.7 Future courthouse 5.5 17.1 Total 5.8% 11.9% Source: GAO analysis of judiciary and General Services Administration data. | GAO-25-106724 GAO found that the judiciary solicited input from GSA and the U.S. Marshals Service on changes to the 2021 Design Guide, but that it did not engage in two-way communication with GSA or involve the Federal Protective Service, which has courthouse security responsibilities. In addition, the judiciary did not indicate how, or whether, it planned to address GSA's concerns that the increased circulation requirements were based on a 2012 assessment of older courthouses that GAO had previously found to be oversized. Moreover, the judiciary did not systematically collect information from project stakeholders or courthouse occupants to determine whether the previous circulation requirements were too restrictive. Developing and documenting a process to ensure effective collaboration, and reassessing the need for increased circulation requirements using relevant information—such as the size and cost estimates above and views of project stakeholders and courthouse occupants—will help the judiciary plan and design functional and cost-effective courthouses. Why GAO Did This Study For fiscal years 2016 through 2022, GSA received $1.9 billion for 15 new federal courthouse projects. GSA and other project stakeholders use the Design Guide to design functional and cost-effective courthouses. GAO was asked to review issues related to the Design Guide, including key changes the judiciary made in the 2021 version. This report examines, among other things, (1) the judiciary's rationale for making changes in the 2021 Design Guide, and the extent to which these changes could affect the size and cost of selected courthouse projects; and (2) the extent to which the judiciary collaborated with partner agencies in making changes in the 2021 Design Guide. GAO reviewed documentation and interviewed GSA and judiciary officials. GAO also worked with these officials to model (i.e., estimate) the sizes and construction costs of seven new courthouse projects based on standards in the 2007 and 2021 Design Guides. GAO conducted site visits to five of these courthouses, selected for variation in size and cost.

What GAO Found GAO found (1) the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) and its Investor Protection Fund's (IPF) financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2024, and 2023, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (2) SEC maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting for SEC and for IPF as of September 30, 2024; and (3) no reportable noncompliance for fiscal year 2024 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements GAO tested. In commenting on a draft of this report, SEC stated that it is pleased that GAO found that its financial statements and notes were presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Why GAO Did This Study SEC is required by law to annually prepare and submit audited financial statements covering all accounts and associated activities of the agency to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. Further, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended in 2010 by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), requires SEC to annually prepare and submit a complete set of audited financial statements for its IPF to Congress. In accordance with its authority to audit statements and schedules prepared by executive agencies and their components, GAO audited the SEC and IPF financial statements. Section 963 of the Dodd-Frank Act further requires that (1) SEC annually submit a report to Congress describing management's responsibility for internal control over financial reporting and assessing the effectiveness of such internal control during the fiscal year; (2) the SEC Chair and Chief Financial Officer attest to SEC's report; and (3) GAO assess the effectiveness of SEC's internal control over financial reporting and evaluate, attest to, and report on SEC's assessment. Accordingly, this report also includes GAO's reporting in response to the requirement under the Dodd-Frank Act. For more information, contact M. Hannah Padilla at (202) 512-5683 or padillah@gao.gov.

What GAO Found GAO found (1) the Federal Housing Finance Agency's (FHFA) financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2024, and 2023, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (2) although internal controls could be improved, FHFA's internal control over financial reporting was effective as of September 30, 2024; and (3) no reportable noncompliance for fiscal year 2024 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements GAO tested. In its written comments on a draft of this report, FHFA stated that it was pleased to accept GAO's unmodified audit opinions. In addition, it will continue to enhance its internal control and ensure the reliability of its financial reporting. This includes coordinating with its stakeholders to address the significant deficiency through process changes and training. Why GAO Did This Study The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 established FHFA as an independent agency empowered with supervisory and regulatory oversight of the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises: the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the 11 Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Office of Finance. This act requires FHFA to prepare financial statements annually and requires GAO to audit the agency's financial statements. In accordance with the act, GAO audited FHFA's financial statements. For more information, contact Anne Sit-Williams at (202) 512-7795 or sitwilliamsa@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The majority of recovered firearms in the Caribbean were traced to the U.S. and trafficked through various means. The Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) traces the origin of firearms recovered in Caribbean countries at the request of Caribbean law enforcement agencies or ATF officials in the Caribbean. While the political will and capacity of each country impacts the number of recovered firearms each country submits for tracing, ATF processed 7,399 traces of firearms recovered in crimes in the Caribbean from 2018 through 2022 (see figure). GAO analysis of these data showed that 73 percent of these firearms, most of which were handguns, were sourced from the U.S. While Caribbean countries do not manufacture firearms, U.S. and foreign officials said that criminals in Caribbean countries can traffic firearms by air and sea using various concealment techniques and can obtain firearms through illegal markets. Origin of Caribbean Firearms Recovered and Traced by ATF, 2018-2022 Firearms origin Total Percentage U.S. origin 5,399 73% Non-U.S. origin 1,728 23% Undetermined origin 272 4% Total firearms recovered and submitted for tracing = 7,399     Source: GAO analysis of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) data. | GAO-25-107007 To help disrupt and combat firearms trafficking, the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security (DHS), and Commerce have various capacity-building, investigative, and border security efforts in place. For instance, State, working through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI)—a U.S. security partnership with 13 Caribbean countries—helps fund various trainings and capacity building programs, such as the Crime Gun Intelligence Unit. This unit collects and analyzes intelligence on guns and promotes intelligence sharing with regional international law enforcement partners. DHS's Homeland Security Investigations, a law enforcement agency, established Transnational Criminal Investigative Units throughout the Caribbean and conducts various interagency operations to uncover criminal networks responsible for trafficking firearms. DHS's Customs and Border Protection interdicts illicit firearms at U.S. ports of entry enroute to the Caribbean. From fiscal years 2018 through 2023, it conducted hundreds of domestic interdictions, seizing 535 firearms and 3,167 firearm components at U.S. ports destined for Caribbean countries. U.S. agencies track results of their key efforts to combat firearms trafficking to the Caribbean through various means. However, State does not track results for combatting firearms for the CBSI. Specifically, State's CBSI's Results Framework includes intermediate results and indicators for each program objective but does not have specific indicators for its goal of reducing illicit firearms trafficking. Developing such indicators would better enable State to measure progress of its combating firearms trafficking efforts. Why GAO Did This Study Some Caribbean nations, such as Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, have high rates of violence, including homicide. In 2021, Caribbean countries accounted for six of the world's 10 highest national murder rates, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The United Nations and other organizations monitoring firearms trafficking have reported that a high percentage of the firearms used in these crimes have been trafficked from the U.S. GAO was asked to report on U.S. efforts to counter firearms trafficking to Caribbean nations. This report examines (1) what data and reporting show about the trafficking and use of firearms in Caribbean countries; (2) U.S. agencies' efforts to disrupt firearms trafficking in these countries; and (3) agency efforts to track results of key efforts to combat firearms trafficking from the U.S. to the Caribbean. GAO reviewed federal firearms recovery and trace data, and other related U.S. agency data, analysis, and program information for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, the most recent available at the time of our review. GAO interviewed U.S. and Caribbean officials through in-person site visits in the Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago, and through video conferences with Barbados, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica. GAO selected these countries based on geographic diversity, the percentage of recovered firearms that were of U.S. origin, and U.S. agency efforts in country to combat firearms trafficking.

What GAO Found The Coast Guard has assessed risks that affect its ability to carry out its missions in the U.S. Arctic region, such as those posed by increased maritime activity and by potential adversaries such as Russia and China. It has partnered with the Department of Defense and others to mitigate these risks and included this information in planning documents. These plans include the Coast Guard’s Arctic strategy and its implementation plan. However, the implementation plan does not include key metrics such as performance measures, targets, or timeframes for action items. This may make it difficult for the Coast Guard to determine resource needs, assess progress toward strategic objectives, and ensure its efforts are aligned with national Arctic efforts. GAO also found that key mission performance information was incomplete or missing, such as the number of days ships were deployed in the Arctic region and the time they spent on various missions there. The Coast Guard has multiple strategic commitments for its Arctic operations but has been unable to meet all of them in recent years in part due to asset availability challenges. These include a lack of icebreakers, and competing demands for major cutters elsewhere. Further, limited infrastructure and logistics capabilities in Alaska amplify asset challenges in the Arctic region. The Coast Guard is making efforts to address them via major acquisition projects, such as for the new Polar Security Cutter, but these ships continue to face significant delays and cost issues. Since 2016, GAO has issued several reports and made numerous recommendations to improve Coast Guard Arctic planning and acquisition programs. Coast Guard Operational and Planned Fleet of Polar Icebreakers, 2024 The Coast Guard uses its shore infrastructure assets—such as piers and maintenance buildings—to support legacy assets that operate in the Arctic region, such as icebreakers and other cutters. In 2019, GAO found that the estimated cost of the Coast Guard’s shore infrastructure project backlog totaled at least $2.6 billion. GAO made six recommendations to address these issues, two of which the Coast Guard has fully implemented. However, as of November 2024, GAO’s preliminary analysis showed that the estimated cost of this shore infrastructure backlog had more than doubled to over $7 billion. Why GAO Did This Study Since the Arctic is largely a maritime domain, the U.S. Coast Guard, a multi-mission military service within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), plays a key role in Arctic policy implementation and enforcement. As more navigable ocean water has emerged and human activity increases in the region, the Coast Guard faces growing responsibilities to assess and manage risks. These include risks to maritime safety, security, and the environment. This statement discusses: (1) Coast Guard actions to assess and mitigate risks in the Arctic region, and (2) key challenges the Coast Guard faces that may affect its Arctic operations and its ability to meet its strategic commitments. This statement is based primarily on our 2024 report examining Coast Guard Arctic operational risks, and our 2023 report on Coast Guard acquisitions. This statement also includes updated 2024 data on the Coast Guard’s shore infrastructure backlog. For the reports cited in this statement, GAO analyzed Coast Guard and Department of Defense documentation and data, and interviewed officials from these agencies.

What GAO Found Federal data on flooding, wildfires, storm surge, and sea level rise indicate that more than 700 hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, or about 68 percent, are located in areas with one or more of these hazards that could be exacerbated by climate change. Hazardous Waste Storage Tanks at a Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions, authorized states, and facilities need more clarity on whether managing climate risks to facilities is required or there is existing authority to do so under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA). EPA has taken steps to clarify authorities and requirements for managing climate risks as part of permitting but has not done so for compliance and enforcement efforts, such as inspections. In June 2024, EPA issued guidance on selected RCRA authorities that regions and states could use to develop facility permit requirements to manage climate risks. However, some states and facilities may not implement the guidance unless EPA amends regulations to explicitly clarify authorities and requirements. EPA officials said the agency could provide training and technical assistance to regions and states to help ensure they understand and implement the guidance, but EPA has not done so yet. Without providing this training and technical assistance and seeking further feedback to determine whether it should issue regulations to fully clarify authorities and requirements for managing climate risks, EPA may be unable to ensure effective and consistent management of these risks. EPA regions, states, and facilities also face challenges in managing climate risks. For example, regions, states, and facilities need guidance on how to assess climate risks and face challenges in knowing what data they should use to do so, according to interviews with officials from EPA, states, and stakeholder groups. By issuing guidance to regions, states, and facilities on how to manage climate risks, along with providing data, tools, and training, EPA could better ensure these risks are managed sufficiently and that regions, states, and facilities have the direction and information necessary to do so. Why GAO Did This Study More than 1,000 facilities across the nation treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste that could harm human health and the environment if released. Natural hazards such as flooding—which may become more frequent and intense due to climate change—can lead to hazardous waste releases. RCRA governs the management of hazardous waste by facilities. EPA promulgates RCRA regulations to minimize the risk of releases from facilities and has authorized 48 states to implement these regulations in lieu of EPA. EPA regional offices assist and oversee states in implementing RCRA. GAO was asked to review EPA's role in addressing climate risks to facilities. This report examines 1) the extent to which facilities are located in areas with selected natural hazards that may be exacerbated by climate change; 2) the extent to which EPA requires or encourages authorized states and facilities to manage risks to human health and the environment from climate change; and 3) challenges EPA, states, and facilities face in managing climate risks. GAO analyzed federal data on facilities and four natural hazards, reviewed agency documents, and interviewed officials from EPA headquarters and five regional offices, four state agencies, and eight stakeholder groups.