Federal Fees, Fines, and Penalties: Observations on Agency Spending Authorities
Published: 2016-12-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
While the majority of federal revenues come from taxes, agencies also collect billions of dollars in fees, fines, penalties, and settlements. We've looked at the options available for legislating the use of these funds.
In this testimony, we outlined the options and explored the tradeoffs involved with each. For example, requiring these funds to go through the annual appropriation process could make it easier for Congress to oversee the money. Conversely, allowing use of the funds without further congressional action could help an agency respond more quickly to customers or changing conditions.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Congress exercises its constitutional power of the purse by appropriating funds and prescribing conditions governing their use. Through annual appropriations and other laws that constitute permanent appropriations, Congress provides agencies with authority to incur obligations for specified purposes. The federal government receives funds from a variety of sources, including tax revenues, fees, fines, penalties, and settlements. Collections from fees, fines, penalties, and settlements involve billions of dollars and fund a wide variety of programs.
The design and structure—and corresponding agency flexibility and congressional control—of these statutory authorities can vary widely. In many cases, Congress has provided agencies with permanent authority to collect and obligate funds from fees, fines, and penalties without further congressional action. This authority is a form of appropriations and is subject to the fiscal laws governing appropriated funds. In addition, annual appropriation acts may limit the availability of those funds for obligation. Given the nation's fiscal condition, it is critical that every funding source and spending decision be carefully considered and applied to its best use.
This testimony provides an overview of key design decisions related to the use of federal collections outlined in prior GAO reports, with examples of specific fees, fines, and penalties from GAO reports issued between September 2005 and November 2016.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO's prior work has identified four key design decisions related to how fee, fine, and penalty collections are used that help Congress balance agency flexibility and congressional control.
One of these key design decisions is the congressional action that triggers the use of collections. The table below outlines the range of structures that establish an agency's use of collections and examples of fees, fines, and penalties for each structure.
Source: GAO analysis of applicable laws ǀ G AO-17-268T
As GAO has previously reported, these designs involve different tradeoffs and implications. For example, requiring collections to be annually appropriated before an agency can use the collections increases opportunities for congressional oversight on a regular basis. Conversely, if Congress grants an agency authority to use collections without further congressional action, the agency may be able to respond more quickly to customers or changing conditions. Even when an agency has the permanent authority to use collections, the funds remain subject to congressional oversight at any point in time and Congress can place limitations on obligations for any given year.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We are pleased to be here today to discuss our prior work on federal  fees, fines, penalties, and settlements. Congress exercises its  constitutional power of the purse by appropriating funds and prescribing  conditions governing their use. As you know, through appropriations,  Congress provides agencies with budget authority to make financial  obligations for specified purposes. An appropriations act is the most  common means of providing appropriations; however, Congress may  provide appropriations through other laws as well.
The federal government receives funds from a variety of sources during  the fiscal year, including tax revenues, federal fees, fines, penalties, and  settlements. Collections from fees, fines, penalties, and settlements fund  a wide variety of programs integral to our nation’s security, to the security  of our financial system, and to the protection of our natural resources and  involve billions of dollars annually. For example, some user fees— including U.S. Postal Service charges for stamps and other fees,  Medicare premiums, and Tennessee Valley Authority proceeds from the  sale of energy—exceed $1 billion in annual collections. Annual collections  of fines and penalties fluctuate. For example, the federal government  collected civil penalties paid in connection with the 2010 Deepwater  Horizon oil spill ranging from about $400 million in fiscal year 2013 to  about $160 million in fiscal year 2016.
The design and structure—and corresponding agency flexibility and  congressional control—of statutory authorities for fees, fines, penalties,  and settlements can vary widely. In many cases, Congress has provided  agencies with permanent authority to collect and obligate for specific  purposes funds from sources such as fees, fines, and penalties without  further congressional action. Such authorities are part of a broader  category of budget authority provided in laws other than appropriations  acts, which also includes contract and borrowing authorities, as well as  spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security. These  collections, known as “offsetting collections” are a form of appropriation  and are subject to the fiscal laws governing appropriated funds. Although  the laws authorizing permanent budget authority make them available for  obligation without further legislative action, it is not uncommon for annual  appropriation acts to include limitations on the obligations to be financed  by these collections. Given the nation’s fiscal condition, it is critical that  every funding source and spending decision be carefully considered and  applied to its best use.
Our testimony provides an overview of key design decisions and statutory  authorities and controls related to the availability of funds collected from  federal fees, fines, and penalties. In preparing this testimony, we relied on  our September 2013 and May 2008 reports on the design of federal user  fees and our February 2015 report on Department of Justice alternative  funding sources, and drew examples from other work on specific fees,  fines, and penalties that we issued between September 2005 and  November 2016. Detailed information about the scope and methodology  used to conduct this work can be found in each of the issued products.  We conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on  our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The federal government receives amounts from numerous sources in  addition to tax revenues, including user fees, fines, penalties, and  intragovernmental fees. Whether these collections are dedicated to a  particular purpose and available for agency use without further  appropriation depends on the type of collection and its specific authority.
User fees: User fees are fees assessed to users for goods or services  provided by the federal government. They are an approach to  financing federal programs or activities that, in general, are related to  some voluntary transaction or request for government services above  and beyond what is normally available to the public. User fees are a  broad category of collections, whose boundaries are not clearly  defined. They encompass charges for goods and services provided  to the public, such as fees to enter a national park, as well as  regulatory user fees, such as fees charged by the Food and Drug  Administration for prescription drug applications. Unless Congress  has provided specific statutory authority for an agency to use (i.e.,  obligate and spend) fee collections, fees are deposited to the  Treasury as miscellaneous receipts and are generally not available to  the agency.
Fines, penalties, and settlement proceeds: Criminal fines and penalty  payments are imposed by courts as punishment for criminal  violations. Civil monetary penalties are not a result of criminal  proceedings but are employed by courts and federal agencies to  enforce federal laws and regulations. Settlement proceeds result from  an agreement ending a dispute or lawsuit. As with user fees, unless  Congress has provided specific statutory authority for an agency to  use fines, penalties, and settlements, those collections are deposited  as miscellaneous receipts and are generally not available to the  agency.
Intragovernmental fees are charged by one federal agency to another  for goods and services such as renting space in a building or  cybersecurity services. Unlike user fees, fines, and penalties, unless  Congress has specified otherwise, agencies generally have authority  to use intragovernmental fees without further appropriation.
In 2013, we identified six key fee design decisions related to how fees are  set, used, and reviewed that, in the aggregate, enable Congress to  design fees that strike its desired balance between agency flexibility and  congressional control. Four of the six key design decisions relate to how  the fee collections are used and in 2015 we reported that they are  applicable to fines and penalties (see figure 1).
Congress determines the availability of collections by defining the extent  to which an agency may use (i.e., obligate and spend) them, including the  availability of the funds, the period of time the collections are available for  obligation, the purposes for which they may be used, and the amount of  collections that are available to the agency.
Availability. Congressional decisions about the use of a fee, fine, or  penalty will determine how the funds will be considered within the  context of all federal budgetary resources. Collections are classified  into 3 major categories: offsetting collections, offsetting receipts, or  governmental receipts. Funds classified as offsetting collections can  provide agencies with more flexibility because they are generally  available for agency obligation without further legislative action. In  contrast, offsetting receipts and governmental receipts offer greater  congressional control because, generally, additional congressional  action is needed before the collections are available for agency  obligation.
Time. When Congress provides that an agency’s collections are  available until they are expended, agencies have greater flexibility and  can carry over unobligated amounts to future fiscal years. This  enables agencies to align collections and costs over a longer time  period and to better prepare for, and adjust to, fluctuations in  collections and costs. Funds set aside or reserved can sustain  operations in the event of a sharp downturn in collections or increase  in costs. Carrying over unobligated balances from year to year, if an  agency has multi- or no-year collections, is one way agencies can  establish a reserve.
Purpose. Congress sets limits on the activities or purposes for which  an agency may use collections. Congress has granted some agencies  broad authority to use some of their collections for any program  purpose, but has limited the use of other collections to specific sets of  activities. Narrower restrictions may benefit stakeholders and increase  congressional control. On the other hand, statutes that too narrowly  limit how collections can be used reduce both Congress’s flexibility to  make resource decisions and an agency’s flexibility to reallocate  resources. This can make it more difficult to pursue public policy goals  or respond to changing program needs, such as when the activities  intended to achieve the purposes of the related program change.
Amount. Congress determines the specific level of budget authority  provided for a program’s activities by limiting the amount of collections  that can be collected or used by the agency; however, these limits can  also pose challenges for the agency. For example, when a fee-funded  agency is not authorized to retain or use all of its fee collections and  no other funding sources are provided, the agency may not have the  funds available to produce the goods or services that it has promised  or that it is required to provide by law.
section_title: Design Options Related to Agency’s Access to and Use of Its Collections
paragraphs: Our design guides can help Congress consider the implications and  tradeoffs of various design alternatives. One key design element is  whether the funds will be (1) deposited to the Treasury as miscellaneous  receipts for general support of federal government activities, (2) dedicated  to the related program with availability subject to further appropriation, (3)  dedicated to the related program and available without further  congressional action, or (4) available based on a combination of these  authorities.
subsections: section_title: Collections Deposited to the Treasury as Miscellaneous Receipts
paragraphs: Some authorities to collect fees, fines and penalties specify that the funds  will be deposited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. These funds  are not dedicated to the agency or program under which they were  collected; they are used for the general support of federal government  activities. For example,
Penalties from financial institutions: Civil monetary penalty payments  collected from financial institutions by certain financial regulators,  including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the  Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, are deposited to the Treasury  as miscellaneous receipts. In March 2016, we reported that, from  January 2009 through December 2015, financial regulators and  components within the Department of the Treasury deposited $2.7  billion to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts from enforcement  actions assessed against financial institutions for violations related to  anti-money laundering, anti-corruption, and U.S. sanctions programs  requirements.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Application Fees: The  FCC regulates interstate and international communications by radio,  television, wire, satellite, and cable, and telecommunications services  for all people of the United States. FCC collects application fees from  companies for activities such as license applications, renewals, or  requests for modification. As we reported in September 2013, these  fees are deposited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
section_title: Dedicated Collections with Availability Subject to Further Appropriation
paragraphs: Some fees, fines, and penalties cannot be used by an agency without  being further appropriated to the agency. For example,
Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Merchandise Processing  Fee: Importers of cargo pay a fee to offset the costs of “customs  revenue functions” as defined in statute, and the automation of  customs systems. CBP deposits merchandise processing fees as  offsetting receipts to the Customs User Fee Account, with availability  subject to appropriation. In July 2016, we reported that in fiscal year  2014 merchandise processing fee collections totaled approximately  $2.3 billion.
Requiring an appropriation to make the funds available to an agency  increases opportunities for congressional oversight on a regular basis.  When the amount of collections exceeds the amount of the appropriation,  however, unobligated collection balances that are not available to the  agency may accumulate. For example,
Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) Fees: When SEC collects  more in Section 31 fees than its annual appropriation, the excess  collections are not available for obligation without additional  congressional action. In September 2015, we reported that at the  end of fiscal year 2014, the SEC had a $6.6 billion unavailable  balance in its Salaries and Expenses account because the fee  collections exceeded appropriations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Motor Vehicle and Engine  Compliance Program (MVECP) Fees: MVECP fee collections are  deposited into EPA’s Environmental Services Special Fund. As we  reported in September 2015, according to officials, Congress had not  appropriated money to EPA from this fund for MVECP purposes.  EPA instead received annual appropriations which may be used for  MVECP purposes. As a result, the unavailable balance of this fund  steadily increased and totaled about $370 million at the end of fiscal  year 2014.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Harbor Maintenance Fee: The  authorizing legislation generally designates that the purpose for the  fee collections is harbor maintenance activities but, as we reported in  February 2008, fee collections have substantially exceeded spending  on harbor maintenance. In July 2016, we reported that the Harbor  Maintenance Trust Fund had a balance of over $8 billion at the end of  fiscal year 2014.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Fees: In September  2013, we reported that in some years Congress chose not to make  available to USPTO the full amount of its collections which, according  to USPTO officials, contributed to USPTO’s inability to hire sufficient  examiners to keep up with USPTO’s workload and invest in  technology systems needed to modernize the USPTO. According to  USPTO officials, patent fee collections can only be used for patent  processes, and trademark fee collections can only be used for  trademark processes, as well as to cover each processes’  proportionate share of the administrative costs of the agency. USPTO  officials stated that patent and trademark customers are typically two  distinct groups and this division helps to assure stakeholders that their  fees are supporting the activities that affect them directly.
Some programs include mechanisms to link the amount of collections  with the amount of collections appropriated to the program, over time. For  example,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Prescription Drug User Fees: If  FDA prescription drug user fee collections are higher than the amount  of the collections appropriated for the fiscal year, FDA must adjust fee  rates in a subsequent year to reduce its anticipated fee collections by  the excess amount. In March 2012, we reported that in fiscal year  2010, Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fees collected by FDA— including application, establishment, and product fees—totaled more  than $529 million, including over $172 million in application fees.
section_title: Dedicated Collections Available without Further Congressional Action
paragraphs: Legislation authorizing a fee, fine, or penalty may give the agency  authority to use collections without additional congressional action. We  refer to the legal authorities that provide agencies with permanent  authority to both collect and obligate funds from sources such as fees,  fines, and penalties as “permanent funding authorities.” Agencies with  these permanent funding authorities have varying degrees of autonomy,  depending in part on the extent to which the statute limits when, how  much, and for what purpose funds may be obligated. Some examples  include the following:
National Park Service (NPS) Fees: NPS fees include recreation  fees—primarily entrance and amenity fees—and commercial service  fees paid by private companies that provide services, such as  operating lodges and retail stores in park units. In December 2015, we  reported that in fiscal year 2014 the NPS collected about $186 million  in recreation fees and about $95 million in commercial service fees.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service (APHIS) Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) Fees: The  AQI program provides for inspections of imported agricultural goods,  products, passenger baggage, and vehicles to prevent the  introduction of harmful agricultural pests and diseases. APHIS is  authorized to set and collect user fees sufficient to cover the cost of  providing and administering AQI services in connection with the arrival  of commercial vessels, trucks, railcars, and aircraft, and international  passengers. AQI fee collections are available without fiscal year  limitation and may be used for any AQI-related purpose without  further appropriation. In March 2013, we reported that in fiscal year  2012, AQI fee collections totaled about $548 million.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Settlements:  Under the Superfund program, EPA has the authority to clean up  hazardous waste sites and then seek reimbursement from potentially  responsible parties. EPA is authorized to retain and use funds  received from certain types of settlements with these parties in  interest-earning, site-specific special accounts within the Hazardous  Substance Superfund Trust Fund. EPA generally uses these funds for  future cleanup actions at the sites associated with a specific  settlement or to reimburse appropriated funds that EPA had  previously used for response activities at these sites. In January 2012,  we reported that as of October 2010 EPA held nearly $1.8 billion in  unobligated funds in 947 open special accounts for 769 Superfund  sites.
Tennessee Valley Authority Collections (TVA): The TVA, the nation’s  largest public power provider, has authority to use payments it  receives from selling power to the public without further appropriation.  In October 2011, we reported that TVA had annual revenues of about  $11 billion.
Presidio Trust Collections: The Presidio Trust, a congressionally  chartered organization, manages The Presidio, an urban park in San  Francisco, and sustains its operations in part by rental income from  residential and commercial buildings on its grounds.
Agencies can also be authorized to retain intragovernmental fees charged  to other agencies in exchange for a good or service. Some agencies are  fully supported by intragovernmental fees; for others, intragovernmental  fees are one of their sources of funds.
Federal Protective Service (FPS) Fees: The FPS is a fully fee-funded  organization authorized to charge customer agencies fees for security  services at federal facilities and to use those offsetting collections for  all agency operations. In July 2016, we reported that, at the end of  fiscal year 2014, FPS had an unobligated balance of approximately  $193 million and that FPS had not established targets to determine  the extent to which that balance was appropriate to fund its  operations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Franchise Fund Customer  Fees: FAA’s Administrative Services Franchise Fund provides goods  and services—including training and specialized aircraft  maintenance—to customer agencies on a fee-for-service basis.
National Park Service Fees (NPS): NPS collections include  intragovernmental fees, as well as user fees and appropriations. For  example, in October 2016, we reported that NPS received funding  from the Department of the Army to contract with the National  Symphony Orchestra for holiday concerts on the U.S. Capitol  Grounds.
Even when an agency has a permanent authority to use collections,  collections remain subject to congressional oversight at any point in time  and Congress can place limitations on obligations for any given year. For  example,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Fees: USCIS is  authorized to charge fees for adjudication and naturalization services,  including a premium-processing fee for employment-based petitioners  and applicants. The House Report to the fiscal year 2008 Department  of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2638, directed USCIS  to allocate all premium-processing fee collections to information  technology and business-systems transformation. In January 2009,  we reported that, consistent with this directive, USCIS’s 2007 fee  review stated that the agency intended to use all premium processing  collections to fund infrastructure improvements to transform USCIS’s  paper-based data systems into a modern, digital processing  resource. In July 2016, we reported that USCIS estimated that the  unobligated carryover balance for the premium processing fee could  grow to $1.1 billion by fiscal year 2020, as fee collections are  expected to exceed Transformation initiative funding requirements in  fiscal years 2015 through 2020.
Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Crime Victims Fund (CVF) Fines and  Penalties: Criminal fines and penalties collected from offenders,  among other sources, are deposited in the CVF and can be used  without further appropriation to fund victims’ assistance programs and  directly compensate crime victims. In February 2015, we reported that  in fiscal years 2009 through 2013, annual appropriations acts limited  the CVF amounts the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs may obligate  for these purposes.
section_title: Collections with a Combination of Different Authorities
paragraphs: In some cases, Congress has provided agencies with permanent  authority to use a portion of collections and designated other portions of  the collections for another use or to be deposited to the Treasury as  miscellaneous receipts.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grazing Fees: Since the early  1900s, the federal government has required ranchers to pay a fee for  grazing their livestock on millions of acres of federal land located  primarily in western states. The relevant authorities designate a  portion of the grazing fees collected by the BLM for range  improvement, a portion to states, and a portion to be deposited to the  Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. For example, in September  2005, we reported that in fiscal year 2004 the BLM collected about  $11.8 million in grazing fees, half of which was deposited to a special  fund receipt account in the Treasury for range rehabilitation,  protection, and improvements. Of the other half of the collections,  about $2.2 million was distributed to states and counties and about  $3.7 million was deposited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Mutual  Mortgage Insurance Fund Settlement: HUD’s Mutual Mortgage  Insurance Fund receives payments resulting from violations related to  single-family programs. The primary purpose of the Mutual Mortgage  Insurance Fund is to pay lenders in cases where borrowers default on  their loan and the lender makes a claim for mortgage insurance  benefits. In November 2016, we reported on a case involving False  Claims Act violations and loans backed by HUD’s Federal Housing  Administration (FHA) in which a portion of the settlement was paid to  the company that filed a complaint in regard to the False Claims Act  on behalf of the government. The other FHA-related settlement  proceeds were divided among, and deposited to, the Mutual Mortgage  Insurance Fund, the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, and DOJ’s  Three Percent Fund.
DOJ Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Diversion Control Fees:  The first $15 million of fees collected each year from DEA registrants  such as manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and  exporters of controlled substances (such as narcotics and stimulants)  and certain listed chemicals (such as ephedrine) is deposited to the  Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. As we reported in February 2015,  fees collected beyond $15 million are available to the agency and  obligated to recover the full costs of DEA’s diversion control  program.
DOJ Three Percent Fund Penalties: Most civil penalties resulting from  DOJ litigation are eligible to be assessed up to a 3 percent fee  disbursed to DOJ’s Three Percent Fund—which is primarily used to  offset DOJ expenses related to civil debt collection. The remainder  of the civil penalty amount collected may be deposited to the Treasury  as miscellaneous receipts or to another account. For example, in  February 2015, we reported on a civil settlement involving fraud  against the U.S. Postal Service. Of the $13 million that was awarded  to the U.S. Postal Service, DOJ deposited $390,000 into the Three  Percent Fund.
Chairmen Meadows and Jordan, Ranking Members Connolly and  Cartwright, and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes our  prepared statement. We would be pleased to respond to any questions  you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony,  please contact Heather Krause, Acting Director, Strategic Issues at (202)  512-6806 or krauseh@gao.gov or Edda Emmanuelli Perez, Managing  Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel at (202) 512-2853  or EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this testimony. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony  are Susan J. Irving, Director; Julia Matta, Assistant General Counsel for  Appropriations Law; Susan E. Murphy, Assistant Director; Laurel Plume,  Analyst-in-Charge; and Amanda Postiglione, Senior Attorney. Allison  Abrams, Dawn Bidne, Elizabeth Erdmann, Chris Falcone, Valerie Kasindi,  and Jeremy Manion also contributed.
section_title: Related GAO Products
subsections: section_title: Products with a Government-wide Scope
paragraphs: Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Chapter 2, The Legal  Framework, Fourth Edition, 2016 Revision. GAO-16-464SP. Washington,  D.C.: March 10, 2016.
Federal User Fees: Key Considerations for Designing and Implementing  Regulatory Fees. GAO-15-718. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2015.
Federal User Fees: Fee Design Options and Implications for Managing  Revenue Instability. GAO-13-820. Washington, D.C.: September 30,  2013.
Congressionally Chartered Organizations: Key Principles for Leveraging  Nonfederal Resources. GAO-13-549. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2013.
Federal User Fees: A Design Guide. GAO-08-386SP. Washington, D.C.:  May 29, 2008.
Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition, Volume II.  GAO-06-382SP. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2006.
A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process.  GAO-05-734SP. Washington, D.C.: September 1, 2005.
Federal Trust and Other Earmarked Funds: Answers to Frequently Asked  Questions. GAO-01-199SP. Washington, D.C.: January 1, 2001.
Budget Issues: Inventory of Accounts With Spending Authority and  Permanent Appropriations, 1997. OGC-98-23. Washington, D.C.: January  19, 1998.
Budget Issues: Inventory of Accounts With Spending Authority and  Permanent Appropriations, 1996. AIMD-96-79. Washington, D.C.: May  31, 1996.
section_title: Products Focused on a Particular Agency or Program Area
paragraphs: Financial Institutions: Penalty and Settlement Payments for Mortgage- Related Violations in Selected Cases. GAO-17-11R. Washington, D.C.:  November 10, 2016.
U.S. Capitol Grounds Concerts: Improvements Needed in Management  Approval Controls over Certain Payments. GAO-17-44. Washington,  D.C.: October 25, 2016.
DHS Management: Enhanced Oversight Could Better Ensure Programs  Receiving Fees and Other Collections Use Funds Efficiently.  GAO-16-443. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2016.
Revolving Funds: Additional Pricing and Performance Information for FAA  and Treasury Funds Could Enhance Agency Decisions on Shared  Services. GAO-16-477. Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2016.
Financial Institutions: Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures for Violations of  Financial Crimes and Sanctions Requirements. GAO-16-297.  Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2016.
National Park Service: Revenues from Fees and Donations Increased,  but Some Enhancements Are Needed to Continue This Trend.  GAO-16-166. Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2015.
Department of Justice: Alternative Sources of Funding Are a Key Source  of Budgetary Resources and Could Be Better Managed. GAO-15-48.  Washington, D.C.: February 19, 2015.
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Fees: Major Changes Needed to Align  Fee Revenues with Program Costs. GAO-13-268. Washington, D.C.:  March 1, 2013.
Patent and Trademark Office: New User Fee Design Presents  Opportunities to Build on Transparency and Communication Success.  GAO-12-514R. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2012.
Prescription Drugs: FDA Has Met Most Performance Goals for Reviewing  Applications. GAO-12-500. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2012.
Superfund: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Improve Its Management and  Oversight of Special Accounts. GAO-12-109. Washington, D.C.: January  18, 2012.
Tennessee Valley Authority: Full Consideration of Energy Efficiency and  Better Capital Expenditures Planning Are Needed. GAO-12-107.  Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2011.
Budget Issues: Better Fee Design Would Improve Federal Protective  Service’s and Federal Agencies’ Planning and Budgeting for Security.  GAO-11-492. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2011.
Federal User Fees: Additional Analyses and Timely Reviews Could  Improve Immigration and Naturalization User Fee Design and USCIS  Operations. GAO-09-180. Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2009.
Federal User Fees: Substantive Reviews Needed to Align Port-Related  Fees with the Programs They Support. GAO-08-321. Washington, D.C.:  February 22, 2008.
Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending  on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged. GAO-05-869.  Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2005.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.