Federal Reports

What We Looked AtAs part of its mission to prevent and reduce vehicle crashes, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Office of Safety Compliance (OVSC) sets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to improve traffic safety. FMVSS provide performance and regulatory requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles and vehicle safety components, such as seatbelts. Given the importance to the traveling public that all vehicles and components meet Federal safety standards, we initiated this audit to assess NHTSA’s efforts to set and enforce FMVSS. What We FoundWhile NHTSA has established policies and procedures for evaluating FMVSS and safety-related motor vehicle standards, the Agency is limited in its ability to update, set, and enforce these standards in a timely manner. First, NHTSA has faced significant delays in processing rulemaking petitions to modify or set new FMVSS, which may put the Agency in noncompliance with Federal regulations. For example, the Agency did not respond within the required 120-day timeline to 87.5 percent of FMVSS petitions submitted between March 2016 and December 2020. Second, NHTSA lacks formal training and clear guidance for enforcing compliance with FMVSS. For example, NHTSA’s OVSC lacks documented standard procedures and training for reviewing contractors’ compliance test reports and has not implemented guidance for conducting compliance investigations. Third, NHTSA is not meeting requirements for ensuring imported vehicles meet FMVSS. NHTSA’s OVSC requires Registered Importers to submit conformity packages detailing safety modifications made to comply with FMVSS. However, NHTSA lacks a standard process for reviewing these packages, increasing the risk of unsafe vehicles operating on U.S. roads. Our RecommendationsNHTSA concurred with our six recommendations to strengthen its oversight of FMVSS to comply with Federal requirements. We consider recommendations 1 through 6 resolved but open pending completion of planned actions.

OIG audited the consolidated financial statements of Rural Development for fiscal years 2021 and 2020.

The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), P.L. 97-255, as well as the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control, M-16-17 establish specific requirements for management control. Each executive agency must establish controls to reasonably ensure that: (1) obligations and costs are in compliance with applicable laws; (2) funds, property and other assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation; and (3) revenues and expenditures applicable to agency operations are properly recorded and accounted for to permit the preparation of reliable accounts and financial and statistical reports, and to maintain accountability over the assets. FMFIA further requires the head of each executive agency, on the basis of an evaluation conducted in accordance with applicable guidelines, to prepare and submit a signed statement to the President and the Congress disclosing whether the agency’s system of internal accounting and administrative control fully complies with requirements established in FMFIA.

The OIG’s administrative investigation examined whether the deputy executive director of VA’s Office of Construction and Facilities Management (OCFM), during his tenure as acting executive director, failed to respond appropriately to a 2018 audit by the office’s Quality Assurance Service (QAS). The QAS audit found that an unsubstantiated assertion was used to justify a lease acquisition by OCFM’s Central Region Office. The audit was deemed a “special review,” for which the service lacks a governing policy. Consequently, there was no process to track the audit’s findings and recommendations, unlike routine compliance reviews. The deputy executive director took 11 months to respond to the audit and did so only to OCFM’s executive leadership, leaving some OCFM personnel with an impression that he had ignored it. Although the OIG did not find that the deputy executive director failed to respond to the audit, it determined that OCFM lacks a policy relating to special reviews and made a corresponding recommendation.The OIG also investigated whether the deputy executive director, while the acting executive director, falsely attested to the effectiveness of OCFM’s internal controls. The deputy executive director signed statements of assurance in 2019 per governing requirements, attesting that OCFM’s controls suffered from no material weaknesses. At a February 2020 meeting, he commented on concerns he had with OCFM’s controls and assessment process, which some attendees viewed as an admission of a past false statement. The deputy executive director’s interview responses, his contemporaneous statements, and an informal inquiry by his successor indicated that the February 2020 comments referred merely to nonmaterial weaknesses in OCFM’s controls and assessment process. Thus, the OIG did not substantiate that the deputy executive director made false statements.VA concurred with the OIG’s findings and its recommendation.

As required by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), we reviewed the Agency’s information security program for fiscal year 2021 and reported the results to OMB.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an inspection at the Southern Oregon Rehabilitation Center and Clinics in White City (facility) and Roseburg VA Health Care System (Roseburg) in Oregon to evaluate an allegation that a resident (resident 1) was admitted to the facility’s Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Program (MH RRTP) despite not meeting admission criteria, was later transported to Roseburg for admission but was instead discharged to the community. Additional allegations were received that a second resident did not meet admission criteria and another resident was injured in the shower area. The OIG later learned about other residents who may not have met admission criteria and who fell in the shower area.The OIG did not substantiate that resident 1 was inappropriately admitted to the MH RRTP but found the resident’s discharge was not coordinated. The OIG determined the resident’s transport to Roseburg did not comply with policy. Resident 1 was assessed, determined to not meet Roseburg admission criteria, and discharged to the community.The OIG found that four of five residents reviewed met admission criteria. The OIG was unable to determine if the fifth resident met admission criteria, but found the resident should have been reevaluated after a change in medical status prior to admission.The OIG substantiated a resident was injured after falling while getting out of the shower and learned about two additional residents who fell in the shower area in the preceding 10 months. The OIG determined that facility leaders were aware of the falls but missed an opportunity to implement solutions in a timely manner.The OIG made five recommendations to the Facility Director related to the discharge template, discharges during regular business hours, transport of residents with behavioral flags, conducting medical evaluations, and a review of falls in the shower area.

Audit report in which independent public accounting firm presented an unmodified opinion on the Denali Commission’s fiscal year 2021 financial statements.