Federal Reports

Our Objective(s)To assess FAA's (1) processes for analyzing data and identifying risks associated with runway incursions, and (2) actions for preventing and mitigating runway incursions at primary commercial service airports. The audit focused on FAA's processes for analyzing runway incursion data and its efforts to prevent and mitigate serious runway incursions (Category A and B) at primary commercial airports since the beginning of fiscal year 2022.
Why This AuditIn early 2023, a series of incidents at large commercial airports occurred in which aircraft came significantly close to each other on runways. FAA has taken various actions in response to these incursions, such as holding a safety summit and granting over $200 million to airports for runway incursion mitigation, but challenges persist.
What We FoundFAA lacks an integrated approach for analyzing runway incursion data and identifying risks.

Runway incursion data is mainly used to conduct analyses to prevent and mitigate runway incursions at individual airports.
FAA does not have all causal data available for analysis or always share data freely across the Agency, preventing it from conducting full-scale analyses and developing corresponding mitigations.
FAA concluded that a review of Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing data did not provide additional context to determine if there were indicators of emerging trends regarding runway incursions.

While FAA has taken some actions to mitigate runway incursions, it has yet to implement several key initiatives.

FAA is in the process of deploying and finalizing key mitigations, most notably deploying new airport surface surveillance and other safety technologies.
In response to the 2023 string of runway incursion incidents, FAA acted to further aviation safety awareness, held discussions with stakeholders, and continued with long-standing mitigation practices.
An independent Safety Review Team issued 24 recommendations in November 2023 in the areas of process integrity, staffing, facilities, equipment, and technology. FAA has only implemented five of these recommendations as of October 2024.

RecommendationsWe made five recommendations to improve FAA's ability to share data between its organizations and to provide stakeholders with pertinent information for preventing and mitigating runway incursions.

Our Objective(s)To assess FAA's oversight of airport sponsors' compliance with the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) rent relief and economic relief reimbursement eligibility requirements.
Why This AuditThe CRRSA Act and ARPA awarded $10 billion in economic relief to eligible U.S. airports and concessions at those airports to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. By the end of December 2023, FAA had expended more than $8.5 billion in concession rent relief and economic relief grants. We previously identified weaknesses in FAA's policies and procedures for monitoring COVID-19 relief funds. Because of those weaknesses, we initiated this audit.
What We FoundFAA's revised policies have resulted in greater adherence to reimbursement requirements.

Our previous review of FAA's oversight of the COVID-19 relief grant funds determined that the Agency's oversight process regarding supporting documentation impacted its ability to monitor program performance. During that review, we identified $271 million in unsupported costs, $85 million in questioned costs, and $3 million in improper payments.
We recommended that FAA assess the risk of improper payments for different types of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) reimbursement requests and revise its policy on supporting documentation requirements to account for risk level. In response, FAA revised its COVID grant programs guidance, effective March 27, 2023.
With these changes, FAA significantly reduced unsupported and questioned costs, as well as improper payments.

FAA inconsistently implemented the CRRSA Act and ARPA rent relief programs.

To receive rent relief funds, FAA required airport sponsors to complete a Concession Plan. We found that FAA approved 76 percent of Concession Plans for the Airport Coronavirus Response Grant Program (ACRGP) and 70 Percent of Concession Plans for the Airport Rescue Grants Program (ARGP).
Our review of 60 plans identified some inconsistencies in the program's implementation and an error in FAA's review, including a nonprofit business receiving rent relief, inconsistent application of airport lounges' eligibility as concessions, and airport sponsors inconsistently populating data fields for Concession Plans. Despite these inconsistencies we did not identify any significant improper rent economic relief payments in our review sample.

RecommendationsFAA has reduced unsupported and questioned costs and improper payments for ACRGP and ARGP, so we are not making new recommendations.

Why We Did This Report

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General to perform an annual audit of the financial statements for the Pesticides Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund.

Summary of Findings

We rendered an unmodified opinion on the EPA’s fiscal years 2023 and 2022 (Restated) Pesticides Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund financial statements-also known as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Fund, financial statements, meaning that the statements were fairly presented and free of material misstatement. We noted the following material weakness: the EPA materially misstated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Fund income and expenses from other appropriations.

This report presents the results of our audit of Fiscal Year 2024 Board of Governors’ Expenditures.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this review based upon an assessment of program risks. Our objective was to review the U.S. AbilityOne Commission’s (Commission) enterprise risk management (ERM) program to assess its maturity level, which will provide the Commission with an overall understanding as to where its current ERM program stands.

To answer our review objective, we 1) reviewed laws, regulations, policies, and procedures applicable to the ERM implementation, 2) conducted interviews with key personnel, 3) surveyed Commission leadership and staff to gain their perspectives of the Commission's ERM program for a more comprehensive view of the ERM program maturity, and 4) analyzed data, reports, and other supporting documentation related to ERM.  We conducted this review in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.

There are five levels in the model we used to assess the Commission’s ERM program.  The OIG assessment determined that the Commission’s ERM program maturity is between level 2, emerging, and level 3, integrated.  By conducting its own internal maturity assessment, it can periodically identify gaps in its ERM program and develop plans to mature the program, as necessary.

The OIG has no specific recommendations associated with this report.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development’s (CPD) monitoring of grantees’ compliance with civil rights requirements. Our audit focused on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). Our audit objective was to assess the extent to which CPD monitored civil rights compliance in its program activities.

CPD could improve its civil rights compliance monitoring reviews. Specifically, CPD performed civil rights monitoring reviews for 2 percent of the CDBG and HOME grantees it monitored in fiscal year 2023. CPD suspended its limited civil rights monitoring in fiscal years 2021 and 2022 pending the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rules. In fiscal year 2023, it resumed its limited civil rights monitoring. However, guidance issued by management did not instruct staff to conduct civil rights monitoring, which led to confusion among field staff. In addition, CPD could improve its monitoring by requiring its field staff to fully complete the CPD Handbook 6509.2, chapter 22, civil rights monitoring checklists while conducting remote monitoring. Without clear guidance and in depth monitoring reviews, CPD could miss opportunities to identify errors in grantees’ policies, procedures, and practices related to nondiscriminatory responsibilities in CPD programs, thus overlooking the potential to communicate fair housing concerns to HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) for resolution.

We recommend that HUD’s General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development coordinate with FHEO to implement training for civil rights monitoring reviews. Additionally, CPD should (1) ensure that training on civil rights monitoring reviews is regularly provided to CPD staff (such as quarterly, semiannually, etc.); (2) implement updated guidance or protocols for monitoring civil rights compliance and require CPD staff to incorporate civil rights monitoring into the risk analysis process; and (3) develop guidance clarifying the use of the exhibit for on-site, hybrid, and remote monitoring to ensure a full review  of grantees’ compliance with civil rights requirements, and incorporate this guidance into training developed as a result of the first recommendation. HUD took steps during the audit to implement the second recommendation.