Federal Reports

What We Looked AtSince 2008, auto manufacturers have issued dozens of recalls for vehicles equipped with defective airbags manufactured by Takata. To date, 15 fatalities and more than 220 injuries in the United States alone have been linked to the defective airbags. In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that, as of January 2018, the Takata recalls have affected 37 million vehicles.In December 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which required our office to audit NHTSA's recall processes. This mandate stemmed from congressional concerns about the Agency's handling of the Takata airbag recall. Accordingly, our audit objectives were to assess NHTSA's processes for (1) monitoring manufacturers' proposed recall remedies and scope and (2) overseeing safety recall implementation, including the sufficiency of recall completion rates.What We FoundNHTSA's process for monitoring for light passenger vehicle recalls lacks documentation and management controls, and does not ensure that remedies are reported completely and in a timely manner. The Agency also does not verify recall completion rates, although it has the authority to do so, and it lacks sufficient management controls to ensure staff assess risk when deciding whether to use oversight tools to improve recall completion rates. Finally, while NHTSA expanded its oversight of the Takata recalls in 2015, by increasing the reporting requirements for manufacturers, it did not follow its own procedures to address low recall completion rates for earlier Takata recalls. Overall, inadequate controls and processes for verifying and collecting manufacturer-reported information have hindered NHTSA's ability to oversee safety recall implementation.Our RecommendationsWe made six recommendations to improve NHTSA's processes for monitoring recall remedies and scope, and overseeing safety recall implementation. NHTSA concurred in full with three of the recommendations and partially concurred with the others.

Our objective was to evaluate FAS’ administration and oversight of the Export Credit Guarantee Program. Specifically, our objective wasto determine whether FAS had adequate controls in place to ensure that the Export Credit Guarantee Program was administered in compliance withapplicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures.

We included an audit of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) economic development (ED) grants in our annual audit plan based on findings from our 2013 audit of TVA’s Valley Investment Initiative, where we found TVA’s oversight of that program could be improved. Currently, there are two main grant programs utilized—Performance Grant Program and InvestPrep Program. Our audit objectives were to determine if TVA has (1) adequate processes and procedures in place for awarding ED grants and (2) established performance metrics to determine if grant program objectives are met. The scope of the audit included ED grants active between June 1, 2015, and May 31, 2017.We found (1) TVA has adequate processes in place for awarding ED grants but does not have a Standard Program and Process for InvestPrep grants, (2) ED has not included InvestPrep grants in any compliance review program, and (3) the ED organization has not established specific performance metrics to determine if grant program objectives are met.

We audited the costs claimed by the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, under grants awarded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) through the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The audit included claims totaling $50.9 million on 35 grants that were open during the State fiscal years that ended June 30, 2015, and June 30, 2016. The audit also covered the Division’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and FWS guidelines, including those related to collecting and using hunting and fishing license revenue and reporting program income.We found that the Division generally complied with applicable grant accounting and regulatory requirements, but did not (1) report losing control of real property purchased with grant funds and license revenue, (2) submit Federal financial reports (SF-425s) in a timely manner, (3) properly manage its personal equipment inventory, or (4) provide adequate support for the in-kind hours claimed as a portion of the grant match requirement.Both the FWS and the Department agreed with our six recommendations, and they will work together to implement corrective actions.