Federal Reports

What We Looked AtGeospatial data contain information on locations on Earth, such as location identifiers and boundary characteristics. Transportation related geospatial data include instrument-flight-rule navigation charts and maps of pipeline inspection boundaries. In October 2018, Congress passed the Geospatial Data Act (GDA) on the management of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). NSDI includes 17 geospatial data themes, including a transportation theme. The act requires inspectors general of covered agencies to report to Congress on their agencies’ geospatial data. Our audit objective was to assess DOT’s progress in fulfilling the act’s requirements. Specifically, we reviewed the Department’s status in implementing its responsibilities (1) as a lead covered agency under section 756 and (2) as a covered agency under sections 759(a) and 759(b). What We FoundDOT has implemented two of five responsibilities under section 756—communicating with theme users about data needs and designating a point of contact for the GeoPlatform. It has partially completed a third. DOT has not yet developed standards for the National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) in the transportation theme, and does not have complete information about financial resources needed for transportation theme maintenance.DOT is making progress implementing 11 responsibilities as a covered Agency under section 759(a), with 4 complete and 4 partially complete. For example, DOT is updating its Geospatial Information System Strategic Plan—its strategy for promoting use of geographic information. While it is addressing the act’s reporting requirements under section 759(b), DOT has not collected information needed for an annual report. DOT also does not have a complete inventory of geospatial data assets but is updating its data inventory guidelines, which will explain how Operating Administrations should inventory and verify the accuracy of their geospatial data. RecommendationsDOT concurred with all 13 recommendations to help it comply with the act’s requirements and provided documentation to close 1 recommendation.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General, audited HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing Programs upon receiving a hotline complaint. The hotline complaint contained allegations that (1) HUD routinely fails to perform Endangered Species Act analysis or consultations; (2) there are many projects that have deficiencies in noise analysis and environmental assessment site factors; (3) the environmental reviews for projects with fewer than 200 units are not performed properly; and (4) there is no oversight for projects with fewer than 200 units, and there are no safeguards for checking reviews for projects with fewer than 200 units. Our objective was to determine whether (1) the complainant’s allegations were substantiated for the 8 properties reviewed and (2) the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs properly followed mitigation requirements for the 17 properties reviewed.We partially substantiated allegation 3 and incorporated that issue into the finding. We were not able to substantiate the other allegations. HUD did not always properly follow mitigation requirements for its Federal Housing Administration-insured multifamily projects. Specifically, HUD did not always identify required mitigation measures or upload mitigation resolutions into the HUD Environmental Review Online System (HEROS) to document completion of its projects. Additionally, HUD did not conduct the required radon mitigation for one of its projects before final endorsement. This condition occurred because the multifamily HEROS users lacked training, HUD did not have procedures in place, and radon requirements were not updated on the closing documents. As a result, HUD was at risk of not conducting all required measures to mitigate conditions that would endanger the health and safety of its multifamily residents and lacked assurance that the new radon requirements were properly followed before the checklist update for the final endorsement closing documents.We recommended that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing (1) conduct and make available internal HEROS training for all multifamily HEROS users on how to document the environmental review mitigation measures, (2) establish and implement written procedures specifying which multifamily employees are required to upload mitigation resolutions after construction completion and at final endorsement, (3) upload the 17 missing mitigation resolutions and the 1 missing radon testing document into HEROS for the projects in this finding, (4) Strengthen HEROS or internal procedures to add an additional requirement confirming that the mitigation resolutions have been uploaded at final endorsement, and (5) strengthen HEROS by adding a column on the dashboard to show the progress of the overall mitigation status.

Our objective was to determine if the Postal Service’s Automated Delivery Unit Sorter (ADUS) achieved projected cost savings. The Postal Service has deployed a wide range of automated sorting equipment to achieve cost savings associated with reducing less-efficient manual processing and enhancing productivity. The ADUS is one of its most recent efforts, automating the sorting of smaller packages (up to 30 pounds) in delivery units and small processing and distribution centers (P&DC). Postal Service management issued two Decision Analysis Reports (DAR) in fiscal years (FY) 2017 and 2018 for the purchase and deployment of 20 ADUS machines for a combined [redacted]. These machines were installed at 10 delivery units and 10 small P&DCs across the country and were projected to capture cost savings of $8.8 million in FYs 2018 and 2019.

This document discusses EAC OIG’s planned oversight activities for fiscal year 2021.

For our audit of the U.S. Department of Commerce's (the Department’s) collection, production, acquisition, maintenance, distribution, use, and preservation of geospatial data, our objective was to assess the Department’s progress toward compliance with the 13 covered agency responsibilities under section 759(a) of the Geospatial Data Act (Pub. L. No. 115-254, H.R. 302).We found the following: I. The Department should ensure its new geospatial data strategic plan aligns with the mission and design controls for adequate implementation. II. The Department should develop procedures to ensure compliance with its Policy on Planned Geospatial Acquisitions. III. Data harvesting issues are causing inconsistencies in Department metadata. IV. The U.S. Census Bureau should document compliance with metadata standards as part of its system of internal control for geospatial data.