Office of Audit

and Evaluation

Budget and Administration

Human Resources

Information Technology

Inspector General

Deputy

Inspector General

Associate Deputy

Inspector General

for Strategic Issues

Chief of Staff

OIG Main Number

Inspector General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.482.4661

OIG Hotline

Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.482.2495

or 800.424.5197

TDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202.482.5923

or 800.854.8407

E-mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hotline@oig.doc.gov

More Information

Visit www.oig.doc.gov to learn more about our activities,

view or download reports and testimony, and sign up for

e-mail alerts. E-mail comments to oigweb@oig.doc.gov.

Office of Inspector General
Office of Inspector General

Semiannual Report to Congress

September 2010
CONTENTS

From the Inspector General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Major Challenges for the Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Continuing to Enhance the Department’s Ability to Defend

Its Information Technology Systems and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Effectively Managing the Development and Acquisition of

NOAA’s Environmental Satellite Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Managing Acquisition and Contract Operations More Effectively to

Obtain Quality Goods and Services at Reasonable Prices and on Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. Enhancing Accountability and Transparency of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act Program’s Key Technology and Construction Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5. Improving USPTO’s Patent Processing Times, Reducing Its Pendency and

Backlogs, and Mitigating Its Financial Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6. Effectively Balancing NOAA’s Goals of Protecting the Environment and

Supporting the Fishing Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

7. Protecting Against Cost Overruns and Schedule Slippages on the

Commerce Headquarters Renovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

8. Effectively Planning the 2020 Decennial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Work in Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Agency Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Department-Wide Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Economic Development Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Economics and Statistics Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

National Institute of Standards and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

National Telecommunications and Information Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Statistical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Secretarial and CIGIE Awards for Commerce OIG Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

We are pleased to present the Department of

Commerce Office of Inspector General’s (OIG)

Semiannual Report to Congress for the 6 months ending September 30, 2010. 

This report summarizes work we completed and initiated during this semiannual period on a number of

critical departmental activities. Over the past 6

months, our office issued 15 audit and evaluation

reports addressing programs overseen by the

Economic Development Administration, Economics

and Statistics Administration, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National

Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the Department itself. Our investigative

activities during this semiannual period resulted in

more than $1.3 million in fines and other financial

recoveries.

We devoted significant resources to the 2010 Census

and generated multiple reports and recommendations for corrective actions by the Census Bureau.

Our work included a comprehensive nationwide

review of Census field operations involving field visits by over 100 OIG staff to Census offices in every

state. In so doing, we collected data that enabled us

to conduct a continuous, national-level review of

decennial census finances, schedule, and risk assessment and mitigation activities. We conducted physical security penetration testing at decennial facilities

that led to immediate and significant improvements

in physical security at these critical locations. Our

Complaint Intake Unit handled 632 Census complaints, more than four times the number received

during the prior reporting period. Two of these–substantiated whistleblower allegations of census data

falsification–led to prompt corrective actions by

Census and were the focus of congressional testimony at a field hearing in Brooklyn, NY. For all of our

Census oversight work, we were honored to receive

the Secretary’s Gold Medal as well as the Council of

the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency’s

coveted Glenn/Roth Award for Exemplary Service. 

We also continued our oversight of NOAA’s fisheries

enforcement. We released our final report on the

broader issues involved in these programs and operations, completed an assessment of NOAA’s Asset

Forfeiture Fund, and looked into allegations of document shredding that took place during our initial

review. We will continue to devote resources and

attention to NOAA fisheries enforcement matters to

ensure that this important program receives greater

independent oversight than it has in the past.

Internally, OIG has focused on implementing our

Strategic Plan, which directs our energies to improving the programs and operations of the Department

of Commerce through independent and objective

oversight. As part of this reform, we are constantly

striving to create a high-performance and accountability-focused culture that will better serve our stakeholders.

We look forward to working with the Department

and with Congress in the months ahead to meet the

many challenges facing Commerce. We thank the

Secretary, senior officials throughout the Department,

and members of Congress and their staffs for their

support of our work during this reporting period and

for their receptiveness to our recommendations for

improving Commerce operations.

Todd J. Zinser

Inspector General

1

FROM THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires

inspectors general to identify the top management

challenges facing their departments. For FY 2011,

the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector

General (OIG) identified eight challenges that

require significant departmental attention. 

1. Continuing to Enhance the

Department’s Ability to Defend Its

Information Technology Systems

and Information

In the past year, the Department has taken steps

toward improving the capabilities of the information

technology (IT) security workforce and developed a

long-term IT security strategic plan that should

enhance Commerce’s ability to identify vulnerabilities

and detect malicious activities. However, we continue

to find security weaknesses that undermine the

Department’s ability to defend its systems and information. Our FY 2010 Federal Information Security

Management Act (FISMA) audit identified four

Department-wide weaknesses: (1) high-risk vulnerabilities in system components, which increase the risk

of system compromise; (2) deficiencies in the reporting and tracking of security weaknesses, which impair

management oversight and reduce the likelihood of

their being corrected; (3) contingency plans had not

been tested, and alternate processing sites had not

been arranged, placing systems’ ability to recover from

disruptions in doubt; and (4) deficiencies in system

security plans and control assessments persist, which

diminish the overall level of information assurance. 

Since FY 2001, Commerce’s annual Performance and

Accountability Report has reported information

security as a material weakness, at our recommendation, because of major deficiencies in the

Department’s certification and accreditation (C&A)

process. We recently recommended the Department

assess its information security program as a significant deficiency instead of the material weakness as

was identified by the Department in past years. Our

recommendation is based on three factors. First, a

government-wide policy change has increased the

3

MAJOR CHALLENGES

FOR THE DEPARTMENT

Top Management Challenges

1. Continuing to Enhance the Department’s

Ability to Defend Its Information Technology

Systems and Information 

2. Effectively Managing the Development and

Acquisition of NOAA’s Environmental

Satellite Programs

3. Managing Acquisition and Contract

Operations More Effectively to Obtain

Quality Goods and Services at Reasonable

Prices and on Schedule

4. Enhancing Accountability and Transparency

of the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act Program’s Key Technology and

Construction Programs

5. Improving USPTO’s Patent Processing Times,

Reducing Its Pendency and Backlogs, and

Mitigating Its Financial Vulnerabilities

6. Effectively Balancing NOAA’s Goals of

Protecting the Environment and Supporting

the Fishing Industry

7. Protecting Against Cost Overruns and

Schedule Slippages on the Commerce

Headquarters Renovation

8. Effectively Planning the 2020 Decennial
emphasis on continuous monitoring and lessened the

emphasis on the C&A process. Second, the actions

associated with the Department’s C&A process

improvement strategy have strengthened the security

posture of the Department. And third, our audit

findings indicate that IT security control weaknesses

are resulting from an insufficient continuous monitoring process. Although the IT security strategic

plan identifies continuous monitoring as a top priority for improvement, operating units should initiate

improvements immediately since this plan is not

scheduled for implementation until 2012 and is

dependent upon adequate funding.

2. Effectively Managing the Development

and Acquisition of NOAA’s

Environmental Satellite Programs

The National Atmospheric and Oceanic

Administration (NOAA) is modernizing its environmental monitoring capabilities, in part by spending

nearly $20 billion on two critical satellite systems: the

Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the

Geostationary Operational Environmental SatelliteR Series (GOES-R). JPSS’ predecessor program, the

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental

Satellite System (NPOESS), and GOES-R have a history of cost overruns, schedule delays, and reduced

performance capabilities. More recently, the transition from NPOESS to JPSS involves significant challenges, including moving from the Department of

the Air Force’s contract with Northrop Grumman to

NASA, that have the potential to both increase costs

and delay launch schedules. Since the GOES-R program was re-baselined in 2007, as a result of significant cost growth and independent review

recommendations, it has remained within budget

and on time. However, as highlighted by recent independent reviews, both satellite systems will continue

to require close oversight to minimize further disruption to the programs and prevent any gaps in satellite

coverage. Such gaps could compromise the United

States’ ability to forecast weather and monitor climate, which would have serious consequences for the

safety and security of the nation.

3. Managing Acquisition and Contract

Operations More Effectively to Obtain

Quality Goods and Services at

Reasonable Prices and on Schedule

With the Department spending approximately $3 billion of its budget every year through contracts, effective acquisition management is fundamental to the

Department’s ability to accomplish its mission. Our

work continues to find weaknesses in the

Department’s contract planning, administration, and

oversight. In addition, the Department and its operating units must develop effective processes for performing these functions for major system acquisitions.

Commerce must also strengthen its suspension and

debarment program to effectively safeguard against

awards to parties that have engaged in improper activities; improve award-fee contracting processes to meet

acquisition outcomes; and do more to ensure the adequate size and skills of its acquisition workforce, especially given its need to oversee more than a billion

dollars in Recovery Act funds. Additionally,

Commerce’s executive leadership needs to ensure the

Office of Acquisition Management has the authority

needed to perform effectively. At the direction of the

Secretary, the Department is conducting an acquisition improvement study. This study should determine

the appropriate authorities needed by the Office of

Acquisition Management and how the acquisition

function should be structured Department-wide to

achieve better acquisition outcomes.

4. Enhancing Accountability and

Transparency of the American Recovery

and Reinvestment Act Program’s Key

Technology and Construction Programs 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of

2009 (Recovery Act) is an unprecedented effort to

promote economic activity, invest in long-term

growth, and implement a level of transparency and

accountability that will allow the public to see how

their tax dollars are being spent. The Department of

Commerce received $7.9 billion in Recovery Act

funds. Of that amount, approximately $6 billion

were obligated in the form of grants or contracts for

key technology and construction programs in four of

the Department’s operating units: Economic

Development Administration (EDA), National

4

Major Challenges for the Department September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),

NOAA, and National Telecommunications and

Information Administration (NTIA). As of

September 30, 2010, the Department has spent $1.7

billion (or 24 percent of the obligated funds), leaving

significant spending yet to be completed. Of the

riskier programs, the largest is NTIA’s Broadband

Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), which

awarded 233 grants totaling $3.9 billion for broadband Internet access across the nation. There is considerable uncertainty about how NTIA will

administer or monitor these grants because the

agency has not received any funding to manage the

program beyond September 30, 2010. Additionally

NOAA, NIST, and EDA are overseeing a number of

development and construction activities.

Effective management by the agencies is critical to

completing these projects on schedule and within

budget, and to making certain the public receives the

intended benefits from the Recovery Act. In the year

ahead, we will focus on how the four agencies manage the contracts and grants awarded to ensure that

the technology and construction programs are managed effectively. We are particularly interested in how

the agencies monitor recipients’ adherence to grant or

contract terms, proper payments or drawdowns of

funds, required matching shares for grant programs,

and adherence to Recovery Act requirements such as

the Buy America Act. 

5. Improving USPTO’s Patent Processing

Times, Reducing Its Pendency and

Backlogs, and Mitigating Its

Financial Vulnerabilities

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

faces immense and complex challenges in addressing

patent pendency and application backlogs while

improving patent quality and building a highly

trained and stable workforce. Since 2000, patent pendency has increased from 25 months to over 35

months, and the backlog of unexamined applications

has grown from approximately 308,000 to more than

708,000. These large numbers of applications and

long waiting periods for patent approval create a significant risk to innovation and economic competitiveness, and ultimately the United States’ position as

a world leader in innovation.

To decrease the patent application backlog and processing times, USPTO must modernize its existing

patent IT infrastructure and systems, which are outdated and unstable. Further, USPTO must recruit

and retain a highly skilled patent examiner workforce. Finally, USPTO must ensure that its initiatives for a more efficient review process succeed in

improving patent quality, and that patent fee collections provide sufficient resources to support

USPTO’s operations.

6. Effectively Balancing NOAA’s Goals of

Protecting the Environment and

Supporting the Fishing Industry

The United States has the largest marine territory of

any nation in the world, and NOAA is charged with

protecting, restoring, and managing the use of living

marine, coastal, and ocean resources. In the years

ahead, NOAA faces difficult challenges in promoting

the health of these resources while ensuring the

nation reaps the vital economic benefits derived from

them, especially in the areas of fishery enforcement

and environmental restoration. Given the recent allegations of excessive penalties and arbitrary actions by

its Office for Law Enforcement and Office of General

Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation, NOAA is at

a critical juncture. The Secretary and NOAA have

taken positive steps to improve the enforcement program. Continued positive action is required to restore

the program’s reputation and soundness.

As the lead agency for the Natural Resource Damage

Assessment process, NOAA will also continue to

assess what environmental resources have been

harmed as a result of the April 20, 2010, Deepwater

Horizon oil spill. Because the spill has such a large

scope, we anticipate NOAA will need to devote

significant resources for an extended period of

time towards restoration in the Gulf of Mexico.

As of September 2010, NOAA has dedicated

$131.4 million to the spill through reimbursable

projects. Federal, state, and local communities will

continue to rely on NOAA to provide long-term

monitoring and accurate data so responders can react

to the oil and its effects on our ecosystem. 

5

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Major Challenges for the Department
7. Protecting Against Cost Overruns and

Schedule Slippages for the Commerce

Headquarters Renovation

The Herbert C. Hoover Building (HCHB)—the

Department of Commerce’s Washington, DC, headquarters—is undergoing a comprehensive renovation. The project, currently scheduled for completion

by 2021, has an estimated cost of $960 million. The

General Services Administration (GSA) owns the

building and is managing the renovation; however,

since the Department and its operating units will be

directly affected, OIG plans to conduct an ongoing

review of the construction activities and the decisions

critical to the renovation’s success. Although the 13-

year renovation includes many phased activities, of

special interest are the consolidated server room and

increased perimeter security. These special areas are

time critical for completion so that the balance of the

renovation is not affected. We will also oversee how

Commerce is working with GSA and advocating for

the operating units housed at HCHB with respect to

space requirements, building services and improvements, and employee safety. 

8. Effectively Planning the 2020 Decennial

The apportioning of congressional representation

and redistricting, as well as the annual distribution

of more than $400 billion of government funding,

depends on decennial census data. The 2010 Census

was an immense undertaking that cost approximately $13 billion and involved the contributions of

more than 784,000 temporary employees to accurately count the estimated 300 million or more people living in the United States. 

Considering the current trends in population and cost

growth, the 2020 Census could be even more expensive, with a total price of more than $22 billion,

according to Bureau estimates, unless major changes

are made in how the census is conducted. Such cost

growth is unsustainable, and Census must make fundamental changes to the design, implementation, and

management of the decennial census in order to

obtain a quality count for a reasonable cost. To be

effective, Census needs to leverage existing current

surveys, field operations, and data assets, as well as

develop, test, and improve technology continuously

throughout the coming decade. FY 2011 and FY

2012 are critical years in the planning of the 2020

Census and will set the course for how well this

constitutionally mandated responsibility is performed.

6

Major Challenges for the Department September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
The following Office of Inspector General (OIG)

audits and evaluations were initiated or underway

during this reporting period:

American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act Oversight

BTOP Post-Award Process

Review post-award processes for the Broadband

Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) as part

of our continued oversight of this program. Assess the

capabilities of the National Telecommunications and

Information Administration’s (NTIA) BTOP awardrecipient monitoring systems; evaluate NTIA’s planning for post-award activities and the agency’s

execution of post-award activities in response to the

first wave of BTOP awards; and determine whether

appropriate steps are being taken to establish a program office to perform essential post-award oversight

and monitoring, including post-September 30, 2010,

monitoring.

Census’s Partnership Program and

Recovery Act

Review partnership program activities associated with

Recovery Act spending during the 2010 decennial.

Assess Census operation managers’ satisfaction with

the partnership program, communication between

partnership staff and operation managers, and the

effectiveness of partnership assistants.

Recovery Act Recipient Reporting

Determine whether Commerce has implemented sufficient internal controls to ensure that data for recipients of Recovery Act funds are reported completely,

accurately, and in a timely manner, and that any

material omissions or significant errors are identified

and corrected.

Recovery Act Grant Fraud Detection

Review $5 billion in Recovery Act grant funding

authorized for the Economic Development

Administration, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), and NTIA to determine

whether these operating units have used risk assessments and internal controls (such as expanded measures to identify and to recover improper payments) to

mitigate the potential for grant fraud, waste, error,

and abuse.

Recovery Act Whistleblower Reprisal

Investigation

Investigate an individual’s complaint filed with OIG

in March 2010 alleging that his termination from

employment with a contractor for a Commerce

Department operating unit was a reprisal for disclosing suspected contract fraud involving Recovery Act

funding. OIG is investigating the allegations under

the act’s whistleblower provisions. Based on complexities of the case, and in accordance with the act’s

requirements, the complainant agreed to an extension of time beyond the 180 days allotted for completion of the investigation. 

Department-Wide 

Motor Pool Audit 

Determine whether Commerce and select operating

units are managing their motor pool operations in

compliance with federal regulations.

Information Security 

Audit the Department’s information security program and practices to determine whether implemented controls adequately protect the Department’s

systems and information, and whether continuous

monitoring is keeping authorizing officials sufficiently informed about the operational status and effectiveness of security controls. 

FY 2010 Financial Statement Audits

Determine whether the financial statements for the

Department, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

7

WORK IN PROGRESS
(USPTO), and the Census Bureau are fairly stated in

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. These audits are performed by an independent

public accounting firm under OIG oversight.

Census Bureau

Decennial Response Integration System

(DRIS) Contract Audit

Assess contract requirements, deliverables, labor costs,

and timelines for DRIS. Review the award fees paid to

the contractor, the 2007 contract modification totaling $265 million, and any other contract changes

made to accommodate Census’s decision to conduct a

paper-based nonresponse follow-up operation.

Fifth Census Quarterly Report

to Congress

Continue to report on the progress of the 2010

Census with respect to cost, schedule, and risk, as

mandated by the explanatory statement accompanying the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008

(P.L. 110-252).

Partner Support Program (PSP)

Purchase Audit 

Evaluate whether Census employees responsible for

administering the PSP were adequately trained and

whether regional Census employees followed procedures related to review and approval of PSP purchases. Census purchased products and services to

promote awareness of the 2010 Census, especially

among traditionally hard-to-count groups. 

2010 Decennial Capstone Report

(includes Final Quarterly Report

to Congress)

Analyze and report on the 2010 Census with respect

to cost, schedule, and risk, as mandated by the

explanatory statement accompanying the

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-

252). Discuss strategies for planning a successful

2020 Census, building on lessons learned during

recent decennials. 

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Pacific States Marine Fisheries

Commission 

Audit two NOAA cooperative agreements and three

contract task orders awarded to the Commission. In

addition to performance, compliance, and costincurred audits of the agreements and task orders, the

comprehensive audit also examines 12 cost-reimbursable contracts awarded under the two cooperative agreements and 7 years of Commission indirect

cost rates and related proposals.

Gulf Coast Oil Spill Cost Tracking

Survey NOAA’s financial systems and processes related to current and future actions to address the oil

spill. Determine whether NOAA has adequate financial systems and processes in place to record and

track costs associated with its efforts to contain and

assess environmental impacts related to the Gulf

Coast oil spill, and to collect, monitor, and disburse

restitution funds associated with Gulf Coast spill

cleanup activities.

Environmental Satellite Programs

Audit the adequacy of NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite

System (JPSS) development activities (e.g., ground

system software development, fixes, and testing)

intended to maintain continuity of climate and

weather forecast data obtained from polar orbit.

Determine the completeness of technical approaches

used in developing and testing the flight and ground

project segments; assess the impacts of development

modifications (such as re-sequencing of environmental test activities) and risks to JPSS’ cost, schedule,

and technical performance; and determine the adequacy of NOAA’s preparations for post-launch data

production. 

8

Work in Progress September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

Audits of Public Safety Interoperable

Communications (PSIC) Grants in

Several States

Audit PSIC grants awarded to California, Texas, and

Massachusetts. Determine the progress these states

have made in acquiring and deploying interoperable

communications with PSIC grant funds and

whether their use of the funds is meeting all federal

requirements.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Patent Budget Projections 

Determine the effectiveness of USPTO’s process to

project revenue and expenses for its patent operations. Determine whether this process enables

USPTO to meet its expenses and achieve its mission

and strategic goals for Patents.

Patent Quality Assurance Process 

Determine the effectiveness of USPTO’s patent quality assurance process in ensuring that established

standards of patent examination quality are met and

whether the process complies with applicable departmental, bureau, and federal laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and guidelines.

9

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Work in Progress

NTIA Must Continue to Improve

Its Program Management and

Pre-Award Process for Its

Broadband Grants Program

(ARR-19842-1)

The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

(BTOP) is the largest grant program that NTIA has

managed to date. We have been proactive in our oversight of BTOP, providing guidance to NTIA on the

importance of establishing appropriate internal controls.

While at the time of our review NTIA had made significant strides in implementing BTOP—developing a

program office, issuing its first Notice of Funds

Availability, reviewing more than 1,800 submitted

applications, and announcing its initial awards—it is

essential that NTIA apply the lessons it learned from the

first funding round to promptly address any problems

that may arise. As part of our oversight, we found that

11

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND

REINVESTMENT ACT OVERSIGHT

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), signed into law by President Barack

Obama on February 17, 2009, has at least three immediate goals: create new jobs and save existing ones;

spur economic activity and invest in long-term growth; and foster unprecedented levels of transparency

and accountability. To ensure that accountability requirements are being met, the inspectors general of

28 federal agencies distributing Recovery funds continually review their agencies’ management of these funds. 

Five Department of Commerce operating units—the Census Bureau, Economic Development Administration

(EDA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)—and

the Office of Inspector General received $7.9 billion under the act. As of September 30, 2010, the Department

had obligated approximately $6.8 billion and spent approximately $1.7 billion. OIG has been proactive in its

oversight of the Department’s Recovery Act programs and activities, including the operating units’

implementation of the act’s performance measurement requirements. 

Figure 1: Recovery Act Funding by 

Commerce Operating Unit, February 2009 

* NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program (BTOP) was originally funded at 

$4.7 billion, and the DTV converter box program 

at $650 million. Congress later rescinded 

$302 million from BTOP and $240 million from 

the converter box program.

NTIA* $5.3 billion

Census 1 billion

NOAA 830 million

NIST 610 million

EDA 150 million

OIG 16 million

Total $7.9 billion
■ BTOP’s size and complexity have presented NTIA

with significant challenges. NTIA’s program

staffing levels appear to be insufficient to simultaneously perform the necessary first- and secondround award activities. The office must rely heavily

on a few key individuals and personnel from other

agencies to carry out the program’s operations. 

■ NTIA’s inconsistent documentation of important

information such as policies, procedures, staff roles,

and key management decisions increases the risk of

inefficiency and miscommunication. 

■ The first round of BTOP grant application processing exposed several problems with the online grant

intake system, which affected efficiency and users’

experiences.

■ A shortage of volunteer peer reviewers meant that

application review for the first round was delayed.

As NTIA manages the second-round process and

handles post-award activities for first-round grant

recipients, it must be careful to obtain enough

reviewers for the workload.

12

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Oversight September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress

The Recovery Act and Broadband

The Recovery Act gave $7.2 billion to NTIA and

the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities

Service to expand broadband services in the

United States. 

Of the $7.2 billion to be awarded before

September 30, 2010, $4.7 billion was provided to

NTIA to establish BTOP, a competitive grant

program intended to provide funds for deploying

broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas of the United States. The funds are

also intended to enhance broadband capacity at

public computer centers, improve access to

broadband services for public safety agencies, and

promote sustainable broadband adoption projects. (In August 2010, $302 million was rescinded from NTIA.) 

The first round of grant awards was completed in

April 2010; the second, in September 2010. 

NOAA 

Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction

NOAA

Operations, Research, and Facilities

NIST

Construction of Research Facilities

NIST

Scientific and Technical Research and Services

NTIA

DTV Converter Box Program

NTIA

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

Census

2010 Census

EDA

Total Disbursements

Total Obligations

$0 $500 $1000 $1500 $2000 $2500 $3000 $3500 $4000 $4500

Economic Development Assistance Program

Figure 2: Commerce Operating Units’ Recovery Act Spending as of September 30, 2010 (in millions)

Data as reported on Recovery.commerce.gov. As required by OMB standards, interagency transfers of $553 million, a DTV rescission of 

$240 million, and a rescission of $302 million in BTOP funds are not included and would impact obligation amounts.

Visit www.oig.doc.gov/recovery/ for more information about OIG Recovery Act activities.

32M

249M

119M

231M

27M

360M

50M

236M

334M

334M

93M

4.3 Billion

966M

1 Billion

39M

150M
■ NTIA will need to closely monitor grantees during

the post-award phase to ensure they are in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA).

In January 2010, we presented to NTIA our observations and ways to improve internal controls, promote

transparency, and increase efficiency, many of which

they have begun to implement. In the report issued

in April 2010, we recommended that NTIA

■ create a staffing plan that outlines the necessary

resources to manage BTOP, and makes provisions

to adjust to the loss of key positions;

■ develop and implement policies and procedures

that articulate key roles, responsibilities, and

requirements for documentation;

■ direct its in-house counsel to document any program issues that arise and receive documented

opinions from the Department of Commerce’s

Office of General Counsel;

■ supplement the existing pool of reviewers to address

unforeseen delays or other impacts that could affect

the application review timeline; and

■ continue to develop monitoring procedures to identify, track, and assist recipients at risk of experiencing delays in completing post-award NEPA

requirements.

NIST and NOAA Monitor Their

Recovery Act Programs, but

Performance Metrics Need to

Measure Outcomes (ARR-19881)

We examined NIST’s $200 million Scientific and

Technical Research and Services (STRS) account and

NOAA’s $600 million Procurement, Acquisition, and

Construction account to determine whether (1) the

operating units are monitoring the progress of certain

programs funded by the Recovery Act; (2) NIST and

NOAA have mitigated risk or addressed schedule- or

cost-related concerns; and (3) the operating units’

performance metrics comply with Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) requirements. 

While NIST and NOAA have created new systems or

improved existing systems to keep track of indicators

of progress—e.g., dollars spent, milestones met, jobs

created—they have not developed measures of overall

substantive outcomes, such as assessment of whether

specific program goals have been met or of the broader public benefits of significant programs funded by

the Recovery Act. 

We recommended that NOAA and NIST improve

their performance metrics for the more significant

Recovery Act programs, focusing on intermediate

outcomes that assess the programs’ benefits. For

example, performance metrics should track whether

an investment has improved the body of knowledge

in a particular field, disseminated newly developed

tools and models, supported a research or technological innovation, or made other advancements in science and technology for the public’s benefit. 

NOAA agreed with the findings and has already

begun to modify its Recovery Act performance metrics to address our recommendation. NIST’s response

reemphasized the challenges we discussed in the

report regarding measuring core science programs.

However, NIST agreed that some of its performance

metrics for the STRS equipment program should be

strengthened and that it would develop an appropriate set of intermediate measures.

13

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Oversight

American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5)

and Performance Measurement

Requirements

The Recovery Act and the Office of Management

and Budget’s (OMB) implementation guidance

require agencies to monitor the progress of

Recovery Act programs to identify areas of, and

address concerns about, high risk or low performance. OMB also requires agencies to include

accountability objectives as part of the risk-mitigation process and to develop quantifiable performance measures that address the use of

Recovery Act funds to meet the act’s goals. 
Review of Recovery Act Contracts

and Grants Workforce Staffing

and Qualifications at the

Department of Commerce

(ARR-19900)

In May 2009, at the request of and in consultation

with the Recovery Accountability and Transparency

Board (Recovery Board), OIG led a governmentwide review of 29 OIGs to determine whether programs that award Recovery Act contracts and grants

have the proper level of workforce staffing, qualifications, and training. The Recovery Board issued the

report in March 2010. 

We subsequently focused on recommendations applicable to the Department of Commerce (Office of the

Secretary, Census Bureau, EDA, NIST, NOAA, and

NTIA). In our review, we found that the Commerce

workforce is generally sufficient to administer

Recovery Act programs but noted impacts to the

oversight of non-Recovery Act workload. In addition,

almost all Commerce contracting personnel working

on the Recovery Act have met their certification and

training requirements. 

We recommended that Commerce operating units

closely monitor the staffing of both Recovery Act and

non-Recovery Act work and make adjustments as

necessary to ensure that all contracts and grants are

properly awarded and monitored. We also recommended that the Department 

■ take steps to ensure that all contracting officers are

in compliance with relevant certification requirements;

■ determine whether program managers working on

major acquisitions are certified and close any certification gap that may exist; and

■ establish its own requirements for the training of

grants personnel in all of its operating units.

Federal Requirements for

Recovery Act Signage

In response to a congressional request to the Recovery

Board, OIG examined federal requirements for

Recovery Act signage at the Department of

Commerce. The five Commerce operating units

receiving stimulus funding are subject to Commercewide guidance for grant awards requiring that construction projects funded by the Recovery Act display

signage featuring the Recovery Act logo. This guidance mirrors the Recovery Act guidance provided by

OMB in its General Guidelines for Emblem and Logo

Applications issued March 20, 2009. With respect to

Commerce contracts funded by the Recovery Act,

similar Commerce-wide guidance does not exist.

Except for a requirement for non-federal employers

receiving stimulus dollars to post a whistleblower

protection poster onsite, there is no statutory

requirement in the Recovery Act itself for the posting

of signs.

In addition to the Department’s guidance on grants,

agencies awarding stimulus funds are permitted to

provide further instructions regarding the sign specifications. OIG detailed the varied signage requirements across the Commerce operating units as part of

its response to the congressional request. 

The Commerce requirement for signage did not

begin with the Recovery Act. The Department’s

Grants Manual instructs agencies that fund construction projects to require recipients to erect a sign at the

project site indicating that the federal government is

participating in the project. Only when the major

purpose of the award is construction is there a

requirement for a sign. Therefore, not all Commerce

Recovery Act projects included a requirement to post

a sign. There are some exceptions to the signage

requirements, such as alteration of facilities (e.g.,

upgrading electrical systems) and projects in their

early stages (before environmental assessments are

completed or prior to the arrival of building materials and equipment). Finally, our review found no

instances in which an operating unit had relaxed the

Commerce’s Recovery Act signage policy requirements or the implementation of those requirements.

14

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Oversight September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
Review of Management of the

Herbert C. Hoover Building

Renovation (OAE-19885) 

In January 2008, the General Services

Administration (GSA) began an extensive 8-phase

modernization and renovation of the more than

1.8-million-gross-square foot Department of

Commerce headquarters. Scheduled for completion

in 2021, the renovation of the Herbert C. Hoover

Building (HCHB) will upgrade mechanical, electrical, and life-safety systems; increase usable space;

improve energy and environmental efficiency; and

incorporate security improvements.

The renovation makes HCHB, which has undergone

only limited upgrades since its completion in 1932,

one of the final buildings in Washington, DC’s

Federal Triangle area to be modernized. GSA is managing the estimated $960 million contract to complete the renovation. Phase I was substantially

completed in October 2009, and Phase 2 is underway. Each future phase is planned to last approximately 18 months, although as with any building

renovation of this age, progress schedules are subject

to change due to unforeseen conditions and changing

requirements within the facility.

Because the Department and its operating units are

directly affected by the renovation, OIG plans to

conduct an ongoing review of the project. Our objective for this first evaluation was to gain an understanding of the HCHB renovation project and its

project management plan to determine whether the

project was being managed effectively.

We found that the management teams—GSA’s

Public Building Service; Commerce’s Office of

Building Renovation (OBR); and Gilbane-Grunley

Joint Venture (GGJV), the contractor for the renovation—had implemented reasonable operating procedures to ensure adequate oversight of the initial

phases of the project. However, we did find two areas

15

DEPARTMENT-WIDE

MANAGEMENT

The United States Department of Commerce creates the conditions for economic growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and stewardship. The

Department has three stated strategic goals:

Goal 1: Provide the information and tools to maximize U.S. competitiveness.

Goal 2: Foster science and technological leadership by protecting intellectual property, enhancing

technical standards, and advancing measurement science.

Goal 3: Observe, protect, and manage Earth’s resources to promote environmental stewardship.

The Department has also established a Management Integration Goal that is equally important to all operating units: Achieve organizational and management excellence.
that may affect the renovation’s progress: (1)

Commerce’s OBR does not have a formal procedure

in place for tracking and reconciling reimbursable

work authorizations (RWAs), and (2) concerns about

GSA’s calculation of Commerce’s rental rate still have

not been resolved. As of September 30, 2010, the

Department had developed draft standard operating

procedures to address our concerns with the tracking

and reconciliation of RWAs. Additionally the

Department is working closely with GSA to address

concerns regarding the calculation of rental rates. We

look forward to receiving the Department’s completed audit action plan, containing specifics as to how

these issues will be resolved. 

The Department will need to continue its oversight

of the renovation in order to minimize potential disruptions to employees’ comfort, health, and productivity. We are encouraged that the Department of

Commerce and GSA are taking actions to help ensure

a smooth renovation undertaking of this magnitude.

Coordination of the construction project includes

specific components such as the historic integrity of

the building, current information technology (IT)

and technology requirements, and increased physical

security. 

We will continue to monitor the progress of various

projects critical to the success of the renovation

efforts, such as the design and construction of the

consolidated server room and enhancements to

perimeter security. Such projects are Commerce’s

largest monetary responsibilities during the early

phases of the renovation, and directly affect critical

stages of construction. 

Response to Congress Concerning

Priority OIG Recommendations

Requiring Action and Progress

Toward Implementation

In response to a congressional request, OIG provided

information identifying what we consider to be our

three most important recommendations that have yet

to be implemented, along with our assessment of

agency progress toward their implementation. These

recommendations concern

■ management and oversight of the 2010 Census; 

■ strengthening the IT security workforce at the

Department of Commerce; and

■ oversight of NOAA’s GOES-R satellites and adherence to accepted satellite acquisition practices.

With respect to implementation progress on the

Census, a small core team at Census has begun early

planning and is focused on establishing planning and

program management processes to ensure a solid

foundation for designing the 2020 Census. For the

Department’s IT security workforce, the Department

is finalizing a policy addressing IT certification

requirements and development activities for new and

existing IT security employees. The Department is

working on a comprehensive review of acquisition

processes across the Department but has not provided a specific date for completion.

Additional Indictment in

Long-Running Telemarketing

Fraud Case

Since 2003, OIG has been engaged in a multi-agency

international investigation of a scheme in which a

large cadre of overseas-based individuals conspired to

defraud Americans by identifying themselves as

employees of the Commerce Department and other

federal agencies. The callers told victims in the

United States that they were winners in a national

lottery sanctioned by the Department and that they

had won sweepstakes prizes ranging in value from

$450,000 to more than $4 million. 

The callers used Voice Over Internet Protocol

(VOIP) technology to make it appear that their calls

originated in the United States when in fact they

originated from overseas locations. Victims were then

instructed to use commercial wire transfer services to

send payments of $1,500 to $4,500 to Costa Rica,

purportedly for insurance and customs fees that were

required to retrieve their winnings. Many victims

were persuaded to send multiple payments to the

telemarketers—some individuals transferred more

than $200,000. Total identified losses to U.S. residents exceed $30 million to date. 

In April 2010, a member of this conspiracy was

indicted, subsequently pleading guilty on May 24,

16

Department-Wide Management September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
2010, which brought the total number of convictions

in this case to 40. Sentencing is pending. Fines and

restitution imposed on the conspirators to date have

exceeded $200 million. 

Training Contractor Pays

Multimillion Dollar Settlement

On April 6, 2010, a major training contractor agreed

to pay the United States $4.5 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act when it

improperly invoiced federal agencies in advance for

information technology training courses and kept

federal funds for training courses that were never

provided. 

The GSA contract with the company permitted it to

sell multi-course IT training packages known as

“vouchers” or “passports.” An investigation disclosed

that the company used these prepaid training contracts to routinely and systematically overcharge a

number of federal government agencies, including

the Department of Commerce. These agencies lost

any balance in their training funds account at the

expiration of their contract. This violated the “invoices and payments” terms of the applicable contract,

which states, “Invoices for classroom training shall be

submitted by the contractor after [g]overnment completion of the training course. Charges for classroom

training must be paid in arrears (31 U.S.C. 3324).”

In addition, upon expiration of the training vouchers, the company retained the federal funds it

received and did not provide a refund or credit to the

multiple federal agencies affected, including the

Department of Commerce. 

The Department of Commerce exposure on this case

was calculated at approximately $400,000. This settlement was the result of a joint investigation we conducted with the OIGs from GSA and the

Department of Agriculture, as well as the

Department of Justice’s Civil Division. 

Guilty Pleas Announced in Major

International Freight Forwarder

Price-Fixing Case

In May 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice’s

Antitrust Division requested our assistance in a joint

investigation with that office and the FBI. As a result

of the investigation, six companies have agreed to

plead guilty to violating the Sherman Antitrust Act

by conspiring to create and fix fees related to export

surcharges, currency adjustments, and peak season

surcharges. The fines incorporated into the plea

agreements, which are subject to court approval,

exceed $50 million. The case targeted a number of

freight forwarder companies located in the United

States, Europe, and the Middle East. (Freight forwarders manage the domestic and international delivery of cargo for customers by receiving, packaging,

preparing, and warehousing cargo, arranging for

shipments through transportation providers such as

air and surface carriers, preparing shipment documentation, and providing related ancillary services.)

Specifically, the freight forwarders involved in this

case created and imposed fees on U.S. companies for

collection and submission of cargo information to

the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s

(ICE) Automated Manifest System for cargo shipments. ICE did not charge forwarders a fee to submit

the required information. Forwarders, however,

agreed to impose a charge for the services they provided in collecting and compiling information submitted to ICE. They also created a currency

adjustment factor for international air shipments

from China to the U.S. Finally, they agreed to charge

a fixed peak season surcharge for goods shipped from

Hong Kong. 

The investigation is ongoing and has already required

hundreds of hours of interviews and document analysis. In September 2010, 6 of the companies under

investigation agreed to plead guilty to 17 counts of

various violations. Each company has agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

Nonfederal Audit Activities 

In addition to undergoing OIG-performed audits,

certain Commerce financial assistance recipients are

periodically examined by state and local government

auditors and by independent public accountants.

OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local

Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, sets forth

audit requirements for most of these audits. For-profit organizations that receive Advanced Technology

17

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Department-Wide Management 
Program (ATP) funds from NIST are audited in

accordance with Government Auditing Standards and

NIST Program-Specific Audit Guidelines for ATP

Cooperative Agreements, issued by the Department. 

We examined 138 audit reports during this semiannual period to determine whether they contained

audit findings related to Commerce programs. For 59

of these reports, the Department acts as an oversight

agency and monitors the audited entity’s compliance

with OMB Circular A-133 or NIST’s program-specific reporting requirements. The other 79 reports are

from entities for which other federal agencies have

oversight responsibility. We identified three reports

with findings related to the Department of

Commerce. 

18

Department-Wide Management September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress

The following table shows a breakdown by operating

unit of approximately $808 million in Commerce

funds audited.

We identified a total of $1,411,634 in the federal

share of questioned costs. In most reports, the subject

programs were not considered major programs; thus,

the audits involved limited transaction and compliance testing against laws, regulations, and grant terms

and conditions. The three reports with Commerce

findings are listed in Table 7-a.

Report Category Total

Economic Development Administration $79,886,254

International Trade Administration 262,890

Minority Business Development Agency 242,500

National Institute of Standards and Technology* 16,801,016

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 204,176,906

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 10,600,915

Multi-Agency 495,580,989

Total $807,551,470

* Includes $12,369,801 in ATP program-specific audits.

Report Category OMB A-133 

Audits

ATP Program-Specific 

Audits

Total

Pending (April 1, 2010) 36 4 40

Received 156 11 16 7

Examined 12 4 14 138

Pending (September 30, 2010) 68 1 69
Trade Task Group: Trade

Adjustment Assistance for Firms:

Cooperative Agreements

(STL-19882)

In response to allegations received by our office, we

conducted an audit to determine whether the Trade

Task Group of Seattle was using program funds it

received in accordance with requirements under the

cooperative agreement it has with EDA. Our objectives were to determine whether (1) costs claimed

were reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the federal program; (2) the Trade Task Group established and

followed adequate internal controls in the bid process

for consultants; and (3) companies receiving Trade

Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) funding

had been trade-injured due to foreign competition. 

From March 2005 to February 2010, EDA awarded

$5,824,514 in TAAF cooperative agreements to the

Trade Task Group as part of its efforts to strengthen

the competitiveness of U.S. companies that have

been adversely affected by imported goods and services. The Trade Task Group claimed a total of 

$5,211,802 in project costs from March 2005

through November 30, 2009. 

Our audit found that the Trade Task Group generally complied with TAAF grant requirements; however,

the group’s financial management system did not

meet the minimum standards required by uniform

19

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

The Economic Development Administration was established by the Public Works and Economic

Development Act of 1965, as amended (PWEDA), to generate new jobs, help retain existing jobs, and

stimulate private investment in economically distressed regions of the United States. EDA continues

to fulfill this mission under the authority of PWEDA. Based on local and regional comprehensive economic

development strategies, EDA works in partnership with state and local governments, regional economic development districts, public and private nonprofit organizations, and Indian tribes to help distressed communities

address problems associated with long-term economic deterioration and sudden and severe economic dislocations, including recovery from the economic impact of natural disasters. EDA provides eligible recipients with

technical assistance, as well as grants for public works, planning, training and research, and economic adjustment assistance.

Trade Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618)

The Trade Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes

the President to negotiate international trade

agreements. Recognizing that a free trade policy

can result in injuries to U.S. businesses through

market, sales, and job losses, the act also created

the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms

(TAAF) program to mitigate the negative effects

on affected manufacturing companies by providing them with technical assistance. The American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included

provisions to expand the TAAF program by

allowing service industry firms the opportunity to

apply for assistance.
administrative requirements. This deficiency resulted

in $41,195 in costs that were unallowable, unsupported, or unreasonable in accordance with Office of

Management and Budget cost principles. 

We made the following recommendations to the

director of the TAAF program: 

■ disallow and recover the $41,195 in questioned

costs; 

■ work with the Trade Task Group to determine the

specific cooperative agreements from which funds

were carried over and whether any funds should be

disallowed and recovered; 

■ require compliance with minimum federal financial

management standards; and 

■ provide training and guidance to the entities receiving TAAF cooperative agreements to clarify

records-retention requirements. 

20

Economic Development Administration September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
2010 Census: Quarterly Report to

Congress, May 2010

(OIG-19791-4)

During this reporting period, which covers 2010

Census activities from January through March 2010,

we evaluated the Census Bureau’s information systems, including preparations for implementing its

paper-based operations control system (PBOCS) for

the largest field operation; observed several early field

operations; and reviewed the bureau’s risk management procedures and physical security at several

Census locations. We found the following:

■ Information Technology Systems. PBOCS posed the

greatest risk to the success of Nonresponse Followup (NRFU), the largest and most expensive decennial census operation. The system’s performance

was still unstable, and its ability to support NRFU’s

volume was questionable. Census staff report frequent outages and reliability problems with

21

ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION

The Economics and Statistics Administration analyzes economic activity, formulates policy options,

and produces a major share of U.S. government economic and demographic statistics. The chief economist monitors and analyzes economic developments and directs studies that have a bearing on the formulation of economic policy. ESA has two principal organizational units:

Census Bureau is the country’s preeminent statistical collection and dissemination agency. The bureau publishes a wide variety of statistical data about the nation’s people and economy, conducting approximately 200

annual surveys, in addition to the decennial census of the U.S. population and the quinquennial census of

industry.

Bureau of Economic Analysis prepares, develops, and interprets national income and product accounts (summarized by the gross domestic product), as well as aggregate measures of international, regional, and state economic activity.

Supplemental Appropriations

Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-252)

and the 2010 Census 

The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008

gave the Census Bureau an additional $210 million to help cover spiraling 2010 decennial costs

stemming from the bureau’s problematic efforts

to automate major field operations, major flaws

in its cost-estimating methods, and other issues.

The act’s explanatory statement required the

bureau to submit to Congress a detailed plan and

timeline of decennial milestones and expenditures, as well as a quantitative assessment of associated program risks, within 30 days. The

explanatory statement also directed OIG to provide quarterly reports on the bureau’s progress

against this plan.
PBOCS, and the increased need for monitoring

workarounds to compensate for the system’s inadequacies would be a substantial challenge for

Census. While the Decennial Applicant, Personnel,

and Payroll System’s performance appears to have

improved with the addition of a hardware upgrade,

the system had experienced increased performance

problems during early operations.

■ Enumeration Difficulties. During our many field visits, we consistently found Census enumerators had

difficulties with their assignments due to inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise unusable maps. Also,

we found instances where overstaffing, inefficient

coordination, inconsistent adherence to procedures, and problems with information provided by

partnership specialists hindered several field operations. The bureau’s current “verbatim” training

method, wherein recently trained crew leaders read

to new employees word for word from a training

manual on how to conduct a census operation, did

not always provide employees with the necessary

information to accomplish the job. Finally, the

public may not have been clearly informed about

Census’s different collection methods. For example,

based on their address type, some members of the

public did not receive their census forms when

others did.

■ Budget and Costs. Census spending during this

quarter was under budget; however, with NRFU

commencing, costs were expected to rise. The

bureau expected to meet its requirement to spend

all Recovery Act funding by the end of FY 2010.

While Census releases a financial management

report monthly, some of the report’s information is

not transparent.

■ Risk Management and Security. Census’s Risk

Review Board identified and was tracking 24 program-level risks. The Board continued to meet

monthly to review each risk, and was working to

finalize and implement contingency plans for the

risks that need them.

In March, OIG staff tested the physical security at

the three national data-capture centers through

which completed census forms are processed. As discussed in greater detail on page 24, our tests disclosed

minor issues, and we suggested improvements at

some locations. But we also discovered some significant vulnerabilities at other sites. We presented our

findings to the Department’s Office of Security and

Census, which informed us that they have improved

security at these facilities. 

Our report did not provide recommendations.

Instead, we forwarded the Census Bureau a separate

document that includes the following recommendations:

■ Census should ensure clerical workarounds are

being performed properly by having Census office

managers, regional Census centers, and Census

headquarters increase manual and automated

checks of workaround procedures as well as questionnaire control and tracking. 

■ Census should also take larger samples in already

established quality-control procedures.

■ Census 2020 planning should include a thorough

review of the decennial training process.

■ For Census 2020, the bureau should better communicate the processes of its various enumeration

activities to the public.

■ The Census Bureau needs to improve the transparency of its budget process, especially the presentation of surplus (or elimination of the surplus) as

shown in its financial management reports.

Early Observations Indicate That

Some Nonresponse Follow-up

Procedures Are Not Being

Followed and Others Are Lacking

(OAE-19893-01)

To complete NRFU, Census operated 494 local

Census offices (LCOs) nationwide and hired over

600,000 temporary enumerators to determine the

status of households that received questionnaires in

March 2010 but did not mail them back. Between

April 23 and May 14, 2010, OIG conducted initial

fieldwork, which was scheduled to end July 27, 2010.

OIG staff visited and conducted office interviews at

22 LCOs and observed 115 enumerators conducting

480 enumerations.

22

Economics and Statistics Administration September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
To allow Census to take timely action, we communicated the information in this report to bureau officials on May 21. Based on our observations of field

procedures, we identified six areas of concern:

■ Procedures for asking race and ethnicity questions

were not being followed.

■ Completed enumeration questionnaires were not

being tracked.

■ Use of public database information raised Title 13

confidentiality issues and could have led to overreliance on “proxy” information.

■ Incorrect information was entered on Notice of

Visit forms.

■ Update/Leave questionnaires were inconsistently

handled.

■ Enumerators were unable to obtain complete

responses on one military base.

We also made five recommendations to help ensure

an accurate count and contain costs. Although the

bureau responded rapidly to most of the recommendations below, the impact of its corrective actions has

been limited because less than half of the NRFU

workload remained. 

We recommended that Census do the following:

■ Reiterate the enumeration procedures and the

importance of ensuring that the respondent understands and answers the race and Hispanic-origin

questions.

■ Establish and implement a standard process for

documenting and tracking completed and returned

enumeration questionnaires to the LCO.

■ Take action to ensure that Census information is

properly protected. For enumerators with a high

number of questionnaires that showed occupied

housing units but who went straight to proxies for

information, consider taking additional steps to

monitor the quality of their work. Such actions

could include adding the questionnaires to the reinterview or coverage follow-up operations.

■ Provide a consistent set of instructions for correctly

completing the Notice of Visit form, including how

to fill out the enumerator-use-only portion and

telephone number. In addition, provide guidance

for handling remaining update/leave questionnaires.

■ Take steps to ensure that military installations are

cooperating with the census.

Respondent Data Safeguards in

the Decennial Response

Integration System (OAE-19888)

As part of our oversight of the 2010 decennial census,

we evaluated whether required information technology (IT) security controls meant to serve as safeguards

over electronic respondent data in the Decennial

Response Integration System (DRIS) were effectively

meeting data security requirements. DRIS is a contractor-operated system that supported the 2010

decennial census by converting paper-based responses into electronic form and transmitting the data,

encrypted, to Census for further processing. It also

provided telephone questionnaire assistance through

interactive voice response and call center staff to help

callers complete census forms. Further, DRIS followed up with respondents where there was an indication that there was someone missing from the

household or someone was counted at another place

to ensure persons were counted once and only once.

We identified vulnerabilities in DRIS security controls that required corrections in order to ensure the

system adequately safeguarded respondent data.

However, several factors existed that significantly

mitigated the risk of a security breach: the system was

not accessible from the Internet, and user interfaces

limited access to respondent data. We also identified

a weakness in the system’s definitions for secure configurations that suggests the need for increased management attention to future contractor systems.

We recommended that, for future contractor systems,

the Census Bureau ensure that configuration settings

for IT products be defined, documented, and implemented in accordance with Department policy. We

made no recommendation with respect to system vulnerabilities because the system has concluded opera23

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Economics and Statistics Administration 
tions and was in the process of being decommissioned. Further, Census indicated, in response to our

draft report, that all but one of the vulnerabilities we

identified had been remediated (the remediation

began shortly after our initial fieldwork in March

2010), and that DRIS completed data capture and

telephone operations with no reported security

breaches. 

Review of Leases of Maryland

Local Census Offices

In response to a congressional request, OIG examined the leases of nine LCOs in the state of

Maryland. We found that overall the Census Bureau

and General Services Administration (GSA) worked

together and appeared to follow their established procedures to search, solicit, and acquire office space in

the time allowed per the bureau’s office deployment

schedule. However, we suggested that Census and

GSA address the underlying issues—such as short

lease periods, time constraints, and unique space

requirements that limited the number of bidders during this decennial census—to mitigate potential challenges in acquiring office space for the 2020 Census. 

Specifically, we found that the Census Bureau worked

with GSA to search for and assess potential LCO sites.

In Maryland, GSA’s solicitations to prospective lessors

generated few bids within the areas delineated by the

Census Bureau for LCOs. The lack of prospective

lessors, coupled with Census’s tight deployment

schedule, meant that there were few choices for LCO

sites and insufficient time to solicit additional bids.

The problems in receiving an adequate number of

bids led, in part, to the location of two LCOs in

Baltimore approximately one-half mile apart. Since

our oversight is limited to the Department of

Commerce, we did not assess GSA’s criteria and

process for selecting the most cost-effective properties. 

Security Tested at Critical

Decennial Facilities

All census questionnaires mailed to U.S. residents

during the course of a decennial census are returned

by mail to one of three national data-capture centers

located around the country. At these centers, the

completed forms are converted to digital images and

the results transmitted for further processing.

Security breaches at these facilities could cause

unwarranted delays in the census, as well as compromise the personal information of millions of

Americans. In order to help ensure the safe, timely,

and uninterrupted conduct of the 2010 Census, we

conducted a program of physical security penetration

testing at these facilities just before the start of decennial operations, with results reported to Census and

other stakeholders between April and July 2010. 

A multidisciplinary team led by our Office of

Investigations, but drawing from staff across OIG,

was assembled to conduct this activity. The testing

was scheduled for a time frame that would allow the

Department to initiate corrective action before mail

responses were returned to the centers. We used a scenario-based testing program in which role players

from OIG attempted to access each facility in ways

that would identify gaps and deficiencies in physical

security for appropriate remediation. We coordinated

with the Department’s Office of Security and with

Census Bureau officials, both in preparation for and

during the testing, to ensure that the testing could be

conducted in a safe manner for all participants. This

liaison also ensured that testing was conducted with

minimal disruption to the production operations of

the facilities. Finally, it allowed Office of Security

managers to be present to see firsthand the issues that

our testing disclosed, and thus facilitated the immediate correction of identified vulnerabilities where

possible.

Our testing program disclosed minor issues and suggested refinements in training and procedures at

some locations. At other locations, we discovered and

brought to light significant vulnerabilities in need of

prompt correction, which might not otherwise have

been detected by Census or the Department. At all

tested facilities, we conducted immediate debriefings

with Census and security management personnel,

and made recommendations as to security needs

highlighted by our testing. This was followed up by

formal and detailed reporting to Census and the

Department. The Census Bureau and the Office of

Security implemented significant improvements in

security at these facilities as a result of this program.

24

Economics and Statistics Administration September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
OIG Anticipates and Processes

Significant Increase in

Census Complaints During

Reporting Period

About 9,400 key operations and activities comprised

the Census 2010 decennial program. With such complex, time-sensitive operations, it was vitally important that Census operate efficiently and within

budget. In order to provide effective oversight of

these activities, we prepared for an increase in

Census-related complaints of fraud, waste, and abuse.

During the reporting period of this semiannual

report, we increased the number of staff assigned to

our Complaint Intake Unit to receive and evaluate

such complaints from Census employees, private citizens, and special interest groups. As expected, given

the increased deployment of Census field staff, the

volume of complaints received increased dramatically. Our Complaint Intake Unit received a total of 632

Census complaints, more than four times the 140

Census-related complaints received during the prior

reporting period. By contrast, from April 1, 2009, to

September 30, 2009, the Complaint Intake Unit

received a total of 81 complaints covering all operating units within the Department. 

OIG Cooperates with Census to

Address Data Falsification

In June 2010, a series of complaints was received

alleging that two Brooklyn, NY, Census supervisors

were falsifying enumerator questionnaires in order to

complete the census within assigned time deadlines.

The issue was promptly referred to Census management, which acted swiftly to remove the individuals

in question. Given the seriousness of this matter and

the potential for interference with the accuracy of the

census count, OIG conducted an investigation to

determine whether violations of law sufficient for

criminal prosecution had occurred. While the investigation substantiated the original allegations and

brought to light significant management issues within that Census office, the matter was declined for

criminal prosecution in August 2010. 

Congressional Testimony

During the reporting period, the Inspector General

testified on whistleblower allegations before the

House Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform at a field hearing in Brooklyn, NY, on July 19,

2010. His statement is available at www.oig.doc.gov.

25

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Economics and Statistics Administration 

California Manufacturing

Technology Consulting MEP

Award No. 70NANB5H1181

(DEN-18572)

In September 2005, NIST awarded an MEP cooperative agreement to California Manufacturing

Technology Consulting (CMTC) to continue operating an existing MEP center. The award funded the

period of July 1, 2005, through December 15, 2005,

and was later extended through June 30, 2007. Total

estimated project costs for the 24-month award period were $59,946,418. 

In April 2007, we initiated an audit of the agreement

to determine whether the recipient complied with

award terms and conditions and NIST operating

guidelines for MEP centers. The audit covered the

period July 1, 2005, through March 31, 2007, during which time the recipient claimed project costs of

$46,070,804 and received federal reimbursements

totaling $15,355,400. We examined the costs

CMTC claimed to have incurred, as well as the cost

claims of one subrecipient, Cerritos College, and five

third-party in-kind contributors.

The objective of this audit was to determine whether

CMTC reported MEP costs to NIST, including costs

incurred by CMTC’s subrecipient, Cerritos College, 

that were reasonable, allocable, and allowable in accordance with applicable federal cost principles, cooperative agreement terms and conditions, and NIST policy,

including the MEP Operating Plan Guidelines.

In our opinion, CMTC’s claims included unallowable costs. Our audit questioned $11,384,182

in costs claimed by CMTC and subrecipient

Cerritos College: 

27

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

The National Institute of Standards and Technology promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve quality of life. NIST manages four programs: the Technology Innovation

Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, the Baldrige National Quality Program, and

NIST Research Laboratories.

Manufacturing Extension

Partnership (MEP) Program

(15 U.S.C. § 278k)

Congress established the MEP program in 1988

to enhance productivity and technological performance in United States manufacturing

through the transfer of manufacturing technology

and techniques to manufacturing companies

throughout the United States.

Operated by NIST, the program provides federal

funding to 60 nonprofit organizations (at least

one in every state) to operate MEP centers that

offer an array of services to business and industry

clients. The funding is made available through

cooperative agreements that require nonfederal

matching funds from state or regional partners to

support center operations.
■ We questioned $4,800,000 claimed for Cerritos

College, for which the college could not document

actual costs incurred under its subaward. Instead,

the college based its claim on estimates of the costs

incurred by its eligible programs. This practice violated the terms of the cooperative agreement

between CMTC and NIST.

■ We also questioned $6,584,182 in claimed in-kind

contributions from five outside organizations for

which CMTC could not provide evidence that the

contributions met minimum MEP requirements.

None of the claims were for donations of goods and

services to CMTC; rather, they represented costs

incurred by the third-party organizations in the

course of their regular activities. Also, none of the

claims met the minimum requirements for in-kind

contributions specified in the terms and conditions

of CMTC’s cooperative agreement. Furthermore,

portions of the claims were related to activities that

occurred prior to the MEP award period.

We recommended the chief of NIST’s Grants

and Agreement Management Division disallow

$11,384,182 in questioned costs and recover

$3,794,349 in excess federal funds.

28

National Institute of Standards and Technology September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
Review of NOAA’s MOC-P Lease

Decision (OAE-19897)

NOAA operates a wide assortment of hydrographic

survey, oceanographic research, and fisheries research

vessels. These vessels are operated by its Office of

Marine and Aviation Operations. Ships located in the

Pacific are managed by the Marine Operations

Center-Pacific (MOC-P), currently located in

Seattle. Ships located in the Atlantic are managed by

the Marine Operations Center, Atlantic (MOC-A) in

Norfolk, VA. 

In response to a congressional request, we reviewed

the events, decisions, and processes that culminated

in the decision to award the 20-year operating lease

for MOC-P to Oregon’s Port of Newport. Our review

addressed the MOC-P lease acquisition specifically

and NOAA’s facilities acquisition management systems more generally. Based on our review, we were

unable to provide assurance that NOAA’s award of

the lease to the Port of Newport provided the most

cost-effective solution for MOC-P, or more generally

for the government. The principal reasons for this

conclusion center around two issues: NOAA limited

29

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mission is to understand and predict changes

in Earth’s environment and conserve and to manage coastal and marine resources to meet our nation’s

economic, social, and environmental needs. NOAA does this through six line offices:

National Weather Service reports the weather of the United States and provides weather forecasts and warnings to the general public.

National Ocean Service provides products, services, and information to promote safe navigation, support

coastal communities, sustain marine ecosystems, and mitigate coastal hazards. 

National Marine Fisheries Service conducts a program of management, research, and services related to the

protection and rational use of living marine resources.

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service observes the environment by operating a

national satellite system.

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research conducts research related to the oceans and Great Lakes, the

lower and upper atmosphere, space environment, and the Earth.

Office of Program Planning and Integration develops and coordinates NOAA’s strategic plan, supports

organization-wide planning activities, guides managers and employees on program and performance management, and integrates policy analysis with decisionmaking.
its options based on a preference for a consolidated

facility without a documented analysis, and it did not,

in our view, adequately consider the use of existing

federal facilities. NOAA’s decisions in these two areas

took place well before the agency initiated the competitive lease acquisition process. There were errors

and weaknesses in NOAA’s competitive lease acquisition source selection; however, the outcome of the

competition (i.e., the award to the Port of Newport)

is unlikely to have changed in the absence of the

weaknesses and errors in the source selection process.

Since OIG does not have a decision-making role in

the Department’s real property acquisition process,

our report was advisory. We intend to follow up to

determine what, if any, action is taken as a result of

our review. Based in part on concerns surrounding

the MOC-P lease acquisition, the Secretary of

Commerce subsequently directed a comprehensive

review of the acquisition process across the

Department.

Review of NOAA’s Efforts to

Modernize U.S. Historical

Climatology Network (STL-19846)

In response to a congressional request, OIG examined NOAA’s efforts to modernize the United States

Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and the

steps NOAA has taken to address deficiencies in the

data generated by the network. Established in 1987,

USHCN provides temperature and precipitation

data for analyzing long-term climate variability at

national and regional levels. The development of the

USHCN dataset is a joint project of the Global

Change Research Program of the U.S. Department of

Energy and NOAA’s National Climatic Data

Center. NOAA’s National Weather Service is responsible for operating and maintaining the stations within the network.

NOAA acknowledges that there are problems with

the USHCN data due to biases from (1) undocumented changes such as for stations that have been

replaced, moved, or removed over the years; (2) poor

siting; or (3) instrument changes. The agency has

taken steps to improve data quality by implementing

enhanced quality control steps and algorithms

(referred to as USHCN Version 2) and having them

peer reviewed. According to the peer reviews we

examined, the resulting dataset improves upon the

algorithms in the prior Version 1 data.

The respondents to our inquiries about the use of and

adjustments to the USHCN data generally expressed

confidence in the Version 2 dataset. Although experts

from the three professional organizations we contacted had no official position on the efficacy of the

adjustments, two of the experts stated that in their

professional view, the USHCN Version 2 dataset has

value, with one expert saying it is the best dataset for

detecting climate change and trends. All of the

experts thought that an improved, modernized climate observing system is necessary to eliminate the

need for data adjustments.

NOAA recognizes the need for a modernized network to enhance its ability to collect and report

regional climate data and is currently working to

implement a modernized USHCN (USHCN-M).

The new network is planned to initially consist of

141 pilot stations, with the goal of implementing a

national network of approximately 1,000 sites.

NOAA estimates that full implementation and operation of a modernized network will cost about $100

million between FY 2010 and FY 2020. While

NOAA expects USHCN-M to improve its ability to

collect and transmit regional climate data, the agency

is uncertain whether it will receive enough funding to

fully implement and maintain the network.

Review of NOAA Fisheries

Enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund

(OIG-19887-1)

Among the findings of our January 2010 report,

Review of NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and

Operations (OIG-19887), we noted that “[f]ishermen

and other industry sources expressed concern to us that

NOAA’s fines are excessive, constituting a form of

bounty, because NOAA is able to retain the proceeds

from its enforcement cases.” NOAA advised us that

they maintained what was referred to as an Asset

Forfeiture Fund (AFF) comprising such proceeds, with

an agency-reported balance of $8.4 million as of

December 31, 2009. Because the AFF account has

weak internal controls, we could not readily determine

how NOAA has been utilizing these funds. 

30

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
As a result, we engaged KPMG, LLP to examine the

administration and utilization of the AFF by NOAA’s

Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) and Office of

General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation

(GCEL). We issued a report in April 2010. This

review disclosed serious deficiencies in the management processes and internal controls of the fund that

were reported to NOAA including:

■ Forfeiture funds were used to purchase 200 government vehicles and 22 seagoing vessels for OLE,

which has a staff of approximately 170 enforcement

personnel. OLE policy authorized the leasing

of vehicles and vessels but did not specifically

authorize AFF expenditures for vehicle or vessel

purchases. Further, accountability for the assignment and use of these vehicles and vessels was not

maintained to accepted government standards for

fleet management.

■ Forfeiture funds were used for any travel by OLE

and GCEL broadly related to enforcement activities, with little or no policy guidance provided for

the use of such funds for such purposes. OLE and

GCEL charged amounts to the AFF for international travel despite only a small percentage of that

travel being directly related to specific investigations or enforcement proceedings.

■ Forfeiture fund expenditures were not administered

consistently across the agency. The lack of a standardized nationwide policy hampered accountability. Some offices spent large sums of forfeited funds

with minimal or nonexistent approval procedures

or supporting documents. 

In light of these findings, OIG recommended that

NOAA take several steps to improve management

of forfeiture funds. Among our 13 recommendations were:

■ Accurately identify the forfeiture fund, periodically

audit it, and provide detailed periodic reporting to

NOAA headquarters management, other stakeholders, and budgetary authorities.

■ Set up appropriate controls and processes for tracking the receipt and expenditure of collected funds,

particularly with regard to the use by OLE personnel of purchase cards linked to accounts containing

said funds.

■ Enact appropriate policies pertaining to the acquisition, use, and control of government vehicles and

vessels.

■ Assess and adjust the management and handling of

collected funds to be consistent with applicable federal law and regulation, and with the practices of

other government agencies that handle large volumes of forfeiture funds.

In September 2010, the Secretary of Commerce

announced a series of initiatives to reform the AFF,

including prohibitions on its use for items such as

employee benefits or bonuses (per current policy),

non-operational travel, the procurement of vehicles,

and the purchase of equipment not directly related to

specific enforcement operations.

31

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OIG Review of NOAA Fisheries

Enforcement Programs and Operations

Yields Additional Findings 

In our March 2010 Semiannual Report to

Congress, we reported on Review of NOAA

Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations

(OIG-19887), a major, multidisciplinary assessment that we conducted at the request of the

NOAA Administrator and with the interest of

numerous members of Congress. We extensively

reviewed the policies, practices, and operations

of NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE)

and NOAA’s Office of General Counsel for

Enforcement and Litigation (GCEL). 

In the course of that review, we reported significant findings and recommended numerous actions

by NOAA to ensure greater accountability and

transparency in all phases of the fisheries regulatory enforcement process. Many of these recommendations have been accepted and are being

implemented. We also determined that several

issues required continuing review and investigation by our office. Follow-up on these issues resulted in additional findings provided to stakeholders

and summarized in this section’s final three entries.
Review of NOAA Fisheries

Enforcement Programs and

Operations (OIG-19887-2)

Issued in September 2010, this report presents the

results of our examination of 27 specific complaints

raised by fishermen alleging unfair treatment and

overzealous enforcement by NOAA’s OLE and

GCEL. More than three-fourths of the complaints

we examined concerned the NOAA Northeast

Region, with the remainder from the Southeast,

Northwest, and Alaska regions. 

Our work was conducted against a backdrop of initiatives and reforms to NOAA’s fisheries enforcement

program directed by the Under Secretary of

Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. As such, the

specific complaints we examined involved enforcement actions and circumstances that occurred before

the reforms currently underway. Some issues implicated by particular complaints may have been

resolved or mitigated by measures taken by NOAA to

date in key areas such as leadership and management;

policy, process, and regulations; workforce structure;

and communications and outreach.

We classified 19 of the 27 complaints we investigated

as “Appropriate for Further Review.” For those cases

we recommended that NOAA or the Department

take one or more of the following actions:

■ create a process to resolve disputed enforcement

cases;

■ effect appropriate changes to regulations, policies,

procedures, or practices; and/or

■ address and remedy relevant performance or conduct problems involving NOAA enforcement personnel raised in these complaints.

In addition, we observed that a number of issues

relating to the arbitrary application of fines and

charges, particularly within the Northeast Region,

along with statements made and alleged to have been

made by certain officials within that region, contribute to perceptions of unfairness and favoritism. 

On these complaints, OIG also observed that:

■ mitigating factors in violations, such as first offense

status, should be taken more into account when

assessing penalties and charges;

■ given frequently changing and complex regulations,

greater discretion should be exercised, when appropriate, in applying the flexibility and leniency provided within the regulations, thereby promoting

confidence in the fairness of the system;

■ cases should be resolved in a more timely manner;

and

■ better guidance should be provided to the Office for

Law Enforcement in the conduct of warrantless

inspections.

We also reiterated an earlier recommendation that an

ombudsman or an independent reviewing authority

or both be appointed to resolve issues between

NOAA enforcement and industry representatives

regarding contested regulatory matters. In September

2010, the Secretary of Commerce named a Special

Master for this purpose. The Secretary will exercise

his authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the

resolution of cases in dispute.

We are continuing to devote resources and attention

to NOAA fisheries enforcement matters to ensure

that this important program receives greater independent oversight than it has received in the past.

During the upcoming period, we will be conducting

a formal review of NOAA’s progress in implementing

all remedial actions recommended since the beginning of this review process.

Allegations that NOAA Officials

Shredded Documents During

OIG Fisheries Review

During the course of our original review of fisheries

enforcement programs and operations, we received

allegations that several high-ranking OLE officials

shredded documents. On April 2, 2010, we reported

to NOAA on the results of our investigation into

these allegations. Our investigation indicated that 1)

documents were shredded while OIG review activities were ongoing; 2) the shredding was not reviewed

by appropriate higher management officials at

32

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
NOAA; 3) the shredding was not conducted in a

manner consistent with federal and Department

records management policy; and 4) the shredding

created an appearance of impropriety in its circumstances and timing. Our findings were subsequently

reported to NOAA for review and action.

33

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Florida PSIC Grant Award No.

2007-GS-H7-0019 (DEN-19886) 

On September 30, 2007, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA) awarded a $42,888,266 Public Safety

Interoperable Communications (PSIC) grant to

Florida. The original award period ran from October

1, 2007, to September 30, 2010. In November 2009,

the President signed an act extending the award period to September 30, 2011.

The Florida Division of Emergency Management

(FDEM) was designated as the administrative agency

to apply for and administer PSIC funds. We audited

costs claimed by FDEM to determine whether the

recipient complied with NTIA PSIC grant guidelines

and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS)

award terms and conditions.

Our audit covered the award period of October 1,

2007, through December 31, 2009, during which

time the FDEM claimed total costs of $16,884,937.

In general, FDEM appears to be on track to complete

its nine investments before the end of the award, and

has reallocated $750,000 to a different PSIC investment than originally budgeted, thus putting these

funds to better use.

35

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration serves as the executive branch’s

principal advisor to the President on domestic and international telecommunications and information

policy issues. NTIA manages the federal use of the electromagnetic spectrum; provides grants for

national information and public broadcasting infrastructure projects; and performs telecommunications

research and engineering. It works to enhance citizens’ access to cable television, telephone, and other telecommunications services; and educates state and local governments and other entities on ways to use information

technology and telecommunications more effectively.

Digital Television Transition and

Public Safety Act of 2005 (Title III of P.L.

109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005)

The Digital Television Transition and Public Safety

Act of 2005 authorized NTIA, in consultation with

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),

to implement the Public Safety Interoperable

Communications (PSIC) program—a $1 billion

one-time, formula-based matching grant program

intended to enable public safety agencies to establish

interoperable emergency communications systems

using reallocated radio spectrum. Recipients are

required to have a minimum 20 percent matching

share from nonfederal sources for the acquisition

and deployment of communications equipment,

and management and administration costs.

The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11

Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) requires

OIG to conduct financial audits, over 4 years, of a

representative sample of at least 25 states or territories receiving PSIC grants. The statute also requires

OIG to annually assess the management of the

PSIC grant program and report any findings and

recommendations from that annual assessment to

the cognizant congressional committees.
However, we did discover some areas of concern:

■ We questioned over $219,000 of matching share

costs claimed. FDEM agreed with our finding and

corrected its financial report to reflect the proper

amount.

■ While FDEM generally complied with the terms and

conditions of the PSIC grant, it did not fully comply

with cash drawdown requirements. FDEM also

claimed funds for unallowable management and

administration costs on behalf of itself and its subrecipients. Finally, FDEM made several errors when

drawing down PSIC funds for its subrecipients.

In our draft report, we made several recommendations to the NTIA Assistant Secretary for

Communications and Information and the Federal

Emergency Management Agency’s Grant Programs

Directorate:

■ Require FDEM to monitor cash drawdowns to

ensure compliance with PSIC guidelines, place

funds drawn in an interest-bearing account, and

return over $15,000 in interest owed to the federal

government.

■ Direct FDEM to reduce its total PSIC cost claim to

remove the unallowable management and administration costs.

■ Direct FDEM to provide evidence that it has

addressed the deficiencies in its systems that

allowed the improper drawdowns to occur.

In response, FDEM has (1) issued a policy requiring

that subgrantees provide invoices before receiving

cash advances; (2) made plans to remit the interest

owed to the government; (3) reduced its cost claim by

removing over $48,000 in unallowable costs from a

subsequent PSIC claim; and (4) implemented new

controls to improve monitoring and prevent further

improper drawdowns. NIST concurred with

FDEM’s stated corrective actions.

New York PSIC Grant Award No.

2007-GS-H7-0039 (DEN-19674) 

On September 30, 2007, NTIA awarded a

$60,734,783 PSIC grant to the state of New York. A

total of $56,190,483 of the grant required nonfederal matching contributions. The $56,190,483 provided for acquisition and deployment and management

and administration represents 80 percent of the total

costs of those activities, leaving a minimum nonfederal matching share requirement of $14,047,621.

The governor of New York designated the New York

State Office of Homeland Security (NYSOHS) as

New York’s state administrative agency to apply for

and administer PSIC funds. The original award period was from October 1, 2007, to September 30,

2010; it was later extended by law to September 30,

2011.

NYSOHS asserts that all 10 of its investments are on

schedule to be completed by September 30, 2011.

We found nothing that would lead us to believe the

individual investments would not be completed on

schedule. In addition, the budgeted matching share

of $14,085,571 is sufficient to cover the minimum

required matching share of $14,047,621.

NYSOHS claimed total costs of $124,771, including

nonfederal matching share expenses of $51,969, as of

June 30, 2009. We determined that the costs claimed

were reasonable, allowable, and allocable according to

PSIC grant regulations. NYSOHS generally complied with PSIC requirements related to financial status reporting, cash drawdowns, and pass-through of

federal funds to local agencies. We have no adverse

findings or recommendations for corrective action.

36

National Telecommunications and Information Administration September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
STATISTICAL DATA

37

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Statistical Data

Investigative Activities

Investigations opened 15

Investigations closed 16

Arrests 1

Indictments/Informations 7

Convictions 1

Fines and other financial recoveries $1,388,222

Allegations Processed

Hotline complaints 699

Total complaints, all sources 922

Referrals to operating units 593

Evaluated but not accepted for investigation or referral 221

Table 1. Office of Investigations Statistical Highlights for this Period

TABLES Page

1. Office of Investigations Statistical Highlights for this Period 37

2. Audit Resolution and Follow-Up 38

3. Audit and Evaluation Statistical Highlights for this Period 38

4. Audits with Questioned Costs 39

5. Audits with Recommendations that Funds Be Put to Better Use 40

6. Report Types this Period 40

6-a. Financial Assistance Audits 41

6-b. Evaluations and Inspections 41-42

7. Processed Audit Reports 43

7-a. Processed Audit Reports–Single Audit and Program-Specific Audits 43

8. Audits Unresolved for More Than 6 Months 44
Audit Resolution and Follow-Up 

The Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988

require us to present (in this report) those audits

issued before the beginning of the reporting period

(April 1, 2010) for which no management decision

had been made by the end of the period (September

30, 2010). Eight audit reports remain unresolved for

this reporting period (see page 44).

Department Administrative Order 213-5, Audit

Resolution and Follow-up, provides procedures for

management to request a modification to an

approved audit action plan or for a financial assistance recipient to appeal an audit resolution determination. The following table summarizes modification

and appeal activity during the reporting period.

38

Statistical Data September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress

* Questioned cost: A cost questioned by OIG because of (1) an alleged violation of a provision of a law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement or document governing the expenditure of

funds; (2) a finding that, at the time of the audit, such cost is not supported by adequate documentation; or

(3) a finding that an expenditure of funds for the intended purpose is unnecessary or unreasonable. 

‡ Recommendation that funds be put to better use: An OIG recommendation that funds could be used more

efficiently if Commerce management took action to implement and complete the recommendation. These

actions may include (1) reductions in outlays; (2) deobligation of funds from programs or operations; (3) withdrawal of interest subsidy costs on loans or loan guarantees, insurance, or bonds; (4) costs not incurred by

implementing recommended improvements related to Commerce, a contractor, or a grantee; (5) avoidance of

unnecessary expenditures identified in pre-award reviews of contracts or grant agreements; or (6) any other savings specifically identified. 

Report Category Modifications Appeals

Actions pending (April 1, 2010) 0 0

Submissions 0 0

Decisions 0 0

Actions pending (March 31, 2010) 0 0

Table 2. Audit Resolution and Follow-Up

Questioned costs* $5,441,680

Value of audit recommendations that funds be put to better use‡ 765,552

Value of audit recommendations agreed to by management 4,640,504

Table 3. Audit and Evaluation Statistical Highlights for this Period
39

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Statistical Data

* Unsupported cost: A cost that is not supported by adequate documentation at the time of the audit.

Questioned costs include unsupported costs. 

‡ Management decision: Management’s evaluation of the findings and recommendations included in the audit

report and the issuance of a final decision by management concerning its response.

Category Number

Questioned

Costs

Unsupported 

Costs*

A. Reports for which no management decision‡

had been made by the beginning of the 

reporting period 12 $21,516,820 $2,600,244

B. Reports issued during the reporting period 7 5,441,680 1,381,739

Total reports (A+B) requiring a management 

decision during the period1

 19 26,958,500 3,981,983

C. Reports for which a management decision

 was made during the reporting period 4 889,311 812,620

 i. Value of disallowed costs 824,504 776,719

 ii. Value of costs not disallowed 64,807 35,901

D. Reports for which no management decision

 had been made by the end of the 

 reporting period 15 26,069,189 3,169,363

Table 4. Audits with Questioned Costs 

1

 Three audit reports included in this table are also included among reports with recommendations that funds be put to better use 

(see Table 5). However, the dollar amounts do not overlap.
40

Statistical Data September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress

Type Number of Reports Table Number

Financial assistance audits 4 Table 6-a

Evaluations and inspections 11 Table 6-b

Total 15

Table 6. Report Types this Period

Report Category Number Value

A. Reports for which no management decision had been made by the 

beginning of the reporting period 3 $6,333,761

B. Reports issued during the reporting period 1 765,552

Total reports (A+B) requiring a management decision during the period1 4 7,099,313

C. Reports for which a management decision was made during the 

 reporting period 1 3,816,000

 i. Value of recommendations agreed to by management 3,816,000

 ii. Value of recommendations not agreed to by management 0

D. Reports for which no management decision had been made by 

 the end of the reporting period 3 3,283,313

Table 5. Audits with Recommendations that Funds Be Put to Better Use

1

 Three audit reports included in this table are also included among reports with questioned costs (see Table 4). However, the dollar 

amounts do not overlap.
41

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Statistical Data

Report Title

Report 

Number

Date

Issued

Funds to Be Put 

to Better Use

Amount 

Questioned

Amount 

Unsupported

Economic Development Administration

Trade Adjustment 

Assistance for Firms 

Cooperative Agreements STL-19882 08.18.10 0 $41,195 26,650

National Institute of Standards and Technology

California Manufacturing 

Technology Consulting DEN-18572 07.07.10 0 3,756,780 0

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

New York Public 

Safety Interoperable 

Communications Grant DEN-19674 08.10.10 0 0 0

Florida Public 

Safety Interoperable 

Communications Grant DEN-19886 09.24.10 $765,552 232,071 0

Table 6-a. Financial Assistance Audits

Table 6-b. Evaluations and Inspections

Funds to Be

Report Date Put to Amount Amount

Report Title Number Issued Better Use Questioned Unsupported

Census Bureau

2010 Census: 

Quarterly Report to 

Congress, May 2010 OIG-19791-4 05.26.10 0 0 0

Early Observations Indicate 

That Some Nonresponse 

Follow-up Procedures Are 

Not Being Followed and 

Others Are Lacking OAE-19893-01 06.11.10 0 0 0

Respondent Data 

Safeguards in the Decennial 

Response Integration 

System (DRIS) OAE-19888 09.24.10 0 0 0
42

Statistical Data September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress

Table 6-b. Evaluations and Inspections (continued)

Funds to Be

Report Date Put to Amount Amount

Report Title Number Issued Better Use Questioned Unsupported

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Review of NOAA’s Marine 

Operations Center-Pacific 

Lease Decision OAE-19897 06.28.10 0 0 0

Review of NOAA Fisheries 

Enforcement Asset Forfeiture 

Fund* OIG-19887-1 07.01.10 0 0 0

Review of NOAA’s Efforts to 

Modernize U.S. Historical 

Climatology Network STL-19846 07.29.10 0 0 0

Final Report – Review of 

NOAA Fisheries Enforcement 

Programs and Operations1 OIG-19887-2 09.23.10 0 0 0

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NTIA Must Continue to 

Improve its Program 

Management and Pre-Award 

Processes for its Broadband 

Technology Opportunities 

Program ARR-19842-1 04.08.10 0 0 0

Office of the Secretary

NIST and NOAA Monitor 

Their Recovery Act Programs, 

but Performance Metrics 

Need to Measure Outcomes ARR-19881 05.21.10 0 0 0

Review of Management of 

Herbert C. Hoover Building 

Renovation OAE-19885 08.05.10 0 0 0

Review of Recovery Act 

Contracts and Grants 

Workforce Staffing and 

Qualifications at the 

Department of Commerce ARR-19900 09.10.10 0 0 0

1 Report issued by the Office of Investigations.
43

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Statistical Data

Agency Audits

Economic Development Administration 51

International Trade Administration 1

Minority Business Development Agency 1

National Institute of Standards and Technology1 21

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 17

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 10

Multi-Agency 34

No Commerce expenditures 3

Total 138

The Office of Inspector General reviewed and accepted 138 audit reports prepared by independent 

public accountants and local, state, and other federal auditors. The reports processed with 

questioned costs, recommendations that funds be put to better use, and/or nonfinancial recommendations 

are listed in Table 7-a. 

1

 Includes 14 Advanced Technology Program (ATP) program-specific audits.

Table 7. Processed Audit Reports–Single Audit and Program-Specific Audits

Report Title

Report 

Number

Date

Issued

Funds to Be Put 

to Better Use

Amount 

Questioned

Amount 

Unsupported

National Institute of Standards & Technology

TECO-Westinghouse

Motor Co., TX ATL-09999 06.25.10 0 $56,545 0

-10-3679

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Howard University, DC1

 ATL-09999 09.24.10 0 1,305,488 1,305,488

-10-3773

National Telecommunications & Information Administration

Leadership Conference 

on Civil Rights 

Education Fund, DC ATL-09999 09.24.10 0 32,093 32,093

-10-3850

Howard University, DC ATL-99999 09.24.10 0 17,508 17,508

-10-3773

Table 7-a. Processed Reports with Audit Findings

1

 Counted as one report.
44

Statistical Data September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress

Census Bureau Computer & High Tech Management, Inc.

In our September 2005 Semiannual Report to Congress, we reported the 

results of audits of 2 of the 21 task orders for IT services that Computer & 

High Tech Management, Inc., was providing to Census. We sought to 

determine whether the firm had complied with contract terms and 

conditions and federal regulations and had billed Census for work 

performed in accordance with specifications of the task order. We found 

that the firm failed to comply with numerous contract and federal 

requirements, which caused us to question more than $10.7 million in 

direct labor and other reimbursable costs. We have suspended audit 

resolution on this contract audit pursuant to an agreement with Census. 

Table 8. Audits Unresolved for More Than 6 Months

National Institute of

Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program 

In our March 2009, September 2009, and March 2010 Semiannual Report 

to Congress, we discussed our audits of the operations of the five centers 

located in South Carolina, Florida, Massachusetts, Texas, and Ohio that 

received cooperative agreements under the NIST MEP program. Our 

audits questioned over $29 million in costs claimed. Resolution has 

proven to be complex, and NIST has not provided us with the initial 

audit resolution proposals. (ATL-18567, ATL-18568, DEN-18135, 

DEN-18573, DEN-18604)

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

As reported in our March 2009 Semiannual Report to Congress, a single 

audit review of this NOAA grant questioned costs totaling $66,353 in 

expenditures that were not adequately documented. We have suspended 

audit resolution on this grant audit pursuant to an agreement with 

NOAA. (ATL-09999-8-3238)
45

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Reporting Requirements

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, specifies reporting requirements for semiannual reports. The

requirements are listed below and indexed to the applicable pages of this report.

Section Topic Page

4(a)(2) Review of Legislation and Regulations 45

5(a)(1) Significant Problems, Abuses, and Deficiencies 11-36

5(a)(2) Significant Recommendations for Corrective Action 11-36

5(a)(3) Prior Significant Recommendations Unimplemented 45

5(a)4 Matters Referred to Prosecutorial Authorities 37

5(a)(5) and 6(b)(2) Information or Assistance Refused 45

5(a)(6) Listing of Audit Reports 40-43

5(a)(7) Summary of Significant Reports 11-36

5(a)(8) Audit Reports—Questioned Costs 39

5(a)(9) Audit Reports—Funds to Be Put to Better Use 40

5(a)(10) Prior Audit Reports Unresolved 46

5(a)(11) Significant Revised Management Decisions 46

5(a)(12) Significant Management Decisions with which OIG Disagreed 46

5(a)(13) Results of Peer Review 46

Section 4(a)(2): Review of Legislation

and Regulations

This section requires the inspector general of each

agency to review existing and proposed legislation

and regulations relating to that agency’s programs

and operations. Based on this review, the inspector

general is required to make recommendations in the

semiannual report concerning the impact of such legislation or regulations on the economy and efficiency

of the management of programs and operations

administered or financed by the agency or on the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in those

programs and operations. Comments concerning legislative and regulatory initiatives affecting Commerce

programs are discussed, as appropriate, in relevant

sections of the report.

Section 5(a)(3): Prior Significant

Recommendations Unimplemented

This section requires identification of each significant

recommendation described in previous semiannual

reports for which corrective action has not been completed. Section 5(b) requires that the Secretary transmit to Congress statistical tables showing the number

and value of audit reports for which no final action

has been taken, plus an explanation of the reasons

why recommended action has not occurred, except

when the management decision was made within the

preceding year. To include a list of all significant

unimplemented recommendations in this report

would be duplicative. Information on the status of

any audit recommendations can be obtained through

OIG’s Office of Audit and Evaluation.

Sections 5(a)(5) and 6(b)(2): Information

or Assistance Refused

These sections require a summary of each report to

the Secretary when access, information, or assistance

has been unreasonably refused or not provided. There

were no instances during this semiannual period and

no reports to the Secretary.
Section 5(a)(10): Prior Audit Reports

Unresolved

This section requires a summary of each audit report

issued before the beginning of the reporting period for

which no management decision has been made by the

end of the reporting period (including the date and

title of each such report), an explanation of why a decision has not been made, and a statement concerning

the desired timetable for delivering a decision on each

such report. There were one NOAA, five NIST, and

two Census reports more than 6 months old. 

Section 5(a)(11): Significant Revised

Management Decisions

This section requires an explanation of the reasons

for any significant revision to a management decision

made during the reporting period. Department

Administrative Order 213-5, Audit Resolution and

Follow-up, provides procedures for revising a management decision. For financial assistance audits,

OIG must concur with any decision that would

change the audit resolution proposal in response to

an appeal by the recipient. There were no appeals this

period.

Section 5(a)(12): Significant

Management Decisions with Which

OIG Disagreed

This section requires information concerning any significant management decision with which the inspector general disagrees. Department Administrative

Order 213-5 provides procedures for elevating unresolved audit recommendations to higher levels of

Department and OIG management, including their

consideration by an Audit Resolution Council.

During this period no audit issues were referred.

Section 5(a)(13): Results of Peer Review

The most recent peer review of the Office of Audit

and Evaluation was conducted in 2009 by Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)’s Office of

Inspector General. FDIC OIG’s System Review

Report of our audit operations is available on our

website. We received a pass rating, the highest available rating. We have implemented all of FDIC

OIG’s recommendations for process and policy

improvements.

In 2009, we conducted our latest peer review, which

examined the Small Business Administration (SBA)

OIG’s audit operations. SBA OIG has informed us

that they implemented the recommendation we

made in our review.

The most recent peer review of the Office of

Investigations was conducted in 2008 by the State

Department’s Office of Inspector General. We were

found compliant, the highest available finding, with

the quality standards established by the IG community and the Attorney General guidelines. We implemented all of State OIG’s suggestions for process and

policy improvements.

46

Reporting Requirements September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
During this semiannual period, OIG audit, evaluation, and investigative teams were recognized for

their oversight work by the Secretary of Commerce

and the Council of the Inspectors General on

Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). 

The Secretary’s Gold Medal was presented to the

Decennial Census Team for exemplary planning and

coordination of a comprehensive review of the 2010

decennial census that led to real-time improvements

in field operations. The Broadband Technology

Opportunities Program (BTOP) Team received a

Silver Medal for effective oversight of BTOP, resulting in improved broadband infrastructure deployment across America.

The CIGIE Glenn/Roth Award, established to recognize exemplary service to Congress, was presented to

the 2010 Census Oversight Team. Three other OIG

teams were honored with CIGIE Awards for

Excellence: Security Penetration Testing of 2010

Decennial Census National Data Capture Facilities,

Audit of the Department of Commerce’s Information

Technology Security Workforce Readiness, and IT

Security Assessment of NOAA’s Environmental

Satellite Processing Center.

In addition, more than 30 OIG staff members were

recognized for their work by Bronze Medals presented by the Inspector General.

47

September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress Secretarial and CIGIE Awards for Commerce OIG Teams

SECRETARIAL AND CIGIE AWARDS FOR COMMERCE OIG TEAMS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ATP Advanced Technology Program

BTOP Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program 

C&A certification and accreditation

DRIS Decennial Response Integration 

System

EDA Economic Development 

Administration

ESA Economics and Statistics 

Administration

FISMA Federal Information Security 

Management Act

GCEL Office of General Counsel for 

Enforcement and Litigation 

(NOAA)

GSA General Services Administration

GOES-R Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R Series

HCHB Herbert C. Hoover Building

IG Inspector General

IT information technology

JPSS Joint Polar Satellite System

LCO local Census office

MEP Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NIST National Institute of Standards and

Technology

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPOESS National Polar-orbiting 

Operational Environmental 

Satellite System 

NRFU Nonresponse Follow-up 

NTIA National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OLE Office of Law Enforcement 

(NMFS)

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PBOCS paper-based operations control 

system 

PSIC Public Safely Interoperable 

Communications

PSP Partner Support Program

Recovery Act American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act

STRS Scientific and Technical Research 

and Services

USHCN U.S. Historical Climatology 

Network

USPTO United States Patent and 

Trademark Office

48

Acronyms and Abbreviations September 2010—Semiannual Report to Congress
Office of Audit

and Evaluation

Budget and Administration

Human Resources

Information Technology

Inspector General

Deputy

Inspector General

Associate Deputy

Inspector General

for Strategic Issues

Chief of Staff

OIG Main Number

Inspector General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.482.4661

OIG Hotline

Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.482.2495

or 800.424.5197

TDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202.482.5923

or 800.854.8407

E-mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hotline@oig.doc.gov

More Information

Visit www.oig.doc.gov to learn more about our activities,

view or download reports and testimony, and sign up for

e-mail alerts. E-mail comments to oigweb@oig.doc.gov.

Office of Inspector General