Semiannual Report 

to the Congress 

Covering the Period 

October 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010

Office of Inspector Inspector General General

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20573 

April 29, 2010 

Office of Inspector General 

Dear Chairman Lidinsky: 

The attached report is submitted in accordance with Section 5 of the Inspector General 

Act of 1978, as amended. It summarizes the activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

for the period October 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010. The Act requires that you transmit the report 

to the appropriate Congressional committees within 30 days of receipt. Your transmittal should 

also include any comments you consider appropriate and other statistical tables and reports 

required by law. 

During this period the OIG issued five audits / evaluations of FMC programs or activities 

and two draft reports to management, and began planning two new evaluations. Also during this 

reporting period, the OIG processed 27 complaints and two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

requests. Of the 27 complaints received, we forwarded 22 complaints to the appropriate FMC 

program office for disposition. The five remaining complaints were referred to other OIGs with 

jurisdiction or assigned to OIG staff. The OIG opened no new investigations and referred no 

matters to prosecutorial authorities during the period. 

In addition to these audit and investigative activities and outcomes, the OIG revised 

Commission Order 106, Audit Followup, to reflect statutory changes in the Inspector General 

Reform Act of 2008 and the recent agency reorganization. We signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with a sister OIG to provide counsel support to that office, developed a new OIG 

poster to display on agency billboards, revised the OIG’s informational brochure provided to 

new hires and posted to the OIG’s webpage and, together with the agency’s new managing 

director, instituted quarterly meetings to enhance communication between our respective offices 

and to discuss pending audits and issues of common concern. The OIG audit function was “peer 

reviewed” by OIG staff at the U.S. Capitol Police. The review concluded that my office has an 

effective quality control system and that policies, procedures and applicable government auditing 

standards are being followed. 

With your personal assistance, the OIG hired Ms. Venetia Bell to be OIG Counsel and 

Chief Investigator for the office. Ms. Bell has already made a positive impact in the office and in 

the Inspector General community. 
- 2 -

As in the past, management has been responsive in attempting to implement all OIG 

recommendations. I appreciate management’s support and I look forward to working with you in 

our ongoing efforts to promote economy and efficiency in agency programs. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Adam R. Trzeciak 

Inspector General 

Enclosure 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Transmittal Letter 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2

AUDITS/EVALUATIONS............................................................................................................. 3

Summary of Audits Issued During the Current Period ............................................................... 4 

Draft Audit Reports with Management....................................................................................... 7 

Planned Audits ............................................................................................................................ 7

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 8

OTHER OIG ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 8

SUMMARY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .......................... 13

TABLE I – Inspector General Issued Reports with Questioned Costs ..................................... 14 

TABLE II- Inspector General Issued Reports with Recommendations that Funds be Put to 

Better Use.................................................................................................................................. 15 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Semiannual Report to the Congress summarizes the activities and accomplishments 

of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission), Office of Inspector General (OIG), 

for the period October 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010. During this period we issued five 

audits/evaluations of FMC programs or activities, two draft audit reports, and began two 

additional audits of agency operations. 

Also during this reporting period, the OIG received 27 complaints and two Freedom of 

Information Act requests. Of the 27 complaints received, we forwarded 22 complaints to the 

appropriate FMC program area for disposition and assigned five complaints to OIG staff or 

referred them to other federal agency OIGs or programs with jurisdiction over the subject of the 

complaint. The OIG responded to two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, one of 

which included responsive documents with suggested redacted material that was provided to the 

FMC FOIA officer. The OIG opened no new investigations and referred no matters to 

prosecutorial authorities during the period. 

In addition to these audit and investigative activities and outcomes, the OIG revised 

Commission Order 106, Audit Followup, to reflect statutory changes in the Inspector General 

Reform Act of 2008 and a recent agency reorganization. We signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with a sister OIG to provide counsel support, developed a new OIG poster to 

display on agency billboards, revised the OIG’s informational brochure provided to new hires 

and posted it to the OIG’s webpage and, together with the agency’s new managing director, 

instituted quarterly meetings between our respective offices to enhance communication and to 

discuss pending audits and issues of common concern. 

Finally, the OIG underwent a peer review of its audit quality assurance program. The 

objectives of the review were to determine whether an effective quality control system has been 

established within the OIG and if policies, procedures and applicable government auditing 

standards are being followed. The review resulted in an “unqualified” opinion. 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 2 

BACKGROUND

The FMC is an independent agency responsible for the regulation of ocean-borne 

transportation in the foreign commerce of the United States. The principal statutes or statutory 

provisions administered by the Commission are the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the 

Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998; the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988; and Section 

19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. 

The FMC is headed by five Commissioners nominated by the President and confirmed by 

the Senate, each serving five-year terms. The President designates one of the Commissioners to 

serve as Chairman. The Chairman is the Chief Executive Officer for the Commission. For 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, the Commission was appropriated $24.1 million to fund 129 full-time 

equivalent positions. 

Although the majority of the Commission’s personnel are located in Washington, D.C., it 

also maintains a presence in Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, New Orleans, Houston and South 

Florida, through area representatives who serve the major ports and transportation centers within 

their respective geographic areas. In addition, one at-large area representative operates from 

Washington, D.C. 

The FMC/OIG was established in 1989 as required by the Inspector General Act 

Amendments of 1988 (5 U.S.C. app.). The OIG is an independent audit and investigative unit 

headed by an Inspector General (IG) who reports directly to the FMC Chairman. To aid the 

FMC in accomplishing its mission, the OIG was provided three full-time staff and a budget of 

$762,270 for FY 2010. 

 The OIG is responsible for conducting audits and investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the FMC. Audits are conducted for the purpose of finding and preventing 

fraud, waste and abuse, and promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness within the agency. 

OIG investigations seek out facts related to allegations of wrongdoing on the part of FMC 

employees and individuals, or entities having contracts with, or obtaining benefits from, the 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 3 

agency. The Inspector General Act provides that the OIG shall have access to all agency records 

and may subpoena records from entities outside of the agency in connection with an audit or 

investigation. 

The IG is required by law to prepare a report summarizing OIG audits and investigations 

during the immediately preceding six-month period. The report is sent to the FMC Chairman, 

the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House and FMC’s appropriating and authorizing 

committees. This dual reporting requirement facilitates and helps to ensure the independence of 

the Office. 

AUDITS/EVALUATIONS

During this semiannual period, the OIG issued an audit of the FMC’s FY 2009 financial 

statements and a companion report to management on financial-related findings and 

recommendations resulting from the audit. We also issued an evaluation of information security 

pursuant to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), an audit of document 

scanning services and a review of contract management of one large information technology (IT) 

contract by the Office of Information Technology. The OIG also issued two draft reports to 

management for review and comment concerning agency computation of user fees and a 

“capping report” (i.e., summary report) on agency time and attendance policies and procedures, 

and began planning reviews of the FMC’s Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution 

Services and the IT Help Desk. 

 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 4 

Issued Audits and Reviews

Audit Report Number Subject of Audit

A10-01 Audit of the FMC’s Financial Statements for the 

Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009, and 

September 30, 2008 

A10-01A Management Letter to the FY 2009 Audited 

Financial Statements 

A10-02 Evaluation of the Federal Information Security 

Management Act for FY 2009 

A10-03 Audit of the Oversight of Document Scanning 

Services in the Office of the Secretary 

OR10-01 Review of Contract Monitoring in the Office of 

Information Technology 

Summary of Audits Issued During the Current Period

In A10-01, Audit of the Federal Maritime Commission’s Financial Statements for the 

Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008, the objective was to opine on 

whether the agency’s financial statements follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and 

present fairly the financial position of the agency. The statements audited were the Balance 

Sheets as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, and the related Statements of Net Cost, Statements of 

Changes in Net Position, Statements of Budgetary Resources, Statements of Financing and 

Statements of Custodial Activity, for the years then ended. This was the sixth consecutive year 

that the FMC prepared financial statements for audit. As in the five prior years, the agency 

received an unqualified opinion, the highest opinion given by independent auditors. 

The FY 2009 audited statements provide insight into the mission and operations of the 

agency. The FMC has a single source of funds, Salaries and Expenses, funded by an annual 

appropriation that is available for commitments and obligations incurred during the fiscal year in 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 5 

which the authority was granted. The FMC’s total new budget authority for FY 2009 was 

$22,800,000. This represents a net increase in budget authority of $728,000 over FY 2008. Of 

total authority, 70 percent went to salaries and benefits. Although the FMC collects remittances 

for user fees and penalties, the agency is not authorized to offset any of its budget authority by 

utilizing these funds. The collections are deposited directly into the Treasury General Fund, and 

captured in the Statement of Custodial Activity. 

As part of the audit, the OIG reviewed and tested the Commission’s compliance with 

laws and regulations. The review disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to 

be reported under Government Auditing Standards (GAS) or Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements and M-08-24, 

Technical Amendments to OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. In addition, the OIG review of compliance 

with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996 did not disclose any 

material instances of noncompliance by FMC’s financial management systems with FFMIA, 

GAS or OMB. 

The OIG review of internal control over financial reporting did not find any matters 

involving the internal control over its operations that were considered material weakness in the 

systems and processes we tested. On the other hand, the OIG did identify vulnerabilities in 

agency financial and procurement practices that warranted some corrective actions. These 

findings, presented in A10-01A, FY 2009 Management Letter to the Financial Statements, 

involved accounting and finance-related issues. Most notably, the OIG found that agency 

program officials risk unauthorized commitments and anti-deficiency violations by signing 

purchase orders after the commencement of services. In all of the unauthorized commitments,

the agency received services without a valid obligating document in place, putting the vendor, 

the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) and the agency at risk. 

In A10-02, Evaluation of the Federal Information Security Management Act for FY 

2009, the objectives were to (1) assess compliance with FISMA and related information security 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 6 

policies, procedures, standards and guidelines; (2) perform an external network scan from an IP 

(Internet Protocol) address outside FMC to identify vulnerabilities that would permit 

unauthorized access to agency resources and databases (open ports, missing patches, default or 

missing passwords, etc.); (3) review management actions to implement prior-year OIG 

recommendations; and (4) evaluate the effectiveness of the work completed by the OIT 

contractors. 

The evaluation found that the FMC has taken concrete steps to protect the agency’s 

systems –most important is the accreditation of its Network and SERVCON applications - and 

has made progress in mitigating weaknesses which led to the prior year’s significant deficiency 

concerning IT risk and recovery planning. The firewall is secure; attempts to penetrate firewall 

defenses by the evaluation team from a remote location were unsuccessful. 

On the other hand, the FMC lacks (i) a comprehensive configuration management 

program and technical privacy controls required by OMB, (ii) an adequate Contingency Planning 

Program, to include policies, procedures, testing and documentation of testing, and (iii) an 

official system inventory. Further, the FMC Network Domain Administrator accounts are not 

monitored. Most importantly, two systems currently in production have not been certified and 

accredited. 

In OR10-01, Review of Contract Monitoring in the Office of Information Technology, 

the OIG focused primarily on contract requirements, oversight and deliverables. Over three fiscal 

years (2007 through 2009) the agency paid the contractor $513,000 to build databases and 

applications that share and process data, provide technical advice and develop technical 

requirements, and provide system software maintenance, materials and equipment. 

When fully functional, the database would reduce manual processes and enhance 

document processing speed and accuracy. Although the current applications utilize similar 

technical specifications, we found little or no communication between the applications, and staff 

expectations for a technology-based regulatory toolset have not been met. The OIG identified 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 7 

the following major contributing factors as to why this contract has yet to meet staff 

expectations: 

• Non-specific requirements and deliverables in the Statement of Work. 

• Applications placed into production before fully developed and FISMA compliant. 

• Contractor status reports lacked specificity that would enable the COTR to recognize 

potential problems. 

• Routine technical design changes to the front and back ends of systems, some of which 

were already in production. Developers unable to work with one approved design 

document. 

• Significant time spent on maintenance rather than development. Systems in production 

suffered implementation issues that had to be addressed by developers, reducing the time 

they could devote to completing applications and databases. 

Draft Audit Reports with Management

During the reporting period, the OIG issued two reports to management for comment: 

(1) Review of User Fee Calculations. This report analyzed the methodology behind user fees for 

agency activities that convey special benefits to recipients beyond those accruing to the general 

public; and (2) Best Practices for Time and Attendance Implementation. This report summarizes 

reviews performed in six FMC bureaus and offices during the prior reporting period, indentifying 

procedures that appeared to efficiently set controls over time and attendance abuse and erroneous 

reporting. 

Planned Audits

The OIG has initiated planning activities for an evaluation of the Office of Consumer 

Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services (CADRS) and the agency’s IT Help Desk services. The 

objectives for the CADRS review are to (i) document CADRS’ mediation activities, including 

training, staff development and certifications; (ii) identify users of mediation services and how 

CADRS promotes its mediation services to consumers and the shipping industry; (iii) evaluate 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 8 

how CADRS tracks complaints and reports outcomes for its consumer affairs mission; and (iv) 

assess the relationship between CADRS’ dual consumer affairs and alternative dispute resolution 

missions. The survey of Help Desk services will assess staff satisfaction with Help Desk 

timeliness and assistance, and evaluate tools used by Help Desk staff to assign, track and follow 

up with customer complaints. 

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, provides that the IG may receive and 

investigate complaints or information concerning possible allegations of fraud, waste and abuse 

occurring within FMC programs and operations. Matters of possible wrongdoing are referred to 

the OIG in the form of allegations or complaints from a variety of sources, including FMC 

employees, other government agencies and the general public. 

During this reporting period, the OIG received 27 complaints and two Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) requests. We forwarded 22 complaints to the appropriate FMC program 

area for disposition and five complaints were assigned to OIG staff or referred to other federal 

OIGs or programs with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. The OIG responded 

to the two FOIA requests, one of which included responsive documents with suggested redacted 

material that was provided to the FMC FOIA officer . 

OTHER OIG ACTIVITIES

Review of Legislation

As required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, the Office of Inspector 

General routinely reviews proposed legislation and regulations. The purpose of these reviews is 

to assess whether the proposed legislation or regulation (1) impacts the economy and efficiency 

of FMC programs and operations, and (2) contains adequate internal controls to prevent and 

detect fraud and abuse. During this period, the OIG reviewed various proposals to provide 

inspectors general with testimonial subpoena authority and to provide ombuds services to 

whistleblowers under the Whistleblower Protection Enforcement Act of 2009. 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 9 

The OIG also reviewed a number of Commission Orders / policy guidelines and 

suggested revisions where appropriate. Notably the OIG revised an internal Commission Order, 

concerning audit follow-up. 

Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Activities

The Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) was established 

by law as an independent entity by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-409) to: 

• address integrity, economy and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government 

agencies; and 

• increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, 

standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled 

workforce in the office of inspectors general. 

The CIGIE is comprised of all inspectors general whose offices are established under 

section 2 or section 8G of the Inspector General Act of 1978, i.e., those that are Presidentiallyappointed / Senate confirmed and those that are appointed by agency heads (designated federal 

entities), respectively. 

The OIG remains active on several CIGIE committees. The IG serves on the CIGIE 

Integrity Committee (IC) and the Legislation Committee (LC). The IC is charged with receiving, 

reviewing, and referring for investigation, where appropriate, allegations of administrative (noncriminal) misconduct against inspectors general and designated senior staff members of the OIG. 

The IC's memberships consists of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's representative to the 

CIGIE, who serves as Chairperson of the IC; the Special Counsel of the Office of Special 

Counsel, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics; and four federal inspectors general. 

The LC is a centralized point-of-contact and liaison for CIGIE to ensure regular and 

ongoing communication with Congressional committees, committee staff and Government 

Accountability Office regarding issues of common interest. The LC provides input to, and 

receives feedback from, the Congress on legislation affecting the IG community as a whole. 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 10 

The Assistant Inspector General for Audits (AIGA) is active in the Federal Audit 

Executive Council, comprised of senior audit staff from agency OIGs that discuss and coordinate 

issues affecting the Federal audit community. This reporting period, the AIGA also served on 

the Improper Payment / Forensic Accounting and Auditing Workgroup – which provides 

recommendations to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 

Secretary of the Treasury on actions that agencies should take, or controls they should enhance 

or implement, to more effectively prevent, detect and correct improper payments. 

The OIG Counsel/Chief Investigator participates in the Council of Counsels to the 

Inspector General (CCIG) activities. The CCIG consists of senior counsel from agency OIGs 

who discuss various legal issues that affect the OIG community. Counsel also serves on a CIGIE 

review of hotline best practices used by OIGs. Based, in part, on this participation, the OIG 

implemented a new hotline tracking system. 

Also, during the reporting period, pursuant to the IG Reform Act, OIG entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding with the Architect of the Capitol OIG to provide that office with 

legal services on a reimbursable basis. 

Peer Review Activities

Federal Offices of Inspector General are required by the IG Act to have a peer review 

performed on their organization once every three years. These reviews are to be performed only 

by federal auditors. A committee of the CIGIE schedules the review to ensure that resources are 

available to perform them and that OIGs do not conduct reciprocal reviews. 

The objectives of a peer review are to determine for the audit function whether an 

effective quality control system has been established in the office and if policies, procedures and 

applicable government auditing standards are being followed. 

Against this background, the FMC/OIG was reviewed by the inspector general and staff 

from the U.S. Capitol Police (CP) OIG. In the opinion of the CP/IG, the system of quality 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 11 

control for the FMC/OIG audit function in effect for the year ended September 30, 2009, was 

designed to meet the requirements of the quality control standards established by the Comptroller 

General of the United States for a Federal Government audit organization and was complied with 

during the year ended to provide the OIG with reasonable assurance of conforming with 

applicable auditing standards, policies and procedures. The report in its entirety is posted on the 

FMC/OIG web site. 

Significant Management Decisions

If the IG disagrees with any significant management decision, Section 5(a)(12) of the 

Inspector General Act requires that such disagreement be reported in the semiannual report. 

Further, Section 5(a)(11) of the Act requires that any decision by management to change its 

response to a significant resolved audit finding must also be disclosed in the semiannual report. 

For this reporting period, there were no significant management decisions made on which 

the IG disagreed, and management did not revise an earlier decision on an OIG audit 

recommendation.

Access to Information

The IG is to be provided with ready access to all agency records, information or 

assistance when conducting an investigation or audit. Section 6(b)(2) of the IG Act requires the 

IG to report to the agency head, without delay, if the IG believes that access to required 

information, records or assistance has been unreasonably refused, or otherwise has not been 

provided. A summary of each report submitted to the agency head in compliance with Section 

6(b)(2) must be provided in the semiannual report in accordance with Section 5(a)(5) of the Act. 

During the reporting period, the OIG did not encounter any difficulties in obtaining 

assistance or access to agency records. Consequently, no report was issued by the IG to the 

agency head in accordance with Section 6(b)(2) of the IG Act. 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 12 

Audit Resolution

As of the end of this reporting period, all OIG audit recommendations for reports issued 

in prior periods have been resolved. That is, management and the OIG have reached agreement 

on what actions need to be taken. As noted below, eight of these recommendations remain open 

past one year. 

Open Recommendations Over One Year

 Report Open Elapsed Months 

 Short Title Issue Date Rec.(s) (as of 3/31/10)

1. Check Out Process 1/12/09 7, 8 14 

2. Privacy & Data Protection 9/22/08 4, 5, 7 17 

3. FISMA Evaluation for 2008 9/22/08 2 17 

4. FISMA Evaluation for 2006 10/2/06 9 42 

5. Accuracy of Enforcement Databases 3/31/06 3 48 

Contacting the Office of Inspector General

Employees and the public are encouraged to contact the OIG regarding any incidents of 

possible waste, fraud or abuse occurring within FMC programs and operations. The OIG 

telephone number is (202) 523-5863. To report suspected wrongdoing, employees or the public 

may call the OIG Hotline on (202) 523-5865. A confidential or anonymous message can be left 

24 hours a day. Complaints or allegations of fraud, waste or abuse can also be emailed directly 

to the Inspector General at oig@fmc.gov or to https://www2.fmc.gov/oigcomplaints/ (if the 

complainant wishes to remain anonymous). 

 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 13 

SUMMARY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

IG Act 

Reference Reporting Requirement Page(s)

Section 4(a)(2) Review of legislation and regulations 8 

Section 5(a)(1) Significant problems, abuses and deficiencies None 

Section 5(a)(3) Prior significant recommendations on which 

corrective actions have not been made 

12 

Section 5(a)(4) Matters referred to prosecutive authorities 8 

Section 5(a)(5) Summary of instances where information was 

refused 

11 

Section 5(a)(6) List of audit reports by subject matter 4 

Section 5(a)(7) Summary of each particularly significant report 4-7 

Section 5(a)(8) Statistical tables showing number of reports and 

dollar value of questioned costs 

14 

Section 5(a)(9) Statistical tables showing number of reports and 

dollar value of recommendations that funds be put 

to better use 

15 

Section 5(a)(10) Summary of each audit issued before this reporting 

period for which no management decision was 

made by the end of the reporting period 

None 

Section 5(a)(11) Significant revised management decisions 11 

Section 5(a)(12) Significant management decisions with which the 

inspector general disagrees 

11 

 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 14 

TABLE I

INSPECTOR GENERAL ISSUED REPORTS WITH QUESTIONED COSTS

 Dollar Value

Number

Questioned 

Cost

Unsupported 

Costs

A. For which no management decision has been 

made by the commencement of the reporting 

period 

0 0 0 

B. Which were issued during the reporting period 0 0 0 

 Subtotal (A + B) 0 0 0 

C. For which a management decision was made 

during the reporting period 

0 0 0 

(i) dollar value of disallowed costs 0 0 0 

(ii) dollar value of costs not disallowed 0 0 0 

D. For which no management decision has been 

made by the end of the reporting period 

0 0 0 

E. Reports for which no management decision 

was made within six months of issuance 

0 0 0 

 
Inspector General’s Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010 Page 15 

TABLE II

INSPECTOR GENERAL ISSUED REPORTS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE

Number Dollar Value

A. For which no management decision has been made 

by the commencement of the reporting period 

0 0 

B. Which were issued during the reporting period 0 0 

 Subtotal (A +B) 0 0 

C. For which a management decision was made during 

the reporting period 0 0 

(i) dollar value of recommendations that were 

agreed to by management 0 0 

(ii) dollar value of recommendations that were 

not agreed to by management 

0 0 

D. For which no management decision has been made 

by the end of the reporting period 

0 0 

E. Reports for which no management decision was 

made within six months of issuance 

0 0 
HOTLINE COMPLAINTS

The success of the OIG mission to prevent fraud, waste and abuse 

depends on the cooperation of FMC employees and the public. 

A COMPLAINT CAN BE REPORTED BY CALLING OUR 24-HR DIRECT LINE

(202) 523-5865 

E-MAIL ADDRESS: 

https://www2.fmc.gov/oigcomplaints/

TO PLACE A COMPLAINT IN WRITING PLEASE MAIL TO: 

Federal Maritime Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

Room 1054 

800 North Capitol Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20573 

To Be Opened By the IG Only

THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND YOU CAN BE ANONYMOUS

HOWEVER, CALLERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ASSIST THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BY

SUPPLYING INFORMATION AS TO HOW THEY MAY BE CONTACTED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION