Source: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0146/r2/index.html
Timestamp: 2020-08-05 17:24:41
Document Index: 207809515

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3512', '§ 501506', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 109', '§ 5', '§ 6103', '§ 6', '§ 7', '§ 102', '§ 1105']

NRC: The IG at the NRC (NUREG/BR-0146, Rev. 2)
Home > NRC Library > Document Collections > NUREG-Series Publications > Brochures Prepared by NRC Staff > NUREG/BR-0146, Rev. 2
The IG at the NRC (NUREG/BR-0146, Rev. 2)
1 OIG MISSION AND ORGANIZATION
2 OIG INVESTIGATIONS
2.1 What Is an OIG Investigation?
2.2 What Does the OIG Investigate?
2.3 How Is an OIG Investigation Initiated?
2.4 The Investigative Process
2.5 Clearance Letters
2.6 OIG Access to Documents
2.7 OIG Access to Individuals
2.8 Employee Rights and Warnings
2.9 The Investigative Products
3 OIG AUDITS
3.1 What is an OIG Audit?
3.2 What Types of Audits are There?
3.3 What Does the OIG Audit?
3.5 Audit Products
4 REGULATORY COMMENTARY
4.1 What Is a Regulatory Commentary?
4.2 How Does the OIG Prepare a Regulatory Commentary?
5 THE SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
5.1 What is the Semiannual Report?
5.2 Semiannual Report Distribution
6 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND PRIVACY ACT
6.1 Authority and Exceptions
6.2 Documentation Dissemination
Since my appointment as Inspector General for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in July 1996, I have made training a top priority for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Recognizing the benefits resulting from proactive education, this office has provided guidance to employees on fraud, waste, and abuse issues and traveled to the regions to address employee concerns and questions.
This third edition of "The IG at the NRC" is an important part of our ongoing efforts to assist employees in avoiding vulnerability to fraud and to optimize agency effectiveness and efficiency.
This pamphlet contains current information about the OIG organization and its policies and procedures. In addition to describing the OIG mission and functions, I have used this opportunity to discuss policy direction and initiatives intended to foster an atmosphere of trust and openness between the OIG and NRC employees.
The OIG is committed to combating fraud and abuse. My goal is for our educational efforts through pamphlets such as this, to increase your understanding of the OIG commitment so that, within our differing roles, we can effect a spirit of cooperation to achieve our shared objective of regulatory excellence.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established as a statutory entity on April 15, 1989, in accordance with the 1988 amendments to the Inspector General Act of 1978. Under the statute, NRC's Inspector General (IG) singularly reports to and serves under the general supervision of the NRC Chairman, but operates with independent personnel, and contracting and budget authority.
The statutory language of the IG Act states that the purpose of offices of Inspector General is to provide independent and objective units to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to agency programs and operations. Under the statute, the OIG is also directed to provide leadership and coordination and to recommend policies to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in agency programs and operations.
To accomplish these objectives, the OIG establishes policy for audits and investigations relating to all NRC programs and operations and conducts, supervises, and coordinates these audits and investigations. Further, the OIG reviews existing and proposed regulations to evaluate their effect on economy and efficiency in the agency and on the prevention of fraud and abuse and recommends changes as appropriate.
The IG informs the Chairman and the Congress of fraud or any serious problems with the administration of NRC programs and operations discovered during these audits, investigations, and reviews. The OIG recommends corrective action and reports on progress made in the implementation of actions. The OIG refers criminal cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for prosecution and coordinates referral of administrative matters to managers for administrative action by the agency.
Established in 1981 by Executive Order 12301, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) is an interagency council headed by the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and is charged with promoting integrity and effectiveness in Federal programs. Composed of presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed IGs, the membership of the PCIE was expanded in 1992 by Executive Order 12805 to include the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE). PCIE oversight responsibility includes development of policies to support professionalism in Federal OIGs. As part of that oversight, PCIE has also served to receive allegations against IGs and their staffs.
Allegations Against Inspectors General/Senior Staff
Consistent with Executive Order 12993 (March 21, 1996), allegations of wrongdoing received in regard to the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General, and senior staff will be referred to the Integrity Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency for its review and adjudication.
Allegations made against OIG staff will likewise be referred to the PCIE's Integrity Committee if, among other reasons, the staff member is alleged to have acted with the knowledge of the IG; or the allegation against the staff person is related to an allegation against the IG. In addition, allegations of staff wrongdoing will, on a case-by-case basis, be referred to the Integrity Committee when (1) review of the substance of the allegation cannot be assigned to an agency of the Executive Branch with appropriate jurisdiction over the matter and (2) the IG determines that an objective internal investigation of the allegation, or the appearance thereof, is not feasible.
The IG Act states that the head of each OIG shall be an IG appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. IGs are selected on the basis of their backgrounds in investigations or auditing or from related backgrounds, such as law or public administration.
To ensure the independence of the office, the IG may be removed only by the President, who must communicate the reasons for a removal to the Congress. The IG is selected without regard for political affiliation.
By statute, the IG oversees and is responsible for--
reviews of existing and proposed legislation and regulations for their potential to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse;
establishing and implementing policies to conduct, supervise, and coordinate activities that promote economy and efficiency and that prevent or detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and
designating an Assistant Inspector General for Investigations and an Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Oversees the conduct and supervision of audits and investigations relating to agency programs and operations; Manages all administrative and planning activities necessary to support the programmatic mission of the OIG.
Supervises the performance of investigative activities and inquiries relating to NRC programs and operations; and Advises and assists the IG on all investigations and inquiries conducted by the OIG.
The Assistant Inspector General for Audits
Supervises the performance of auditing activities relating to NRC programs and operations; and Advises and assists the IG on all audits and evaluations conducted by the OIG.
Team Leader, Resource Management and Operational Support
Provides overall management of administrative and operational support for OIG programs, including responsibility for preparing and administering the budget, operating an independent personnel program, and contracting and small purchase matters. Prepares the OIG Semiannual Report for Congress.
Provides independent legal counsel and representation for the IG and OIG;
Advises and assists the IG on all legal issues and serves as legal advisor to the OIG staff; and
Coordinates and drafts regulatory commentary.
An OIG investigation is a planned, systematic search for relevant, objective evidence derived from individuals, documents, tangible objects, and data.
In addition to documentation of evidence discovered, an investigation typically includes identifying the basis for the original complaint, the issues involved, and citation of relevant statutes.
The jurisdiction of the OIG extends to all matters relating to fraud, waste, and abuse by NRC employees, contractors, and other recipients of funds under or relating to NRC programs and operations. OIG investigations focus on violations of law or misconduct by NRC employees and contractors as well as allegations of irregularities or abuse in NRC programs and operations.
These investigations may involve one or more of the following violations of laws or regulations: theft, conversion, misappropriation, embezzlement, or misuse of Government funds or property; false claims or statements; forgery, falsification, or unauthorized destruction of Government records; bribery, extortion, or blackmail or attempted bribery or blackmail of, or by, an NRC employee; violation of employee standards of conduct, conflict of interest; and mismanagement, fraud, waste of Government funds, or abuse of authority relating to NRC's programs and operations.
The first step in the course of an investigation is receipt of a complaint of wrongdoing or an allegation. Allegations are received primarily from NRC employees and licensees. However, Congress, other agencies, citizens, and public interest groups also refer matters to the OIG for investigation.
A major conduit for complaints is the OIG Hotline. Allegations of suspected wrongdoing are also referred by NRC managers and the audit program.
Once an allegation is received, an analysis is conducted to determine whether further action is warranted and, if so, what type of action is needed.
Guidelines used in this analysis are intended to ensure an effective evaluation of available resources and the commitment of those resources weighed against the impact of a successful investigation.
The OIG considers the following factors in evaluating a complaint for investigation: plausibility that a violation of a statute or regulation under OIG jurisdiction has been committed; the presence of indications that the matter may significantly affect public health and safety; the effect of the alleged illegal or improper activity on NRC programs; whether the matter is of interest to senior NRC managers, one or more Congressional committees, the nuclear industry, or a public interest group; the level of the position of individuals against whom the allegations are made (wrongdoing by high-ranking agency officials are more damaging); and the deterrent effect knowledge of the investigation may have on others who may consider committing similar illegal or improper acts.
If an OIG investigation is not initiated in response to a complaint that requires additional action, other options available include referral of the complaint to an NRC operating division or referral to another law enforcement agency. In addition, allegations not susceptible to immediate action may be retained for use as the basis for broad programmatic inquiries or audits.
Because the goal of an investigation is to determine the truth or the falsity of matters alleged, the procedures employed in the investigative process focus on obtaining relevant facts so as to address all aspects of an allegation.
Investigative activities include examination of documents, for example, files, contracts, vouchers, reports, and memoranda. Investigators also obtain information by interviewing witnesses, technical experts, and the subjects of investigations.
Information obtained is documented in records of interviews, by affidavits sworn under oath and in depositions, that is, with questions and answers given under oath, and transcribed by a court reporter.
After all relevant information is gathered, an investigative report is prepared. When there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the report is presented to the DOJ to consider for prosecution in Federal Court. If the evidence presented shows an administrative offense, the report will be sent to NRC managers for action.
The OIG policy regarding clearance letters has changed.
The current policy includes the definition, purpose, and procedure for issuance of a clearance letter.
A "Clearance Letter" is a document provided to an NRC employee in cases where an investigation is initiated in response to an allegation of misconduct by the employee, and the misconduct is not proven. Specifically, "not proven" is defined as a case in which an investigation is opened, the Department of Justice declines prosecution, and insufficient evidence is found to warrant referral to the agency for management action.
A clearance letter provides closure for the subject employee when OIG's investigation did not corroborate the alleged misconduct, and the case is closed. It is not an indication that immunity has been granted for any future investigation of the allegation. A clearance letter is provided to the employee alleged to have committed the misconduct at the discretion of the IG or the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations (AIGI) and is not a right.
A clearance letter is prepared for the signature of the AIGI and sent to the employee, with a concurrent copy to the Executive Director for Operations. The letter will contain a brief summary of the allegations and a statement to the effect that the allegations were investigated and were not substantiated.
Section 6 of the IG Act provides specific authority for the OIG to obtain the following documents from the agency: all records, reports, audits, reviews, recommendations; and other materials that relate to NRC programs and operations.
This section of the statute also authorizes the OIG to issue subpoenas to obtain documents from outside the Federal Government. Access to financial records is authorized under the provision of the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
Government employees, including NRC personnel, mainly participate in OIG investigations by providing information to investigators in interviews.
The vast majority of employees voluntarily consent to interviews and fully cooperate by supplying information and documents within their control. Employees who do not may be ordered by a supervisor to appear for an interview with an OIG investigator. Employees who disobey such an order are subject to disciplinary action. Of course, false statements made in the course of an investigation would be subject to both criminal and administrative penalties.
When applicable, a statement of the individual's alternatives with regard to remaining silent and obtaining legal counsel or union representation is stated directly and personally at each interview. These statements of rights are referred to as "warnings."
There are four types of warnings, Miranda, Garrity, Kalkines, and Weingarten. Each is identified by the major Court case on the issue encompassed in the warning statement summarized as follows:
Miranda: Given when an individual is being interviewed concerning his or her own potentially criminal misconduct and is taken into custody or deprived of freedom in a significant way. This warning advises, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, that the individual is entitled to remain silent or otherwise not incriminate himself or herself and to the assistance of an attorney.
Garrity: Informs Federal employees and contractors who are subjects of investigations, that although they would normally be expected to answer questions regarding their official duties, refusal to answer on the ground that the answers may tend to incriminate them will not subject them to disciplinary action.
Kalkines: Advises that the possibility of criminal prosecution has been removed, usually by a declination to prosecute by the DOJ, and that the employee is required to answer questions relating to the performance of their official duties or be subject to disciplinary action.
Weingarten: In accordance with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1979, bargaining unit employees, who reasonably believe they may be subject to disciplinary action are entitled to union representation during OIG interviews.
OIG policy is to allow an interviewed employee, who is the subject of an investigation, to have an attorney present.
Employees who request legal representation or to union representation are allowed a reasonable amount of time to arrange this representation. Legal or other representation is at the expense of the individual employee.
The role of the legal or union representative is to provide counsel or advice, not to answer questions on behalf of the employee. Representatives are not permitted to question the OIG investigator or otherwise dominate or disrupt the interview or the investigation.
Employee Role in OIG Investigations
The success of the OIG mission to combat fraud, waste, and abuse depends on the cooperation of all NRC employees.
Making allegations is a responsibility both in the obligation to report wrongdoing and to guard against inadvertent or abusive allegations.
WHY REPORT WRONGDOING?--Statistics demonstrate that the majority of allegations of wrongdoing reported to the OIG come from NRC employees. There are two clear bases for these statistics. First, NRC employees are in the best position to observe wrongdoing and have the technical expertise to assess wrongful actions. Second, under Federal law and Executive Order, all government employees are required to report violations of law and regulations.
HOW TO REPORT WRONGDOING--You should report any indications of fraud, waste, abuse of authority, mismanagement, or other wrongdoing directly to the OIG or through your supervisor.
Agency managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring that allegations of wrongdoing they receive are promptly reported to the OIG. Report wrongdoing by--
contacting the OIG directly by telephone at 301-415-5930
using the OIG HOTLINE at 1-800-233-3497, or
by writing to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
WHAT TO REPORT--The information you provide to the OIG should be sufficient for an investigator to evaluate or act on it. You should try to provide the following information if possible:
a brief, accurate statement of facts believed to provide evidence of wrongdoing; names, addresses, and office locations of pertinent individuals and organizations; dates when the suspected wrongdoing took place or is expected to occur; how you became aware of the information; memoranda, contracts, invoice numbers, or other related documents; and names, addresses, office locations, and telephone numbers of others (including licensees) who may have information about the suspected wrongdoing.
Employees should not engage in any independent inquiry or investigation and should not discuss the matter with the persons suspected of wrongdoing. After the initial report, employees should provide the OIG with any new or additional information pertinent to the allegation.
HOW ARE YOU PROTECTED--You may make an allegation anonymously. The OIG phones do not have the caller identification feature. If you choose to identify yourself, under the IG Act, your name will not be revealed unless the IG determines that the disclosure is unavoidable. Reprisal and retaliation for reporting wrongdoing is prohibited by Federal law and regulations, and no action may be taken against you for having complained or disclosed information to the OIG. However, individuals may be subject to disciplinary or criminal action for knowingly making a false complaint or providing false information.
The investigative report relates pertinent facts of a case and describes available evidence to concisely address all relevant aspects of any allegation against individuals, including aspects of an allegation not substantiated. Investigative reports do not recommend disciplinary action against individual employees.
Investigative reports are given to officials and managers who have a need to know in order to properly determine whether administrative action is warranted. If an administrative action is deemed appropriate, managers consult with the Office of Human Resources and the Office of the General Counsel before initiating discipline. The agency is expected to advise the OIG within 90 days of receiving the investigative report as to what disciplinary or other action has been taken in response to investigative report findings.
A cover letter is used with some investigative reports as more than a mere transmittal vehicle. When the OIG observes that an issue identified in the transmitted report is a recurring or systemic problem, or one reported in other OIG products, the cover letter is used to identify the problem to managers in this broader context.
Because OIG investigative reports do not contain recommendations, a cover letter is also used if significant findings indicate that a specific response to systemic problems is needed. The agency is expected to report managerial actions taken in response to the problems identified within 90 days.
The Event Inquiry is an investigative product documenting examination of events or agency actions that do not focus specifically on individual misconduct. These reports identify institutional weaknesses that led to or allowed a problem to occur. The agency is requested to advise the OIG of managerial initiatives taken to cure any institutional weaknesses identified in these reports.
Management Implications Report (MIR)
The Management Implications Report (MIR) was developed at the request of senior NRC officials to provide managers with a "Root-Cause" analysis as to how a particular problem developed. The objective of an MIR is to give managers sufficient information to facilitate correction of the problem and to avoid similar issues in the future.
Investigative Reports are sensitive documents. Their distribution is restricted by the Privacy Act and is subject to Freedom of Information Act exemptions. Distribution is limited to those with a "need to know" for official purposes. Reports are sent to the Chairman's office with copies to the other Commissioners. In instances of exceptional congressional or public interest, the OIG may distribute a report to members of Congress.
Event Inquiries are generally released to the public upon request.
MIRs are intended for the use of agency managers but are published for agency use without limitations on distribution.
An audit is an independent, systematic assessment of a government organization, program, function, or activity.
FINANCIAL--These audits include financial statement audits, as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act, and any other audits relating to NRC's financial operations. The first type of audit provides reasonable assurance about whether financial statements of an audited entity present fairly the financial position, results of operation, and cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The second type determines whether (1) financial information is presented in accordance with established or stated criteria, (2) the entity has adhered to specific financial compliance requirements, or (3) the entity's internal control structure over financial reporting or safeguarding assets is suitably designed and implemented to achieve objectives.
At NRC, these include audits under the Chief Financial Officers Act as well as audits of internal controls and contracts.
PERFORMANCE--These include both economy and efficiency audits and program audits. Economy and efficiency audits determine (1) whether the entity is acquiring, protecting, and using its resources (such as personnel, property, and space) economically and efficiently, (2) the causes of any inefficiencies or uneconomical practices, and (3) whether the entity has complied with laws and regulations on matters of economy and efficiency. Program audits determine (1) the extent to which desired results or benefits established by the legislation or other authorizing body are being achieved, (2) the effectiveness of the organization, programs, activities, or functions, and (3) whether the entity has complied with significant laws and regulations applicable to the program.
These audits are conducted on selected NRC administrative and program operations to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency with which managerial responsibilities are carried out. They focus on whether management controls, practices, processes, and procedures are adequate and effective. Performance audits also include reviews of selected programs and activities to evaluate their overall effectiveness in achieving anticipated results.
In addition to audits resulting from statutory requirements, for example, the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, 31 U.S.C. §3512, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 10362, and the Chief Financial Officers Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 501506 and 901903, OIG conducts systematic reviews throughout the organization. These focus on agency priorities and problem areas; as a result certain activities are examined with greater frequency than others.
OIG auditors typically examine--
potential program vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, and abuse;
management planning processes;
cost effectiveness of programs and functions;
the ability of the agency to protect and safeguard its resources; and
financial statements and financially related activities, including contracting.
The annual audit plan is a formal document outlining the audit workload and audit resources for the fiscal year. The plan reflects interests of NRC's senior managers, including the Commissioners, and the interests of the nuclear industry, the Congress, and others. The audit plan covers long-range (23 years) as well as current-year plans. The long-range section discusses major program areas of the agency that OIG plans to focus on. As these long-term strategies become more defined, they evolve into individual audits included in the section covering planned audits for the coming year. The annual plan is not a static document, but is a dynamic plan that is periodically reevaluated to ensure that OIG responds effectively to the needs of the Congress, the Commission, and the public.
Issue Area Monitors
To enhance oversight and understanding of the NRC's operations, Issue Area Monitors (IAMs), have been designated to cover the agency's major costs centers. IAM assignment areas are:
the Reactor Program,
Nuclear Materials Program,
Nuclear Waste Programs,
Resource Administration (except the Comptroller), and
Comptroller Office (including CFO audits), Policy and Direction Programs, and Special Technical programs.
Under the IAM program, senior audit staff are responsible for ongoing cognizance over their assigned areas. Paralleling the agency's basic mission areas, the IAM concept establishes "in-house" expertise and enables the OIG to be more fully informed and responsive to its statutory responsibilities.
An audit involves several steps, ranging from notification of the office to be audited to audit followup. The underlying goal of the audit process is to maintain an open channel of communication between the auditors and the managers to ensure that audit findings are accurately and fairly presented in the audit report.
The key elements in the process are defined as follows:
Annual Audit Plan: As described previously, an annual audit plan is developed and distributed to interested parties. It contains a listing of audits to be initiated during the year and the general objectives of each audit.
Audit Notification: A formal written notice is given to an office manager informing the manager of OIG's intent to begin an audit.
Entrance Conference: Through this discussion, the OIG advises agency officials of the purpose, objectives, and scope of the audit, and the general methodology OIG will follow.
Survey: A survey consists of the exploratory work, conducted before the detailed examination, to gather data for identifying audit objectives; documenting internal control systems, becoming familiar with the activities to be audited, and identifying areas of concern to management.
Review: The OIG comprehensively examines and analyzes selected areas of a program, activity, or function, using an audit program developed specifically to answer the audit objectives.
Exit Conference: The OIG meets with the agency's principal managers to present and discuss the results of the audit. This meeting provides agency managers an opportunity to confirm information, ask questions, and provide any necessary clarifying data.
Draft Report: The OIG gives the official draft document to the agency to obtain its written comments on the audit findings and recommendations; the agency normally has 30 days to respond to the draft.
Final Audit Report: The OIG sends the agency the final report that contains the agency's official written response to the draft.
Audit Followup and Closure: This process ensures that agency managers act on the OIG recommendations.
An audit report is the documentation of the objectives, survey, review, recommendations, and findings resulting from the objective assessment of a program, function, or activity.
Audits have a well-delineated process that allows for agency review of draft audit reports and required responses to recommendations. Along with this review and response is a formal audit follow-up and reporting of audit results in the OIG's "Semiannual Report" to the Congress.
Special Evaluation Report
A special evaluation report documents the results of short-term, limited assessments. An evaluation is a mechanism the OIG uses to provide an initial, quick response to a question or issue and to work collaboratively with agency managers to determine whether an in-depth independent audit should be planned.
OIG issues its final audit reports and special evaluations to the Commission and to the Congress. These final reports are available to the public.
Regulatory Commentary is the review of existing and proposed legislation, regulations, and policies so as to assist the agency in preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in programs and operations.
Regulatory Commentaries document OIG's objective analysis of vulnerabilities created within agency programs and operations by proposed or existing statutes, regulations, or policies. Commentaries cite the IG Act as authority for the review, state the specific law, regulation or policy examined, the pertinent background information considered, and identify OIG concerns, observations, and objections.
OIG reviews proposed legislation, regulations, directives, and policy initiatives that affect NRC's programs and offices. Significant concerns are documented in a regulatory commentary and given to the agency for consideration. The statutory intent of the regulatory commentary is to prospectively identify and assist in preventing problems, therefore, formal replies are not always requested by the OIG. However, significant observations regarding action or inaction by the agency are reported in the OIG Semiannual Report to Congress.
Regulatory Commentary Distribution
Regulatory Commentaries are normally sent to the agency without limitations on distribution or release to the public.
In accordance with requirements of the IG Act, the semiannual report is a document prepared by each IG that summarizes the activities of that OIG during the six-month periods ending March 31 and September 30. The report is submitted to the head of the agency, the Chairman in the case of the NRC, no later than April 30 and October 31 of each year. The agency may comment on the report, but may not change it. Within 30 days of receipt, the Chairman submits agency remarks together with the IG's report to Congress.
Reporting Requirements for the Semiannual Report
The reporting requirements for the IG's Semiannual Report are contained in Section 5 of the IG Act. Additional guidance on the content of the report has been provided by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the OMB. Items normally included in the report are as follows:
Description of significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies relating to the administration of the NRC's programs and operation.
Selected Regulatory Commentary summaries and agency response.
Statistical tables demonstrating the dollar results of the OIG's internal program audits and contract audits performed during the reporting period.
The Semiannual Report is widely distributed throughout government and to the public.
The Office of the Inspector General at the NRC exercises independent authority to release or withhold documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b and Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
These statutes provide the OIG with denial authority under exemptions that protect criminal investigative and privacy interests.
The AIGI acts as the initial denial authority for OIG documents, and the only administrative appeal is to the IG.
Unlike the agency, OIG documents are not placed in the PDR.
Excerpts from the INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978 (Public Law 95452, October 12, 1978)
As amended by the INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1988 (Public Law 100504, October 18, 1988)
In order to create independent and objectives units--
(1) to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the establishments listed in section 11(2);
(a) There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations. Each Inspector General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the head of the establishment involved or, to the extend such authority is delegated, the officer next in rank below such head, but shall not report to, or be subject to supervision by, any other officer of such establishment. Neither the head of the establishment nor the officer next in rank below such head shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation.
(d) Each Inspector General shall, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing the civil service--
(a) It shall be the duty and responsibility of each Inspector General, with respect to the establishment within which his Office is established--
(b)(1) In carrying out the responsibilities specified in subsection (a)(1), each Inspector General shall--
(2) For purposes of determining compliance with paragraph (1)(A) with respect to whether internal quality controls are in place and operating and whether established audit standards, policies, and procedures are being followed by Offices of Inspector General of establishments defined under section 11(2), Offices of Inspector General of designated Federal entities defined under section 8F(a)(2), and any audit office established within a Federal entity defined under section 8F(a)(1), reviews shall be performed exclusively by an audit entity in the Federal Government, including the General Accounting Office or the Office of Inspector General of each establishment defined under section 11(2), or the Office of Inspector General of each designated Federal entity defined under section 8F(a)(2).
(As amended Pub.L. 100504, Title I § 109, Oct. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 2529)
§ 5 Semiannual reports; transmittal to Congress; availability to public; immediate report on serious or flagrant problems; disclosure of information; definitions.
(a) Each Inspector General shall, not later than April 30 and October 31 of each year, prepare semiannual reports summarizing the activities of the Office during the immediately preceding six-month periods ending March 31 and September 30. Such reports shall include, but need not be limited to--
(6) a listing, subdivided according to subject matter, of each audit report issued by the Office during the reporting period and for each audit report, where applicable, the total dollar value of questioned costs (including a separate category for the dollar value of unsupported costs) and the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use;
(10) a summary of each audit report issued before the commencement 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 the reasons such management decision has not been made, and a statement concerning the desired timetable for achieving a management decision on each such report;
(11) a description and explanation of the reasons for any significant revised management decision made during the reporting period; and
(12) information concerning any significant management decision with which the Inspector General is in disagreement.
(b) Semiannual reports of each Inspector General shall be furnished to the head of the establishment involved not later than April 30 and October 31 of each year and shall be transmitted by such head to the appropriate committees or subcommittees of the Congress within thirty days after receipt of the report, together with a report by the head of the establishment containing--
(2) statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and the dollar value of disallowed costs, for audit reports--
(C) for which final action was taken during the reporting period, including--
(3) statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use by management agreed to in a management decision, for audit reports--
(4) a statement with respect to audit reports on which management decisions have been made but final action has not been taken, other than audit reports on which a management decision was made within the preceding year, containing--
(D) an explanation of the reasons final action has not been taken with respect to each such audit report, except that such statement may exclude such audit reports that are under formal administrative or judicial appeal or upon which management of an establishment has agreed to pursue a legislative solution, but shall identify the number of reports in each category so excluded.
(c) Within 60 days of the transmission of the semiannual reports of each Inspector General to the Congress, the head of each establishment shall make copies of such report available to the public upon request and at a reasonable cost. Within 60 days after the transmission of the semiannual reports of each establishment head to the Congress, the head of each establishment shall make copies of such report available to the public upon request and at a reasonable cost.
(e)(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the public disclosure of information which is--
(B) specifically required by Executive order to be protected from disclosure in the interest of national defense of national security or in the conduct of foreign affairs; or
(3) Except to the extent and in the manner provided under section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C.A. § 6103(f)], nothing in this section or in any other provision of this Act shall be construed to authorize or permit the withholding of information from the Congress, or from any committee or subcommittee thereof.
(1) the term "questioned cost" means a cost that is questioned by the Office because of--
(2) the term "unsupported cost" means a cost that is questioned by the Office because the Office found that, at the time of the audit, such cost is not supported by adequate documentation;
(3) the term "disallowed cost" means a questioned cost that management, in a management decision, has sustained or agreed should not be charged to the Government;
(4) the term "recommendation that funds be put to better use" means a recommendation by the Office that funds could be used more efficiently if management of an establishment took actions to implement and complete the recommendation, including--
(E) avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preward reviews of contract or grant agreements; or
(F) any other savings which are specifically identified.
(5) the term "management decision" means the evaluation by the management of an establishment of the findings and recommendations included in an audit report and the issuance of a final decision by management concerning its response to such findings and recommendations, including actions concluded to be necessary; and
(6) the term "final action" means--
§ 6 Authority of Inspector General; information and assistance from Federal agencies; unreasonable refusal; office space and equipment
(a) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by this Act, each Inspector General, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, is authorized--
(3) to request such information or assistance as may be necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities provided by this Act from many Federal, State, or local governmental agency or unit thereof;
(6) to have direct and prompt access to the head of the establishment involved when necessary for any purpose pertaining to the performance of functions and responsibilities under this Act.
(8) to obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of Title 5, United States Code, at daily rates not to exceed the equivalent rate prescribed for grade GS18 of the General Schedule by section 5332 of Title 5, United States Code; and
§ 7. Complaints by employees, disclosure of identity; reprisals
(Added Pub.L. 100504, Title I, § 102(f), Oct. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 2517.)
OIG APPROPRIATIONS
31 U.S.C. § 1105 Budget Contents and Submission to Congress
(a) ...the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year. ...The President shall include in each budget the following: ...(25) a separate appropriation account for appropriations for each Office of Inspector General...