<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">

<channel>
<title>U.S. DoT OIG STB RSS Feed</title>
<link>http://www.oig.dot.gov/rss.jsp?agency=13</link>
<description>The 10 most recent releases on the U.S. DoT OIG web site ... STB</description>
<language>en-US</language>
<webMaster>webmaster@oig.dot.gov (OIG Webmaster)</webMaster>

<atom:link href="http://www.oig.dot.gov/rss.jsp?agency=13" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<item>
<title>Review of Congressional Earmarks Within Department of Transportation Programs</title>
<link>http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=2121</link>
<description>On September 7, we issued our review of congressional earmarks within Department of Transportation programs.  In August 2006, Senator Coburn requested that we conduct an independent analysis of congressional earmarks.  Consistent with Senator Coburns request, we determined (1) the total number and amount of earmarks within DOT for FY 2006, (2) the inclusion of earmarks in DOTs annual planning and project evaluation processes, and (3) the effects of earmarks on DOTs mission and goals.Overall, we identified 8,056 earmarked projects within the Departments programs that received more than $8.54 billion for FY 2006.  Our review of 7,760 earmarked projects valued at $8.05 billion within Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal Aviation Administrationwhich accounted for 99 percent of these earmarked projectsdisclosed that 7,724 of the 7,760 projects either were not subject to the agencies review and selection processes or bypassed the states normal planning and programming processes.  There were earmarked projects we reviewed that were evaluated as "highest" priority projects and would have been fully funded regardless of being earmarked.  However, many earmarked projects considered by the agencies as low priority are being funded over higher priority, nonearmarked projects; and other earmarks are providing funds for projects that would otherwise be ineligible. We are not making any recommendations in this report as the nature of this review was to conduct and independent analysis of the amount and impact of congressional earmarks for the most recent fiscal year.</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=2121</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Report on Management Controls for Administrative Activities at the Surface Transportation Board</title>
<link>http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1393</link>
<description></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1393</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title>Audit Initiated of Management Controls for Administrative Activities at the Surface Transportation Board</title>
<link>http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1280</link>
<description>We initiated an audit of management controls for administrative activities at the Surface Transportation Board to determine compliance with regulations and agency policies. We will evaluate activities such as authorization and approval of time and attendance, administration of vehicle usage, implementation of the Government purchasecard program, use of Government travel cards, and control of personal property.</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1280</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
