49 U.S.C. § 354

Investigative authority of Inspector General

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—The statutory authority of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation includes authority to conduct, pursuant to Federal criminal statutes, investigations of allegations that a person or entity has engaged in fraudulent or other criminal activity relating to the programs and operations of the Department or its operating administrations.(b)Regulated Entities.—The authority to conduct investigations referred to in subsection (a) extends to any person or entity subject to the laws and regulations of the Department or its operating administrations, whether or not they are recipients of funds from the Department or its operating administrations.(Added and amended Pub. L. 108–168, § 8(a), (b)(1), Dec. 6, 2003, 117 Stat. 2034.)Editorial NotesCodification

The text of section 228 of Pub. L. 106–159, formerly set out as a note under section 4 of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95–452, formerly set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, which was transferred to this section, redesignated as text of section, and amended by Pub. L. 108–168, § 8(a), (b)(1), was based on Pub. L. 106–159, title II, § 228, Dec. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1773.

Amendments

2003—Pub. L. 108–168 renumbered section 228 of Pub. L. 106–159 as this section and substituted “Investigative authority of Inspector General” for “DOT Authority” in section catchline. See Codification note above.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesDeposit of Forfeited Funds

Pub. L. 113–235, div. K, title I, Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2724, provided in part: “That hereafter funds transferred to the Office of the Inspector General through forfeiture proceedings or from the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund or the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, as a participating agency, as an equitable share from the forfeiture of property in investigations in which the Office of Inspector General participates, or through the granting of a Petition for Remission or Mitigation, shall be deposited to the credit of this account [Office of Inspector General, Salaries and Expenses] for law enforcement activities authorized under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended [see 5 U.S.C. 401 et seq.], to remain available until expended.”

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation act:

Pub. L. 113–76, div. L, title I, Jan. 17, 2014, 128 Stat. 600.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2015 · leading case: Cooper v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 622 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cooper v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 622 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Operation Safe Pilot In 2002, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the DOT and the OIG for the SSA, who are charged with investigating crimes related to their respective agencies, see 49 U.S.C. § 354 (a) and 42 U.S.C. § 902 (e), collaborated to investigate a California…”

Cooper v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 596 F.3d 538 (9th Cir. 2010). “Operation Safe Pilot In 2002, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the DOT and the OIG for the SSA, who are charged with investigating crimes related to their respective agencies, see 49 U.S.C. § 354 (a) and 42 U.S.C. § 902 (e), collaborated to investigate a California…”

AirTrans, Inc. v. Mead, 389 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “1748 , 1773 (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 354 (2004)). Although there may have been some dispute between the DOT’s OIG and various trucking companies concerning the scope of the Inspector General’s investiga *600 tive authority prior to the 1999 Act, 4 there can no longer be any…”

Stanmore Cooper v. Faa (9th Cir. 2010). “FAA gating crimes related to their respective agencies, see 49 U.S.C. § 354 (a) and 42 U.S.C. § 902 (e), collaborated to inves- tigate a California pilot who had consulted two different sets of doctors in a scheme to obtain simultaneously medical certi- fications to fly from the…”

United States v. Jay Stout, 629 F. App'x 384 (3rd Cir. 2015). “” 49 U.S.C. § 354 (a). DOT-IG officials are also empowered to.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.