Please, no so fast with regard to the I.G. report
A few things to note about the I.G. report, mostly in reply to some of the comments in post by alf5071h. In general, the I.G. of the Dep't of Transportation is not a law-maker, and while the internal "watchdog" function certainly works closely with Capitol Hill offices (members as well as committee staffs) it wields only influence, a voice, and not a vote or a veto. So finding fault in the report because it holds short of offering recommendations, and then attaching that fault to Congress, is a bit of a misunderstanding.
Moreover, though, the report is very, very explicit about it being only the first part of an overall response by DOT I.G. to the 737 MAX debacle and tragedies. I'm going to list the main ways in which this is made unmistakable.
First, the "Highlights" page states that I.G. "will report further" at a later time. (And note, the title of the report itself leaves the timeline open, " . . . After the Lion Air 610 Accident", rather than referencing a particular end-point in the federal government response overall.)
Secondly see page 2, where the transmittal memo from the I.G. to the FAA Administrator states as follows (emphasis added):
"This is the first report that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is providing related to these requests. Our overall audit objective was to determine and evaluate FAA’s process for certifying the Boeing 737 MAX series of aircraft. In this report, in response to the Secretary’s request, we provide a detailed timeline of the activities resulting in the certification of the 737 MAX 8. In addition, in response to multiple congressional requests, this report includes timelines of events following the October 2018 Lion Air crash up until the March 2019 Ethiopian Air crash and concurrent related oversight actions and events related to FAA’s ODA program. We are also undertaking additional analyses of FAA’s processes for certifying the 737 MAX 8 aircraft, including its use of the ODA program, as well as examining FAA’s actions following the Ethiopian Air crash. We will report on the results of these and other related reviews in future reports."
Third, and quite conceivably most significantly, on page 10 in the summary section of the report, the I.G. states the following (emphasis added):
"Given that we have an open recommendation for FAA related to ODA and that we are planning additional analysis of FAA’s certification process and the use of the ODA program for the 737 MAX 8 aircraft, we are not making recommendations in this report.The data gathered are informational and represent our observations in response to the Secretary’s and other congressional requests. We will report further on FAA’s oversight of the certification process and other related matters, as well as make recommendations as applicable, in future reports."
The extra emphasis I've added to some of that paragraph stems from the report's preceding paragraph (p.9-10), which states - and I confess this was news to this observer - not only had Boeing paid a 12 million dollar civil penalty for ODA program non-compliance in December 2015, but there also was another non-compliance issue as of November 2018 which the report states is "ongoing". Perhaps not earth-shattering in the light of the debacle and tragedies which occurred . . . but as a former general counsel I have to read this language by the I.G. in conjunction with the memo from the DOT General Counsel which is appended to the report. The DOT and FAA have more than one policy and law-making, and litigation, game in town in which the old governmental wisdom has very much taken hold: You either have a seat at the table, or you're on the menu. (My G.C. role was with an entity tiny and mostly insignificant compared to FAA, but the mind-set is quite standard.)
What I'm driving at, is that Boeing's difficulties with FAA are broader than what has gone badly wrong with the ill-fated 737 MAX certification. It is facing also significant legislative proposals to reconfigure broadly the certification process (both the House and Senate); a tenacious litigant in records disclosure litigation in Washington federal district court; and a growing roster of liability lawsuits by family members of accident victims, and by pilots, and flight attendants. In this context, the I.G. of the U.S. Dep't of Transportation would not, unless an individual of reeking and rank incompetence, make recommendations until the full inquiry is completed, and in all probability, a lot more of the above-referenced table has been set.