a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

December 2004 FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION

Federal Advisory 

Committees Follow 

Requirements, but 

FCC Should Improve 

Its Process for 

Appointing Committee 

Members

GAO-05-36
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-36.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mark Goldstein 

at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-36, a report to the 

Honorable Tom Davis, Chairman, 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

December 2004

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Federal Advisory Committees Follow 

Requirements, but FCC Should Improve 

Its Process for Appointing Committee 

Members 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has seven federal advisory 

committees established at its discretion that address various 

telecommunications issues. FCC officials, committee members, and other 

stakeholders we contacted generally believed FCC’s advisory committees 

operated effectively. 

In forming and operating advisory committees, FCC must follow FACA and 

related regulations, which require, among other things, that committee 

membership is balanced in terms of points of view represented and that 

committee activities are transparent to the public. While FCC follows 

applicable requirements, GAO found that committee members are not 

always clear about their expected role on the committees—that is, the type 

of advice that FCC expects them to provide. FCC designates all of its 

committee members as “representatives,” meaning they are appointed with 

an expectation that they will provide advice reflecting the views of a 

company, organization, or other group. However, approximately 22 percent 

of responding committee members did not say they provided representative 

advice. Further, some committee members are affiliated with universities or 

consulting firms that may not have an obvious telecommunications 

viewpoint. If committee members are expected to primarily provide their 

own expert opinion, they are expected to be impartial and may be more 

appropriately appointed as special government employees. Such members 

are subject to ethics rules administered by the Office of Government Ethics, 

including conflict-of-interest reviews. 

While FCC is not required to implement the advice or recommendations of 

its advisory committees, FCC has taken actions based on these committees’ 

recommendations. Overall, GAO found FCC officials tended to be more 

satisfied with how FCC implements the committees’ recommendations than 

other stakeholders, including committee members themselves. For example, 

of the committee members who responded to a GAO survey, only 54 percent 

were satisfied with the extent to which FCC takes the committees’ advice 

into account when developing policy. Further, three trade groups we 

contacted said that the advisory committees’ advice and recommendations 

have little influence on FCC actions. 

In addition to its seven federal advisory committees, FCC considers five 

advisory groups as exempt from FACA requirements, including two “joint 

boards,” two “joint conferences,” and the Intergovernmental Advisory 

Committee. FCC was mandated to establish the joint boards and created the 

joint conferences at its discretion. Since the joint boards and joint 

conferences are considered exempt from FACA, they function differently 

from FCC’s federal advisory committees. FCC created the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, which it also considers exempt 

from FACA, to address telecommunications issues affecting state, local, and 

tribal governments. 

FCC has regulatory authority over 

many complex telecommunications 

issues. To obtain expert advice on 

these issues, FCC often calls upon 

its federal advisory committees, 

comprised mostly of members from 

industry, private consulting, 

advocacy groups, and government. 

These committees must follow the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), which sets requirements 

on the formation and operation of 

such committees. Because of your 

interest in how FCC receives 

advice from outside experts, this 

report provides information on (1) 

FCC’s current advisory 

committees, (2) the extent to which 

the committees follow applicable 

laws, (3) how FCC makes use of 

the committees’ advice, and (4) the 

non-FACA advisory groups that 

FCC has established. 

What GAO Recommends

To better ensure that FCC’s federal 

advisory committee members are 

fully informed about the type of 

advice they are being asked to 

provide, we recommend that FCC 

establish a process for determining 

and documenting the type of advice 

that members are expected to 

contribute. Committee members 

who are not representing a specific 

viewpoint may be more 

appropriately appointed as special 

government employees. 

FCC noted that future appointment 

letters for representative members 

would make clear the underlying 

viewpoint the advisory committee 

member is expected to represent. 
Page i GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

FCC’s Federal Advisory Committees Address a Variety of Technical 

and Operational Issues, and Stakeholders View the Committees as 

Functioning Effectively 7

FCC and Its Advisory Committees Adhere to FACA and Related 

Regulations, but Committee Members Are Not Always Clear 

About the Role FCC Expects Them to Provide When They Are 

Appointed to Committees 14

FCC Has Taken Action on Advisory Committee Recommendations, 

but Stakeholders’ Views on FCC’s Use of Committee Work 

Varied 22

FCC Has Five Advisory Groups That It Considers Exempt from 

FACA; These Groups Function Differently from Federal Advisory 

Committees 25

Conclusions 29

Recommendation for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments 30

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32

Appendix II: Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory Committees and 

Advisory Groups Exempt from FACA 36

Advisory Committee for the 2007 World Radiocommunication 

Conference 36

Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital 

Age 38

Consumer Advisory Committee 40

Media Security and Reliability Council 42

Network Reliability and Interoperability Council 44

North American Numbering Council 46

Technological Advisory Council 48

Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations 50

Joint Board on Universal Service 50

Joint Conference on Accounting Issues 51

Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services 52

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee 52
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Appendix III: GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory Committee 

Members 54

Appendix IV: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission 67

Appendix V: Comments from the Office of Government Ethics 69

Table Table 1: Committee Members’ Satisfaction with Aspects of FCC’s 

Management of Advisory Committees 21

Figures Figure 1: FCC Federal Advisory Committee Survey Respondents’ 

Reported Employment Sector 9

Figure 2: Committee Member Views on the Extent to Which Full 

Committees Deliberate the Proposals of Their 

Subcommittees by Committee 13

Figure 3: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment 

Sector for the Advisory Committee for the 2007 World 

Radiocommunication Conference 37

Figure 4: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment 

Sector for the Advisory Committee on Diversity for 

Communications in the Digital Age 39

Figure 5: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment 

Sector for the Consumer Advisory Committee 41

Figure 6: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment 

Sector for the Media Security and Reliability Council 43

Figure 7: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment 

Sector for Network Reliability and Interoperability 

Council 45

Figure 8: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment 

Sector for the North American Numbering Council 47

Figure 9: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment 

Sector for the Technological Advisory Council 49
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Abbreviations

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FCC Federal Communications Commission

GSA General Services Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

December 10, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulatory and 

oversight authority over an array of issues and industries including 

telephone, broadcasting, wireless devices, and international 

telecommunication and satellite services. FCC deliberates most policy 

issues within the rulemaking process, but many of the issues before FCC 

involve complex technical issues or require compromise among varied 

industry segments—factors that can make resolution of issues difficult 

within the standard rulemaking process. To augment that process, the 

Commission often calls upon experts and stakeholders for advice through 

federal advisory committees. For example, FCC’s federal advisory 

committees have provided advice and recommendations on emerging 

technologies, consumer interests, and other industry challenges.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act1 (FACA) sets requirements regarding 

how agencies establish federal advisory committees and how the activities 

of the committees are conducted. Because of your interest in how FCC 

receives advice from experts and stakeholders, you asked us to provide 

information about FCC’s current federal advisory committees and other 

FCC advisory groups that do not operate under FACA. Specifically, this 

report provides information on (1) FCC’s current federal advisory 

committees and how they operate, (2) the extent to which FCC’s federal 

advisory committees follow applicable laws and regulations, (3) how FCC 

uses federal advisory committee advice and recommendations, and (4) 

what advisory groups FCC has established that are not characterized as 

FACA committees and how such groups operate. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed FACA and related regulations. We 

also interviewed federal officials from FCC, the General Services 

Administration (GSA), and the Office of Government Ethics. We obtained 

views on the operations and effectiveness of federal advisory committees 

from FCC officials, including all five commissioners, several bureau chiefs, 

1

Pub. L. 92-463, codified at 5 U.S.C. app. 2.
Page 2 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

the deputy committee management officer, the designated agency ethics 

official, and the designated federal officers for each of the federal advisory 

committees. To obtain the perspectives of stakeholders outside of federal 

government, we asked 12 trade and interest group representatives for their 

views about the quality and usefulness of the advisory committees’ work. 

We also interviewed the committee chairmen for FCC’s current seven 

advisory committees and collected information from current committee 

members in March through June 2004 using a Web-based survey. We 

designed the survey to obtain committee members’ views on various 

aspects of committee operations and effectiveness. We obtained completed 

questionnaires from 200 committee members for a response rate of 71 

percent.2

 To determine if committee operations had changed over time, we 

also interviewed a small sample of committee members who served on 

FCC advisory committees chartered in 1998 or 1999 and asked them 

questions very similar to those we asked in our survey of current members. 

Finally, we interviewed non-FACA advisory committee members and 

obtained documentation and legislation relating to the formation of FCC’s 

joint boards, joint conferences, and the Intergovernmental Advisory 

Committee. We conducted our work between November 2003 and 

September 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. See appendix I for a more detailed discussion of our 

scope and methodology.

Results in Brief FCC currently has seven federal advisory committees that address various 

technical, operational, and consumer telecommunications issues. For 

example, one advisory committee focuses on the reliability and 

interoperability of communications networks, while another committee 

strives to increase consumer participation in proceedings before the 

Commission. All of FCC’s federal advisory committees are discretionary, 

meaning the committees were not required to be established by law but 

rather were established by FCC. In fiscal year 2004, FCC’s advisory 

committees had a combined budget of $1.2 million. FCC officials, 

committee members, and other stakeholders with whom we 

communicated generally believed FCC’s advisory committees operated 

effectively. We also found that most advisory committees formed 

subcommittees to facilitate committee operations and that a substantial 

2

In reporting survey results in this report, we collapsed data together from some categories, 

such as “very satisfied” and “satisfied.” The detailed survey questions and results can be 

found in appendix III. 
Page 3 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

amount of the advisory committees’ work was completed at the 

subcommittee level. Often the subcommittees utilized telephone and 

videoconferencing, as well as e-mail exchanges, to conduct committee 

work.

Like other federal advisory committees, FCC’s advisory committees must 

follow FACA and related regulations prescribed by GSA. Under FACA and 

GSA regulations, agency heads are responsible for many aspects of 

advisory committee management, such as ensuring that committee 

membership is balanced in terms of points of view and interests 

represented, and for ensuring that committee operations are transparent to 

the public. In general, we found that FCC follows the requirements 

prescribed by FACA and related regulations. However, we found that 

committee members are not always clear about their expected role on the 

committees—that is, the type of advice that FCC expects them to provide. 

In particular, FCC has designated all federal advisory committee members 

as representative members, meaning that FCC appointed them with the 

expectation that they would provide advice reflecting the views of the 

organization, company, or institution they represent. However, 22 percent 

of committee members who responded to our survey did not say they were 

providing representative advice; and, in the majority of these cases, 

members reported that they contribute their own expert opinion. 

Moreover, some members of FCC’s federal advisory committees do not 

work for companies within the telecommunications sector, and thus may 

not have an obvious interest that they would be representing on FCC’s 

advisory committees. The Office of Government Ethics distinguishes 

between “special government employees” and representative members of 

advisory committees: committee members designated as special 

government employees are expected to be impartial and are subject to 

ethics rules—including conflict-of-interest reviews—administered by the 

Office of Government Ethics, while committee members designated as 

representatives are viewed by the Office of Government Ethics as having 

been appointed to represent a particular and known viewpoint, and thus 

not subject to ethics review. It appears that certain members of FCC’s 

advisory committees do not fully understand their roles. Some members 

who FCC has designated as representatives do not believe they are 

providing advice that represents the position of a particular group. If FCC 

intends for certain members to provide primarily their own expert advice, 

such members may be more appropriately appointed as special 

government employees rather than as representative committee members. 

If members are so designated, they would be subject to the Office of 
Page 4 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Government Ethics rules that apply to special government employees, 

which would include conflict-of-interest reviews. 

According to FCC officials, the Commission has taken action on its federal 

advisory committees’ recommendations. FCC’s Chairman stated that the 

advisory committee recommendations could be implemented in various 

ways, such as incorporating recommendations into regulations or less 

formally by publicizing committee work at trade shows or other public 

events. However, the stakeholders we contacted had varied views on FCC’s 

efforts to implement recommendations. FCC officials, including the bureau 

chiefs and designated federal officers who have responsibility for the 

advisory committees, tended to be more satisfied with how FCC 

implements the committees’ recommendations than committee members. 

In fact, only 54 percent of committee members who responded to our 

survey were satisfied with the extent to which FCC takes the committees’ 

advice into account when developing policy. Another 27 percent were 

neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and more than 8 percent were dissatisfied 

or very dissatisfied with the extent to which FCC takes committees’ advice 

into account when developing policy. Further, representatives from three 

trade and interest groups we contacted said that the advisory committees’ 

advice has little influence on FCC actions.

In addition to its seven federal advisory committees, FCC has five advisory 

groups that it considers exempt from FACA requirements. FCC was 

mandated to establish two of the advisory groups, known as “joint boards,” 

as a result of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act 

of 1996, as amended. FCC also created two “joint conferences” at its 

discretion to advise the agency on issues over which FCC has regulatory 

jurisdiction. Both the joint boards and conferences function rather 

differently from FCC’s federal advisory committees in part due to their 

exemption from FACA requirements—in particular, they do not have a 

charter guiding their operations, and their meetings are not open to the 

public. Additionally, FCC created the Intergovernmental Advisory 

Committee, which it also considers exempt from FACA, to address issues 

affecting state, local, and tribal governments that are within the jurisdiction 

of FCC. Unlike the joint boards and conferences, the Intergovernmental 

Advisory Committee functions similarly to federal advisory committees in 

some respects, although it does not hold open meetings.

To better ensure FCC’s federal advisory committee members are fully 

informed about the advice they are being asked to provide, we recommend 

that FCC establish a process for determining and documenting the type of 
Page 5 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

advice federal advisory committee members are expected to contribute. 

FCC should appoint advisory committee members as representatives only 

after making a clear determination of what interests those members are 

expected to represent on the committee, and members without a clear 

representative role may be more appropriately appointed as special 

government employees. For representative members, FCC should 

specifically state what particular interest those members are appointed to 

represent. 

We provided a draft of this report to FCC, GSA, and the Office of 

Government Ethics for review and comment. All of the agencies agreed 

with our recommendation. Written comments from FCC and the Office of 

Government Ethics are provided in appendixes IV and V, respectively. 

Background Enacted by Congress in 1972, FACA responded to concerns that federal 

advisory committees were proliferating without adequate review, 

oversight, or accountability. Congress included measures in FACA intended 

to ensure that advisory committees responded to valid needs, that the 

committees’ proceedings were as open as feasible to the public, and that 

Congress was kept informed of the committees’ activities. FACA articulates 

certain principles regarding advisory committees, including broad 

requirements for balance, transparency, and independence.3

 For example, 

regarding the requirement for balance, FACA requires advisory committees 

to have membership fairly representing an array of viewpoints and 

interests. FACA also requires agencies to announce committee meetings in 

advance and in general, to hold open meetings.4

 FACA also sets forth other 

requirements for advisory committee formation, their operations, and how 

they provide advice and recommendations to the federal government. For 

example, FACA stipulates that Congress, the President, or federal agencies 

3

We previously issued a report that examined the guidance provided by GSA and the Office 

of Government Ethics to all agencies that use federal advisory committees. The report 

includes a variety of recommendations regarding that guidance intended to help ensure that 

the committee member selection and designation process is fully transparent and 

appropriate. GAO, Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help 

Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance, GAO-04-328 (Washington, D.C.: April 

16, 2004). 

4

The President or head of an agency may determine that a meeting be closed if, for example, 

the meeting will include discussions of classified information, reviews of proprietary data 

submitted in support of federal grant applications, or deliberations involving considerations 

of personal privacy. 
Page 6 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

are authorized to establish federal advisory committees. Some federal 

advisory committees are created by an agency at the direction of a statute, 

but all other agency-created advisory committees are commonly referred to 

as “discretionary” federal advisory committees. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has established a maximum number of discretionary 

federal advisory committees that each agency could establish, which varies 

by agency.5

 Additionally, the subcommittees of a federal advisory 

committee are generally exempt from following FACA requirements if they 

report to a parent advisory committee. Alternatively, if a subcommittee 

provides advice and recommendations directly to a federal agency, it is 

required to comply with FACA requirements.

FACA does not require agencies to implement the advice or 

recommendations of their federal advisory committees; advisory 

committees are by design advisory. For regulatory agencies governed by 

the Administrative Procedures Act, such as FCC, the relationship between 

consideration and implementation of a federal advisory committee’s advice 

and recommendations is complicated because those agencies must follow 

certain rules and processes in their rulemaking efforts. Consequently, while 

an advisory committee’s advice and recommendations may form the basis 

for a regulatory agency’s notice of proposed rulemaking, factors beyond 

the advisory committee’s advice may play a role in determining what action 

an agency ultimately takes.

GSA, through its Committee Management Secretariat, is responsible for 

prescribing administrative guidelines and management controls applicable 

to federal advisory committees governmentwide. While GSA does not 

approve or deny agency decisions about creating or managing advisory 

committees, GSA has developed regulations, guidance, and training to help 

agencies implement FACA requirements. GSA also created and maintains 

an online FACA database (available to the public at

www.fido.gov/facadatabase), which contains information about each 

federal advisory committee, including committee charters, membership 

rosters, budgets, and, in many cases, links to committee meeting schedules, 

minutes, and reports. 

5

OMB took this action in response to Executive Order 12838, issued by the President in 

February 1993. The order directed agencies to reduce by, at least, one-third the number of 

discretionary advisory committees by the end of fiscal year 1993.
Page 7 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Not every advisory committee or group that provides advice or 

recommendations to an agency is subject to the requirements prescribed in 

FACA. To be subject to FACA, a discretionary committee or group must 

have been created to provide advice or recommendations for the President 

or one or more agencies or officers of the federal government. Groups 

assembled only to exchange facts or information with federal officials are 

not federal advisory committees, nor are certain groups made up of only 

state or local officials. FACA explicitly exempts some committees from its 

requirements,6

 and certain other groups are exempt under other statutes. 

For example, in some instances the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

19957

 exempts advisory committees that are composed wholly of federal, 

state, local, or tribal government officials. Groups that are exempt from 

FACA are not required to comply with the procedural and transparency 

provisions of the act. 

FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees Address a 

Variety of Technical 

and Operational Issues, 

and Stakeholders View 

the Committees as 

Functioning Effectively

FCC established seven discretionary federal advisory committees to 

examine a range of technical and operational telecommunications issues. 

The stakeholders we contacted—including committee members, FCC 

officials, and trade and interest group representatives—viewed the 

operations of the committees as effective. Almost all of the advisory 

committees established subcommittees to address specific topics, and we 

found that the majority of the advisory committees’ work is completed at 

the subcommittee level. 

FCC’s Seven Current 

Discretionary Advisory 

Committees Examine 

Technical and Operational 

Telecommunications Issues 

FCC currently has seven advisory committees that provide advice and 

recommendations to the agency on numerous technical and operational 

telecommunications issues. These issues range from interoperability and 

security of communications networks to consumer and diversity concerns 

regarding telecommunications markets. All of FCC’s federal advisory 

committees are “discretionary”—that is, they were established by FCC 

under its own authority to create such committees. In fiscal year 2004, 

6

Excluded groups include groups consisting entirely of federal government employees as 

well as groups created by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Public 

Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Reserve System.

7

Pub. L. 104-4, codified at 2 U.S.C. § 1534(b).
Page 8 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

FCC’s advisory committees had a combined budget of $1.2 million. 

Following is a brief description of the objective of each of FCC’s seven 

federal advisory committees. See appendix II for additional information on 

each of the advisory committees.

• Advisory Committee for the 2007 World Radiocommunication 

Conference: Provides advice and technical support to FCC, and 

recommends proposals for the 2007 World Radiocommunication 

Conference.

• Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the 

Digital Age: Makes recommendations to FCC about policies and 

practices that will further enhance the ability of minorities and women 

to participate in telecommunications. 

• Consumer Advisory Committee: Makes recommendations to FCC 

regarding consumer issues in telecommunications and strives to 

increase consumer participation in proceedings before FCC.

• Media Security and Reliability Council: Provides recommendations 

to FCC and industry on how to implement a comprehensive national 

strategy for broadcast and media sustainability in the event of terrorist 

attacks, natural disasters, and all other threats or attacks nationwide.

• Network Reliability and Interoperability Council: Provides 

recommendations to FCC and to the communications industry that will 

help to ensure the reliability and interoperability of wireless, wireline, 

satellite, cable, and public data networks, including emergency 

communications networks.

• North American Numbering Council: Provides advice and 

recommendations to FCC that foster efficient and impartial 

administration of the North American Numbering Plan.8

8

AT&T developed the North American Numbering Plan in 1947 to simplify and facilitate 

direct dialing of long-distance calls. Implementation of the plan began in 1951 with the use 

of a 10-digit telephone number format, consisting of a 3-digit numbering plan area code, 

commonly called an area code, followed by a 7-digit local number.
Page 9 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

• Technological Advisory Council: Provides technical advice to FCC 

and makes recommendations on technological and technical issues 

related to innovation in the communications industry.

At the time we conducted our study, FCC’s federal advisory committees 

had over 280 members. These members represent numerous sectors across 

telecommunications including industry, academia, advocacy groups, 

private consulting, and government. As shown in figure 1, our survey data 

indicate the majority of members come from private businesses. 

Figure 1: FCC Federal Advisory Committee Survey Respondents’ Reported 

Employment Sectors 

Note: Trade unions/labor organizations and “no response” accounted for 1 percent of survey responses.

According to FCC’s Chairman, the Commission creates federal advisory 

committees at its discretion to advise the agency on operational or 

technical issues associated with FCC’s statutory responsibilities. All of 

FCC’s advisory committees are chartered for a 2-year period. 

Recommendations for forming federal advisory committees at FCC can 

come from a variety of sources. For example, two designated federal 

56% 9.5%

8.5%

8.5%

Private business

6.5%

Other

Federal government

1.5%

College or university

3%

Trade association

Private consulting

5.5%

State or local government

Advocacy or nonprofit organization

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC advisory committee members.
Page 10 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

officers said that problems in the telecommunications industry, such as 

widespread telecommunications outages and telephone numbering 

shortages, were the impetus behind the creation of two committees. When 

considering which advisory committees to establish, FCC said that the 

Commission’s committee management officer—the agency official 

responsible for managing and overseeing the advisory committees—

evaluates the usefulness and mission of a potential committee to ensure the 

benefits of establishing the committee are clear. While the committee 

management officer determines which advisory committees are to be 

established, the opinions of FCC’s Chairman are taken into consideration. 

As prescribed by OMB, FCC is limited to eight discretionary federal 

advisory committees, but FCC officials we interviewed said that this limit 

does not pose a problem, and there are no plans to create additional 

committees at this time.

Committee Members, FCC 

Officials, and Interest Group 

Representatives Generally 

Believe That Advisory 

Committees Function 

Effectively 

Advisory committee members who responded to our survey, as well as the 

FCC officials and trade and interest groups we contacted, said the 

committees generally operate and function effectively. For example, 87 

percent of responding committee members were satisfied with the clarity 

of their committees’ operating rules and procedures. Regarding committee 

operations, 73 percent of the responding members said they were satisfied 

with how the committees use technology to facilitate meetings. 

Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of members agreed that fellow 

members represent parties that have an interest in the mission and agenda 

of the committee, and that committee members have sufficient knowledge 

and experience to provide input on the issues addressed by the committee. 

Overall, 82 percent of responding committee members were satisfied with 

their experience of serving on the committee, and almost 90 percent 

responded that they would be interested in serving on the committee again. 

Moreover, most of the advisory committee members who served previously 

also told us that they were satisfied with their committee experience. 

Most of the committee chairmen we interviewed believed the advisory 

committee process works well. For example, one chairman said the 

process facilitates communication, input, and openness. Another 

committee chairman told us that the advisory committee process is an 

effective venue for both FCC and industry to participate in the agency's 

rulemaking process. He further stated that FCC receives a lot of talented 

advice at little cost, which is important because, in his view, FCC lacks 

adequate technical expertise. Another committee chairman said that FCC 
Page 11 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

staff do not have the level of expertise that exists on the advisory 

committee and could not afford to hire such experts. 

FCC officials we contacted, including bureau chiefs and designated federal 

officers, also told us that the advisory committee process generally 

functions well. For example, one bureau chief told us that the advisory 

committee structure gives FCC access to industry expertise at a minimal 

cost to taxpayers. Further, he commented that FACA requirements help 

FCC ensure that committee operations remain transparent and accessible 

to the public. According to another bureau chief, advisory committees 

provide a unique opportunity for the top experts in important technical 

fields to provide FCC with the benefits of their knowledge in a 

nonadversarial context. One FCC designated federal officer said his 

committee works tremendously well, with a lot of talented people working 

to achieve the committee’s objectives. FCC’s Chairman and one 

commissioner, as well as all the bureau chiefs that we contacted, agreed 

that effective committee operations enhanced the ability of their advisory 

committees to reach consensus and subsequently produce useful 

recommendations for FCC.

Several of the trade and interest group representatives that we interviewed 

also told us that FCC advisory committees function effectively. For 

example, several representatives remarked that the advisory committee 

process is an effective forum for bringing people together from various 

industry sectors to collaborate on advisory committee issues. Further, the 

trade group representatives generally believe FCC's advisory committees 

address current and important telecommunication issues and that 

members have sufficient knowledge to address committee issues. 

However, three trade group representatives told us that the advisory 

committee process was ineffective because FCC does not always 

implement the committees’ advice. To increase the effectiveness of 

advisory committee functions, several trade groups provided suggestions 

for possible improvements. For example, one representative said that FCC 

could increase the use of subcommittees while another told us that FCC 

should provide funding for travel and develop other methods to improve 

committee participation among underserved groups.

Subcommittees Perform the 

Majority of FCC’s Federal 

Advisory Committees’ Work

Most of FCC’s federal advisory committees have subcommittees that 

collect information and develop draft recommendations for the full 

committee, with only one committee—the Technological Advisory 

Council—having no subcommittees. The committee chairmen and 
Page 12 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

designated federal officers told us that a substantial amount of committee 

work is completed at the subcommittee level because, generally, the full 

committees meet less frequently than the subcommittees. In fact, 

subcommittees often conduct their work in informal ways, such as via 

telephone and videoconferencing, e-mail exchanges, and additional inperson meetings. The committee members who responded to our survey 

agreed, with 79 percent responding that more work is completed at the 

subcommittee level than at the full committee. About 76 percent of the 

survey respondents also reported that they have served as subcommittee 

members. Committee members generally volunteer to serve as 

subcommittee members, but they can also be selected for service by the 

committee or subcommittee chairman, an FCC official, or other committee 

members. Our survey results also showed that approximately 80 percent of 

responding members were satisfied with subcommittee operations. We 

heard from committee chairmen that most subcommittees set their own 

agenda and have strong participation by their members. Further, two 

committee chairmen said the meetings for their subcommittees are open to 

the public.9

An advisory committee’s subcommittees are not subject to FACA 

requirements if they report to a parent advisory committee and the parent 

advisory committee deliberates the subcommittee’s recommendations 

before adopting and passing them on to the agency. According to our 

survey, approximately 68 percent of the responding committee members 

said their committees deliberate the proposals of their subcommittees from 

a moderate to very great extent. As shown in figure 2, the extent to which 

full committees deliberated the proposals of their subcommittees varied by 

committee.

9

As mentioned previously, only subcommittees that make recommendations directly to a 

federal agency must have meetings conducted in accordance with FACA’s openness 

requirements.
Page 13 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Figure 2: Committee Members’ Views on the Extent to Which Full Committees Deliberate the Proposals of Their Subcommittees 

by Committee

Note: The Technological Advisory Council does not have any subcommittees, so it is not included in 

this figure.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Consumer 

Advisory 

Committee

Advisory 

Committee on 

Diversity for 

Communications 

in the Digital Age

Media

Security and 

Reliability 

Council

North

American

Numbering 

Council

Network

Reliability and 

Interoperability 

Council

Advisory Committee 

for the 2007 World 

Radiocommunication 

Conference

Percentage of committee members

Very great to great extent

Little to no extent

Moderate to some extent

Do not know/no response

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC advisory committee members.
Page 14 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

FCC and Its Advisory 

Committees Adhere to 

FACA and Related 

Regulations, but 

Committee Members 

Are Not Always Clear 

About the Role FCC 

Expects Them to 

Provide When They 

Are Appointed to 

Committees

FACA governs the establishment, operation, and termination of federal 

advisory committees. Under FACA and GSA regulations, agency heads are 

responsible for the administration of their advisory committees, including 

establishing key administrative functions for the advisory committees, 

forming the committees, ensuring committee operations are transparent, 

and ensuring that the products advisory committees produce are fully 

independent of the agency that established the committee.

Agencies Must Have Certain 

Organizational Procedures 

in Place to Support the 

Establishment of Federal 

Advisory Committees 

To establish the framework in which the federal advisory committees can 

function, FACA requires that agencies, among other things, have (1) a 

“committee management officer,” (2) operating guidelines for the agency’s 

federal advisory committees, and (3) a process in place to report key data 

about each committee to GSA. 

Committee management officer: Agencies must designate a committee 

management officer to assist with the management of their advisory 

committees and to oversee the agency’s compliance with FACA 

requirements. FCC has delegated this responsibility to the Managing 

Director of FCC. In addition to advisory committee oversight, the Office of 

the Managing Director is generally responsible for activities involving the 

administration and management of FCC, such as developing and managing 

the agency’s budget and financial programs, and overseeing the agency’s 

personnel management process and policy. We found that the committee 

management officer delegated many of his advisory committee oversight 

responsibilities to an advisory committee liaison. 

Administrative guidelines: The act also requires agency heads to issue 

administrative guidelines and management controls applicable to their 

agency’s advisory committees. When we asked FCC if the Commission had 

administrative guidelines, as required by FACA, an FCC official provided us 

with guidelines that had expired in August 1998. In May 2004, the deputy 

committee management officer told us that FCC continued to use the 
Page 15 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

expired guidelines on an informal basis and that the Commission was 

planning to reinstate the guidance in the near future, as a result of our 

review. On September 9, 2004, FCC reinstated their administrative 

guidelines with no revisions. 

Reporting committee information to GSA: Agencies are required to report 

information electronically on each advisory committee using a 

governmentwide shared Internet-based system that GSA maintains. The 

information contained in this Internet-based system (or database) can be 

used by the Congress to perform oversight of related executive branch 

programs and by the public, the media, and others, to stay abreast of 

important developments resulting from advisory committee activities. FCC 

has been submitting committee information to GSA as required.

FACA and Regulations 

Impose Several 

Requirements on the 

Formation of Federal 

Advisory Committees

The act has various requirements that relate to the formation of advisory 

committees. In particular, committees must (1) be in the public interest and 

related to the agency’s area of responsibility, (2) have a charter, (3) have a 

designated federal officer, and (4) have balanced membership. 

Public interest: FACA requires the agency establishing an advisory 

committee to find that the committee is in the public interest and related to 

the agency’s area of responsibility. According to GSA, agencies must 

provide a statement that their advisory committees are in the public 

interest and essential to agency business in their justifications submitted to 

GSA for establishing an advisory committee. FCC provided such a 

statement to GSA for all of its advisory committees. 

Charter: FACA requires all committees to have a charter that contains 

specific information, including the committee’s scope and objectives, a 

description of duties, the period of time necessary to carry out its purposes, 

the estimated operating costs, and the number and frequency of meetings. 

All of FCC’s advisory committees are operating under charters that met the 

specific requirements.

Designated federal officer: The act requires agency heads to appoint a 

designated federal officer for each committee to oversee the committee’s 

activities, call the meetings of the committee, approve the agendas, and 

attend the meetings. Each of FCC’s advisory committees has a designated 

federal officer who abides by these requirements.
Page 16 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Balanced membership: FACA also requires that the membership of 

committees be fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented. Our 

survey of committee members as well as discussions with FCC officials 

indicated that most stakeholders believed the committees had balanced 

membership. For example, all of the FCC bureau chiefs and designated 

federal officers we contacted, as well as the committee chairmen, said they 

believe committee membership is balanced. Further, 88 percent of the 

committee members who responded to our survey agreed that members 

represent divergent points of views. FCC commissioners were more split 

on this issue. FCC’s Chairman and one commissioner stated that the 

committees are adequately balanced while two others stated the 

committees are not always inclusive of varied interests.10 Of the trade and 

interest groups we contacted, five said they believed the advisory 

committees had balanced membership. For example, one trade group 

representative said FCC tries to be very inclusive with the committees’ 

membership, and another said FCC goes out of its way to ensure the 

committees are balanced. However, six of the trade group representatives 

we contacted did not believe the advisory committees were balanced. Of 

those with this view, four said that the committees had too many industry 

representatives, one said the committees did not have enough consumer 

representation, and one said the committees lacked geographical and 

ethnic diversity. 

According to FCC’s Chairman, the Commission has gone to great lengths to 

ensure advisory committee membership is fairly balanced regarding the 

points of view represented and the functions performed. He stated that the 

advisory committees’ members represent a broad array of service and 

equipment providers of all sizes, as well as trade organizations and 

members of the academic community. Information regarding committee 

membership contained in the FACA database and that we collected from 

FCC’s designated federal officers indicates that FCC attempted to draw 

committee membership from many facets of the telecommunications 

industry. For example, FCC reported that members for one advisory 

committee represent large and small telecommunications consumers, local 

and interstate carriers, state regulators, equipment and software 

manufacturers, satellite companies, cable companies, Internet service 

providers, wireless companies, and research organizations. According to 

FCC, members for another advisory committee were selected to represent 

a broad and balanced viewpoint, with members from nonprofit consumer 

10One commissioner did not respond to us on the issue of balanced membership.
Page 17 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

and disability advocacy organizations, industry, underserved populations, 

Native Americans, and private citizens. Membership for another advisory 

committee is completely open—meaning any interested party can 

participate in committee activities.11

Membership designation: While membership must be balanced, federal 

agencies generally have a reasonable amount of discretion to appoint 

members to serve on committees. Agencies also have discretion to 

determine what type of advice the advisory committee members are to 

provide. Members of advisory committees may be appointed as 

“representatives,” which means they are providing “stakeholder advice” or 

advice reflecting the views of the entity or interest group they are 

representing (such as industry, labor, or consumers). Committee members 

may also be appointed as “special government employees,” which means 

the agency appoints them with the expectation that they will provide 

advice on the basis of their best judgment. The Office of Government 

Ethics distinguishes between special government employees and 

representative members. Committee members appointed as special 

government employees who are not representative members are expected 

to be impartial and are subject to conflict-of-interest rules administered by 

the Office of Government Ethics. Committee members designated merely 

as representative are viewed by the Office of Government Ethics as having 

been appointed to represent a particular and known viewpoint, and thus 

are not subject to the same ethics review. Consistent with guidance 

provided by the Office of Government Ethics,12 GSA officials told us that 

GSA cannot control how agencies designate their members, but they 

generally said that if an agency is looking for a committee member to 

provide his or her expert advice, the member should be designated as a 

special government employee; if the member is to provide the views of an 

outside entity, the member should be designated as representative.

11In our recent report on federal advisory committees, GAO-04-328, p. 53, we recommended 

that GSA provide guidance to agencies regarding steps that could be taken that might help 

to ensure that advisory committees have balanced membership. Such guidance is intended 

to help promote a consistent process for ensuring that all federal agencies take steps to 

ensure balanced membership on their advisory committees. At this time, it appears that 

consideration of balance was a major factor in determining committee membership for 

FCC’s current federal advisory committees.

12Office of Government Ethics Memorandum to Heads of Departments and Agencies of the 

Executive Branch, July 9, 1982 (82 x 22), and Memorandum to Designated Agency Ethics 

Officials, General Counsels and Inspectors General, February 15, 2000 (00 x 1).
Page 18 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

FCC has designated all current members of its federal advisory committees 

as representatives. The FCC official who is responsible for determining if 

proper designations are made—the designated agency ethics official—told 

us he discusses member designations with the committees’ designated 

federal officers, but he generally does not review any documents to 

determine what type of advice the member is expected to provide. The 

ethics official said that it is a long-standing tradition at the Commission to 

appoint all members as representative. The ethics official also told us there 

is an emphasis at FCC for members to provide the representative positions 

of groups, given the nature of the industry, which makes the representative 

designation more appropriate. 

FCC’s designation of all committee members as representatives suggests an 

expectation that all of the members would contribute the opinion of the 

organization, company, or institution that they represent. However, we 

found that for some members it is unclear what interests they should be 

representing on the advisory committees because they do not directly work 

within the telecommunications industry. Rather these members—who 

comprised almost 13 percent of our survey respondents—are affiliated 

with universities or private consulting companies.13 Of the six survey 

respondents who work for universities, five reported that they only provide 

their own expert advice and not advice that represents the position of a 

particular group.14 Similarly, nearly half of those who work in private 

consulting reported that they only provide their own expert advice. 

Additionally, we found that—even for those members who do work for 

entities within the telecommunications industry—there might be confusion 

for some of them about the type of advice they were expected to provide to 

the committee. About 13 percent of the respondents who work for private 

businesses reported that they do not view themselves as providing 

representative advice, despite being designated by FCC as representative 

members. All told, only 78 percent of the survey respondents said they 

provide the opinion of the organization, company, or institution that they 

represent. A majority of the 22 percent of respondents who did not view 

their advice as representative said that they provided advice based on their 

own expert opinion. 

13See appendix II for the employment sectors of committee members who responded to our 

survey for each of FCC’s advisory committees.

14Survey respondents were allowed to check that they provide either or both types of advice.
Page 19 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

These results suggest two points regarding the designation of members and 

their understanding of their advisory roles. First, if certain members—such 

as those affiliated with universities or who work in private consulting—

were appointed to provide their best professional judgment rather than the 

representative position of a particular group, they might be more 

appropriately appointed as special government employees. If members are 

so designated, they would be subject to the Office of Government Ethics 

rules for special government employees. Second, some members who FCC 

has designated as representatives do not believe they are contributing the 

advice of the organization, company, or institution that they were selected 

to represent. As such, these members may not fully understand what role 

they were appointed to play on the advisory committee. 

In our recent report on federal advisory committees,15 we recommended 

that GSA issue guidance stating that agencies should specify in the 

appointment letters to committee members whether they are appointed as 

special government employees or as representatives. We further 

recommended that for those appointed as representative members, the 

entity or group that they are to represent should be noted in the letter. GSA 

and the Office of Government Ethics provided formal statements to us that 

outline actions they have taken and plans they are developing to address 

our report recommendations. For example, the Office of Government 

Ethics issued additional guidance, dated July 19, 2004, which discusses the 

distinction between representative committee members and special 

government employees.16 GSA officials told us that they consulted with the 

Office of Government Ethics and modified their training on the matter of 

representative versus special government employee designations.

We found that for its advisory committees, FCC was already generally 

telling members that they were to provide representative advice on behalf 

of their employer in their appointment letters. However, for those members 

affiliated with universities, law firms, or consulting firms who are told to 

provide advice on behalf of such entities, the underlying viewpoint on 

telecommunications issues that the member is expected to represent is not 

clear because such institutions generally do not have an obvious viewpoint

15GAO-04-328, p. 54.

16Office of Government Ethics Memorandum to Designated Agency Ethics Officials, July 19, 

2004 (DO-04-022).
Page 20 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

on telecommunications issues.17 While FCC may have selected these 

individuals to represent particular telecommunications viewpoints, those 

viewpoints are not specifically stated in the appointment letter. That is, 

naming the institution to be represented might not always make clear the 

viewpoint to be represented.

Requirements Guide Many 

Aspects of Advisory 

Committee Operations 

Regarding advisory committee operations, FACA generally requires 

committee meetings to be open to the public. Also, GSA regulations 

provide principles that agencies should apply to their management of 

advisory committees, including (1) supplying support services for their 

committees, (2) seeking feedback from advisory committee members on 

the effectiveness of committee activities, and (3) communicating to the 

committee members how their advice has affected agency programs and 

decision making. 

Openness: FACA requires agencies to announce committee meetings ahead 

of time and give notice to interested parties about such meetings. With 

some exceptions, the meetings are to be open to the public, and agencies 

are to prepare meeting minutes and make them available to interested 

parties. During our review, we found that FCC provided adequate notice of 

meetings, held open meetings and prepared minutes in accordance with the 

act for all of its advisory committees.

Support services: FACA and GSA regulations specify that agencies should 

provide support services for their committees. According to the designated 

federal officers, FCC typically provides meeting facilities and 

administrative and logistical support for the committees. At the time of our 

review, most of the designated federal officers, as well as the deputy 

committee management officer, said the committees had sufficient 

resources to effectively conduct committee operations. While each 

advisory committee has a budget, we found the funds were allocated for 

FCC staff, both professional and administrative. FCC does not pay any 

travel-related costs for committee members to attend meetings. As shown 

17For example, in reviewing the appointment letter for a committee member who is 

employed by a law firm, we found FCC only stated that the member is expected to represent 

the law firm—without saying what telecommunications viewpoints would be represented. 

Further, when we asked what specific telecommunications interest this member was 

representing, she said the clients of her law firm, but noted that at present time the firm was 

not representing any clients that were involved with the issues of her advisory committee.
Page 21 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

in table 1, the majority of committee members surveyed were satisfied with 

the support provided by FCC.

Communications: GSA regulations also state that agencies should (1) seek 

feedback from advisory committee members on the effectiveness of 

committee activities and (2) communicate to committee members on a 

regular basis how their advice has affected agency programs. We found 

FCC does not have a formal process whereby it requests feedback from 

committee members about the committees’ activities, nor does FCC 

formally track how the committees’ advice and recommendations have 

been considered and provide this information to committee members. 

However, most of the designated federal officers said they periodically 

discuss committee issues with members. One designated federal officer 

told us he believes the communication with his committee members is 

sufficient because the members are willing to serve on the committee 

again. Nonetheless, according to our survey, adequate communications 

between FCC and committee members was one of the few areas related to 

the operations of FCC’s committees that committee members expressed 

some concern. As shown in table 1, less than 47 percent of survey 

respondents were satisfied with how FCC communicated to members how 

the Commission would use their advice. In response to our survey of 

committee members, we received 10 comments indicating there is limited 

communication between FCC and the advisory committees. For example, 

one committee member said FCC should provide a clear disposition for 

each recommendation presented to it. Another member said he presumes 

his respective committee’s advice is helpful to the Commission, but would 

like more feedback on whether the advice is actually used. 

Table 1: Committee Members’ Satisfaction with Aspects of FCC’s Management of Advisory Committees

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC federal advisory committee members.

Percent

satisfied

Percent

neither satisfied 

nor dissatisfied

Percent

dissatisfied

Percent

do not know or no 

response

Amount and quality of support provided by FCC 78 11.5 4.5 6

Amount of feedback FCC officials seek from committee 

members 56.5 23.5 11.5 8.5

Communication from FCC officials regarding how 

committee’s advice has affected FCC programs or 

decision making 46.5 24 19 10.5
Page 22 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Federal Advisory 

Committees Are Required to 

Produce Independent 

Advice to Federal Agencies 

The advice and recommendations of federal advisory committees must be 

independent of influence by the entity that created the advisory committee, 

or in this case, FCC. We found that the advice and recommendations 

provided by FCC’s committees are generally considered by stakeholders to 

reflect the independent judgment of committee members. The majority of 

FCC’s commissioners believe that the federal advisory committees provide 

independent advice and recommendations. However, one commissioner 

suggested that committee independence could be improved while another 

stated that independence varies by committee. In addition, all of the 

designated federal officers and bureau chiefs who have responsibility for 

FCC’s federal advisory committees agree that the advisory committees 

provide advice and recommendations that are independent of agency 

influence. Among committee members who responded to our survey, 89 

percent stated that they believed their committee is at least moderately 

independent of FCC, while approximately 7 percent stated that they 

believed their committee is only a little or not at all independent of FCC. Of 

the trade and interest groups we contacted, six believed that committees’ 

advice and recommendations are independent of FCC, and four others 

stated that independence varies based on the committee or the issues being 

addressed. Only 1 of the 12 trade groups responded that the committees’ 

advice or recommendations are not independent. 

FCC Has Taken Action 

on Advisory 

Committee 

Recommendations, but 

Stakeholders’ Views on 

FCC’s Use of 

Committee Work 

Varied 

While most of the stakeholders we contacted agreed that the advisory 

committees produce quality work, views on FCC’s implementation of the 

committees’ advice and recommendations varied. While FCC is not 

required to implement the advice and recommendations of its advisory 

committees, in general, the FCC bureau chiefs and designated federal 

officers were more satisfied with how FCC uses the committees’ work than 

other stakeholders. FCC’s Chairman stated that the Commission 

implements the advisory committees’ recommendations in various ways, 

such as incorporating recommendations into regulations or less formally 

by publicizing committee work at trade shows or other public events. One 

commissioner agreed with this view, further stating that FCC always takes 

the committees’ advice and recommendations seriously. However, another 

commissioner said FCC should establish a more formal process for the 

entire Commission to consider committee recommendations; and still 

another commissioner said FCC should give “due attention” to each 

committee submission, regardless of the subject matter. We found FCC 

does not have a formal process for tracking advisory committee 

recommendations. While the deputy committee management officer told us 
Page 23 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

that as a result of our review, FCC plans to improve the accountability of 

the advisory committee process by requiring that committee 

recommendations be tracked; as of September 2004, FCC had not taken 

any action on developing such a tracking system.

In our survey, 83 percent of respondents believed FCC was receptive to 

their advice from a moderate to very great extent. However, only 54 percent 

of responding members were satisfied with the extent to which FCC takes 

the committees’ advice into account when developing policy. Another 27 

percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and more than 8 percent 

were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the extent to which FCC takes 

the committees’ advice into account when developing policy. As part of our 

survey, we received comments from 19 out of 200 survey respondents who 

were dissatisfied with FCC’s use of their committees’ advice. In general, the 

members who provided comments were dissatisfied because they believed 

that FCC (1) does not provide feedback about how the committee’s 

recommendations are used, (2) does not take action on the committee’s 

recommendations, (3) has a predetermined agenda, or (4) uses the advisory 

committees as “window dressing.” Further, only 5 of the 12 trade and 

interest groups we contacted believed FCC actually uses the committees’ 

advice and recommendations. Three others stated that the committees’ 

advice and recommendations have little influence on FCC actions. 

The FCC bureau chiefs and designated federal officers we contacted were 

more satisfied than were committee members with how FCC uses the 

committees’ advice. For example, one bureau chief said FCC always 

considers the recommendations received from his advisory committee, and 

the designated federal officers for five of the advisory committees said they 

believe FCC would implement their committees’ recommendations. To 

demonstrate how the Commission implements the advice and 

recommendations of the advisory committees, FCC officials provided the 

following examples: 

• An FCC bureau chief said that FCC adopted, as rules, many of the 

recommendations made by the North American Numbering Council. For 

example, the committee provided advice and recommendations on 

implementation issues associated with local number portability, which 

allows consumers to keep their telephone numbers when switching 

from one telecommunications carrier to another. This process has been 

in place for wireline consumers since 1997, and it is now available for 

wireless consumers. An FCC commissioner agreed, stating the North 

American Numbering Council has provided invaluable expertise in 
Page 24 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

support of FCC’s policies relating to telephone numbering, including 

local number portability. 

• The designated federal officer for the Advisory Committee for the 2003 

World Radiocommunication Conference said the committee 

recommended a total of 41 draft preliminary views, of which 35 became 

U.S. preliminary views, and a total of 41 draft proposals of which 28 

became U.S. proposals. 

• The designated federal officer for the Media Security and Reliability 

Council said the committee produced over 100 best practices 

recommendations oriented toward the media industries. To support 

industry adoption of those best practices recommendations aimed at 

media, FCC said it developed an outreach brochure describing the best 

practices and arranged for 13,000 copies to be distributed directly by 

FCC field offices and at conventions held by the National Association of 

Broadcasters and the National Cable and Telecommunications 

Association. Also as a result of the Media Security and Reliability 

Council’s work, the deputy designated federal officer told us FCC issued 

a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the Emergency Alert System.

• According to an office chief, the Technological Advisory Council 

generated several of the ideas that led to the Spectrum Policy Task 

Force Report, which formed the basis for several of the Commission’s 

most important forward-looking initiatives.18

18In June 2002, FCC’s Chairman announced the formation of the Spectrum Policy Task Force 

to assist FCC in identifying and evaluating changes in spectrum policy to increase the public 

benefits derived from the use of radio spectrum.
Page 25 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

FCC Has Five Advisory 

Groups That It 

Considers Exempt 

from FACA; These 

Groups Function 

Differently from 

Federal Advisory 

Committees

FCC has five advisory groups that it considers exempt from FACA. Two of 

these advisory groups are “joint boards” that FCC is statutorily mandated 

to create. FCC also established two groups referred to as “joint 

conferences” that are designed to advise the agency on certain issues over 

which FCC has regulatory jurisdiction. Both the joint boards and 

conferences function differently from FCC’s federal advisory committees in 

large part because they are not considered to be subject to FACA 

requirements. FCC also created an additional committee, the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, which, although exempt from 

FACA, functions similarly to federal advisory committees in some 

respects.19

FCC’s Mandated Joint 

Boards Are Exempt from 

FACA and Function 

Differently from Federal 

Advisory Committees

FCC is mandated to support two joint boards: one addresses “jurisdictional 

separations”20 and the other examines “universal service requirements.”21

FCC told us it considers these joint boards to be exempt from FACA 

because the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 exempts groups that 

are composed wholly of federal, state, local, or tribal government 

officials.22 FCC established one board, called the Joint Board on 

Jurisdictional Separations, in 1980 to make recommendations regarding 

cost allocations that are part of the determination of telephone rates. FCC 

created the other board, called the Joint Board on Universal Service, in 

1996 to implement the Telecommunication Act’s universal service 

provisions. The joint boards convene three times per year at the National 

Association for Regulatory Utility Commissioners meetings, which are held 

in different locations across the country. Because the meetings of the

19We contacted 10 trade and interest groups to determine if they had any issues or concerns 

with the operations or effectiveness of FCC’s joint boards, joint conferences, and the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. Only one of the trade group representatives 

expressed concern, stating that funding for one of the joint boards was inadequate. 

2047 U.S.C. § 0.91(g), 410(c).

2147 U.S.C. § 0.91(g), 254.

22The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 exempts such groups for the purpose of 

exchanging views, information, or advice relating to the management or implementation of 

federal programs. See guidelines issued by OMB on section 204(b) of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1534(b), OMB Memorandum M-95-20, dated 

September 21, 1995.
Page 26 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

boards are held in varied locations and the members come from dispersed 

areas, each board receives a small budget from FCC to cover travel costs.23

The establishment and operations of the joint boards differ greatly from 

federal advisory committees that are subject to FACA requirements. Some 

of these differences are driven by requirements in the statute for the joint 

boards, and some of the differences are due to the fact that the joint boards 

are not subject to FACA requirements. For example:

• The type of membership for the joint boards is specified in statute. 

Section 410(c) of the Communications Act requires the boards to have 

three FCC commissioners and four state commissioners serve as 

members. The Joint Board on Universal Service is also required to have 

one state consumer public advocate member. FCC nominates the FCC 

commissioners. The National Association for Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners nominates the state officials and the National 

Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates nominates the state 

consumer public advocate. FCC makes the final selections of joint board 

members. Conversely, federal advisory committees following the 

requirements of FACA must have balanced membership but the mission 

of each committee determines who will be selected to serve as 

members. 

• The meetings of the joint boards are closed to the public. However, the 

boards also hold public hearings once or twice per year to collect 

information. In contrast, as we noted earlier, meetings of federal 

advisory committees must generally be open to the public.

• The joint boards have no charter or bylaws guiding their operations. 

Federal advisory committees, on the other hand, operate with a charter 

for a 2-year term, and must operate according to a set of specific 

procedural requirements.

• FCC must respond to the recommendations of the Joint Board on 

Universal Service. In contrast, FCC is not required to respond to the 

advice or recommendations of a federal advisory committee. The 

23Two state public service commissioners’ staff and a representative from the National 

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners told us that travel funds are not always 

sufficient and have expressed concern that board activities are compromised from lack of 

funding.
Page 27 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Commission can implement a recommendation of a federal advisory 

committee or reject it without comment.

FCC’s Joint Conferences 

Are Exempt from FACA and 

Function Differently from 

Federal Advisory 

Committees

FCC also established two joint conferences that it considers exempt from 

FACA. Under the Communications Act,24 FCC is authorized to confer with 

state regulatory commissions on telecommunications accounting issues, as 

well as other issues, over which it has regulatory jurisdiction. As a result, 

FCC established the Joint Conference on Accounting Issues in 2002 to 

review the possible need for changes to FCC’s regulatory accounting rules. 

The Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services, created 

in 1999 was established to assist in the deployment of advanced 

telecommunications capability, such as high-speed Internet, to all 

Americans. Similar to the joint boards, the joint conferences convene in 

different locations across the country at the National Association for 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners meetings, and the Joint Conference on 

Accounting Issues receives a small budget from FCC to cover travel costs.

As with the joint boards, the establishment and operations of the joint 

conferences are different from federal advisory committees that operate 

under FACA requirements. However, many of the operations of the joint 

conferences are similar to those of the joint boards. For example, as with 

joint boards, the meetings of the joint conferences are closed to the public, 

and there is no charter or bylaws guiding their operations.

Several aspects distinguish the joint conferences from the joint boards. For 

example: 

• FCC said that unlike the joint boards, there are no statutory guidelines 

determining nominations for joint conferences: FCC entirely chooses 

the membership. At this time, the Joint Conference on Accounting 

Issues has two federal regulatory commissioners and five state 

regulatory commissioners who serve as members. For the Joint 

Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services, membership 

currently includes all five FCC commissioners and six state 

commissioners.

24Pub. L. 34-416, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 410(b).
Page 28 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

• FCC does not believe it is required to respond to or implement the 

recommendations of the joint conferences; rather it can implement the 

recommendation or reject without comment. This is similar to FCC’s use 

of federal advisory committee advice or recommendations, but 

contrasts FCC’s responsibilities regarding the advice and 

recommendations of the Joint Board on Universal Service.

FCC’s Intergovernmental 

Advisory Committee Is 

Exempt from FACA, but It 

Has Some Similarities in 

Function to Federal 

Advisory Committees

FCC formed the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee in 1997 to advise 

the agency on issues of concern to state, local, and tribal governments.25

This committee provides ongoing advice and information to FCC on a 

broad range of telecommunications issues including, but not limited to, 

rural issues, homeland security, facilities siting, broadband access, barriers 

to competitive entry, and public safety communications for which FCC 

explicitly or inherently shares responsibility or administration with local, 

county, state, or tribal governments. The Intergovernmental Advisory 

Committee holds meetings in Washington, D.C., four times per year; but 

unlike the federal advisory committees, its meetings are closed to the 

public. In addition, FCC allocates no funds to the Intergovernmental 

Advisory Committee in support of its activities. Despite these differences in 

the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee’s operations relative to federal 

advisory committees, other aspects of its establishment and operations 

closely mirror those of federal advisory committees, even though it is not 

considered to be subject to FACA requirements. For example:

• The committee has a charter guiding its objectives and operations for 

each 2-year term. 

• Its membership is determined at the discretion of FCC. FCC solicits 

members through a public notice for nominations and then selects 

members. As specified in its charter, the committee has 15 members: 5 

state government representatives, 7 local representatives, and 3 

representatives from tribal governments.

25The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee changed its name from the Local and State 

Government Advisory Committee in 2003 when FCC fine-tuned the committee’s 

membership to include more state and tribal government representation, fewer local 

government representatives, and more geographic diversity.
Page 29 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

• FCC is not required to respond to or implement the advice or 

recommendations of the committee. FCC can implement the 

recommendation or reject without comment.

Conclusions FCC’s federal advisory committees address important telecommunications 

issues, and stakeholders generally view the committees’ work as beneficial 

and useful to the Commission. The advisory committees generally follow 

the rules and requirements prescribed by FACA, which ensures the 

committees’ activities are transparent and accessible to the public. 

However, because FCC does not have a formal process for determining and 

documenting committee member designations, it appears that some of 

FCC’s advisory committee members are not clear about the type of advice 

the Commission expects them to contribute to their committees. Despite 

being designated as representatives, some members responded to our 

survey that they do not contribute the opinions of the organization, 

company, or institution they represent, but rather contribute their own 

expert advice—a role that appears closer to that which the Office of 

Government Ethics and GSA describe as the role of a member who would 

typically be appointed as a special government employee. The confusion 

about the role of committee members may be particularly at issue for 

members who do not directly work within the telecommunications 

industry, such as those affiliated with a university, a law firm, or in private 

consulting. When members are designated as special government 

employees, they are subject to the Office of Government Ethics rules that 

apply to special government employees, which include conflict-of-interest 

reviews. 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

To better ensure that FCC’s federal advisory committee members are fully 

informed about the advice they are being asked to provide, we recommend 

that FCC establish a process for determining and documenting the type of
Page 30 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

advice federal advisory committee members are expected to contribute.26

FCC should appoint advisory committee members to serve as 

representatives only after making a clear determination of what interests 

those members are expected to represent on the committee. Committee 

members who are not representing a specific interest or viewpoint may be 

more appropriately appointed as special government employees. For 

representative members, FCC should specifically state in their 

appointment letters what particular interest those members are appointed 

to represent. This statement will be especially important for the committee 

members affiliated with universities, law firms, or private consulting firms, 

since it is not always clear or transparent what interests FCC would like 

them to represent. 

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to FCC, GSA, and the Office of 

Government Ethics for their review and comment. In its response, FCC 

agreed with our recommendation and noted that future appointment letters 

for representative committee members would make clear the specific 

underlying viewpoint, interest group, or segment of the community that the 

member is expected to represent. FCC also provided technical comments 

that we incorporated into the report as appropriate. GSA did not provide 

written comments but agency officials told us they agree with our 

recommendation, saying it would be helpful to the federal advisory 

committee designation process for agencies to clearly identify for 

representative members who, organizationally for example, they are 

expected to represent on the committee. In its comments to us, the Office 

of Government Ethics agreed with our findings and recommendation. 

Written comments from FCC and the Office of Government Ethics are 

provided in appendixes IV and V, respectively.

26As we previously noted, our recent report, GAO-04-328, recommended that GSA issue 

guidance stating that agencies should specify in the appointment letters to committee 

members whether they are appointed as special government employees or as 

representatives and, for those appointed as representative members, the entity or group that 

they are to represent should be noted in the letter. The recommendation we are making to 

FCC goes one step beyond that because we found that, despite FCC’s statements in 

appointment letters that members are representing their employers, some of the stated 

entities did not have a clear telecommunications viewpoint. As such, the letter should make 

clear for these members what underlying viewpoint the member is expected to represent.
Page 31 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

We will provide copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees; the Chairman, FCC; and other interested parties. We will also 

make copies available to others upon request. This report will be available 

at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any 

questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov or Amy Abramowitz at (202) 512-2834. 

Major contributors to this report include Bert Japikse, Jean McSween, 

Erica Miles, Sally Moino, and Tina Sherman.

Sincerely yours,

Mark L. Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 32 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

As requested by the House of Representatives Committee on Government 

Reform, the objectives of this report are to provide information on (1) the 

Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) current federal advisory 

committees and how they operate, (2) the extent to which FCC’s advisory 

committees follow applicable laws and regulations, (3) how FCC makes 

use of the advisory committees’ advice or recommendations, and (4) other 

advisory groups established at FCC that are not characterized as Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committees and how they operate.

To respond to the first objective on FCC’s current federal advisory 

committees and how they operate, we obtained the charters and other 

documents on FCC’s active advisory committees to determine the 

committees’ missions, charter dates, frequency of meetings and estimated 

operating costs. We gathered additional information from the FACA 

database maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA), such 

as committee member lists and FCC statements regarding how the 

committees achieved balance. Based on audit work completed for a prior 

GAO report, we determined that the data from the FACA database were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes.1

 We reviewed information on FCC’s 

Web site relating to the advisory committees, as well as the Web sites 

established by the advisory committees. We discussed committee 

operations with FCC officials, including the committees’ designated federal 

officers and the advisory committee liaison, as well as with the current 

committee chairmen. To further document how advisory committees 

operate, we attended one committee meeting in person and viewed another 

meeting via the Internet.

To obtain committee members’ perspectives regarding advisory committee 

operations and effectiveness, we developed and administered a Web-based 

survey. From January 20, 2004, through February 6, 2004, we conducted a 

series of pretests with FCC’s advisory committee chairmen and members to 

help further refine our questions, clarify any ambiguous portions of the 

survey, and identify any potentially biased questions. Upon completion of 

the pretests and development of the final survey questions and format, we 

sent an announcement of the upcoming survey to 282 FCC advisory 

committee members, including the committee chairmen on March 17, 2004. 

They were notified that the survey was available online on March 24, 2004. 

We sent follow up e-mail messages to nonrespondents as of April 15, 2004, 

and then attempted to contact those who had not completed the survey. 

1

GAO-04-328. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

The survey was available online until June 11, 2004. Of the population of 

282 members who were asked to complete the survey, we received 200 

completed surveys for an overall response rate of 71 percent. The practical 

difficulties of conducting surveys may introduce errors commonly referred 

to as “nonsampling error.” For example, questions may be misinterpreted 

and the respondents’ answers may differ from committee members who 

did not respond to the survey. To minimize nonsampling error, we pretested 

the survey and conducted numerous follow-up contacts with 

nonrespondents. In addition, steps were taken during data analysis to 

further minimize error, such as performing computer analyses to identify 

inconsistencies and completing a review of data analysis by an independent 

reviewer. The survey and its results can be found in appendix III.

In addition to the survey, we interviewed 13 members from FCC’s federal 

advisory committees that operated under the preceding presidential 

administration to obtain their perspectives on the advisory committee 

process and to determine if operations had changed over time. We asked 

them to respond to a set of questions very similar to those asked of current 

members on the Web-based survey. The members that we interviewed had 

participated on the following FCC advisory committees: two members 

from the National Advisory Committee; two members from the North 

American Numbering Council; two members from the Public Safety 

National Coordination Committee; four members from the Technological 

Advisory Council; one member from the Advisory Committee for the 

1999/2000 World Radiocommunication Conference; and two members from 

the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council. 

To respond to the second objective on whether FCC’s advisory committees 

are following applicable laws and regulations, we reviewed the FACA 

legislation as well as GSA’s regulations regarding federal advisory 

committee management and identified the key requirements that FCC must 

follow. To determine if FCC complied with these requirements, we 

reviewed relevant documentation relating to FCC’s efforts to meet the 

requirements, such as Federal Register notices announcing the committee 

meetings, information reported to GSA, and the committee charters. 

Through our survey, we also obtained committee member views on aspects 

of FCC’s implementation of FACA and GSA requirements. To determine 

what management controls FCC established over the advisory committee 

process, we interviewed the deputy committee management officer and 

obtained a copy of FCC’s advisory committee guidelines. We interviewed 

FCC’s designated agency ethics official to determine FCC’s process for 

designating its committee members as representatives. We also 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 34 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

interviewed officials with the Office of Government Ethics and GSA to 

understand their role in the oversight of advisory committees at FCC, 

especially regarding membership designation. 

To respond to the third objective on how FCC makes use of the advisory 

committees’ advice and recommendations, we analyzed survey responses 

from current committee members and responses from FCC officials to 

obtain their views on FCC’s use of committees’ advice and 

recommendations. We requested that FCC’s designated federal officers 

verify information found on the FACA database relating to committee 

recommendations in fiscal year 2003. Specifically, we asked them to verify 

that the data found on the database were correct and to describe in general 

terms the reasons why the recommendations were or were not 

implemented by FCC. We asked FCC’s five commissioners and the bureau 

and office chiefs who have responsibility over the advisory committees to 

comment in writing about (1) the quality and usefulness of advisory 

committee advice or recommendations, (2) the extent to which the 

committees’ advice or recommendations are independent of FCC, and (3) 

their views on how FCC implements the advice or recommendations from 

the advisory committees. We received responses from the five FCC 

commissioners and the chiefs of the following FCC bureaus and office: 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, which is responsible for the 

Consumer Advisory Committee; International Bureau, responsible for the 

Advisory Committee for the World Radiocommunication Conference; 

Wireline Competition Bureau, responsible for the North American 

Numbering Council; Media Bureau, responsible for the Media Security and 

Reliability Council; and Office of Engineering and Technology, responsible 

for the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council and the 

Technological Advisory Council.2

Also in response to the third objective, we interviewed 12 trade and interest 

group representatives to obtain the perspectives of stakeholders outside of 

federal government regarding the quality and usefulness of the advisory 

committees’ work. The following groups responded to our questions about 

FCC’s federal advisory committees: (1) the Cellular Telecommunications 

and Internet Association, (2) the National Association of Broadcasters, (3) 

Consumer Federation of America, (4) Consumers Union, (5) American 

2

FCC’s Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age reports 

directly to the FCC chairman, and consequently does not come under the jurisdiction of a 

bureau or office.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 35 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Council for the Blind, (6) Media Access Project, (7) the National 

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, (8) the National 

Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, (9) the National 

Cable and Telecommunications Association, (10) the National Indian 

Telecommunications Institute, (11) the Satellite Broadcasting and 

Communications Association, and (12) the Telecommunications Industry 

Association.

To respond to the fourth objective on other advisory groups established by 

FCC that are exempt from FACA, we interviewed five FCC officials 

assigned to the non-FACA advisory groups as well as two state public 

service commissioners’ staff that are affiliated with the joint boards. We 

obtained documentation from FCC’s Office of General Counsel concerning 

the formation of the joint boards, joint conferences, and the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, and for their exemption from 

FACA requirements. We also contacted the following 10 trade and interest 

group representatives to determine if they had any issues or concerns with 

the operations of FCC’s non-FACA advisory groups: (1) the Cellular 

Telecommunications and Internet Association, (2) the National Association 

of Broadcasters, (3) Consumers Union, (4) Media Access Project, (5) the 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, (6) the National 

Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, (7) the National 

Cable and Telecommunications Association, (8) the National Indian 

Telecommunications Institute, (9) the Satellite Broadcasting and 

Communications Association, and (10) the Telecommunications Industry 

Association.

We conducted our review from November 2003 through September 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 36 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA ApendxiI

This appendix provides information on FCC’s seven federal advisory 

committees and on FCC’s five advisory groups that FCC considers exempt 

from FACA, including two joint boards, two joint conferences, and the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee.

Advisory Committee 

for the 2007 World 

Radiocommunication 

Conference

Purpose of the committee: To provide the FCC with advice, technical 

support, and recommended proposals for the 2007 World 

Radiocommunication Conference.

Effective date of charter: May 31, 2004 (2-year charter).

Committee meetings: Held in Washington D.C., at least 4 times per year, 

open to the public.

Number of members: 69 (all representing members).

Steps taken to select members for the committee: According to the 

committee’s designated federal officer, membership is open on the 

committee, and FCC issues a public notice asking all interested parties to 

be a part of the committee. The designated federal officer also stated that 

FCC’s Chairman makes the final determination on committee chairman and 

leadership of the subcommittees. 

How the committee achieves balanced membership: According to 

FCC, the committee has an open membership and includes representatives 

of competing industry sectors as well as government agencies and 

scientific and technical organizations. See figure 3 for the primary 

employment sectors of committee members who responded to our survey.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 37 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Figure 3: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment Sector for the 

Advisory Committee for the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference

Note: For this committee, we received 32 completed surveys out of 45 survey recipients. Percentages 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Type of output: According to the designated federal officer, the 

committee develops preliminary views and proposals to assist in drafting 

the U.S. position for the World Radiocommunication Conference. The FCC 

bureaus review the preliminary views to determine if they agree or disagree 

with the position. 

Fiscal year 2004 estimated annual operating costs for staff and 

overhead: $105,500.

Current subcommittees: The committee has five informal working 

groups addressing (1) issues related the terrestrial and space science 

services; (2) issues involving the satellite services, including those related 

to high altitude platform stations; (3) international mobile telephone and 

2.5 gigahertz sharing issues; (4) issues concerning the broadcasting and 

amateur services; and (5) regulatory issues.

Committee Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc-07/

38%

28%

Private business

28%

Advocacy or nonprofit organization

3%

No response

3%

Federal government

Private consulting

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC advisory committee members.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 38 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Advisory Committee 

on Diversity for 

Communications in the 

Digital Age

Purpose of the committee: To make recommendations to FCC regarding 

policies and practices that will further enhance the ability of minorities and 

women to participate in the telecommunications and related industries.

Effective date of charter: September 2, 2003 (2-year charter).

Committee meetings: Held in Washington, D.C., a minimum of 2 times 

per year, open to the public.

Number of members: 26 (all representing members).

Steps taken to select members for the committee: According to the 

designated federal officer, when FCC’s Chairman announced the formation 

of the committee, interested individuals volunteered to serve on the 

committee. The designated federal officer said that FCC had an idea of 

people it wanted to serve on the committee and also contacted 

congressional staff to obtain their input on people who were qualified to 

serve. The designated federal officer said that FCC had a large list of 

potential members, but decided to limit the number of members to around 

25. 

How the committee achieves balanced membership: According to 

FCC, membership is solicited from all facets of the telecommunications 

industry, including representation from the industry's financial and 

technical sectors. See figure 4 for the primary employment sectors of 

committee members who responded to our survey.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 39 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Figure 4: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment Sector for the 

Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age

Note: For this committee, we received 19 completed surveys out of 26 survey recipients. Percentages 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Type of output: The committee will make recommendations to the 

Commission. For example, on June 14, 2004, the committee made 

recommendations on the use of tax policy to promote opportunity and on 

the expansion of FCC’s rule-based incentives to promote opportunity for 

socially disadvantaged persons.

Fiscal year 2004 estimated annual operating costs for staff and 

overhead: $10,000; according to the designated federal officer, this amount 

does not cover FCC staff’s cost and will be adjusted in the future to include 

those costs.

Current subcommittees: (1) Career Advancement, (2) Financial Issues, 

(3) New Technologies, and (4) Transactional Transparency and Related 

Outreach. 

Committee Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC

79%

11%

5%

Private consulting

5%

Private business

Advocacy or nonprofit organization

Trade association

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC advisory committee members.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 40 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Consumer Advisory 

Committee

Purpose of the committee: To make recommendations to FCC regarding 

consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate 

the participation of consumers (including people with disabilities and 

underserved populations, such as Native Americans and persons living in 

rural areas) in proceedings before the Commission. This committee was 

formerly called the Consumer/Disability Telecommunications Advisory 

Committee.

Effective date of charter: November 20, 2002 (2-year charter).

Committee meetings: Held in Washington, D.C., a minimum of 2 times 

per year, open to the public.

Number of members: 35 (all representing members).

Steps taken to select members for the committee: According to the 

committee’s designated federal officer, FCC released a public notice 

soliciting nominations and received over 100 responses to the public 

notice. To determine the representation of the nominations received, the 

designated federal officer stated that FCC prepared a spreadsheet showing 

all nominations. Also, FCC legal staff, the chief of the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, the committee chairman, and the designated 

federal officer reviewed all the nominations and forwarded names to the 

FCC chairman, who made the final decisions about membership.

How the committee achieves balanced membership: According to 

FCC, the committee is comprised of members from both the private and 

public sectors, including nonprofit consumer and disability advocacy 

organizations, industry, underserved populations, Native Americans, and 

private citizens serving in a representative capacity. Members were 

selected to represent a broad and balanced viewpoint so that the many 

voices of the Commission’s many constituencies can be heard. See figure 5 

for the primary employment sectors of committee members who 

responded to our survey.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 41 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Figure 5: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment Sector for the 

Consumer Advisory Committee 

Note: For this committee, we received 27 completed surveys out of 35 survey recipients. Percentages 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Type of output: The committee will make recommendations to the 

Commission. For example, the Consumer Advisory Committee made 

recommendations in fiscal year 2003 (1) supporting the creation of a 

national “do not call” list, which is easily accessible to consumers; (2) 

urging the Commission to promote consistency and uniformity in federal 

and state regulations of telemarketing practices and; (3) urging the 

Commission to increase enforcement actions against deceptive practices in 

telemarketing. 

Fiscal year 2004 estimated annual operating costs for staff and 

overhead: $307,775.

Current subcommittees: (1) Consumer Education, Outreach, and 

Complaints; (2) Broadband; (3) Ancillary Services, and (4) 

Telecommunications Relay Services. 

Committee Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/cac

30%

33%

15%

Trade association

Private business

4%

4%

Advocacy or nonprofit organization

Private consulting

15% State or local government

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC advisory committee members.

College or university
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 42 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Media Security and 

Reliability Council

Purpose of the committee: To provide members of the broadcast and 

multichannel video programming distribution industries the opportunity to 

make recommendations to FCC and their industries that, when 

implemented, will ensure optimal reliability, robustness and security of 

broadcast and multichannel video programming distribution industries 

facilities. These recommendations will be based on, among other things, 

homeland defense and security considerations and will take into account 

all reasonably foreseeable circumstances. This will encompass ensuring 

the security and sustainability of broadcast and multichannel video 

programming distributor facilities throughout the United States; ensuring 

the availability of adequate transmission capability during events or 

periods of exceptional stress due to natural disaster, man-made attacks or 

similar occurrences; and facilitating the rapid restoration of broadcast and 

multichannel video programming distributor services in the event of 

disruptions.

Effective date of charter: March 26, 2004 (2-year charter).

Committee meetings: Held in Washington, D.C., a minimum of 2 times 

per year (estimated total meetings - 4), open to the public.

Number of members: 40 (all representing members).

Steps taken to select members for the committee: According to the 

committee’s designated federal officer, FCC approached all major players 

of broad-based media, such as satellite providers, cable companies, and 

television networks, as well as smaller companies and public interest 

groups to serve as committee members. The designated federal officer told 

us that to be effective, the committee’s membership needed to reflect a 

public-private partnership. This FCC official further stated that the FCC 

chairman’s office and FCC’s Media Bureau were part of the selection 

process. 

How the committee achieves balanced membership: According to 

FCC, committee membership includes senior representatives from mass 

media companies, cable television and satellite service providers, trade 

associations, public safety representatives, manufacturers, and other 

related entities. The members were selected for their different areas of 

expertise and to represent a balanced viewpoint. See figure 6 for the 

primary employment sectors of committee members who responded to our 

survey.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 43 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Figure 6: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment Sector for the Media 

Security and Reliability Council

Note: For this committee, we received 25 completed surveys out of 40 survey recipients. Percentages 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Type of output: The committee will have the opportunity to make 

recommendations to FCC and to the broadcast and multichannel video 

programming distribution industries. According to FCC, the committee 

developed best practices recommendations for media companies that help 

to ensure the continued operation of service in times of crisis and the 

effective communication of emergency information to the public. 

Fiscal year 2004 estimated annual operating costs for staff and 

overhead: $152,000.

Current subcommittees: (1) Communications Infrastructure Security, 

Access and Restoration; and (2) Public Communications and Safety. 

Committee Web site: http://www.mediasecurity.org/index.html

72%

12% Other

8%

Private business

Advocacy or nonprofit organization

8%

Trade association

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC advisory committee members.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 44 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Network Reliability 

and Interoperability 

Council

Purpose of the committee: To partner with FCC, the communications 

industry, and public safety to facilitate enhancement of emergency 

communications networks, homeland security, and best practices across 

the burgeoning telecommunications industry.

Effective date of charter: December 29, 2003 (2-year charter).

Committee meetings: Held in Washington, D.C., a minimum of 3 times 

per year, open to the public.

Number of members: 55 (all representing members).

Steps taken to select members for the committee: According to the 

designated federal officer, FCC solicited certain firms and wanted 

participation from chief executive officers. The designated federal officer 

stated that a list of potential members is sent to the FCC chairman for 

approval.

How the committee achieves balanced membership: According to FCC 

the committee includes representatives of all segments of the 

telecommunications industry. Its members represent large and small 

telecommunications consumers, local and interstate carriers, state 

regulators, equipment and software manufacturers, satellite companies, 

cable companies, Internet service providers, wireless companies and 

research organizations, among others. See figure 7 for the primary 

employment sectors of committee members who responded to our survey. 
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 45 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Figure 7: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment Sector for Network 

Reliability and Interoperability Council

Note: For this committee, we received 37 completed surveys out of 54 survey recipients. Percentages 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Type of output: The committee will make recommendations to FCC

and to the communications industry intended to improve 

telecommunications network robustness and reliability. 

Fiscal year 2004 estimated annual operating costs for staff and 

overhead: $202,000. 

Current subcommittees: (1) Enhanced 911, (2) Homeland security, (3) 

Network best practices, and (4) Broadband. 

Committee Web site: http://www.nric.org

81%

11%

Trade union or labor organization

3%

State or local government

3%

3%

Trade association

Private business

Federal government

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC advisory committee members.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 46 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

North American 

Numbering Council

Purpose of the committee: To advise FCC and to make 

recommendations that foster efficient and impartial administration of the 

North American Numbering Plan. The Council advises the Commission on 

numbering policy and technical issues, initially resolve disputes as directed 

by the Commission, and provides guidance to the North American 

Numbering Plan Administrator, the Local Number Portability 

Administrator, the Pooling Administrator as directed by the Commission.

Effective date of charter: October 4, 2003 (2-year charter).

Committee meetings: Held in Washington D.C., approximately six 

meetings per year, open to the public.

Number of members: 28 voting members, 27 alternate members (all 

representing).

Steps taken to select members for the committee: According to the 

designated federal officer, members are invited from each sector of the 

telecommunications market, including wireless, trade, state 

representatives, carriers, incumbent local exchange carriers and 

competitive local exchange carriers. The designated federal officer said 

that members are asked to respond regarding their expertise and 

experience in the telecommunications world. Also, according to the 

official, members serving on the council from the previous charter were 

asked if they wanted to continue serving.

How the committee achieves balanced membership: According to 

FCC, the committee balances membership by including representatives 

from every sector of the telecommunications industry, as well as members 

representing the North American Numbering Plan member countries, state 

regulators, and consumers. See figure 8 for the primary employment 

sectors of committee members who responded to our survey.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 47 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Figure 8: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment Sector for the North 

American Numbering Council

Note: For this committee, we received 36 completed surveys out of 49 survey recipients. Percentages 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Type of output: The committee will make recommendations to FCC that 

foster efficient and impartial administration of the North American 

Numbering Plan, and advise FCC on numbering policy and technical issues.

Fiscal year 2004 estimated annual operating costs for staff and 

overhead: $234,000.

Current subcommittees: (1) steering group, (2) number oversight working 

group, (3) legal expertise working group, (4) local number portability 

working group, (5) cost recovery working group, (6) industry numbering 

committee, (7) North American Numbering Plan expansion/numbering 

optimization, (8) abbreviated dialing for one call notification issues 

management group, (9) North American Portability Management limited 

liability corporation, (10) intermediate numbering/soft dial tone issue 

management group, (11) contamination threshold issues management 

group, and (12) universal service fund issues management group.

Committee Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/Nanc

42%

33%

Private business

17%

College or university

3%

Advocacy or nonprofit organiztion

6%

State or local government

Trade association 

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC advisory committee members.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 48 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Technological Advisory 

Council

Purpose of the committee: To provide technical advice to FCC and 

address questions referred to it by the FCC chairman, the chief of the 

Office of Engineering and Technology or by the committee’s designated 

federal officer. 

Effective date of charter: November 25, 2002 (2-year charter).

Committee meetings: Held in Washington, D.C., 3 to 5 times per year, 

open to the public.

Number of members: 33 (all representing members).

Steps taken to select members for the committee: According to the 

committee’s designated federal officer, FCC sought individuals with 

expertise but also accepted outside nominations. With the selection 

process narrowly focused, the designated federal officer and the 

committee chairman made the membership decisions.

How the committee achieves balanced membership: According to 

FCC, members have been selected to balance the expertise and viewpoints 

that are necessary to effectively address the new technology issues that 

will be directed to the committee. Members are recognized experts in their 

fields and, for private sector companies, individuals who hold technical 

executive positions such as Chief Technical Officer or Senior Technical 

Manager. See figure 9 for the primary employment sectors of committee 

members who responded to our survey.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 49 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Figure 9: Survey Respondents’ Representation by Employment Sector for the 

Technological Advisory Council 

Note: For this committee, we received 24 completed surveys out of 33 survey recipients. Percentages 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Type of output: According to the committee’s designated federal officer, 

the committee does not make formal recommendations. Rather, their 

deliverables are in the form of presentations on emerging technologies that 

the chairman of FCC hears during the committee’s meetings.

Fiscal year 2004 estimated annual operating costs for staff and 

overhead: $201,000. 

Current subcommittees: None.

Committee Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/tac

54%

21%

Private business

17%

Advocacy or nonprofit organiztion

8%

Private consulting

College or university

Source: GAO survey responses of FCC advisory committee members.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 50 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Joint Board on 

Jurisdictional 

Separations

Purpose of the joint board: To make recommendations on apportioning 

regulated costs between the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions. 

Year of establishment: 1980.

Meetings: Held at the National Association for Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners meetings in varying locations 3 times per year, closed to 

the public; occasional en banc meetings are held.

Number of members: 7 (three federal commissioners and four state 

commissioners).

Steps taken to select members for the joint board: FCC nominates the 

federal commissioners and the National Association for Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners nominates the state commissioners. FCC makes the final 

selections of joint board members.

Type of output: The joint board makes recommendations to the 

Commission. One recommendation resulted in FCC establishing an interim 

“freeze” on the jurisdictional separations process.

Budget for fiscal year 2003: FCC allocated $25,000 that is applied 

towards travel and other meetings costs.

Joint board Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/sep

Joint Board on 

Universal Service

Purpose of the joint board: To make recommendations to implement the 

universal service provisions of the Telecommunications Act.

Year of establishment: 1996.

Meetings: Held at the National Association for Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners meetings in varying locations 3 times per year, closed to 

the public; occasional en banc meetings are held.

Number of members: 8 (three federal commissioners, four state 

commissioners, and one state consumer public advocate).

Steps taken to select members for the joint board: FCC nominates the 

federal commissioners, the National Association for Regulatory Utility 
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 51 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Commissioners nominates the state commissioners, and the National 

Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates nominates a state 

consumer public advocate. FCC makes the final selections of joint board 

members.

Type of output: The joint board makes recommendations to the 

Commission. For example, a recommendation to FCC proposed 

modifications to the Lifeline/Link-Up program.

Budget for fiscal year 2003: FCC allocated $50,000 that is applied 

toward travel and other meetings costs.

Joint board Web site: 

http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/JointBoard/welcome.html

Joint Conference on 

Accounting Issues

Purpose of the joint conference: to review the possible need for 

changes to FCC’s regulatory accounting rules.

Year of establishment: 2002.

Meetings: Held at the National Association for Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners meetings in varying locations 3 times per year, closed to 

the public.

Number of members: 7 (two federal commissioners and five state 

commissioners).

Steps taken to select members for the joint conference: FCC 

nominates the federal commissioners and the National Association for 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners nominates the state commissioners. FCC 

makes the final selections of joint board members.

Type of output: The joint conference makes recommendations to the 

Commission. For example, a recommendation to FCC proposed revisions 

to Part 32 rules to include the reinstatement of certain accounts and the 

addition of several new accounts.

Budget for fiscal year 2003: FCC allocated funds from joint board 

allocations for this conference. A total of $4,881 applied toward travel and 

other meetings costs.
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 52 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Joint conference Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/FSJCRAI

Joint Conference on 

Advanced 

Telecommunications 

Services

Purpose of the joint conference: To fulfill the promise of Section 706 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The joint conference shares ideas, 

gathers real-life stories from across the country, and assists the FCC in its 

reports to Congress on the deployment of advanced telecommunications 

services.

Year of establishment: 1999.

Meetings: Held at the National Association for Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners meetings in varying locations 3 times per year, closed to 

the public.

Number of members: 11 (five federal commissioners and six state 

commissioners).

Steps taken to select members for the joint conference: FCC 

nominates the federal commissioners and the National Association for 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners nominates the state commissioners. FCC 

makes the final selections of joint board members.

Type of output: The joint conference provides a forum for ongoing 

dialogue. The conference has held field hearings across the country to 

learn about the deployment of advanced telecommunications services. It 

also developed a report on broadband deployment in cooperation with the 

Florida Public Service Commission.

Budget for fiscal year 2003: No FCC funds were specifically allocated to 

this joint conference.

Joint conference Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/jointconference

Intergovernmental 

Advisory Committee

Purpose of the committee: To provide guidance to the Commission on 

issues of importance to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as to 

the Commission. The Committee provides ongoing advice and information 

to the Commission on a broad range of telecommunications issues of 

interest to state, local, and tribal governments, including cable and local 

franchising, public rights-of-way, facilities siting, universal service, 
Appendix II

Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory 

Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt 

from FACA

Page 53 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

broadband access, barriers to competitive entry, and public safety 

communications, for which the Commission explicitly or inherently shares 

responsibility or administration with local, county, state, or tribal 

governments.

Year of establishment: 1997 (the committee’s original name was the 

Local State and Government Advisory Committee).

Meetings: Held in Washington, D.C., 4 times per year, closed to the public.

Number of members: 15 (five state government representatives, seven 

local representatives, and three representatives from tribal governments).

Steps taken to select members for the committee: FCC released a 

public notice soliciting nominations and selected committee members from 

among the nominations.

Type of Output: Recommendations to the Commission. Comments 

recently filed as part of an FCC proceeding on Voice Over Internet 

Protocol.

Budget for fiscal year 2003: No FCC funds were allocated.

Committee Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/statelocal
Page 54 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members ApendxiI

Q1. How long have you been a member of the committee?

Q2. To the best of your knowledge, did you attain membership to the committee through any of the following circumstances?

Q3. In which of the following sectors do you primarily work?

Less than 6 

months

(percent)

6 months to 1 

year 

(percent)

1 year to 1 3⁄4 

years 

(percent)

1 3⁄4 years to 2 

years 

(percent)

2 years or 

more 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

13.0 21.0 15.5 11.0 38.5 1.0 200

Yes 

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

a. Personally 

contacted FCC 

about membership 20.0 40.0 1.5 38.5 200

b. My employer 

contacted FCC 

about membership 14.5 42.0 2.0 41.5 200

c. Solicited for 

membership by an 

FCC official 40.5 24.0 3.0 32.5 200

d. Recommended 

for membership by 

a colleague, 

company, or 

organization 42.5 18.5 9.5 29.5 200

e. Recommended 

for membership by 

a member of 

Congress or their 

staff 1.5 43.5 5.5 49.5 200

f. Other 8.0 14.5 1.0 76.5 200

Percent

Number 

of 

respondents

Total 

number 

of 

respondents

a. Private business 56.0 112 200

b. A trade 

association 5.5 11 200

c. Federal 

government 6.5 13 200

d. State or local 

government 8.5 17 200

e. A college or 

university 3.0 6 200
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 55 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q4. In which of the following industry sectors does your employer work or represent?

f. Trade union or 

labor organization 0.5 1 200

g. An advocacy or 

nonprofit 

organization 8.5 17 200

h. Private consulting 9.5 19 200

i. Other ( Please 

specify below. ) 1.5 3 200

j. No response 0.5 1 200

Percent

Number 

of respondents

Total 

number 

of 

respondents

a. Wireline local 

telephone 39.8 49 123

b. Long distance 

telephone 33.3 41 123

c. Wireless 

telephone 34.1 42 123

d. Radio 15.4 19 123

e. Broadcast 

television 18.7 23 123

f. Cable or satellite 

television 26.0 32 123

g. Internet service 40.7 50 123

h. Satellite service 15.4 19 123

i. Equipment 

manufacturing 17.1 21 123

j. Computer/ 

software 7.3 9 123

k. Other (Please 

specify below.) 16.3 20 123

Percent

Number 

of 

respondents

Total 

number 

of 

respondents
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 56 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q5. Approximately how many people does your company employ?

Q5no. Check below if you don't know

Q6. Since your appointment, approximately how many committee meetings have you attended?

Q7. How important are the following factors in your decision to attend or not attend your committee's meetings?

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number 

of 

respondents

Q5. 

Approximately 

how many 

people does 

your company 

employ? 38,669 13,200 1 230,000 116

Percent

Number 

of 

respondents

4.1 123

All meetings

(percent)

Most 

meetings 

(percent)

About half the 

meetings 

(percent)

A few 

meetings 

(percent)

No meetings 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

43.0 43.0 7.0 5.5 1.0 0.5 200

Very 

important 

(percent)

Somewhat 

important 

(percent)

Not very 

important 

(percent)

Not applicable 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

a. Amount of 

notice provided 

for the 

meetings 42.1 37.1 17.3 1.0 2.5 197

b. Your interest 

in the agenda 

items 41.6 26.4 25.9 3.6 2.5 197

c. Your other 

commitments 46.2 40.6 8.6 1.0 3.6 197
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 57 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q8. How much time on a yearly basis do you devote to committee membership activities (including research and preparation for meetings, 

travel, and attending meetings)?

Q9. As a member, what type of advice do you contribute to the committee?

d. Your costs of 

attending 

meetings 10.7 14.7 58.9 11.2 4.6 197

e. Your 

perception of 

the degree to 

which FCC 

considers your 

committee's 

advice 44.7 30.5 17.3 3.6 4.1 197

f. Other (Please 

specify below.) 5.6 1.0 0.5 2.0 90.9 197

Less than 1 

week

(percent)

1 to 2 weeks 

(percent)

2 to 3 weeks 

(percent)

4 weeks or 

more 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

12.5 37.5 23.0 25.0 2.0 200

Percent

Number 

of 

respondents

Total 

number 

of 

respondents

a. I contribute my 

own expert opinion 70.0 140 200

b. I contribute the 

opinion of the 

organization, 

company, or 

institution that I 

represent 77.5 155 200

c. Other (Please 

specify below.) 11.0 22 200

Very 

important 

(percent)

Somewhat 

important 

(percent)

Not very 

important 

(percent)

Not applicable 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 58 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q10. Would you agree or disagree with the following statements as they apply to the composition of your committee?

Q11. Who sets the agenda for your committee's meetings?

Strongly agree 

(percent)

Agree 

(percent)

Neither agree 

nor disagree 

(percent)

Disagree 

(percent)

Strongly 

disagree 

(percent)

No basis to 

judge 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

a. Members 

represent 

parties that 

have an 

interest in the 

mission and 

outcome of the 

committee. 60.5 35.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 200

b. Members 

represent 

divergent 

points of view 

on issues 

addressed by 

the committee. 53.5 34.0 6.5 4.5 0.0 1.0 0.5 200

c. Members 

have sufficient 

knowledge and 

experience to 

provide input 

on the issues 

addressed by 

the committee. 55.5 37.5 4.5 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 200

Percent

Number 

of 

respondents

Total 

number 

of 

respondents

a. Committee 

chairperson 79.5 159 200

b. FCC 

official(s) 46.0 92 200

c. Committee 

as a whole 39.0 78 200

d. Don't know 6.0 12 200

e. Other 

(Please specify 

below.) 5.5 11 200
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 59 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q12. Do you believe the appropriate party or parties sets the committee's agenda?

Q13. As a committee member, do you generally have access to the information you need to make an informed decision on an issue?

Q14. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following aspects of the operations and procedures of your committee?

Yes

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

86.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 200

In all cases

(percent)

In most cases 

(percent)

In some cases 

(percent)

In no cases 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

29.0 60.5 7.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 200

Very satisfied 

(percent)

Satisfied 

(percent)

Neither 

satisfied nor 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Dissatisfied 

(percent)

Strongly 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

a. The clarity of 

your 

committee’s 

mission 44.5 41.5 6.5 5.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 200

b. The clarity of 

your 

committee’s 

operating rules 

and procedures 38.0 49.0 7.5 4.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 200

c. The 

opportunity for 

all members to 

provide input 

throughout the 

committee 

process 52.5 35.5 7.0 3.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 200

d. The use of 

technology to 

facilitate 

meeting 

participation 26.5 46.0 17.5 7.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 200

e. The topics 

on which your 

committee is 

briefed by FCC 

officials 24.0 43.0 19.0 6.0 1.0 2.5 4.5 200
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 60 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

f. The 

knowledge of 

FCC officials 

who brief and 

support your 

committee 38.5 41.0 13.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 200

g. The amount 

and quality of 

support 

provided by 

FCC (such as 

staff support, 

space, 

supplies, and 

equipment) 39.5 38.5 11.5 4.0 0.5 2.5 3.5 200

h. The amount 

of feedback 

FCC officials 

seek from 

committee 

members 

regarding the 

effectiveness of 

the 

committee's 

activities 20.5 36.0 23.5 10.5 1.0 6.0 2.5 200

i. The 

communication 

from FCC 

officials 

regarding how 

your 

committee’s 

advice has 

affected FCC 

programs or 

decision 

making 17.0 29.5 24.0 16.5 2.5 6.5 4.0 200

j. The extent to 

which your 

committee 

fairly considers 

both majority 

and minority 

opinions 31.0 44.0 15.5 5.5 0.5 2.0 1.5 200

Very satisfied 

(percent)

Satisfied 

(percent)

Neither 

satisfied nor 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Dissatisfied 

(percent)

Strongly 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 61 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q15. In terms of formulating committee advice or recommendations, how independent do you believe the committee is of FCC?

Q16. In terms of formulating committee advice or recommendations, to what extent do you believe the committee maintains a balance of 

influence among various interest groups (such as industry, trade or consumer groups)?

Q17. Which of the following methods does your committee use to convey its advice or recommendations to FCC?

Q18. In your opinion, to what extent is the public provided opportunity to express its views to your committee?

Q19. To your knowledge, have members of the public (excluding FCC staff) ever expressed their views to the committee?

Very 

independent

(percent)

Moderately 

independent 

(percent)

A little or not 

at all 

independent 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

47.0 42.0 6.5 2.0 2.5 200

Very great 

extent

(percent)

Great extent 

(percent)

Moderate 

extent 

(percent)

Some extent 

(percent)

Little or no 

extent 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

16.5 43.5 21.5 8.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 200

Yes 

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

a. Written 

reports 87.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 200

b. 

Memorandums 

or letters 54.5 13.5 9.5 22.5 200

c. Oral 

briefings, 

presentations, 

or testimonies 74.0 7.0 10.0 9.0 200

d. Other 

(Please specify 

below.) 8.0 2.0 3.0 87.0 200

Very great 

extent

(percent)

Great extent 

(percent)

Moderate 

extent 

(percent)

Some extent 

(percent)

Little or no 

extent 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

20.5 32.0 15.5 10.5 12.0 7.0 2.5 200

Yes

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

56.5 19.0 22.0 2.5 200
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 62 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q20. Does your committee have any subcommittees?

Q21. Were members selected to serve on your committee's subcommittees through any of the following methods?

Q22. What was the basis for selecting members to serve on subcommittees?

Q23. Have you been a member of any subcommittees?

Yes

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

78.5 15.5 3.5 2.5 200

Yes 

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No Response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

a. Self-selected 

(i.e., 

volunteered) 87.3 2.5 4.5 5.7 157

b. Committee 

or 

subcommittee 

chairman 53.5 14.0 12.1 20.4 157

c. FCC 

official(s) 19.1 29.9 22.3 28.7 157

d. Full 

committee 15.9 36.3 14.6 33.1 157

e. Other 

(Please specify 

below.) 3.8 7.0 1.9 87.3 157

Percent

Number 

of 

respondents

Total 

number 

of respondents

a. Technical 

expertise 74.5 117 157

b. Industry 

representation 66.9 105 157

c. Creating fair 

balance of 

points of views 55.4 87 157

d. Don’t know 9.6 15 157

e. Other 

(Please specify 

below.) 14.6 23 157

Yes

(percent)

No 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of respondents

75.8 22.9 1.3 157
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 63 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q24. How is the work of the subcommittees completed?

Q25. In your opinion, to what extent is the public provided an opportunity to express its views to your subcommittees?

Q26. To your knowledge, have members of the public ever expressed their views to the subcommittees?

Q27. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with the operation of your subcommittees?

Q28. In your experience—given the understanding that the full committee approves all subcommittee advice and recommendations— 

what is the balance of work between the full committee and subcommittees with regard to output?

Percent

Number 

of 

respondents

Total 

number 

of respondents

a. In-person 

meetings 80.7 96 119

b. Video or 

audio 

conferences 86.6 103 119

c. E-mail 

exchanges 92.4 110 119

d. Other 

(Please specify 

below.) 0.0 0 119

Very great 

extent

(percent)

Great extent 

(percent)

Moderate 

extent 

(percent)

Some extent 

(percent)

Little or no 

extent 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

9.2 17.6 18.5 11.8 33.6 7.6 1.7 119

Yes

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

39.5 37.8 17.6 5.0 119

Very satisfied

(percent)

Satisfied 

(percent)

Neither 

satisfied nor 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Dissatisfied 

(percent)

Very 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

37.0 42.9 14.3 2.5 0.8 2.5 119

Entirely work 

of full 

committee

(percent)

More work by 

the full 

committee than 

subcommittees 

(percent)

Equal balance 

between full 

committee and 

subcommittees 

(percent)

More work by 

the 

subcommittees 

than full 

committee 

(percent)

Entirely work of 

subcommittees 

with approval 

from the full 

committee 

(percent)

Don’t 

know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

0.6 3.2 10.8 46.5 32.5 3.2 3.2 157
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 64 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q29. To what extent does the committee deliberate the proposals of the subcommittees before they are voted upon?

Q30. Does your committee's work influence FCC policy or operations through any of the following mechanisms?

Very great 

extent

(percent)

Great extent 

(percent)

Moderate 

extent 

(percent)

Some extent 

(percent)

Little or no 

extent 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

11.5 31.8 24.8 13.4 7.0 8.3 3.2 157

Yes 

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

a. Committee 

briefs FCC 

commissioners 41.0 28.0 24.0 7.0 200

b. Committee 

briefs FCC 

senior staff 64.5 11.5 17.5 6.5 200

c. Committee 

testifies before 

the FCC at 

hearings 7.5 47.5 31.0 14.0 200

d. Committee 

work results in 

an issuance of 

a Notice of 

Inquiry 22.0 29.0 30.0 19.0 200

e. Committee 

work results in 

an issuance of 

a Notice of 

Proposed 

Rulemaking 24.5 29.0 29.5 17.0 200

f. Committee 

submits 

comments in 

an ongoing 

FCC 

proceeding 26.5 31.0 25.5 17.0 200

g. Other 

(Please specify 

below.) 13.0 1.5 1.5 84.0 200
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 65 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q31. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which FCC takes your committee's advice and recommendations into account 

when developing policy or making changes in operations?

Q33. Are setting or changing voluntary industry standards an output of your committee? (Voluntary industry standards are those not 

mandated by FCC.)

Q34. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the effectiveness and impact of your committee to set or change voluntary industry 

standards?

Q36. Thinking over your entire tenure on the committee, to what extent would you characterize FCC as receptive to the advice and 

recommendations of your committee?

Q37. Thinking over your entire tenure on the committee, to what extent would you characterize industry as receptive to the advice and 

recommendations of your committee?

Q38. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your experience serving on the committee?

Very satisfied

(percent)

Satisfied 

(percent)

Neither 

satisfied nor 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Dissatisfied 

(percent)

Very 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Don't know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

12.5 41.5 27.0 6.5 2.0 8.0 2.5 200

Yes

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don't know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

54.0 35.0 7.0 4.0 200

Very satisfied

(percent)

Satisfied 

(percent)

Neither 

satisfied nor 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Dissatisfied 

(percent)

Very 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Don't know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

15.7 45.4 22.2 9.3 0.9 3.7 2.8 108

Very great 

extent

(percent)

Great extent 

(percent)

Moderate 

extent 

(percent)

Some extent 

(percent)

Little or no 

extent 

(percent)

Don't know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

18.5 43.0 21.0 8.0 2.0 6.0 1.5 200

Very great 

extent

(percent)

Great extent 

(percent)

Moderate 

extent 

(percent)

Some extent 

(percent)

Little or no 

extent 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

11.0 35.5 27.5 10.5 2.5 10.0 3.0 200

Very satisfied

(percent)

Satisfied 

(percent)

Neither 

satisfied nor 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Dissatisfied 

(percent)

Very 

dissatisfied 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

32.5 49.5 10.5 6.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 200
Appendix III

GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory 

Committee Members

Page 66 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Q39. If invited, would you be interested in serving on this committee again?

Note: Questions 32, 35, and 40 of the survey were comment boxes for written narrative so the results 

are not displayed.

Yes

(percent)

No 

(percent)

Don’t know 

(percent)

No response 

(percent)

Number 

of 

respondents

89.5 2.0 8.5 0.0 200
Page 67 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Appendix IV

Comments from the Federal Communications 

Commission ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Federal Communications 

Commission

Page 68 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees
Page 69 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees

Appendix V

Comments from the Office of Government 

Ethics ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the Office of Government 

Ethics

(543075) Page 70 GAO-05-36 FCC Federal Advisory Committees
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548