FEDERAL ADVISORY 

GROUPS

DOT and DOE Can 

Take Steps to Better 

Assess Duplication 

Risk and Enhance 

Usefulness

Report to Agency Officials

March 2012

GAO-12-472

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-472, a report to agency 

officials

March 2012

FEDERAL ADVISORY GROUPS 

DOT and DOE Can Take Steps to Better Assess 

Duplication Risk and Enhance Usefulness

Why GAO Did This Study

Advisory groups—those established 

under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA) and other groups not 

subject to the act—can play an 

important role in the development of 

policy and government regulations. 

There are more than 1,000 FACA 

advisory groups and an unknown 

number of non-FACA advisory groups 

governmentwide. Non-FACA groups 

include intergovernmental groups. 

Section 21 of Pub. L. No. 111-139 

requires GAO to conduct routine 

investigations to identify programs, 

agencies, offices, and initiatives with 

duplicative goals and activities. In that 

context, GAO reviewed (1) the extent 

to which the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) and 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

assessment process helps ensure 

advisory group efforts are not 

duplicative and what challenges, if any, 

exist in assessing potential duplication, 

and (2) to what extent DOT and DOE 

advisory groups are useful in assisting 

their respective agencies in carrying 

out their missions and how the groups’ 

usefulness could be enhanced. GAO 

selected DOT and DOE for review 

based on knowledge of these 

agencies’ advisory groups. GAO 

interviewed agency officials; reviewed 

advisory group documentation; and 

conducted case studies of five advisory 

groups.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOT and DOE

document specific steps to assess 

potential duplication among FACA and 

non-FACA advisory groups and 

develop and make public basic 

information identifying non-FACA 

advisory groups to further inform 

periodic assessments. DOT and DOE 

agreed to consider the 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and Department of Energy (DOE) guidance require officials to check for 

duplication prior to filing a charter to establish a new or renew an existing FACA 

advisory group. However, GAO found that DOT and DOE’s processes for 

assessing duplication are often informal, and neither agency has specific steps 

identified for making such an assessment. Using an informal approach without 

specific steps makes it more likely that agency assessments for duplication will 

be inconsistent or incomplete. In addition, while basic information about the 15 

DOT and 21 DOE fiscal year 2010 FACA advisory groups is publicly available in 

the FACA database, including designated points of contact and the objectives of 

the groups, no such information is readily available for non-FACA advisory 

groups. This limits the agencies’ ability to fully assess the universe of advisory 

groups for particular topic areas. DOT and DOE officials faced some challenges 

identifying and collecting information for the 19 DOT and 33 DOE non-FACA 

advisory groups GAO reviewed, relying on various sources and Internet searches 

to gather basic information, since neither agency maintains an inventory of its

non-FACA advisory groups and their activities. In addition, advisory groups often 

address complex and highly technical issues that span across agencies. For 

example, one advisory group GAO identified focused on experimental and 

theoretical research in nuclear physics. Agency officials familiar with these types 

of technical topic areas and other potential stakeholders covering these same 

topics are best positioned to assess the potential for unnecessary duplication and 

would be even better positioned to do so if the departments develop specific 

assessment steps and enhance the visibility of non-FACA advisory groups.

DOT and DOE advisory groups can be effective tools for agencies to gather input 

on topics of interest by informing agency leaders about issues of importance to 

the agencies’ missions, consolidating input from multiple sources, and providing

input at a relatively low cost. To further review the usefulness of advisory groups, 

GAO conducted case studies on five DOT and DOE FACA and non-FACA 

advisory groups and identified several practices that could enhance the 

usefulness of these advisory groups and, in some cases, also help avoid 

duplication. These practices include the following:

• securing clear agency commitment,

• finding a balance between responsiveness to the agency and

independence, 

• leveraging resources through collaboration with similar groups, and 

• evaluating the group’s usefulness to identify future directions for the 

group or actions to improve its usefulness. 

The practices identified can help agencies leverage the advice produced by 

advisory groups to more efficiently and effectively address topics of importance 

to the agencies. For example, DOE officials from a FACA advisory group stated 

that coordination with officials involved in related groups helps to ensure sharing 

of useful information and that efforts are complementary rather than duplicative.

View GAO-12-472. For more information, 

contact Linda Calbom at (206) 287-4809 or 

calboml@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

Letter 1 

Background 4

The Absence of Specific Assessment Steps and Readily Available 

Information on Non-FACA Groups Hinders Efforts to Assess 

Duplication Risk 7

Certain Practices Have Helped Enhance the Usefulness of Some 

Advisory Groups 13

Conclusions 19

Recommendations for Executive Action 20

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22

Appendix II DOT and DOE Fiscal Year 2010 Advisory Groups 28

Appendix III Additional Information on 36 Actively Chartered FACA Advisory 

Groups 32

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Energy 34

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 35

Tables

Table 1: Advisory Group Case Studies 14

Table 2: Advisory Groups Active in Fiscal Year 2010 23

Table 3: Advisory Group Case Studies 26

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2010 Advisory Groups 28

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2010 DOT FACA Advisory Groups 28

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2010 DOT Non-FACA Advisory Groups 29

Table 7: Fiscal Year 2010 DOE FACA Advisory Groups 30

Table 8: Fiscal Year 2010 DOE Non-FACA Advisory Groups 30

Table 9: Alignment with Agency Mission, Actively Chartered DOT 

and DOE FACA Advisory Groups in Fiscal Year 2010 32

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

Table 10: Select Activities, Actively Chartered DOT and DOE FACA 

Advisory Groups in Fiscal Year 2010 33

Abbreviations 

ATPAC Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

DFO Designated Federal Official

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

EAC Electricity Advisory Committee

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FICEMS Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical 

 Services

GSA General Services Administration

MTSNAC Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council

NSAC Nuclear Science Advisory Committee

SGTF Smart Grid Task Force

UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems

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

United States. The published product 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-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

March 29, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood

Secretary of Transportation

The Honorable Steven Chu

Secretary of Energy

Advisory groups can play an important role in the development of policy 

and government regulations by providing advice to federal agency 

policymakers. There are more than 1,000 advisory groups established 

under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA advisory groups)1 and 

an unknown number of other advisory groups not subject to FACA (nonFACA advisory groups) among the miscellaneous bodies that agencies 

routinely use to obtain input and recommendations from diverse 

perspectives on a wide range of issues.2 Congress mandated that GAO 

conduct routine investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and 

initiatives with duplicative goals and activities.3 Such duplication can 

waste scarce federal resources and result in less efficient and effective 

federal efforts. In fiscal year 2010, there were 1,046 FACA advisory 

groups governmentwide, with agency-reported, annual, direct costs of 

approximately $387 million.4

 

1

Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (Oct. 6, 1972), codified, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. app. 

2. FACA was enacted in 1972 in part in response to concerns that federal advisory groups 

were proliferating without adequate review, oversight, or accountability. 

While the full costs of FACA and non-FACA 

advisory group activities are unknown and may not be large compared 

with other agency expenditures, the wide use of these advisory groups—

which may examine related topics—raises the potential for duplication 

2

“Advisory groups” refers to both those groups established under FACA, as well as those 

that are not subject to FACA. When discussed individually, we refer to them as “FACA 

advisory groups” and “non-FACA advisory groups.”

3

Section 21 of Pub. L. No. 111-139, 124 Stat. 8, 29-30 (Feb. 12, 2010). See also GAO, 

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax 

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).

4

Agencies self-report cost information into the FACA database each fiscal year. Only 

discrete costs directly related to the committee’s scope and duties, such as the cost for 

reimbursed travel and all federal members, are reported. As a general rule, certain indirect 

expenses, such as administrative support provided by other federal nonmembers and 

costs that are part of ongoing agency program activities, are not included.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

among these groups’ efforts. Agency officials devote time and resources 

to manage, participate in, and respond to advisory group activities and 

recommendations, and it is important that advisory groups are used 

efficiently and effectively, particularly given continuing fiscal pressures.

In light of these issues, we examined (1) the extent to which the 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) and Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

assessment process helps ensure advisory group efforts are not 

duplicative and what challenges, if any, exist in assessing potential 

duplication, and (2) to what extent DOT and DOE advisory groups are 

useful in assisting their respective agencies in carrying out their missions 

and how the groups’ usefulness could be enhanced.

To address our objectives, we selected two agencies—DOT and DOE—

and developed and applied a methodology to better understand how their 

advisory groups function. We selected DOT and DOE based on 

knowledge of these agencies’ advisory groups and because they 

represented two federal agencies working on a range of issues and topics 

with a similar number of FACA advisory groups. To identify DOT and 

DOE FACA advisory groups, agency officials verified the active fiscal year 

2010 FACA advisory groups identified in the FACA database.5

 

5

The FACA database is available to the public at 

To assess 

the reliability of the FACA database, we reviewed existing documentation 

and database use protocols and interviewed knowledgeable agency 

officials about the data. FACA groups are any advisory groups, with 

limited exceptions, that are established or utilized by a federal agency 

and that have at least one member who is not a federal employee. 

Because there is no single uniform definition of non-FACA advisory 

groups, we developed a definition to identify these groups and relied on 

DOT and DOE officials to identify groups that met the definition. For our 

work, non-FACA advisory groups are defined as: “groups active in fiscal 

year 2010 that serve primarily an advisory function and provide input to 

the agency and/or component agency offices on areas related to the 

agency or office’s mission. These groups may have a mix of federal and 

non-federal members, and are established to provide advice or 

recommendations on issues or policies pertaining to the agency or its 

components.” Non-FACA advisory groups are not subject to FACA for a 

variety of reasons, including statutory language that excludes a group or 

membership consisting entirely of federal government employees. To 

www.fido.gov/facadatabase. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

assess the extent to which DOT’s and DOE’s assessment process helps 

ensure advisory group efforts are not duplicative, and to determine what 

challenges may exist in assessing potential duplication, we identified and 

gathered information for the 88 DOT and DOE advisory groups active in 

fiscal year 2010 and reviewed 47 for potential duplication, overlap, and 

fragmentation.6 Specifically, we selected these 47 groups by focusing on 

the most common advisory group issue areas for DOT and DOE, which 

were aviation and energy, respectively. For these groups, we reviewed 

charters and other agency-provided documentation to help determine with 

more specificity the types of issues or topics the groups cover. We then 

selected those groups that focus on common issues or topic areas for 

further analysis and interviewed agency officials involved in the selected 

groups with potential overlap or fragmentation in these broad areas to 

better understand whether in fact the groups’ efforts were potentially 

duplicative. In addition, we collected information from DOT and DOE to 

determine any internal agency processes used to determine duplication, 

overlap, or fragmentation and the extent to which there was an 

awareness of other FACA or non-FACA advisory groups within the 

agency or governmentwide that focused on the same issues as their 

groups. To review the usefulness of DOT and DOE advisory groups in 

assisting their respective agencies in carrying out their mission, and to 

identify practices to enhance their usefulness or help avoid duplication, 

we conducted case studies on three FACA and two non-FACA advisory 

groups.7

 

6

We reviewed 17 of 34 DOT and 30 of 54 DOE advisory groups for a total of 47 of 88 

advisory groups. For the purposes of our analysis, duplication or overlap exists when 

advisory groups have the same or similar objectives and scope and/or duties, and engage 

in the same or similar activities or strategies to achieve them. Fragmentation is present 

where more than one advisory group is involved in the same interest area, focused on the 

same topic, and provides advice to different recipients. The presence of fragmentation and 

overlap can suggest the need to look closer at the potential for unnecessary duplication, 

which exists where some degree of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation is not 

warranted.

We judgmentally selected these advisory groups to obtain a mix 

of characteristics, including the agency they advise, how the group was 

established, and whether they generated reports or recommendations. 

For each case study, we reviewed relevant documentation and 

interviewed agency officials, advisory group members, and third party or 

industry stakeholders to obtain perspectives on the group’s usefulness. 

For example, we asked about how helpful the group was at assisting the 

7

The case study selections were not limited to the issue areas of aviation and energy used 

in the assessment of potential duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

agency in carrying out its mission, the impact the group or its products 

had on the agency, and the value added by the group. To understand the 

extent to which advisory groups provided input on topics of importance to 

their respective agencies’ missions, we developed criteria and gathered 

information on a selection of FACA and non-FACA advisory groups by 

reviewing information from the FACA database for the 36 actively 

chartered DOT and DOE FACA advisory groups and interviewing agency 

officials for both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 to March 2012 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. For a more detailed 

description of our objectives, scope, and methodology, see appendix I.

Advisory groups—both FACA and non-FACA—exist throughout the 

executive branch of the federal government, providing input and advice to 

agencies in a variety of ways, such as preparing reports and developing 

recommendations. Agencies are not required to implement the advice or 

recommendations of advisory groups because they are by design 

advisory. While an advisory group’s input or recommendations may form 

the basis for a federal agency’s decisions or policies, other factors may 

play a role in determining what action an agency ultimately takes. 

However, both types of advisory groups serve as a mechanism for federal 

agencies to obtain input from internal and external stakeholders such as 

academics, industry associations, or other agencies.

FACA was enacted in 1972 in response to concerns that federal advisory 

groups were proliferating without adequate review, oversight, or 

accountability. The General Services Administration (GSA) Committee 

Management Secretariat oversees each federal agency’s management of 

FACA advisory groups, develops guidelines and regulations, and 

conducts an annual review of FACA advisory groups governmentwide. 

For example, GSA provides guidance to federal agencies sponsoring 

FACA advisory groups and is involved in the process to establish new 

and oversee the management of existing FACA advisory groups. GSA 

collects and makes available governmentwide FACA advisory group 

information that agencies—including DOT and DOE—are required to 

provide through a publicly accessible database each fiscal year. In 

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

addition, each agency also develops its own policies and procedures for 

following FACA requirements. For example, DOT and DOE each have 

policy manuals governing the management of their FACA advisory 

groups. Each agency sponsoring FACA advisory groups appoints a 

Committee Management Officer responsible for overseeing compliance 

with FACA requirements, and appoints to each FACA advisory group a 

Designated Federal Official (DFO) responsible for attending meetings, 

approving agendas, and maintaining records on costs and membership, 

among other duties. Decisions regarding the establishment of new FACA 

advisory groups and recommendations to terminate or continue existing 

groups are made by the head of each agency based on 

recommendations made by the Committee Management Officer, the DFO 

assigned to each group, or other agency officials.

FACA sets forth requirements for FACA advisory groups’ formation, their 

operations, and how they provide advice and recommendations to the 

federal government. To help avoid duplication of resources, FACA 

regulations require that the process to establish, renew, or reestablish 

discretionary FACA advisory groups—those established under agency 

authority or authorized by statute—must include an explanation stating 

why the group’s functions cannot be performed by the agency, another 

existing group, or other means.8

As previously noted, not every advisory group that provides advice or 

recommendations to an agency is subject to the FACA requirements. An 

advisory group may not be subject to FACA for a variety of reasons, 

including statutory language that may exempt a group from FACA. 

FACA also articulates broad 

requirements for balance, transparency, and independence. For example, 

for transparency, a range of information is to be reported in the FACA 

database, and meeting minutes and reports are to be made available to 

the public. The act also requires that all FACA advisory groups have a 

charter containing specific information, including the group’s scope and 

objectives, a description of duties, and the period of time necessary to 

carry out its purposes. Charters—and thus the FACA advisory groups— 

generally expire at the end of 2 years unless renewed by the agency, the 

Congress, or executive order. This requirement was intended to 

encourage agencies to periodically reexamine their need for FACA 

advisory groups.

 

8

41 C.F.R. §102-3.60.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

Further, certain types of groups are also exempt from FACA, including 

groups not managed or controlled by the executive branch, groups with 

membership consisting entirely of federal government officials, or 

intergovernmental groups.9

Agency-reported fiscal year 2010 costs for DOT and DOE FACA advisory 

groups were approximately $4 and $13.6 million, respectively.

Non-FACA advisory groups are generally less 

formal than those established under and subject to the requirements of 

FACA. Because they are not subject to FACA, non-FACA advisory 

groups are not required to follow FACA requirements to hold public 

meetings or to make meeting minutes and reports publicly available. 

Similarly, agencies are not required to collect or report information 

identifying non-FACA advisory groups, and GSA does not have any 

oversight responsibilities pertaining to non-FACA advisory groups. While 

there is no specific entity or office that oversees non-FACA advisory 

groups, general guidance for the management of some of these groups—

such as federal interagency groups—may be included within the agency’s 

committee management policy manuals. For example, DOT’s committee 

management policy covers FACA advisory groups, as well as interagency 

groups—one type of non-FACA advisory group—while DOE’s policy is 

focused exclusively on FACA advisory groups.

10 As noted 

above, agencies self-report cost information, such as travel and per diem 

costs incurred by FACA advisory group activity or payments to members 

or consultants. Agencies sponsoring FACA advisory groups determine 

the level of financial and administrative support for their groups. 

Variations in costs are common given factors such as the number of 

meetings held or compensation rates for groups’ members. For fiscal year 

2010, the FACA database identified the 15 DOT and 21 DOE actively 

chartered FACA advisory groups covering various topics and issues 

related to their respective agency’s mission.

 

9

Further, advisory groups created by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal 

Reserve System are exempt from FACA. Advisory groups created by the National 

Academy of Sciences or National Academy of Public Administration are excluded from 

FACA’s definition of advisory committee, but are subject to public disclosure requirements 

under section 15 of FACA. 

10Fiscal year 2010 was the most recent and complete data available for this review.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

The approach used by DOT and DOE to assess duplication amongst 

advisory groups is often informal, and agency officials are not always 

clear about what steps should be taken to ensure the assessment of 

existing advisory groups is consistently made. GSA relies on federal 

agencies to follow the FACA requirement to check for duplication prior to 

filing a charter to establish a new, or renew an existing, FACA advisory 

group under agency authority. Furthermore, guidance for our two selected 

agencies requires officials to determine whether the objectives or duties 

of a proposed FACA advisory group could be achieved by an existing 

entity, committee, or organization within the agency or governmentwide. 

Some DOT and DOE officials told us they use the FACA database to 

check for potentially duplicative advisory groups. This may be a good first 

step to identifying FACA groups working on similar issues; however, it 

does not necessarily provide an adequate assessment for duplication. 

While the FACA database contains information on advisory group issue 

areas, it is limited in its ability to directly identify related groups. For 

example, a search of the FACA database in the issue area of “surface 

and vehicular transportation” yielded approximately 60 FACA advisory 

groups working across 10 federal agencies. Further, issue areas are selfidentified by agency officials and may not be consistently defined across 

agencies.

We found that several agency officials were not aware of a process to 

determine whether the objectives or duties of an advisory group could be 

achieved by an existing entity, committee, or organization.11

 

11For more information on the questionnaire, see appendix I.

In cases 

The Absence of 

Specific Assessment 

Steps and Readily 

Available Information 

on Non-FACA Groups 

Hinders Efforts to 

Assess Duplication 

Risk

DOT and DOE Informally 

Assess Advisory Groups 

for Duplication
 

Page 8 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

where officials indicated they were aware of a process, when asked to 

describe the process, a number described informal approaches for 

checking for duplication and did not articulate consistent steps taken to 

make these determinations. Several DOE officials reported that the 

agency’s Committee Management Office is involved and engages each 

FACA advisory group’s DFO to be aware of any existing entity or 

committee that could achieve the objectives being proposed, but they did 

not provide additional detail outlining formal steps taken to identify these 

groups. DOT and DOE officials also indicated that agency officials 

working in a program or issue area are generally able to identify groups 

that may be addressing similar topics using their existing knowledge of 

agency offices and programs. For example, some DOT officials noted that 

high-level program officials are likely to be aware of other groups dealing 

with an area of possible duplication and that this approach can serve as 

an informal mechanism to help identify relevant advisory groups working 

on related issues. However, without a process with specific steps to 

check for duplication (such as reaching out to key contacts of relevant 

advisory groups) assessment results may be inconsistent or incomplete.

In contrast, one of the DOT agency offices we reviewed, the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Rulemaking, has a policy that 

outlines specific steps agency officials should take prior to establishing a 

new advisory group. This policy is specific to aviation rulemaking advisory 

groups, covers both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups, and clearly 

lays out the process used to determine the need for and how to establish 

a new group. For instance, when an FAA office identifies an issue on 

which it would be helpful to obtain advice from industry, officials decide 

whether to request the standing Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

to accept the task or to charter a new aviation rulemaking committee 

based on the best fit given the specific topic or activity. The Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee is a formal, standing FACA advisory 

group; aviation rulemaking committees are non-FACA advisory groups 

formed on an ad hoc basis, for a specific purpose, and are typically of 

limited duration. One FAA official involved in these rulemaking advisory 

groups noted that this guidance offers those offices establishing advisory 

groups a process they can use to establish and manage their advisory 

groups, a useful tool because Congress often directs FAA to use these 

types of advisory groups to conduct rulemakings.
 

Page 9 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

While readily available information on FACA advisory groups—such as a 

designated point of contact and description of objectives—is accessible 

through a centralized database managed by GSA, similar information is 

not available for non-FACA advisory groups. Information on all FACA 

advisory groups—including DOT’s and DOE’s fiscal year 2010 groups—is 

readily available through the public FACA database, providing agency 

officials and interested parties with a basic level of transparency. This 

includes basic information such as contact information and descriptions of 

activities. In contrast, federal agencies are not required to, and may or 

may not track their non-FACA advisory groups,12

Both DOT and DOE agency officials faced some challenges identifying 

and collecting basic information for non-FACA advisory groups—including 

agency points of contact and brief group descriptions—and the process 

was, at points, time consuming or cumbersome for them. DOT and DOE 

officials used different approaches to identify non-FACA advisory groups 

but encountered the following similar challenges in collecting basic 

information on these groups:

and neither of our two 

selected agencies had an existing inventory of all non-FACA advisory 

groups that provide advice or input to the agency. Using an agreed-upon 

definition for non-FACA advisory groups, DOT identified 19 and DOE 

identified 33 fiscal year 2010 non-FACA advisory groups. However, we 

could not confirm whether the groups identified include all of the nonFACA advisory groups for each agency, and DOT and DOE officials 

noted they do not necessarily consider their various groups as falling 

under a single definition of non-FACA advisory groups.

• DOT generally relied on officials at the program level to identify the 

agency’s non-FACA advisory groups, and in most cases, agency 

liaisons served as a conduit to identify the groups by providing 

officials working on various programs with the non-FACA definition. 

According to DOT officials, challenges in compiling the requested 

information included identifying the agency point of contact and 

locating additional descriptive information pertaining to non-FACA 

advisory group activities. For example, one agency official we spoke 

with relied on an Internet search engine to locate relevant information 

about some of the non-FACA advisory groups. Another DOT official 

was able to identify a few advisory groups based on indirect 

 

12For example, during the course of our review, we found the Federal Communications 

Commission lists both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups on its website. 

Information on DOT and 

DOE Non-FACA Advisory 

Groups Is Not Readily 

Available
 

Page 10 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

involvement and knowledge of agency activities and programs. Of the 

four DOT agency components that identified non-FACA advisory 

groups for this review, only one identified these groups based on a 

readily available roster. In this case, Maritime Administration officials 

identified five non-FACA advisory groups using a committee roster the 

agency maintains for internal purposes. This roster identifies the 

names of both FACA and non-FACA groups, any subcommittees, and 

primary and secondary points of contact.

• DOE officials coordinated with each of their program offices to identify 

their non-FACA advisory groups based on the agreed-upon definition. 

The officials told us there was some difficulty in trying to identify the 

non-FACA advisory groups because basic information pertaining to 

these groups is not readily available as it is for FACA advisory groups. 

DOE officials told us that they had to coordinate the efforts of multiple 

program offices to compile the information and noted the process was 

time-consuming because there is no existing source for non-FACA 

advisory group information. As a result, the program officers had to 

cull much of the information for these groups from various Internet 

websites.

Because there is no way to readily identify non-FACA advisory groups 

providing advice to the agencies, there is no formal source of information 

enabling agency officials to conduct a comprehensive check for 

potentially duplicative groups. For example, DOT officials told us that, 

because they are only able to check whether a FACA advisory group 

overlaps or duplicates the work of existing FACA advisory groups, they 

would not necessarily be aware of potential overlap with advisory groups 

not subject to FACA. DOT officials also pointed out that, given the time 

and resources required to establish and manage an advisory group, there 

is no incentive to maintain a FACA advisory group that duplicates the 

activities of another group. However, with limited visibility over the 

universe of non-FACA advisory groups, there is no assurance that 

agency officials checking for duplication would know where to look or 

whom to contact for additional information necessary to assess 

duplication vis-à-vis those groups. This raises the risk that new advisory 

groups may be created or existing groups retained that are unnecessarily 

duplicative and therefore not an efficient use of agency resources. 

Further, this absence of readily available information may hinder other 

federal agencies from coordinating with or ensuring that their advisory 

groups are not unnecessarily duplicative with DOT or DOE non-FACA 

advisory groups.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

Because many of the advisory groups identified by DOT and DOE cover 

highly technical subjects—including some that span a number of federal 

agencies—agency officials with broad knowledge and familiarity with the 

topics, other potential stakeholders, and the agency’s organization and 

program officials are typically best positioned to formally assess the 

potential for unnecessary duplication. Identifying agency officials with 

whom to coordinate can also help those involved in advisory groups 

better leverage existing knowledge and expertise. In some cases, 

advisory groups may be created to help share information pertaining to a 

specific topic across several agencies. For example, several of the nonFACA advisory groups identified by DOT and DOE are interagency 

coordination groups established to facilitate information sharing for a 

given topic involving multiple federal agencies. While we identified some 

instances of potential duplication for selected advisory groups covering 

broad topics, the technical nature of advisory group subject areas, 

instances where topics span multiple agencies, and the evolving roles 

and activities of advisory groups make determining whether, in fact, 

unnecessary duplication exists challenging. Additional familiarity with the 

subject areas or the agency’s specific programs covering these topics is 

often necessary to ultimately determine the extent of potential duplication, 

overlap, and fragmentation.

• Technical nature of topics: A number of advisory groups included in 

our review were involved in highly technical and complex subject 

areas, which highlighted challenges to fully assessing the potential for 

unnecessary duplication. For example, DOE’s Nuclear Science 

Advisory Committee (NSAC) is a FACA advisory group focused on 

experimental and theoretical research in nuclear physics. Basic 

nuclear research encompasses a variety of subfields of experimental 

and theoretical investigations involving the fundamental interactions, 

properties, and structures of atomic nuclei. While multiple DOE 

advisory groups may focus on nuclear issues and appeared 

potentially duplicative, NSAC officials told us that they do not believe 

any duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists with other groups 

identified as covering nuclear issues. Officials noted that nuclear 

issues cover a broad, highly technical subject-matter area and include 

a wide range of activities. The advice solicited from NSAC, for 

example, is specific to the needs of DOE’s Office of Nuclear Physics 

and is largely focused on basic nuclear science research, which 

examines how matter is formed and identifies the internal structure of 

matter. According to agency officials, other advisory group activities 

related to nuclear issues—such as those covered by the DOE Nuclear 

Energy Advisory Committee FACA advisory group or its 

Assessing Advisory Groups 

Requires Familiarity with 

Complex Subject Areas, 

the Agency, and Potential 

Stakeholders 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

subcommittees—focus on the production of energy through nuclear 

power and would not be addressed by NSAC. FACA advisory groups 

are not required to report on subcommittee activities,13

• Topics may span multiple federal agencies: Because several federal 

agencies may have ongoing efforts in a particular subject area, it can 

be challenging to assess advisory groups for unnecessary duplication 

given that similar FACA and non-FACA advisory groups may be 

located in different federal agencies and involve multiple stakeholders. 

Some FAA officials we met with indicated overlap or fragmentation 

may exist among advisory groups covering Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS) because numerous federal agencies are involved in 

the subject area. For example, in addition to FAA, the Department of 

Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the 

Department of Homeland Security have multiple UAS efforts under

way. As we have previously reported, while government and private 

sector interest in UAS is growing, these aircraft pose technological, 

regulatory, and coordination challenges that affect their ability to 

operate safely and routinely in the national airspace system.

thus 

attempting to identify unnecessary duplication amongst activities 

dealing with highly technical topics is further complicated by the 

limited visibility over advisory group subcommittee efforts.

14

• Advisory group roles may evolve over time: Advisory group activities 

may change in response to agency needs and priorities. For example, 

some FAA officials believe that numerous agency organizations, 

An 

official we met with said it is difficult to be aware of all advisory groups 

involved in UAS, in part, due to the fact that it is a new and emerging 

field that covers complex aspects of UAS topics—including both 

technical systems engineering issues and safety issues related to 

integration with existing airspace operations—and a variety of federal 

agencies are currently involved in UAS efforts. According to this 

official, current UAS efforts are spread among numerous advisory 

groups governmentwide that have a stake and interest in the topic.

 

13While subcommittees of FACA advisory groups are generally not subject to FACA, and 

their activities may or may not be reported, the creation and operation of subcommittees 

must be approved by the agency establishing the parent FACA advisory group. Further, 

subcommittees report to the parent FACA advisory group.

14GAO, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Federal Actions Needed to Ensure Safety and 

Expand Their Potential Uses within the National Airspace System, GAO-08-511

(Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008).
 

Page 13 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

offices, and advisory groups have emerged over time and serve a 

similar role as the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee 

(ATPAC), a DOT FACA advisory group. Based on their review, 

agency officials involved in ATPAC identified potential duplication with 

ATPAC and other DOT advisory groups covering aviation topics 

including aviation charts, publications, or procedures. In this case, 

extensive knowledge of the organization, its history, and awareness of 

current advisory groups agencywide enabled these officials to perform 

this assessment, which raised questions about the ongoing need for 

ATPAC. According to FAA officials, ATPAC was the only mechanism 

of its kind for industry input to the FAA when it was created in 1976 

but, over time, has essentially become a conduit to pass issues 

identified by members on to the appropriate FAA office or group. 

However, these officials noted this was the first step in the 

assessment process that will ultimately require internal agency 

concurrence to consider whether to retain or terminate ATPAC. Other 

agency officials we spoke with had differing perspectives regarding 

whether unnecessary duplication with ATPAC and other DOT aviation 

advisory groups exists.

While advisory groups are not the sole source of information or input for 

agencies such as DOT and DOE, they can be a relatively effective and 

efficient way to gather input on topics of interest. Specifically, advisory 

groups can inform agencies about topics of importance to the agency’s 

mission, consolidate input from multiple sources, and provide input at a 

relatively low cost. We reviewed information on 36 DOE and DOT FACA 

advisory groups and found that these groups all provided some form of 

input to agencies about topics related to the agency’s mission.15

To further review the usefulness of advisory groups, we conducted case 

studies on five DOT and DOE FACA and non-FACA advisory groups and 

identified several practices that helped enhance the usefulness of some 

of these advisory groups and, in some cases, also helped avoid 

For 

example, each of the 36 FACA advisory groups had goals and topics that 

were aligned with their respective agency’s missions or strategic goals, 

and each was engaged in activities that could help it produce advice, 

such as producing reports and making formal recommendations.

 

15We reviewed the 15 DOT and 21 DOE FACA advisory groups that were actively 

chartered in fiscal year 2010 using information from the FACA database and other 

sources. For additional information, see appendix III.

Certain Practices 

Have Helped Enhance 

the Usefulness of 

Some Advisory 

Groups 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

duplication (see table 1 below). The five case studies provided examples 

of how agencies may address issues that could impact an advisory 

group’s usefulness.16

Table 1: Advisory Group Case Studies

According to some members, stakeholders, and 

agency officials involved in these five advisory groups, certain practices 

or circumstances positively affected the group’s usefulness, while in other 

cases, the absence of those practices or circumstances may have limited 

the group’s usefulness. Practices identified as influencing the usefulness 

of some advisory groups include (1) securing clear agency commitment, 

(2) finding a balance between responsiveness to the agency and 

independence, (3) leveraging resources through collaboration with similar 

groups, and (4) evaluating the group’s usefulness to identify future 

directions for the group or actions to improve its usefulness.

Advisory group Agency Advisory group type

Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee DOT FACA

Electricity Advisory Committee DOE FACA

Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency 

Medical Services

DOT Non-FACA

Smart Grid Task Force DOE Non-FACA

U.S. Marine Transportation System National 

Advisory Council

DOT FACA

Source: GAO.

Securing agency commitment: Clear agency commitment to an advisory 

group can help enhance the group’s usefulness. As we have noted 

before, perhaps the single most important element in successfully 

implementing organizational change is the demonstrated, sustained 

commitment of top leaders.17

 

16Interviews that were conducted as part of our case study review included discussions to 

identify potential duplication with other advisory groups.

Agency commitment to advisory groups can 

be demonstrated by active participation in meetings, open communication 

with group members, and allocation of resources to the group. Some 

agency officials, members, and third party stakeholders explained that the 

level of agency commitment can positively or negatively impact the 

17GAO, Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using 

Performance Information to Improve Results, GAO-08-1026T (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 

2008).
 

Page 15 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

usefulness of advisory groups. For example, high-level agency 

participation can help the advisory group consider the agency’s needs 

when developing recommendations and may impact the likelihood that 

recommendations are implemented. In contrast, an absence of agency 

commitment to an advisory group can hinder the group’s usefulness by 

limiting resources or information that may help the group to be useful to 

the agency.

According to DOT officials, involvement of high level decision makers 

enhanced the usefulness of the Federal Interagency Committee on 

Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS). FICEMS is a statutorily 

mandated body not subject to FACA whose members primarily are 

federal agency officials.18

In contrast, some members of DOT’s Marine Transportation System 

National Advisory Council (MTSNAC) and a third party stakeholder 

believed that reduced agency commitment may have limited the group’s 

usefulness. DOT chartered MTSNAC, a FACA advisory group, to provide 

advice on the marine transportation system for the Secretary of 

Transportation through the group’s sponsor, the Maritime 

Administration.

The group shares information and discusses 

methods to improve emergency medical services and produces formal 

recommendations and reports. The Administrator of DOT’s National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration is a FICEMS member, which 

officials believe enhances the group’s usefulness. Because DOT has 

committed high-level involvement to FICEMS, the items discussed during 

meetings directly involve the agency’s decisionmakers with the authority 

to make changes based on the advice.

19

 

18Section 10202 of Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1932 (Aug. 10, 2005).

According to members, DOT was actively involved in 

MTSNAC from the group’s inception in 1999 until about 2006, when the 

agency reduced requests for input and limited its support of the group’s 

meetings. With reduced agency support, the advisory group continued to 

meet but developed its own agendas and identified topics to cover. 

Agency officials stated that MTSNAC’s recommendations could have 

been more useful, and in 2010 the group’s charter lapsed. After the 

group’s last meeting in 2009, the agency rechartered MTSNAC to focus 

on a more specific segment of the marine transportation system: marine 

19The marine transportation system encompasses numerous modes of transportation 

overseen by multiple agencies, one of which is the Maritime Administration. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

highways.20 According to members and a stakeholder, the Maritime 

Administration may have had limited commitment to MTSNAC in part 

because the group’s original scope was the marine transportation system 

and all related federal agencies,21

Balancing responsiveness with independence: Balancing responsiveness 

to agencies’ needs with ensuring independence can improve the 

usefulness of an advisory group. On one hand, responding to agencies’ 

needs may help advisory groups produce useful recommendations or 

reports. But on the other hand, as we have previously reported, the 

advice and recommendations of federal advisory groups should be 

independent of influence by the entity that created the advisory group.

some of which is beyond the 

administration’s jurisdiction. In their view, MTSNAC provided a useful and 

needed service by addressing the wide-ranging issues affecting the 

marine transportation system, but its advice may have been better 

targeted at agency officials with a commitment to the broader marine 

transportation system.

22

Similarly, we previously reported that advisory groups’ independence is 

important because the effectiveness of FACA advisory groups can be 

undermined if the members are, or are perceived to be, lacking 

independence.23

According to officials and members of the Electricity Advisory Committee 

(EAC), a DOE FACA advisory group, EAC’s responsiveness to DOE 

needs enhanced its usefulness and officials worked closely with the 

group’s members to focus the direction of the group to meet the agency’s 

needs. According to some EAC members, agency officials generally 

identified the topic to be covered while members determined how EAC 

would address the topic and sometimes identified additional topics to 

cover. Officials found EAC members to be responsive to DOE needs. For 

 

20The new MTSNAC group had not met as of July 2011. 

21For example, the U.S. Coast Guard in the Department of Homeland Security and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Department of Defense are included in the marine 

transportation system. 

22GAO, Federal Communications Commission: Federal Advisory Committees Follow 

Requirements, but FCC Should Improve Its Process for Appointing Committee Members, 

GAO-05-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2004).

23GAO, Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better 

Ensure Independence and Balance, GAO-04-328 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).
 

Page 17 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

example, at DOE’s suggestion, EAC began developing “quick response” 

products to react to agency requests for information and input in lieu of 

lengthier reports. DOE officials also assisted with the development of 

agendas for meetings, which can be highly interactive. This type of 

dialogue between agency officials and advisory group members can help

the advisory group meet agency needs and enhance the usefulness of 

the group’s products.

However, there may be a tension between responsiveness and 

independence that could affect the group’s usefulness. Some advisory 

group members indicated that some situations may challenge members’ 

efforts to maintain independence. For example, in one instance, members 

of MTSNAC said that their sponsoring agency drafted recommendations 

and asked the group to endorse them, which the group declined. The 

members believed that the consensus-based recommendations they 

developed were valid even if they were not the recommendations that the 

agency wanted to hear. When asked for their perspectives on the group’s 

usefulness in general, DOT officials stated that they implemented some of 

MTSNAC’s recommendations and, while they did not always agree with 

other recommendations, members’ diverse and varied perspectives could 

be useful.

Leveraging resources through collaboration: Collaboration between an 

advisory group and other groups focusing on similar topics can help 

agencies spend resources efficiently, prevent unnecessary duplication, 

and enhance the group’s usefulness. As we reported in 2011, interagency 

mechanisms or strategies to coordinate programs that address 

crosscutting issues may reduce potentially duplicative, overlapping, and 

fragmented efforts.24

 

24GAO, Managing for Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation Provides 

Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges, 

Collaboration with groups focusing on similar topics 

may help ensure that groups are not duplicating activities but are instead 

focusing on the most useful tasks. Similarly, it may help advisory groups 

leverage existing resources to more quickly obtain information or 

expertise already possessed by other groups, thereby enhancing their 

usefulness and efficiency. Some advisory groups—such as non-FACA 

interagency coordination groups—share resources and information with 

other advisory groups.

GAO-11-617T (Washington, 

D.C.: May 10, 2011). 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

One official explained that collaborating and coordinating helps DOE’s 

federal Smart Grid Task Force (SGTF) to be useful and accomplish its 

purpose. SGTF is a statutorily mandated non-FACA group created 

primarily for the federal agencies involved in smart grid activities25 to 

coordinate projects and priorities, and the group’s members are 

representatives of the relevant agencies.26

Evaluating usefulness: By evaluating the usefulness of advisory groups, 

agencies may identify actions that can increase the groups’ usefulness or 

discover future directions for the groups. Alternately, evaluation may help 

agencies determine whether certain groups are more useful than others, 

or if a group is no longer necessary, and can help avoid overlap and 

duplication. In 2008, we reported that performance information can play a 

valuable role in highlighting the need to take a closer look at the 

effectiveness of existing approaches and processes.

According to one agency 

official and a third party stakeholder, SGTF’s coordinating function is 

useful in part because member agencies can become more aware of 

ongoing or proposed activities in the federal government that may affect 

their agency. Further, an agency official explained that members 

contributed to the body of knowledge about smart grid activities, for 

example, by collaboratively identifying common challenges for smart grid 

implementation. DOE also benefits from SGTF reaching out beyond the 

federal government—involving states and other entities—to accomplish 

its purpose. For example, SGTF members are statutorily required to 

coordinate with members of EAC’s smart grid subcommittee, who are 

nonfederal parties with interests or expertise in the smart grid. According 

to DOE agency officials, SGTF and EAC members meet every few 

months to discuss smart grid technological changes and developments. 

Agency officials stated that this type of coordination helps minimize the 

risk of unnecessary duplication of efforts.

27

 

25Smart Grid is a way of using technology to improve reliability, security, and efficiency of 

the electric power delivery system (the energy grid). 

Though each 

agency is required to recommend either continuing or terminating its 

FACA advisory groups through GSA’s annual review and consultation 

process, there is no such requirement for non-FACA advisory groups. 

Examination of advisory groups’ usefulness could inform officials of 

26Section 1303(b) of Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, 1785 (Dec. 19, 2007).

27GAO-08-1026T. 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

changes needed to bring about performance improvements and enhance 

usefulness.

Some officials from DOT’s FAA have taken steps to evaluate ATPAC, a 

FACA advisory group, and are consequently better equipped to assess 

the group’s strengths, weaknesses, and whether the group continues to 

be relevant and useful. For example, officials (1) collected information on 

the group’s accomplishments—identifying the number of issues 

addressed over a number of years, (2) gathered members’ perspectives 

on the relevance and continuation of the group, and (3) informally 

considered whether the group’s costs outweigh its benefits. Based on the 

information gathered on ATPAC’s accomplishments, officials determined 

that the group’s workload had decreased. For example, while the 

committee resolved an average of about 16 issues per year over its first 

29 years, over the last 6 years, ATPAC resolved approximately 6 issues 

per year. According to agency officials, FAA and ATPAC have responded 

to the change in workload by decreasing the frequency of meetings from 

about four to three times a year. Agency officials explained that they are 

further evaluating the group and may consider additional actions in the 

future.

The practices identified through our advisory group case studies—

securing agency commitment, balancing responsiveness with 

independence, leveraging resources through collaboration with similar 

groups, and evaluating usefulness—can help agencies leverage the 

advice produced by both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups to better 

address topics of importance to the agencies and avoid duplication of 

efforts.

Advisory groups exist governmentwide and are generally considered 

useful and cost efficient mechanisms for federal agencies to obtain advice 

and input from a range of stakeholders and experts. However, the 

advisory group environment is fluid, and the potential for duplication 

exists both within and outside the agency as advisory groups are routinely 

established and used, taking on new issues in response to emerging 

agency needs. Therefore, assessments of whether existing advisory 

groups continue to be needed or whether another body or entity may be 

better suited to carry out advisory functions are important to help prevent 

unnecessary duplication and inefficient use of government resources.

FACA requirements direct agencies to check for duplication among 

advisory groups, and DOT and DOE guidance incorporates these 

Conclusions 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

requirements. However, neither agency’s guidance includes specific 

steps for assessing duplication, resulting in an informal process that is not 

always comprehensive. These issues are further exacerbated by the lack 

of visibility over non-FACA groups, which often address the same or 

similar issues as FACA advisory groups. Advisory groups addressing 

similar issues may also be housed in different agencies across 

government, further complicating any assessment for duplication. While 

agencies are not required to track their non-FACA advisory groups, 

having available at least minimal information about non-FACA advisory 

groups, as well as specific assessment steps, would help ensure more 

comprehensive assessments of whether new advisory groups should be 

created and existing groups should be retained. DOT and DOE are only 

two among many federal government agencies that widely use advisory 

groups, however, these actions could be a good first step in facilitating 

coordination and sharing of information of advisory groups 

governmentwide.

To reduce the risk of potential duplication of efforts and further inform 

assessments of advisory groups, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Transportation and the Secretary of Energy take the following two 

actions:

• Identify and document specific steps that should be taken in 

periodically assessing potential duplication and the ongoing need for 

both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups.

• Develop and make public (e.g., on the agency’s website) information 

identifying non-FACA advisory groups providing advice to the 

agency—including the group name, agency point of contact, and a 

brief description of the group’s purpose.

We provided copies of our draft report to DOT, DOE, and GSA for their 

review and comment. DOT and DOE agreed to consider the 

recommendations. GSA provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 21 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration, and other interested 

parties. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (206) 287-4809 or calboml@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix V.

Linda M. Calbom

West Region Director
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 22 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

This report examined (1) the extent to which the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) and Department of Energy’s (DOE) assessment 

process helps ensure advisory group efforts are not duplicative and what 

challenges, if any, exist in assessing potential duplication and (2) to what 

extent DOT and DOE advisory groups are useful in assisting their 

respective agencies in carrying out their missions and how the groups’ 

usefulness could be enhanced. For this report, we selected two 

agencies—DOT and DOE—and developed and applied a methodology to 

better understand how their advisory groups function. We selected DOT 

and DOE based on knowledge of these agencies’ advisory groups and 

because they represented two federal agencies working on a range of 

issues and topics with a similar number of Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA) advisory groups. This review included advisory groups 

established under FACA1

To address our objectives, we first developed a list of the 88 fiscal year 

2010 FACA and non-FACA advisory groups that provided input or advice 

to the selected agencies (see table 2 below). FACA groups are any 

advisory groups, with limited exceptions, which are established or utilized 

by a federal agency or the President, and that have at least one member 

who is not a federal employee. To identify the DOT and DOE FACA 

advisory groups, we used the online FACA database maintained by the 

General Services Administration (GSA).

(FACA advisory groups) and other advisory 

groups not subject to FACA (non-FACA advisory groups).

2

• Groups active in fiscal year 2010 that serve primarily an advisory 

function and provide input to the agency and/or component agency 

offices (e.g., DOT: Federal Aviation Administration, DOE: Office of 

Science) on areas related to the agency or office’s mission. These 

DOT and DOE officials verified 

the active fiscal year 2010 FACA advisory groups identified in the FACA 

database, the last year for which data was finalized by GSA. Because 

there are several types of non-FACA advisory groups and no single 

uniform definition, we developed one to identify non-FACA advisory 

groups whose primary activity was to provide advice to their respective 

agencies. DOT and DOE officials concurred with our definition, and we 

relied on the agencies to identify groups that met the following definition:

 

1

Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (Oct. 6, 1972), codified, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2. 

2

The FACA database is available to the public at www.fido.gov/facadatabase. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 23 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

groups may have a mix of federal and nonfederal members and are 

established to provide advice or recommendations on issues or 

policies pertaining to the agency or its components.

Because the non-FACA advisory groups were self-identified by DOT and 

DOE officials based on this definition, the groups identified may not 

include all of the existing non-FACA advisory groups for each agency.3

Table 2: Advisory Groups Active in Fiscal Year 2010 

Non-FACA advisory groups are not subject to FACA for a variety of 

reasons, including statutory language that excludes a group or 

membership consisting entirely of federal government employees.

DOT DOE Total

FACA advisory groups 15 21 36

Non-FACA advisory groups 19 33 52

Total 34 54 88

Sources: GAO analysis of DOT and DOE information.

We gathered information for each of the 88 FACA and non-FACA 

advisory groups identified as active in fiscal year 2010 using the FACA 

database and working with agency officials to collect information for each 

non-FACA group, such as a purpose statement or group descriptions. To 

better understand advisory group management, operations, and agency 

oversight responsibilities, we reviewed relevant documentation such as 

the FACA regulations and guidance, DOT and DOE committee 

management policies, and prior GAO reports on advisory groups. We 

interviewed agency officials within GSA’s Committee Management 

Secretariat and General Counsel and agency officials within DOT and 

DOE Committee Management Offices to better understand how each 

agency operates and manages advisory groups. We also spoke with 

aviation industry groups that participate as members in some DOT 

aviation advisory groups to obtain their perspectives on general 

experiences with these advisory groups.

 

3

The non-FACA advisory groups included in our review are not intended to cover all 

entities or groups providing advice to the agencies. Some groups have multiple functions, 

and providing advice may be a secondary activity among other functions. For example, 

the Transportation Research Board promotes innovation through transportation research, 

and providing advice to DOT on transportation policies and programs is not the primary 

function of the group. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 24 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

To assess the reliability of the FACA database, we (1) reviewed existing 

documentation related to the database, (2) reviewed a previous GAO 

data reliability assessment of the FACA database, (3) reviewed database 

use protocols, including verification and internal controls, and (4) 

interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data. We 

determined that the data used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 

of identifying FACA advisory groups and their status, presenting the total 

cost of FACAs, determining the most commonly reported interest areas, 

and analyzing FACA missions and activities.

To assess the extent to which DOT’s and DOE’s assessment process 

helps to ensure advisory groups efforts are not duplicative, and to 

determine what challenges may exist in assessing duplication, we 

narrowed the scope of our review and assessed the potential for 

duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among 47 of the 88 FACA and 

non-FACA advisory groups identified as active within fiscal year 2010.4

Specifically, we reviewed the 47 groups focusing on those interest areas 

most relevant to DOT and DOE—using the interest area identification in 

the FACA database and assigning these same interest areas to the nonFACA advisory groups—ultimately identifying aviation and energy as the 

most common advisory group interest areas for DOT and DOE, 

respectively. We also formulated definitions for duplication, overlap, and 

fragmentation using the broad definitions provided in GAO’s recent work.5

 

4

This review contributes to the broader congressional mandate that GAO conduct routine 

investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals 

and activities. Section 21 of Pub. L. No. 111-139, 124 Stat. 8, 29-30 (Feb. 12, 2010).

For the FACA advisory groups, we reviewed information within the FACA 

database performance measures section, their charters, and other 

agency documentation; for the non-FACA advisory groups, we reviewed 

agency provided descriptions and other agency documentation to help 

determine with more specificity the types of issues or topics the groups 

covered. We reviewed responses to a brief questionnaire sent to agency 

points of contact for the 47 selected DOT and DOE groups asking the 

5

For the purposes of our analysis, duplication or overlap exists when advisory groups 

have the same or similar objectives and scope and/or duties, and engage in the same or 

similar activities or strategies to achieve them. Fragmentation is present where more than 

one advisory group is involved in the same interest area, focused on the same topic and 

provides advice to different recipients. The presence of fragmentation and overlap can 

suggest the need to look closer at the potential for unnecessary duplication, which exists 

where some degree of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation is not warranted. See also 

GAO-11-318SP. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 25 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

respondents to identify, among other items, (1) any internal agency 

processes used to determine duplication, overlap, or fragmentation of 

proposed advisory groups with existing advisory groups and (2) their 

awareness of any other FACA or non-FACA advisory group within the 

agency or governmentwide that focused on the same issues as their 

group.6

From these 47 advisory groups, we then selected those groups that focus 

on common issues or topic areas in these broad areas for further analysis 

to better understand whether in fact the groups’ efforts were potentially 

duplicative and interviewed agency officials in the following offices:

• DOT: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials within the Office 

of the Deputy Administrator; Air Traffic Organization; Office of Aviation 

Safety; and Office of Policy, International Affairs and Environment that 

were involved in five FACA and four non-FACA advisory groups that 

were identified as potentially duplicative, overlapping or fragmented; 

and

• DOE: Office of the Secretary; Office of Science; Office of Health, 

Safety and Security; and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy officials that were involved in three FACA and five non-FACA 

advisory groups that were identified as potentially duplicative, 

overlapping, or fragmented.

To review the usefulness of DOT and DOE advisory groups in assisting 

their respective agencies in carrying out their mission, and to identify 

practices to enhance their usefulness or help avoid duplication, we 

conducted in-depth case studies on three FACA and two non-FACA 

advisory groups. See table 3 below.

 

6

We received questionnaire responses from 15 DOT and 22 DOE advisory groups.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 26 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

Table 3: Advisory Group Case Studies

Advisory group Agency Advisory group type

Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee DOT FACA

Electricity Advisory Committee DOE FACA

Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency 

Medical Services

DOT Non-FACA

Smart Grid Task Force DOE Non-FACA

U.S. Marine Transportation System National 

Advisory Council

DOT FACA

Source: GAO.

We judgmentally selected these five advisory groups to obtain a mix of 

characteristics with the purpose of reporting additional details on a 

targeted selection of advisory groups.7

 

7

The case study selections were not limited to the issue areas of aviation and energy used 

in the assessment of potential duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.

To obtain a diverse mix and 

coverage across several characteristics, we considered the following 

factors in selecting the advisory group case studies: the agency they 

advise, FACA status, age, how the group was established, and whether 

they generated reports or recommendations. For FACA advisory groups, 

we also considered results from the performance measures section of the 

FACA database, but this information was not available for non-FACA

advisory groups. For each case study, we reviewed relevant 

documentation and interviewed agency officials, advisory group 

members, and third party or industry stakeholders to obtain their 

perspectives on the group’s activities and its usefulness to the agency. 

For instance, to understand the group’s usefulness, we asked about how 

helpful the group was at assisting the agency in carrying out its mission, 

the impact the group or its products had on the agency, and the value 

added by the group. For example, we met with FAA, Maritime 

Administration, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

officials to discuss the effectiveness and usefulness of selected DOT 

advisory groups. The two selected non-FACA advisory groups were 

interagency coordination bodies whose membership consisted of federal 

employees. Because of this, the interviewees were able to represent both 

the agency and member perspectives. We reviewed advisory group 

charters, reports, meeting minutes, and performance measures from the 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 27 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

FACA database, other documentation as available, and observed an 

advisory group meeting for the Electricity Advisory Committee.

In addition, we developed criteria to understand the extent to which 

advisory groups provided input on topics of importance to their respective 

agencies’ missions and to describe the advice producing activities of 

advisory groups, such as whether the advisory group held meetings and 

produced reports and recommendations and if the groups’ objectives 

were documented and were related to the agency’s strategic goals or 

mission. We developed these criteria by reviewing a selection of previous 

GAO reports, including those on the Government Performance and 

Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA)8 and the Program 

Assessment Review Tool (PART),9

We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 to March 2012 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

identifying a list of potential criteria to 

assess effectiveness and usefulness in consultation with internal GAO 

experts, and soliciting the perspectives of agency officials. We applied 

these criteria only to the 36 DOT and DOE FACA advisory groups actively 

chartered in fiscal year 2010 because similar information for non-FACA 

advisory groups was not available. We also gathered information on a 

selection of FACA and non-FACA advisory groups by reviewing 

information from the FACA database, advisory group charters and 

websites, relevant agency strategic planning documents, and interviewing 

agency officials for both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups.

 

8

Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). GPRAMA amends the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993).

9

OMB described the PART, which was created in 2002, as a diagnostic tool meant to 

provide a consistent approach to evaluating federal programs as part of the executive 

budget formulation process.
Appendix II: DOT and DOE Fiscal Year 2010 

Advisory Groups

Page 28 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

To identify DOT and DOE FACA advisory groups, agency officials verified 

the active fiscal year 2010 groups identified in the FACA database.1

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2010 Advisory Groups 

To 

identify non-FACA advisory groups providing input and advice to DOT 

and DOE, agency officials used the following definition: groups active in 

fiscal year 2010 that serve primarily an advisory function and provide 

input to the agency and/or component agency offices on areas related to 

the agency or office’s mission. These groups may have a mix of federal 

and nonfederal members, and are established to provide advice or 

recommendations on issues or policies pertaining to the agency or its 

components. We selected those groups focusing on the most common 

advisory group issue areas of aviation for DOT and energy for DOE for 

further review, covering 47 of the 88 DOT and DOE advisory groups 

active in fiscal year 2010 (see tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

 

Total active FY 2010 

advisory groups

Subset assessed for 

potential duplication, 

overlap, or fragmentation

DOT 34 17

DOE 54 30

Total 88 47

Source: GAO.

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2010 DOT FACA Advisory Groups 

1. Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics

2. Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

3. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee

4. Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee

5. Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee

6. Medical Review Board Advisory Committee

7. Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee

8. National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council

 

1

At the end of each fiscal year, GSA reviews the information agencies entered into the 

FACA database. We reviewed FACA advisory groups confirmed as actively chartered at 

the end of fiscal year 2010, the most recently verified fiscal year. This may include groups 

that were not actively chartered in subsequent fiscal years and may exclude groups that 

were actively chartered for a period of time prior to the end of fiscal year 2010. 

Appendix II: DOT and DOE Fiscal Year 2010 

Advisory Groups
Appendix II: DOT and DOE Fiscal Year 2010 

Advisory Groups

Page 29 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

9. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

10. Research Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

11. RTCA Inc. (Utilized as an Advisory Committee)

12. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Advisory Board

13. The Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

14. Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety

15. U.S. Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council

Source: GAO analysis of FACA database.

Note: Aviation groups reviewed for potential duplication appear in bold.

Table 6: Fiscal Year 2010 DOT Non-FACA Advisory Groups 

1. Aeronautical Charting Forum 

2. Arctic Monitoring & Assessment Program

3. Committee for the Marine Transportation System 

4. Coordinating Organization for Global Navigation Satellite System

5. European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment Work Group 73 

6. European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation Action Plan 24

7. Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services 

8. Flight in Non-Segregated Airspace

9. International Civil Aviation Organization, Unmanned Aircraft System(s) Study 

Group 

10. Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems 

11. Joint Planning Advisory Group 

12. National Defense Transportation Association Voluntary Intermodal Sealift 

Agreement Executive Working Group 

13. NSS Transborder Security Sub-Interagency Policy Committee on Air Domain 

and the Obstruction Evaluation Process 

14. Performance Based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee

15. Renewable Energy Rapid Response Team 

16. Ship Manager Executive Working Group 

17. U.S. Instrument Flight Procedures Panel

18. U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Advisory Board 

19. Vertical Flight Committee 

Source: GAO analysis of advisory groups identified by DOT.

Note: Aviation groups reviewed for potential duplication appear in bold.
Appendix II: DOT and DOE Fiscal Year 2010 

Advisory Groups

Page 30 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

Table 7: Fiscal Year 2010 DOE FACA Advisory Groups 

1. Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee

2. Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee

3. Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee

4. Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee

5. Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future

6. DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee

7. Electricity Advisory Committee

8. Environmental Management Advisory Board

9. Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board

10. Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee

11. High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

12. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee

13. Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee

14. National Coal Council

15. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 

Drilling

16. National Petroleum Council

17. Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee

18. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

19. State Energy Advisory Board

20. Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee

21. Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee

Source: GAO analysis of FACA database.

Note: Energy groups reviewed for potential duplication appear in bold.

Table 8: Fiscal Year 2010 DOE Non-FACA Advisory Groups 

1. American Statistical Association Committee on Energy 

2. Biomass Research and Development Interagency Working Group on Algae 

Biofuels 

3. Biomass Research and Development Interagency Working Group on 

Conversion

4. Biomass Research and Development Interagency Working Group on 

Feedstock Supply 

5. Biomass Research and Development Interagency Working Group on 

Logistics and Distribution 

6. Clean Air Workgroup 

7. Cultural Resources Workgroup 
Appendix II: DOT and DOE Fiscal Year 2010 

Advisory Groups

Page 31 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

8. Defense Programs Surety Committee 

9. Department of Energy’s Federal Quality Council 

10. DOE Fire Safety Committee 

11. DOE Risk Assessment Technical Experts Working Group

12. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know and Toxics Release Inventory 

Workgroup 

13. Environmental Management Technical Expert Group 

14. FedCenter Board 

15. Federal Caucus 

16. Federal Electronics Stewardship Working Group 

17. Federal Interagency Energy Management Task Force 

18. Fugitive Emissions Workgroup 

19. Interagency Committee on Standards Policy

20. Interagency Environmental Leadership Workgroup 

21. Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards 

22. L Prize Technical Review Committee 

23. Protective Force Career Options Committee

24. Radiological Air Emissions (Subpart H) Group 

25. Senior Technical Advisory Panel 

26. Smart Grid Task Force 

27. Sustainable Acquisition and Materials Management Workgroup 

28. Sustainable Acquisition Workgroup 

29. Technical Evaluation Panel

30. Use Control Effectiveness Committee 

31. Use Control Project Officers Group 

32. Use Control Site Coordinators 

33. Zero Energy Commercial Buildings Consortium 

Source: GAO analysis of advisory groups identified by DOE.

Note: Energy groups reviewed for potential duplication appear in bold.
Appendix III: Additional Information on 36 

Actively Chartered FACA Advisory Groups

Page 32 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

To understand the extent to which advisory groups provided input to 

agencies on topics of importance to their missions, we reviewed 

information on the 15 DOT and 21 DOE FACA advisory groups that were 

actively chartered in fiscal year 2010. We selected information to review 

by developing criteria based on agency officials’ input and a review of 

relevant literature—including FACA guidelines and GAO reports on the 

Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act. Each of the 

36 FACA advisory groups had documented goals and topics that were 

aligned with their respective agency’s missions or strategic goals (See 

table 9). Further, each was engaged in activities that could help the group 

produce advice (See table 10).1

Table 9: Alignment with Agency Mission, Actively Chartered DOT and DOE FACA Advisory Groups in Fiscal Year 2010

Number of actively chartered FACA advisory groups with:

Documented 

objectives or activities

Objectives or activities aligned with 

agency strategic goals or mission

Agency No Yes Not aligned

Implicitly 

aligned

Explicitly 

aligned Total 

DOT 0 15 0 9 6 15

DOE 0 21 0 11 10 21

DOT and DOE total 0 36 0 20 16 36

Sources: GAO analysis of fiscal year 2010 FACA database and DOT and DOE agency missions.

 

1

While a group does not necessarily need to meet or produce reports and 

recommendations to be useful, and not all information produced may be useful, these 

activities are a broad indication that groups are actively producing advice and information 

that are aligned with agency missions and goals and that may be useful to agencies. 

Appendix III: Additional Information on 36 

Actively Chartered FACA Advisory Groups
Appendix III: Additional Information on 36 

Actively Chartered FACA Advisory Groups

Page 33 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

Table 10: Select Activities, Actively Chartered DOT and DOE FACA Advisory Groups in Fiscal Year 2010

Number of actively chartered FACA advisory groups thata

Held meetings in FY 

2010

Produced reports 

in FY 2010b Produced formal 

recommendations as of FY 2010

Agency No Yes No Yes No Yes Total

DOT 1 14 6 9 2 13 15

DOE 1 20 12 9 2 19 21

DOT and DOE total 2 34 18 18 4 32 36

Source: GAO analysis of fiscal year 2010 FACA database.

a

Of these 36 actively chartered FACA advisory groups, 5 were new or reestablished in 

fiscal year 2010.

b

Excludes subcommittee or committee of visitors reports and meeting minutes. In some 

cases, advice may be communicated through meeting minutes. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department

of Energy

Page 34 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Energy
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 35 GAO-12-472 Federal Advisory Groups

Linda Calbom, (206) 287-4809 or calboml@gao.gov.

In addition to the individual named above, Sharon Silas, Assistant 

Director; Kathy Gilhooly; Laura Henry; Delwen Jones; Hannah Laufe; 

Janet Lee; Sara Ann Moessbauer; Steven Putansu; and Maria Wallace 

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(544163)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.