Federal Communications Commission: Federal Advisory Committees Follow Requirements, but FCC Should Improve Its Process for Appointing Committee Members
Published: 2004-12-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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 Congressional 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 Act (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,  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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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  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. 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.
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, and certain other groups are exempt under other statutes.  For example, in some instances the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of  1995 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.
section_title: FCC’s Federal Advisory Committees Address a Variety of Technical and Operational Issues, and Stakeholders View the Committees as Functioning Effectively
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: FCC’s Seven Current Discretionary Advisory Committees Examine Technical and Operational Telecommunications Issues
paragraphs: 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,  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.
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.
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  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.
section_title: Committee Members, FCC Officials, and Interest Group Representatives Generally Believe That Advisory Committees Function Effectively
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Subcommittees Perform the Majority of FCC’s Federal Advisory Committees’ Work
paragraphs: 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  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 in- person 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.
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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Must Have Certain Organizational Procedures in Place to Support the Establishment of Federal Advisory Committees
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: FACA and Regulations Impose Several Requirements on the Formation of Federal Advisory Committees
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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  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.
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, 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.
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. 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. 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.
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, 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. 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 on telecommunications issues. 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.
section_title: Requirements Guide Many Aspects of Advisory Committee Operations
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Federal Advisory Committees Are Required to Produce Independent Advice to Federal Agencies
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: FCC Has Taken Action on Advisory Committee Recommendations, but Stakeholders’ Views on FCC’s Use of Committee Work Varied
paragraphs: 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  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  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.
section_title: FCC Has Five Advisory Groups That It Considers Exempt from FACA; These Groups Function Differently from Federal Advisory Committees
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: FCC’s Mandated Joint Boards Are Exempt from FACA and Function Differently from Federal Advisory Committees
paragraphs: FCC is mandated to support two joint boards: one addresses “jurisdictional  separations” and the other examines “universal service requirements.”  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. 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 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.
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  Commission can implement a recommendation of a federal advisory  committee or reject it without comment.
section_title: FCC’s Joint Conferences Are Exempt from FACA and Function Differently from Federal Advisory Committees
paragraphs: FCC also established two joint conferences that it considers exempt from  FACA. Under the Communications Act, 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.
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.
section_title: FCC’s Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Is Exempt from FACA, but It Has Some Similarities in Function to Federal Advisory Committees
paragraphs: FCC formed the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee in 1997 to advise  the agency on issues of concern to state, local, and tribal governments.  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.
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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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 advice federal advisory committee members are expected to contribute.  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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  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.
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  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.
section_title: Information on FCC’s Federal Advisory Committees and Advisory Groups Exempt from FACA
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Advisory Committee for the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Consumer Advisory Committee
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Media Security and Reliability Council
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Network Reliability and Interoperability Council
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: North American Numbering Council
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Technological Advisory Council
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Joint Board on Universal Service
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Joint Conference on Accounting Issues
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
paragraphs: 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,  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.
section_title: GAO Survey of FCC Federal Advisory Committee Members
paragraphs: Q1. How long have you been a member of the committee? 1 year to 1 ¾  years  1 ¾ years to 2  years  (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q2. To the best of your knowledge, did you attain membership to the committee through any of the following circumstances? (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q3. In which of the following sectors do you primarily work?
Q5. Approximately how many people does your company employ?
Q6. Since your appointment, approximately how many committee meetings have you attended?
About half the  meetings  (percent)
A few  meetings  (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q7. How important are the following factors in your decision to attend or not attend your committee's meetings? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
197 (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
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)? (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q9. As a member, what type of advice do you contribute to the committee? 200 Q10. Would you agree or disagree with the following statements as they apply to the composition of your committee? (percent) (percent)
Disagree  (percent)
Strongly  disagree  (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q11. Who sets the agenda for your committee's meetings?
200 Q12. Do you believe the appropriate party or parties sets the committee's agenda? (percent) (percent)
Q13. As a committee member, do you generally have access to the information you need to make an informed decision on an issue? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q14. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following aspects of the operations and procedures of your committee?
Satisfied  (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Satisfied  (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q15. In terms of formulating committee advice or recommendations, how independent do you believe the committee is of FCC?
A little or not  at all  independent  (percent) (percent) (percent)
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)? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q17. Which of the following methods does your committee use to convey its advice or recommendations to FCC? (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q18. In your opinion, to what extent is the public provided opportunity to express its views to your committee? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q19. To your knowledge, have members of the public (excluding FCC staff) ever expressed their views to the committee? (percent) (percent)
Q20. Does your committee have any subcommittees? (percent) (percent)
Q21. Were members selected to serve on your committee's subcommittees through any of the following methods? (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q22. What was the basis for selecting members to serve on subcommittees?
Q23. Have you been a member of any subcommittees? (percent)
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? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q26. To your knowledge, have members of the public ever expressed their views to the subcommittees? (percent) (percent)
Q27. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with the operation of your subcommittees? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
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?
Entirely work of  subcommittees  with approval  from the full  committee  (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q29. To what extent does the committee deliberate the proposals of the subcommittees before they are voted upon? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q30. Does your committee's work influence FCC policy or operations through any of the following mechanisms? (percent) (percent) (percent)
200 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? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q33. Are setting or changing voluntary industry standards an output of your committee? (Voluntary industry standards are those not  mandated by FCC.) (percent) (percent)
Q34. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the effectiveness and impact of your committee to set or change voluntary industry  standards? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
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? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
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? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q38. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your experience serving on the committee? (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
Q39. If invited, would you be interested in serving on this committee again? (percent) (percent)
section_title: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission
section_title: Appendix V