Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of Committee Members and Agencies
on Federal Advisory Committee Issues (Letter Report, 07/09/98,
GAO/GGD-98-147).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
views of federal advisory committees and federal agencies on Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements.

GAO noted that: (1) overall, the views presented by both the committee
members and agencies GAO surveyed provided useful insights into the
general operation of FACA as Congress explores possible improvements to
FACA; (2) the responses of committee members to a series of questions,
when taken together, conveyed a generally shared perception that
advisory committees were providing balanced and independent advice and
recommendations; (3) although the percentage differed by question, 85
percent to 93 percent of the respondents said their committees were
balanced in membership, had access to the information necessary to make
informed decisions, and were never asked by agency officials to give
advice or make recommendations based on inadequate data or analysis or
contrary to the general consensus among committee members; (4) FACA
requirements were considered to be more useful than burdensome by 10 of
the 19 agencies; (5) for the other nine agencies, the requirements were
considered either as burdensome as they were useful or somewhat more
burdensome than useful; (6) the ceilings on discretionary advisory
committees imposed by Executive Order 12838 did not deter a majority--12
of 19--of the agencies from seeking to establish such committees,
according to their responses; (7) agencies identified a total of 26
advisory committees mandated by Congress that they believed should be
terminated; (8) this number represented about 6 percent of
congressionally mandated advisory committees in existence during fiscal
year (FY) 1997; (9) the overall responses GAO received from committee
members on the issue of public participation were mixed; (10) about 27
percent of the respondents said that all of their committee meetings
were open to the public, and 37 percent said that all of their committee
meetings were closed to the public; (10) advisory committee meetings can
be closed to the public to protect such things as trade secrets or
information of a personal nature; (11) most of the agencies--16 of the
19--did not believe that FACA had prohibited them from soliciting or
receiving input from the public on issues or concerns of the agency
independent of the FACA process; (12) still, some agencies were
reluctant to get input from parties that were not chartered as FACA
advisory committees because of concern that this could lead to possible
litigation over compliance with FACA requirements; and (13) more
explicitly, six agencies reported that they decided not to obtain
outside input at least eight times during FY 1995 through FY 1997
because of the possibility of future litigation over compliance with
FACA.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-98-147
     TITLE:  Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of Committee Members 
             and Agencies on Federal Advisory Committee Issues
      DATE:  07/09/98
   SUBJECT:  Congressional oversight
             Proposed legislation
             Federal advisory bodies
             Reporting requirements
             Noncompliance
             Surveys

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

July 1998

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT -
VIEWS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
AGENCIES ON FEDERAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ISSUES

GAO/GGD-98-147

Federal Advisory Committee Act

(410229)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act
  GSA - General Services Administration
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-279404

July 9, 1998

The Honorable Stephen Horn
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,
 Information, and Technology
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

The Honorable John Glenn
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Federal agencies often receive advice from advisory committees, and
there were 963 committees governmentwide in fiscal year 1997
established for this purpose.  Federal advisory committees are to be
established and to operate in accordance with requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  Congress is currently
exploring possible improvements to FACA, and this report responds to
your request that we address certain questions about federal advisory
committees and FACA requirements.  On June 15, 1998, we reported to
you on how the General Services Administration (GSA) had carried out
its governmentwide advisory committee oversight responsibilities
under FACA.\1 Specifically, as agreed with your offices for this
report, we surveyed

  -- advisory committee members to obtain their perceptions on the
     extent to which their committees provided balanced and
     independent advice and recommendations as required by FACA;

  -- federal agencies to obtain their views on the extent to which
     they found compliance with FACA useful or burdensome, the impact
     of Executive Order 12838 (which placed ceilings on the number of
     advisory committees) on their ability to accomplish their
     missions, and whether any advisory committees mandated by
     Congress should be terminated; and

  -- advisory committee members and federal agencies on the extent to
     which they believed the public was afforded access to advisory
     committee proceedings and a means to express their views to
     agencies and their advisory committees. 

To obtain the views of advisory committee members on these matters,
we sent a questionnaire to a randomly selected, statistically
representative sample of federal advisory committee members
governmentwide.  Of the 900 committee members in our sample, we
received usable questionnaire responses from 607--a response rate of
about 67 percent.  The numbers and percentages of committee member
respondents that we cite in this report are generalizable to the
committee members from which we selected our sample. 

The individuals we surveyed were members of peer review,
scientific/technical, nonscientific, national policy, and other
advisory committees.  Agencies use peer review panels for evaluating
contractors or applications for research or other grants for federal
funding, and FACA requires agencies to treat peer review panels as
advisory committees.  Because the work of peer review panels
typically is different from the work of other advisory committees, we
divided the committee members who responded to our questionnaire into
two groups:  members of peer review panels and members of all other
advisory committees, which we refer to as general advisory
committees.  Whenever one group's response rate to a question was at
least 5 percentage points different from the overall response rate
and appeared to us to be consequential, we provided that group's
response.  When the difference did not appear to be consequential, we
presented only the overall response rate. 

To obtain the views of federal agencies on the specific issues, we
sent a questionnaire to 19 federal agencies.  These 19 agencies
account for most--about 90 percent--of the federal advisory
committees.  All 19 agencies responded to our survey. 

More information about our objectives, scope, and methodology is
contained in appendix I.  We did our work between December 1997 and
May 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.  We requested comments on a draft of this report from the
Administrator of GSA and the Acting Director of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) or their designees.  Their comments are
included at the end of this letter. 


--------------------
\1 Federal Advisory Committee Act:  General Services Administration's
Oversight of Advisory Committees (GAO/GGD-98-124, June 15, 1998). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Overall, the views presented by both the committee members and
agencies we surveyed provided useful insights into the general
operation of FACA as Congress explores possible improvements to FACA. 
The responses of committee members to a series of questions, when
taken together, conveyed a generally shared perception that advisory
committees were providing balanced and independent advice and
recommendations.  Although the percentage differed by question, 85
percent to 93 percent of the respondents said their committees were
balanced in membership, had access to the information necessary to
make informed decisions, and were never asked by agency officials to
give advice or make recommendations based on inadequate data or
analysis or contrary to the general consensus among committee
members.  General advisory committee respondents--77 percent of them
compared to 85 percent overall, but a large majority
nevertheless--said their committees were never asked to give advice
or make recommendations based on inadequate data or analysis. 

FACA requirements were considered to be more useful than burdensome
by 10 of the 19 agencies.  For the other nine agencies, the
requirements were considered either as burdensome as they were useful
or somewhat more burdensome than useful.  In addition to their
overall characterizations, the agencies also rated how useful and
burdensome they found each of 17 FACA requirements.  The majority of
the agencies considered most of the 17 requirements to be useful to a
moderate or greater extent.  The majority considered a few of the
requirements to be burdensome to a moderate or greater extent, and
those requirements were among those they also considered to be
useful.  Two requirements--annual reporting on closed meetings and
filing committee reports with the Library of Congress--were
considered by a majority of the agencies to have "little or no" or
only "some" usefulness or burden.  Among the 19 agencies, the general
consensus was that the possibility of future litigation over
compliance with FACA requirements was not an inhibiting factor in
their decisions on whether to form new advisory committees. 

The ceilings on discretionary advisory committees imposed by
Executive Order 12838 did not deter a majority--12 of 19--of the
agencies from seeking to establish such committees, according to
their responses.  (Discretionary advisory committees are those
created under agency authority or authorized--but not mandated--by
Congress.) However, seven agencies said the ceilings did deter them. 
Some of the seven commented that cases occurred in which a new
committee may have been warranted but it was not established. 
Agencies could seek relief from their ceilings from OMB, which had
authority under Executive Order 12838 to approve the establishment of
a committee that would take an agency over its ceiling.  Three of the
19 agencies reported making 4 such requests to OMB, and all were
approved.  Two of these three agencies were among the seven agencies
that said ceilings had deterred them from establishing advisory
committees. 

Agencies identified a total of 26 advisory committees mandated by
Congress that they believed should be terminated.  This number
represented about 6 percent of congressionally mandated advisory
committees in existence during fiscal year 1997.  Three agencies also
reported that over fiscal years 1995 through 1997 they asked Congress
to terminate 18 mandated advisory committees.  Only one of those
committees was terminated, according to the agencies.  The remaining
17 committees were among the 26 committees that agencies said should
be terminated. 

The overall responses we received from committee members on the issue
of public participation were mixed.  About 27 percent of the
respondents said that all of their committee meetings were open to
the public, and 37 percent said that all of their committee meetings
were closed to the public.  Another 19 percent of the respondents
said some meetings or portions of meetings were closed.  We also
asked whether members of the public were ever allowed to express
their views to the committee.  About 44 percent of the respondents
answered yes, 31 percent answered no, and 25 percent were not sure. 

Advisory committee meetings can be closed to the public to protect
such things as trade secrets or information of a personal nature. 
Peer review committees often deal with proprietary or other sensitive
information, and responses from members of peer review panels
indicated that panels were much less likely to provide public access
and obtain public input.  For example, about 64 percent of the
respondents who served on peer review panels said that their meetings
were always closed to the public, and 2 percent said their meetings
were always open.  About 52 percent of the panel respondents said
that the public was not allowed to express views to their panels, and
12 percent said the public was allowed. 

Most of the agencies--16 of the 19--did not believe that FACA had
prohibited them from soliciting or receiving input from the public on
issues or concerns of the agency independent of the FACA process. 
Most of the 19 agencies also said they permitted members of the
public to speak before their advisory committees, although there were
likely to be restrictions, such as the amount of time available for
speakers and the amount of time available to each speaker.  Still,
some agencies were reluctant to get input from parties that were not
chartered as FACA advisory committees because of concern that this
could lead to possible litigation over compliance with FACA
requirements.  Eight agencies said this possibility inhibited their
getting input from parties outside of FACA to some, a moderate, or a
very great extent.  More explicitly, six agencies, including five of
the previous eight, reported that they decided not to obtain outside
input at least eight times during fiscal years 1995 through 1997
because of the possibility of future litigation over compliance with
FACA. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

In 1972, Congress passed FACA in response to a concern that federal
advisory committees were proliferating without adequate review,
oversight, or accountability.  Although Congress recognized the value
of advisory committees to public policymaking, it included measures
in FACA intended to ensure that (1) valid needs exist for
establishing and continuing advisory committees, (2) the committees
are properly managed and their proceedings are as open as feasible to
the public, and (3) Congress is kept informed of the committees'
activities.  Under FACA, the President, the Director of OMB, and
agency heads are to control the number, operations, and costs of
advisory committees. 

To help accomplish these objectives, FACA directed that a Committee
Management Secretariat be established at OMB to be responsible for
all matters relating to advisory committees.  In 1977, the president
transferred advisory committee functions from OMB to GSA.  The
president also delegated to GSA all of the functions vested in the
president by FACA, except that the annual report to Congress required
by the act was to be prepared by GSA for the president's
consideration and transmittal to Congress. 

GSA, through its Committee Management Secretariat, is responsible for
prescribing administrative guidelines and management controls
applicable to advisory committees governmentwide.  It also has other
responsibilities, including certain oversight responsibilities, such
as consulting with agencies on establishing advisory committees and
conducting comprehensive reviews of advisory committees.  To fulfill
its responsibilities, GSA has developed regulations and other
guidance to assist agencies in implementing FACA, has provided
training to agency officials, and was instrumental in creating and
has collaborated with the Interagency Committee on Federal Advisory
Committee Management. 

FACA assigns agency heads responsibility for issuing administrative
guidelines and management controls applicable for their advisory
committees.  FACA and GSA regulations assign them additional
responsibilities for their advisory committees.  For example, agency
heads are responsible for (1) appointing a designated federal officer
for each committee to oversee the committee's activities, (2)
reviewing annually the need to continue existing committees, (3)
ensuring that meetings are held at reasonable times and places, (4)
ensuring that members of the public are permitted to file written
statements with the committees and are allowed to speak to the
committees if agency guidelines permit, and (5) reviewing committee
members' compliance with conflict-of-interest statutes.  FACA also
calls for agency heads to designate a committee management officer to
whom the agency head frequently delegates these responsibilities.  In
February 1993, the President issued Executive Order 12838, which
directed agencies to reduce by at least one-third the number of
discretionary advisory committees by the end of fiscal year 1993. 
Discretionary committees are those created under agency authority or
authorized--but not mandated--by Congress.  OMB, in providing
guidance to agencies on the executive order, established a maximum
ceiling number of discretionary advisory committees for each agency
and a monitoring plan.  Under the guidance, agencies were to annually
submit committee management plans to OMB and GSA. 

The number of advisory committees grew from 1,020 in fiscal year 1988
to 1,305 in fiscal year 1993.  The number then declined over the next
several years to 963 advisory committees in fiscal year 1997.  This
decrease occurred after the President's February 1993 executive order
to reduce the number of discretionary committees. 

A total of 36,586 individuals served as members of the 963 committees
in fiscal year 1997, and GSA reported that the cost to operate the
963 committees in that year was about $178 million.  FACA permits
agencies to compensate nonfederal committee members for their
services; and according to GSA data, agencies paid about $14 million
in fiscal year 1997 for such services.  Advisory committee members
are to be reimbursed for their travel, lodging, and meals.  The
single largest cost in fiscal year 1997--about $81 million of the
$178 million--represented the value of compensation paid to federal
employees for the time they spent assisting and monitoring advisory
committees. 

Although the number of advisory committees has decreased, the average
number of members per committee and the average cost per committee
have increased.  On average, between fiscal years 1988 and 1997, the
number of members per advisory committee increased from about 21 to
38, and the cost per advisory committee increased from $90,816 to
$184,868.  In constant 1988 dollars, the average cost per advisory
committee increased from $90,816 to $140,870 over the same period. 


   ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS'
   VIEWS ON WHETHER COMMITTEES
   PROVIDE BALANCED AND
   INDEPENDENT ADVICE AND
   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

For each advisory committee member to whom we sent a questionnaire,
we identified an advisory committee to which the member belonged and
instructed the member to use that committee in answering our
questions.  The committee we identified was the only federal advisory
committee of which most respondents said they were members. 
Respondents had served as members on these committees for various
periods.  About 28 percent had served 1 year or less, 54 percent had
served between 1 and 4 years, and 18 percent had served over 4 years. 

The answers the committee members gave to our survey showed that
generally they believed their committees had worthwhile purposes,
that the advice and recommendations that the committees gave were
consistent with those purposes, and that the advice and
recommendations were balanced and independent.  In addition, they
generally believed that the agencies to which their committees
reported sought advice and recommendations from the committees and
used the advice or recommendations after receiving them. 
Specifically: 

  -- About 94 percent of the respondents generally or strongly agreed
     that the committees they were affiliated with had clearly
     defined purposes, and 96 percent generally or strongly agreed
     that the committees' purposes were worthwhile. 

  -- Ninety-four percent of the respondents generally or strongly
     agreed that the advice or recommendations made by their
     committees were consistent with the committees' purposes. 

  -- About 90 percent of the respondents generally or strongly agreed
     that committee membership was fairly balanced in terms of the
     points of view represented, and 85 percent generally or strongly
     agreed that their committees included a representative
     cross-section of those directly interested in and affected by
     the issues discussed by the committees. 

  -- About 79 to 82 percent of the respondents said they were
     provided to a great or very great extent with the necessary
     preparatory materials prior to (1) committee meetings, (2)
     discussing issues, and (3) deciding on issues.  Another 11 to 13
     percent said they had been provided the necessary preparatory
     material to a moderate extent.  The percentage of general
     advisory committee members who answered to a great or very great
     extent was less--67 to 72 percent--but still the vast majority. 

  -- When asked if they generally had access to the information they
     needed to make an informed decision on an issue, about 93
     percent of the respondents said they did in either all or most
     cases. 

  -- About 76 percent of the respondents said committee members
     provided somewhat more or much more input than agency officials
     in formulating committee advice or recommendations.  About 79
     percent of the respondents thought that committee members should
     provide somewhat more or much more input than agency officials
     in formulating committee advice and recommendations.  However,
     respondents from general advisory committees expected and
     thought actual member input to be less.  About 60 percent of the
     general advisory committee respondents said committee members
     usually provided somewhat more or much more input than agency
     officials, and 65 percent said that committee members should
     provide somewhat more or much more input.  In addition, about 26
     percent of the general advisory committee respondents, compared
     to about 16 percent of overall respondents, said input from
     committee members and agency officials was about equal; and 29
     percent, compared to about 18 percent overall, said the input
     should be equal. 

  -- About 85 percent of the respondents said that to their
     knowledge, no agency official had ever asked their committees to
     give advice or make a recommendation that was based on
     inadequate data or analysis.  Fewer respondents who were members
     of general advisory committees said "no"--about 77 percent of
     them said their committees were never asked by agency officials
     to give advice or make recommendations on the basis of
     inadequate data or analysis.  About 13 percent of the general
     advisory committee respondents reported that an agency official
     had made such a request, and 10 percent did not know one way or
     the other.  These latter two percentages were larger than the
     overall percentages (8 percent and 7 percent, respectively) for
     the same two questions. 

  -- About 92 percent of the respondents said that to their
     knowledge, no agency official had ever asked their committees to
     give advice or make a recommendation that was contrary to the
     general consensus of the committees.  About 4 percent said
     officials had made such a request, and 4 percent did not know
     one way or the other. 

  -- Eighty-seven percent of the respondents generally or strongly
     agreed that agencies solicited advice or recommendations from
     the committees, and about 84 percent said they strongly or
     generally agreed that the agencies considered the advice or
     recommendations. 

Appendix II contains a copy of the questionnaire that we sent to
committee members with the weighted number or percentage of committee
members responding to each item. 


   AGENCIES' VIEWS ON HOW USEFUL
   OR BURDENSOME FACA REQUIREMENTS
   WERE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

FACA sets out at least 17 requirements for agencies to follow in
establishing and operating federal advisory committees, including
preparing a charter for the committee; developing plans for achieving
a fairly balanced membership; keeping detailed minutes of committee
meetings; and preparing annual reports to GSA on new, continuing, and
terminated committees.  (All 17 requirements are listed in app.  IV.)
We asked the 19 agencies several questions on how useful or
burdensome they found FACA requirements. 

With regard to the requirements overall, 10 agencies viewed them in a
positive light.  Of these 10 agencies, 6 said the requirements were
much more useful than burdensome, and 4 said the requirements were
somewhat more useful than burdensome.  The views of the other nine
agencies were less positive.  Of these nine agencies, seven
considered the requirements about as burdensome as useful, and two
said the requirements were somewhat more burdensome than useful. 

For each of 17 FACA requirements, we asked the 19 agencies to rate
the extent of the requirement's usefulness.  A majority of the
agencies (generally more than 10 agencies) rated 14 of the 17
requirements as useful to a moderate, great, or very great extent. 
Most of the majority frequently rated a requirement's usefulness as
great or very great.  For example, 16 agencies said the requirement
to create a plan for achieving fairly balanced committee membership
was useful to a great or very great extent.  Thirteen agencies
considered the requirement to keep detailed meeting minutes as useful
to a great or very great extent. 

We asked the agencies to also rate the extent to which they
considered each of the 17 requirements as burdensome.  In comparison
to the number of FACA requirements considered as useful, far fewer
requirements were considered as especially burdensome by a majority
of the agencies.  Four requirements were rated by a majority of the
agencies as burdensome to a moderate, great, or very great extent. 
These four requirements were:  develop a plan to achieve balanced
committee membership, keep detailed minutes of meetings, fulfill
record keeping requirements, and prepare an annual report on each
advisory committee.  Interestingly enough, all four requirements also
had been rated useful to a moderate, great, or very great extent by a
majority of the agencies. 

The agencies' responses regarding 3 requirements were different from
their responses to the other 14.  Two requirements--prepare an annual
report on closed advisory committee meetings and file advisory
committee reports with the Library of Congress--were said by a
majority of the agencies to have "little or no" or "some" usefulness
or burden.  There was a mix of answers for the third requirement,
follow-up reports to Congress on recommendations by presidential
advisory committees (any federal advisory committee that advises the
president).  Seven agencies said it was useful to a moderate or
greater extent, and six said it was less than moderately useful. 
Nine agencies said it presented "some" or "little or no" burden, and
four agencies said it was burdensome to a moderate or greater extent. 
Six agencies did not rate the usefulness or burden because they did
not have any presidential advisory committees. 

In rating the 17 requirements, agencies were given the opportunity to
say what change they would make to each requirement.  Seven agencies
made suggestions, and four of them focused on the matter of
rechartering committees.  FACA prohibits an advisory committee from
meeting or taking any action until a committee charter has been filed
with certain officials (for example, the agency head) and Congress
and requires that charters contain 10 specific items, such as the
committee's objectives and scope of activities and the period of time
necessary to carry out its purpose.  FACA requires agencies to
recharter advisory committees every 2 years regardless of how much
more time they will need to accomplish their purposes.  Among the
suggestions that the seven agencies made, two suggested that
rechartering be required every 5 years instead of the current 2
years. 

Under FACA, peer review panels are treated as advisory committees,
and 6 of the 19 agencies indicated that they used peer review panels. 
Only one of the six thought that peer review panels should be subject
to all FACA requirements.  The other five agencies said that peer
review panels should be exempt from some, most, or all FACA
requirements.  Although we did not specifically ask why the panels
should be exempt from some or all FACA requirements, some of the five
agencies indicated that they should be exempt because the nature of
the panels' work was incompatible with FACA requirements.  For
example, in contrast to the idea of open meetings as promoted by
FACA, panel meetings were more often routinely closed to the public
to protect the privacy or proprietary rights of those who submitted
proposals. 

Finally, we asked the agencies several burden-related questions that
focused on the issue of litigation and FACA.  We asked whether the
possibility of litigation over compliance with FACA requirements
inhibited them from forming new advisory committees and, more
specifically, if they decided against forming a new advisory
committee anytime during fiscal years 1995 through 1997 because of
possible litigation.  The overwhelming response of the agencies was
that the possibility of future litigation was not an inhibiting
factor.  Fourteen agencies said that the possibility of future
litigation inhibited them to little or no extent.  Seventeen agencies
said that at no time during fiscal years 1995 through 1997 did they
decide not to form a new committee because of the possibility of
future litigation. 

However, some agencies have been involved in litigation over their
compliance with FACA.  Seven of the 19 agencies reported that they
were involved in such litigation during fiscal years 1995 through
1997 and identified 13 lawsuits in total.  According to the seven
agencies, the major issues being litigated were whether the group
that provided information was subject to the requirements of FACA
(nine cases), whether the makeup of an advisory committee was
balanced (two cases), and procedural issues (two cases).  As of the
date they were answering the questionnaire, the agencies said that
nine cases had been ruled on by the courts; three cases were pending;
and one case that was decided in favor of the plaintiff was, in
effect, rendered moot by a subsequent amendment to FACA in 1997. 
According to the agencies, of the nine cases ruled on by the courts,
the courts ruled for the agencies in eight cases and for the
plaintiff in one. 


   AGENCIES' VIEWS OF THE IMPACT
   OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12838
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

As previously mentioned, Executive Order 12838 established ceilings
for each agency on the number of discretionary advisory committees. 
The number of discretionary committees in the aggregate that the 19
agencies reported having at the end of fiscal years 1995, 1996, and
1997 was about 88 percent, 95 percent, and 95 percent, respectively,
of the aggregate ceiling. 

Twelve of the 19 agencies said the ceilings did not deter them from
seeking to establish any new advisory committees.  In general, the 12
agencies reported being at or slightly below their ceilings at the
end of the 3 years (fiscal years 1995 through 1997) for which we
requested data.  However, seven agencies said the ceilings did deter
them from seeking to establish new discretionary committees.  For
most of the years for which we requested data, the seven agencies
were at or slightly below their ceilings. 

For those agencies that said they were deterred, we asked them to
describe how the ceilings affected their ability to accomplish their
missions.  Four said they had to reconsider whether an advisory
committee would really be necessary or had to give more careful
consideration of which committees would continue or which new
committees would be established.  Two also indicated that committees
were not established that may have been warranted, although no
numbers of such cases were given. 

An agency could request approval from OMB to establish a committee
that would place it over its ceiling, and 3 of the 19 agencies said
they had made such requests over the 3-year period for which we
requested information.  In total, they said they made four requests
to OMB, and OMB approved all four.  Of these three agencies, two were
among those that said they were deterred from seeking to establish
new advisory committees by the ceilings imposed by the executive
order.  The third agency did not consider the ceiling to be a
deterrent. 


   MANDATED COMMITTEES IDENTIFIED
   BY AGENCIES FOR TERMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Congress has required agencies to have various advisory committees. 
According to GSA, there were 422 advisory committees in fiscal year
1997 that had been mandated by Congress.  As agreed with your
offices, we asked the 19 agencies in our survey whether they had any
mandated committees that they believed should be terminated.  Six
agencies said yes and listed a total of 26 different advisory
committees.  Of the 26 committees, according to GSA, 17 held no
meetings and incurred no costs in fiscal year 1997; 3 incurred some
costs ($4,000) but held no meetings; and 6 held meetings (14) and
incurred costs (about $190,000).  The names of the 26 committees and
the agencies they serve are shown in appendix III. 

Three of the 19 agencies reported that they had made formal requests
to Congress to terminate mandated committees during the 3 years for
which we requested information (fiscal years 1995 through 1997). 
These three agencies were among the six agencies that identified
committees that they believed should be eliminated.  The three
agencies asked Congress to terminate 18 mandated committees in total. 
According to the agencies, Congress terminated one of those
committees.  The remaining 17 committees were listed among the 26
committees that agencies said should be terminated. 

Only Congress can terminate a congressionally mandated advisory
committee, and we asked the 19 agencies whether they found that
requirement burdensome.  Twelve agencies indicated that they incurred
little or no burden.  The other seven agencies indicated that they
felt burden, and the extent of it ranged from some to great.  We
asked them for suggestions to alleviate this burden.  Some suggested,
in essence, that agencies be given the authority to terminate
mandated committees.  Agencies made various suggestions, such as that
agencies should be given authority to terminate mandated committees
after notifying Congress of their intent to do so or after 2 years
with notification to congressional authorizing committees and after 4
years without notification. 

In addition to asking for their suggestions, we asked all 19 agencies
their opinions about a sunset/automatic termination for
congressionally mandated committees.  Their opinions were mixed.  Ten
agencies said a sunset/automatic termination requirement would be
helpful to a moderate, great, or very great extent.  Nine agencies
said it would provide little or no help or only some help. 

Appendix IV contains a copy of the questionnaire that we sent to
agencies with the number of agencies responding to each item. 


   ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS' AND
   AGENCIES' VIEWS ON THE EXTENT
   OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

One intended purpose of FACA is to open government to the public.  We
asked the advisory committee members and the agencies that we
surveyed a series of different questions about public participation. 


      VIEWS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE
      MEMBERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We asked committee members questions about (1) public access to
committee meetings; and (2) public input in general to their
committees (that is, without regard to whether it was by letter, in
person at meetings, or by other means).  The answers we received
often depended on whether respondents were members of peer review
panels or general advisory committees.  Those answers indicated that
peer review panels were less likely to obtain public access and input
than were general advisory committees.  The nature of their work may
explain why peer review panels do not obtain public input as much as
general advisory committees do. 

About 27 percent of the respondents said that all of their committee
meetings were open to the public, and 37 percent said that all
meetings were closed to the public.  Another 19 percent noted that
some meetings or portions of meetings were open and others were
closed.  Finally, 17 percent of the respondents were not sure what
access the public had to their committee meetings.  Most of those
whose committees held closed or partially closed meetings agreed with
their committees' reasons for closing those meetings to the public. 
Two reasons frequently cited were discussions involving personal
privacy issues and discussions involving trade secrets. 

According to GSA data, advisory committees frequently hold closed
meetings.  Agencies reported to GSA that about 58 percent of the
5,700 advisory committee meetings held in fiscal year 1997 were
either closed or partially closed.  Advisory committee meetings can
be closed to the public if the president or the agency head to which
the advisory committee reports determines that the meeting may be
closed in accordance with provisions of the Government in the
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C.  552b(c)).  The provisions provide for closed
meetings to protect, for example, matters that need to be kept secret
in the interest of national security or foreign policy; trade
secrets; and information of a personal nature, the disclosure of
which would constitute an invasion of privacy. 

Respondents who were members of peer review panels--which frequently
deal with such proprietary and sensitive information--were much less
likely to say their committee meetings were totally open to the
public and much more likely to say their meetings were totally closed
to the public.  About 2 percent of the panelists said their meetings
were always open to the public.  About 64 percent said their meetings
were always closed to the public. 

About 44 percent of all respondents to our survey said yes and 31
percent said no when asked whether members of the public were ever
allowed to express their views to the respondents' advisory
committees.  The remaining 25 percent were not sure whether members
of the public were allowed to express their views to the committees. 
Approximately 81 percent of those who replied no or not sure did not
believe their committees should provide members of the public with
the opportunity to express their views.  In comparison to the overall
percentages, respondents who were members of peer review panels were
much more likely to say the public was not allowed to express views
to the committee (52 percent of the panel members who responded), to
say they were not sure whether the public was allowed (36 percent),
and to believe the public should not be allowed to express their
views to the committee (88 percent). 

We also asked those who said their committees allowed the public to
express its views (in other words, the 44 percent who said yes)
whether the committees provided sufficient opportunity to the public
to express its views.  About 59 percent replied that in their
opinions, the opportunity was sufficient to a great or very great
extent.  Another 19 percent thought it was moderately sufficient.  In
comparison to these overall percentages, respondents from peer review
panels were less likely to say the extent was greatly or moderately
sufficient.  About 21 percent said great or very great while 8
percent said moderate.  A sizeable number--about 38 percent--said
they had no basis to judge whether the extent was sufficient. 

We also asked committee members about subcommittees they served on
and whether FACA requirements were followed.  About 34 percent of the
respondents said the committees they served on had subcommittees, and
68 percent of the respondents said they had served on at least one
subcommittee over the past year.  A majority (about 59 to 72 percent
of respondents) said that detailed minutes were kept, and the
designated federal officer attended and either approved or called for
all or most of the subcommittee meetings.  However, less than
one-half (about 41 to 45 percent of respondents) said that members of
the public were given access to the meetings and allowed to provide
input, either in writing or in person, for all or most of the
subcommittee meetings. 


      VIEWS OF THE 19 AGENCIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2

In general terms, most of the agencies--16 of the 19--said FACA had
not prohibited them from receiving or soliciting input from public
task forces, public working groups, or public forums on issues or
concerns of the agency.  The three agencies that said FACA has
prohibited them explained that they had to limit their prior practice
of forming working groups or task forces to address specific local
projects or programs, that FACA has made it more cumbersome to seek
citizen input because of the staff time required to complete FACA
paperwork, or that solicitation of a consensus opinion from a task
force or working group may lead to that task force or group being
considered a "utilized" committee and thus subject to FACA. 

Although agencies generally reported that FACA has not prohibited
them from obtaining input, there appears to be some concern among
agencies about the possibility of being sued for noncompliance with
FACA if they obtain input from parties who are outside of the agency
and its advisory committees.  Eight of the 19 agencies said the
possibility of such litigation has inhibited them in obtaining
outside input independent of FACA to some, a moderate, or a very
great extent.  Moreover, six agencies, including five of the previous
eight agencies, said there were at least eight instances over the
fiscal year 1995 through 1997 period when they decided not to solicit
or receive outside input because of their concern about the
possibility of future litigation. 

Agencies determine if members of the public can speak at advisory
committee meetings.  We therefore asked the 19 agencies whether they
permitted members of the public to speak before their advisory
committees.  Fourteen said yes and 5 said yes and no, indicating that
they permitted the public to speak before some committees but not
others.  In this latter category, the reasons the agencies provided
for not permitting the public to speak included time constraints, a
need to maintain order, and statutory requirements that meetings be
closed for such reasons as protecting classified information or
safeguarding privacy act material. 

When an agency does permit members of the public to speak before its
advisory committees, there may be restrictions.  According to the
agencies, restrictions included public presentations being contingent
on the time available at the end of meetings, time limits being
imposed on speakers, and members of the public being requested to
provide written statements. 

For members of the public to speak at advisory committee meetings,
they must be aware of when a meeting is to occur.  FACA requires that
specific information be placed in the Federal Register to notify
interested parties of the scheduled date, time, and location of
advisory committee meetings.  Fifteen agencies said they notify the
public of scheduled meetings by using methods in addition to the
Federal Register, such as posting notices on the Internet; posting
notices in newsletters, newspapers, and trade association
publications; or mailing notices to stakeholders.  However, four
agencies said they used only the Federal Register notice.  GSA
regulations generally require agencies to give 15 days' advance
notice in the Federal Register for committee meetings.  Many of the
agencies--14 of the 19--said they gave less than this 15 day advance
notice at times during fiscal years 1995 through 1997.  All together,
these agencies said they gave less than 15 days' advance notice 153
times during the 3 years (fiscal years 1995 through 1997) for which
we requested data.  This number represented a very small fraction of
the 15,885 committee meetings that GSA reported as being held during
those years by all advisory committees. 

We also asked the agencies about subcommittee meetings.  The agencies
reported that there were 463 subcommittees reporting to full
committees in fiscal year 1997.  These subcommittees held 926
meetings in fiscal year 1997, and 249 were reportedly not covered
under FACA.  For the 249 meetings not covered under FACA, agencies
reported that the meetings were held for activities such as gathering
information, drafting position papers, doing research, and performing
analysis.  Of eight agencies responding, the majority (five to six
agencies) said that FACA requirements, such as Federal Register
notices of meetings, detailed minutes, and public access, were not
followed for all or most subcommittee meetings.  About one-half (four
to five agencies) said the subcommittee meetings were approved or
called for and attended by the designated federal officer. 


   GSA AND OMB COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

GSA and OMB provided comments on a draft of this report.  On June 11,
1998, we met with the Director of GSA's Committee Management
Secretariat, who said he found the draft report to be very
comprehensive, informative, and useful.  The Director said that
surveying committee members and agencies can provide the Secretariat
very useful information to help it manage the federal advisory
committee program, and the survey should be done every 3 or 4 years. 
However, according to the Director, no surveys have been done by the
Secretariat and none are planned.  The Director explained that the
Secretariat lacks the technical expertise as well as the clear
authority to conduct surveys of committee members and agencies. 

The Director said the responses we received from committee members
and agencies did not indicate any perceived significant systemic
problems with the advisory committee program.  However, he said the
responses suggested areas that should be examined further, several of
which GSA already had been examining and others of which GSA plans to
examine.  The Director said that GSA can address some of these areas
by revising its FACA regulations, but addressing other areas will
require legislative changes to FACA.  For example, GSA expects to
publish proposed regulations in July or August 1998 that will address
the definition of an advisory committee.  The Director said that GSA
recognizes that some agencies or their field offices may sometimes be
reluctant to obtain information from the public for fear of violating
FACA, and one of GSA's goals in revising the regulations is to
provide clarifying guidance and standards as to when FACA does and
does not apply.  According to the Director, GSA has been working with
the Department of Justice on this definition because Justice is
responsible for defending the government in advisory committee
litigation.  The Director also said that the use of subcommittees by
advisory committees is another area that GSA intends to address in
its regulations.  For example, he believes that it is important for
agencies to make uniform determinations of when a subcommittee
meeting or other activity would be subject to FACA's requirements. 

The Director said that GSA needs to evaluate and work with Congress
on the usefulness of some specific FACA requirements, such as sending
copies of advisory committee reports to the Library of Congress, and
to proactively address the issue of terminating congressionally
mandated committees when they no longer serve a useful purpose.  He
said that GSA was sympathetic to extending the charter period of
advisory committees to beyond the 2-year period now stipulated by
FACA.  The Director also said GSA could possibly support exempting
peer review panels from some FACA requirements, but GSA does not
favor exempting them from all requirements.  For example, he said it
is important for the public to have access to information on how
agencies ensure that peer review panels have balanced representation
and are free from potential conflicts of interest.  In addition, he
noted that the number of peer review panels and their costs have
benefited from the increased accountability provided by FACA and
Executive Order 12838. 

On June 12, 1998, an OMB official responsible for advisory committee
matters said that OMB had no comments on the draft report other than
that it accurately presented the impact of Executive Order 12838. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

As agreed with your offices, unless you announce the contents of this
report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after
the date of this report.  At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology, House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight; the Chairman, Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Acting Director,
OMB; the Administrator, GSA; and other interested parties.  Copies
will be made available to others on request. 

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.  Please
contact me on (202) 512-8676 if you or your staff have any questions. 

Michael Brostek
Associate Director, Federal Management
 and Workforce Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight; and the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs asked us to review selected matters relating to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  We addressed several
aspects of these separate requests in two previous products.\2 Our
objectives in this review were to obtain (1) federal advisory
committee members' perceptions on the extent to which their advisory
committees were providing balanced and independent advice and
recommendations as required by FACA; (2) federal agencies' views on
the extent to which they found compliance with FACA useful or
burdensome, the impact of Executive Order 12838 on their ability to
accomplish their missions, and whether any of their advisory
committees mandated by Congress should be terminated; and (3)
advisory committee members' and federal agencies' views on the extent
to which they believed the public was afforded access to advisory
committee proceedings and a means to express their views to agencies
and their advisory committees. 

To respond to these objectives, we designed and pretested two
questionnaires, one of which we later sent to a randomly selected,
statistically representative sample of federal advisory committee
members and the other of which we sent to all 14 federal departments
and to independent agencies with 10 or more advisory committees. 
Regarding the issue of public participation, we were unable to send a
questionnaire to members of the public (individuals and
organizations) who may have provided or attempted to provide
information to advisory committees because we could not identify the
universe of such individuals and organizations from which to draw a
statistically representative sample to query. 

Because a comprehensive listing of the names and addresses for all
federal advisory committee members was not available, we requested
from federal agencies the names and addresses of members assigned to
advisory committees as of August 1, 1997.  The Committee Management
Secretariat assisted us in making this request to the agencies'
committee management officers.  We received the names (and about 95
percent of the addresses) for 28,499 committee members on 783
advisory committees in 43 federal agencies or entities.  These
numbers were somewhat less than the 36,586 members serving on 963
advisory committees in 57 federal agencies or entities during fiscal
year 1997, according to General Services Administration (GSA) summary
data as of April 27, 1998.\3

Our survey of federal advisory committee members initially contained
a sample of 900 committee members.  Beginning on February 25, 1998,
we mailed 865 questionnaires to a sample of committee members for
whom the agencies provided us with mailing addresses.  Committee
members who did not respond to our initial questionnaire were sent a
follow-up questionnaire beginning on March 31, 1998.  Table I.1
summarizes the disposition of our sample of 900 committee members. 



                               Table I.1
                
                     Analysis of Sample Disposition

Disposition of sample                                           Number
--------------------------------------------------------------  ------
Total committee members sampled                                    900
Unable to locate mailing address of committee member                35
Questionnaires returned by Postal Service due to inadequate
 address or lack of forwarding address                              31
Refused to participate                                              28
Questionnaires not returned                                        199
Usable questionnaires returned                                     607
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This sample of 900 committee members was stratified according to the
functional types of advisory committees, which we obtained from GSA. 
The types of committee functions we used to create our sampling
strata included grant review, national policy, nonscientific,
scientific/technical, and other.  We combined the regulatory
negotiation and other types and those unclassified by GSA into the
functional type "other." In each of these five strata, we selected a
random sample of committee members.  We randomly selected 400 of the
13,392 members of grant review committees, 200 of 6,263 members of
scientific/technical committees, 180 of 5,586 members of
nonscientific committees, 80 of 2,393 members of national policy
committees, and 40 of 865 members of the other committees.\4

We received usable questionnaires from 67 percent of the eligible
sample.  The response rate across the five strata ranged from 62
percent to 72 percent.  The overall sample had a confidence interval
of no greater than + 4 percent.  The confidence interval for the
grant review committees was no greater than + 6 percent.  The
confidence interval for the others, which we refer to as general
advisory committees, was no greater than + 5.5 percent.  The overall
results are generalizable to all federal advisory committee members
for whom we had names and addresses.  The grant review and general
advisory committee members results are generalizable to those types
of advisory committees for which we had members' names and addresses. 
Although we did not test the validity of the respondents' answers or
the comments they made, we took several steps to check the quality of
our survey data.  We reviewed and edited the completed
questionnaires, made internal consistency checks on selected items,
and checked the accuracy of data entry on a sample of surveys. 

In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of
conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly
referred to as nonsampling errors.  For example, differences in how a
particular question is interpreted by the survey respondents could
introduce unwanted variability in the survey's results.  We took
steps in the development of the questionnaire, the data collection,
and the data editing and analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. 
These steps, which we discuss earlier, included pretesting and
editing the questionnaires. 

The 19 federal departments and independent agencies to whom we sent
questionnaires on February 24, 1998, accounted for 902 of 1,000 (90
percent) advisory committees that existed governmentwide in fiscal
year 1996, the latest year for which such data were available at the
time we selected the agencies.  According to GSA data, the other 98
advisory committees were chartered by 40 federal entities (offices of
the Executive Office of the President; independent agencies; and
federal boards, commissions, and councils).  Table I.2 lists the 19
departments and agencies in our survey and their number of advisory
committees during fiscal year 1996.  We received completed
questionnaires from all 19 agencies.  We asked each agency to provide
a consolidated response covering all of its various organizational
components.  Although agency information in this review applies only
to the 19 agencies surveyed and cannot be projected governmentwide,
this information can be generalized to the 902 advisory committees in
the government that we included in our review.  We did not verify the
accuracy of the data provided by the agencies. 

To aid us in meeting our objectives, we also interviewed GSA's
Committee Management Secretariat officials and reviewed applicable
laws, regulations, and guidance to agencies regarding advisory
committee activities.  We also reviewed applicable court decisions
and our prior GAO reports related to participation by outside parties
on advisory committee issues. 



                               Table I.2
                
                Number of Federal Advisory Committees at
                  19 Federal Departments and Agencies,
                            Fiscal Year 1996

                                                             Number of
Agency                                                      committees
----------------------------------------------------------  ----------
Department of Agriculture                                           64
Department of Commerce                                              57
Department of Defense                                               59
Department of Education                                             11
Department of Energy                                                21
Department of Health and Human Services                            243
Department of Housing and Urban Development                          1
Department of the Interior                                         117
Department of Justice                                               11
Department of Labor                                                 21
Department of State                                                 14
Department of Veterans Affairs                                      24
Department of the Treasury                                           8
Department of Transportation                                        36
Commission on Civil Rights                                          51
Environmental Protection Agency                                     28
National Endowment for the Arts                                     24
National Science Foundation                                         65
Small Business Administration                                       47
======================================================================
Total                                                              902
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Twenty-fifth Annual Report of the President on Federal
Advisory Committees, Fiscal Year 1996. 



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II

--------------------
\2 Federal Advisory Committee Act:  Overview of Advisory Committees
Since 1993 (GAO/T-GGD-98-24, Nov.  5, 1997); and GAO/GGD-98-124, June
15, 1998. 

\3 We are aware of two factors that contributed to the differences
between the number of committee members for which we received
information and the number that GSA reported.  Our number is for 1
day (August 1, 1997); GSA's number includes individuals who were
committee members at anytime during the fiscal year.  Not every
agency that we requested information from provided us with the names
and addresses of their advisory committee members. 

\4 Grant review committees is a term that GSA uses in categorizing
advisory committees.  According to GSA, the category includes
committees that review contract proposals as well as grant
applications.  In this report, we refer to these committees as peer
review panels, which is the generic name that they are commonly known
by and is the term we used in our agency questionnaire. 


RESPONSES TO SURVEY OF FEDERAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MANDATED ADVISORY COMMITTEES THAT
AGENCIES BELIEVED SHOULD BE
TERMINATED
================================================= Appendix AppendixIII

Agency                                   Mandated advisory committee
---------------------------------------  ---------------------------------------
Department of Agriculture                Brule River (Wisconsin and Michigan)
                                         Study Committee

                                         Northern Allegheny Wild and Scenic
                                         River Advisory Council

                                         Southern Allegheny Wild and Scenic
                                         River Advisory Council

Department of Defense                    Department of Defense Government-
                                         Industry Advisory Committee on the
                                         Operation and Modernization of the
                                         National Defense Stockpile

Department of Energy                     Technical Advisory Committee on
                                         Verification of Fissile Material and
                                         Nuclear Warhead Control

                                         Technical Panel on Magnetic Fusion

Department of Health and Human Services  Advisory Council on Hazardous
                                         Substances Research and Training


                                         End-Stage Renal Disease Data Advisory
                                         Committee

                                         Federal Council on the Aging

                                         Federal Hospital Council

                                         National Advisory Board on Arthritis
                                         and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases

                                         National Commission on Alcoholism and
                                         Other Alcohol-Related Problems

                                         Deafness and Other Communication
                                         Disorders Advisory Board

                                         National Diabetes Advisory Board

                                         National Digestive Diseases Advisory
                                         Board

                                         National Kidney and Urologic Diseases
                                         Advisory Board

                                         Task Force on Aging Research

Department of the Interior               San Francisco Maritime National
                                         Historical Park Advisory Commission

                                         Santa Fe National Historic Trail
                                         Advisory Council

                                         Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
                                         Advisory Commission

                                         Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
                                         Advisory Council

Department of Transportation             National Driver Register Advisory
                                         Committee

                                         National Highway Safety Advisory
                                         Committee

                                         Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
                                         Regulatory Review Panel

                                         Transit Industry Technology Development
                                         Advisory Committee

                                         National Recreational Trails Advisory
                                         Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Responses to GAO's federal advisory committees agency
questionnaire. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
RESPONSES TO FEDERAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEES AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE
================================================= Appendix AppendixIII



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Richard W.  Caradine, Assistant Director, Federal Management and
Workforce Issues
Ronald J.  Cormier, Evaluator-in-Charge
Anthony Assia, Senior Evaluator
Steven J.  Berke, Senior Evaluator
Gregory H.  Wilmoth, Supervisory Social Science Analyst
Stuart M.  Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst
Ernestine B.  Burt, Issue Area Assistant

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Jessica A.  Botsford, Attorney


*** End of document. ***