EPA Advisory Committees: Improvements Needed for the Member Appointment Process

Federal advisory committees provide advice to federal agencies on many topics. As of March 31, 2018, EPA managed 22 such committees. They advise the agency on such issues as developing regulations and managing research programs. Questions have been raised about EPA's process for appointing committee members after recent policy changes affecting who serves on the advisory committees.

GAO was asked to review issues related to how EPA appoints advisory committee members. This report examines: (1) EPA's process for appointing advisory committee members, (2) the extent to which EPA followed its process for selecting members from October 2016 through March 2018, and (3) how, if at all, selected characteristics of EPA advisory committees changed after January 2017. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; reviewed documents from committees that appointed members over this period; analyzed information from the GSA's FACA database; and interviewed agency officials.

Based on GAO's review of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) guidance, the agency's established process for appointing advisory committee members involves three main phases: soliciting nominations, evaluating candidates, and obtaining approvals. Each phase involves several steps. For example, a key step for evaluating candidates involves EPA staff's preparing documents that reflect staff recommendations on the best qualified and most appropriate candidates for achieving balanced committee membership, according to EPA guidance.

EPA generally followed its established process for most of its 22 advisory committees; however, in fiscal year 2018, EPA did not follow a key step for appointing 20 committee members to two committees GAO reviewed: the EPA Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which advise the agency on environmental regulatory matters, among other things. The 2018 appointment packets for these two committees did not contain documents reflecting EPA staff rationales for proposed membership, as called for by EPA's established process. EPA developed guidance to implement the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). By directing officials responsible for appointing committee members to follow a key step in its process to document staff rationales for proposed membership, the agency would have better assurance that it will (1) consistently meet FACA's purpose of encouraging uniform appointment procedures and (2) show how it made appointment decisions to achieve the best qualified and most appropriate candidates for balanced committee membership. EPA also did not consistently ensure that members appointed as special government employees (SGE)—who are expected to provide their best judgment free from conflicts of interest and are required by federal regulations to disclose their financial interests—met federal ethics requirements. For about 23 percent, or 17 of the 74 financial disclosure forms GAO reviewed, an ethics official had not signed and dated that the SGE filing the form was in compliance with federal ethics rules. EPA also did not periodically review its ethics program, as called for by federal regulations, such as through audits or spot-checks, to evaluate the quality of financial disclosure reviews for SGEs. Until EPA's Ethics Office evaluates the quality of financial disclosure reviews of SGEs as part of its periodic review of its ethics program, it will not have reasonable assurance that it will address noncompliance with federal ethics requirements and prevent conflicts of interest on its advisory committees.

Based on GAO's review of the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA) FACA database, there were notable changes to selected characteristics of EPA advisory committees (i.e. at least a 20 percentage point difference in the change to a characteristic after January 2017 compared to the period after January 2009). Of the four characteristics GAO reviewed—committee composition, regional affiliation, membership turnover, and number of meetings committees held—one or more of the first three changed notably for four of 18 EPA advisory committees after January 2017.

GAO is recommending that EPA direct (1) officials responsible for appointing committee members to follow a key step in its appointment process to document staff rationales for proposed membership and (2) EPA's Ethics Office to evaluate the quality of financial disclosure reviews of SGEs appointed to advisory committees. EPA disagreed with the first and agreed with the second recommendation. GAO continues to believe that both are valid, as discussed in the report.

Federal advisory committees play an important role in shaping public  policy by providing advice on a wide array of topics, such as stem cell  research, drinking water standards, space exploration, drug approvals,  and federal land management. The Federal Advisory Committee Act  (FACA) authorizes federal agencies to establish advisory committees to  provide the agencies with advice and recommendations. As of March 31,  2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) managed 22  advisory committees under FACA. These committees play an important  role at EPA by providing advice that helps the agency develop  regulations, accredit laboratories, and manage research programs,  among other activities. The topics addressed by these committees span  EPA’s portfolio and include pesticides, drinking water quality, air quality,  rural community welfare, and children’s health. For example, the  committee at EPA with the largest number of committee members, the  EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), advises EPA on the adequacy and  scientific basis of standards and regulations under the Clean Water Act,  Safe Drinking Water Act, and other federal environmental laws. Another  committee, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), is  responsible for reviewing national ambient air-quality standards, among  other topics.

Questions have been raised about EPA’s process for appointing  committee members following recent policy changes affecting who serves  on EPA advisory committees. Specifically, EPA issued a policy in October  2017 that restricts recipients of EPA grants from serving on advisory  committees. The policy states that (1) members shall be independent  from EPA, which shall include a requirement that no member of an EPA  federal advisory committee currently receive EPA grants; (2) committee  balance should reflect prominent participation from state, tribal, and local  government, as appropriate for the committee’s purpose and function; (3)  EPA should seek to increase the geographic diversity of members by  ensuring membership is balanced with individuals from different states  and EPA regions; and (4) EPA should promote fresh perspectives by  regularly rotating membership. Three lawsuits were filed challenging the  policy; all were dismissed. Other recent EPA decisions regarding  advisory committees have raised questions. For example, in October  2018, EPA disbanded a CASAC subcommittee charged with helping the  agency review air quality standards for particulate matter and halted plans  to form another subcommittee to help assess limits on ozone pollution.

You asked us to review issues related to how EPA appoints advisory  committee members. In this report, we (1) describe EPA’s established  process for appointing members to serve on EPA advisory committees;  (2) evaluate the extent to which EPA followed its process from fiscal year  2017 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2018; and (3) describe  how, if at all, selected characteristics of EPA’s advisory committees  changed after January 2017.

To describe EPA’s process for appointing members to serve on EPA  advisory committees, we reviewed EPA’s Federal Advisory Committee  Handbook, which documents this process. We also reviewed relevant  federal laws, regulations, and policies and interviewed EPA officials. To  evaluate the extent to which EPA followed its established process from  fiscal year 2017 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2018, we  requested and reviewed all agency documentation used to support  appointment decisions from the 17 committees that appointed or  reappointed advisory committee members during this time frame. The  remaining committees did not appoint any committee members during the  time frame we reviewed. For the 17 committees, we reviewed all  appointment packets produced during this time. Many of these packets  contained appointment documents for numerous appointees or  reappointees. We also reviewed portions of financial disclosure forms for  74 individuals appointed or reappointed to EPA advisory committees to  determine if their forms were consistent with key federal requirements  and guidance. We reviewed these forms to determine if the individuals  met federal financial-disclosure-reporting requirements. Additionally, we  interviewed EPA officials involved with appointing committee members to  understand the steps the officials took. We then compared the steps they  described taking with selected steps in EPA’s established process. We  focused on steps in the appointment process that were to be documented  in the appointment packets, which EPA used to support appointment  decisions. Specifically, we reviewed those aspects of the process for  which EPA was to have documentary evidence, and we evaluated EPA’s  implementation of ethics oversight requirements relevant to EPA’s  process for appointing committee members.

To describe how, if at all, selected characteristics of EPA’s advisory  committees changed after January 2017, we analyzed information from  the FACA database, a publicly available database maintained by the U.S.  General Services Administration (GSA) that contains information about  FACA advisory committees that agencies, including EPA, are required to  provide annually. We compared four characteristics of committees before  and after the two most recent changes in presidential administrations. To  identify notable changes to a characteristic, we first identified any  changes after January 2017 that were large relative to other changes to  that characteristic by comparing the characteristics of committees on  January 19, 2017, to those on March 31, 2018. If we identified a  relatively large change, we then assessed whether it was large relative to  changes to the characteristic from January 19, 2009, to March 31, 2010.  If it was, we identified the change as notable. To provide context, we also  reviewed the characteristics of EPA’s advisory committees from January  20, 2013, and April 1, 2014. The characteristics we compared were: (1)  committee composition (e.g., are a committee’s members affiliated with  academia, consulting, industry, government, a non-government  organization, or other); (2) regional affiliation (i.e., with which regions of  the country are committee members affiliated); (3) membership turnover  (i.e., the percentage of committee members who no longer served on a  committee); and (4) the number of meetings committees held. For 4 of the  22 advisory committees EPA was managing on March 31, 2018, we did  not analyze any of the four characteristics because they were established  after the beginning of the time frame we analyzed. To assess the  reliability of information in the FACA database for the 18 EPA advisory  committees within the scope of our review, we analyzed relevant  documentation, tested and spot-checked data, and interviewed GSA and  EPA officials. We reviewed the data for accuracy with EPA officials. We  determined that the data were overall sufficiently reliable for describing  changes in committee characteristics for our selected time periods.  Further information about the scope and methodology of our review is  presented in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to July 2019 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

A variety of federal laws, regulations, and policies establish requirements  and guidance for EPA to follow when appointing members to serve on  advisory committees. For example, one purpose of FACA is to ensure  that uniform procedures govern the establishment and operation of  advisory committees. Also under FACA, an agency establishing an  advisory committee must, among other things, require the committee’s  membership to be balanced in terms of the points of view represented  and the functions to be performed by the committee. In addition, federal  ethics regulations establish when and how federal officials should review  financial disclosure forms to identify and prevent conflicts of interest  prohibited by federal law for any prospective committee members  required to file these forms in connection with their appointments to  advisory committees. GSA has provided additional guidance regarding  the implementation of ethics requirements under FACA.

Various EPA offices and officials are responsible for helping the agency  follow these requirements. For example, EPA’s Federal Advisory  Committee Management Division—which has overall responsibility for  committee management and ensuring that EPA’s advisory committees  comply with FACA—developed the Federal Advisory Committee  Handbook to clarify roles and responsibilities for complying with relevant  requirements. The handbook was written primarily for EPA employees  assigned as designated federal officers for committees. These officers  are responsible for the day-to-day management of advisory committees  and play a central role in identifying and recommending candidates who  can help the committees meet their goals. EPA employees assigned as  designated federal officers also are responsible for maintaining committee  records. According to EPA’s Federal Advisory Committee Handbook, one  of the primary reasons that Congress passed FACA was to ensure public  access to the records and documents of advisory committees, and that  this fosters greater transparency and accountability of agencies’ use of  advisory committees.

EPA’s Ethics Office is responsible for helping the agency follow federal  ethics requirements. Housed within the agency’s Office of General  Counsel in headquarters, the Ethics Office oversees all aspects of the  agency’s ethics program, including financial disclosure reporting. The  Designated Agency Ethics Official coordinates and manages the  program. The Designated Agency Ethics Official delegates authority to  more than 100 deputy ethics officials located throughout the agency— including in headquarters and regional offices—to carry out most  elements of EPA’s ethics program. For example, deputy ethics officials  are to review financial disclosure reports for prospective committee  members to identify and prevent conflicts of interest. Deputy assistant  administrators, deputy regional administrators, office directors, and other  EPA managers may be appointed to serve as deputy ethics officials for  their offices as ancillary duties to their other responsibilities.

EPA’s Advisory Committees and Committee Members

EPA can establish two kinds of advisory committees—non-discretionary  and discretionary committees. The agency establishes non- discretionary committees when required to by statute or directed to by the  President. For example, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish an  advisory committee to, among other things, help EPA review standards  for national ambient air quality every 5 years. EPA also can establish  discretionary committees at the Administrator’s direction if, for example,  these committees provide an important and unique perspective on EPA  programs or operations. An example of a discretionary committee is the  Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, which was formed to help EPA  perform its duties under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and  Rodenticide Act and related laws. See appendix II for a list of EPA’s 22  advisory committees as of March 31, 2018. EPA must approve the  establishment of any subcommittees formed to assist committees with  their work.

EPA also can appoint different types of members to its advisory  committees, depending on the needs of its committees and other  considerations. For instance, EPA may appoint a committee member as a  federal government employee under an appropriate hiring authority. If  EPA expects a federal employee to serve no more than 130 days in any  365-day period, guidance from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics  (OGE), which oversees the executive branch’s ethics program, states that  the employee should be designated as a special government employee  (SGE). If EPA decides not to appoint the committee member as a  federal employee, that committee member would be a non-employee  representative. EPA decides whether to appoint committee members as  federal employees.

To help federal agencies such as EPA determine whether to designate  committee members as SGEs or representatives, OGE has developed  guidance on factors to consider when agencies make these  determinations. For example, OGE guidance states that SGEs are  expected to provide independent expert advice and provide their best  judgment free from conflicts of interest. They are generally subject to  federal ethics regulations placed on other federal employees—including  the requirement to file financial disclosure forms. In addition, OGE  guidance states that representatives serve as the voice of groups or  entities with a financial or other stake in a particular matter before an  advisory committee. Federal ethics regulations generally do not apply to  representative members on FACA committees.

GSA has certain government-wide responsibilities for implementing  FACA, including maintaining the government-wide FACA database that  tracks certain characteristics of advisory committees. Specifically, FACA  requires GSA to comprehensively review the activities and responsibilities  of each advisory committee annually, including the committees for which  EPA officials are responsible. In turn, GSA requires federal agencies  responsible for advisory committees to enter data about those  committees into the database. GSA and the responsible agency (e.g.,  EPA) review the data on a fiscal year basis for accuracy and  completeness. These reviews are typically completed by February or  March of the following year.

GSA’s database is accessible by the general public. It includes data on  committee members and committee activities from more than 50  agencies going back to 1997. The information on EPA committees  includes: whether a committee member is designated as an SGE or  representative;  the occupation or affiliation of a committee member;  state or other geographic information associated with a committee  member’s occupation or affiliation;  the appointment’s start and end date for each committee member;  and  the dates that committees held meetings.

EPA’s Established Process for Appointing Members to Serve on Advisory Committees Includes Soliciting Nominations, Evaluating Candidates, and Obtaining Approvals

Based on our review of EPA’s Federal Advisory Committee Handbook,  the agency’s established process for appointing advisory committee  members includes three main phases. These phases are soliciting  nominations, evaluating candidates, and obtaining approvals from  relevant EPA offices, such as the Federal Advisory Committee  Management Division, before the Administrator or Deputy Administrator  makes final appointment decisions. As shown in figure 1, each of the  three main phases in EPA’s process involves several smaller steps.  Unless noted otherwise, explanations of these steps can be found in the  handbook, which documents the agency’s established process.

Soliciting nominations involves six basic steps, which are carried out by a  committee’s designated federal officer. The steps are as follows:

Develop selection criteria. This step involves identifying the specific  perspectives or points of view that should be represented by members  on the committee, such as specific scientific perspectives or  understandings of environmental justice. This step applies to both  discretionary and non-discretionary committees. In addition, federal  laws establish membership requirements for the agency’s non- discretionary committees that designated federal officers must  consider when developing selection criteria. For example, the Clean  Air Act requires EPA to appoint seven members—including at least  one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician,  and one person representing state air-pollution control agencies—to  an independent scientific advisory committee, known as CASAC.  The selection criteria developed in this step should be reflected in the  notice soliciting nominations.

Develop an outreach plan. This plan should: (1) describe in detail  how committees intend to solicit a diverse set of nominees and (2)  discuss the specific forms of solicitation. For example, one outreach  plan we reviewed specified that EPA staff would solicit nominations  from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Chemical  Society, and other organizations that can help EPA review the quality,  relevance, and performance of its research programs.

Develop membership balance plans for discretionary  committees. GSA guidance states that membership balance plans  for discretionary committees should describe the process used to  ensure that committee membership is balanced in terms of the points  of view represented and functions to be performed by the  committee. For example, one membership balance plan we  reviewed stated that EPA staff would consider candidates from farm  worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; state,  local and tribal governments; and public health and other  organizations. According to that membership balance plan, EPA staff  also would consider prospective committee members’ geographic  location to help achieve balanced membership.

Solicit nominations. During this step, the designated federal officer  can solicit nominations via Federal Register notices and other means,  such as emails to professional associations and specific EPA email  distribution lists. In response to these notices, organizations can  nominate individuals, or individuals can nominate themselves or other  individuals.

Contact nominees after receiving nominations. During this step,  the designated federal officer confirms nominees’ qualifications and  experience as well as their interest in and availability to serve on the  committee.

Assess the diversity of the pool of nominees and conduct additional  outreach, if needed, to increase the diversity of the pool. EPA’s  Federal Advisory Committee Handbook provides illustrative examples  of how to follow this step. In one example, the handbook explains that  a committee needs a representative from local government. For the  past several years, the position has been filled by someone from an  affluent suburban county. To increase diversity, the handbook  recommends that the designated federal officer broaden outreach to  other parts of the country, especially local governments that serve  low-income, rural, urban, medically underserved, or vulnerable  populations.

Evaluating candidates similarly involves several steps. The committee’s  designated federal officer is primarily responsible for taking these steps  for his or her assigned committee. In addition, a deputy ethics official is to  review financial disclosure forms for any prospective members who are  required to file these forms. In general, the steps for evaluating  candidates are as follows:

Evaluate candidates against selection criteria. During this step, the  designated federal officer identifies the specific point of view that each  candidate would bring to the committee—as well as each candidate’s  ability to meet the selection criteria after interviewing candidates and  reviewing their curriculum vitae, publications, and other relevant  information. EPA’s Federal Advisory Committee Handbook notes that  having the best people who represent key interests and balanced  viewpoints enables the committee to provide EPA with  recommendations that the agency can rely on as collective advice  representing diverse stakeholder views. Identifying the best  candidates may involve reviewing many more nominees than can be  appointed. For example, EPA received approximately 100  nominations for 18 positions on the Science Advisory Committee on  Chemicals in fiscal year 2017.

Prepare a draft membership grid document with staff- recommended candidates and alternates. After evaluating  individual candidates, the handbook directs the designated federal  officer to recommend at least one primary and alternate candidate for  each point of view and consolidate his or her short-list of  recommended candidates into a draft membership grid document.  The handbook indicates that this is a key step in the agency’s  appointment process. It is intended to help designated federal officers  identify gaps as they seek to meet FACA requirements for balanced  committee membership. The handbook also directs the designated  federal officer to submit the draft membership grid to EPA’s Federal  Advisory Committee Management Division, EPA’s Office of General  Counsel, and the Assistant Administrator for review and approval  before submitting final recommendations to the Administrator.  Therefore, the draft membership grid, which documents EPA staff’s  rationale for recommending specific candidates, is intended to serve  as the basis for discussions with EPA management as final decisions  about the committee’s composition are made, according to EPA’s  Federal Advisory Committee Handbook. Recommending at least one  alternate for each point of view is intended to provide the EPA  Administrator or Deputy Administrator—who officially selects  committee members based on staff recommendations—with flexibility  in appointing members, according to the handbook.

Review financial disclosure forms for conformance with applicable  conflict-of-interest statutes, regulations issued by OGE including any  supplemental agency requirements, and other federal ethics rules,  which state, among other things, that:

SGEs appointed to serve on federal advisory committees  generally must file financial disclosure forms within 30 days of  assuming their new positions and either before providing advice to  the agency or before the first committee meeting if they are  eligible to file confidentially.

The designated ethics official from each executive branch agency  generally is to review financial disclosure reports within 60 days  after receiving them and is to certify by signature and date that the  filer is in compliance with federal ethics rules, and this official  generally may delegate this responsibility.

Obtaining approvals involves several steps and numerous EPA officials.  The steps for obtaining approvals generally are as follows:

EPA’s Federal Advisory Committee Management Division  reviews the proposed membership for balance. EPA guidance  states that designated federal officers are to obtain written  concurrence from the division before preparing the final membership  package for the Administrator to sign.

EPA’s Office of General Counsel conducts a legal review of the  proposed membership. EPA guidance states that designated federal  officers are to obtain written concurrence from the Office of General  Counsel prior to appointment.

Assistant Administrator or Regional Administrator approves the  list of recommended candidates that will be presented to the  Administrator’s office.

Administrator or Deputy Administrator makes final appointment  decisions and signs appointment letters.

EPA Generally Followed Its Established Process but Did Not Follow a Key Step for Appointing 20 Members to Two Committees or Ensure Certain Members Met Federal Ethics Requirements

From fiscal year 2017 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2018,  EPA generally followed its established process for most advisory  committees; however, in fiscal year 2018, EPA did not follow a key step in  its process for appointing 20 committee members to the SAB and  CASAC. SAB is the agency’s largest committee and CASAC is  responsible for, among other things, reviewing national ambient air-quality  standards. In addition, when reviewing the step in EPA’s appointment  process related specifically to financial disclosure reporting, we found that  EPA did not consistently ensure that SGEs appointed to advisory  committees met federal financial disclosure requirements.

EPA Followed Most Steps but Did Not Follow a Key Step As Described in its Established Process for Appointing 20 Members to 2 Advisory Committees

Our review of agency documents that supported appointment decisions  for the 17 committees that appointed or reappointed committee members  from fiscal year 2017 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2018  found that EPA generally followed its process for most committees. All 14  of the discretionary committees that appointed or reappointed members  during this time period developed membership balance plans, as required  by GSA’s FACA regulations. In addition, 15 committees followed the  step in EPA’s appointment process related to draft membership grid  documents. That is, 20 of the 22 appointment packets we reviewed had  draft membership grid documents reflecting EPA staff input on the best  qualified and most appropriate candidates for achieving balanced  committee membership. Additionally, 21 of the 22 appointment packets  we reviewed contained documentation showing that EPA’s Office of  General Counsel reviewed the proposed membership prior to  appointment, as recommended by EPA’s Federal Advisory Committee  Handbook. Figure 2 shows EPA’s established process and the steps we  reviewed. For additional information about the extent to which EPA  followed its process for appointing committee members, see appendix III.

However, EPA did not follow a key step in its established process for  appointing 20 members in fiscal year 2018 to the SAB and CASAC, which  advise the agency on environmental regulatory matters, among other  things. Specifically, the fiscal year 2018 appointment packets for the  SAB and CASAC did not include draft membership grid documents  reflecting EPA staff rationales for recommending the candidates EPA’s  staff deem best qualified and most appropriate for achieving balanced  committee membership. EPA officials told us in March 2019 that they did  not prepare draft membership grids, as recommended by EPA’s Federal  Advisory Committee Handbook, because EPA management requested a  series of briefings instead. EPA officials also told us that during these  briefings, EPA staff presented options for management to consider that  reflected staff evaluations and summaries of public comments on  candidates. EPA management then decided whom to appoint after  reviewing the entire list of personnel nominated for membership—not a  short-list of staff-recommended candidates, as called for by EPA’s  handbook.

During previous appointment cycles, EPA documents indicate and  officials told us that EPA followed its established process when appointing  committee members to SAB and CASAC. Specifically, documents from  SAB’s and CASAC’s fiscal year 2017 appointment cycles indicate that  both committees prepared draft membership grids in fiscal year 2017 in  accordance with EPA’s established process. In addition, SAB and  CASAC staff we interviewed told us that the process they used for filling  vacancies prior to the fiscal year 2018 appointments involved vetting  candidates before documenting in draft membership grids the candidates  they deemed best qualified and most appropriate for achieving balanced  committees.

EPA officials stated that the briefing process they used in fiscal year 2018  was considered better than the use of draft membership grids, as it  allowed EPA management to have in-depth discussions with SAB staff,  resulting in better knowledge and a greater understanding of the SAB’s  and CASAC’s membership needs. In written comments on the draft  report, EPA stated that the vetting of candidates for SAB and CASAC  occurred in a different manner than in previous years with a process more  robust than membership grids. In addition, EPA stated that the public  comment process was more robust, going beyond what was prescribed in  the traditional membership process.

There may be benefits to such discussions and solicitation of input.  However, under EPA’s established process, agency staff are to document  in draft membership grids and include in appointment packets their  rationales for recommending the candidates they deem best qualified and  most appropriate for achieving balanced committees. EPA developed  guidance to implement FACA, one purpose of which is to encourage the  establishment of uniform committee appointment and administration  procedures. In written comments on the draft report, EPA noted that  agency staff documented evaluations of advisory committee candidates in  briefing documents. However, EPA did not provide these documents  along with its comments. Moreover, neither these evaluations nor  summaries of public comments were included in the packets that EPA’s  Federal Advisory Committee Handbook indicates are to contain  committee appointment information, impeding EPA’s ability to ensure that  it consistently meets—across all of its advisory committees—FACA’s  purpose of encouraging uniform committee appointment procedures.

In addition, Federal Standards for Internal Control call for management to  design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, such  as by clearly documenting all transactions and other significant events in  a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for  examination. By directing officials responsible for appointing committee  members to follow a key step in EPA’s appointment process—developing  draft membership grids to document staff rationales for proposed  membership—the agency would also have better assurance that it could  show how it made appointment decisions to achieve the best qualified  and most appropriate candidates for balanced membership.

EPA Did Not Consistently Ensure That Committee Members Met Federal Ethics Requirements

When reviewing the steps in EPA’s appointment process related  specifically to financial disclosure reporting, we found that from fiscal year  2017 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2018, EPA did not  consistently ensure that 74 SGEs appointed or reappointed to serve on  EPA advisory committees met federal financial-disclosure requirements.  Of the 74 disclosure forms we reviewed, an ethics official signed and  dated that the filer was in compliance with federal ethics rules for 77  percent, or 57 of the forms. However, for about 23 percent, or 17 of the  74 financial disclosure forms we reviewed, an ethics official had not  signed and dated that the filer was in compliance with federal ethics rules.  In addition, for about 57 percent, or 42 of the 74 forms we reviewed, we  were unable to determine whether an ethics official had reviewed the  financial disclosure forms within 60 days after they were filed because the  forms did not indicate when EPA had received them. Table 1 illustrates  the extent to which EPA took steps to ensure compliance with federal  financial-disclosure-reporting requirements relevant to SGEs during this  time period.

In 2017, OGE found similar weaknesses in EPA’s ethics program. For  example, when OGE reviewed a sample of EPA advisory committees’  ethics documents from 2015, it found that none of the financial disclosure  forms for one committee had been reviewed—or signed and dated—by  an ethics official to indicate that filers were in conformance with federal  ethics rules. For two other committees, OGE found that EPA had not  received in 2015 certain financial-disclosure forms that were due that  year.

We also found that EPA’s Ethics Office had not periodically evaluated,  through audits or spot-checks, the quality of financial disclosure reviews  conducted by its deputy ethics officials for SGEs appointed to advisory  committees, as part of the periodic review of its ethics program called for  by OGE regulations. An official we interviewed from EPA’s Ethics Office  told us that the office did not have the staffing levels necessary to audit or  spot-check financial disclosure reviews for SGEs. In addition, in a June  2018 correspondence to OGE about OGE’s review of EPA’s ethics  program, EPA’s Designated Agency Ethics Official stated that EPA’s  Ethics Office had fewer than three full-time equivalent positions at times  during 2017. The correspondence also stated that the agency’s Office of  General Counsel is committed to doubling the Ethics Office’s staffing  levels in the future to increase oversight of its deputy ethics officials.

Federal regulations and guidance specify that EPA has certain oversight  responsibilities for its programs—including its ethics program. For  example, OGE regulations:  state that designated agency ethics officials, acting directly or through  other officials, are responsible for carrying out effective financial  disclosure programs by, among other things, using information in  financial disclosure reports to prevent and resolve potential conflicts of  interest;  specify actions the official must take if the reviewing official concludes  that information disclosed in the report may reveal a violation of  applicable laws and regulations; and  state that designated agency ethics officials are responsible for  periodically evaluating their agencies’ ethics programs.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government also states that  management should design control activities to achieve objectives and  respond to risks, such as by comparing actual performance to planned or  expected results and analyzing significant differences.

Because EPA had not periodically evaluated through audits or spot- checks the quality of financial disclosure reviews for SGEs appointed to  advisory committees, the agency was not well positioned to compare the  program’s actual performance with planned results or address instances  of noncompliance with federal ethics requirements. Until EPA’s Ethics  Office, as part of its periodic review of its ethics program, evaluates—for  example, through audits or spot-checks—the quality of financial  disclosure reviews conducted for SGEs appointed to EPA advisory  committees, it will not have reasonable assurance that it is addressing  noncompliance with federal ethics requirements and preventing conflicts  of interest among SGEs appointed to EPA advisory committees. EPA  officials acknowledged that taking this additional oversight measure could  enhance the agency’s ethics program.

Selected Characteristics of Four EPA Advisory Committees Changed Notably after January 2017, but There Were No Notable Changes for 14 Committees

Of the four characteristics we reviewed—committee composition, regional  affiliation, membership turnover, and number of committee meetings— one or more of the first three characteristics changed notably for four of  18 of EPA’s advisory committees after January 2017. There were no  notable changes in the four characteristics we reviewed for the other 14  committees for which we reviewed at least one of the characteristics.

The Committee Composition, Regional Affiliation, or Membership Turnover of Four Committees Changed Notably after January 2017

The committee composition, regional affiliation, or membership turnover  of four of EPA’s advisory committees changed notably after January 2017  compared to the period after January 2009. There was no notable change  in the fourth characteristic we reviewed—that is, the number of meetings  committees held. Each change identified as notable had at least a 20  percentage point difference in the change to the characteristic after  January 2017 compared to the period after January 2009. See appendix I  for additional information about our methodology.

There was a notable decrease in the percentage of members affiliated  with academic institutions on the SAB and EPA Board of Scientific  Counselors (BOSC) committees after January 2017 compared to the  period after January 2009. Our analysis shows that the percentage of  committee members with an academic affiliation serving on the SAB  decreased by 27 percentage points, or from 77 percent (36 of 47  members) on January 19, 2017, to 50 percent (22 of 44 members) about  15 months later on March 31, 2018. There was little change in the  period after January 2009, when the percentage of academic members  serving on the SAB remained stable at 83 percent (33 of 40 members) on  January 19, 2009, and 82 percent (32 of 39 members) about 15 months  later on March 31, 2010. Regarding 2013, academic members serving on  the SAB decreased from 82 percent (40 of 49 members) on January 20,  2013 to 73 percent (37 of 51 members) about 15 months later. In addition  to academic members, other members serving on the SAB are (1)  affiliated with government (federal, local, state, or tribal) or with industry  or non-government organizations (NGO); (2) are consultants; or (3) are  others we could not assign to one of the above categories. See figure 3.

BOSC also experienced a notable decrease in the percentage of  members with an academic affiliation serving on the committee after  January 2017 compared to the period after January 2009. Our analysis  shows that the percentage of committee members with an academic  affiliation serving on BOSC decreased by 45 percentage points, or from  65 percent (11 of 17 members) on January 19, 2017, to 20 percent (3 of  15 members) about 15 months later on March 31, 2018. There was little  change in the percentage of academic members serving on BOSC after  either January 2009 or January 2013. The percentage of members with  an academic affiliation serving on BOSC was 55 percent (6 of 11  members) on January 19, 2009, and 56 percent (5 of 9 members) about  15 months later on March 31, 2010. Seven of 12 members were affiliated  with academic institutions on January 20, 2013, and 5 of 9 members were  similarly affiliated about 15 months later. See table 2.

The regional affiliation of SAB committee members also changed notably  after January 2017 compared to the period after January 2009. Our  analysis shows that members affiliated with the southern region—which  spans from Texas to Delaware—increased by about 25 percentage  points, or from 28 percent (13 of 47 members) on January 19, 2017, to 52  percent (23 of 44 members) about 15 months later on March 31, 2018.  There was little change in the period after January 2009, when the  percentage of members affiliated with the southern region increased from  30 percent (12 of 40 members) on January 19, 2009, to 33 percent (13 of  39 members) about 15 months later on March 31, 2009. Regarding 2013,  members affiliated with the southern region decreased from 33 percent  (16 of 49 members) on January 20, 2013, to 27 percent (14 of 51  members) about 15 months later. Figure 4 shows the regional affiliation of  SAB members using U.S. Census regions after January 2017 and  January 2009.

There was also a notable change in the number of members who left  three committees after January 2017 compared to the number of  members who left those committees after January 2009. Our analysis  shows that of the members serving on January 19, 2017, 71 percent (12  of 17 members) of BOSC, 62 percent (23 of 37 members) of the Clean Air  Act Advisory Committee, and 63 percent (25 of 40 members) of the  Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee were no longer serving about 15  months later on March 31, 2018. There was little change in the period  after January 2009, when 18 percent (2 of 11 members) of the members  of BOSC and 3 percent (one of 35 members) of the members serving on  the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee on January 19, 2009, were no  longer serving on the committees about 15 months later on March 31,  2010. All of the members serving on the Pesticide Program Dialogue  Committee (34 members) on January 19, 2009, were also serving about  15 months later on March 31, 2010. Regarding 2013, 25 percent (3 of 12  members) serving on BOSC on January 20, 2013, were not serving about  15 months later. All members serving on the other two committees on  January 20, 2013, were also serving about 15 months later.

For Most Advisory Committees We Reviewed, the Characteristics Did Not Change Notably After January 2017

In most instances, the four characteristics that we analyzed—committee  composition, regional affiliation, membership turnover, and number of  committee meetings held—did not change notably for the committees we  reviewed from January 2017 to about 15 months later compared to the  same time frame after January 2009. In many of these instances, the  characteristics we analyzed had changed, but these changes were not  large enough to be considered notable based on the approach we used to  identify notable changes.

Other than the SAB and BOSC, there were no notable changes after  January 2017 in the composition of the five committees for which we  analyzed this characteristic. We analyzed the committee composition of  the three other committees combined because they did not have enough  members to make individual analysis meaningful. Our analysis shows  that the largest change after January 2017 that we did not identify as  notable also occurred with BOSC. The percentage of members serving  on BOSC with a government affiliation increased by 22 percentage  points, or from 18 percent (3 of 17 members) on January 19, 2017, to 40  percent (6 of 15 members) about 15 months later on March 31, 2018.  This compares to 2009 when the percentage of members serving on  BOSC with a government affiliation remained at zero percent on January  19, 2009, (11 members) and about 15 months later on March 31, 2010, (9  members).

Other than the SAB, there were no notable changes after January 2017 in  the regional affiliation of members of the 10 committees for which we  analyzed this characteristic. In addition to the SAB, we analyzed the  regional affiliation of three other committees individually and the  remaining six committees combined. The largest change in regional  affiliation after January 2017 that we did not identify as notable also occurred with the SAB. Members affiliated with the northeast region  decreased by more than 14 percentage points, or from 28 percent (13 of  47 members) on January 19, 2017, to 14 percent (6 of 44 members)  about 15 months later on March 31, 2018. This compares to 2009 when  the percentage of members affiliated with the northeast region stayed  about the same, changing from 20 percent (8 of 40 members) on January  19, 2009, to 18 percent (7 of 39 members) about 15 months later on  March 31, 2010.

Other than BOSC, the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, and the  Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, there were no notable changes  after January 2017 to membership turnover for the 14 committees for  which we analyzed this characteristic. In addition to these three  committees, we analyzed the membership turnover of six other  committees individually and the remaining five committees combined.  Our analysis shows that the largest change in membership turnover after  January 2017 that we did not identify as notable occurred with the SAB.  Of the members serving on this committee on January 19, 2017, 45  percent (21 of 47 members) were no longer serving about 15 months later  on March 31, 2018. This compares to 2009 when 35 percent (14 of 40  members) serving on January 19, 2009, were not serving about 15  months later on March 31, 2010.

There was no notable change in the percentage decrease of meetings  held before and after January 2017 compared to a similar time frame  before and after January 2009. We analyzed the number of meetings held  by 18 committees. Our analysis shows that for the 18 committees  combined, the number of meetings decreased by 40 percent (from 90 to  54 meetings) from the approximately 15 month period before January  2017 to the approximately 15 month period after January 2017. This  compares to a 27 percent decrease in meetings (from 164 to 120  meetings) from the approximately 15-month period before January 2009  to the approximately 15-month period after January 2009. Overall, there  was a decrease in the number of meetings from before January 2009 to  after January 2017. The number of meetings held by the 18 committees  combined decreased 67 percent (from 164 to 54 meetings) from the  approximately 15-month period before January 2009 to the approximately  15-month period after January 2017. Figure 5 illustrates the decrease in  the number of meetings held during this time frame. The figure shows the  number of meetings held by SAB separately because of the relatively  large number of meetings that it held relative to the other committees.

EPA’s federal advisory committees play an important role in advising the  agency. EPA generally followed its established process for 15 of the 17  advisory committees that appointed or reappointed committee members  during the time period we reviewed. However, EPA did not follow a key  step in its process for appointing 20 members to two committees that  advise the agency on environmental regulatory matters, among other  things. The agency did not prepare draft membership grids with staff  rationales for proposed membership, the documents intended to reflect  EPA staff input on the best qualified and most appropriate candidates for  achieving balanced committee membership before appointing these  members. EPA officials told us in March 2019 that they did not prepare  draft membership grids, as recommended by EPA’s Federal Advisory  Committee Handbook, because EPA management requested a series of  briefings instead.

There may be benefits to following different procedures; however, under  EPA’s established process, agency staff are to document in draft  membership grids and include in appointment packets their rationales for  recommending the candidates they deem best qualified and most  appropriate for achieving balanced committees. By directing officials  responsible for appointing committee members to prepare draft  membership grids and include them in appointment packets for all  committees, the agency would have better assurance that it could show  how it made appointment decisions to achieve the best qualified and most  appropriate candidates for balanced committee membership.

EPA also did not consistently ensure that committee members appointed  as SGEs met federal ethics requirements, and as part of its periodic  review of its ethics program, EPA did not evaluate through audits or spot- checks the quality of financial disclosure reviews conducted by deputy  ethics officials for these committee members. Until EPA’s Ethics Office  periodically evaluates—for example, through audits or spot-checks—the  quality of financial disclosure reviews conducted for SGEs appointed to  EPA advisory committees, it will not have reasonable assurance that it  will address noncompliance with federal ethics requirements and prevent  conflicts of interest among SGEs appointed to EPA advisory committees.

We are making the following two recommendations to EPA:  The EPA Administrator should direct EPA officials responsible for  appointing advisory committee members to follow a key step in its  appointment process—developing and including draft membership grids  in appointment packets with staff rationales for proposed membership— for all committees. (Recommendation 1)

EPA’s Designated Agency Ethics Official should direct EPA’s Ethics  Office, as part of its periodic review of EPA’s ethics program, to  evaluate—for example, through audits or spot-checks—the quality of  financial disclosure reviews for special government employees appointed  to EPA advisory committees. (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. In its  written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, EPA disagreed with a key  finding related to the first recommendation, with how we conducted some  of our data analyses, and with some of the data points we presented.  EPA agreed with the findings and conclusions related to the second  recommendation. EPA also provided other comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

EPA stated that it believed a key finding related to the draft report’s first  recommendation—that EPA follow, for all committees, the key step in its  appointment process related to developing draft membership grids—was  in error and should be removed from the final version of the report. EPA  also stated that it followed all membership steps outlined in agency  guidance with the exception of two committees, SAB and CASAC, who  substituted the development of a membership grid with what the agency  states was a more rigorous examination of the candidates (a series of  briefings with senior management discussing the strengths and  weaknesses of potential candidates). EPA stated that this is within the  discretion of the EPA Administrator and that the vetting of candidates for  SAB and CASAC occurred in a different manner than in previous years  with a process more robust than membership grids. In addition, EPA  stated that the public comment process was more robust, going beyond  what was prescribed in the traditional membership process. According to  EPA, for SAB and CASAC, the public was offered additional opportunity  to provide input on all nominated candidates under consideration.

We agree that conducting such briefings is within the discretion of the  EPA Administrator, and we did not assess the outcomes of the  membership appointment process. However, it remains that for SAB and  CASAC, EPA did not follow a key step in its established appointment  process—as documented in its agency-wide handbook—in which agency  staff are to document in draft membership grids their rationales for  recommending the candidates they deem best qualified and most  appropriate for achieving balanced committees. While there may be  benefits to following any number of alternative processes for appointing  committee members, as EPA stated in its Federal Advisory Committee  Advisory Handbook, EPA developed the handbook to help agency  officials comply with FACA requirements. For these two advisory  committees, EPA did not follow its established committee appointment  process, impeding EPA’s ability to ensure that it consistently meets— across all of its advisory committees—FACA’s purpose of encouraging  uniform committee appointment procedures.

Furthermore, EPA did not provide documentation of the “more rigorous  examination” of candidates it conducted in briefings. In its written  comments, EPA stated that the SAB Staff Office documented staff  evaluations in briefing documents and that we did not request such  documents. However, we requested all appointment packets for the 17  committees that appointed or reappointed committee members from fiscal  year 2017 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2018. These  appointment packets were to contain the documents used by EPA  management to make appointment and reappointment decisions. EPA did  not include the briefing documents in their packets for the SAB or  CASAC, impeding EPA’s ability to ensure that it consistently meets— across all of its advisory committees—FACA’s purpose of encouraging  uniform committee appointment procedures. Nor did the agency provide  any such documentation in subsequent discussions about the extent to  which the agency followed its established process. Our most recent  meeting with EPA took place on March 19, 2019. As appropriate, we  modified the report to further clarify our specific finding.

Moreover, EPA disagreed with how we conducted some of our data  analyses and with some of the data points we presented. We took  numerous steps to ensure the accuracy of the data points presented in  this report. In some instances, we identified missing or inconsistent data  and shared this information with EPA officials. EPA provided some  corrected data for members with missing or inconsistent appointment- date data from October 1, 2015 to March 31, 2018. We also asked EPA  staff to confirm that the data had been updated in the FACA database,  discussing the data with individual EPA staff members, conducting logic  tests and spot-checking the data to identify errors and inconsistencies,  and providing EPA with an opportunity to review and correct in writing the  data presented prior to preparing our draft report.

Also, in its written comments, EPA stated that we did not review data for  BOSC subcommittees. Our methodology focused on the composition of  committees and not their subcommittees. We continue to believe that the  methodology we employed to analyze data was appropriate. We outline  our rationale in appendix I, which includes the steps we took to ensure  data reliability. For these reasons, we do not plan to make any further  changes based on the additional data EPA provided.

Lastly, EPA did not dispute our findings and conclusions related to the  second recommendation that the agency evaluate, for example, through  audits or spot checks, the quality of financial disclosure reviews for  special government employees appointed to EPA advisory committees.  EPA noted that at the time of our audit, its Ethics Office was understaffed.  In its written comments, EPA said that it has now resolved these staffing  issues and is engaged in a full and thorough review of all employees’  (including special government employees serving on federal advisory  committees) ethics forms to ensure they meet all ethics requirements.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, the Administrator of the U.S. General  Services Administration, and the Director of the U.S. Office of  Government Ethics. In addition, the report will be available at no charge  on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made major  contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

To describe the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)  established process for appointing members to serve on EPA advisory  committees, we identified and reviewed the federal laws, regulations, and  policies that are relevant to EPA’s process for appointing advisory  committee members. To ensure that we correctly identified all relevant  laws, regulations, and guidance, we consulted with: (1) the Committee  Management Secretariat at the U.S. General Services Administration  (GSA), which issues regulations and guidance for Federal Advisory  Committee Act (FACA) committees government-wide; (2) the U.S. Office  of Government Ethics, which develops ethics-related regulations for  executive branch employees; and (3) EPA. Examples of EPA guidance  that we reviewed include EPA’s Federal Advisory Committee Handbook,  Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory  Committees, and EPA Ethics Advisory 2008-02.

To evaluate the extent to which EPA followed its established process for  appointing members from fiscal year 2017 through the first two quarters  of fiscal year 2018, we reviewed pertinent documentation from the 17  committees that appointed or reappointed advisory committee members  during this time frame. The remaining committees did not appoint any  committee members during the time frame we reviewed. For the above- mentioned 17 committees, we reviewed all advisory committee  appointment packets—each of which can contain appointment documents  for numerous appointees or reappointees—produced during this time.  We also reviewed the first section (Section 1: Identifying Information and  Record of Agency Review) of the Confidential Financial Disclosure Form  for EPA Special Government Employees (EPA Form 3110-48) for 74  individuals who were required to submit them to EPA to determine if they  met federal financial-disclosure-reporting requirements.

We reviewed all 74 of the forms provided by the 8 committees that  appointed or reappointed special government employees (SGE) to serve  on a committee from fiscal year 2017 through the first two quarters of  fiscal year 2018. Additionally, we interviewed EPA officials involved with  appointing committee members to understand the steps these officials  took. We then compared the steps they described taking with selected  steps in EPA’s established process for appointing members to evaluate  the extent to which the agency followed its process. We focused on steps  in the appointment process that were to be documented in the  appointment packets, which EPA used to support appointment decisions.  Specifically, we reviewed those aspects of the process for which EPA had  documentary evidence, and we evaluated the implementation of ethics  oversight requirements that are relevant to EPA’s committee-member  appointment process.

To determine whether the agency followed selected steps in its  established process, two senior analysts reviewed the appointment  packets. Specifically, one senior analyst conducted the primary analysis  for about half of the 22 appointment packets we received, while the other  conducted the primary analysis for the remaining packets. Afterwards,  each analyst reviewed the other’s conclusions and noted agreement or  disagreement based on the evidence provided. In some cases,  discussion was necessary to resolve differences of opinion between the  two analysts. Those discussions were documented. If additional  documentation was necessary to resolve differences of opinion, we  obtained additional information from the agency. The two analysts  reached agreement on all of the packets.

To describe how, if at all, selected characteristics of EPA’s advisory  committees changed after January 2017, we analyzed information from  the FACA database, a publically-available database maintained by GSA.

The database contains information about FACA advisory committees that  agencies, including EPA, are required to provide.

The initial scope of our review was the 22 committees in existence on  March 31, 2018. Of these 22 committees, we excluded from all of our  analyses the four committees that were established after November 2007  because this is the earliest date of one of our analyses. We also excluded  four other committees from the three analyses that rely on member  appointment start and end dates (committee composition, membership  turnover, and regional affiliation) because of missing or inconsistent data.  Additionally, we excluded some other committees from some of our  analyses because of other types of data reliability issues or because of  the nature of the characteristic. To assess the reliability of the committee  data, we reviewed database technical documentation and interviewed  GSA and EPA officials to identify any potential issues with our planned  analysis of the data, among other things, and determined that overall the  data were sufficiently reliable for conducting analysis to describe changes  in selected member and committee characteristics for our selected time  periods. We discuss additional steps we took to assess the reliability of  the data and data reliability issues with the FACA database at the end of  this appendix. Additionally, appendix II identifies which committees we  excluded from which analyses and the reasons why.

Primarily using information available in the FACA database, we compared  changes in four committee characteristics across committees and  changes in presidential administrations. Specifically, we measured the  characteristics before and after January 20, 2017, and compared them to  similar periods before and after January 20, 2009. Additionally, we also  compared the characteristics to those before and after January 21, 2013,  to provide context to our findings and identify any patterns over time in  the data.

The four characteristics we measured and compared across committees  and changes in presidential administrations were:

Number of committee meetings  For the first two characteristics, we compared across committees the  percentage of members in the characteristics’ categories on either  January 19, 2017, or January 19, 2009, to a day about 15 months later  (either March 31, 2010, or March 31, 2018). For membership turnover, we  compared across committees the percentage of members on either  January 19, 2017, or January 19, 2009, who left a committee by about 15  months later (either March 31, 2010, or March 31, 2018). We chose  March 31, 2018, to allow for a period of time after January 2017 for  changes to occur in committee characteristics, and the fiscal year 2018  data file we received from GSA was updated as of March 31, 2018. For  the fourth characteristic, we compared across committees the number of  meetings held in the 15 months before January 20, 2009 and January 20,  2017, to a similar period after those dates (November 12, 2007, to March  31, 2010, or November 12, 2015, to March 31, 2018).

To identify changes to a characteristic that were notable, we used the  following methodology. First we identified any changes after January  2017 that were large relative to other changes to that characteristic after  January 2017. If we identified a relatively large change, we then  compared it to changes to the characteristic after January 2009 to assess  whether it was large relative to those changes. If it was, we would identify  the change as notable. The committees we analyzed individually had at  least 10 members (or 10 meetings) in the relevant time periods being  measured, with the exception of two committees which had nine  members on March 31, 2010. We analyzed the other committees  combined since relatively small changes in counts would have a relatively  large impact on percentages.

We measured the committee composition of 5 of 18 committees. We  excluded 4 of the 18 committees because of data reliability issues and 9  committees because they were not staffed primarily with SGEs. We  limited the committee composition analysis to SGEs because SGEs are  expected to provide their best judgement free from conflicts of interest,  rather than represent a particular viewpoint. We analyzed two of the five  committees individually and the other three committees combined.

To measure the composition of the five committees, we first categorized  each member’s occupation from the “occupation/affiliation” field in the  FACA database into one of six categories. The categories were: non-government organization (NGO); or other.

To assign the categories, one GAO analyst reviewed the  occupation/affiliation data for each member and assigned one of five  categories (academic, consultant, government, industry, or NGO) to each  member. In instances where it was unclear what category to assign, the  analyst conducted online searches regarding the occupation/affiliation  information to identify the type of entity and assign a category. We  assigned the category “other” in 30 instances where the member was  affiliated with more than one of the other categories, not affiliated with any  of the other categories (for example, retired), or for which the FACA  database did not provide sufficient information to assign one of the other  categories. A second analyst reviewed the reasonableness of the  categories assigned by the first analyst—including the additional  research. The two analysts reached consensus on the categories for  each member. We then applied the methodology described above to  identify notable changes in committee composition after January 2017.

We measured the regional affiliation of 10 of 18 committees. We excluded  8 committees because of data reliability issues. We analyzed 4 of the 10  committees individually and the other 6 committees combined.

To measure the regional affiliation of the 10 committees, we assigned one  of four U.S. Census regions (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) to  each committee member based on data in the “occupation/affiliation” field  in the FACA database for that member—in most instances, state  information is included in this field. We then applied the methodology  described above to identify notable changes in regional affiliation to the  period after January 2017. The regions were:

We measured membership turnover in 14 of 18 committees. We excluded  4 committees because of data reliability issues. We analyzed 9 of the  committees individually and the other 5 committees combined. To  measure membership turnover of the 14 committees, we used date fields  indicating when committee members began and ended their terms to  determine the percentages of members on a committee on January 19,  2017, and January 19, 2009, who were not members about 15 months  later. We then applied the methodology described above to identify  notable changes in membership turnover after January 2017.

We measured the change in the number of meetings for 18 committees.  We analyzed two of the committees individually and the other 16  committees combined. To measure this characteristic, we used data on  the date that meetings were held (we used the date that the meeting  began if it was a multi-day meeting). We then applied the methodology  described above to identify notable changes in the number of meetings  after January 2017.

Data Reliability and Analysis Preparation

We assessed the reliability of the data provided to us by GSA and took  certain steps to prepare the data for analysis. GSA provided us with data  files downloaded to Excel from its FACA database from October 1, 2005,  to March 31, 2018, for our analysis. GSA maintains the FACA database  on a fiscal year basis. During the fiscal year, staff in each agency,  including EPA, are to enter data to reflect any changes about the  agency’s FACA committees. At the end of each fiscal year, GSA is to  perform, in conjunction with each agency, an annual comprehensive  review of the data entered into the database by the agency for that fiscal  year. According to GSA officials, these reviews constitute the agency’s  main process for ensuring the reliability of the database. Once the review  is complete, the data are locked down, meaning they can no longer be  changed. We received data through the 2017 fiscal year after GSA  completed the 2017 review.

Because this latest GSA review was the end of fiscal year 2017 and we  wanted to include data into 2018, we requested that EPA update the  database to March 31, 2018, for each committee for certain data fields  relevant to our analyses. We asked that for each committee, the EPA  staff member responsible for entering a committee’s data in the FACA  database provide confirmation to us that the data had been updated  through March 31, 2018. After we received confirmation that data for the  22 committees in existence on March 31, 2018, had been updated, GSA  staff provided us the data update for EPA committees from October 1,  2017, through March 31, 2018.

To further assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed the database’s  technical documentation and interviewed GSA and EPA officials to  identify any potential issues with our planned analysis of the data. We  conducted logic tests and spot-checked the data to identify errors and  inconsistences. For example, we scanned committee member’s names to  identify potential duplicates of the same person in the same committee  and made corrections where appropriate. If a person served on more than  one committee, we included that person separately for each committee  on which he or she served. For each member, we also checked the  appointment start and end dates indicated in each fiscal year for  inconsistencies across fiscal years. In some instances, we identified  missing or inconsistent data in these dates and shared this information  with EPA officials. EPA was able to provide some corrected data for  members with missing or inconsistent appointment-date data from  October 1, 2015, to March 31, 2018. We excluded from our analyses  four committees for which over 30 percent of members had appointment  date issues we were not able to resolve, as well as individual members  with unresolved date issues for the committees we included in the  analysis. We also checked the 2018 data that GSA provided to us  against the data posted to EPA’s website. We determined that overall the  data were sufficiently reliable for conducting analysis to describe changes  in selected member and committee characteristics for our selected time  periods.

Finally, we took steps to structure the data provided by GSA in the format  needed for our analyses. Specifically, because GSA maintains its data on  a fiscal year basis, the data we received from GSA contained a separate  row in the database for each committee member for each fiscal year that  he or she was a member. To facilitate our analyses, we transposed the  dataset so there was one row for each member (for each committee, if a  member was in more than one committee) that contained the data from  all of the fiscal year records for that member.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to July 2019 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Additional Information about U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Advisory Committees

Table 3 provides information about each of the 22 advisory committees  managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as of  March 31, 2018. For each of these committees, the table also identifies  whether we included it in one or more of our analyses. If we excluded a  committee from certain analyses, we also explain why.

Appendix III: Advisory-Committee Appointment Packets for Which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Followed the Steps Evaluated by GAO

Table 4 summarizes the number of advisory-committee appointment  packets for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did or  did not follow the steps we evaluated for appointing members to serve on  EPA advisory committees.

Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

In addition to the individuals named above, Joseph Thompson (Assistant  Director), John Delicath, Charles Egan, Chad Gorman, Richard Johnson,  Yvonne Jones, Mary Koenen, James Lager, Amber Sinclair, and Kiki  Theodoropoulos made important contributions to this report.

EPA advisory committees play an important role by advising EPA on air quality standards, pesticide use, and other topics.

EPA's process for selecting committee members calls for EPA staff to document their assessments of the best qualified and most appropriate candidates before recommending them. EPA generally followed its process for most committees we reviewed, but did not follow this key step for 2 committees that advise on environmental regulations. Also, EPA did not ensure that all appointees met ethics requirements.

We recommended that EPA follow a key step in its appointment process and evaluate its financial disclosure review process.