1

NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee Meeting

August 31-September 1, 2022

NASA’s Ames Research Center, Building M3

Mountain View, California

Welcome

Dr. John-Paul Clarke, committee chair, called the meeting to order. Introductions were 

made and information regarding the purpose and scope of the Committee’s discussions, 

findings, and recommendations were described. This meeting was conducted in a 

hybrid style, with some attendees present at NASA’s Ames Research Center in 

California and others attending virtually.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management

Mr. Akbar Sultan, director of NASA’s Airspace Operations and Safety Program, 

provided an update on the closeout of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic 

Management (UTM) project, its impacts, and what is being done next.

Mr. Sultan outlined the vision for UTM and described its key objectives of system 

development and demonstrations, focused flight tests, and simulation and analysis. He 

also covered the project’s timeline, with details on each Technical Capability Level 

(TCL) and the continuous transfer of technology to industry through the duration of the 

project.

He summarized how NASA and the aviation community worked on the UTM 

architecture, including demonstrations performed in Reno, Nevada, and Corpus Christi,

Texas. He noted that said concepts were essentially adopted globally, especially in 

Europe. He explained the details of UTM’s work in multiple areas such as traffic 

management and data sharing.

Mr. Sultan noted UTM’s success with industry partnerships, pointing out the number 

was in the double digits at each TCL, whereas in the past, partnerships were conducted 

with one or two partners or an airline. He highlighted the numerous publications that 

came out of UTM and its community, including NASA technical manuals, external 

publications, industry publications, and more.

Mr. Sultan explained how following this work and input from the community, the project 

identified operations and capabilities to move forward based on these results. He 

emphasized the focus of UTM was uncontrolled airspace below 500 feet where 

traditional Air Traffic Management (ATM) services are not provided. To achieve UTM’s 

objectives, there must be some ATM coordination, and this requirement grows in 

urgency as Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) becomes closer to reality. The decision was to 

continue the NASA/FAA research transition team instead of closing it out with the 

project.
2

Mr. Sultan further explained how the work UTM began is continuing within the new Air 

Traffic Management – eXploration (ATM-X) project, noting that much work remains to 

be done in certain areas such as beyond visual line of sight. He detailed how UTM’s 

work feeds into ATM-X’s subprojects, the AAM National Campaign, and other NASA 

activities. He explained the collaborative actions embarked on with the FAA for 

technology transfers.

Mr. Sultan concluded his presentation by stating how there now exists a market for 

UTM, standards were developed, research is continuing, international interest was 

observed, and NASA’s partnerships were deepened.

Discussion

Mr. Peter Bunce congratulated UTM on its successful work and expressed that from an 

industry perspective, the next steps are in implementation. He suggested in terms of 

practical next steps, NASA and the FAA should take into consideration not just the 

2040s timeframe, but the 2020s timeframe as well.

Ms. Lisa Ellman also congratulated UTM on its work. Agreeing with Mr. Bunce, she 

urged NASA to continue being actively engaged and working with others in the federal 

government, such as the FAA and the White House, to begin this implementation. She 

encouraged NASA to think about how the policies as they are developed could help lay 

the foundation for the future. Ms. Ellman elaborated that executive action and other 

tangible actions that maintain and expand U.S. global leadership must be taken.

Dr. Clarke encouraged NASA as it plans future projects to consider not just the 

architecture, but also performance requirements and the communications, navigation, 

and surveillance aspects of ATM. He noted this seemed to be missing from NASA’s 

work thus far and pointed out it would be beneficial so the FAA can regulate third-party 

providers.

Findings

• The Committee applauds the work and achievements of the Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Transportation Management (UTM) project team, especially as it relates to 

defining a feasible federated architecture and facilitating and influencing national and 

international rulemaking on Air Traffic Management (ATM) for unmanned aircraft

systems (UAS).

• The Committee believes that NASA needs to stay engaged throughout UTM 

implementation and in developing the associated foundational policies. 

Recommendation

• The Committee recommends that AAM project and Extensible Traffic Management 

(xTM) subproject build on the achievements of the UTM project by determining the 

communications, navigation, and surveillance ATM performance requirements and 
3

the tradeoffs thereof, and by providing the rigorous technical analysis of policy 

options that are necessary for successful certification and deployment of the 

proposed federated architecture.

• Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

NASA’s work on UTM was invaluable and has been implemented in many 

places around the planet, but has not been fully embraced in the U.S. UTM is 

critical to enable complex scaled UAS operations and U.S. global 

competitiveness in advanced aviation.

• Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

Implementation of UTM requires foundational policies. NASA has a critical 

role to play in the administration-wide policy deliberations by providing data 

and analysis to support these deliberations. For example, the Remote ID rule 

represents a missed opportunity as it failed to enable a network-based 

solution for compliance, which would have provided a foundation for UTM. 

Advanced Capabilities for Emergency Response Operations

Mr. Marcus Johnson, planning team lead for NASA’s proposed Advanced Capabilities 

for Emergency Response Operations (ACERO) project, provided an overview of the 

project’s pre-formulation stage, its context, and potential outcomes. ACERO is seeking 

to enter project formulation in fiscal year 2023.

Mr. Johnson explained ACERO’s background, including the successful workshop held 

in 2021 with wildfire management agencies, organizations, and experts. He explained in 

detail how the primary finding was that wildfire management groups face general issues 

in surveillance, communication, coordination, and aerial operations above fires, 

particularly for suppression purposes and especially at night.

He explained how, as a result of these conversations, NASA would focus heavily on a 

unified concept of operations that can help wildfire management organizations address

these broad issues. He reported that the wildfire management community doesn’t 

currently have the bandwidth to address certain challenges themselves – for example, 

the broader picture of what these organizations want firefighting to look like in the future.

Mr. Johnson provided an overview of future plans for the ACERO project, including 

timelines, a concept of operations, regulatory and technological barriers, and ways 

NASA’s technological expertise can specifically be tailored and harmonized to the 

wildfire fighting ecosystem.

Mr. Johnson emphasized how NASA’s research can address the challenge of wildfire 

management in multiple ways. He also pointed out collaboration with NASA’s Science 

Mission Directorate (SMD) in working these solutions, as well as multiple government 

agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.
4

Discussion

Dr. Clarke stated ACERO is a great example of NASA extending the core capabilities it 

developed for ATM and others to new domains. He pointed out the Department of 

Defense and other areas of government are substantially looking at the coordination of 

first responders and asset management. He encouraged NASA to define requirements 

for first responder activities beyond wildfires so it can “build the hooks” early for the 

capabilities that will be required.

Ms. Ellman expressed the industry’s appreciation of NASA’s leadership in this topic. 

She explained how, in addition to the technology, another important area for NASA to 

consider is the regulatory challenges preventing drones from assisting first responders 

in high-value situations, including wildfires. She suggested working closely with the FAA 

and other agencies in getting approval to use these technologies outside a narrow set of 

circumstances.

Dr. Hassan Shahidi pointed out another consideration may be coordinating with the 

medical community to address firefighter injuries and responsiveness to those 

emergencies as part of ACERO’s ecosystem.

Mr. Bunce echoed Ms. Ellman’s and Dr. Shahidi’s suggestions. He also explained how, 

with NASA demonstrating capabilities in urban areas and controlled airspaces with 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, working with the FAA and conducting 

operations in metropolitan areas could be a possibility.

Building on Mr. Bunce’s input, Dr. Clarke noted that in Austin, Texas real fires are 

created in an urban scene for training purposes at a fire training facility near the airport. 

He suggested that such training centers could be a setting to expand NASA’s wildfire 

response capabilities.

Findings

• The Committee finds that the proposed ACERO project is a promising application of 

core NASA capabilities to the new domain of wildfire management, and that there 

are broader applications in terms of first responder operations and safety.

• The Committee also finds that the ACERO technologies and capabilities could help 

with resolving the regulatory challenges that might be preventing drones from 

assisting first responders.

• The Committee believes NASA has an opportunity to extend the technologies and 

capabilities developed for wildfire management to urban and suburban fire 

management via collaboration with fire departments in metropolitan regions that 

have extensive “live” fire training facilities.

• The Committee believes the outcomes and goals for ACERO should be expanded to 

include enhancing firefighter safety.
5

Recommendations

The Committee recommends that the proposed ACERO project seek closer 

collaboration with the Department of Defense, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, and additional state-level first responder research and development 

organizations to define the capabilities necessary for optimal allocation of resources. 

• Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

Other agencies in the federal government such as the Department of Defense 

are looking substantially at the coordination of first responders and their 

management of assets.

• Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

By working with other agencies to define requirements for first responder 

activities beyond wildfires, NASA can build the hooks early for the capabilities 

that will be required.

The Committee also recommends that NASA collaborate with the FAA to develop the 

technologies, capabilities, and policies necessary to enable unmanned aircraft systems 

visual and beyond visual line of sight operations, and thereby make it easy for drone 

operations to play a meaningful role in disaster response.

• Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

The challenges posed by developing and implementing these wildfire 

management capabilities are both technological and regulatory. Working closely 

with the FAA can ease this process.

• Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

Getting approval for these technologies to be used in practical situations outside 

a narrow set of circumstances is critical to NASA’s capabilities having an impact.

Advanced Air Mobility

Mr. Davis Hackenberg, NASA’s mission integration manager for AAM, gave a 

presentation updating the Committee on the activities of NASA’s AAM mission.

Mr. Hackenberg highlighted NASA’s participation in the August 2022 White House AAM 

Summit. After the summit, NASA held follow-up discussions with industry partners and 

received useful feedback from several parties, including in the international community. 

He noted it was an impactful summit that helped develop useful conversations and 

information.

He gave a general overview of the scale AAM’s impact can have in local communities 

and the larger regional level – emphasizing the transformational changes AAM can 

provide. He also discussed the definition of AAM, noting some confusion across 

industry and pointing out the discussion itself may be holding industry back. He stated

AAM is an umbrella term for multiple use cases, though several other definitions are still 

important, and work remains to be done in defining topics including area/region, vehicle 

classes, use cases, and others. He noted use cases as potentially being the more 

significant aspect, with each use case having its own concept of operations and 
6

requirements for integration and operation. He explained NASA is now looking into 

tradeoffs and how some of the use cases for AAM play against each other. 

Mr. Hackenberg explained the importance of NASA’s relationship with the FAA for 

policy and guidance, as well as standards bodies being a critical focus of what NASA 

does as AAM technology is built and shared in an open-source manner. He also 

explained the importance of industry in making some of the early operations successful 

and breaking down barriers that don’t allow AAM to scale. He stated industry working 

together to develop standards and getting them in the FAA’s pipeline is important to the 

success of the industry.

He described the partnerships with industry leaders and how they have been 

advantageous. He noted how the open conversation on AAM has been highly 

successful – stating NASA’s relationship with the FAA is stronger than ever, and there is 

interest from the International Forum for Aviation Research (IFAR) and the International 

Civil Aviation Organization.

Mr. Hackenberg added that examining the results of concepts of operation in 

requirements, standards, and regulations could be better done to link together a longterm roadmap synchronized across NASA, the FAA, and other standards bodies more 

intentionally.

Discussion

Mr. Bunce discussed different areas of the federal government involved in AAM policy 

including the Department of Defense and congressional committees. He pointed out 

they all have different definitions of AAM terms. He suggested NASA could give input to 

or collaborate with the FAA to provide better definitions to prevent confusion on what 

counts as AAM-related technology and work.

Ms. Ellman noted appreciation for NASA’s participation in the White House AAM 

Summit. She suggested NASA could work more directly with the White House and the 

FAA on tangible policy for a governmentwide strategy to ensure U.S. competitiveness in 

AAM that furthers U.S. global leadership in advanced aviation.

Dr. Clarke recommended AAM and xTM could build on the achievements of UTM by 

determining the airspace management, communications, navigation, and surveillance 

performance requirements – and the tradeoffs thereof – that are necessary for a 

successful certificated deployment of the proposed federated architecture.

He explained that the driving force behind his suggestion is to encourage providing the 

FAA with exact requirements for how these systems have to perform and how the 

tradeoffs made achieve safety targets, even though the FAA determines the policy. To 

do so, NASA would have to accomplish successful test capabilities to determine these 

requirements.
7

Dr. Clarke also recommended AAM and xTM be used to develop, evaluate, and validate 

technologies and capabilities for ATM for commercial passenger aircraft.

Ms. Ellman recommended NASA should remain engaged in UTM and continue to work 

with the FAA and industry to assist with implementation, and build support on a policy 

level administration wide to lay UTM’s foundation.

Finding

The Committee applauds NASA for its support of and participation in the recent White 

House AAM Summit and for supporting the development of a government-wide strategy 

to strengthen U.S. competitiveness in advanced aviation. Industry strongly supports the 

goal of the recent White House AAM Summit to maintain and enhance U.S. global 

leadership in advanced aviation. The advancement of UAS/AAM benefits all Americans 

– including those in underserved and difficult to reach communities.

Recommendations

The Committee finds that there is a need for a single nationally and globally accepted 

definition of AAM and an opportunity to leverage the technologies and capabilities being 

developed in the AAM program for commercial passenger aircraft operations.

• Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

Many agencies, institutions, and organizations participate in the AAM mission 

which all have variations in definition.

• Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

The further implementation of AAM into commercial operations will require a set 

of consistent definitions.

The Committee recommends that the AAM and xTM projects be leveraged to develop, 

evaluate, and validate ATM technologies and capabilities for commercial passenger 

aircraft operations. 

• Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

The policy of the U.S. should be to lead the world in the development and 

deployment of uncrewed, autonomy-enabled, and Electric Vertical Take Off and 

Landing aircraft.

• Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

This requires a government-wide strategy to strengthen U.S. competitiveness in 

advanced aviation.

University Innovation

Mr. Koushik Datta, project manager of NASA’s University Innovation (UI) project, gave 

an overview of the project including details on the workings of the University Leadership 

Initiative (ULI), University Student Research Challenge (USRC), and Gateways to Blue 
8

Skies competition. He explained the differences between the three activities and how 

the solicitation process works for each of them, and gave a numerical overview of how 

many awards have been given, how many institutions are involved, and how many 

faculty and students have participated thus far.

Mr. Datta noted the diversity of the institutions and individuals involved across the 

country, as well as the project’s focus on bringing in minority institutions such as 

historically black colleges, and that there are women principal investigators among the 

awards given. He emphasized also how some of these student participants are at the K12 level because of ULI awardees’ individual outreach programs.

He described in detail several specific ULI and USRC awards given and which areas of 

NASA Aeronautics’ Strategic Implementation Plan the awardees are researching. He 

discussed ULI’s and USRC’s Tech Talks and how they have expanded. Faculties from 

different universities began attending virtually and an information exchange has 

developed.

Mr. Datta discussed the inspiration generated by UI’s activities and how it has engaged 

with students and faculty in a new, exciting, and long-lasting way. He described the 

positive outcomes for those who have participated such as working on real-world 

aviation challenges, being part of diverse teams, presentations at conferences, 

internships, and offers from companies. He noted the possibilities of what could be done 

with more funding and collaboration with other parts of NASA.

Discussion

Mr. Bunce asked how UI announces and publicizes its Tech Talks and who can 

participate. He expressed interest in seeing the participation and scope of the talks

increased. Dr. Clarke agreed.

Dr. Shahidi suggested that metrics or statistics recording the percentage of participants 

who stay in the aerospace industry following their involvement in UI would be useful. He 

explained that universities could then gain an expectation or benchmark of how many 

are retained to best incentivize more to stay.

Dr. Clarke found the onus is on universities to put together system-level teams to tackle 

system-level ideas. He expressed concern that the ability for “wild and wacky” ideas to 

survive the process is jeopardized. He explained that the process itself, finding and 

building a team, can lead to the burying of these out-of-the-box ideas, and suggested 

what NASA does with the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program could 

be considered – specifically, NIAC’s ability to preserve those one or two person groups 

pursuing an out-of-the-box concept.

Addressing both retaining talent and preserving out-of-the-box ideas, Dr. Clarke 

suggested considering a post-doctorate program in which NASA can retain the best 

talent for more than a couple of years. He highlighted the use in periodically reviewing 
9

the project’s portfolio and determining how it can best be designed to include other 

channels and ensure access is not limited. He noted existing NASA activities with these 

channels, namely NIAC, could be utilized.

Dr. Nicole Key agreed with Dr. Clarke, echoing how forming a team and working 

through the ULI channels may lead to a “watering down,” and that different avenues for 

different types of research proposed could be beneficial. She added that industry is 

easier to engage with through NASA Research Announcements versus ULI, and that a 

collaborative balance between industry and universities is a struggle.

Dr. Naveed Hussain commended the positive outcomes of ULI from the industry 

perspective, with particular focus on the students who have achieved exposure, 

internships, formed companies, and jointly published papers. He also commended the 

UI program for being a needle mover on diversity in multiple areas, from the principal 

investigators to the students in the STEM pipeline being built for them.

Findings

• The Committee applauds the efforts of the UI project and is pleased with its 

continuing impact. The Committee notes that it has been a needle mover with 

regards to increasing the diversity of participants included in NASA’s STEM pipeline 

and encourages NASA to continue the project.

• The Committee finds there is a need for a systematic review of channels and 

pathways to reach different types of research, especially innovative out-of-the-box 

ideas UI researchers may have. The onus of dealing with system-level challenges 

lies with universities, and there runs a risk of “wild and wacky” ideas being buried in 

the process. Considering mechanisms that broaden UI’s research avenues could be 

worthwhile.

Recommendation

The Committee recommends NASA more broadly publicize and engage the aerospace 

community in the activities of its UI project. For example, having outside entities and 

organizations be able to participate in the Tech Talks held as part of the USRC could be 

mutually beneficial to all involved.

• Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

Broadening UI further into the aerospace industry by including more institutions 

and organizations can increase awareness and interest in their ability to 

participate and benefit from the activities.

• Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

NASA could be missing an opportunity to make the Tech Talks the equivalent of 

a tent top activity for the aerospace community.
10

Zero Emissions

Dr. John Cavolowsky, director of NASA’s Transformative Aeronautics Concepts 

Program, gave a presentation on NASA’s zero emissions strategy and sustainable 

aviation portfolio.

Dr. Cavolowsky provided an overview of the mid-century vision for sustainable aviation

by 2050 laid out in NASA’s portfolio and the U.S. Aviation Climate Action Plan driven by 

the FAA. He detailed how the key driver is making sure aviation is sustainable without 

the use of offsets or suppressing demand for aviation. He mentioned that the 

aspirational view of achieving net-zero carbon and greenhouse gas emissions 

industrywide also involves a critical international component.

He explained that alternative energy and propulsion architectures are essential to 

achieving this vision, as well as the importance of overall aircraft architecture and 

airspace operations. He pointed out that lifecycle system models to understand all the 

impacts is also required due to sizeable non-carbon dioxide impacts on climate.

He made distinct the use of the terms “zero emissions” and “zero impact.” He stated

“zero emissions” refers to assessments of atmospheric conditions post-flight, posttrajectory, and more to see how well technology has done in order to improve. He 

differentiated “zero impact” as considering other dynamics such as societal impact and 

health going beyond the aviation industry, as well as how the industry is able to grow 

and be sustainable.

Dr. Cavolowsky emphasized NASA’s role of addressing the technological and 

operational sides of achieving sustainable aviation, as opposed to the more lifecycleoriented challenges such as fuel sourcing and development. He noted how system 

studies are helping NASA understand the entire space and where the return on 

investment lies. He described collaboration with other agencies such as the Department 

of Energy and others in detail.

Dr. Cavolowsky explained the wide net NASA needs to cast to tackle the challenge of 

decarbonizing aviation, noting the importance of reaching many areas of government, 

industry, and academia.

He outlined the near-term research occurring across NASA’s Aeronautics portfolio. He 

described collaboration with other agencies, such as the Department of Energy and 

FAA, NASA’s SMD, and universities such as Georgia Tech. 

Discussion

Mr. Bunce questioned the terminology used to discuss NASA’s sustainable flight 

activities, particularly the use of the term “zero emissions,” which may inaccurately cast 

NASA’s work as having no emissions whatsoever. He detailed how some sustainable 

aviation technology still has emissions, even if the emission isn’t carbon-based. He 
11

stated that “net zero” is the term NASA should use.

Dr. Clarke posited that the impact is what matters most, pointing out how even if net 

zero emissions of carbon through sequestration is achieved at scale, there are still 

emissions because something is burning at altitude. He agreed there needs to be 

greater clarity and consistency in NASA’s terminology and wording in this area.

Mr. Bunce brought up the commitment toward net zero in 2050 – specifically, how the 

process of implementing NASA’s sustainable technology beyond the point it has 

reached maturation. He noted much of this technology is aimed at the 2035 timeline, 

and that is only 15 years from the overall goal of net zero by 2050.

Dr. Clarke encouraged NASA to collaborate with other directorates, agencies, and 

partners, such as NASA’s SMD and IFAR, to understand prediction capabilities for

technology and operations with an end goal of a real-time system for managing the net 

impact.

Dr. Clarke suggested a good role for NASA would be looking at sustainable aviation 

from an impact perspective, looking at the uncertainties, and looking at the systemic 

consequences not only on the vehicle side but also on the operational side – airport 

operations, for example.

He suggested NASA consider a portfolio optimization approach that deals with decisionmaking and uncertainty about potential technologies and their impact in the same way 

NASA would view its portfolio. He further explained how, although the systems 

approach of developing definitive solutions is also useful, portfolio optimization enables 

the approach of investing money into technologies that provide potential benefits in a 

way that maximizes the probability or likelihood of achievements being made in the 

future.

Findings

• The Committee finds there should be greater clarity with regards to terminology, 

noting that “zero emissions” may not be the most accurate term for NASA’s work in 

sustainability given that different sources of energy still create emissions of some 

kind. Scrutinizing the implications of terms such as, but not limited to, “zero 

emissions,” “net zero,” or “zero impact” would be beneficial to NASA in defining the 

purpose of its research in this area.

• The Committee finds collaboration with NASA’s other mission directorates and IFAR 

partners could be beneficial – specifically around how to develop the science and 

understanding prediction capabilities to marry with the technology and operations –

with the end goal of a real-time system for managing the net impact.
12

Recommendation

Though the Committee applauds the systems approach taken by NASA, it suggests 

considering a portfolio optimization approach that considers both the uncertainty in 

terms of the potential capabilities that would be developed as well as the impact.

• Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

The portfolio optimization approach enables investing money into technologies 

that provide potential benefits in a way that maximizes the probability or 

likelihood of achievement being made in the future.

• Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

The opportunity for NASA to make a more immediate impact with technology it 

can develop as part of its current portfolio could be diminished.

Public Comments

A public comments period was offered as required. No public comments were received.

Conclusion

The meeting of the Committee was concluded with discussions on the timeline and 

plans for future meetings.

MEETING ADJOURNED
13

List of Attendees

Committee Members:

1. Dr. John-Paul Clarke, Chair

2. Mr. Peter Bunce

3. Ms. Lisa Ellman

4. Dr. Naveed Hussain

5. Dr. Nicole Key

6. Mr. Natesh Manikoth

7. Ms. Susan Pfingstler

8. Dr. Helen Reed

9. Dr. Hassan Shahidi

Virtual:

10.Mr. Michael Dumais

NASA:

11.Ashly Barnes

12.John Cavolowsky

13.Suzie Cisneros

14.Christine Clark

15.Steven Clarke

16.Koushik Datta

17.Davis Hackenberg

18.Parimal Kopardekar

19.Jon Montgomery

20.Lee Noble

21.Robert Pearce

22.Cheryl Quinn

23.Leighton Quon

24.Naseem Saiyed

25.Eugene Tu

26.Edgar Waggoner

Virtual:

27.Vanessa Aubuchon

28.Tiffany Blake

29.Karen Cate

30.Mary Dijoseph

31.Shawn Engelland

32.Barbara Esker 

33.Jay Fletcher

34.Kenneth Freeman 

35.Laurie Grindle

36.Kelley Hashemi

37.Stephen Jensen

38.Marcus Johnson

39.Michele Johnson

40.Sharon Jones

41.Paul Krasa

42.Samantha Magill

43.Jeffrey McCandless

44.Michael Patterson

45.Irma Rodriguez

46.Michael Rogers

47.Steven Sidorek

48.Hillary Smith

49.Barry Sullivan

50.Akbar Sultan

51.David Thipphavong

52.Steven Velotas

53.Jason Welstead

External:

Crown Consulting:

54. Lexie Brown

FedWriters (NAC Meeting Support):

55. John Gould

Wyle Labs (NAC Meeting Support):

56.Alina Eskridge

57.Gregory Harbert

58.Michael Tsairides

No Affiliation Identified:

Virtual:

59.Dennis Feerick

60.John Herbert

61.Doug Johnson

62.Christine Joseph

63.James Lochner

64.Martin Ruzek

65.Todd Solomo

66.Rocio Frej Vitalle