1

National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee (NCSTAC)

Meeting Summary

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Gaithersburg, Maryland 

(Public Meeting conducted via web-conference)

June 10-11, 2021

Advisory Committee Members:

Reginald DesRoches, Chair Rice University

Ross Corotis, Vice Chair University of Colorado, Boulder

William Holmes Rutherford + Chekene 

Jose Izquierdo-Encarnación PORTICUS

Kimberly Shoaf Utah School of Medicine

Jeannette Sutton University at Albany, State University of New York

NIST Representatives

James Olthoff Acting Director, NIST

Joannie Chin Acting Director, Engineering Laboratory

Jason Averill Chief, Materials & Structural Systems Division 

Judith Mitrani-Reiser Associate Chief, Materials & Structural Systems Division

(listed in alphabetical order) 

Benjamin Davis Designated Federal Officer, NCSTAC 

Maria Dillard Acting Director, Disaster & Failure Studies 

Kenneth Harrison Operations Research Analyst, Community Resilience 

Group

Jennifer Helgeson Research Economist, Applied Economics Office

Kathryn “Jo” Johnson Research Social Scientist, Earthquake Engineering Group

Marc Levitan Research Engineer, Structures Group

Joseph Main Research Engineer, Structures Group

Long Phan Group Leader, Structures Group

Scott Weaver Director, National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

DongHun Yeo Research Engineer, Structures Group

Other Participants

Rebecca Hermanowicz Senior Attorney, Ethics Law and Programs Division, Office 

of the General Counsel, US Department of Commerce

Matthew Heyman Impresa Management Solutions, Inc. (NIST contractor)
2

I. Welcome and Opening Remarks

Mr. Benjamin Davis, serving as the Designated Federal Officer, called the meeting to order. He 

introduced the NIST Acting Director, Dr. James Olthoff, who thanked the Committee and stated 

that the NCSTAC and its reports were very important to NIST. Dr. Olthoff noted that the 

Hurricane Maria project has made significant progress and will help make communities more 

resilient. Dr. Olthoff cited the continued impact of NCST recommendations following the 2011 

Joplin Tornado investigation, thanked Committee members for their assistance, and encouraged 

the NCSTAC to continue to provide its input.

Rebecca Hermanowicz of the US Department of Commerce provided an ethics briefing for the 

Committee members.

II. Meeting Goals & Agenda

Dr. Reginald DesRoches reviewed the meeting’s goals:

- Review NIST’s response to NCSTAC’s 2020 report to Congress

- Review the status of the NCST Investigation of Hurricane Maria’s effects on Puerto Rico 

- Review progress of prior NCST Investigations of the Joplin tornado and World Trade 

Center disaster

- Receive updates on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) and 

the Disaster and Failure Studies (DFS) Program

- Begin to develop the Committee’s annual report to Congress. 

Dr. Maria Dillard introduced herself as the Acting Director of the DFS Program and Associate 

Lead Investigator of the Hurricane Maria NCST Investigation. She delivered NIST’s response to 

the NCSTAC’s 2020 Report to Congress and reviewed NIST’s NCST responsibilities and those 

of the Advisory Committee. Her presentation can be found here: 

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/16/01_DILLARD_NCSTAC_June2021_R

esponse_to_Annual_Reportv2.pdf

Discussion: 

The Committee discussed several points regarding recommendations from the 2020 Report to 

Congress. 

A Committee member said that NIST has been very responsive to the recommendations of the 

Committee. The Committee proceeded with questions about NIST’s follow-up actions on three 

recommendations. Regarding Recommendation #3, the Committee had been concerned that the 

public would not understand why there were different tornado design loads for different types of 

buildings. NIST responded that although most of NIST’s outreach has been focused on 

engineering audiences and the broader resilience practitioner community, this has not been an 

issue to date. Rather, there appears to be concern around the more basic issue of whether 

structures should be designed for tornadoes at all; it is frequently assumed that tornado events 

affecting buildings are rare and that buildings should not be designed for the worst possible 

event. 
3

Regarding Recommendation #4, the Committee had stated that NIST should be careful about 

addressing the benefit-cost considerations of shelters. NIST responded that its Applied 

Economics Office is now involved in this work and there are plans to produce a report by the end 

of 2021 for recommendations to the IBC regarding conducting analyses of costs and benefits of 

shelters. NIST also is working with its NIST Community Resilience Center of Excellence as the 

Center develops tornado modeling techniques; the goal of this work is to further explore the 

benefits and costs of shelters.

Regarding Recommendation #6, the Committee congratulated NIST on reducing processing time 

for some administrative requirements but wanted to know if there had been any changes in 

procedures or concerns about the availability and processing of funds and personnel for NCST 

studies. NIST responded that its responsibility for the NCST statutory authority activities and 

related programs and investigations is taken very seriously. Further, NIST had done an incredible 

job of reprogramming funds and reallocating personnel when needed. As funds for the Hurricane 

Maria Investigation were initially identified from existing funding resources, the initial team was 

composed of existing staff. NIST staff working on the Hurricane Maria NCST Investigation have 

a portion of their time allocated to NCST work and retain a portion on prior projects. NIST will 

evaluate this practice to understand the strengths and weaknesses of this approach for future 

investigations. NIST also responded that the Hurricane Maria Investigation has had full support 

in finding the appropriate resources in spirit and finances at every level of NIST. NIST hopes to 

have additional resources in the future which would create an opportunity to make changes in 

how it manages NCST investigations. 

The Committee asked about the timeframe for NIST to conduct the work that is cited in the 

NIST-Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report on tornado design guidelines on 

sheltering under Recommendation #4. NIST responded that this work is planned to start in FY 

2023.

III. Hurricane Maria NCST Investigation Updates 

Dr. Joseph Main reviewed the Hurricane Maria NCST Investigation’s goals and progress. His 

presentation can be found here:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/02_MAIN_NCSTAC_June2021_Inves

tigationProgress.pdf

Discussion:

The Committee asked whether the generic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval 

for data collection is permanent. NIST responded that the approval for generic clearances, such 

as the one being used with the Hurricane Maria Program, must be sought every 3-5 years. 

The Committee asked for clarification about approvals related to investigations versus research. 

NIST reported that its Institutional Review Board (IRB) office had deemed the activities under 

the Hurricane Maria NCST Investigation to not meet the definition of research; consequently, the 

four projects that fall within the NCST Investigation are exempt from human subjects-related 
4

reviews. The separate reviews required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) seek to minimize 

the burden on the US public and are required for all federal information collection, whether 

research or not. 

Drs. DongHun Yeo and Scott Weaver updated the Committee on the Hurricane Maria Hazard 

Characterization Project. Their presentations can be found here:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/03_YEO_WEAVER_NCSTAC_June2

021_HazardCharacterization.pdf

Discussion:

The Committee asked whether projectiles were taken into account as a hazard. NIST responded 

that debris impacts are being considered among the building hazards. 

The Committee asked whether the Natural Hazard Engineering Research Infrastructure (NHERI)

SimCenter at UC Berkeley was involved in the NIST work. NIST responded that the wind tunnel 

testing was done at a NHERI facility at the University of Florida. When completed, this NCST 

work could contribute to NHERI-SimCenter models.

The Committee asked why the Mayagüez region was selected for the wind tunnel testing as 

opposed to the metro area where there would be street-to-street variations or the central areas of 

the island. NIST responded that its work is focused on the topographic effects of the winds on 

the buildings and among many candidate hospitals, Hospital Bella Vista was found to experience 

close to a 1.5 topographic speedup factor compared with wind speeds in areas of flat terrain. 

Regions other than Mayagüez are being tested by the University of Florida with the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding 

and will provide important data on the wind for other parts of Puerto Rico. .

Dr. Main reviewed the status of the Building Performance Project. His presentation can be found 

here:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/04_MAIN_NCSTAC_June2021_Critic

alBuildings.pdf

Discussion: 

The Committee asked whether NIST had looked at damage via aerial surveillance. NIST 

responded by describing its review of aerial photography, including school shelter sites. 

Additionally, the wireless communications project used aerial photos to see damage to cell 

towers. NIST also accessed flyover data from Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln 

Laboratory, particularly in relation to candidate structures for the Building Performance Project.
5

The Committee asked about the inclusion of recommendations or guidance related to the 

pandemic as part of the team’s investigation of shelter performance. NIST reported that the ICC 

500 storm shelter standard incorporates this issue to some extent and would provide more 

information in the Joplin NCST Investigation update.

The Committee asked whether the 50% or 80% increases in topographic speedup apply only to 

hurricanes or relate to all events. NIST cited wind tunnel testing data as the means by which 

investigators would capture the gust factor. The Applied Research Associates model is intended 

to capture the peaks, which are of most concern because the peak winds drive building design 

requirements.

The Committee also asked about data captured from anemometers on cell towers when 

hurricanes were not occurring. NIST responded that some of the same factors regarding 

turbulence and gusts are relevant even when not captured at the most extreme wind speeds.

Dr. Katherine (Jo) Johnson offered an update on the Emergency Communications Project. Her 

presentation can be found here:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/05_JOHNSON_NCSTAC_June2021_

EmergencyCommunications.pdf

Discussion: 

The Committee noted that access to currency was a consequence of the collapse of the 

communications system. NIST responded that the household survey includes questions about 

lack of resources and access.

The Committee asked if there were any challenges with data collection on the emergency 

communications project. NIST responded that the contractors had planned a soft launch with the 

household survey to test the methodology and response rate. Regarding information provider 

interviews, the list of potential candidates was identified much earlier, and some of the 

individuals previously identified for interviews have moved on to new positions. NIST has 

developed a well thought out plan for interview candidate replacements and persistent follow-up 

were necessary. 

The Committee asked about the impact of respondents who access and complete web-based 

surveys. NIST acknowledged the potential issue. For those with internet access and phone 

interviews, web-based surveys may be their preferred method, but it may skew to a younger, 

more urban population. The team will need to monitor responses to ensure representation across 

demographic attributes. 

Dr. Judith Mitrani-Reiser updated the Committee on the Morbidity and Mortality Project. Her 

presentation can be found here:
6

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/06_MITRANIREISER_NCSTAC_June2021_Mortality.pdf

Discussion: 

The Committee asked whether the team was concerned about being able to attribute deaths to 

construction failure and how such concerns will be addressed. NIST responded that the team did 

not have concerns to date and that questions being asked via the verbal autopsy survey should 

allow linkages between building failures and loss of life. Further, connections across projects 

offer additional insights. 

The Committee inquired about how long verbal autopsies take to complete. NIST responded that 

each survey lasts about 45 minutes, although NIST has added a 15-minute buffer, allowing up to 

one hour. 

The Committee asked about the extent to which NIST can capture the link between the failure of 

lifelines and their impact on mortality to assess whether loss of life is due to inaccessibility to a 

hospital, lack of communications, or other reasons. NIST responded that the team is asking 

baseline questions about access to lifelines before and after the storm, access to medical services, 

and other challenges. There is also a separate NWIRP project on the impact and recovery of 

critical lifeline systems that will provide additional context, enabling the team to confirm what is 

being heard during an interview with primary data collection from other projects.

The Committee asked whether the team can correlate mortality with socio-economic 

demographic data. NIST responded that some analyses of this kind can be performed and that 

NIST expects to see a broad range of demographics in the four regions.

Mr. Davis adjourned the meeting for the day at 3:13 p.m. ET. 

Mr. Davis reconvened the meeting on June 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. ET.

IV. Progress on Implementation of Prior NCST Investigation Recommendations

Drs. Long Phan and Marc Levitan reported on progress in the implementation of previous NCST 

investigation recommendations, including the World Trade Center and Joplin Tornado disasters. 

Their presentation can be found here:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/07_PHAN_LEVITAN_NCSTAC_June

2021_PastInvestigationUpdates.pdf

Discussion:

The Committee expressed concern about existing housing and asked whether the preparation of 

guidance specifically for people to improve their houses had been considered. NIST reported that 

the ICC 500 storm shelter standards cover hurricanes and tornadoes, including residential and 

larger community shelters. In the new version of the standard, provisions were added for the 
7

installation of shelters in existing buildings and even for existing slabs (small, pre-manufactured, 

or big box structures). In addition, FEMA updated its corresponding guidance which is even 

more stringent. FEMA safe room guidance includes prescriptive designs homeowners can use or 

provide to contractors. The Committee stated that it would be helpful for FEMA to develop 

publications oriented to homeowners in simple language with graphics, which would improve 

resilience in tornado areas for greater life safety. NIST recommendations from the Joplin 

investigation covered options for both in-home and public shelter strategies regarding tornadoes. 

The Committee asked about risk category coverage in the ASCE-7 standard and expressed 

concern about this being a small subset of all buildings. NIST noted that the tornado standards 

for ASCE-7 applies to structures in categories 3 and 4 east of the Mississippi River and described 

efforts to develop a reliability analysis to determine what return periods would be needed and 

said that reliability targets might be reconsidered. Guidance for lower risk category buildings 

may be developed that take into account cost-benefit analyses. The Committee asked whether the 

Smart Damage Indicator has been validated in the field. NIST responded that the indicator had 

been validated and is a more powerful tool for enhanced data collection. The tool can be refined 

and data can be reanalyzed afterwards, as is done for hurricanes. As modeling approaches are 

developed for other important damage indicators, the long-term plan is to get more science and 

engineering into the EF-Scale. 

V. Hurricane Maria NWIRP Study Updates

Dr. Kenneth Harrison updated the Committee on the Hurricane Maria Infrastructure Project 

conducted under the NWIRP authorities. The presentation can be found here: 

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/08_HARRISON_NCSTAC_June2021

_Infrastructure.pdf

Discussion:

The Committee asked how difficult it has been to get data on infrastructure and about approaches 

used by the team. NIST responded that it has been highly variable, describing experience with 

the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTOP), the Puerto Rico 

Electric Power Authority (PREPA), and the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority 

(PRASA). NIST also described the team’s experience regarding wireless communications data 

from the American Tower Corporation and Federal Communications Commission (FCC). NIST 

noted that the team still had work to do to obtain meaningful damage and restoration information 

for the telecommunications and other infrastructure systems. At the program level, gathering 

information has been a huge effort and one that has required substantial outreach. In some cases, 

the data are public, but in others NIST has set up data sharing and other agreements (e.g., nondisclosure agreements, data transfer agreements).

The Committee asked how data from visual images are being coded in the wireless research and 

whether it was being coordinated with the social media team’s coding. NIST stated that had not 

yet happened but was planned. The teams have discussed opportunities for collaboration.
8

The Committee asked whether NIST can identify the timing when towers went down or were 

impaired, which could be linked to the public’s response to emergency communications. NIST 

responded that more data would be needed from the telecommunication companies to be able to 

do that. NIST also noted that the FCC has some information on outages over time by 

municipality, so there is some window into when various parts of Puerto Rico lost cell access 

and when it came back. In addition, the FCC receives data on a daily basis by municipality for 

about the first three months and percentages of cell sites in each municipality, but that this data 

was spatially too coarse for linking to household level data. The Committee expressed interest in 

the opportunities to link these projects but understands how difficult it is to get the data 

necessary for this work.

Dr. Jennifer Helgeson updated the Committee on the Hurricane Maria Recovery of Business and 

Supply Chain Project conducted under NWIRP authorities. The presentation can be found here: 

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/09_HELGESON_NCSTAC_2021_Rec

overyBusiness.pdf

Discussion:

The Committee inquired whether there were any relations with local business associations 

regarding the surveys. NIST replied that there were a variety of connections with those 

associations and cited several specific interactions. NIST indicated that upward of 15 

associations have been kept informed in detail, and that there was a benefit to having the 

associations be aware of NIST’s work since their members may be among those contacted. NIST 

also cited surveys and information sharing by Puerto Rico Manufacturing Extension (PRiMEX) 

which will supplement NIST’s own data gathering.

The Committee and NIST discussed measurement of risk aversion in surveys as well as the 

willingness of respondents to respond to surveys declining over time. The Committee asked 

where NIST expects to be a year from now. NIST stated that COVID-19 impacted plans in place, 

particularly for data collection, because all data were intended to be collected in person. Current 

plans include having the business and supply chain data within the year.

Dr. Dillard updated the Committee on the Hurricane Maria Recovery of Social Functions Project 

conducted under NWIRP authorities. The presentation can be found here: 

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/10_DILLARD_NCSTAC_June2021_R

ecoverySocialFunctions.pdf

Discussion:

The Committee commented that although it is challenging to have people recall and be willing to 

quantify and provide data, it still will be useful to have these data. NIST said that in future 

investigations, if there is a desire to use a similar survey instrument, one would be available, 
9

which would reduce the timeframe for data collection. In this case, the time frames of questions 

would be shorter. For example, NIST would be asking hospitals about more relevant time 

periods such as weeks and months versus a year. The study’s survey includes questions about 

community services (e.g., operating food banks, providing training, serving as a space for 

community meetings). NIST expects to see some variability there, which will offer insights into 

the recovery process.

The Committee asked if there is any way NIST can affect the OMB process. NIST said that the 

biggest factor in timing was the contracting process. NIST looked at other agencies’ exemptions 

and more rapid approvals and met with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which 

has experienced similar challenges in their investigative work. NIST needs more solutions like 

the PRA generic clearance through OMB. Some federal agencies have PRA exemptions granted 

by Congress. 

The Committee suggested NIST explore cooperative agreements like those used by the Centers 

for Disease Control (CDC). NIST replied that was a tradeoff since NIST wanted to be able to 

analyze the data directly versus having another organization do that portion of the work and 

added that its options are limited by requirements that it incorporate specific NCST investigation 

clauses into contracts and agreements.

VI. Public Comment Period

There were no requests from the public to comment.

VII. DFS Updates on Enhancing the Readiness of Teams

Dr. Dillard provided DFS updates on enhancing the readiness of teams. Her presentation can be 

found here: 

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/15/11_DILLARD_NCSTAC_June2021_

DFS_Readiness.pdf

Discussion:

The Committee and NIST representatives had an extended discussion about ways NIST might 

incorporate social vulnerability as a leading indicator of an event’s impact that could be factored 

into its early scoring for potential investigations. The Committee questioned attempting to 

associate social vulnerability index (SVI) with mortality or injuries, suggesting it might be 

reasonable to associate the SVI with impact on humans more broadly. The Committee said that 

because mortality is so specifically tied to hazards in the built environment, social components 

are less predictive than the built environment components. NIST noted that its goal was to get an 

idea about the vulnerability of an area as a storm approaches and solicited the Committee’s ideas 

and suggestions. NIST has been exploring several models to help with predicting physical 

damage or impacts pre-landfall. The Committee agreed about the importance of adding in the 

predictive impact on the built environment, pointing to work mapping manufactured housing 

locations in the US southeast
10

NIST is seeking ways to automate the scoring of events which could make use of other agencies’ 

resources (e.g., data, forecasts). NIST asked for input from the Committee on the merit of adding 

a component of automation into the procedures to augment NIST’s use of subject matter experts. 

VIII. Summary Remarks 

Dr. Joannie Chin thanked the NCSTAC members for their time and objective advice and 

recapped the work NIST presented to the Committee during the two-day meeting. Stating that 

NIST has heard the Committee’s recommendations, NIST continues to implement new practices 

for efficiency beyond the current Hurricane Maria investigation – such as reducing OMB 

clearance time via a PRA generic clearance and the development of language on consent and 

future data use. Other improvement efforts related to data curation and management workflows, 

data portal development and approval, documenting best practices and lessons learned in DFS 

standard operating procedures, and engaging other agencies. Recognizing the NCSTAC’s 

concern about long lead times in procurement, EL officials have continued to meet with other 

NIST officials to expedite acquisition timelines, create efficiencies, and identify special 

authorities which could be invoked. She stated that NIST has consulted with other agencies and 

wants to learn from others beyond those already consulted. Dr. Chin said that a recommendation 

will be made to the NIST director that a secretariat be convened for future investigations to 

ensure they are prioritized NIST-wide for acquisition, public affairs, congressional and 

legislative affairs, legal, human subjects protection, privacy, and PRA and Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) processing.

Dr. Chin announced that Dr. Tanya Brown-Giammanco is the new NIST DFS Director and 

provided a brief biography of Dr. Brown-Giammanco. She thanked Dr. Dillard, who has been the 

Acting DFS Director and will continue to interact with the NCSTAC as Associate Team Lead for 

the Hurricane Maria investigation. Dr. Chin thanked the Committee and said that she looks 

forward to its insights and report to Congress. Dr. DesRoches welcomed Dr. Brown-Giammanco 

and thanked Dr. Dillard.

IV. NCSTAC Preparation of Annual Report to Congress

The Committee began its working session to discuss key points for the NCSTAC 2020 Annual 

report to Congress, which included a discussion about issues for which the Committee would 

like clarification from NIST. Dr. DesRoches led the discussion.

Mr. Holmes asked about NIST’s coordination with NSF’s Extreme Events Reconnaissance teams 

(EERs). NIST reported that it always collaborated with EERs and that it has gone up a level 

because of COVID-19 transmission concerns in communities. NIST provided examples of how 

the NSF Structural Extreme Events Reconnaissance (StEER) and other entities provided a way 

for NIST to obtain information that it would not otherwise have been able to collect. This 

collaboration offers better connections with those already in the field and avoids duplication 

(e.g., door-to-door information collection, damage surveys). 

The Committee discussed the Texas winter storm and the potential value of investigating this 

event, and whether there is something to be learned regarding information sharing or risk
11

assessment perception, even if there is nothing new about the overloading of physical systems. 

NIST said that there is almost always something that could be gained when evaluating the 

qualitative criteria for event scoring, but that it was not clear that there was much to be learned 

about building failures or the associated infrastructure. The Committee discussed the scope of 

NIST’s NCST authorities regarding buildings and the links to infrastructure in the Texas storm. 

The Committee expressed that there was not enough of a correlation to building failures nor new 

lessons to be learned to justify a NCST investigation. 

The Committee asked who does the NCST scoring on these events. NIST described the process, 

which includes at least two experts across NIST with the potential to assign additional staff 

based on event and expertise. Part of the motivation in thinking about automating aspects of 

scoring is to supplement information provided by the experts. 

The Committee discussed potential topics for inclusion in the report. One suggestion included 

commenting on NIST’s scoring of potential events. The positive things NIST has been doing to 

reduce the time to get into the field was noted as worth citing. The Committee asked whether 

congressional action would be needed to permanently address constraints. NIST said that while it 

still is seeking ways to reduce the time for acquisition or contracts, congressional action would 

be needed for items such as an exemption from PRA. 

The Committee discussed ways to speed up contracting. 

The Committee suggested that NIST should be commended for its success in gaining preapproval for certain activities, for its reorientation during the pandemic, and its response to the 

NCSTAC’s prior recommendations.

The Committee said that NIST has widely distributed the Hurricane Maria progress report and 

that there was clear evidence that interest in the investigation remains high.

The Committee expressed disappointment that it takes 10 years to “transfer technology” 

regarding Joplin, noting that his comment was not directed to NIST. Regarding standards and 

codes actions which were recommended, the Committees said that risk category #2 (residences) 

is really where the difference will be made, and encouraged pursuing code changes in that 

category.

Regarding Hurricane Maria, the Committee said that as NIST gets more familiar with verbal 

autopsies, development of a standardized methodology is important. They noted that regarding 

emergency communications, NIST’s resumption of the social media content analysis was a 

positive development. 

The Committee expressed concern about code enforcement with the communications systems, 

which are mostly privately owned. While operators are supposed to reconstruct the infrastructure 

following codes, there is a concern about oversight of private companies since they were in a 

rush to restart operations which could affect quality.
12

The Committee asked about the NIST secretariat, which Dr. Chin cited as a future 

recommendation for NCST investigations. NIST explained that during the World Trade Center 

NCST Investigation, it created a centralized coordination body with representatives from NIST 

offices that are needed to support the activities of the investigation. This body and the support 

conferred by leadership in its establishment made a significant difference in ensuring 

prioritization of the investigation.

Dr. DesRoches summarized the agreed upon topics for inclusion in the Committee’s report and 

suggested the Committee members who would be responsible for drafting text. The goal is to 

develop a draft this summer, preferably within the next month. There will be another meeting in 

the fall to further discuss and refine the report. 

X. Adjournment

Mr. Davis adjourned the meeting at 3:43 p.m. ET.