9110 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 39 / Monday, March 2, 2009 / Notices 

Council will review and vote on 

applications and guidelines, and the 

meeting will conclude with a general 

discussion. 

If, in the course of the open session 

discussion, it becomes necessary for the 

Council to discuss non-public 

commercial or financial information of 

intrinsic value, the Council will go into 

closed session pursuant to subsection 

(c)(4) of the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

Additionally, discussion concerning 

purely personal information about 

individuals, submitted with grant 

applications, such as personal 

biographical and salary data or medical 

information, may be conducted by the 

Council in closed session in accordance 

with subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

Any interested persons may attend, as 

observers, Council discussions and 

reviews that are open to the public. If 

you need special accommodations due 

to a disability, please contact the Office 

of AccessAbility, National Endowment 

for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682– 

5532, TTY–TDD 202/682–5429, at least 

seven (7) days prior to the meeting. 

Further information with reference to 

this meeting can be obtained from the 

Office of Communications, National 

Endowment for the Arts, Washington, 

DC 20506, at 202/682–5570. 

Dated: February 25, 2009. 

Kathy Plowitz-Worden, 

Panel Coordinator, Office of Guidelines and 

Panel Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–4327 Filed 2–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7537–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Request for Input (RFI)—National 

Cyber Leap Year 

AGENCY: The National Coordination 

Office (NCO) for Networking 

Information Technology Research and 

Development (NITRD), NSF. 

ACTION: Request for Input (RFI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tomas Vagoun at Vagoun@nitrd.gov or 

(703) 292–4873. Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, 

Monday through Friday. 

DATES: To be considered, submissions 

must be received by April, 15, 2009. 

Overview: This Request for Input No. 

3 (RFI–3) is the third issued under the 

Comprehensive National Cybersecurity 

Initiative (CNCI), established within 

Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive (HSPD)–23. RFI–3 was 

developed by the Networking and 

Information Technology Research and 

Development (NITRD) Program Senior 

Steering Group (SSG) for Cybersecurity 

to invite participation in a National 

Cyber Leap Year whose goal is an 

integrated national approach to make 

cyberspace safe for the American way of 

life. Over 160 responses were submitted 

to the first RFI issued by the NITRD SSG 

(October 14, 2008), indicating a strong 

desire by the technical community to 

participate. RFI–2 (issued on December 

30, 2008) expanded the opportunity for 

participation by permitting submitters 

to designate parts of submissions as 

proprietary. RFI–3 presents prospective 

cyber security categories derived from 

responses to RFI–1 for further 

consideration. 

Background: We are a cyber nation. 

The U.S. information infrastructure— 

including telecommunications and 

computer networks and systems and the 

data that reside on them—is critical to 

virtually every aspect of modern life. 

This information infrastructure is 

increasingly vulnerable to exploitation, 

disruption, and destruction by a 

growing array of adversaries. The 

President’s CNCI plan calls for leapahead research and technology to 

reduce vulnerabilities to asymmetric 

attack in cyberspace. Unlike many 

research agenda that aim for steady 

progress in the advancement of science, 

the leap-ahead effort seeks just a few 

revolutionary ideas with the potential to 

reshape the landscape. These gamechanging technologies (or non-technical 

mechanisms that are made possible 

through technology), developed and 

deployed over the next decade, will 

fundamentally change the cyber game 

into one where the good guys have an 

advantage. Leap-ahead technologies are 

so-called because they enable us to leap 

over the obstacles preventing us from 

being where we want to be. These 

advances may require years of concerted 

research and development to be fully 

realized; good ideas often do. However, 

the intent is to start now and gain 

momentum as intermediate results 

emerge. 

Objective: The National Cyber Leap 

Year has two main goals: (1) 

Constructing a national research and 

technology agenda that both identifies 

the most promising ideas and describes 

the strategy that brings those ideas to 

fruition; and (2) jumpstarting gamechanging, multi-disciplinary 

development efforts. The Leap Year will 

run during fiscal year 2009, and will 

comprise two stages: Prospecting and 

focusing. 

Stage One canvasses the cybersecurity 

community for ideas. Our aim is to hear 

from all those who wish to help. 

The heart of Stage Two, which begins 

March 1, 2009, is a series of workshops 

to explore the best ideas from Stage 

One. As the year progresses, we will 

publish four types of findings: (1) Gamechangers—descriptions of the paradigmbusters that technology will make 

possible; (2) Technical Strategy—as 

specifically as possible, the invention 

and/or research that needs to be done; 

(3) Productization/Implementation— 

how the capability will be packaged, 

delivered, and used, and by whom; and 

(4) Recommendations—prescriptions for 

success, to include funding, policies, 

authorities, tasking—whatever would 

smooth the way to realization of the 

game-changing capability. 

Deadline for Submission under this 

RFI–3: The third, and final round of the 

Stage One cycle is covered by this RFI– 

3 and will close April 15, 2009. 

Stage One Description 

What We are Looking for: 

Contributors may submit up to 3 leapahead technology concepts. 

Multidisciplinary contributions from 

organizations with cybersecurity 

interests are especially encouraged. 

Cognizant of the limits of conventional 

studies and reports, we have given 

substantial thought to what framework 

and methodology might render the 

community’s best ideas understandable, 

compelling, and actionable to those who 

need to support them, fund them, and 

adopt them. Since our search is for 

game-changing concepts, we ask that 

submitters explain their ideas in terms 

of a game. Many ideas will fall into the 

following three categories. Ideas that: 

Morph the Gameboard (Change the 

defensive terrain [permanently or 

adaptively] to make it harder for the 

attacker to maneuver and achieve his 

goals.) 

Example: Non-persistent virtual 

machines—every time the enemy takes 

a hill, the hill goes away. 

Change the Rules (Lay the foundation 

for cyber civilization by changing 

network protocols and norms to favor 

our society’s values.) 

Example: The no-call list—direct 

marketers have to ‘‘attack’’ on customer 

terms now. 

Raise the Stakes (Make the cost to 

play less advantageous to the attacker by 

raising risk, lowering value, etc.) 

Example: Charging for email—making 

the SPAMmer ante up means a lot more 

fish have to bite for SPAM to pay. 

Ideas that change the game in some 

other dimension are also welcome; just 

be sure to explain how. The rationale for 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 39 / Monday, March 2, 2009 / Notices 9111 

why the idea is game-changing should 

be the central focus of each submission. 

Submitters are encouraged to explore 

the following categories, which were 

derived by the NITRD SSG from the 

review of RFI–1 submissions. These 

categories encompass promising 

concepts identified by compelling 

submissions and may be fruitful themes 

for additional game-changing insights: 

Attribution—Technologies and 

methods to establish that a particular 

entity (person, host, event) is the 

originator of an object (e.g. data) or the 

cause of an effect. 

Cyber Economics—Security decisionmaking frameworks that incorporate 

economic insights; understanding and 

altering economic value-chains to make 

cyber security exploits increasingly 

expensive for attackers. 

Disaster Recovery—Recovery in the 

event of a large-scale disruption of 

national cyber assets. 

Network Ecology—Incorporating endto-end network management techniques 

to control access to and allocation of 

network resources; modeling of 

acceptable host and network activities. 

Policy-based Configuration/ 

Implementation—Standards-based 

security policy definitions and 

enforcement frameworks; architectures 

and techniques for implementing finecoarse access and permission controls. 

Randomization/Moving Target— 

Software diversity that randomizes code 

structure; virtualization techniques that 

hide, obscure, move, and alter; 

randomizing and obfuscating network 

resources, IP addresses, and the 

operating system; time-varying, cryptobased identities to identify services, 

hosts, interfaces, networks and users. 

Secure Data—Building provenance 

and access controls into the fabric of 

digital data. 

Software Assurance—Securityfocused system assurance programming 

languages. 

Virtualization—Cloud-based virtual 

desktops for stateless thin clients; highsecurity hypervisors; least-authority 

execution via adaptive sandboxes. 

Submissions in areas outside these 

categories will also be considered. 

Who can Participate: This RFI–3 is 

open to all and we especially encourage 

public- and private-sector groups (e.g., 

universities, government laboratories, 

companies, non-profit groups, user 

groups) with cybersecurity interests to 

participate. Collaborative, 

multidisciplinary efforts are also highly 

encouraged. Participants in Stage One 

must be willing to participate in Stage 

Two should one of their ideas be 

selected. Excluding proprietary 

information, participants must also be 

willing to have their ideas posted for 

discussion on a public Web site and/or 

included in our final report. 

How We Will Use It: The best ideas 

from Stage One will go on to Stage Two. 

Non-proprietary elements of Stage One 

submissions may be posted on our Web 

site for elaboration and improvement, as 

a key goal of the Leap Year is to engage 

diverse sectors (e.g., government, 

academia, commercial, international) in 

identifying multidimensional strategies 

and, where it makes sense, in rolling up 

their sleeves and starting to work. 

Submissions crafted with that larger 

community in mind will be the most 

compelling and influential. 

Leap Year interim results and 

emerging guidance will be posted at: 

http://www.nitrd.gov/leapyear/. 

Questions and submissions should be 

addressed to: leapyear@nitrd.gov. 

In accordance with FAR 15.202(3), 

responses to this notice are not offers 

and cannot be accepted by the 

Government to form a binding contract. 

Responders are solely responsible for all 

expenses associated with responding to 

this RFI–3, including any subsequent 

requests for proposals. 

All responses must be no more than 

two pages long (12 pt font, 1′′ margins) 

and in this form: 

RFI Name: RFI–3—National Cyber 

Leap Year. 

Title of Concept 

RFI Focus Area (Morph the 

gameboard, Change the rules, Raise the 

stakes.) 

Submitter’s Contact Information— 

Name, Organization, Address, 

Telephone number, E-mail address. 

Summary of Who You are— 

Credentials, group membership. 

Concept—What is the idea? Explain 

why it would change the game. 

Introducing a good idea alone is not 

sufficient; you must explain how it 

changes the game. 

Vision—Make us believe in your idea. 

(What would the world look like if this 

were in place? How would people get it, 

use it? What makes you think this is 

possible? What needs to happen for this 

to become real? Which parts already 

exist; which parts need to be invented?) 

Method—What process did you use to 

formulate and refine your concept? 

What assumptions or dependencies 

underlie your analysis? 

Dream Team—Who are the people 

you’d need to have on your team to 

make this real? If you just know 

disciplines that’s okay. If you have 

names, explain what those people do. If 

your idea is selected for further 

consideration, we will do our best to 

bring these people together for a Stage 

Two workshop. 

Labeling of Proprietary Information— 

Clearly label any part of the submission 

designated as proprietary. The 

proprietary information will be 

restricted to government use only. If the 

submission is selected for Stage Two, 

we will work with the submitter to 

determine exactly what information 

warrants proprietary protection and to 

establish appropriate controls for 

managing, protecting, and negotiating as 

appropriate the relevant intellectual 

property rights. 

Responses must be submitted via 

http://www.nitrd.gov/leapyear/ or 

e-mailed to leapyear@nitrd.gov, and 

must be received by April 15, 2009. 

Appendix A contains a sample 

submission and review considerations. 

Appendix A—Sample Submission 

Who You Are—http:// 

quieteveningathome.org—We are a 

501c3 group with 50,000 members 

dedicated to the preservation of the 

dinner hour as the core of American 

civilization. 

Game-changing Dimension—Change 

the rules. 

Concept—Telemarketers are using our 

resources and time to market their 

products. They can call and interrupt 

our dinners and use our own telephones 

to reach us. What if we changed the 

rules to ‘‘don’t call us, we’ll call you?’’ 

Changing this rule changes the game to 

one where we decide which marketers 

to contact and when, returning control 

of the dinner hour to us. 

Vision—The vision is a national donot-call register. People should be able 

to go to http://donotcall.gov and register 

their phone number. It would be illegal 

for telemarketers who have not been 

given permission to call someone. If a 

telemarketer makes an illegal call, the 

recipient should be able to report them 

to a government agency and they should 

be fined. The technology to do this is 

easy, we are not sure about the laws and 

policies. Courts have ruled differently 

on this issue at different times. We think 

the political climate is friendly today for 

Federal legislation. 

Method—We announced our search 

for ideas on our website and 

submissions were made there. We also 

publicized through restaurant and 

catering associations with whom we 

often partner, who offered interruptionfree free meals for brainstorming 

sessions. Participation was not limited 

to members, but could not be 

anonymous, since it was our intention 

to follow up with submitters. The Board 

of Directors of QEAH enlisted the aid of 

Prandia University to work with the 

submitters of the best ideas to develop 

them into even better ideas. The Board 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
9112 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 39 / Monday, March 2, 2009 / Notices 

ensured all the aspects described in the 

Leap Year RFI were addressed in our 

final submissions. 

Dream Team—Federal Trade 

Commission, Federal Communications 

Commission, constitutional lawyer, 

Telemarketers’ Association, Consumers 

Union, Oracle or other database 

company. 

Review Considerations 

Submissions will be reviewed by the 

NITRD Senior Steering Group for 

Cybersecurity using the following 

considerations: 

Would it change the game? 

How clear is the way forward? 

What heights are the hurdles that may 

be found in the way forward? 

Submitted by the National Science 

Foundation for the National 

Coordination Office (NCO) for 

Networking and Information 

Technology Research and Development 

(NITRD) on February 25, 2009. 

Dated: February 25, 2009. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. E9–4321 Filed 2–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0054] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to 

submit an information collection 

request to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC invites public 

comment about our intention to request 

the OMB’s approval for renewal of an 

existing information collection that is 

summarized below. We are required to 

publish this notice in the Federal 

Register under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

Information pertaining to the 

requirement to be submitted: 

1. The title of the information 

collection: 10 CFR Part 140, ‘‘Financial 

Protection Requirements and Indemnity 

Agreements. 

2. Current OMB approval number: 

3150–0039. 

3. How often the collection is 

required: As necessary in order for NRC 

to meet its responsibilities called for in 

Sections 170 and 193 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the 

Act). 

4. Who is required or asked to report: 

Licensees authorized to operate reactor 

facilities in accordance with 10 CFR 

Part 50 and licensees authorized to 

construct and operate a uranium 

enrichment facility in accordance with 

10 CFR Parts 40 and 70. 

5. The number of annual respondents: 

91. 

6. The number of hours needed 

annually to complete the requirement or 

request: 1307. 

7. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 140 of the 

NRC’s regulations specifies information 

to be submitted by licensees to enable 

the NRC to assess (a) the financial 

protection required of licensees and for 

the indemnification and limitation of 

liability of certain licensees and other 

persons pursuant to Section 170 of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

and (b) the liability insurance required 

of uranium enrichment facility licensees 

pursuant to Section 193 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 

Submit, by May 1, 2009, comments 

that address the following questions: 

1. Is the proposed collection of 

information necessary for the NRC to 

properly perform its functions? Does the 

information have practical utility? 

2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 

information collection be minimized, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology? 

A copy of the draft supporting 

statement may be viewed free of charge 

at the NRC Public Document Room, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD 

20852. OMB clearance requests are 

available at the NRC worldwide Web 

site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 

document will be available on the NRC 

home page site for 60 days after the 

signature date of this notice. Comments 

submitted in writing or in electronic 

form will be made available for public 

inspection. Because your comments will 

not be edited to remove any identifying 

or contact information, the NRC 

cautions you against including any 

information in your submission that you 

do not want to be publicly disclosed. 

Comments submitted should reference 

Docket No. NRC–2009–0054. You may 

submit your comments by any of the 

following methods. Electronic 

comments: Go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket No. NRC–2009–0054. Mail 

comments to NRC Clearance Officer, 

Gregory Trussell (T–5 F53), U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. Questions 

about the information collection 

requirements may be directed to the 

NRC Clearance Officer, Gregory Trussell 

(T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, by telephone at 301–415–6445, or 

by e-mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@NRC.GOV. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of February 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Gregory Trussell 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 

Services. 

[FR Doc. E9–4334 Filed 2–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028; NRC– 

2008–0441] 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company Acting for Itself and as 

Agent for the South Carolina Public 

Service Company (Also Refered to as 

Santee Cooper) Virgil C. Summer 

Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 

Combined License Application; Notice 

of an Extension to the Environmental 

Scoping Period 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company (SCE&G) acting for itself and 

as an agent for South Carolina Public 

Service Company (also referred to as 

Santee Cooper) has submitted an 

application for combined licenses 

(COLs) to build Units 2 and 3 at its 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

(VCSNS) site, located on approximately 

3,600 acres in Fairfield County, South 

Carolina, on the Broad River, 

approximately 15 miles west of the 

county seat of Winnsboro and 26 miles 

northwest of Columbia, South Carolina. 

The application for the COLs was 

submitted to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 

27, 2008, pursuant to Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

Part 52. 

A notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

and conduct scoping was published in 

the Federal Register on January 5, 2009 

(74 FR 323–324) and scoping meetings 

were held in Winnsboro and Blair, 

South Carolina on January 27 and 28, 

2009, respectively. After the meetings, 

Mayor Gregrey Ginyard of Jenkinsville, 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES