46840 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices 

nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov at least 24 

hours prior to the teleconference. 

Dated: October 3, 2017. 

Ann Bushmiller, 

Senior Counsel to the National Science Board. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21697 Filed 10–4–17; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Request for Information (RFI)—MidScale Research Infrastructure 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation 

(NSF). 

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: This Request for Information 

(RFI) is issued in response to the 

American Innovation and 

Competitiveness Act (AICA). NSF seeks 

information on existing and future 

needs for mid-scale research 

infrastructure projects from the USbased NSF science and engineering 

community. The AICA requires NSF to 

‘‘evaluate the existing and future needs, 

across all disciplines supported by the 

Foundation, for mid-scale projects’’ and 

‘‘develop a strategy to address the 

needs.’’ The input will be used to assess 

the needs for mid-scale RI from the USbased NSF science and engineering 

community in order to develop a 

strategy, in accordance with the AICA. 

DATES: To be considered, submissions 

must be received no later than 

December 8, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

midscale@nsf.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions: For the purposes of this 

RFI, NSF defines Research 

Infrastructure (RI) as any combination of 

facilities, equipment, instrumentation, 

computational hardware and software, 

and the necessary human capital in 

support of the same. This includes 

upgrades to existing major research 

facilities. Mid-scale RI requires an 

investment that falls between the 

maximum award funded by NSF’s Major 

Research Instrumentation Program 

(MRI; $4 million) and that of a major 

multi-user research facility project ($100 

million or more), as defined in AICA. 

Background: Enabling Mid-scale 

Research Infrastructure is one of NSF’s 

Ten Big Ideas. Given priorities in the 

current budget climate, NSF has been 

able to fund smaller mid-scale RI 

projects through its individual scientific 

directorates. Instrumentation and 

equipment up to $4 million has been 

routinely funded through the MRI 

program. Large-scale RI projects have 

been successfully funded through the 

Major Research Equipment and 

Facilities Construction (MREFC) 

Account. In November 2016, the 

eligibility threshold for potential 

inclusion in the MREFC Account was 

lowered from approximately a $100 

million Total Project Cost (TPC), i.e., 

total cost to NSF, depending on the 

directorate, to a fixed $70 million TPC. 

This adjustment was an initial step to 

support potential priorities in mid-scale 

science and infrastructure. 

Objective: The purpose of this RFI is 

to assess the needs for mid-scale RI from 

the US-based NSF science and 

engineering community in order to 

develop a strategy, in accordance with 

the AICA. The AICA requires NSF to 

‘‘evaluate the existing and future needs, 

across all disciplines supported by the 

Foundation, for mid-scale projects’’ and 

‘‘develop a strategy to address the 

needs.’’ This RFI focuses on mid-scale 

research infrastructure projects with an 

anticipated NSF contribution of between 

$20 million and $100 million towards 

construction and/or acquisition. This 

range is of primary interest to NSF as it 

will help us anticipate the potential 

impact of lowering the MREFC 

threshold as well as identifying 

promising projects that remain difficult 

to address within program budgets due 

to the comparatively large investment 

needed in a relatively short period of 

time. After the submission period ends, 

and the information is analyzed, NSF 

will summarize the high-level insights 

drawn from this analysis for the science 

community and internal NSF use. 

Please note that funding for mid-scale RI 

projects in this range of investment has 

not been identified; nor does this RFI 

imply an intent on the part of NSF to 

issue a call for proposals. In addition, 

responses to this RFI do not constitute 

any commitment on behalf of the 

submitters or their institutions to submit 

a proposal or carry out an RI project. 

What We Are Looking For: 

Submissions should identify ideas for 

mid-scale RI projects in the following 

format: 

1. Concept title and description. The 

description should include the potential 

for any inter-agency or international 

partnerships and contributions that are 

part of the TPC; 

2. Point of contact (in case additional 

clarification is needed); 

3. Contact of your Authorized 

Organizational Representative. Note, 

this contact will receive a copy of the 

survey submission; 

4. New, transformative science or 

scientific breakthroughs to be enabled 

by project; 

5. Evidence of research community 

support (list of reports, decadal surveys, 

other publications); 

6. Rough order of magnitude TPC 

(fully loaded, i.e. inclusive of indirect 

and/or Facility and Administration 

costs) with a percentage breakdown by 

the following major budget categories: 

(1) Physical components including 

structures, equipment, instrumentation, 

and hardware; (2) other computational 

resources, including software and 

firmware; and (3) human capital; 

7. Concept of operations: anticipated 

duration and level of federal and nonfederal support. 

Who should respond: 

Researchers, users, and leaders at U.S. 

based colleges and universities as well 

as non-profits who are well positioned 

to advance and support a mid-scale 

project throughout its lifecycle. 

How should you respond: 

To submit your concept, please use 

this link: https://

www.surveymonkey.com/r/midscale_

2017 and complete the online 

questionnaire no later than December 8, 

2017. Please use the email contact field 

provided to enable a courtesy copy of 

your response to your Authorized 

Organizational Representative or 

institutional leadership to ensure 

institutional awareness of your 

submission. 

What We Will Do with the 

Information: All information submitted 

is subject to the Privacy Act. Summary 

information would be presented in 

aggregate form as part of the high-level 

analysis shared publicly. 

Dated: October 3, 2017. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21608 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2016–0094] 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Revision to policy statement. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has revised and 

consolidated two policy statements on 

the NRC’s Agreement State Programs: 

The ‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy 

and Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs’’ and the ‘‘Statement of 

Principles and Policy for the Agreement 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices 46841 

1The term ‘‘agreement material’’ means the 

materials listed in Subsection 274b. of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), over which 

the States may receive regulatory authority. 

2Section 274 of the AEA provides a statutory 

basis under which the NRC discontinues portions 

of its regulatory authority to license and regulate 

byproduct materials; source materials; and 

quantities of special nuclear materials under critical 

mass. The mechanism for the transfer of the NRC’s 

authority to a State is an agreement signed by the 

Governor of the State and the Chairman of the 

Commission, in accordance with Subsection 274b. 

of the AEA. 

3The NRC, in cooperation with the Agreement 

States, developed the IMPEP to evaluate the 

adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State 

programs and the adequacy of the NRC’s nuclear 

materials program activities. 

State Program.’’ The resulting single 

policy statement has been revised to add 

that public health and safety includes 

physical protection of agreement 

material 1 and to reflect comments 

received from Agreement States, 

individuals, and the Organization of 

Agreement States (OAS). 

DATES: This policy statement is effective 

on October 6, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2016–0094 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2016–0094. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced in this document 

(if that document is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

a document is referenced. The 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement, in its entirety, is in the 

attachment to this document. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lance Rakovan, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–2589, email: Lance.Rakovan@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The ‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy 

and Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs’’ (62 FR 46517; September 3, 

1997) presented the NRC’s policy for 

determining the adequacy and 

compatibility of Agreement State 

programs. The ‘‘Statement of Principles 

and Policy for the Agreement State 

Program’’ (62 FR 46517; September 3, 

1997) described the respective roles and 

responsibilities of the NRC and the 

States in the administration of programs 

carried out under the 274b. State 

Agreement.2 The application of these 

two policy statements has significant 

influence on the safety and security of 

agreement material and on the 

regulation of the more than 20,000 

Agreement State and NRC materials 

licensees, commonly referred to as 

National Materials Program (NMP) 

licensees. 

The NRC staff’s current efforts to 

update the Agreement State policy 

statements began with the Commission’s 

direction provided in the staff 

requirements memorandum (SRM) to 

SECY–10–0105, ‘‘Final Rule: Limiting 

the Quantity of Byproduct Material in a 

Generally Licensed Device (RIN 3150– 

AI33),’’ issued on December 2, 2010 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML103360262). 

The Commission directed the NRC staff 

to update the Commission’s ‘‘Policy 

Statement on Adequacy and 

Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs’’ and associated guidance 

documents to include both safety and 

source security considerations in the 

compatibility determination process. 

Because Agreement State adequacy and 

compatibility are closely linked to the 

Integrated Materials Performance 

Evaluation Program (IMPEP),3 which is 

a key component of the Commission’s 

‘‘Statement of Principles and Policy for 

the Agreement State Program,’’ both 

policy statements were revised 

concurrently. Both policy statements 

were updated to add that public health 

and safety includes physical protection 

of agreement material. Two working 

groups, composed of NRC staff and 

Agreement State representatives, 

developed the revisions to the policy 

statements. The draft revisions to the 

two policy statements were provided to 

the Commission on August 14, 2012 

(SECY–12–0112, ‘‘Policy Statements on 

Agreement State Programs’’ (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12110A183)). 

The Commission approved 

publication of the draft revisions to the 

policy statements for public comment in 

the revised SRM to SECY–12–0112, 

dated May 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13148A352). The NRC staff 

published the two proposed policy 

statements on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 

33122), for a 75-day comment period. 

After receiving requests from the 

Organization of Agreement States (OAS) 

and the State of Florida to extend the 

public comment period, the NRC 

extended the comment period to 

September 16, 2013 (78 FR 50118; 

August 16, 2013). The NRC held two 

public meetings (July 18 and August 6, 

2013) and a topical session during the 

OAS annual meeting in Reno, Nevada, 

on August 28, 2013. The NRC staff 

specifically solicited comment on 

Compatibility Category B, and whether 

or not the policy statements should 

maintain the language from the 1997 

‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and 

Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs’’ describing the adoption and 

number of compatible regulations. 

The NRC staff received 13 

submissions from commenters 

including Agreement States, industry 

organizations, and individuals. These 

submissions contained 51 comments on 

the policy statements in general and 45 

comments on Compatibility Category B. 

The need for consistent application and 

flexible implementation of the NRC’s 

policies was the underlying theme 

expressed by the Agreement States in 

the written comments as well as during 

the public meetings and the OAS topical 

session. Some commenters provided 

general remarks and addressed specific 

sections of the policy statements. Some 

commenters also expressed concern that 

the inconsistent use of terms (e.g., 

material versus agreement material, 

enhanced security measures versus 

physical protection of agreement 

material, and relinquishing the NRC’s 

authority versus discontinuing the 

authority) could cause confusion. 

Regarding Compatibility Category B, the 

comments show a wide variation on the 

interpretation of the definition of 

Compatibility Category B. The NRC staff 

considered the written comments, input 

from attendees at the two public 

meetings, and comments received at the 

OAS topical session and made 

modifications to the policy statements 

to ensure terms are used appropriately. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
46842 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices 

The NRC staff’s disposition of these 

comments was presented in a comment 

resolution table (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML14073A549) associated with the June 

3, 2013, Federal Register notice (78 FR 

33122). 

In COMSECY–14–0028, ‘‘Agreement 

State Program Policy Statements: 

Update on Recent Activities and 

Recommendations for Path Forward,’’ 

dated July 14, 2014 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML14156A277), the NRC staff 

proposed consolidating the two policy 

statements in a single policy statement. 

The Commission approved this plan in 

the SRM to COMSECY–14–0028, dated 

August 12, 2014 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML14224A618). Accordingly, the 

NRC staff developed a proposed single 

consolidated policy statement that: 

Identified and eliminated redundant 

language between the two policy 

statements, removed detailed 

information on IMPEP and the 

‘‘Principles of Good Regulation’’ 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML15083A026), 

added context to make the proposed 

policy statement clearer and more 

consistent with other recent NRC policy 

statements, and added a description of 

the NMP. 

The Commission approved 

publication of the proposed 

consolidated Agreement State Program 

Policy Statement for public comment in 

the SRM to SECY–15–0087, dated 

March 22, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML16082A514). The NRC staff 

published the proposed Agreement 

State Program Policy Statement on June 

2, 2016 (81 FR 35388), for a 75-day 

public comment period. The NRC staff 

also held two public webinars during 

the comment period. The NRC staff 

received 31 comments from commenters 

including Agreement States and the 

OAS. 

The final policy statement is included 

in its entirety in the attachment to this 

document. 

II. Overview of Public Comments 

The 31 comments received in 

response to the Federal Register notice 

of June 2, 2016 (81 FR 35388), were 

considered in developing the final 

policy statement along with 131 

comments that were received from the 

Agreement States when the policy 

statements were consolidated. The 

comments generally fell within the 

following categories: The consolidation 

of two policy statements and NRC’s 

unilateral decision to consolidate; the 

definition and description of adequacy 

and compatibility; the use of ‘‘NRC’’ and 

‘‘Commission;’’ the use of the terms 

‘‘relinquish’’ authority versus 

‘‘discontinue’’ authority; the use of the 

terms ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘will,’’ or ‘‘must’’ versus 

‘‘should;’’ the addition of ‘‘significant’’ 

to ‘‘cross jurisdictional;’’ and deletion of 

the section on the Principles of Good 

Regulation. Commenters provided 

additional comments that did not fall 

within those categories as well as 

comments that were out of scope of the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement. The NRC staff’s disposition 

of the 162 comments is presented in a 

comment resolution table (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML17044A406). The 

following sections summarize the 

comments organized in the categories 

previously noted, and include the NRC’s 

response to the comments. 

A. Consolidation of Two Policy 

Statements and the NRC’s Unilateral 

Decision To Consolidate 

Comment: Some commenters opposed 

the consolidation of the two policy 

statements—the ‘‘Policy Statement on 

Adequacy and Compatibility of 

Agreement State Programs’’ and the 

‘‘Statement of Principles and Policy for 

the Agreement State Program’’—into a 

single consolidated policy statement 

citing the following reasons: (1) The 

statements address unique topics 

(operational goals of a regulatory 

program vs. review of a regulatory 

program); (2) the splitting up and 

redistribution of the two policy 

statements’ sections result in changes in 

the emphasis and relationship of both 

policy statements, both within each 

policy, and to each other; and (3) there 

are only five sentences that are common 

to both policy statements, which is not 

indicative of a great amount of 

redundancy. Multiple commenters 

believed that the NRC made a unilateral 

decision to combine the two policy 

statements into a single consolidated 

policy statement without input from the 

Agreement State working group 

members who worked on the individual 

policies. One commenter stated an 

expectation for the NRC to involve 

Agreement State working group 

members in all aspects of working group 

projects to ensure that documents 

adequately address issues of the 

Agreement States as well as the NRC. 

Four commenters stated that unilateral 

action by the NRC damages trust and the 

relationship between the NRC and the 

Agreement States. Three of the five 

commenters cited NRC Management 

Directive 5.3, ‘‘Agreement State 

Participation in Working Groups’’ 

(https://scp.nrc.gov/procedures.html) 

and noted that the combined policy was 

not cooperatively developed. 

Response: Two working groups 

composed of NRC (headquarters and 

regional) staff and Agreement State 

representatives developed revisions to 

these two policy statements. In 

COMSECY–14–0028, the NRC staff 

proposed a plan to consolidate the two 

policy statements into a single policy 

statement, while preserving the work 

already completed by the two working 

groups to update the separate policy 

statements. One of the factors leading to 

the recommendation for a single policy 

statement was the identification, by the 

NRC, of redundant language between 

the two policy statements. The 

Commission approved this plan in the 

SRM to COMSECY–14–0028. The NRC 

staff consolidated the two Agreement 

State Program policy statements into a 

single policy statement and removed the 

IMPEP and Principles of Good 

Regulation details and redundancies. In 

2014, the NRC staff provided the draft 

consolidated policy statement to 

Agreement States. Some expressed 

dissatisfaction over not being more 

engaged in the decision and process 

used to propose consolidation of the 

policy statements. The content revisions 

that were developed by the two NRC/ 

Agreement State working groups during 

their work on the two separate policy 

statements were considered during the 

development of the consolidated policy 

statement. Additionally, the final 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement reflects comments received 

from the Agreement States subsequent 

to the consolidation of the two policy 

statements. 

B. Definition and Description of 

Adequacy and Compatibility 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that adequacy and 

compatibility be better defined 

throughout the Agreement State 

Program Policy Statement and that a 

greater emphasis be placed on public 

health and safety. 

Response: Corresponding changes 

were implemented throughout the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement, as appropriate, for 

consistency with the intent of the AEA. 

These include revisions in Section C., 

‘‘Statement of Legislative Intent,’’ of the 

policy statement. 

C. Use of ‘‘NRC’’ and ‘‘Commission’’ 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended replacing ‘‘NRC’’ with 

‘‘Commission’’ or vice versa in various 

sections throughout the policy 

statement. 

Response: The definition of 

‘‘Commission’’ was added as a footnote 

in the policy statement to mean the five 

Commissioners, and the ‘‘NRC’’ 

indicates the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission as an agency. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices 46843 

Corresponding changes were 

implemented throughout the Agreement 

State Program Policy Statement. 

D. Use of the Terms ‘‘relinquish’’ 

Authority Versus ‘‘discontinue’’ 

Authority 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

the use of the word ‘‘relinquish’’—in the 

context of the NRC’s regulatory 

authority when entering into an 

agreement—is not accurate and 

recommended changing ‘‘relinquish’’ to 

‘‘discontinue’’ throughout the policy 

statement so the wording is consistent 

with Section 274b. of the AEA. 

Response: All instances of the word 

‘‘relinquish’’ have either been deleted or 

replaced with the word ‘‘discontinue’’ 

throughout the Agreement State 

Program Policy Statement. 

E. Use of the Terms ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘will,’’ or 

‘‘must’’ Versus ‘‘should’’ 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

suggest that ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘will,’’ or ‘‘must’’ 

should replace ‘‘should’’ or vice versa in 

various sections throughout the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement. 

Response: Corresponding changes 

were implemented throughout the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement, as appropriate, for 

consistency with language used in 

Section 274b. of the AEA or other 

sections of the policy statement. 

F. Add ‘‘significant’’ to ‘‘cross 

jurisdictional’’ 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggest that the term ‘‘significant’’ 

should be added before ‘‘cross 

jurisdictional’’ for Compatibility 

Category B program elements. 

Response: The NRC/Agreement State 

working group for the revision of the 

‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and 

Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs’’ carefully considered the use 

of the term ‘‘significant’’ and concluded 

that the term was ambiguous and should 

not be included as part of the 

description of Compatibility Category B. 

The term ‘‘cross jurisdictional program 

elements’’ was chosen to make the 

description of Compatibility Category B 

concise and well-defined. No change 

was made to the Agreement State 

Program Policy Statement as a result of 

these comments. 

G. Deletion of Principles of Good 

Regulation 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended the deletion of Section 

D.1.i, ‘‘Principles of Good Regulation,’’ 

of the policy statement. 

Response: The Principles of Good 

Regulation were initially adopted by the 

Commission in 1991 to serve as a guide 

to NRC decisionmaking and employee 

conduct. In 1997, they were included in 

the ‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and 

Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs’’ and the ‘‘Statement of 

Principles and Policy for the Agreement 

State Program’’ and were recognized as 

part of a common culture that the NRC 

and Agreement States share as coregulators. These principles have served 

as a foundation for good regulation in 

the NMP and are included in the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement to indicate their importance 

and that they should continue to form 

the basic building blocks for good 

regulation in the NMP into the future. 

No change was made to the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement as a result of these comments. 

H. Category Health and Safety 

Comment: A number of commenters 

noted that Category Health and Safety 

(H&S) was removed from the policy 

statement and recommended that 

Category H&S be included. 

Response: In the proposed policy 

statement, Category H&S was removed 

from Section E.2. ‘‘Compatibility.’’ This 

section of the policy describes the 

program elements required for 

compatibility. Program elements 

required for H&S are not required for 

compatibility. Section E.1. ‘‘Adequacy’’ 

of the proposed policy statement was 

made implicit for Category H&S by 

indicating that an adequate program 

includes those program elements 

necessary to maintain an acceptable 

level of protection of public health and 

safety. Because Category H&S is one of 

six categories (A, B, C, D, NRC, and 

H&S) that forms the basis for evaluating 

and classifying NRC program elements, 

a corresponding edit was implemented 

in Section E.1. ‘‘Adequacy’’ of the 

policy statement. 

III. Procedural Requirements 

Congressional Review Act Statement 

This final Agreement State Program 

Policy Statement is a rule as defined in 

the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 

801–808). However, the Office of 

Management and Budget has not found 

it to be a major rule as defined in the 

Congressional Review Act. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This Policy Statement contains 

voluntary guidance for information 

collections subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). These information collections 

are mandatory for states seeking to 

assume or maintain independent 

regulatory authority under Section 274 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended. These information collections 

were approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), under 

control number 3150–0183. The 

estimated annual burden for new 

Agreement State applications is 2,750 

hours, to maintain Agreement State 

status is 7,600 hours, and to participate 

in IMPEP reviews is 36 hours. Send 

comments regarding this information 

collection to the Information Services 

Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, or by email to 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and to 

the Desk Officer, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB–10202, 

(3150–0183) Office of Management and 

Budget, Washington, DC 20503. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless the 

document requesting or requiring the 

collection displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of October 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary for the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21542 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0001] 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

DATES: Weeks of October 9, 16, 23, 30, 

November 6, 13, 2017. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of October 9, 2017 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of October 9, 2017. 

Week of October 16, 2017—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of October 16, 2017. 

Week of October 23, 2017—Tentative 

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 

10:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic 

Overview of the Operating Reactors 

Business Line (Public) (Contact: 

Trent Wertz: 301–415–1568) 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES