 Today, there has been broad acceptance in all levels of the NRC of the importance of partnership with the agreement states. It wasn't until a joint NRC agreement state working group was established in 2000 to address the impacts of the increasing number of agreement states that the NMP had an initial framework. Implementation of this working group's recommendations resulted in process changes and expansion of existing programs. NRC staff agreed with the inspector general recommendations and worked with the organization of agreement states and their membership to develop a formal framework for the NMP with an emphasis on enhanced communications. The adoption of SA-10 in May 2019 and the naming of NRC and agreement state champions was the start of a new era for the NMP. The national materials program has built around five objectives that guide the efforts to achieve its goals and priorities. These objectives address the need for flexibility, open communication, partnership, and predictability in the implementation of the NMP. In the following segments, you will hear from NRC and agreement state staff as they reflect on each of the objectives. Risk informing our future regulatory efforts will be vital to the success of the national materials program. Everyone, states and NRC alike are feeling more pressures on budget, staffing, and overall resources. Risk informing from the state of Minnesota's perspective is about looking at risks and consequences associated with the use of radioactive materials through a public health lens. When we create regulations or perform regulatory activities, we have to consider how those actions will influence public health and safety and tie into the agency's mission of protecting and maintaining the health of all Minnesotans. Most of the noteworthy accomplishments that I've been a part of with our co-regulator atmosphere with the NRC have centered around the more complex issues that we've had within our state. In each case, we've been able to reach out to the NRC, whether it's the NRC region or headquarters, to talk through with them the guidance or the regulation that we're trying to apply. Agreements state should keep in mind that the NRC does actually consider you in its decision-making process. Conversely, the NRC should recognize that agreement states do not have the same amount of resources, including staffing, compared to the NRC's four regions and headquarters offices. As the NMP takes on more emerging technologies and revises existing regulations, the regulatory framework must have a balanced risk-informed posture. Risk-informed cannot be viewed as less regulation and therefore less public health and safety. In many cases, novel uses of radioactive material arrive in agreement states before they arrive in NRC jurisdiction. And agreement states develop licensing and inspection experience with these technologies. Staff is planning to develop regulatory guidance in a risk-informed manner for the release of animals following other veterinary procedures. And we will need the support of the agreement states for this endeavor. I think there is good communication between the NRC and agreement states. NRC and the organization of agreement states regularly send out important information to the agreement states. There are regular conference calls with the NRC and agreement states. There's the annual OAS meeting with the NRC. Also specific questions or concerns can be discussed with the NRC through the regional state and agreement officers. The NMP Co-Champion Partnership has been a good driver for information sharing. One area for improvement is how to match programs facing emerging technical issues with NMP partners who have experience with those same issues. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, there was a tremendous amount of information sharing that occurred. And we can learn from what worked and didn't work in that regard to shape the expectations on how we're going to communicate in the future. To noteworthy accomplishments that I have been a part of are when the Commonwealth of Virginia and the state of Vermont became agreement states. I was able to assist these states as they built their radioactive materials programs from the ground up. And today, they are successful partners in the National Materials Program. Conversations have evolved significantly over the past two years as NMP partners continue to refine radiation safety priorities. We have become increasingly open to innovative training and experience approaches. And in fact, we, including myself, are now championing these ideas. The most recent was being part of one of the working groups updating the SA procedures for MPEP. The members of this working group were fully engaged. We had thoughtful discussions that led to, I believe, a product that was meaningful for both the NRC and the agreement states. I think to continue the growth of this partnership, there first needs to be universal acceptance of the idea that we are in fact partners. We need to hear one another and actually listen to each other's ideas or concerns and offer the support like we would hope to receive it. Though we strive for consistency and compatibility, realize that we are 40 different regulators and it is okay to have differences of opinion or methods from time to time. In 1959, Congress recognized states' interest in regulating the peaceful uses of by-product, source, and special nuclear material and acknowledged that as the states improved their capabilities to regulate effectively such materials, additional state responsibilities may be desirable. Over the years, Congress expanded agreement state responsibilities through the passage of legislation like UMPTRACA and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The NRC and the agreement states have continued to use and strengthen their synergistic partnership to meet the regulatory challenges of the 21st century and to stay true to our core mission, the protection of public health and safety. After more than 60 years, the NMP framework remains unique and evolving, with the NRC agreement states well positioned to meet any challenges collectively.