Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-09-01268/USCOURTS-caDC-09-01268-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation
Petitioner
State of New Jersey
Amicus Curiae
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Respondent
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 15, 2010 Decided November 9, 2010

No. 09-1268

SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION,

PETITIONER

v.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RESPONDENTS

On Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Matias F. Traveiso-Diaz argued the cause for petitioner. 

With him on the briefs were Jay E. Silberg and Alison M. 

Crane.

Grace H. Kim, Senior Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the 

brief were Lane McFadden, Attorney, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Stephen G. Burns, General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, and John F. Cordes, Jr., Solicitor.

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney 

General for the State of New Jersey, and Andrew D. Reese, 

Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief for amicus curiae

State of New Jersey.

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 1 of 14
2

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, ROGERS, Circuit Judge,

and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge

WILLIAMS. 

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge: Under § 274 of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, Pub. L. 86-373, 73

Stat. 688 (1959), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2021 (“AEA”), the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) is authorized to 

transfer regulatory authority over various categories of nuclear 

materials within a state to the state government, provided that 

the state’s regulatory program is “compatible with the 

[NRC’s] program” and is “adequate to protect the public 

health and safety.” Id. § 2021(d)(2). Shieldalloy 

Metallurgical Corporation, which for a decade has been 

seeking NRC approval for a plan to decommission a New 

Jersey facility, challenges the NRC’s recent transfer of 

regulatory authority to that state, arguing that New Jersey’s 

program is incompatible with the federal scheme and that the 

transfer of authority was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706(2)(A). We agree.

* * *

From 1955 to 1998, Shieldalloy manufactured metal 

alloys at its Newfield, New Jersey facility. Shieldalloy’s 

manufacturing process generated radioactive byproducts in 

the form of slag and baghouse dust; the firm held these 

materials on site under a license from the NRC. In the early 

1990s, Shieldalloy took the first steps toward 

decommissioning the Newfield facility. Based on discussions 

with the NRC staff, it developed a conceptual plan for on-site 

disposal of the materials under conditions restricting the site’s 

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 2 of 14
3

use. At the same time, the NRC developed, and in 1997 

published, a final rule on the decommissioning of licensed 

facilities. 10 C.F.R. §§ 20.1401-06. Although this license 

termination rule (“LTR”) expressed a preference for 

remediating a site in a way that allowed unrestricted use, it 

conditionally allowed firms to dispose radioactive materials 

on site under restrictions designed to guarantee public health 

and safety. Id. Over the next decade, the NRC and 

Shieldalloy engaged in repeated discussions regarding the onsite disposal of waste at Newfield. Between 2002 and 2009, 

Shieldalloy submitted four iterations of its decommissioning 

plan, two of which the NRC rejected outright and one of 

which the NRC accepted for purposes of starting a technical 

review. Shieldalloy revised each proposed plan based on the 

NRC staff’s comments and on an extensive site-specific 

“Interim Guidance” document provided by NRC staff on 

April 15, 2004. The NRC declined to review the fourth plan; 

instead, in light of its roughly simultaneous transfer of 

regulatory authority, it forwarded the plan to New Jersey 

along with the previously accumulated files. 

In October 2008 New Jersey applied for a transfer of 

regulatory authority over in-state nuclear materials from the 

NRC, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2021. Under that provision, 

Congress has authorized the NRC to “enter into agreements 

with the Governor of any State providing for discontinuance 

of the regulatory authority of the [NRC]” and the assumption 

of authority by the state. 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b). Before making 

such an agreement, however, the NRC must find that the 

state’s regulatory regime is “compatible with the [NRC’s] 

program” and that the state’s regime is “adequate to protect 

the public health and safety.” Id. § 2021(d)(2).

To evaluate the compatibility of the state and federal 

regulatory programs, the NRC considers thirty-six criteria that 

it enumerated in a policy statement that we will call the 

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 3 of 14
4

“Criteria Document.”1 It further clarified its evaluation 

process in a later policy statement, the “Compatibility 

Guidance Document,”2 which interprets the compatibility 

requirement as mandating that the state program must “not 

create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that 

would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of 

agreement material on a nationwide basis.” 62 Fed. Reg. at 

46,524. Pursuant to this policy, each element of the NRC’s 

program is assigned to one of five groups, A through E 

(though only the first three concern us here). Categories A 

and B require the state and NRC programs to be “essentially 

identical”; category C merely requires each element of the 

state program to “embody the essential objective” of its 

federal counterpart. Id. Outside of areas requiring 

uniformity, the document provides that a state should have 

“flexibility” and can implement regulations that are “more 

stringent” than the federal regime. Id. at 46,520. In a later 

document, the NRC deemed the license termination rule to be

a category C element of its program.3

 1

 Criteria for Guidance of State and NRC in Discontinuance of 

NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States 

Through Agreement, 46 Fed. Reg. 7540 (Jan. 23, 1981), as 

amended by 46 Fed. Reg. 36,969 (July 16, 1981) and 48 Fed. Reg. 

33,376 (July 21, 1983).

 

2

 Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State 

Program; Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of 

Agreement State Programs, 62 Fed. Reg. 46,517 (Sept. 3, 1997). 

3

 See Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety 

Identification for NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements –

SA-200, at App. A (June 5, 2009) (stating that program elements in 

10 C.F.R. are classified at 

http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/regsumsheets_newregs.html) (follow link for 

Standards for Protection Against Radiation).

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 4 of 14
5

After finding New Jersey’s program adequate and 

compatible with the federal program, the NRC published 

notice of the proposed agreement in the Federal Register and 

sought comments from the public, pursuant to its statutory 

obligation under 42 U.S.C. § 2021(e).4 In a letter to the NRC

responding to the call for comments (the “Shieldalloy 

Comment Letter”), Shieldalloy argued that the New Jersey 

and federal programs were incompatible.5 The NRC staff 

rejected Shieldalloy’s protests, see Memorandum from R.W. 

Borchardt to NRC Commissioners, SECY-09-0114, encl. 2

(Aug. 18, 2009) (“NRC Staff Comments”), and the agreement 

transferring authority to New Jersey took effect on September 

30, 2009.6

 4

 See, e.g., State of New Jersey: NRC Staff Assessment of a 

Proposed Agreement Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

and the State of New Jersey, 74 Fed. Reg. 25,283 (May 27, 2009). 

Less than two weeks after the transfer of authority, 

New Jersey notified Shieldalloy that its revised 

decommissioning plan, hitherto pending before the NRC, did 

not meet New Jersey’s remediation requirements. Worried 

that it would now be forced to jettison its plans for on-site 

remediation and instead transfer the radioactive materials to a 

facility in Clive, Utah, Shieldalloy sought relief along 

multiple avenues. It requested an exemption from the relevant 

New Jersey regulatory provisions (and was denied). It filed a 

motion with the NRC to stay the transfer for regulatory 

authority (and was denied). And it filed the instant petition 

challenging the NRC’s transfer.

5 Letter from Hoy E. Frakes, Jr., President, Shieldalloy, to 

Michael T. Lesar, NRC (June 11, 2009). 

6

 State of New Jersey: Discontinuance of Certain Commission 

Regulatory Authority Within the State; Notice of Agreement 

Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of New 

Jersey, 74 Fed. Reg. 51,882 (Oct. 8, 2009).

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 5 of 14
6

In reviewing agency action that is alleged to be arbitrary 

or capricious, we are “not to substitute [our] judgment for that 

of the agency,” but we must ensure that the agency has 

“examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory 

explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection 

between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor 

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 

U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. 

United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). Encompassed in 

the latter duty, of course, is the obligation of an agency to 

explain any important changes of policy or legal 

interpretation. Ramaprakash v. FAA, 346 F.3d 1121, 1124 

(D.C. Cir. 2003). And agencies must evaluate parties’ 

proposals of “significant and viable” alternatives. Farmers 

Union Cent. Exch., Inc. v. FERC, 734 F.2d 1486, 1511 n.54

(D.C. Cir. 1984).

* * *

Item 25 of the Criteria Document states in relevant part,

Existing NRC Licenses and Pending Applications. In 

effecting the discontinuance of jurisdiction, appropriate 

arrangements will be made by NRC and the State to 

ensure that there will be no interference with or 

interruption of licensed activities or the processing of 

license applications, by reason of the transfer.

46 Fed. Reg. 7540, 7543.

In its comments to the NRC, Shieldalloy argued that New 

Jersey had not attempted to make appropriate arrangements to 

guarantee a smooth transition for the pending Shieldalloy

decommissioning plan; in fact, New Jersey had challenged 

Shieldalloy’s decommissioning process at every stage. This 

resistance, Shieldalloy contended, was incompatible with

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 6 of 14
7

criterion 25’s commitment to the uninterrupted “processing of 

license applications.” Shieldalloy Comment Letter at 9-10. In 

response, the NRC staff aptly noted that New Jersey is entitled 

to take part in hearings on licensing actions and to petition for 

rulemaking, and that the state’s exercises of those rights did 

not in themselves indicate the New Jersey plan’s 

incompatibility with the federal regime under criterion 25. 

NRC Staff Comments at 8.

But Shieldalloy also invoked criterion 25 in support of its 

separate contention that, even if the NRC entered a transfer 

agreement with New Jersey, it might exclude the Newfield 

site from the transfer. Shieldalloy Comment Letter at 11-12. 

In that context Shieldalloy went well beyond New Jersey’s 

conduct in the NRC decommissioning proceeding. It pointed 

to the time and expense that Shieldalloy devoted to working 

with the NRC staff to develop a plan for safely 

decommissioning the site (over $2 million in 2007-2009 

alone), which it implied would be largely wasted under New 

Jersey’s different approach. Id. 

In response, the NRC staff noted that the “legislative 

history for [42 U.S.C. § 2021] specifically states that 

Congress did not intend to allow concurrent regulatory 

authority over licensees for public health and safety,” and that 

as a result, “all NRC licensees within the categories of 

materials for which the State requested authority will transfer 

to the State.” NRC Staff Comments at 10. The NRC also said 

that a statutory provision allowing the NRC to retain authority 

in cases of common defense and security, see 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2021(m), was inapplicable, as Shieldalloy had not raised 

security concerns. Id. 

These responses were inapposite and woefully 

incomplete. As to § 2021(m), Shieldalloy had never invoked 

it. As to concurrent regulatory authority, NRC practice leaves 

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 7 of 14
8

it far more leeway than its dismissive answer to Shieldalloy 

suggests. It is quite true that NRC policy, developed in 

connection with a jurisdictional transfer to Oklahoma, rejects 

an exclusion of “single licensees absent an identified 

subcategory of material.” Memorandum from L. Joseph 

Callan, Exec. Dir. of Operations, to NRC Commissioners, 1, 

3, Oklahoma Agreement State Negotiations, SECY-97-087 

(Apr. 22, 1997). But just after articulating that view, the NRC 

approved an exclusion of Oklahoma from jurisdiction over

certain subcategories of materials that in fact covered a very 

limited set of sites. The history of the Oklahoma transfer is 

telling. 

In the late 1990s, Oklahoma submitted a draft transfer 

application that excluded five specific sites undergoing 

decommissioning. Id. at 1-2. Though the NRC staff 

recognized that the NRC had entered into limited agreements 

in the past, it rejected Oklahoma’s request as inconsistent with 

the statutory provisions, because the exclusion of single 

licensees, “absent an identified subcategory of material,” 

might create “an unwieldy and confusing pattern of 

regulation.” Id. at 3. The NRC staff recommended rejecting 

Oklahoma’s proposal. At the same time, however, it offered 

guidelines for considering future proposals for limited 

agreements: 

[R]equests for limited Agreements would have to identify 

discrete categories of material or classes of licensed 

activity that (1) can be reserved to NRC authority without 

undue confusion to the regulated community or burden to 

NRC resources, and (2) can be applied logically, and 

consistently to existing and future licensees over time. 

Under this approach, NRC would not reserve authority 

over a single license unless that licensee clearly 

constituted a single class of activity or category of 

material meeting the two criteria described above.

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 8 of 14
9

Id. at 5-6. The NRC approved both of the staff 

recommendations.7 Two years later, in 1999, Oklahoma 

proposed a limited agreement that excluded a subcategory of 

materials—a category that aligned closely with the sites 

Oklahoma had desired to exclude in its site-specific proposal 

two years earlier. Applying the previously developed factors 

for limited agreements, the NRC staff this time recommended 

approval of the limited transfer.8

Other elements of the NRC’s response as to criterion 25 

were equally dismissive. The NRC staff said that New 

Jersey’s regulatory scheme recognized existing NRC licenses 

and would continue “any licensing actions that are in 

progress” at the time of the agreement. NRC Staff Comments 

at 8. The NRC thus concluded that there would be a “smooth 

transition” and that New Jersey would make decisions on 

pending licensing actions. Id.

 The Oklahoma case is 

strikingly relevant to Shieldalloy’s situation because 

Shieldalloy argues, and the NRC does not dispute, that its

radioactive wastes constitute the sole New Jersey example of 

a discrete subcategory of materials.

This hardly answered Shieldalloy’s contention that its 

license termination process would be disrupted and that no 

appropriate arrangements had been made. Although the fact 

of New Jersey’s participation in prior or concurrent NRC 

regulatory proceedings does not necessarily prejudice a 

transfer agreement, the formal existence of New Jersey 

 7 Memorandum from John C. Hoyle, Secretary, NRC, to L. 

Joseph Callan, Exec. Dir. of Operations, Oklahoma Agreement 

State Negotiations, SECY-97-087 (June 19, 1997). 

8 Memorandum from William D. Travers, Exec. Dir. of 

Operations, to NRC Commissioners, 1, 6, Oklahoma Agreement 

State Negotiations, SECY-99-123 (Apr. 28, 1999). 

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 9 of 14
10

provision for transfer seems in no way an assurance that the 

transfer would satisfy criterion 25’s intended preclusion of 

“interference with or interruption of licensed activities or the 

processing of license applications.” 46 Fed. Reg. at 7543. 

Obviously the NRC need not automatically consider every 

single pending licensing action individually when it considers 

transfer to a state. But in this case the NRC had a long history 

of dialogue and cooperation regarding the termination of a 

license, the state has been consistently hostile to those 

termination proceedings, and the regulated entity alerted the 

NRC not only to the likely interference with decommissioning 

but also to partial transfer as a possible solution. At the very 

least, the NRC should have explained how Shieldalloy’s 

decommissioning process could proceed under the New Jersey 

regime free of the interference and interruption sought to be 

avoided by criterion 25 and why the partial transfer was not an 

appropriate alternative arrangement. 

At oral argument, the NRC offered an argument that the 

statute did not permit a partial transfer otherwise than at the 

request of the would-be transferee state, pointing to § 2021(d). 

This would rule out limiting transfers at the behest of 

regulated firms. Section 2021(d) states that “[t]he 

Commission shall enter into an agreement under subsection 

(b) of this section” pursuant to the conditions of state 

certification, adequacy, and compatibility, id. § 2021(d) 

(emphasis added). See Oral Arg. Recording 32:00-49:00. But 

the statute also provides that “the Commission is authorized to 

enter into agreements” with a state “with respect to any one or 

more of” a variety of classes of nuclear materials. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2021(b) (emphasis added). As the opening phrase suggests

that the NRC is not required to enter into agreements, it 

suggests that it has discretion to negotiate the terms of the 

agreement with the state requesting authority. 

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 10 of 14
11

On the current record we cannot decide the interpretation 

of the statute. Our concern is whether NRC provided a 

sufficient explanation for its actions. We cannot defer to the 

agency’s statutory interpretation under Chevron, U.S.A. v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), for NRC has 

not exercised any interpretive discretion. And under SEC v. 

Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943), as well as United States v. 

Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), we cannot defer to the 

interpretive proposals offered by NRC counsel at oral 

argument. As the sections of the statute to which our attention 

has been drawn do not plainly compel the reading now 

proposed, we cannot affirm on the basis of that reading. 

Because the NRC’s response to Shieldalloy’s comments 

on criterion 25 and the retention of jurisdiction does not draw 

a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice 

made,” Burlington Truck Lines, 371 U.S. at 168, the NRC’s 

transfer of authority to New Jersey is arbitrary and capricious. 

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 

* * *

Shieldalloy challenges the compatibility of many other 

aspects of the New Jersey and NRC regimes. It argues that a 

cost-benefit analysis principle called the ALARA principle 

(“as low as reasonably achievable”) is an essential objective 

of the LTR, and that New Jersey’s remediation program 

excludes ALARA from consideration. It argues that the New 

Jersey program fails to allow license termination for on-site 

decommissioning under restricted use conditions. It argues 

that New Jersey’s program includes a variety of standards that 

diverge significantly from the NRC program, including the 

maximum allowable total dose to a member of the public, the 

duration of time over which peak dosage is calculated, the 

total effective dose equivalent limits, and the approach to 

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 11 of 14
12

releases to ground and surface water. It argues that the New 

Jersey program fails criterion 12 by not authorizing 

exemptions in the interest of public health and safety. And it 

argues that the New Jersey program fails criterion 23, 

regarding the fair and impartial administration of regulatory 

law, because the state’s regulations only affect Shieldalloy. 

Shieldalloy contends that these divergences, individually and 

together, render the New Jersey program incompatible with 

the federal regime.

The NRC provided responses to each of these claims in 

its comments. It claimed that Shieldalloy was simply wrong 

on whether New Jersey allows exemptions and, among other 

things, said that there was no evidence of unfair 

administration of New Jersey law. NRC Staff Comments at 6-

7. With respect to ALARA, restricted use, and the various 

dosage standards, the NRC argued that New Jersey’s program 

merely has more stringent requirements than the federal 

regime—and that greater stringency is acceptable under the 

Compatibility Guidance Document, 62 Fed. Reg. at 46,520. 

Id. at 4. Given that the LTR is a category C regulation, they 

argued, the state regulatory program only needs to meet the 

LTR’s “essential objectives.” Id. at 5.

Shieldalloy replies that while New Jersey’s standards 

may be more stringent, they are actually less safe. See 

Shieldalloy Br. at 50. Because of the higher stringency, 

Shieldalloy states that it is prevented from using on-site 

disposal and will be forced to ship the materials to a facility in 

Utah. The consequence is that the doses of radiation to the 

public resulting from removing the radioactive materials from 

the site and relocating them in Utah will actually be greater

than the public health and environmental harms that 

accompany on-site disposal of the materials. Id. Although 

this is a troubling prospect, given the NRC’s commitment to 

protecting public health and safety from nuclear materials 

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 12 of 14
13

throughout the nation, see, e.g., Compatibility Guidance 

Document, 62 Fed. Reg. at 46,520 (stating that the NRC’s 

mission is to enable civilian nuclear use “with adequate 

protection of public health and safety” and that the NRC must 

ensure a “coherent nationwide effort” for the control of 

nuclear materials), Shieldalloy did not raise this criticism in 

its comments on the proposed transfer (though it had done so 

in its second decommissioning proposal to the Commission, 

filed in October 2005).

9

Given our findings on criterion 25 and the retention of 

jurisdiction, we need not address whether this and 

Shieldalloy’s other allegations hold up and whether the 

NRC’s explanations in response were sufficient. But we do 

pause briefly to note one curiosity. 42 U.S.C. § 2021(d) 

requires that the state regulatory scheme be compatible with 

the NRC’s program. Through rulemaking, the NRC has 

adopted the LTR, which appears as subpart E of 10 C.F.R. 

part 20, which (as a whole) governs standards for protection 

against radiation. 62 Fed. Reg. 39,058 (July 21, 1997); 10 

C.F.R. §§ 20.1401-1406. The LTR is thus part of the NRC’s 

regulatory program, but for some reason, it does not feature in 

the Criteria Document. This seems odd, given that the 

Criteria Document otherwise tracks the various subparts of 10 

C.F.R. part 20 quite closely and that the NRC staff seems to 

follow the Criteria Document religiously in assessing the 

compatibility of the state and federal programs. See, e.g., 

Memorandum from R.W. Borchardt to NRC Commissioners, 

SECY-09-0114, encl. 3 (Aug. 18, 2009) (Staff Assessment of 

the New Jersey Program). To be sure, the LTR was 

promulgated years after the Criteria Document. Compare 62 

Fed. Reg. 39,058 (July 21, 1997) (LTR) with 46 Fed. Reg. 

 

 9 Shieldalloy, Decommissioning Plan for the Newfield Facility 

92, Report No. 94005/G-28247, Rev. 1 (Oct. 21, 2005).

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 13 of 14
14

7540 (Jan. 23, 1981) (Criteria Document). But it is not clear 

that a simple temporal distinction would justify deviation 

from § 2021(d)’s apparent statutory requirement to ensure the 

compatibility of the state program with the federal. Of course, 

this issue was not raised or argued before us, so the NRC may 

have an account of the role of the LTR in its regulatory 

scheme that it had no occasion to present (and we no occasion 

to assess). We only bring it up because it may be the 

unacknowledged source of Shieldalloy’s criticisms regarding 

ALARA, restricted use, and various standards for 

decommissioning (and because it provides a possible

explanation for why Shieldalloy tried to shoehorn its

criticisms into criterion 9, which relates to “waste disposal,”

see Shieldalloy Comment Letter at 3, even though that 

criterion appears to parallel subpart K of 10 C.F.R. part 20, 

also relating to “waste disposal.”).

* * *

Together, the NRC’s insufficient explanations on the 

applicability of criterion 25 and the retention of jurisdiction 

render its transfer of regulatory authority to New Jersey 

arbitrary and capricious. We therefore grant Shieldalloy’s 

petition, vacate the NRC’s transfer of authority, and remand 

for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

USCA Case #09-1268 Document #1276409 Filed: 11/09/2010 Page 14 of 14