Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11693 

proposed quantitative standards for 

dermal and ocular exposures. 

The information from the ISG will be 

incorporated into the next revision of 

NUREG–1520, ‘‘Standard Review Plan 

for the Review of a License Application 

for a Fuel Cycle Facility,’’ (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML101390110). 

Additional background information 

and documents related to this notice can 

be found in ADAMS under the 

following accession numbers: 

1 ............... Memorandum of Understanding Between NRC and OSHA Relating to NRC-Licensed Facilities ........................ ML11354A432 

2 ............... NRC Information Notice 2007–022, Recent Hydrogen Fluoride Exposures at Fuel Cycle Facilities (June 19, 

2007).

ML071410230 

3 ............... Letter from Felix M. Killar, Senior Director, Fuel and Materials Safety, NEI, to Daniel H. Dorman, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) 

(September 8, 2008).

ML083360632 

4 ............... Letter from Daniel H. Dorman, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS, to Felix M. 

Killar, Senior Director, Fuel Supply. Material Licenses, of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) (November 10, 

2008).

ML082900889 

5 ............... Letter from Felix M. Killar, Senior Director, Fuel and Materials Safety, NEI, to Daniel H. Dorman, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS (February 24, 2009).ML090690732 

6 ............... Letter from Daniel H. Dorman, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS, to Felix M. 

Killar, Senior Director, Fuel Supply. Material Licenses, of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) (June 12, 2009).

ML090920296 

7 ............... Letter from Janet R. Schlueter, Sr. Director, Fuel and Materials Safety, NEI, to Marissa G. Bailey, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS (March 26, 2014).ML14086A267 

8 ............... Letter from Marissa G. Bailey, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS, to Janet R. 

Schlueter, NEI (September 15, 2014).

ML14251A150 

9 ............... Letter from Ellen Ginsberg, the General Counsel of the NEI to Margaret Doane, the General Counsel of the 

NRC, (November 7, 2014).

ML14322B019 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day 

of February, 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Marissa G. Bailey, 

Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, 

Safeguards and Environmental Review, Office 

of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04478 Filed 3–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2013–0046] 

Scope Expansion of the PostInvestigation Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Program 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Policy revision; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision 

to its Enforcement Policy (Enforcement 

Policy or Policy) to incorporate 

Commission direction to add escalated 

non-willful (traditional) enforcement 

cases with the potential for civil 

penalties within the scope of the 

Commission’s Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Program and to make other 

conforming edits. 

DATES: This revision to the Enforcement 

Policy is effective March 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2013–0046 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information for this action. You may 

obtain publicly-available information 

related to this action by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2013–0046. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individuals 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 (if it is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section. 

• 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: 

Daniel Lenehan, telephone: 301–415– 

3501, email: Daniel.Lenehan@nrc.gov, 

or Shahram Ghasemian, telephone: 301– 

415–3591, email: Shahram.Ghasemian@

nrc.gov; both of the Office of 

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Administrative Dispute 

Resolution Act of 1996 authorizes and 

encourages the use of Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures by 

Federal agencies. The term ‘‘ADR’’ 

refers to a number of voluntary 

processes, such as mediation and 

facilitated dialogues that can be used to 

assist parties in resolving disputes and 

potential conflicts. These techniques 

involve the use of a neutral third party, 

either from within the agency or from 

outside the agency, and are voluntary 

processes in terms of the decision to 

participate and the content of the final 

agreement. The NRC’s experience with 

ADR has demonstrated that the use of 

these techniques can result in more 

efficient resolution of issues, more 

effective outcomes, and improved 

relationships between the agency and 

other parties. The NRC established the 

ADR Program in its Office of 

Enforcement in 2004. 

Since the implementation of the ADR 

Program, the NRC has reached 

settlement agreements with licensees (or 

contractors) and individuals, and has 

issued subsequent ADR confirmatory 

orders in more than 90 enforcement 

cases. The parties to ADR in the NRC’s 

enforcement program are the NRC staff 

and, in most cases, a licensee. The 

proceedings are conducted using the 

facilitation skills of a trained 

independent mediator. Mediation 

allows the NRC staff and the licensee to 

communicate openly and directly and 

enables the parties to reach effective and 

workable agreements that meet the 

NRC’s regulatory interests. Historically, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11694 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 

the ADR Program has resulted in 

broader and more comprehensive 

corrective actions than would be 

expected using traditional enforcement 

means. 

On December 16, 2010, then NRC 

Chairman, Gregory Jaczko, issued a 

memorandum, ‘‘ADR Implementation 

and Assessment’’ (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML12030A228) tasking the NRC 

staff to conduct a comprehensive review 

of the ADR Program, including 

determining if it should be expanded. 

At the time the ADR Program was 

limited to cases involving 

discrimination and other wrong doing. 

On September 6, 2011, the NRC issued 

a notice in the Federal Register that 

solicited nominations of individuals to 

participate on a panel to discuss ADR 

Program implementation and whether 

changes could be made to make it more 

effective, transparent, and efficient (76 

FR 55136). On October 17, 2011, the 

NRC issued another Federal Register 

notice that announced its intention to 

hold a public meeting to solicit feedback 

from its stakeholders on the ADR 

Program (76 FR 64124). During the 

public meeting, which was held on 

November 8, 2011, external NRC 

stakeholders expressed support for the 

expansion of the ADR Program to the 

extent possible. 

In Commission Paper SECY–12–0161, 

‘‘Status Update, Tasks Related to 

Alternative Dispute Resolution in the 

Allegation and Enforcement Programs,’’ 

dated November 28, 2012 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12321A145), the NRC 

staff notified the Commission of its 

intent to pilot the expansion of the ADR 

Program to include escalated nonwillful (traditional) enforcement cases 

with proposed civil penalties for a 1- 

year period. The expansion of the 

program did not include violations 

associated with findings assessed 

through the Reactor Oversight Process. 

During the pilot period, the NRC staff 

made ADR available for seven escalated 

non-willful (traditional) enforcement 

cases with proposed civil penalties 

however, none of the licensees chose 

ADR. The licensees included a waste 

disposal facility, two radiographers, a 

gauge user, two hospitals, and one nonoperating (decommissioned) reactor. 

However, shortly after the 1-year period, 

a power reactor licensee chose to engage 

in ADR for an escalated non-willful 

(traditional) enforcement case with the 

potential for a civil penalty. The 

subsequent mediation resulted in a 

settlement, specified in the 

Confirmatory Order, under which the 

licensee agreed to fleet-wide actions as 

opposed to plant-specific actions that 

would have typically been expected 

from using the traditional enforcement 

process. 

In Commission Paper SECY–14–0077, 

‘‘Status Update and Proposed Policy 

Revision: Tasks Related to Alternative 

Dispute Resolution in the Enforcement 

Program,’’ dated July 30, 2014 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14143A363), the NRC 

staff recommended that the Commission 

approve expanding the scope of the 

ADR Program to include non-willful 

(traditional) enforcement cases with the 

potential for civil penalties (not 

including violations associated with 

findings assessed through the Reactor 

Oversight Process). 

In the Staff Requirements 

Memorandum to SECY–14–007, the 

Commission approved the expansion of 

the ADR Program. Accordingly, the NRC 

is revising Section 2.4.3, ‘‘Alternate 

Dispute Resolution,’’ of the Enforcement 

Policy to add escalated non-willful 

(traditional) enforcement cases with the 

potential for civil penalties within the 

scope of the program and to make other 

conforming edits. 

Revisions to Enforcement Policy 

The text of revised section 2.4.3, in its 

entirety, follows. A marked copy of the 

Enforcement Policy is available in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML15028A422. 

2.4.3 Alternative Dispute Resolution 

The Administrative Dispute 

Resolution Act of 1996 (ADRA) 

authorizes and encourages the use of 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

procedures by Federal agencies. ADR 

refers to a variety of processes that 

emphasize creative, cooperative 

approaches to handling conflicts in lieu 

of adversarial procedures. Mediation is 

the form of ADR typically used by the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC). The use of ADR in the NRC’s 

enforcement program is available for 

cases involving discrimination and 

other wrongdoing as well as escalated 

nonwillful (traditional) enforcement 

cases with the potential for civil 

penalties (not including violations 

associated with findings assessed 

through the Reactor Oversight Process). 

ADR may also be used for 

discrimination violations based solely 

on a finding by DOL; however, the NRC 

will not negotiate the DOL finding. 

Individuals within the Commission’s 

jurisdiction may also be offered ADR. 

ADR complements, and works in 

conjunction with, the traditional NRC 

enforcement process. ADR may be 

offered (1) before a predecisional 

enforcement conference (PEC), (2) after 

the initial enforcement action is taken 

(i.e., an NOV or proposed imposition of 

a civil penalty), or (3) with the 

imposition of a civil penalty and prior 

to a hearing request. Use of the ADR 

program is voluntary for all parties, 

including the NRC; any participant may 

end the process at any time. Mediation 

activities are kept confidential in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 574; however, 

the terms of the settlement agreement 

are normally formalized in a 

Confirmatory Order, which is published 

in the Federal Register. Normally, there 

is also a press release providing 

information about the settlement 

agreement. 

In some circumstances, it may not be 

appropriate for the NRC to engage in 

ADR (e.g., the U.S. Department of 

Justice has substantial involvement in 

the case, cases in which the subject 

matter is such that a Confirmatory Order 

detailing the terms of a settlement 

agreement cannot be made public, or 

other particularly egregious cases in 

which the public interest is not served 

by engaging in ADR). The approval of 

the Director, OE, is required in those 

cases where the staff proposes not to 

offer ADR. 

Additional information concerning 

the NRC’s ADR program is available in 

the NRC Enforcement Manual and on 

the NRC Web site. 

In addition, an individual and his or 

her employer (or former employer) can 

use ADR to resolve discrimination 

complaints (under Section 211 of the 

ERA) before the initiation of 

investigative activities by OI (i.e., preinvestigation ADR, commonly referred 

to as ‘‘early ADR’’) (see NRC 

Management Directive 8.8, 

‘‘Management of Allegations’’) or a 

licensee-sponsored ADR program that is 

similar in nature to the NRC’s early ADR 

program. If the parties reach a 

settlement agreement using early ADR 

or licensee-sponsored ADR, the NRC 

subsequently reviews the agreement to 

ensure that it does not include any 

provisions in violation of the NRC’s 

‘‘Employee Protection’’ regulations. If 

no such restrictive provisions exist, the 

NRC will not investigate the 

discrimination complaint or take 

enforcement action. 

Congressional Review Act 

This policy revision 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. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day 

of February, 2015. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11695 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Exchange Act Release No. 72491 (Jun. 27, 2014), 

79 FR 38080 (Jul. 3, 2014) (Notice of Filing of 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to Revisions to the 

Definitions of Non-Public Arbitrator and Public 

Arbitrator) (‘‘Notice of Filing’’). The comment 

period closed on July 24, 2014. 

4Of the 316 letters, 21 were unique letters, and 

295 of the letters followed a form designated as the 

‘‘Type A’’ letter, submitted by self-identified 

independent financial advisors (‘‘independent 

financial advisors’’) (‘‘Type A Letter’’). The unique 

letters were submitted by: Philip M. Aidikoff, 

Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari, dated July 1, 2014 

(‘‘Aidikoff Letter’’); Steven B. Caruso, Esq., Maddox 

Hargett & Caruso, P.C., dated July 1, 2014 (‘‘Caruso 

July Letter’’); Ryan K. Bakhtiari, Aidikoff, Uhl & 

Bakhtiari, dated July 2, 2014 (‘‘Bakhtiari July 

Letter’’); Richard A. Stephens, Attorney at Law, 

dated July 6, 2014 (‘‘Stephens Letter’’); Daniel E. 

Bacine, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, dated July 18, 

2014 (‘‘Bacine Letter’’); Blossom Nicinski, dated 

July 20, 2014 (‘‘Nicinski Letter’’); Christopher L. 

Mass, dated July 21, 2014 (‘‘Mass Letter’’); Glenn S. 

Gitomer, McCausland Keen and Buckman, dated 

July 23, 2014 (‘‘Gitomer July Letter’’); David T. 

Bellaire, Esq., Executive Vice President & General 

Counsel, Financial Services Institute, dated July 24, 

2014 (‘‘FSI Letter’’); Thomas J. Berthel, CEO, Berthel 

Fisher & Company, dated July 24, 2014 (‘‘Berthel 

Letter’’); Kevin M. Carroll, Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and 

Financial Markets Association, dated July 24, 2014 

(‘‘SIFMA July Letter’’); CJ Croll, Student Intern, 

Elissa Germaine, Supervising Attorney, and Jill I. 

Gross, Director, Investor Rights Clinic at Pace Law 

School, dated July 24, 2014 (‘‘PIRC July Letter’’); 

Jason Doss, President, Public Investors Arbitration 

Bar Association, dated July 24, 2014 (‘‘PIABA 

Letter’’); George H. Friedman, Esq., George H. 

Friedman Consulting, LLC, dated July 24, 2014 

(‘‘Friedman July Letter’’); Gary N. Hardiman, dated 

July 24,2014 (‘‘Hardiman Letter’’); J. Burton 

LeBlanc, President, American Association for 

Justice, dated July 24, 2014 (‘‘AAJ Letter’’); Richard 

P. Ryder, Esq., President, Securities Arbitration 

Commentator, Inc., dated July 24, 2014 (‘‘SAC July 

Letter’’); Andrea Seidt, President, North American 

Securities Administrators Association, and Ohio 

Securities Commissioner, dated July 24, 2014 

(‘‘NASAA July Letter’’); Robert Getman, dated July 

28, 2014 (‘‘Getman Letter’’); Barry D. Estell, 

Attorney at Law (retired), dated August 13, 2014 

(‘‘Estell Letter’’); and Walter N. Vernon III, Esq., 

dated August 21, 2014 (‘‘Vernon Letter’’). Comment 

letters are available at www.sec.gov. 

The Commission discussed these comments in 

the Proceedings Order. See infra note 7. 

5Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Assistant Chief 

Counsel, FINRA Dispute Resolution, to Brent J. 

Fields, Secretary, SEC, dated September 30, 2014 

(‘‘FINRA September Letter’’). The FINRA September 

Letter is available at www.sec.gov. 

6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). 

7Exchange Act Release No. 73277 (Oct. 1, 2014), 

79 FR 60556 (Oct. 7, 2014) (Order Instituting 

Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or 

Disapprove Proposed Rule Change Relating to 

Revisions to the Definitions of Non-Public 

Arbitrator and Public Arbitrator) (‘‘Proceedings 

Order’’). The comment period closed on November 

6, 2014. 

8The comment letters were submitted by: John A. 

Bender, Esq., Member, Ryan Swanson Cleveland, 

dated October 10, 2014 (‘‘Bender Letter’’); George H. 

Friedman, Esquire, George H. Friedman Consulting, 

LLC, dated October 20, 2014 (‘‘Friedman October 

Letter’’); Richard P. Ryder, Esq., President, 

Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc., dated 

October 26, 2014 (‘‘SAC October Letter’’); Steven B. 

Caruso, Esq., Maddox Hargett & Caruso, P.C., dated 

October 29, 2014 (‘‘Caruso October Letter’’); Ryan 

K. Bakhtiari, Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari, dated 

October 30, 2014 (‘‘Bakhtiari October Letter’’); 

Glenn S. Gitomer, McCausland Keen and Buckman, 

dated November 5, 2014 (‘‘Gitomer November 

Letter’’); William Beatty, President, North American 

Securities Administrators Association and 

Washington Securities Administrator, dated 

Continued 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04490 Filed 3–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74247A; File No. SR– 

BATS–2015–09] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS 

Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend 

Rules 11.9, 11.12, and 11.13 of BATS 

Exchange, Inc.; Correction 

February 26, 2015. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission 

ACTION: Notice; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission published a document in 

the Federal Register on February 18, 

2015, concerning a Notice of Filing of a 

Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rules 

11.9, 11.12, and 11.13 of BATS 

Exchange, Inc.. The document 

contained a typographical error. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher P. Grobbel, Division of 

Trading and Markets, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551–5491. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of February 

18, 2015 in FR Doc. 2015–3222, on page 

8720, in the first and second line in the 

subheading under the heading 

‘‘SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION’’ in the third column, 

correct the reference to ‘‘File No. SR– 

BATS–2014–09’’ instead to ‘‘File No. 

SR–BATS–2015–09.’’ 

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04423 Filed 3–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–74383; File No. SR–FINRA– 

2014–028] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to 

Revisions to the Definitions of NonPublic Arbitrator and Public Arbitrator 

February 26, 2015. 

I. Introduction 

On June 17, 2014, the Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. 

(‘‘FINRA’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

amend FINRA Rule 12100(p) of the 

Code of Arbitration Procedure for 

Customer Disputes (‘‘Customer Code’’) 

and FINRA Rule 13100(p) of the Code 

of Arbitration Procedure for Industry 

Disputes (‘‘Industry Code’’) 

(collectively, ‘‘Codes’’), defining the 

term ‘‘non-public arbitrator;’’ and 

FINRA Rule 12100(u) of the Customer 

Code and Rule 13100(u) of the Industry 

Code, defining the term ‘‘public 

arbitrator.’’ 

The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on July 3, 2014.3 On August 4, 

2014, FINRA extended the time period 

in which the Commission must approve 

the proposed rule change, disapprove 

the proposed rule change, or institute 

proceedings to determine whether to 

approve or disapprove the proposed 

rule change to October 1, 2014. The 

Commission received three hundred 

sixteen (316) comment letters in 

response to the Notice of Filing.4 On 

September 30, 2014, the Commission 

received a letter from FINRA responding 

to the comment letters.5 On October 1, 

2014, the Commission issued an order 

to institute proceedings pursuant to 

section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 6 to 

determine whether to approve or 

disapprove the proposed rule change. 

The order was published for comment 

in the Federal Register on October 7, 

2014.7 The Commission received 

fourteen (14) comment letters in 

response to the Proceedings Order.8 On 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES