In the Matter of Alfred C. Burris, Senior, M.D.; Confirmatory Order (Effective Immediately), 6098-6100 [E6-1570]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6098
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2006 / Notices
ESTIMATED TOTAL BURDEN HOURS—Continued
Total
respondents 1
Cite reference
Employer Customer Satisfaction—ETA–9124C ...................
Financial Status Report (SF–269) ........................................
4,400
69
Grant Planning—SF–424A ...................................................
Grant Planning—SF–424 .....................................................
Sub Total ETA Forms ...................................................
1 The
Total responses
Average time
per response
4,400
345
69
69
Ongoing .........
Quarterly and
Final.
Annually ........
Annually ........
........................
.......................
Burden hours
69
69
8 mins ............
1 hour 15
mins.
3 hours ..........
45 hours ........
587
431
207
1,725
324,940
8 mins ............
42,590
total respondents will likely vary from year to year.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
$0.
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintaining): $0.
Comments submitted in response to
this comment request will be
summarized and/or included in the
request for Office of Management and
Budget approval of the information
collection request; they will also
become a matter of public record.
Dated: January 27, 2006.
John R. Beverly, III,
Administrator, Office of National Programs.
[FR Doc. E6–1555 Filed 2–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to
submit an information collection
request to OMB and solicitation of
public comment.
AGENCY:
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
Frequency
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a
submittal to OMB for review of
continued approval of information
collections under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the
requirement to be submitted:
1. The title of the information
collection: 10 CFR Part 55, Operators
Licenses.
2. Current OMB approval number:
3150–0018.
3. How often the collection is
required: As necessary for NRC to meet
its responsibilities to determine the
eligibility of applicants for operators’
licenses, prepare or review initial
operator licensing and requalification
examinations, and review applications
for and performance of simulation
facilities.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:55 Feb 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
4. Who is required or asked to report:
Holders of and applicants for facility
(i.e., nuclear power, research, and test
reactor) operating licenses and
individual operators’ licenses.
5. The number of annual respondents:
240.
6. The number of hours needed
annually to complete the requirement or
request: 67,060.
7. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 55,
‘‘Operators’ Licenses,’’ of the NRC’s
regulations, specifies information and
data to be provided by applicants and
facility licenses so that the NRC may
make determinations concerning the
licensing and requalification of
operators for nuclear reactors, as
necessary to promote public health and
safety. The reporting and recordkeeping
requirements contained in 10 CFR Part
55 are mandatory for the licensees and
applicants affected.
Submit, by April 7, 2006, 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: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
doc-comment/omb/. The
document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the
signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions about the
information collection requirements
may be directed to the NRC Clearance
Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T–5 F53),
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Washington, DC 20555–0001, by
telephone at 301–415–7233, or by
Internet electronic mail to
INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day
of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. E6–1586 Filed 2–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[EA 05–110]
In the Matter of Alfred C. Burris,
Senior, M.D.; Confirmatory Order
(Effective Immediately)
Alfred C. Burris, Senior, M.D. (Dr.
Burris) is a self-employed cardiologist,
who is licensed to practice medicine in
the State of Maryland and the District of
Columbia. Dr. Burris submitted an
application for an NRC license dated
February 2, 2004, to authorize use of
byproduct material for diagnostic
nuclear medicine.
An investigation was initiated by the
NRC Office of Investigations (OI) on
May 24, 2004, (OI Case No. 1–2004–028)
to determine if Dr. Burris submitted
inaccurate and/or misleading
information to the NRC in his NRC
application to be the sole authorized
user (AU) as well as the Radiation
Safety Officer (RSO) on a license for use
of byproduct material for medical
imaging and diagnostic purposes.
During the course of this investigation,
OI identified that an NRC licensee, a
mobile cardiac imaging company, may
have provided the same inaccurate
information in support of their
amendment request to add Dr. Burris
and another physician to its NRC
materials license as Authorized Users.
On August 6, 2004, OI initiated a
separate investigation (OI Case No. 1–
2004–034) to determine if Dr. Burris
submitted false information to an NRC
E:\FR\FM\06FEN1.SGM
06FEN1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2006 / Notices
licensee to become an AU on their
existing NRC license. Based on the
evidence developed during its
investigations, OI concluded that Dr.
Burris deliberately submitted false and/
or inaccurate information (1) to the NRC
as an applicant for an NRC license and
(2) to an NRC licensee with the purpose
to become an AU on their existing NRC
license. The results of the two
investigations were completed by OI on
April 15, 2005 and June 15, 2005, and
were sent to Dr. Burris in two letters
dated September 15, 2005.
Subsequent to becoming aware of the
details of the apparent violation, Dr.
Burris took several prompt actions to
assure that these events would not
recur. These actions included: (a)
Correcting inaccurate information for
the record in a letter dated July 26,
2004; (b) providing details of the
violation to associates in the process of
getting character references; (c)
supplementing his work experience in
May 2004, when he began working with
the nuclear medicine technologists at
Greater Southeast Community Hospital;
and (d) undertaking efforts to better
understand regulatory requirements
through self study and review of his
consultant’s letter of May 4, 2004.
In response to the NRC’s September
15, 2005 letters, Dr. Burris requested the
use of Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) to resolve this apparent violation
and pending enforcement action. ADR is
a process in which a neutral mediator,
with no decision-making authority,
assists the NRC and the individual to
resolve any disagreements on whether a
violation occurred, the appropriate
enforcement action, and the appropriate
corrective actions. An ADR session was
held between Dr. Burris and the NRC in
Rockville, MD, on December 1, 2005,
and was mediated by a professional
mediator, arranged through Cornell
University’s Institute of Conflict
Management. During that ADR session,
a settlement agreement was reached.
The elements of the settlement
agreement consisted of the following:
1. Dr. Burris agreed that he was in
violation of NRC requirements when, in
an application for a new NRC license,
dated February 2, 2004, Dr. Burris
submitted inaccurate information
contrary to 10 CFR 30.9(a). Specifically,
his application indicated that Dr. Burris
was listed as an authorized user (AU) on
the Greater Southeast Community
Hospital license, when he was not. In
addition, the preceptor statement,
prepared by a radiologist and attached
to his application, inaccurately
described required supervised work
experience in handling nuclear
materials.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:55 Feb 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
2. While NRC and Dr. Burris agreed
the violation was not deliberate, NRC
maintained that it was in careless
disregard of NRC’s regulation.
3. Dr. Burris, subsequent to becoming
aware of the details of the violation,
took prompt actions to assure that he
learned from this violation and
provided the NRC with assurance that it
would not recur. These actions
included: (a) Correcting inaccurate
information for the record in a letter
dated July 26, 2004; (b) providing
details of the violation to associates in
the process of getting character
references; (c) supplementing his work
experience in May 2004, when Dr.
Burris began working with the nuclear
medicine technologists at Greater
Southeast Community Hospital; and (d)
undertaking efforts to better understand
regulatory requirements through self
study and review of his consultant’s
letter of May 4, 2004.
4. During the ADR mediation session,
Dr. Burris recognized an opportunity for
other potential Authorized Users/
Radiation Safety Officers in the industry
to learn from his participation in the
NRC enforcement process and his
experiences regarding the necessity to
provide complete and accurate
information to the NRC. Therefore, Dr.
Burris agreed to take the following
future corrective actions: (a) Submit an
article for consideration to an
appropriate medical journal that reaches
an audience of cardiologists; (b) offer to
speak at a training session at a meeting
of the American Society of Nuclear
Cardiology, a similar society, or at a
Nuclear Cardiology symposium; and (c)
write a letter to local cardiologists
describing his experiences. In addition,
Dr. Burris agreed to meet with a hospital
RSO who has a knowledge of imaging
and localization studies in order to
review NRC requirements.
5. Dr. Burris agreed to complete the
additional actions in Item 4 within 12
months of the date of the Order, and
send a letter to the NRC informing the
NRC that these actions are completed.
Dr. Burris agreed to send this letter to
the NRC within 30 days of completion
of all actions.
6. In light of the actions Dr. Burris
took as described in Item 3, those
actions Dr. Burris has committed to take
as described in Item 4, and his
cooperation in providing information
during the ADR session, the NRC agreed
to issue a Severity Level III Notice of
Violation (10 CFR 30.9) to Dr. Burris
with no civil penalty. This action will
be publicly available in ADAMS, will
appear on the NRC ‘‘Significant
Enforcement Actions—Individuals’’
Web site for a period of 1 year, and will
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6099
be discussed in a press release
announcing the ADR agreement
between Dr. Burris and the NRC.
7. Any license application received
from Dr. Burris will be reviewed
without prejudice.
8. Dr. Burris agreed to issuance of a
Confirmatory Order confirming this
agreement.
In light of the actions Dr. Burris has
taken and agreed to take to correct the
violation and prevent recurrence, as set
forth in Section III above, the NRC has
concluded that its concerns regarding
the violation can be resolved through
the NRC’s confirmation of the
commitments as outlined in this
Confirmatory Order.
I find that Dr. Burris’ commitments as
set forth in Section III above are
acceptable. However, in view of the
foregoing, I have determined that these
commitments shall be confirmed by this
Confirmatory Order. Based on the
above, and Dr. Burris’ consent, this
Confirmatory Order is immediately
effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections
103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and the Commission’s
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR
part 30 and 35, it is hereby ordered, that:
1. Dr. Burris will (a) submit an article
for consideration to an appropriate
medical journal that reaches an
audience of cardiologists; (b) offer to
speak at a training session at a meeting
of the American Society of Nuclear
Cardiology, a similar society, or at a
Nuclear Cardiology symposium; and (c)
write a letter to local cardiologists
describing his experiences. In addition,
Dr. Burris agreed to meet with a hospital
RSO who has a knowledge of imaging
and localization studies in order to
review NRC requirements.
2. Dr. Burris will complete the actions
in Section V.1 within 12 months of the
date of this Order, and send a letter to
the NRC informing the NRC that these
actions are completed within 30 days of
completion of all actions.
The Director, Office of Enforcement,
may relax or rescind, in writing, any of
the above conditions upon a showing by
Dr. Burris of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this
Confirmatory Order, other than Dr.
Burris, may request a hearing within 20
days of its issuance. Where good cause
is shown, consideration will be given to
extending the time to request a hearing.
A request for extension of time must be
made in writing to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555,
and must include a statement of good
cause for the extension. Any request for
E:\FR\FM\06FEN1.SGM
06FEN1
6100
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2006 / Notices
a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ATTN: Chief, Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff, Washington,
DC 20555. Copies of the hearing request
shall also be sent to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to
the Assistant General Counsel for
Materials Litigation and Enforcement,
and to the Director of the Division of
Regulatory Improvement Programs at
the same address. Because of continuing
disruptions in delivery of mail to United
States Government offices, it is
requested that answers and requests for
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary
of the Commission either by means of
facsimile transmission to 301–415–1101
or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov
and also to the Office of the General
Counsel by means of facsimile
transmission to 301–415–3725 or e-mail
to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If such a
person requests a hearing, that person
shall set forth with particularity the
manner in which his interest is
adversely affected by this Order and
shall address the criteria set forth in 10
CFR § 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person
whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an Order
designating the time and place of any
hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to
be considered at such hearing shall be
whether this Confirmatory Order shall
be sustained. An answer or a request for
a hearing shall not stay the effectiveness
date of this order.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael Johnson,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–1570 Filed 2–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[EA–05–136]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
In the Matter of Digirad Imaging
Solutions, Inc.; Confirmatory Order
(Effective Immediately)
Digirad Imaging Solutions,
Incorporated (DIGIRAD or Licensee) is
the holder of Byproduct Material
License 31–30666–01 issued by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR
Parts 30 and 35. This mobile medical
license authorizes possession of
radionuclides for medical diagnosis,
including uptake, dilution and excretion
studies permitted by 10 CFR 35.100; and
imaging and localization studies
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:55 Feb 03, 2006
Jkt 208001
permitted by 10 CFR 35.200. The license
further authorizes possession and use of
byproduct material at specified facilities
located in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
West Virginia. The license also
authorizes use of byproduct material at
temporary jobsites of the licensee
anywhere in the United States where
the NRC maintains jurisdiction for
regulating the use of licensed material,
including areas of exclusive Federal
jurisdiction within Agreement States.
The license was originally issued on
August 21, 2001, was due to expire on
July 31, 2005, and is currently under
timely renewal pursuant to 10 CFR
30.36(a)(1).
On August 6, 2004, the NRC Office of
Investigations (OI) initiated an
investigation (OI Case No. 1–2004–034)
to determine if a physician listed on the
DIGIRAD NRC license submitted false
information to DIGIRAD in October
2003 to become an Authorized User
(AU) on its existing NRC license. Based
on the evidence developed during its
investigations, OI substantiated that
false and/or inaccurate information was
submitted to DIGIRAD by the physician
for the purpose of adding that physician
as an AU on the existing DIGIRAD NRC
license. The results of the investigation
completed on June 15, 2005, were sent
to DIGIRAD in a letter dated September
15, 2005. This letter stated that a
physician listed as an AU on DIGIRAD’s
NRC license deliberately provided
inaccurate information to DIGIRAD to
become an AU on DIGIRAD’s license,
but that DIGIRAD did not knowingly
submit the false information to the NRC
in an amendment request dated October
16, 2003, that it submitted to the NRC
to add the physician to the list of AUs
on the license.
Subsequent to becoming aware of the
NRC investigation and of the apparent
violation, DIGIRAD took several actions
to assure that these events would not
recur. These actions included: (a)
Immediately removing two AUs from its
license; (b) cancelling a contract it had
with one of the physicians; (c) attaching
to physicians and preceptors statement
form a notice equivalent to the
following: ‘‘Notice to Physician and
Preceptor: 10 CFR 30.9(a) and 30.10(a)
require that all information provided to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by
a licensee or its agents shall be complete
and accurate in all material respects.
The submission of false information
constitutes a serious violation of
applicable regulations and may cause
you or us to be fined, to lose licensing
privileges, or to suffer other significant
penalties.’’; and (d) requiring any
physician that is added to its license to
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sign and date a document containing a
statement equivalent to the following:
‘‘In connection with my application to
be named as an Authorized User on
Digirad Imaging Solution’s (‘‘DIS’’)
radioactive materials license, I am aware
that the submission of information that
is not complete and accurate in all
material respects is a violation of 10
CFR Sections 30.9(a) and 30.10(a). I
hereby represent and warrant that, to
the best of my knowledge, the
information I have submitted to DIS in
connection with my application to be
named as an Authorized User is
complete and accurate in all material
respects.’’
Also, in response to the NRC’s
September 15, 2005, letter, DIGIRAD
requested the use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) to resolve this
apparent violation and pending
enforcement action. ADR is a process in
which a neutral mediator, with no
decision-making authority, assists the
NRC and DIGIRAD to resolve any
disagreements on whether a violation
occurred, the appropriate enforcement
action, and the appropriate corrective
actions. An ADR session was held
between DIGIRAD and the NRC in King
of Prussia, PA, on November 14, 2005,
and was mediated by a professional
mediator, arranged through Cornell
University’s Institute of Conflict
Management. Based on discussions at
the ADR mediation session, as well as
subsequent discussions held on
December 14 and 15, 2005, between
Vera Pardee, Vice President and General
Counsel for DIGIRAD, and Karl Farrar,
Region I Counsel, a settlement
agreement was reached. The elements of
the settlement agreement consisted of
the following:
1. The NRC and DIGIRAD agreed to
disagree on the violation being in
careless disregard of NRC requirements.
2. DIGIRAD took the corrective
actions described in Section II above
prior to attending the ADR Mediation
Session on November 14, 2005.
3. As a means to provide added
assurance to meet the requirements of
10 CFR 30.9(a) and 30.10(a), DIGIRAD
agreed that for all future NRC AU
applicants, on a yearly basis, it will
audit the training and experience
credentials of the first 10 AU applicants
and 25% of any applications received
after the first 10. DIGIRAD will audit by
endeavoring to locate and call
preceptors as well as Continuing
Medical Education providers to verify
the information given by the AU
applicants. This does not eliminate the
requirement that DIGIRAD provide
complete and accurate information to
the NRC on all AU applicants. The
E:\FR\FM\06FEN1.SGM
06FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6098-6100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1570]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[EA 05-110]
In the Matter of Alfred C. Burris, Senior, M.D.; Confirmatory
Order (Effective Immediately)
Alfred C. Burris, Senior, M.D. (Dr. Burris) is a self-employed
cardiologist, who is licensed to practice medicine in the State of
Maryland and the District of Columbia. Dr. Burris submitted an
application for an NRC license dated February 2, 2004, to authorize use
of byproduct material for diagnostic nuclear medicine.
An investigation was initiated by the NRC Office of Investigations
(OI) on May 24, 2004, (OI Case No. 1-2004-028) to determine if Dr.
Burris submitted inaccurate and/or misleading information to the NRC in
his NRC application to be the sole authorized user (AU) as well as the
Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) on a license for use of byproduct
material for medical imaging and diagnostic purposes. During the course
of this investigation, OI identified that an NRC licensee, a mobile
cardiac imaging company, may have provided the same inaccurate
information in support of their amendment request to add Dr. Burris and
another physician to its NRC materials license as Authorized Users. On
August 6, 2004, OI initiated a separate investigation (OI Case No. 1-
2004-034) to determine if Dr. Burris submitted false information to an
NRC
[[Page 6099]]
licensee to become an AU on their existing NRC license. Based on the
evidence developed during its investigations, OI concluded that Dr.
Burris deliberately submitted false and/or inaccurate information (1)
to the NRC as an applicant for an NRC license and (2) to an NRC
licensee with the purpose to become an AU on their existing NRC
license. The results of the two investigations were completed by OI on
April 15, 2005 and June 15, 2005, and were sent to Dr. Burris in two
letters dated September 15, 2005.
Subsequent to becoming aware of the details of the apparent
violation, Dr. Burris took several prompt actions to assure that these
events would not recur. These actions included: (a) Correcting
inaccurate information for the record in a letter dated July 26, 2004;
(b) providing details of the violation to associates in the process of
getting character references; (c) supplementing his work experience in
May 2004, when he began working with the nuclear medicine technologists
at Greater Southeast Community Hospital; and (d) undertaking efforts to
better understand regulatory requirements through self study and review
of his consultant's letter of May 4, 2004.
In response to the NRC's September 15, 2005 letters, Dr. Burris
requested the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve
this apparent violation and pending enforcement action. ADR is a
process in which a neutral mediator, with no decision-making authority,
assists the NRC and the individual to resolve any disagreements on
whether a violation occurred, the appropriate enforcement action, and
the appropriate corrective actions. An ADR session was held between Dr.
Burris and the NRC in Rockville, MD, on December 1, 2005, and was
mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through Cornell
University's Institute of Conflict Management. During that ADR session,
a settlement agreement was reached. The elements of the settlement
agreement consisted of the following:
1. Dr. Burris agreed that he was in violation of NRC requirements
when, in an application for a new NRC license, dated February 2, 2004,
Dr. Burris submitted inaccurate information contrary to 10 CFR 30.9(a).
Specifically, his application indicated that Dr. Burris was listed as
an authorized user (AU) on the Greater Southeast Community Hospital
license, when he was not. In addition, the preceptor statement,
prepared by a radiologist and attached to his application, inaccurately
described required supervised work experience in handling nuclear
materials.
2. While NRC and Dr. Burris agreed the violation was not
deliberate, NRC maintained that it was in careless disregard of NRC's
regulation.
3. Dr. Burris, subsequent to becoming aware of the details of the
violation, took prompt actions to assure that he learned from this
violation and provided the NRC with assurance that it would not recur.
These actions included: (a) Correcting inaccurate information for the
record in a letter dated July 26, 2004; (b) providing details of the
violation to associates in the process of getting character references;
(c) supplementing his work experience in May 2004, when Dr. Burris
began working with the nuclear medicine technologists at Greater
Southeast Community Hospital; and (d) undertaking efforts to better
understand regulatory requirements through self study and review of his
consultant's letter of May 4, 2004.
4. During the ADR mediation session, Dr. Burris recognized an
opportunity for other potential Authorized Users/Radiation Safety
Officers in the industry to learn from his participation in the NRC
enforcement process and his experiences regarding the necessity to
provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. Therefore, Dr.
Burris agreed to take the following future corrective actions: (a)
Submit an article for consideration to an appropriate medical journal
that reaches an audience of cardiologists; (b) offer to speak at a
training session at a meeting of the American Society of Nuclear
Cardiology, a similar society, or at a Nuclear Cardiology symposium;
and (c) write a letter to local cardiologists describing his
experiences. In addition, Dr. Burris agreed to meet with a hospital RSO
who has a knowledge of imaging and localization studies in order to
review NRC requirements.
5. Dr. Burris agreed to complete the additional actions in Item 4
within 12 months of the date of the Order, and send a letter to the NRC
informing the NRC that these actions are completed. Dr. Burris agreed
to send this letter to the NRC within 30 days of completion of all
actions.
6. In light of the actions Dr. Burris took as described in Item 3,
those actions Dr. Burris has committed to take as described in Item 4,
and his cooperation in providing information during the ADR session,
the NRC agreed to issue a Severity Level III Notice of Violation (10
CFR 30.9) to Dr. Burris with no civil penalty. This action will be
publicly available in ADAMS, will appear on the NRC ``Significant
Enforcement Actions--Individuals'' Web site for a period of 1 year, and
will be discussed in a press release announcing the ADR agreement
between Dr. Burris and the NRC.
7. Any license application received from Dr. Burris will be
reviewed without prejudice.
8. Dr. Burris agreed to issuance of a Confirmatory Order confirming
this agreement.
In light of the actions Dr. Burris has taken and agreed to take to
correct the violation and prevent recurrence, as set forth in Section
III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns regarding the
violation can be resolved through the NRC's confirmation of the
commitments as outlined in this Confirmatory Order.
I find that Dr. Burris' commitments as set forth in Section III
above are acceptable. However, in view of the foregoing, I have
determined that these commitments shall be confirmed by this
Confirmatory Order. Based on the above, and Dr. Burris' consent, this
Confirmatory Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and
186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 30 and 35, it is hereby
ordered, that:
1. Dr. Burris will (a) submit an article for consideration to an
appropriate medical journal that reaches an audience of cardiologists;
(b) offer to speak at a training session at a meeting of the American
Society of Nuclear Cardiology, a similar society, or at a Nuclear
Cardiology symposium; and (c) write a letter to local cardiologists
describing his experiences. In addition, Dr. Burris agreed to meet with
a hospital RSO who has a knowledge of imaging and localization studies
in order to review NRC requirements.
2. Dr. Burris will complete the actions in Section V.1 within 12
months of the date of this Order, and send a letter to the NRC
informing the NRC that these actions are completed within 30 days of
completion of all actions.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may relax or rescind, in
writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by Dr. Burris of
good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other
than Dr. Burris, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance.
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the
time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made
in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and must include a
statement of good cause for the extension. Any request for
[[Page 6100]]
a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ATTN: Chief, Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff,
Washington, DC 20555. Copies of the hearing request shall also be sent
to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for
Materials Litigation and Enforcement, and to the Director of the
Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs at the same address.
Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States
Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General Counsel by
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If such a person requests a hearing, that person
shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is
adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set
forth in 10 CFR Sec. 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely
affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and
place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered
at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order shall be
sustained. An answer or a request for a hearing shall not stay the
effectiveness date of this order.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael Johnson,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-1570 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
