Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-10-20/html/2015-26590.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:37:28+00:00

Document:
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 19, 2015.
issuance and remain in effect even during the pendency of a challenge.
confirm existing burdens and presiding officer authority.
in Section IV, ``Public Comment Analysis,'' of this document.
Deliberate Misconduct Rule were not adopted.
he acted with deliberate ignorance of their falsity. The jury found Mr.
\3\ United States v. Geisen, 612 F.3d 471, 485-86 (6th Cir.
v. Geisen, 2008 WL 6124567 (N.D. Ohio May 2, 2008)).
\6\ Geisen, LBP-09-24, 70 NRC at 709-26; see 10 CFR 50.5.
\8\ Geisen, CLI-10-23, 72 NRC at 249.
testimony in resolving such a challenge.
regulation, license condition, or previously issued Commission order.
challenges to the immediate effectiveness of an order.
a conforming amendment to update 10 CFR 150.2.
enforcement action against an individual for violating the rule.
subject to the NRC's jurisdiction.
\14\ 55 FR 12374; April 3, 1990.
\15\ 55 FR 12370; April 3, 1990.
\19\ 56 FR 40664; August 15, 1991.
additional changes pertained to immediately effective orders.
\27\ Id. at 20196. See also 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i).
02, 61 NRC 53, 61 (2005) (emphasis in original).
staff, not the party subject to the order.
extended. Id. Sec.  2.202(a)(2).'') (emphasis in the original).
testimony on challenges to the immediate effectiveness of orders.
\34\ 57 FR at 20196.
minor edits to improve clarity and readability.
activities under reciprocity in areas of NRC jurisdiction.
CFR 71.11 and replacing it with a cross reference to 10 CFR 71.8.
received no comments on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 150.2.
individuals who do not commit deliberate violations.
basis than deliberate ignorance, such as recklessness or negligence.
thereby further diminishing the utility of the proposed rule.
not actual knowledge will be rare.
the United States Supreme Court in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v.
SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011).
the transaction, either of which justify the [guilty] verdict . . .
\44\ See, e.g., U.S. v. Conner, 537 F.3d 480, 486 (5th Cir.
2008); U.S. v. Delreal-Ordones, 213 F.3d 1263, 1269 (10th Cir.
standards, including recklessness, negligence, and carelessness.
incorrect because the Geisen case was not a deliberate ignorance case.
does not rise to the level of a ``significant'' difference.
\45\ 56 FR 40664, 40674; August 15, 1991.
written.\46\ Conversely, DOJ's parallel criminal prosecution of Mr.
have been available to the NRC staff in the Geisen matter.
Geisen, CLI-10-23, 72 NRC 210, 251 (2010).
\47\ United States v. Geisen, 612 F.3d 471, 485 (6th Cir. 2010).
from the rule violations based on careless disregard and negligence.
ignorance and did not contain detailed discussion on the standards.
\51\ 55 FR 12375; April 3, 1990.
consider challenges to NRC enforcement orders.
\52\ 435 F.3d 331 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
applicable because it was a patent case, not a criminal case.
most commonly apply the deliberate ignorance standard in drug cases.
2073 (2011) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
years. The Supreme Court endorsed a similar concept in 1899 in Spurr v.
United States.\55\ In 1976, the Ninth Circuit in United States v.
\54\ Id. at 2068-69 (majority opinion).
\55\ See id. at 2069.
a `deliberate ignorance' charge, originated in United States v.
\58\ Alston-Graves, 435 F.3d at 341-42.
Federal circuits. The Hobbs Act, which NEI cited as providing the D.C.
\60\ 28 U.S.C. 2342(4), 2343.
that use on appeal. The Second Circuit, see, e.g., United States v.
deliberate ignorance or willful blindness in case law.
Cir. 2012); United States v. Butler, 646 F.3d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir.
\64\ See, e.g., United States v. Goffer, 721 F.3d 113, (2d Cir.
Inc. v. Goody's Family Clothing, Inc., 2003 WL 22331254 (N.D. Ga.
considerations for the final rule.
not to adopt the proposed amendments to the Deliberate Misconduct Rule.
did not reach this issue.
\65\ 56 FR 40675; August 15, 1991.
based on the violation's willfulness.
motion to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the order.
to adopt the proposed change.
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453 (1972)).
\67\ See David Geisen, LBP-06-25, 64 NRC 367, 397 n.131 (2006).
NRC therefore declines to do so.
effective order to challenge the immediate effectiveness of that order.
motion, to order live testimony.
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.319.
and redesignates that paragraph as 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(v).
those sentences as a new paragraph 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(vii).
not be effective pending further order of the Commission.
CFR 71.11 with a cross reference to 10 CFR 71.8.
or on participants in these proceedings.
amendments to 10 CFR 150.2.
information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0032.
the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis.
adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility.
elements because of particular health and safety considerations.
Federal Register, to adopt compatible regulations.
150.2...........................  Revised...........  Scope.............  D.................  D.
Source material, Special nuclear material.
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
rather than a written response.
Commission shall be permitted for this purpose.
further order of the Commission.
2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C.
5841); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141 (42 U.S.C.
10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of October, 2015.

References: v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.