C.F.R. » Title 10 » CHAPTER I—NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION › PART 2—AGENCY RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE › Subpart B—Procedure for Imposing Requirements by Order, or for Modification, Suspension, or Revocation of a License, or for Imposing Civil Penalties

10 C.F.R. § 2.206

Requests for action under this subpart

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any person may file a request to institute a proceeding pursuant to § 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for any other action as may be proper. Requests must be addressed to the Executive Director for Operations and must be filed either by hand delivery to the NRC's Offices at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; by mail or telegram addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; or by electronic submissions, for example, via facsimile, Electronic Information Exchange, e-mail, or CD-ROM. Electronic submissions must be made in a manner that enables the NRC to receive, read, authenticate, distribute, and archive the submission, and process and retrieve it a single page at a time. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions can be obtained by visiting the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html; by e-mail to [email protected]; or by writing the Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The request must specify the action requested and set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request. The Executive Director for Operations will refer the request to the Director of the NRC office with responsibility for the subject matter of the request for appropriate action in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Within a reasonable time after a request pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section has been received, the Director of the NRC office with responsibility for the subject matter of the request shall either institute the requested proceeding in accordance with this subpart or shall advise the person who made the request in writing that no proceeding will be instituted in whole or in part, with respect to the request, and the reasons for the decision.

(c)(1) Director's decisions under this section will be filed with the Office of the Secretary. Within twenty-five (25) days after the date of the Director's decision under this section that no proceeding will be instituted or other action taken in whole or in part, the Commission may on its own motion review that decision, in whole or in part, to determine if the Director has abused their discretion. This review power does not limit in any way either the Commission's supervisory power over delegated staff actions or the Commission's power to consult with the staff on a formal or informal basis regarding institution of proceedings under this section.

(2) No petition or other request for Commission review of a Director's decision under this section will be entertained by the Commission.

(3) The Secretary is authorized to extend the time for Commission review on its own motion of a Director's denial under paragraph (c) of this section.

[39 FR 12353, Apr. 5, 1974, as amended at 42 FR 36240, July 14, 1977; 45 FR 73466, Nov. 5, 1980; 52 FR 31608, Aug. 21, 1987; 53 FR 43419, Oct. 27, 1988; 64 FR 48948, Sept. 9, 1999; 68 FR 58799, Oct. 10, 2003; 69 FR 2236, Jan. 14, 2004; 69 FR 41749, July 12, 2004; 74 FR 62679, Dec. 1, 2009; 80 FR 74978, Dec. 1, 2015; 88 FR 57876, Aug. 24, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985). · cites it 14× “" 10 CFR § 2.206 (a) (1984). I Respondent Joette Lorion, on behalf of the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, wrote the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 11, 1981, to express fears about potential safety threats at petitioner Florida Power and Light Company's Turkey…”
Morris v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 598 F.3d 677 (10th Cir. 2010). · cites it 8× “the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding.”
Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “” The next day, CAN filed a petition for agency review under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 , 3 requesting that the NRC halt the CRP activities pending an investigation by the Inspector General’s office.”
Pub. Watchdogs v. S. California Edison Co., 984 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 6× “EDISON 5 that should have first been pursued before the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 . The panel held that Public Watchdogs’s claims against private defendants, Holtec International and the utility defendants, fell within the scope of the Hobbs Act.”
Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States of Am., the Detroit Edison Co., Intervenor, 866 F.2d 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “Since the Commission itself did not undertake to review this Director’s decision within 25 days, 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 (c)(1), it became the final action of the agency in December 1987.”
Bellotti v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1983). · cites it 6× “Petitioner Bellotti is in no sense left without recourse by the NRC’s denial of intervention in the Boston Edison proceeding.”
Commonwealth v. Brugmann, 433 N.E.2d 457 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). · cites it 2× “to modify, suspend or revoke a license [to operate a plant], or for such other action as may be proper” ( 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 [a] [1981]) and that “[w]ithin a reasonable time” thereafter, the agency shall either institute such proceeding or state written reasons for not doing so (…”
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 100 F.4th 1039 (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “Lorion considered the reviewability of NRC’s denial of a citizen petition under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 requesting that the NRC institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke the license of a nuclear reactor.”
Susquehanna Valley All. v. Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor, 619 F.2d 231 (3rd Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “It points to its regulation, 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 , which authorizes any person to file a request with the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, or the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, to institute a proceeding to modify, suspend or revoke a license or…”
Rockford League of Women Voters v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, Commonwealth Edison Co., Intervenor-Respondent, 679 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir. 1982). “” Similarly, a determination under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 to initiate a license-revocation proceeding is a necessary first step in that proceeding.”
Energy Probe & W. Reserve All. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & the United States of Am., 872 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “PER CURIAM: Joint petitioners Energy Probe and Western Reserve Alliance seek to challenge the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) denial of their request, made under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 (1988), to suspend the Perry Nuclear Power Plant’s operating license because of…”
People of the State of Illinois v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & the United States of Am., & Gen. Elec. Co., Intervenor, 591 F.2d 12 (7th Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “The director denied the request in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(b) which states: Within a reasonable time after a request pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section has been received, the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards .”
Show all 63 citing cases →
— 10 C.F.R. § 2.206(a) — 1 case
People of the State of Illinois v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & the United States of Am., & Gen. Elec. Co., Intervenor, 591 F.2d 12 (7th Cir. 1979). “The director denied the request in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(b) which states: Within a reasonable time after a request pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section has been received, the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards .”
— 10 C.F.R. § 2.206(b) — 1 case
People of the State of Illinois v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & the United States of Am., & Gen. Elec. Co., Intervenor, 591 F.2d 12 (7th Cir. 1979). “The director denied the request in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(b) which states: Within a reasonable time after a request pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section has been received, the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.