10 C.F.R. § 50.100

Revocation, suspension, modification of licenses, permits, and approvals for cause

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

A license, permit, or standard design approval under parts 50 or 52 of this chapter may be revoked, suspended, or modified, in whole or in part, for any material false statement in the application or in the supplemental or other statement of fact required of the applicant; or because of conditions revealed by the application or statement of fact of any report, record, inspection, or other means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license, permit, or approval on an original application (other than those relating to §§ 50.51, 50.42, and 50.43(b)); or for failure to manufacture a reactor, or construct or operate a facility in accordance with the terms of the permit or license, provided, however, that failure to make timely completion of the proposed construction or alteration of a facility under a construction permit under part 50 of this chapter or a combined license under part 52 of this chapter shall be governed by the provisions of § 50.55(b); or for violation of, or failure to observe, any of the terms and provisions of the act, regulations, license, permit, approval, or order of the Commission.

[72 FR 49504, Aug. 28, 2007, as amended at 89 FR 57720, July 16, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 100 F.4th 1039 (9th Cir. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 100 F.4th 1039 (9th Cir. 2024). “§ 2236 (a); 10 C.F.R. § 50.100 ; 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 (a).”

Nader v. Ray, 363 F. Supp. 946 (D.D.C. 1973). “§ 2236 (a)) and also in violation of its own regulations ( 10 C.F.R. § 50.100 ). The complaint asserts that under the facts alleged therein, the AEC is under a non-discretionary legal duty to revoke the operating licenses of 20 named nuclear power reactors.”

Arnow v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 868 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1989). “40 (a) (1988), and 10 C.F.R. 50.100 (1988) provide us with a sufficient standard for judicial review.”

Aamodt v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 771 F.2d 720 (3rd Cir. 1985). “10 C.F.R. § 50.100 (1985). The Commission’s statement that it lacked assurance, therefore, marked a recognition that the original license was invalid, and hearings were ordered to determine whether the imposition of restrictive conditions would be “necessary and sufficient to…”

Jacob Arnow v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 868 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1989). “40(a) (1988), and 10 C.F.R. 50.100 (1988) provide us with a sufficient standard for judicial review.”

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.