C.F.R. » Title 10 » CHAPTER I—NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION › PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

10 C.F.R. § 51.5

Interpretations

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

Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Commission. This section shall cease to have effect on January 8, 2027, unless the NRC determines that the cessation deadline should be extended to a date not more than 5 years in the future after offering the public an opportunity to provide input on the costs and benefits of this section and considering that input. The NRC will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing its determination and revising or removing this section accordingly.

[49 FR 9381, Mar. 12, 1984, as amended at 90 FR 55630, Dec. 3, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1979–1984 · leading case: The Twp. of Lower Alloways Creek v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., & the United States of Am. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Twp. of Lower Alloways Creek v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., & the United States of Am. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir. 1982). “10 C.F.R. § 51.5 (a) (1982). Other specified actions ordinarily do not require preparation of an EIS.”
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States of Am., Westinghouse Elec. Corp., Intervenor, 647 F.2d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “ioners, in comments submitted to NRC, took the opposite position, arguing that [t]here is no question that issuance of an export license for a nuclear facility or nuclear components is a “major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” within…”
City of West Chicago v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Thus, an agency could approve one pending project that is fully covered by an impact statement, then take into consideration the environmental effects of that existing project when preparing the comprehensive statement on the cumulative impact of the remaining proposals. . The…”
Susquehanna Valley All. v. Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor, 485 F. Supp. 81 (M.D. Penn. 1979). “See 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.5 through 51.26. If plaintiffs desire a more comprehensive environmental analysis than that which NRC has agreed to provide, the breadth of the regulation would permit a request for an integrated environmental impact statement on the entire decontamination…”
People Against Nuclear Energy v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 678 F.2d 222 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “See 10 C.F.R. § 51.5 (d)(1) (1981) (NRC regulations implementing more general CEQ guidelines).”
Ctr. for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 586 F. Supp. 579 (D.D.C. 1984). “10 C.F.R. § 51.5 (d) states that “an environmental impact statement .”
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.