This part prescribes rules governing the licensing (including issuance of a construction authorization) of the U.S. Department of Energy to receive and possess source, special nuclear, and byproduct material at a geologic repository operations area sited, constructed, or operated in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. This part does not apply to any activity licensed under another part of this chapter. This part does not apply to the licensing of the U.S. Department of Energy to receive and possess source, special nuclear, and byproduct material at a geologic repository operations area sited, constructed, or operated at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1992, as amended, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, subject to part 63 of this chapter. This part also gives notice to all persons who knowingly provide to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's or applicant's activities subject to this part, that they may be individually subject to NRC enforcement action for violation of § 60.11.
[69 FR 2279, Jan. 14, 2004]
Notes of Decisions
Gay v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 420 (Ct. Cl. 1966).
“10 C.F.R. §60.1 (1949 Ed.). On the same day, the AEC announced in Circular No.”
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
“at 404 (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 60.1 (a) (1949)). The court rejected the defendant’s contention that the regulation was “a mere invitation to the industry to make offers to the Government” and instead agreed with the plaintiff that the regulation “was an offer, which ripened into a…”
Cmty. Health Choice, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
“at 404 (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 60.1 (a) (1949)). The court rejected the defendant’s contention that the regulation was “a mere invitation to the industry to make offers to the Government” and instead agreed with the plaintiff that the regulation “was an offer, which ripened into a…”
Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
“at 404 (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 60.1 (a) (1949)). The court rejected the defendant’s contention that the regulation was “a mere invitation to the industry to make offers to the Government” and instead agreed with the plaintiff that the regulation “was an offer, which ripened into a…”
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.