# Public Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America, Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Council, Intervenor

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · June 15, 1990 · 901 F.2d 147

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9480239

## Case

- **Full name:** PUBLIC CITIZEN, Et Al., Petitioners, v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and the United States of America, Respondents, Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Council, Intervenor
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** June 15, 1990
- **Citations:** 901 F.2d 147; 284 U.S. App. D.C. 41
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Williams
- **Judges:** Wald, Mikva, Edwards, Williams, Silberman, Ginsburg, Sentelle
- **Cited by:** 136 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9480239

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the NRC’s decision to reconsider in 1988 a policy that was initially promulgated in 1985 reopened the statutory period for seeking review, and commenting that “[t]he evidence of reopening is ... much stronger than required by our prior cases, for the Commission di…
- holding that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had reopened the notice and comment period where it “reconsidered [ ] the wisdom of its earlier, final rulemaking,” it had “reconsidered and reinstated its original policy,” thereby creating the opportunity for renewed comment
- holding that an agency can be said to have reopened a decision to judicial review when it “reiterates a rule or policy in such a way as to render the rule or policy subject to renewed challenge on any substantive grounds”
- holding that agency's decision to reconsider a rule three years after it was first promulgated prompted a new period for judicial review
- stating in dicta that citizen plaintiff could bring a substantive challenge to a rule after petitioning the agency

## Opinion text

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the denial of the suggestions for rehearing en banc: The Court here takes a statute directing the Commission to “promulgate regulations [, or other appropriate Commission regulatory guidance]” for various purposes, and produces something quite different, completely shorn of the bracketed language. I would call for rehearing en banc, but the statute appears unique and, perhaps more important, it seems to me not beyond the reach of agency expertise to devise “regulations” that preserve most if not all of the flexibility the Commission sought and, correctly I think, believes lawful. Certainly other agencies have done so. See, e.g., Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337 , 72 S.Ct. 329 , 96 L.Ed. 367 (1952).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9480239. Public record. Not legal advice.