
    James SALSMAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
    No. 08-74043.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 14, 2010.
    James Salsman, Emeryville, CA, pro se.
    Allen M. Brabender, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Maxwell C. Smith, Esquire, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, Karen D. Cyr, Esquire, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel, Rockville, MD, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Salsman's request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Salsman petitions pro se for review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (“NRC”) decision denying his petition for rulemaking to amend NRC’s regulations concerning the environmental and exposure limits for heavy metal ra-dionuclides, and to reclassify uranium solubility. See 10 C.F.R. Part 20. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of Article III standing because Salsman did not demonstrate that he suffered an “injury in fact” that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     