18 C.F.R. § 2.19

State and Federal comprehensive plans

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

(a) In determining whether the proposed hydroelectric project is best adapted to a comprehensive plan under section (10)(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act for improving or developing a waterway, the Commission will consider the extent to which the project is consistent with a comprehensive plan (where one exists) for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project that is prepared by:

(1) An agency established pursuant to Federal law that has the authority to prepare such a plan, or

(2) A state agency, of the state in which the facility is or will be located, authorized to conduct such planning pursuant to state law.

(b) The Commission will treat as a state or Federal comprehensive plan a plan that:

(1) Is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways;

(2) Includes a description of the standards applied, the data relied upon, and the methodology used in preparing the plan; and

(3) Is filed with the Secretary of the Commission.

[Order 481-A, 53 FR 15804, May 4, 1988]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1983–1983 · leading case: Paul Elmer Melvin v. Joseph S. Petrovsky, Warden, United States Med. Ctr. for Fed. Prisoners, United States Parole Comm'n, 720 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Paul Elmer Melvin v. Joseph S. Petrovsky, Warden, United States Med. Ctr. for Fed. Prisoners, United States Parole Comm'n, 720 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1983). “Melvin contends that there is no showing on the record before this court that the Commission made such a finding on the issue of the extent of the theft.”

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.