18 C.F.R. § 4.104

Amendment of exemption

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

(a) An exemption holder must construct and operate its project as described in the exemption application approved by the Commission or its delegate.

(b) If an exemption holder desires to change the design, location, method of construction or operation of its project, it must first notify the appropriate Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and inform them in writing of the changes it intends to implement. If these agencies determine that the changes would not cause the project to violate the terms and conditions imposed by the agencies, and if the changes would not materially alter the design, location, method of construction or operation of the project, the exemption holder may implement the changes. If any of these agencies determines that the changes would cause the project to violate the terms and conditions imposed by that agency, or if the changes would materially alter the design, location, method of construction or the operation of the project works, the exemption holder may not implement the changes without first acquiring authorization from the Commission to amend its exemption or acquiring a license for the project works that authorizes the project, as changed.

(c) An application to amend an exemption may be filed only by the holder of an exemption. An application to amend an exemption will be governed by the Commission's regulations governing applications for exemption. The Commission will not accept applications in competition with an application to amend an exemption, unless the Director of the Office of Energy Projects determines that it is in the public interest to do so.

[Order 413, 50 FR 11688, Mar. 25, 1985, as amended by Order 699, 72 FR 45324, Aug. 14, 2007]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1983–1986 · leading case: Mary Jane Ruderman Hirschey v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Long Lake Energy Corp., Intervenor, 701 F.2d 215 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mary Jane Ruderman Hirschey v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Long Lake Energy Corp., Intervenor, 701 F.2d 215 (D.C. Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Although 18 C.F.R. § 4.104 (e)(2) 7 contemplates the filing of competing applications, that provision simply provides that the first filed application will be favored unless the FERC affirmatively finds that the later filed application is measurably better.”

City of Centralia, Washington v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, & Pac. Power & Light Co., Respondent-Intervenor, 799 F.2d 475 (9th Cir. 1986). “” 18 C.F.R. § 4.104 (e)(1) (1984). The Commission applies this preference for exemption applications in a two-step analysis.”

Int'l Paper Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 737 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “2 Commission rules also provide that where mutually exclusive license applications are filed, the first-filed applicant will be favored “unless the Commission determines the plans of the subsequent applicant would better develop the .”

Phoenix Hydro Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 775 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “18 C.F.R. § 4.104 (b). We can see no rhyme or reason for ignoring these regulations when the two applications are filed simultaneously.”

Phoenix Hydro Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Long Lake Energy Corp., Intervenor. Phoenix Hydro Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Long Lake Energy Corp., Intervenor, 775 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “18 C.F.R. 4.104(b). The regulations contemplate that only two events will have the effect of withdrawing the preliminary permit application: withdrawal by the applicant, or the applicant's receipt of an exemption.”

— 18 C.F.R. § 4.104(b) — 2 cases

Phoenix Hydro Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 775 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “18 C.F.R. § 4.104 (b). We can see no rhyme or reason for ignoring these regulations when the two applications are filed simultaneously.”

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.