18 C.F.R. § 4.40

Applicability

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

(a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart apply to any application for an initial license for a major unconstructed project that would have a total installed capacity of more than 10 megawatts, and any application for an initial or new license for a major modified project with a total installed capacity more than 10 megawatts. An applicant for license for any major unconstructed or major modified water power project that would have a total installed generating capacity of 10 megawatts or less must submit application under subpart G of this part (§§ 4.60 and 4.61).

(b) Guidance from Commission staff. A prospective applicant for a license for a major unconstructed project or major modified project may seek advice from the Commission's Office of Energy Projects regarding the applicability of this subpart to its project [see § 4.32(h)], including the determinations whether any proposed repair, modification or reconstruction of an existing dam would result in a significant change in the normal maximum surface elevation of an existing impoundment, or whether any proposed change in existing project works or operation would result in a significant environmental impact.

[Order 184, 46 FR 55936, Nov. 13, 1981, as amended by Order 413, 50 FR 11683, Mar. 25, 1985; Order 499, 53 FR 27002, July 18, 1988; Order 2002, 68 FR 51119, Aug. 25, 2003; Order 877, 86 FR 42714, Aug. 5, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1982–1984 · leading case: Cities of Anaheim & Riverside, California v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, S. California Edison Co., Intervenor, 692 F.2d 773 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cities of Anaheim & Riverside, California v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, S. California Edison Co., Intervenor, 692 F.2d 773 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “, 18 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 -.41, 4.50-.51 (1981), with the knowledge that its resulting license application will receive a priority during final consideration.”

Appomattox River Water Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Brasfield Dev. Ltd., Intervenor, 736 F.2d 1000 (4th Cir. 1984). “§ 802 ; 18 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 -.70. The licensee will not necessarily be the permittee; however, if license applicants’ plans are equally well-adapted, the FERC will prefer the permittee.”

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.