16 U.S.C. § 798

Purpose and scope of preliminary permits; transfer and cancellation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Purpose

Each preliminary permit issued under this subchapter shall be for the sole purpose of maintaining priority of application for a license under the terms of this chapter for such period or periods, not exceeding a total of 4 years, as in the discretion of the Commission may be necessary for making examinations and surveys, for preparing maps, plans, specifications, and estimates, and for making financial arrangements.

(b) Extension of periodThe Commission may—(1) extend the period of a preliminary permit once for not more than 4 additional years beyond the 4 years permitted by subsection (a) if the Commission finds that the permittee has carried out activities under such permit in good faith and with reasonable diligence; and(2) after the end of an extension period granted under paragraph (1), issue an additional permit to the permittee if the Commission determines that there are extraordinary circumstances that warrant the issuance of the additional permit.(c) Permit conditions

Each such permit shall set forth the conditions under which priority shall be maintained.

(d) Non-transferability and cancellation of permits

Such permits shall not be transferable, and may be canceled by order of the Commission upon failure of permittees to comply with the conditions thereof or for other good cause shown after notice and opportunity for hearing.

(June 10, 1920, ch. 285, pt. I, § 5, 41 Stat. 1067; renumbered pt. I and amended, Aug. 26, 1935, ch. 687, title II, §§ 203, 212, 49 Stat. 841, 847; Pub. L. 113–23, § 5, Aug. 9, 2013, 127 Stat. 495; Pub. L. 115–270, title III, § 3001(a), Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3862.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–270, § 3001(a)(1), substituted “4 years” for “three years”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–270, § 3001(a)(2), inserted dash after “The Commission may”, designated remaining provisions as par. (1), substituted “4 additional years beyond the 4 years” for “2 additional years beyond the 3 years”, and added par. (2).

2013—Pub. L. 113–23 designated existing first, second, and third sentences as subsecs. (a), (c), and (d), respectively, and added subsec. (b).

1935—Act Aug. 26, 1935, § 203, amended section generally, striking out “and a license issued” at end of second sentence and inserting “or for other good cause shown after notice and opportunity for hearing” in last sentence.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases, 1932–2008 · leading case: National Wildlife Federation, Idaho Wildlife Federation, and the Nez Perce Tribe, Intervenor-Petitioner v. Federal Energ

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

National Wildlife Federation, Idaho Wildlife Federation, and the Nez Perce Tribe, Intervenor-Petitioner v. Federal Energ (1986) ca9 · cites it 2× “A preliminary permit gives the permittee a "priority of application for a license,” 16 U.S.C. § 798 , and thus encourages applicants to expend the resources necessary to prepare license applications.”

Metro Hydroelectric Co., LLC v. Metro Parks (2008) ca6 · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 798 . 1 As part of its application for a preliminary permit, MHC decided that, upon acceptance of its application for a preliminary permit, it would pursue a license via the Integrated Licensing Process (“ILP”).”

Friends of Keeseville, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1988) cadc “See 16 U.S.C. § 798 . Development of the project requires a license, see 16 U.”

City of Orrville v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1998) cadc “Whereas a preliminary permit cannot extend beyond a three-year period, see 16 U.S.C. § 798 , a license can be effective for up to fifty years, see id.”

Appomattox River Water Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Brasfield Development Ltd., Intervenor (1984) ca4 · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 798 . At the licensing stage, the FERC accepts and evaluates proposals from all interested parties.”

Town of Summersville, West Virginia v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Friends of the Earth, Intervenor (1986) cadc · cites it 2× “” 16 U.S.C. § 798 . 9 Although in this case the statutory purpose of fostering immediate development of the nation’s hydroelectric potential is not directly implicated since FERC may not license any project on a study river, Summersville should not have presumed that FERC would…”

Marseilles Land & Water Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2003) cadc “See 16 U.S.C. § 798 . The preliminary permit does not itself, however, give the bearer the right to develop the project.”

Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Tuolumne River Expeditions, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commi (1985) ca9 “16 U.S.C. § 798 . The permit itself does not allow the applicant to conduct any studies on federal lands.”

Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1997) ca9 “16 U.S.C. § 798 . At the licensing stage, while FERC accepts and evaluates proposals submitted by all interested parties, the permit holder is accorded preference for the award of the license and receives the license so long as its plans are equally well-adapted to the…”

Cities of Anaheim and Riverside, California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Southern California Edison Company, (1982) cadc “Section 5, 16 U.S.C. § 798 , reads in part: Each preliminary permit issued under this Part [ 16 U.”

City of Gillette, Wyoming v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1984) ca10 “16 U.S.C. § 798 ; 18 C.F.R. § 4.30 (b), (c).”

Kamargo Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Intervenor (1988) cadc “16 U.S.C. § 798 ; see also 18 C.F.R. 4.33(b) (1987).”

Show all 23 citing cases →

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.