Proposed Rule2025-20898
Authorizations for Certain Activities at Liquefied Natural Gas Plants
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 25, 2025
Issuing agencies
Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Abstract
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks information and stakeholder perspectives to help the Commission explore whether, and if so how, to revise our Part 153, 157, and 380 regulations to establish procedures for authorizing activities at liquefied natural gas plants without case-specific authorization orders under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 225 (Tuesday, November 25, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 25, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53251-53255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-20898]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Parts 153, 157, and 380
[Docket No. RM26-2-000]
Authorizations for Certain Activities at Liquefied Natural Gas
Plants
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks
information and stakeholder perspectives to help the Commission explore
whether, and if so how, to revise our Part 153, 157, and 380
regulations to establish procedures for authorizing activities at
liquefied natural gas plants without case-specific authorization orders
under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
DATES: Comments are due January 26, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing through <a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>, is
preferred.
<bullet> Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
<bullet> For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
[cir] Mail via US Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426.
[cir] Hand (Including Courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
The Comment Procedures Section of this document contains more
detailed filing procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Danielle Elefritz (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8767.
Andrew Kohout (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-8053.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. In this notice of inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) seeks information and stakeholder perspectives
to help the Commission explore whether, and if so how, to revise its
Part 153, 157, and 380 regulations to establish procedures for
authorizing activities at liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants \1\
without the need for case-specific authorization
[[Page 53252]]
applications and orders under sections 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LNG facilities make up the larger LNG plant. LNG plants
include LNG terminals authorized under section 3 of the NGA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
A. Statutory Framework
2. The Commission regulates the siting, construction, expansion,
and operation of LNG facilities pursuant to sections 3 and 7 of the
NGA. Section 3(a) provides for federal jurisdiction over the siting,
construction, expansion, and operation of facilities used to export or
import natural gas.\2\ Section 3(e)(1) states that ``[t]he Commission
shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application
for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG
terminal.'' \3\ And under section 7(c), the Commission issues
certificates of public convenience and necessity for natural gas and
LNG facilities used for the transportation of natural gas in interstate
commerce.\4\ Under both section 3 and section 7, the Commission has the
authority to include terms and conditions in any order authorizing an
LNG facility.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 717b(a). The 1977 Department of Energy (DOE)
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b)) placed all section 3
jurisdiction under DOE. The Secretary of Energy subsequently
delegated authority to the Commission to ``[a]pprove or disapprove
the construction and operation of particular facilities, the site at
which such facilities shall be located, and with respect to natural
gas that involves the construction of new domestic facilities, the
place of entry for imports or exit for exports.'' DOE Delegation
Order S1-DEL-FERC-2006, section 1.21A (May 16, 2006). See
EarthReports, Inc. v. FERC, 828 F.3d 949, 952-53 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
(detailing how regulatory oversight for the export of LNG and
supporting facilities is divided between the Commission and DOE).
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 717b(e)(1). LNG terminal is defined as: ``all
natural gas facilities located onshore or in State waters that are
used to receive, unload, load, store, transport, gasify, liquefy, or
process natural gas that is imported to the United States . . . ,
exported to a foreign country . . . , or transported in interstate
commerce by waterborne vessel, but does not include (A) waterborne
vessels used to deliver natural gas to or from any such facility; or
(B) any pipeline or storage facility subject to the jurisdiction of
the Commission under [section 7].'' Id. 717a(11).
\4\ Id. 717f(c)(1)(A).
\5\ Id. 717b(a), 717b(e)(3), 717f(e). For a discussion of the
Commission's authority to condition its approvals of LNG facilities
under section 3 of the NGA, see, e.g., Distrigas Corp. v. FPC, 495
F.2d 1057, 1063-64 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 834
(1974); Dynegy LNG Prod. Terminal, L.P., 97 FERC ] 61,231 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The NGA also includes additional requirements that must be met
prior to authorizing the construction of LNG terminals.\6\ Pursuant to
section 3A(a) of the NGA,\7\ the Commission promulgated regulations
requiring LNG operators to use a pre-filing process for an application
for authorization to construct or modify an LNG terminal.\8\ Section
3(f) requires that the Commission obtain the concurrence of the
Secretary of War before authorizing the siting, construction,
expansion, or operation of LNG facilities affecting the training or
activities of an active military installation.\9\ Section 3A(e) states
that ``[i]n any order authorizing an LNG terminal the Commission shall
require the LNG terminal operator to develop an Emergency Response Plan
[that] shall be prepared in consultation with the United States Coast
Guard and State and local agencies and be approved by the Commission
prior to any final approval to begin construction [and] shall include a
cost-sharing plan.'' \10\ The plan is to describe any direct cost
reimbursements that the applicant will provide to state and local
agencies responsible for safety and security at the LNG terminal and in
proximity to vessels that serve the facility.\11\ Additionally, section
3A(c) allows states to provide a report on state and local safety
considerations which ``the Commission shall review and respond
specifically to the issues raised . . . .'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ These requirements do not apply to NGA section 7 LNG
facilities, including LNG peak shaving facilities which store gas in
interstate commerce.
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 717b-1(a).
\8\ 18 CFR 157.21. The Commission's regulations allow for the
Director of the Office of Energy Projects to waive the mandatory
pre-filing procedures when prospective modifications to an existing
LNG terminal do not involve significant state and local safety
considerations that have not been previously addressed.
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 717b(f). Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Department of War, the Commission issues a letter to the
Department, which then responds indicating whether or not there are
no or minimal impacts to military installations and operations.
\10\ Id. 717b-1(e).
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id. 717b-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Modifications to already-approved, operating LNG facilities may
need to be undertaken during the life of the facilities.\13\ Such
modifications may currently necessitate that the operator file a case-
specific application, on which the Commission will make a public
interest determination.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ LNG projects occurring during operation may include: safety
system installations, existing equipment upgrades or replacements,
emissions controls, system modifications to enable integration with
non-jurisdictional activities (helium extraction or offsite carbon
capture and sequestration), uprates, extra power generation, and new
LNG trains, storage tanks, or loading berths.
\14\ 18 CFR part 153 (detailing the requirements for
applications filed pursuant to section 3 of the NGA); 18 CFR part
157 (detailing the requirements for applications filed pursuant to
section 7 of the NGA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Existing Regulations for Authorizing Routine Activities Under
Section 7
5. Under Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission's regulations,\15\
interstate pipelines that hold a certificate of public convenience and
necessity under NGA section 7 may apply for a one-time blanket
certificate to undertake, without a case-specific authorization,
certain activities automatically, subject only to annual reporting
requirements \16\ and certain other activities after prior notice,\17\
both subject to cost limits.\18\ The blanket certificate program
``provide[s] streamlined procedures which increase flexibility and
reduce regulatory burden'' for a generic class of routine activities
with particular conditions and procedures for consistency with the
Commission's statutory obligations under the NGA and environmental
statutes.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 18 CFR part 157, subpart F.
\16\ Id. 157.203(b), 157.208(a), (e).
\17\ Id. 157.203(c), 157.208(b).
\18\ Id. 157.208(d), 157.215(a)(5). The cost limits are adjusted
each year to reflect the ``GDP implicit price deflator'' published
by the Department of Commerce for the previous calendar year. Id.
157.208(d).
\19\ Interstate Pipeline Certificates for Routine Transactions,
Order No. 234, 47 FR 24254, at 24256, 24263 (June 4, 1982), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368, at 30,201 (1982) (cross-referenced at 19
FERC ] 61,216); see also Revisions to the Blanket Certificate
Reguls. & Clarification Regarding Rates, Order No. 686, 71 FR 63680
(Oct. 31, 2006), 117 FERC ] 61,074, at P 7 (2006) (``The blanket
certificate program was designed to provide an administratively
efficient means to authorize a generic class of routine activities,
without subjecting each minor project to a full, case-specific NGA
section 7 certificate proceeding.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. In 1982, in instituting the blanket certificate program, the
Commission explained that:
[T]he final regulations divide the various actions that the
Commission certificates into several categories. The first category
applies to certain activities performed by interstate pipelines that
either have relatively little impact on ratepayers, or little effect
on pipeline operations. This first category also includes minor
investments in facilities which are so well understood as an
established industry practice that little scrutiny is required to
determine their compatibility with the public convenience and
necessity. The second category of activities provides for a notice
and protest procedure and comprises certain activities in which
various interested parties might have a concern. In such cases there
is a need to provide an opportunity for a greater degree of review
and to provide for possible adjudication of controversial aspects.
Activities not authorized under the blanket certificate are those
activities which may have a major potential impact on ratepayers, or
which propose such important considerations that close scrutiny and
case-specific deliberation by the Commission is
[[Page 53253]]
warranted prior to the issuance of a certificate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,200.
7. The notice and protest procedures for prior notice projects
allow anyone, including Commission staff, to protest a prior notice
project within 60 days and, if a protest is not withdrawn or dismissed,
the project is reviewed as an application for case-specific
authorization under NGA section 7(c).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 18 CFR 157.205(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Blanket certificate activities are subject to the conditions in
the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA),\22\ as well as requirements that all blanket
certificate activities be consistent with all applicable laws,
including the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation
Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other applicable statutes
relating to environmental concerns.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id. part 380. Certain activities undertaken pursuant to the
blanket certificate are categorically excluded from NEPA review. Id.
380.4(a)(21).
\23\ Id. 157.206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In addition to the blanket program, Sec. 2.55 of the
Commission's regulations allows pipeline companies to perform auxiliary
installations and facility replacements at section 7(c) facilities
without a case-specific authorization.\24\ For activities undertaken
pursuant to either the blanket certificate program or Sec. 2.55,
section 7(c) certificate holders are required to provide advance notice
to affected landowners.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id. 2.55. LNG facilities authorized under section 7 of the
NGA may use the procedures outlined in Sec. 2.55.
\25\ Id. 157.203(d)(1) (requiring affected landowners to be
notified of automatic authorization projects at least 45 days prior
to commencing construction or at the time it initiates easement
negotiations, whichever is earlier); id. 157.203(d)(2) (requiring
affected landowners to be notified of prior notice projects within
three days following the date that a docket number is assigned to
the application or at the time it initiates easement negotiations,
whichever is earlier); id. 2.55(c) (requiring a good faith effort to
notify in writing each affected landowner at least five days prior
to commencing any activity except for activities for which all
ground disturbance will be within an existing above-ground site or
those done for safety, DOT compliance, or environmental or unplanned
maintenance that are not foreseen and that require immediate
attention).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. In two earlier blanket certificate rulemakings decades prior to
this, the Commission declined to extend the program to include LNG
facilities. In the 1982 rulemaking, the Commission excluded LNG
facilities from the program, finding that they ``may have a significant
impact on ratepayers'' and therefore ``should not be authorized under a
blanket certificate, but should be subjected instead to the scrutiny of
a case-specific determination.'' \26\ In 2006, the Commission revised
its blanket certificate regulations but again declined to extend the
program to include LNG facilities.\27\ The Commission explained that
``LNG plant facilities are not within the class of minor, well-
understood, routine activities that the blanket certificate program is
intended to embrace; LNG plant facilities necessarily require a review
of engineering, environmental, safety, and security issues that the
Commission believes only can be properly considered on a case-by-case
basis.'' \28\ The Commission summarized on rehearing that ``the blanket
certificate program is not well suited to address the complexity
inherent in issues raised by LNG . . . facilities.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,206.
\27\ Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074 at PP 18-23.
\28\ Id. P 21 (quoting Revisions to the Blanket Certificate
Reguls. & Clarification Regarding Rates, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 71 FR 36276 (June 26, 2006), 115 FERC ] 61,338, at PP
29-30 (2006)).
\29\ Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Reguls. &
Clarification Regarding Rates, Order No. 686-A, 72 FR 37431 (July
10, 2007), 119 FERC ] 61,303, at P 22 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Commission's experience with LNG facilities in the United
States has changed considerably since the 1982 and 2006 rulemakings. As
mentioned above, the 2006 rulemaking stated that the complexity of
issues raised by LNG facilities, and the Commission's limited
experience with these issues at the time, precluded including them in
the blanket program.\30\ Since that time, both the Commission and
industry have gained significant experience regarding the engineering,
environmental, safety, and security issues at LNG plants. The
Commission has evaluated more than 100 LNG project applications since
2006 under NGA section 3 and 7. Staff have also engaged in extensive
coordination with the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the US Coast
Guard (USCG), which are also involved in safety for these facilities,
to proactively develop established safety standards and best practices
with the LNG industry.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id. PP 22-23.
\31\ In individual proceedings, the Commission has issued over
4,500 requirements, including approximately 4,000 requirements that
have been coordinated with PHMSA and the USCG regarding the
engineering, safety, security, and reliability of those projects in
accordance with a 2004 Interagency Agreement. Interagency Agreement
Among the FERC, USCG, and [PHMSA] for the Safety and Security Review
of Waterfront Import/Export LNG Facilities, February 11, 2004,
<a href="https://www.ferc.gov/media/2004-interagency-dot-and-uscg">https://www.ferc.gov/media/2004-interagency-dot-and-uscg</a>, Accessed
October 2025. Approximately 30 of these orders were issued after a
2018 Memorandum of Understanding with DOT for coordination between
the Commission and PHMSA on determining whether proposed LNG
facilities comply with PHMSA's siting requirements contained in 49
CFR part 193 Subpart B. Interagency Agreement Among the FERC, USCG,
and [PHMSA] for the Safety and Security Review of Waterfront Import/
Export LNG Facilities, February 11, 2004, <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/media/2004-interagency-dot-and-uscg">https://www.ferc.gov/media/2004-interagency-dot-and-uscg</a>, Accessed October 2025.
Commission staff, along with DOT PHMSA and US Coast Guard
representatives, have also actively participated in an LNG Technical
Committee and Commission staff has made over 300 proposals since
2016 to update subsequent versions of the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and
Handling of LNG, to improve the safety, security, and reliability of
LNG projects consistent with the requirements that the Commission
imposes on LNG facilities in its authorization orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Changes in the LNG market have also led to an expansion in the
number of projects that the Commission regulates. Since 2006, the
United States has emerged as the world's largest LNG exporter with
seven large-scale LNG export terminals currently in operation, eight
new or expanded export projects in construction, and additional
terminals and expansions expected over the next several years. Although
certain changes and variances are permitted during LNG terminal
construction, changes to an operating LNG terminal--in some cases even
routine adjustments like equipment replacements--may currently require
a case-specific authorization. With more LNG facilities in operation in
the United States, the current case-by-case review process for certain
replacements, modifications, and expansions may be administratively
inefficient, slow down needed projects, and create unnecessary
regulatory uncertainty. In addition, many LNG facilities under section
7 have been in operation for 50 years. While many have been able to
replace existing facilities under Sec. 2.55 provisions, there is less
regulatory certainty whether those provisions can be used to make
replacements, modifications, or expansions to accommodate changes in
feed gas compositions, changes in technology, or other conditions.
Thus, the Commission believes that reconsidering allowing an automatic
and/or prior-notice authorization program for certain activities is
warranted.
II. Subject of the Notice of Inquiry
13. The Commission is issuing this notice of inquiry to consider
whether, and if so how, to revise its Part 153, 157, and 380
regulations to establish procedures for authorizing certain activities
at LNG plants without a case-specific authorization order, to provide
regulatory certainty and significantly streamline liquefied natural gas
[[Page 53254]]
infrastructure permitting. The Commission seeks comment on the
following questions:
A. Process-Related Questions
A1. If the Commission promulgates rules to allow for the
construction, expansion, and operation of facilities without a case-
specific section 3 authorization, should the Commission require each
LNG operator to apply for a blanket section 3 authorization as it does
for natural gas pipelines pursuant to Part 157, Subpart F (see 18 CFR
157.204(a)) or should all current and new LNG operators be
automatically granted a blanket authorization?
A2. How, if at all, should the Commission factor in a current LNG
operator's compliance history when determining whether to grant blanket
section 3 authorization?
A3. Under the Commission's existing Part 157, Subpart F blanket
certificate regulations for activities under NGA section 7, there is a
two-tiered process whereby some activities are automatically authorized
while others require prior notice (see 18 CFR 157.203(a)-(c)). Should
the Commission adopt a similar tiered approach for activities at LNG
terminals under section 3? If so, should there be additional or
different tiers?
A4. If the Commission allows for the construction, expansion,
operation, and modification of certain LNG facilities without prior
notice under a blanket section 3 authorization, should the Commission:
a. require LNG operators to notify Commission staff of any proposed
modifications prior to implementing them, similar to the notification
requirements in Sec. 2.55(b)(1)(iii)? And, if so, is 30 days' notice
sufficient?; and/or
b. require an LNG operator to file a semi-annual or annual report
documenting the activities undertaken during the previous calendar year
pursuant to the blanket authorization program? Is including this
information in the current semiannual report sufficient? What
information should be included in such reports?
A5. If the Commission requires prior notice for some or all
activities under a blanket section 3 authorization, should the
Commission adopt the same notice requirements as those detailed in the
Commission's blanket certificate regulations, including Commission
issuance of a notice within 10 days of filing if the filing is not
rejected and a 60-day notice period thereafter for filing protests and
interventions (see 18 CFR 157.205)?
A6. Should the Commission adopt the same process concerning
protests to prior notice section 3 LNG projects as is currently in
place for prior notice blanket certificate pipeline projects, i.e. that
if a protest is filed and not withdrawn or dismissed, the application
will treated as a request for a section 3 authorization (see 18 CFR
157.205), or should a different process be required? If a different
process should be required, which types of protests should be
dismissed, if any?
A7. What stakeholder (e.g., affected landowner and local, state,
and federal agencies) notification requirements should the Commission
adopt for projects constructed pursuant to a blanket authorization
program?
A8. Should the Commission require LNG facilities under a blanket
section 3 or 7 authorization be constructed and placed into service
within a specified timeframe? If so, what timeframe?
B. Project Eligibility
B1. LNG projects occurring during operation may include, but are
not limited to: (i) replacements of, modifications to, or new
facilities, systems, or components that improve efficiency, capacity,
reliability, safety, or emissions and lessen adverse impacts to the
public; (ii) replacements of, modifications to, or new facilities,
systems, or components that increase capacity of pretreatment,
liquefaction, storage, transfer, or auxiliary facilities without
exceeding previously evaluated resource impacts identified in the NEPA
process associated with the plant's underlying authorizations; or (iii)
replacements of, modifications to, or new facilities, systems, or
components that are identical to those previously evaluated and
authorized by the Commission. If the Commission adopts a tiered
approach similar to that in the blanket certificate regulations for
natural gas pipelines (18 CFR 157.203(b)-(c)), what categories of
projects should be eligible for automatic authorization? What
categories of projects should be eligible for prior notice
authorization? How should the Commission divide these categories, e.g.,
based on costs, infrastructure types, or anticipated environmental
effects, based on one or more of safety, security, operability, or
reliability concerns, based on the impact on LNG production or export
capacity, or based on other factors?
B2. What activities and modifications at authorized and existing
LNG plants would result in no adverse impacts to the environment or
safety? Specifically, what types of LNG facility modifications,
systems, or components would have no or beneficial impacts to the
following resources:
<bullet> Water Resources;
<bullet> Water Bodies and Wetlands;
<bullet> Wildlife, including Threatened and Endangered Species;
<bullet> Vegetation;
<bullet> Cultural Resources;
<bullet> Socioeconomics;
<bullet> Geological Resources;
<bullet> Soils;
<bullet> Land Use;
<bullet> Recreation;
<bullet> Visual Resources;
<bullet> Air Quality;
<bullet> Noise;
<bullet> Reliability; and
<bullet> Safety.
B3. What categories of LNG projects would provide equivalent or
greater level of environmental protection and safety as compared to
what is authorized at an existing LNG plant? Specifically, what types
of LNG facility modifications, systems, or components would result in
different impacts but nevertheless provide an equivalent or greater
level of protection to the resources listed in question B2?
B4. What categories of LNG projects would result in less than
significant impacts to the environment and safety at authorized and
existing LNG plants such that the Commission could categorically
determine that such projects are not inconsistent with the public
interest under NGA section 3, or are or will be required by the present
or future public convenience and necessity under NGA section 7?
Specifically, what types of LNG facility modifications, systems, or
components would result in less than significant impacts to the
resources listed in question B2?
B5. Should the Commission allow the construction and operation of
additional facilities under a blanket section 3 or 7 LNG authorization
program to occur outside the authorized LNG plant limits? If so, what
should the restrictions or criteria be for construction outside the
authorized plant limits?
B6. Should the Commission revise its Part 157 blanket certificate
regulations to include modifications to LNG facilities under section 7?
If so, what types of projects should be subject to automatic
authorization and prior notice?
B7. Should the Commission require different cost limits for LNG
facilities under section 7 than for other interstate natural gas
facilities? Are cost-based limits appropriate for these LNG facilities?
Should there be any other considerations beyond cost and those listed
above?
C. Statutory and Regulatory Compliance
C1. How should applicants demonstrate that: (1) other federal
[[Page 53255]]
permitting agencies have been consulted and that all necessary federal
authorizations are received prior to construction; (2) the modified LNG
facilities would meet the federal siting requirements promulgated by
PHMSA; (3) a Letter of Intent and Waterways Safety Assessment has been
filed with the USCG and a Letter of Recommendation that determines the
waterway to be suitable has been issued by the USCG; (4) the Department
of War has concurred that there would be no or minimal impacts to
military installations, training, and operations; (5) state and local
safety considerations have been addressed prior to construction of
facilities per NGA section 3A(b)-(d); and (6) an emergency response
plan, including a cost sharing plan, has been developed in consultation
with the USCG and state and local agencies prior to construction?
C2. Currently, under Sec. 157.21(e) of the Commission's
regulations, the Director of OEP may waive after notice prefiling if
there are no significant state and local safety considerations that
have not been previously addressed. How should applicants demonstrate
that there are no significant state and local safety considerations
that have not been previously addressed in order to waive pre-filing
requirements under the NGA and Sec. 157.21(e) of the Commission's
regulations per NGA section 3A(a)? Should the Commission consider
modifying when or how it waives its prefiling requirements?
C3. To comply with NEPA in reviewing proposed LNG facilities,
should the Commission consider establishing additional categorical
exclusions or adopting existing categorical exclusions from other
federal agencies?
D. Conditions of Authorization
D1. What applicable federal laws, permits, and regulations could be
relied upon to ensure that no significant engineering, environmental,
safety, and security impacts occur from LNG facility modifications,
systems, and components authorized under a blanket program throughout
construction and operation?
D2. How would a blanket section 3 authorization program comply with
the following federal statutes and regulatory schemes:
<bullet> Rivers and Harbors Act
<bullet> Clean Water Act
<bullet> Migratory Bird Treaty Act
<bullet> Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
<bullet> Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
<bullet> Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
<bullet> Marine Mammal Protection Act
<bullet> Endangered Species Act
<bullet> Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
<bullet> National Historic Preservation Act
<bullet> Farmland Protection Policy Act
<bullet> Coastal Zone Management Act
<bullet> Clean Air Act
<bullet> Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
<bullet> Ports and Waterways Safety Act
<bullet> Marine Transportation Security Act
Are there other federal laws to be considered?
D3. What terms and conditions that have been historically
incorporated into orders authorizing LNG projects could be included in
a section 3 or section 7 authorization program to ensure no significant
adverse environmental or safety impacts occur?
D4. Should the Commission require notice(s) to proceed from the
Director of the Office of Energy Projects or their designee prior to
the start of construction, introduction of hazardous fluids, or other
milestones, to ensure that the activities comply with all necessary
safety measures?
E. Cost Impacts
E1. What are the historic and estimated range of costs for
preparation of an application for modifications to an NGA section 3 LNG
export/import terminal? Modifications could include replacements of,
modifications to, or construction, installation, and operation of new
facilities or components of those facilities, including those that
increase capacity of feed gas, pretreatment, liquefaction, storage,
transfer, vaporization, sendout, or auxiliary facilities.
E2. What are the historic and estimated range of costs for
preparation of an application for modifications to an NGA section 7 LNG
plant?
III. Comment Procedures
14. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues identified in this notice. Comments are due
January 26, 2026. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM26-2-000, and
must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address in their comments. All comments will be
placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or
downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section
below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of
their comments on other commenters.
15. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at <a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software must be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
16. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
may file an original of their comment by USPS mail or by courier-or
other delivery services. For submission sent via USPS only, filings
should be mailed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of
the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submission of
filings other than by USPS should be delivered to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
IV. Document Availability
17. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (<a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>).
18. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
19. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88eeedfaebe7e6e4e1e6edfbfdf8f8e7fafcc8eeedfaeba6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e080b1c0d01000207000b1d1b1e1e011c1a2e080b1c0d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>.
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: November 20, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-20898 Filed 11-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 25, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.