Rule2026-03658
Removal of Regulations Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With Construction Activities Pending Rehearing; Confirmation
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
February 24, 2026
Effective
November 10, 2025
Issuing agencies
Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Abstract
On October 10, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) published in the Federal Register a final rule removing regulations. This action addresses arguments raised on rehearing and confirms the effective date of that final rule.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8734-8737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03658]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Parts 153 and 157
[Docket No. RM25-9-000]
Removal of Regulations Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With
Construction Activities Pending Rehearing; Confirmation
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date; order addressing
arguments raised on rehearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 10, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) published in the Federal Register a final rule removing
regulations. This action addresses arguments raised on rehearing and
confirms the effective date of that final rule.
DATES: The Commission confirms that the effective date of the final
rule published on October 10, 2025 (90 FR 48221), was November 10,
2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Indigo Brown, Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8505, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90f9fef4f9f7ffbef2e2ffe7fed0f6f5e2f3bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1d8dfd5d8d6de9fd3c3dec6dff1d7d4c3d29fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. On October 7, 2025, the Commission issued a final rule (final
rule) amending its regulations to remove Sec. 157.23 and modify Sec.
153.4 to remove the cross-reference to Sec. 157.23.\1\ These sections
placed restrictions on the issuance of authorizations to proceed with
the construction of natural gas facilities. On November 6, 2025, a
coalition of petitioners (together, Petitioners) \2\ filed a request
for rehearing of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Removal of Reguls. Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with
Constr. Activities Pending Rehearing, Order No. 915, 90 FR 48221
(Oct. 10, 2025), 193 FERC ] 61,014 (2025), Errata Notices, Docket
No. RM25-9-000 (issued Oct. 10 and Oct. 23, 2025) (Final Rule).
\2\ Petitioners include: Natural Resources Defense Council,
Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, 350 Triangle, 7
Directions of Service, Appalachian Voices, For a Better Bayou,
Habitat Recovery Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Micah 6:8
Mision, Mothers Out Front, Preserve Giles County, Property Rights
and Pipeline Center, Protect our Water Heritage Rights, Public
Citizen, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Turtle Island
Restoration Network, Robert McNutt, and Katie Whitehead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pursuant to Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC,\3\ the rehearing
request filed in this proceeding may be deemed denied by operation of
law. However, as permitted by section 19(a) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA),\4\ we are modifying the discussion in the final rule and
continue to reach the same result in this proceeding, as discussed
below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc) (Allegheny).
\4\ 15 U.S.C. 717r(a) (``Until the record in a proceeding shall
have been filed in a court of appeals, as provided in subsection
(b), the Commission may at any time, upon reasonable notice and in
such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole
or in part, any finding or order made or issued by it under the
provisions of this chapter.'').
\5\ Allegheny, 964 F.3d at 16-17. The Commission is not changing
the outcome of the Final Rule. See Smith Lake Improvement &
Stakeholders Ass'n v. FERC, 809 F.3d 55, 56-57 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
3. In Order No. 871, the Commission amended its regulations to add
Sec. 157.23, precluding the issuance of authorizations to proceed with
construction of new natural gas transportation, export, or import
facilities, authorized pursuant to sections 3 and 7(c) of the NGA, for
a limited time while certain requests for rehearing were pending before
the Commission.\6\ On January 20, 2025, the
[[Page 8735]]
President issued Executive Order 14154, to unleash American energy by,
among other things, eliminating delays in and streamlining the
permitting process for energy infrastructure projects, stating that it
is ``in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and
reliable energy and natural resources.'' \7\ On the same date, the
President issued Executive Order 14156, which declared a national
energy emergency and prioritized the expansion of energy infrastructure
as a matter of critical national and economic security.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Constr. Activities
Pending Rehearing, Order No. 871, 171 FERC ] 61,201 (2020), order on
reh'g, Order No. 871-A, 174 FERC ] 61,050, order on reh'g, Order No.
871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098, order on reh'g, Order No. 871-C, 176 FERC
] 61,062 (2021); see Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at PP 2-6 for a
more detailed discussion of Order No. 871.
\7\ E.O. 14154, 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 20, 2025).
\8\ E.O. 14156, 90 FR 8433 (Jan. 20, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. On April 14, 2025, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
(INGAA) filed a petition for rulemaking, requesting that the Commission
adopt a rule rescinding Order No. 871, removing Sec. 157.23 from the
regulations, and amending Sec. 153.4, which relates to applications to
authorize liquefied natural gas facilities under NGA section 3, to
remove the reference to Sec. 157.23.
5. On June 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order temporarily
waiving Sec. 157.23 for one year, until June 30, 2026 (Waiver
Order).\9\ At the same time, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR), which proposed to permanently remove Sec. 157.23
from its regulations and revise Sec. 153.4 to eliminate the cross-
reference to Sec. 157.23.\10\ The Commission proposed to remove Sec.
157.23 to respond to the imperative to remove barriers to the
construction of necessary energy infrastructure. In addition to
requesting public comments on the NOPR proposal to eliminate Sec.
157.23 in its entirety, the Commission posed two specific questions.
The Commission sought comment on whether it should instead revise Sec.
157.23 to (1) limit its scope while maintaining some protections for
certain types of stakeholders or (2) reduce the time period on the
limitation for issuing authorizations to proceed with construction.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Interstate Nat. Gas Assoc. of Am., 191 FERC ] 61,209 (2025)
(Waiver Order).
\10\ See Removal of Reguls. Limiting Authorizations to Proceed
with Constr. Activities Pending Rehearing, 90 FR 26771 (June 24,
2025), 191 FERC ] 61,208 (2025) (NOPR).
\11\ Id. P 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register with a 30-day
comment period.\12\ The Commission received 23 comments in response to
the NOPR, including 11 comments from various individuals and
organizations opposing the Commission's proposal to remove Sec.
157.23; \13\ and 12 comments from various entities supporting its
removal.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 90 FR 26771 (June 24, 2025).
\13\ Commenters that opposed the NOPR included: Marion
Freistadt; Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services; a
consortium of public interest organizations and individuals; Robert
Feder; Lila Zastrow and Dave Hendrickson; Diana Dakey; Robert E.
Rutkowski; Lakshmi Ford; Institute for Policy Integrity at New York
University School of Law; PennFuture; Columbia Riverkeeper et. al;
and Delaware Riverkeeper.
\14\ Commenters that supported the NOPR included: Arizona
Corporation Commission; Energy Transfer LP; Eastern Shore Natural
Gas Company; American Gas Association; Mountain Valley Pipeline,
LLC; INGAA, the American Petroleum Institute, and GPA Midstream
Association; Cheniere Energy, Inc.; Kinder Morgan, Inc.; Enbridge
Gas Pipelines; Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP; The Williams
Companies, Inc.; and WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. On October 7, 2025, the Commission issued the final rule,
removing Sec. 157.23 from its regulations. In developing the final
rule, the Commission considered and responded to all comments received
in response to the NOPR. The Commission ultimately found that removal
of the regulation was warranted to reduce construction delays as well
as to promote and expedite efficient energy development and ensure that
there is sufficient natural gas infrastructure to timely address
resource adequacy and reliability concerns but that sufficient
safeguards available to impacted stakeholders remained.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at P 47. See id. PP 22-24
(discussing judicial and Commission protections for landowners and
stakeholders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. On November 6, 2025, Petitioners sought rehearing of the final
rule arguing that the Commission (1) failed to provide an explanation
for its departure from prior policy regarding construction delays and
the stakeholder protections clarified in Allegheny, and relied on
arguments that the Commission previously discredited in Order No. 871;
(2) failed to provide evidence that Sec. 157.23 impedes gas
infrastructure development; (3) failed to provide evidence that other
protections available to stakeholders sufficiently address the
potential harms from project developers commencing construction during
the rehearing period; and (4) used the rulemaking to cure the lack of
notice and comment procedures in the Waiver Order.
II. Discussion
A. Justification for Removal
9. Petitioners disagree with the Commission's conclusion that the
removal of Sec. 157.23 is warranted because judicial review and other
case-by-case relief offer sufficient protection, given that projects
subject to the regulation are found to be in the public interest.\16\
They argue that the existence of a public interest finding to justify
the removal of Sec. 157.23 does not explain how the protections
previously found to be inadequate in Order No. 871 are now sufficient
to protect parties seeking rehearing.\17\ Petitioners maintain that the
Commission relied on arguments that it previously discredited in Order
No. 871. Specifically, they contend that the Commission failed to
provide an explanation for reversing course from its previous finding
that even though parties can seek judicial review once rehearing has
been deemed denied, the purpose of Sec. 157.23 was to prevent
construction until the Commission completed its review process.\18\
Additionally, noting that the Commission previously found that adopting
Sec. 157.23 would not substantially impact the natural gas industry,
Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to explain why this prior
finding is now improper.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Rehearing Request at 11.
\17\ Id. at 12.
\18\ Id. at 12-13.
\19\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Commission is entitled to change its approach and depart
from prior precedent, provided that it acknowledges the change in
policy and provides a reasoned explanation for the new approach.\20\ In
the final rule, the Commission acknowledged that it departed from the
prior policy set forth in Order No. 871.\21\ The Commission recognized
that ``Order No. 871 provided necessary protections along with
Allegheny's assurance of timely judicial review of initial Commission
orders.'' \22\ However, the Commission explained that, in light of
resource adequacy and reliability concerns from increasing electricity
and natural gas demand, the Commission had cause to reevaluate its
prior policy concerns and now concluded that Sec. 157.23 was no longer
necessary to protect stakeholders, given the Commission's thorough
review of each NGA section 3 and 7 application and the other
protections
[[Page 8736]]
available to stakeholders, including judicial review, injunctive
relief, motions for stays, and the Commission's presumptive stay
policy.\23\ Additionally, the Commission did not find in the final rule
that removal was warranted due to Order No. 871's impact on the natural
gas industry. Rather, the Commission concluded that removal of Sec.
157.23 advances the Commission's mission under the NGA to facilitate
the orderly development of natural gas supplies and ensure that
approved projects are developed in a timely manner to combat resource
adequacy concerns and natural gas and electricity system reliability
concerns.\24\ Accordingly, we continue to find that delaying the
issuance of construction authorizations for approved projects as a
result of Sec. 157.23 is no longer in the public interest.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502,
515-16 (2009); In re Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747,
784 (1968); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut.
Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983) (``[W]e fully recognize that
regulatory agencies do not establish rules of conduct to last
forever.'') (internal quotations omitted); Greater Bos. Television
Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (an agency may
change its course as long as it ``suppl[ies] a reasoned analysis
indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately
changed, not casually ignored.''), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923
(1971).
\21\ Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at P 22.
\22\ Id.
\23\ Id. PP 22-24, 28, 43.
\24\ Id. PP 30, 35, 47.
\25\ Id. PP 22, 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Petitioners assert that the Commission determined that the risk
of potential delay from Sec. 157.23 justified removal of the
regulation and contend that the Commission failed to provide evidence
that Sec. 157.23 impedes gas infrastructure development.\26\ They
argue that, prior to Order No. 871, project developers had to account
for potential delays and that the Commission could minimize the risk of
delays, as it controls the timeframe for acting on rehearing
requests.\27\ They maintain that the Commission's reliance on resource
adequacy and reliability concerns to remove Sec. 157.23 does not
provide sufficient evidence that potential delays could have an effect
on grid reliability.\28\ Petitioners aver that the Commission should
not authorize construction until the conclusion of the decision making
process on rehearing, because of the possibility that it could have
made an incorrect determination in the initial order.\29\ They further
claim that the Commission disregards the potential disruption of
infrastructure development plans should the Commission order a project
developer to halt construction in the event that it grants
rehearing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Rehearing Request at 14.
\27\ Id. at 15.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. As explained in the final rule, the estimated increases in
electricity and natural gas demand, without sufficient natural gas
supplies and infrastructure, could impact grid reliability.\31\ The
Commission found that removing Sec. 157.23 would lessen the risk that
any potential delays would affect the availability of necessary natural
gas supplies to meet increasing demands.\32\ In Order No. 871-B, the
Commission acknowledged that the regulation could add delays and that
project development schedules had to account for some uncertainty as
the Commission's timeline for processing project applications is
dictated by several factors.\33\ However, as stated above, evidence of
increasing demand amplifies our concern that the potential delay
resulting from application of Sec. 157.23 could affect the timeliness
of natural gas supplies. Regardless of the length of the average
construction delay,\34\ the Commission sought to remove the risk of an
additional regulatory delay of up to five months in the gas development
process.\35\ Additionally, the Commission determined that the default
should be for certificate and authorization orders to go into effect
absent case-specific reasons to the contrary.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at PP 28-29; EIA, Short-
Term Energy Outlook (May 6, 2025), <a href="https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo">https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo</a>
(accessed Sept. 16, 2025); EIA, EIA Expects Record U.S. Natural Gas
Consumption in 2025 (Aug. 25, 2025), <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65984">https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65984</a> (accessed Sept. 16, 2025).
\32\ Id. P 40.
\33\ Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at P 36.
\34\ See Rehearing Request at 13 (citing Final Rule, 193 FERC ]
61,014 at P 40 (noting that removal of Sec. 157.23 eliminates one,
potentially five-month, delay from the construction authorization
process) and Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at P 37 (providing
an estimate, based on 2021 data, that prior to Sec. 157.23's
promulgation the average delay between project approval and
authorization to commence construction was 85 days)).
\35\ Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at P 40.
\36\ Id. P 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Petitioners argue that the Commission's reliability goals are
``red herrings,'' particularly when one considers the disruption to gas
planning that may occur if the Commission authorized construction while
rehearing was pending and then subsequently granted rehearing.\37\ They
argue that it is best to wait to authorize the start of construction
until the Commission finishes its decision-making process on rehearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Rehearing Request at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. We are not persuaded by Petitioners' argument that a generic
delay in construction for all natural gas infrastructure is preferable
because the Commission may grant a request for rehearing in an
individual case. Recognizing that the Commission is tasked under the
NGA with the orderly development of natural gas supplies, Congress
itself presumed that an application for rehearing should not operate as
a stay unless ``specifically'' ordered by the Commission.\38\
Consistent with this view, the Commission in the final rule explained
that Sec. 157.23 was now overly broad given that projected natural gas
and electric generator demands require timely natural gas
infrastructure development.\39\ We went on to explain it was no longer
necessary to impose such a delay given the other protections available
to landowners and stakeholders, including (1) the Commission's ability
to consider stays on a case-by-case basis and (2) the availability of
both judicial review, which, after Allegheny, parties may now seek more
promptly following an initial order, and judicial stays.\40\ To the
extent there is any disruption associated with a potential construction
stop work order on rehearing, it is outweighed by the national benefits
from eliminating Sec. 157.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 15 U.S.C. 717r(c).
\39\ Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at PP 28-30, 39.
\40\ Id. P 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Protections Available to Stakeholders
15. Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to provide
evidence that other protections available to stakeholders, including
judicial review, motions for stay, and the presumptive stay policy,
adequately address the potential harms of commencing construction
during the rehearing period.\41\ They assert that neither the
Commission nor the courts have granted a motion for a stay in favor of
an impacted stakeholder (noting four presumptive stays that were issued
pursuant to Order No. 871) and that the courts do not timely act on
judicial review or injunctive relief to prevent damage caused by
construction authorizations during the rehearing period.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Rehearing Request at 16.
\42\ Id. at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In the final rule, the Commission explained that natural gas
infrastructure projects are only approved following an extensive agency
review, which requires the consideration of concerns raised by all
stakeholders and any additional protection that may be warranted during
project construction and operation.\43\ Following the Commission's
review, project developers must comply with the required conditions in
a section 3 authorization or section 7 certificate order. Stakeholders
and affected landowners may seek judicial review or injunctive relief
after rehearing is deemed denied or file a motion for a stay with the
Commission.\44\ Additionally, the presumptive stay policy allows
directly affected
[[Page 8737]]
landowners who would be subject to eminent domain under NGA section 7
to request a stay of a certificate order and protects such landowners
from potential harm where a pipeline may initiate eminent domain
proceedings immediately following the issuance of an order.\45\ The
Commission considers each project application and requested Commission
remedy on a case-by-case basis to address all raised concerns and
determine whether other relief is required to prevent irreparable harm.
The fact that the Commission and courts do not frequently grant motions
for stay is not evidence of an unwillingness to grant a meritorious
request, but rather, a reflection of the merits of such requests.\46\
On the contrary, the Commission invoked its presumptive stay policy in
a recent section 7 certificate proceeding in which a directly affected
landowner intervened and protested, and the applicant had not acquired
all necessary property interests. The Commission stayed the certificate
during the 30-day rehearing period, and pending Commission resolution
of any timely requests for rehearing filed by an affected landowner
subject to eminent domain, up until 90 days following the date that a
request for rehearing may be deemed to have been denied under NGA
section 19(a).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at PP 42-44.
\44\ Id. P 24.
\45\ Id. PP 23, 46.
\46\ The timing of the judicial review process is not within the
Commission's control. The Commission grants stays where justice so
requires. See, e.g., Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor Alaska Village
Elec. Coop., Inc., 192 FERC ] 61,224, at PP 11-14 (2025) (finding
that justice required a stay of a deadline to construct a
hydroelectric project because the license transferee experienced
delays with the conveyance of the license and right-of-way
permitting process that were outside its control); PacifiCorp, 163
FERC ] 61,208, at PP 6-9 (2018) (finding that justice required a
stay of an order granting an amendment to a license until the
Commission acts on a license transfer application because the
licensee would incur undue costs).
\47\ Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 194 FERC ]
61,026, at P 44 (2026); see Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at PP 23,
46 (explaining that the Commission would continue the presumptive
stay policy and listing the criteria it would consider).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Finally, Petitioners argue that all these protections existed
prior to Sec. 157.23 and are not enough to justify the rule's
recission.\48\ They argue that the Commission erred by failing to
provide any evidence that stays or expedited judicial review
sufficiently address the harms Sec. 157.23 is meant to protect
against.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Rehearing Request at 17.
\49\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Petitioners err to the extent that they suggest Allegheny's
reform of the Commission's rehearing practice or the presumptive stay
were in place when the Commission issued Order No. 871. Both occurred
after the Commission initially adopted Sec. 157.23. In Order No. 871,
the Commission explained that it was exercising its discretion to
balance its commitment to respond to parties' concerns in comprehensive
orders on rehearing and the concerns posed by the possibility of
construction proceeding prior to the completion of Commission
review.\50\ Although we are sensitive to these concerns, after five
years with the rule in place, the Commission appropriately determined
the rule was overly broad in light of other case-by-case protections
and our NGA duties during a period of increasing national natural gas
demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Order No. 871, 171 FERC ] 61,201 at P 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Waiver Order
19. Petitioners argue that the issuance of the Waiver Order
constituted a rulemaking.\51\ Citing cases where agencies failed to
provide notice and comment prior to the promulgation of a final rule,
Petitioners argue that the Commission attempted to cure the Waiver
Order's lack of notice and comment procedures by offering what they
characterize as a post-promulgation comment period in the final rule
docket.\52\ Petitioners contend that the issuance of the Waiver Order
simultaneously with the final rule signaled the Commission's desire to
repeal Sec. 157.23 before soliciting public comment.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Rehearing Request at 18-19.
\52\ Id. at 18-19 (citing U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA, 595 F.2d 207,
214-15 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that the Environmental Protection
Agency failed to follow the procedures required by section 553 of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) where it promulgated a list
of nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act without providing
notice and comment prior to promulgation and instead providing a
post-promulgation comment period); Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d
352, 358 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that the agency failed to comply
with the APA's notice and comment procedures when it issued an
interim amendment to a regulation affecting supplemental security
income recipients); Sharon Steel Corp. v. EPA, 597 F.2d 377, 381 (3d
Cir. 1979) (holding that a post-promulgation comment period ``cannot
substitute for the prior notice and comment required by the
APA.'')).
\53\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Despite Petitioners' arguments to the contrary, a post-
promulgation comment period is not at issue here. The Commission
complied with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act by
providing notice and an opportunity to comment on its proposal to
eliminate Sec. 157.23 prior to issuing the final rule.\54\ Unlike the
cases cited by Petitioners, prior to the effective date of the final
rule, the Commission issued the NOPR, which was published in the
Federal Register and established a 30-day comment period, and
determined that the removal of Sec. 157.23 was warranted after
considering all comments submitted in response to the NOPR.\55\
Further, as the Commission previously explained, any arguments
challenging the Waiver Order are outside the scope of this rulemaking
proceeding.\56\ Additionally, arguments challenging the Waiver Order
are moot as the Commission's November 13, 2025 order dismissing the
rehearing request of the Waiver Order, which was not appealed, is now
final.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at P 18.
\55\ See supra P 7; 5 U.S.C. 553.
\56\ Final Rule, 193 FERC ] 61,014 at P 18.
\57\ Interstate Nat. Gas Assoc. of Am., 193 FERC ] 61,119
(2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Commission Determination
21. In response to Petitioners' request for rehearing the final
rule is hereby modified and the result sustained, as discussed in the
body of this order.
III. Document Availability
22. 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>).
23. 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.
24. 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#dabcbfa8b9b5b4b6b3b4bfa9afaaaab5a8ae9abcbfa8b9f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2c4c7d0c1cdcccecbccc7d1d7d2d2cdd0d6e2c4c7d0c18cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#770702151b1e14590512111205121914120518181a371112051459101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bfbfee9e7e2e8a5f9eeedeef9eee5e8eef9e4e4e6cbedeef9e8a5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>.
IV. Dates
25. The effective date of the document published on October 10,
2025 (90 FR 48221), is confirmed: November 10, 2025.
By the Commission.
Issued: February 19, 2026.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-03658 Filed 2-23-26; 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 February 24, 2026.
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.