Proposed Rule2026-21443
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
October 20, 2026
Issuing agencies
Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Abstract
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to revise its regulations to establish procedures for authorizing activities at liquefied natural gas plants without case-specific authorization orders under sections 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66492-66528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21443]
[[Page 66491]]
Vol. 91
Tuesday,
No. 201
October 20, 2026
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18 CFR Parts 2, 153, and 375
Authorizations for Certain Activities at Liquefied Natural Gas Plants;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 66492]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Parts 2, 153, and 375
[Docket No. RM26-2-001]
RIN 1902-AG43
Authorizations for Certain Activities at Liquefied Natural Gas
Plants
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to revise
its regulations to establish procedures for authorizing activities at
liquefied natural gas plants without case-specific authorization orders
under sections 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
DATES: Comments are due December 21, 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, Secretary of the Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
The Request for Comments 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:
Table of Contents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph
Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background............................................... 2.
A. What is an LNG plant?................................ 2.
B. Existing Statutory and Regulatory Framework for the 8.
Commission's Authorization and Regulation of LNG Plants
C. The Commission's Existing Regulations for Authorizing 11.
Routine Pipeline Activities Under Section 7 Provide an
Analogue for a Program for LNG Plants..................
II. Notice of Inquiry....................................... 20.
III. Discussion............................................. 21.
A. Applicability to Section 7 LNG Plants................ 24.
B. Eligible Facilities.................................. 28.
C. Blanket Authorization Procedures..................... 70.
D. Environmental and Engineering Conditions............. 105.
E. Statutory and Regulatory Compliance Conditions....... 121.
F. Severability......................................... 143.
IV. Request for Comments.................................... 144.
V. Regulatory Requirements.................................. 148.
A. Information Collection Statement..................... 148.
B. Environmental Analysis............................... 156.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act........................... 157.
D. Regulatory Planning and Review....................... 159.
E. Document Availability................................ 161.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) in this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposes to amend its regulations
to establish procedures for authorizing activities at liquefied natural
gas (LNG) plants without the need for operators to file case-specific
applications or for the Commission to issue case-specific orders under
sections 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).\1\ This NOPR includes
proposed revisions to Parts 2, 153, and 375 of the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 717b; 717f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
A. What is an LNG plant?
2. An LNG plant is a collection of facilities where natural gas is
processed and cooled to about -260 [deg]F until it becomes a liquid and
is stored for later delivery, or where LNG is produced or delivered and
stored for later regasification. Liquefying the gas dramatically
reduces its volume (by about 600 times), making it easier and more
economical to store and transport in bulk, especially by ocean-going
marine vessels. Broadly, there are three types of LNG plants subject to
the Commission's jurisdiction: (1) LNG export terminals; (2) LNG import
terminals; and (3) LNG facilities that receive natural gas, produce and
store LNG, and regasify it to deliver in interstate commerce.
3. For LNG export terminals, the LNG plant typically receives
natural gas from a pipeline and processes it through a series of
integrated systems--including feed-gas handling, pretreatment,
liquefaction, and storage--to produce and store LNG. From there, the
LNG is transferred to a marine vessel for export.
4. For LNG import terminals, the LNG plant typically receives LNG
from a marine vessel and stores that LNG to regasify it in vaporization
facilities, then sends out the natural gas to a pipeline or end
user.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Commission would also have jurisdiction over an LNG
terminal operating in interstate commerce where the LNG is received
or sent out via waterborne vessel. Id. 717a(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66493]]
5. LNG plants operating in interstate commerce are typically peak
shaving plants that receive and liquefy natural gas during low demand
periods, store it as LNG, and then regasify the LNG and send out the
gas to an interstate pipeline during peak demand periods.
6. An LNG plant is composed of two distinct categories of
facilities: LNG facilities and auxiliary systems. LNG facilities are
those components of an LNG plant that receive, unload, load, store,
transport, gasify, liquefy, or process natural gas. LNG facilities
include, but are not limited to: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These facilities and some of their components are also
described in FERC Office of Energy Projects, Guidance Manual for
Environmental Report Preparation for Applications Filed Under the
Natural Gas Act, Volume II (Feb. 2017), <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/guidance-manual-volume-2.pdf">https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/guidance-manual-volume-2.pdf</a>.
(1) feed gas facilities, which include metering stations to
receive natural gas; processing vessels to remove water and
particulate matter; and compression, pressure regulation, and
heating and cooling equipment;
(2) pretreatment facilities, which include equipment to remove
carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, mercury, water, or other
impurities from the natural gas to safely and reliably liquefy the
natural gas;
(3) natural gas liquid (NGL) facilities to extract or remove
NGLs from natural gas,\4\ store NGLs, and use them as part of
refrigerant makeup in liquefaction facilities or fuel gas for fired
equipment, or to transfer them to truck, rail, or marine loading
facilities or send them out in pipelines;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NGLs include ethane, propane, butane, isobutane, and
pentanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) heavy hydrocarbon condensate facilities to extract or remove
condensates from natural gas, store condensates, and transfer them
to truck, rail, or marine loading facilities, or send them out
through pipelines, or re-vaporize condensates to use as fuel gas;
(5) liquefaction facilities used to safely and reliably liquefy
the natural gas into LNG and transfer it through piping prior to
entering the LNG storage facilities; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Liquefaction facilities include refrigerant truck unloading,
refrigerant storage containers, refrigerant transfer pumps,
refrigeration compressors, air- or water-cooled heat exchangers to
cool compressed refrigerants, refrigerant-cooled heat exchangers to
cool natural gas to LNG, turboexpanders or hydraulic turbines, end
flash gas vessels, and other components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) LNG storage facilities, including piping and valves used to
fill the LNG tanks or vessels, and piping, valves, and in-tank pumps
used to withdraw the LNG and transfer it to marine, truck, or rail
loading or unloading transfer facilities or vaporization facilities;
(7) marine transfer facilities, including transfer arms, hoses,
piping and valves, and other components used to unload or load
marine vessels;
(8) truck and rail transfer facilities, including transfer arms,
hoses, piping and valves, and other components used to unload or
load truck or rail cars;
(9) vaporization or regasification facilities to convert the LNG
back into natural gas prior to being sent out in a pipeline or to an
end user;
(10) sendout gas conditioning facilities to meet pipeline
quality specifications for the sendout gas; and
(11) sendout facilities, including sample stations and metering
stations to measure the composition, flow, or other characteristics
of the natural gas being sent out to a pipeline.
7. Auxiliary systems are those components of an LNG plant that are
not LNG facilities but are necessary to support safe and reliable
operation of the plant. Auxiliary systems include, but are not limited
to:
(1) vapor handling systems to receive, process, and deliver
boiloff gas from LNG containers, flash gas from process vessels, and
any vapor generated or displaced from truck, rail, or marine
transfer facilities;
(2) fuel gas systems to deliver natural gas to fired equipment;
(3) nitrogen and inert gas systems to unload, produce, and store
nitrogen to create an inert nonflammable atmosphere where flammable
fluids are handled;
(4) plant, utility, and instrument air systems to supply
pneumatic pressure used by valve actuators and other equipment or
tools;
(5) utility water systems to store and supply water used by
power generation, boilers, heat exchangers, and other components;
(6) power generation and electrical systems, including any
onsite main gas turbine, heat recovery steam generators, and
emergency backup diesel engine generators, used to generate and
supply power;
(7) emission control systems to reduce, control, capture, or
transport air emissions;
(8) cathodic protection systems;
(9) relief valve and flare/vent systems used to safely and
reliably discharge effluent from releases;
(10) security systems;
(11) spill containment systems used to contain any hazardous
liquid spills from components and keep spill containment systems
free of stormwater;
(12) passive protection systems, including cryogenic spill
protection, vapor barriers, blast walls, passive fire protection,
firewalls, radiant heat shields, foam glass blocks, or other systems
to prevent cascading damage from hazardous fluid releases;
(13) hazard detection systems;
(14) hazard control systems used to extinguish or control fires;
(15) firewater systems;
(16) structural support systems;
(17) natural hazard mitigation used to monitor, measure, record,
or protect LNG plant facilities and components from natural hazards;
and
(18) emergency response systems, including any fire brigade
buildings and apparatus, used to house and respond to hazardous
fluid releases.
B. Existing Statutory and Regulatory Framework for the Commission's
Authorization and Regulation of LNG Plants
8. The Commission regulates the siting, construction, expansion,
and operation of LNG plants 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.\6\ 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.'' \7\ And under section 7(c), the Commission issues
certificates of public convenience and necessity for the construction
and operation of natural gas and LNG facilities used for the
transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce.\8\ Under both
section 3 and section 7, the Commission has the authority to include
terms and conditions in any order authorizing an LNG plant.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 717b(a).
\7\ 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). For purposes of
this rulemaking an LNG terminal is a type of LNG plant.
\8\ Id. 717f(c)(1)(A).
\9\ Id. 717b(a), 717b(e)(3), 717f(e). For a discussion of the
Commission's authority to condition its approvals of LNG plants
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The NGA also includes additional requirements that must be met
prior to authorizing the construction of LNG terminals under section
3.\10\ Consistent with section 3A(a),\11\ the Commission promulgated
regulations requiring LNG applicants to use a pre-filing process for an
application for authorization to construct or modify an LNG
terminal.\12\ 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 terminals affecting the
[[Page 66494]]
training or activities of an active military installation.\13\ 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.'' \14\
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 . . . .'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ These requirements do not apply to NGA section 7 LNG
plants, including LNG peak shaving facilities, which store gas in
interstate commerce.
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 717b-1(a).
\12\ 18 CFR 157.21. Pre-filing is not required where the
Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) determines that
prospective modifications to an existing LNG terminal do not involve
significant state and local safety considerations that have not been
previously addressed. Id. 157.21(a).
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 717b(f). Pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Department of War (DoW), the Commission
issues a letter to the Department, which then responds indicating
whether there are no or minimal impacts to military installations
and operations. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and the Department of Defense to Ensure
Consultation and Coordination on the Effect of Liquefied Natural Gas
Terminals on Active Military Installations (Nov. 21, 2007, updated
Aug. 29, 2014), <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/media/2007-mou-dod">https://www.ferc.gov/media/2007-mou-dod</a>.
\14\ Id. 717b-1(e).
\15\ Id. 717b-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. LNG operators may make modifications to already-approved,
operating LNG plants during the life of the plant.\16\ To receive
authorization for such modifications, the operator may need to file a
case-specific application, which the Commission must evaluate, followed
by a public interest determination.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ LNG projects occurring during operation may include, but
are not limited to: 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. See, e.g., Freeport LNG Dev., L.P., 175 FERC ]
61,237 (2021) (authorizing a non-jurisdictional helium extraction
and purification plant); Distrigas of Mass. LLC, 193 FERC 61,143
(2025) (authorizing the installation of a boil-off gas compressor);
Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, 195 FERC ] 61,161 (2026)
(authorizing an uprate).
\17\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Commission's Existing Regulations for Authorizing Routine
Pipeline Activities Under Section 7 Provide an Analogue for a Program
for LNG Plants
11. Under Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission's regulations,\18\
interstate pipelines that hold certificates of public convenience and
necessity under NGA section 7 may apply for a blanket certificate to
undertake, without case-specific authorizations, certain activities
automatically, subject only to annual reporting requirements,\19\ and
certain other activities after prior notice.\20\ Both sets of
activities are subject to cost limits.\21\ The section 7 pipeline
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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 18 CFR part 157, subpart F.
\19\ Id. 157.203(b), 157.208(a), (e).
\20\ Id. 157.203(c), 157.208(b).
\21\ Id. 157.208(d), 157.215(a)(5).
\22\ Interstate Pipeline Certificates for Routine Transactions,
Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368, at 30,201 (1982)
(cross-referenced at 19 FERC ] 61,216); see also Revisions to the
Blanket Certificate Regulations & Clarification Regarding Rates,
Order No. 686, 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In 1982, the Commission instituted this program, explaining
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 warranted prior to
the issuance of a certificate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,200.
13. 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 18 CFR 157.205(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Section 7 pipeline blanket certificate activities are subject
to the conditions in the Commission's regulations implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),\25\ as well as requirements
that all activities be consistent with applicable laws, including the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act, and other statutes
relating to environmental concerns.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id. part 380. Certain activities undertaken pursuant to the
blanket certificate are categorically excluded from NEPA review. Id.
380.4(a)(21).
\26\ Id. 157.206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. In addition to the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate
program, Sec. 2.55 of the Commission's regulations allows interstate
pipeline companies to perform auxiliary installations and facility
replacements without a case-specific authorization.\27\ 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id. 2.55. LNG facilities authorized under section 7 of the
NGA may use the procedures outlined in Sec. 2.55.
\28\ 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 the certificate holder 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, US Department
of Transportation (DOT) compliance, or environmental or unplanned
maintenance reasons that are not foreseen and that require immediate
attention).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In two earlier section 7 pipeline blanket certificate
rulemakings, the Commission declined to extend the program to include
LNG plants. In the 1982 rulemaking, the Commission excluded LNG plants
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.'' \29\ In 2006, the Commission again declined
to extend the program to include LNG plants,\30\ explaining 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
[[Page 66495]]
review of engineering, environmental, safety, and security issues that
the Commission believes only can be properly considered on a case-by-
case basis.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,206.
\30\ Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074 at PP 18-23.
\31\ Id. P 21 (quoting Revisions to the Blanket Certificate
Reguls. & Clarification Regarding Rates, NOPR, 115 FERC ] 61,338, at
PP 29-30 (2006)); see also Revisions to the Blanket Certificate
Regulations & Clarification Regarding Rates, Order No. 686-A, 72 FR
37431 (July 10, 2007), 119 FERC ] 61,303, at P 22 (2007) (``[T]he
blanket certificate program is not well suited to address the
complexity inherent in issues raised by LNG . . . facilities'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The Commission's experience with LNG plants has changed
considerably since the 1982 and 2006 rulemakings. Specifically, both
the Commission and the LNG industry have gained significant experience
regarding the engineering, environmental, safety, and security issues
at LNG plants. The Commission has evaluated more than 100 applications
related to LNG plants since 2006. Staff has also engaged in extensive
coordination with the DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) and the US Coast Guard (USCG), which are
involved in the safety and security of these facilities, as well as the
LNG industry, to proactively develop safety and security standards and
best practices.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 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 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, United States Coast
Guard, and Research and Special Programs Administration for the
Safety and Security Review of Waterfront Import/Export Liquefied
Natural Gas Facilities (Feb. 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>. Approximately 30 of these orders were
issued after a 2018 MOU 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. Id.; see also Memorandum of Understanding Between
the Department of Transportation and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Regarding Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Facilities
(Aug. 31, 2018), <a href="https://cms.ferc.gov/media/mou-phmsa-regarding-lng-transportation-facilities-0">https://cms.ferc.gov/media/mou-phmsa-regarding-lng-transportation-facilities-0</a>. Commission staff, along with DOT PHMSA
and USCG 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Changes in the LNG market since 2006 have led to an expansion
in the number of projects that the Commission regulates. The United
States emerged as the world's largest LNG exporter in 2023 \33\ with
seven large-scale LNG export terminals currently in operation, eight
new or expanded LNG export projects in construction, and additional LNG
terminals and expansions expected over the next several years. Although
certain changes and variances are permitted during the construction of
an LNG plant, changes to an operating LNG plant--in some cases even
routine adjustments like equipment replacements--may currently require
case-specific authorization. The current case-by-case review process
for certain replacements, modifications, and expansions is
administratively inefficient and slows down the authorization of needed
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ US Energy Info. Admin., The United States Was the World's
Largest Liquefied Natural Gas Exporter in 2023 (Apr. 1, 2024),
<a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67864">https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67864</a>; see also US
Energy Info. Admin., Global Liquefied Natural Gas Trade Volumes
Reached Record High in 2025 (July 14, 2026), <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67864">https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67864</a>; US Dep't of Energy, Office of
Fossil Energy & Carbon Mgmt., Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exports
(Dec. 31, 2025), <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/LNG%20Snapshot%20Dec%2031%202025_0.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/LNG%20Snapshot%20Dec%2031%202025_0.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Based on these considerations, the Commission believes that the
establishment of an LNG blanket program allowing the automatic or prior
notice authorization for certain activities is warranted.
II. Notice of Inquiry
20. On November 20, 2025, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry
(NOI) in this proceeding, requesting information and comments on
whether and if so how to revise its regulations to allow for the
authorization of activities at LNG plants without case-specific
authorization under section 3 or 7 of the NGA.\34\ The NOI was
published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2025,\35\ and
established a 60-day comment period expiring on January 27, 2026.\36\
In response to the NOI, the Commission received 18 comments--eight from
LNG and natural gas companies and related trade associations,\37\ one
from an energy technology company, two from engineering consulting
firms, six from public interest organizations, and one on behalf of
nine states' attorneys general.\38\ The comments addressed a variety of
issues, including: support for a blanket program as it would allow
certain activities at LNG plants to proceed in an expedited fashion;
recommendations on how the Commission should implement a program with a
tiered authorization system that would allow automatic approval for
minor, in-footprint modifications and a prior notice process for
moderate changes; recommendations that the LNG blanket program not
include costs limits; questions pertaining to how the public and state
agencies would receive notice; concerns about environmental effects and
safety impacts; and questions as to whether the LNG industry is
suitable for a blanket authorization program. The comments are
addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Authorizations for Certain Activities at Liquefied Nat. Gas
Plants, 193 FERC ] 61,141 (2025) (NOI).
\35\ 90 FR 53251 (Nov. 25, 2025).
\36\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (the last day of time period does not
end until the close of the Commission business of the next day which
is not a day on which the Commission closes due to adverse
conditions).
\37\ Cheniere Energy, Inc. (Cheniere), Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA), Natural Gas Supply Association
(NGSA), and Rio Grande LNG, LLC, filed comments in support of Center
for LNG's (CLNG) proposal for a section 3 blanket authorization.
Where entities filed comments in support of a particular proposal
offered by CLNG, that is noted below, but similar arguments are not
repeated.
\38\ The Commission also received motions to intervene from
Atmos Energy Corp., Symmetry Energy Solutions, and the Maryland
Office of the Attorney General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
21. After reviewing the comments received in response to the NOI,
the Commission proposes to establish an LNG blanket program to
authorize certain activities at LNG plants without case-specific
authorization orders under sections 3 and 7 of the NGA.
22. Specifically, the Commission proposes adopting a tiered blanket
authorization program like the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate
program, including activities that are eligible for automatic
authorization or prior notice authorization. In general, activities
that would not: (a) increase the authorized capacity of the LNG plant;
\39\ (b) expand the authorized vertical or horizontal extents within
the footprint \40\ of the LNG plant; or (c) result in flows, levels,
volumes, pressures, temperatures, compositions, or loads outside any of
the design limits of the new, replaced, or modified LNG facilities,
auxiliary systems, and components and within the authorized design
limits of the remaining LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and
components \41\ would be
[[Page 66496]]
eligible for automatic authorization.\42\ Activities that would
increase the authorized capacity of the LNG plant, be located within
the footprint of the LNG plant, not result in any change in flows,
levels, volumes, pressures, temperatures, compositions, or loads
outside the design limits of the new, replaced and modified LNG
facilities, auxiliary systems, and components, and not result in any
aforementioned changes outside the authorized design limits of the
remaining LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and components, would be
subject to a 60-day prior notice period. Construction of new LNG
facilities, such as liquefaction trains, LNG tanks, and marine berths,
and auxiliary systems outside of the footprint of the plant would be
subject to a 90-day prior notice period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Capacity would be defined at Sec. 153.102(a)(8) as the (i)
import or export capacity of the LNG terminal or (ii) storage and
delivery capacity of the interstate LNG plant.
\40\ Footprint would be defined at Sec. 153.102(a)(9) to mean
the area located (i) within an LNG plant's security systems; and
(ii) within the areas protected from natural hazards.
\41\ Design limits would be defined at Sec. 153.102(a)(10) as
the (i) minimum and maximum design flows; (ii) minimum and maximum
liquid design levels and volumes; (iii) minimum (vacuum) and maximum
design pressures; (iv) minimum design metal temperature and maximum
design temperature; (v) minimum and maximum compositions; and (vi)
maximum structural design loads and criteria.
\42\ The authorized capacity and design limits include those
approved by staff under delegated authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. The Commission also proposes standard environmental and
engineering design conditions to address the impacts of blanket
projects as well as requirements to ensure compliance with applicable
law. To the extent practicable, the proposed LNG blanket program is
modeled after the pipeline blanket program. But unlike the pipeline
blanket program, LNG blanket projects would not be subject to cost
limits because in the Commission's experience the cost of LNG
activities does not serve as an appropriate proxy to determine whether
those activities should be eligible for the blanket authorization
program. Moreover, LNG terminals authorized under section 3 of the NGA
do not implicate the same ratepayer concerns because the Commission
does not regulate rates under NGA section 3.\43\ Rather, the Department
of Energy (DOE) evaluates the economic impact of a proposal to export
natural gas as part of its decision whether to authorize the export of
natural gas, as a commodity,\44\ to non-Free Trade Agreement
countries.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ With respect to section 7 LNG plants, as described below in
section III.B.5, the Commission proposes to impose the same rate
requirements as under the blanket certificate program.
\44\ The Commission does not authorize importation or
exportation of the commodity itself. Rather, an application for
authorization to import or export natural gas must be submitted to
the DOE. 15 U.S.C. 717b(a).
\45\ Under section 3(c) of the NGA, the exportation of natural
gas to a Free Trade Agreement country is deemed to be consistent
with the public interest. 15 U.S.C. 717b(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Applicability to Section 7 LNG Plants
24. As detailed above in section I.B, section 3 and section 7 LNG
plants share some characteristics; however, their statutory and
regulatory structure is different, as are the facilities that are
constructed and operated under sections 3 and 7, respectively.
25. In the NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether
modifications to section 7 LNG plants should be included under the
blanket program.\46\ The NOI also requested comment on whether cost-
based limits would be appropriate for such projects.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question B6.
\47\ Id. P 13, Question B7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Commenters support the expansion of the Part 157 blanket
program to include LNG facilities in interstate commerce.\48\ Eastern
Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) \49\ states that small LNG
storage facilities would benefit from blanket authority to conduct
routine modifications and improvements.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 3, 7-8.
\49\ Eastern Shore is the certificate holder for the Worcester
Resiliency Upgrade, which is under construction and includes an LNG
storage facility in Bishopville, Maryland.
\50\ Eastern Shore January 26, 2026 Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. We propose that section 7 LNG plants be eligible for the
blanket authorization program, and that the eligible activities be the
same as under the section 3 blanket program, albeit with some
additional requirements detailed below.
B. Eligible Facilities
28. The NOI sought comment on whether to adopt a tiered approach to
the proposed LNG blanket authorization program under which certain
activities are automatically authorized and other activities are
authorized after prior notice, and if so how the Commission should
define the activities and establish tiers for them.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Questions A3, B1-B4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Generally, in response to the NOI, commenters propose a
structure similar to the Commission's section 7 pipeline blanket
program, where certain categories of actions would be eligible for
automatic authorization and a larger, more complex group of actions
would be eligible for prior notice authorization. CLNG,\52\ American
Petroleum Institute,\53\ and INGAA \54\ (collectively, CLNG) propose
that the Commission adopt a three-tiered approach which includes:
automatic authorizations; standard prior notice authorization for
facility modifications that would not result in changes to hazards or
public safety; and an expanded prior notice for larger activities like
new liquefaction trains, storage tanks, or marine berths.\55\ CLNG
requests that the Commission continue to allow some modifications at
operational LNG terminals through disclosure in semi-annual operational
reports and management of change (MOC) logs (together, Change Reporting
Process).\56\ Each order authorizing an LNG plant contains requirements
for the authorization or certificate holder to file a semi-annual
operational report listing modifications undertaken at the LNG plant
and any significant modifications proposed for the next 12 months.\57\
These reports provide early notice to staff of anticipated future
construction and maintenance and allow staff to advise LNG companies on
whether such modifications require a separate amendment application.
Authorizations also include a condition that allows Commission staff to
inspect LNG facilities and issue data requests to LNG companies
throughout the life of the facilities. Under those delegated powers,
Commission staff request MOC logs to verify that modifications
undertaken at LNG terminals and plants are consistent with the semi-
annual operational reports and that there are no safety or reliability
impacts from those changes. CLNG notes, however, that the existing
Change Reporting Process lacks clarity, creating ``regulatory
inconsistencies, inefficiency, and . . . potential non-compliance
risk.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas is a trade association
that promotes public policies advancing the use of natural gas in
the United States and its export internationally.
\53\ The American Petroleum Institute is a nationwide, non-
profit trade association that represents all facets of the natural
gas and oil industry.
\54\ INGAA is a trade association that advocates regulatory and
legislative positions of importance to the interstate natural gas
pipeline industry in the United States.
\55\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 10-11.
\56\ Id. at 4 n.7, 10-11.
\57\ See, e.g., Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, 190 FERC ]
61,149, at app. A, env't condition 100 (2025).
\58\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Earthjustice \59\ and the Attorneys General for the States of
Maryland, Oregon, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
York, Rhode Island, and Vermont (collectively, States) oppose allowing
expansions of new or existing LNG terminals or facilities under a
blanket
[[Page 66497]]
program.\60\ The States assert that this would infringe upon the state
and local interests protected by the NGA.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Earthjustice is a nonprofit public interest environmental
law organization.
\60\ States Comments at 11; Earthjustice January 26, 2026
Comments at 3.
\61\ States Comments at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Our proposal here, consistent with the structure and rationale
of the longstanding section 7 pipeline blanket program, would
streamline the review of LNG authorization requests to increase
flexibility and reduce regulatory burden through the establishment of
an LNG blanket program.\62\ In other words, the blanket program,
coupled with the existing authorization process, would provide blanket
authorization holders with procedural mechanisms for authorization of
facilities that are commensurate with the degree of associated effects
(i.e., a range from automatic authorization through prior notice to a
full authorization application) while continuing to fully consider
state and local interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,200-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Below we detail the proposed LNG blanket program, which would
establish a tiered approach for blanket-eligible activities. This would
include a category of actions eligible for automatic authorization and
a category of actions that would be eligible following prior notice
procedures. Under the prior notice procedures, the Commission would
issue notice of the proposed activity and interested stakeholders, as
well as Commission staff, would have an opportunity to protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn or dismissed, the project would be
reviewed as an application for case-specific authorization under the
NGA; otherwise, the project could proceed at the end of the notice
period.
1. Automatic Authorization
33. The NOI sought comment on what types of activities the
Commission should find eligible for automatic authorization
procedures.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question B1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. CLNG commented that the automatic authorization tier should
cover modifications, additions, or improvements to LNG plants that
extend beyond the routine activities covered by the Change Reporting
Process (which CLNG advocates that the Commission maintain after the
LNG blanket program is authorized), but that do not involve any changes
to overall design, new offsite thermal radiation or flammable vapor
impacts, increases in permitted noise levels, new types of pollutants
or hazards, or new landowner or public use impacts.\64\ Under CLNG's
proposal, automatic authorization could allow for increases in capacity
through uprates if the uprate is based upon efficiencies realized after
the original authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 11-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Specifically, CLNG's proposed automatic authorization tier
would require: (i) the proposed activity be within the existing LNG
plant footprint or located on adjacent or nearby land that is currently
owned or controlled by the blanket authorization holder; (ii) no
effects to sensitive environmental resources outside the original scope
of the NEPA review of the plant; (iii) all construction or
modifications comply with the conditions and environmental mitigation
methods from the original section 3 authorization order; (iv) no
increase to the authorized annual total LNG production or storage
capacity that exceeds the design limits of existing systems and
equipment; and (v) continued compliance with USCG, PHMSA, and other
permitting agency regulations.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. CLNG provides the following examples of automatic authorization
activities: (i) equipment uprates or rearrangements that improve
efficiency, safety, capacity, emissions, or reliability; (ii)
installation of additional safety systems or emission control devices;
(iii) installation of auxiliary systems; (iv) replacements and upgrades
of infrastructure that are not an in-kind replacement but result in no
greater hazard footprint or environmental impacts; (v) installation of
addition of instrumentation, monitoring systems, or controls; (vi)
installation of new or improved components that do not introduce new
unmitigated hazards; (vii) uprating of capacities through activities
such as debottlenecking, optimizing existing trains, or implementing
improvements during construction; (viii) installation of redundant
components that introduce no new unmitigated hazards; (ix) installation
of components required to operate within the authorized facility design
limits; (x) installation of new or additional truck loading facilities
for non-hazardous material transport; and (xi) activities required for
maintaining compliance with regulations, regardless of the complexity
of the project.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Id. at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. CLNG and Cheniere \67\ maintain that many optimizations and in-
kind modifications that are performed within the existing footprint--
such as replacing older equipment with newer, safer models, installing
advanced leak detection systems, upgrading fire and gas detection
systems, debottlenecking activities, or installing pollution control
devices or emissions monitoring devices--would result in no adverse
environmental impacts and would yield reliability and safety
benefits.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Cheniere, through its subsidiaries, is the owner of the
Sabine Pass LNG Terminal and Corpus Christi LNG Terminal located
near the Sabine Pass Channel, Cameron Parish, Louisiana, and on the
northern shore of Corpus Christi Bay in San Patricio and Nueces
Counties, Texas, respectively.
\68\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 28, 32; Cheniere January
26, 2026 Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. The Center for Regulatory Freedom \69\ proposes that the
automatic authorization tier include low-impact and routine activities
such as equipment replacements, maintenance actions, safety system
upgrades, and efficiency improvements.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ The Center for Regulatory Freedom is a project of the
Conservative Political Action Coalition Foundation, a non-profit,
non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and education foundation.
\70\ Center for Regulatory Freedom Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Blue Engineering and Consulting Company (BLUE) \71\ recommends
that the automatic authorization tier include modifications focused on
operations, maintenance, safety, reliability, and efficiency
improvements that would result in no impacts to the public or the
environment.\72\ It provides the following examples of modifications:
(i) debottlenecking activities to improve efficiency and increase
throughput; (ii) installation of redundant equipment to increase
reliability and minimize downtime; (iii) installation of nitrogen
rejection units, helium removal, component injection into feed gas
streams, or other removal/injection to handle changes in feed gas
composition; (iv) installation or modification of pretreatment
technologies to account for feed gas changes; and (v) modification of
technologies to meet permit requirements, account for changes in feed
gas composition, or account for operational changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ BLUE is an engineering and consulting firm which provides
regulatory services to various LNG facilities during the permitting,
construction, commissioning, and in-service phases.
\72\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. (Woodside) \73\ supports automatic
authorizations for activities that do not materially expand or alter
the facility's previously authorized environmental footprint or LNG
capacity.\74\
[[Page 66498]]
EcoEl[eacute]ctrica, L.P. (EcoEl[eacute]ctrica),\75\ supports allowing
automatic authorization for modifications related to operations,
maintenance, safety, reliability, and efficiency improvements that
result in no impacts to the public or the environment.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Woodside is the owner of Woodside Louisiana LNG, formerly
the Driftwood LNG project, which is under construction near the city
of Carlyss in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
\74\ As examples of projects that it proposes should fall under
an automatic authorization, Woodside suggests rearrangements or
replacements of piping, equipment replacements, and improvements to
support infrastructure such as electric and water distribution.
Woodside January 26, 2026 Comments at 2.
\75\ EcoEl[eacute]ctrica is the owner and operator of
EcoEl[eacute]ctrica LNG at Guayanilla Bay, Pe[ntilde]uelas, about
nine miles west of Ponce, Puerto Rico.
\76\ EcoEl[eacute]ctrica Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. As the Commission explained in its section 7 pipeline blanket
certificate proceeding, activities eligible for automatic authorization
are ``so well understood as an established industry practice that
little scrutiny is required to determine their compatibility with the
public convenience and necessity.'' \77\ Here, we agree with commenters
that certain activities at LNG plants are so well understood they would
similarly require little scrutiny to determine that they are not
inconsistent with the public interest, as required by section 3, or are
in the public convenience and necessity, as required by section 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. The automatic authorization category would establish a
regulatory path for efficient implementation of modifications at
existing LNG plants without unnecessary regulatory burdens, while
maintaining compliance with both the NGA and NEPA. The proposed
automatic authorization category is limited to facilities that (1) do
not result in expansions or increases of the authorized capacity of the
LNG plant, (2) are within the existing horizontal and vertical extents
of the footprint and design limits,\78\ (3) do not result in adverse
safety or reliability impacts at the plant, and (4) would have only
minor or no environmental effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Changes shall not result in flows, levels, volumes,
pressures, temperatures, compositions, or loads outside any of the
design limits of the new, replaced, or modified LNG facilities,
auxiliary systems, and components and the authorized design limits
for the remaining LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. We propose at Sec. 153.108 and Sec. 153.109 to include the
following activities under the automatic authorization category:
Abandonment
Abandonment of any components, systems, or facilities that do
not impact existing customers under contract and do not adversely
affect the continued safety, reliability, or environmental
protection of operational facilities.
Components Within LNG Facilities
For the components listed below,\79\ replacements (in-kind or
upgraded \80\) including the abandonment of existing equipment,
modifications,\81\ or new components at authorized LNG facilities
that do not increase the authorized capacity of the LNG terminal or
plant and within the authorized vertical and horizontal extents of
the footprint and design limits of the LNG plant facilities and
auxiliary systems:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ We propose to define individual components in Sec.
153.102.
\80\ Upgraded would be defined in Sec. 153.102(a)(13) as
providing equal or greater level of safety, security, reliability,
operability, efficiency, and environmental protection.
\81\ Modify would be defined in Sec. 153.102(a)(14) as changes
to the siting, design, construction, or operational conditions of
components within authorized LNG facilities and auxiliary systems,
including but not limited to changes in process controls, software,
setpoints, size/diameter, wall thickness, materials of construction,
routing, location, or other process, mechanical, electrical, hazard
mitigation, or structural related specifications, designs, or
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) piping and valves;
(b) process vessels;
(c) storage containers;
(d) rotating equipment;
(e) fired equipment;
(f) instrumentation and control system components;
(g) safety instrumented system components;
(h) buildings and structures; and
(i) electrical components.
Auxiliary Systems
Replacements (in-kind or upgraded) including the abandonment of
existing equipment, modifications, or additions of the following
components or systems to maintain or improve the safety and
reliability of operations of LNG facilities and that do not increase
the authorized capacity of the LNG terminal or plant and within the
authorized vertical and horizontal extents of the footprint and
design limits of the LNG facilities and auxiliary systems:
(a) vapor handling systems;
(b) fuel gas systems;
(c) nitrogen and inert gas systems;
(d) instrument, plant/utility air systems;
(e) utility water and other utility systems;
(f) power generation and electrical systems;
(g) emission control systems;
(h) cathodic protection systems;
(i) security systems;
(j) relief valve and flare/vent systems;
(k) spill containment systems;
(l) passive protection systems;
(m) hazard detection systems;
(n) hazard control systems;
(o) firewater systems;
(p) structural systems;
(q) natural hazard mitigation systems; and
(r) emergency response systems.
Related Pipeline Facilities
Construction of pipeline facilities under section 3 of the NGA
to the same extent as is allowed under the section 7 pipeline
blanket certificate program.
44. Activities that would not be eligible for automatic
authorization include increases in capacities of the LNG terminal or
plant and projects that would extend beyond the existing LNG plant
footprint because these activities have the potential for safety and
environmental impacts and thus are better suited for the prior notice
category of actions.
45. Further, we do not propose to allow increases of the authorized
capacity through uprates under automatic authorization, even where
efficiencies are realized during construction, because such increases
may implicate hazards, safety concerns, and environmental effects
associated with increased throughput. Such issues historically have
been addressed through safety and environmental reviews prior to start-
up. Moreover, the changes vary from plant to plant and may result in
more or larger LNG marine vessels, requiring a more detailed analysis
by Commission staff or its federal agency partners. Further, these
changes could also require a new letter of recommendation from USCG; a
letter of determination from PHMSA; concurrence from the DoW; the
opportunity for state agencies to submit a state safety advisory
report; updated Emergency Response Plans developed in consultation with
USCG and state and local agencies; and ESA consultation. Therefore,
such uprates would be eligible under prior notice procedures.
46. As for CLNG's proposal that the existing Change Reporting
Process \82\ be preserved as a means to modify LNG plants separate from
the blanket program, we disagree. The existing Change Reporting Process
does not provide a clear, consistent, and certain regulatory path for
modifying LNG plants.\83\ Conversely, the proposed blanket program will
provide a path for routine, well understood repairs, replacements, and
additions at LNG plants to receive regulatory approval with a shorter
time frame, compared with traditional case-specific authorizations. The
automatic authorization activities would include those intended to be
covered by the semi-annual operational reports and the prior notice
procedures would establish a separate streamlined authorization process
to provide more consistency and regulatory certainty for those
[[Page 66499]]
activities while balancing the potential impacts of those activities.
Nevertheless, as described below in section III.C.7, the semi-annual
reporting requirements would be maintained and would continue to keep
staff apprised of planned changes at each LNG plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See supra P 29 (``Change Reporting Process'' is the term
used by CLNG to cover modifications made at LNG terminals through
both the semi-annual reporting and the MOC processes).
\83\ See CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 8 (recognizing that
the Change Reporting Process lacks clarity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Prior Notice
47. The NOI sought comment on what types of activities the
Commission should find eligible for prior notice procedures.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question B1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. CLNG proposes that prior notice projects be divided into two
tiers. The first tier of prior notice projects would entail ``facility
modifications short of a new liquefaction train, LNG storage tank, or
loading berth.'' \85\ CLNG's proposal would allow increases in LNG
production or feed gas throughput that may have offsite impacts or
implicate other potential issues (e.g., safety modeling, effects on
landowners, environmental impacts, etc.), but would remain within the
scope and magnitude of the impacts already reviewed and approved as
part of the terminal's original authorization. For this tier, CLNG
proposed a 30-day notice period.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 10.
\86\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. Examples of the types of projects CLNG proposes to include in
its first prior notice tier include: (i) LNG production increases
beyond the previously authorized limit; (ii) adding a new process unit,
system, or equipment to improve functionality or emissions but that
does not expand storage; (iii) limited construction such as adding an
extra power generator or a new control room that is consistent with
previously assessed land use; (iv) modifications to the jurisdictional
portions of an LNG terminal to enable integration with a complementary
non-jurisdictional activity; (v) installation of new units or
components as replacements of existing units or components with
substantially equivalent design delivery capacity; and (vi) activities
required for maintaining compliance with regulations, regardless of the
complexity of the project, that otherwise do not meet the criteria for
automatic authorization.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Id. at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. CLNG proposes that this tier include activities that increase
LNG production or throughput capacity without the construction of new
liquefaction trains, storage tanks, or LNG loading berths provided
that: (i) any environmental effects must have been analyzed within the
previous NEPA analysis or will be addressed in a new NEPA analysis by
another agency and the blanket authorization holder will obtain all
required permits prior to commencement of construction; (ii) the
project either does not require new land beyond the existing site or
right-of-way or any new land is already under control of the blanket
authorization holder; (iii) the project does not impact traffic and
thermal radiation zones such that adjacent parcels not previously
impacted would now be impacted; (iv) the project continues to comply
with USCG, PHMSA, and other agency permits and requirements; and (v)
preliminary noise modeling shows no exceedance of a day-night level
(L<INF>dn</INF>) of 55 dBA at the nearest noise sensitive area and a
noise survey will be filed no later than 60 days after the in-service
date.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. In its second prior notice tier, CLNG proposes to allow the
construction of new liquefaction trains, storage tanks, and LNG loading
berths.\89\ Specifically, CLNG proposes that obtaining prior notice
authorization for new trains, storage tanks, and berths would require:
(i) that the design of the proposed facility be based on an existing
design of the blanket authorization holder or its affiliate, as
modified to account for site-specific conditions, new models of
equipment, safety, efficiency, and maintenance improvements,
integration with existing facilities at the LNG plant, and any updates
in applicable Federal regulations; (ii) continued compliance with all
conditions present in the underlying section 3 authorization order
except any changes necessary due to changed regulations; (iii) that any
new site-specific environmental impacts be of the same kind as those
reviewed in the underlying NEPA analysis or be covered in a new NEPA
analysis prepared by another agency; (iv) that new waterway suitability
assessments or environmental permits be obtained if needed; (v) that
any changes to the plant's existing safety design criteria are within
the assumptions of prior models or else do not result in any parcels
being included within the impact zones; (vi) that construction on new
land adjacent or near the existing site will not significantly impact
traffic; and (vii) that preliminary noise modeling shows no exceedance
of an L<INF>dn</INF> of 55 dBA at the nearest noise sensitive area and
a noise survey must be filed within 60 days of the in-service date.\90\
CLNG states that all of its proposed prior notice activities would
either replicate the design of existing facilities that were previously
subject to NEPA review or that would be de minimis or not have
significant impacts.\91\ For this tier of activities, CLNG proposes a
notice period of 60 days.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Id. at 18. BLUE proposes essentially the same activities
for 60-day prior notice authorization as CLNG. BLUE January 23, 2026
Comments at 5-6.
\90\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 18-19.
\91\ See id. at 11.
\92\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. In addition to the activities proposed by other commenters,
Woodside proposes that dredging or marine adjustment within existing
operational limits be allowed under a prior notice tier.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Staff notes that the US Army Corps of Engineers, not the
Commission, has jurisdiction over dredging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. As the Commission explained in the 1982 section 7 pipeline
blanket rulemaking, the prior notice tier of activities ``provides for
a notice and protest procedure and comprises certain activities in
which various interested parties might have a concern,'' such that
``there is a need to provide an opportunity for a greater degree of
review and to provide for possible adjudication of controversial
aspects.'' \94\ We propose to establish a category of actions that
would be eligible for prior notice authorization, which we have
subdivided into two subcategories, one with a 60-day notice period and
the other with a 90-day notice period, based on the Commission's
experience reviewing both initial requests for authorization and
requests for modifications during construction, commissioning, and
operation of LNG plants. Our proposed notice periods differ from CLNG's
and BLUE's, but we believe the additional time--30 additional days for
each prior notice category, as compared to CLNG's proposal--is needed
to enable the Commission, its staff, the public, affected landowners,
and other interested parties sufficient time to review the proposals.
Protest procedures for the blanket authorization program are discussed
below, in section III.C.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. We propose at Sec. 153.108(d)(1) to make the following
activities eligible under prior notice procedures with a 60-day notice
period:
Components Within LNG Facilities
Replacements, including the abandonment of existing components;
upgrades; and modifications of existing components or the addition
of new components designed to increase the authorized capacity of
the LNG terminal or plant and that are within the authorized
footprint and design limits.
[[Page 66500]]
Auxiliary Systems
Replacements, including the abandonment of existing components;
modifications; or new auxiliary components and systems associated
with existing LNG facilities designed to increase the authorized
capacity of the LNG terminal or plant and that are within the
authorized footprint and design limits.
Related Pipeline Facilities
Construction of pipeline facilities under section 3 of the NGA
to the same extent as is allowed under the section 7 pipeline
blanket certificate program.
55. We propose at Sec. 153.108(d)(2) to make the following
activities eligible under prior notice procedures with a 90-day notice
period:
New LNG Facilities and Auxiliary Systems
New LNG facilities and auxiliary systems that would be
constructed outside the authorized footprint.
56. Any projects undertaken under the 90-day prior notice category
would be subject to the following conditions: (i) any expansion of
facilities must be either within the existing LNG plant footprint or
adjacent to the LNG plant and permanently occupy no more than 25 acres,
occupy only previously-disturbed or developed land or waterways, and be
within industrial zoned areas or areas without zoning; (ii) requests
must demonstrate that any modifications outside the existing footprint
will comply with all environmental and engineering conditions of the
authorization for the plant; and (iii) the facilities must be of the
same type (in-kind or upgraded) as those previously authorized by the
Commission at the same LNG plant or terminal or reviewed and approved
by Commission staff for the underlying authorization. We propose
limiting the facility type to ensure sufficient time to analyze, within
the limited timeframes contemplated under the proposed prior notice
regulations, projects' potential hazards and safety and environmental
impacts in light of the site-specific siting, design, construction, and
operation of the LNG facilities in question. Further, Sec.
153.108(f)(1) of the Commission's proposed regulations, which staff
will enforce, prohibit blanket authorization holders from segmenting,
separating, or dividing projects in order to meet the acreage
limitation.
3. Blanket Activities Outside of the LNG Plant Footprint
57. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should allow
the construction and operation of facilities outside of the footprint
of the currently authorized LNG plant.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question B4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. Some commenters support allowing projects to occur both within
and outside of the existing project footprint.\96\ CH-IV International,
LLC (CH-IV),\97\ however, opposes allowing construction and operation
of facilities outside of the plant limits but does not explain why.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ E.g., CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 14; Cheniere
January 26, 2026 Comments at 6.
\97\ CH-IV is a global engineering and consulting firm serving
asset developers, regulators, owners, operators, and lenders across
the energy, infrastructure, and resources industries.
\98\ CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. As stated above, we propose to allow for the construction and
operation of facilities outside of the LNG plant footprint. However,
such facilities would be limited to a 25-acre area and would only be
eligible for construction under the 90-day prior notice procedures.
60. We believe it would be unwise to limit expansions to those
within the existing footprint. First, we understand, based on the
experience of Commission staff, that an appropriately limited category
of actions outside LNG plants' existing footprints can be fully and
appropriately assessed through the proposed prior notice procedures. In
particular, the engineering and environmental conditions (e.g.,
requiring that the new facilities be of the same type (in-kind or
upgraded) as those previously authorized by the Commission at the same
LNG plant or terminal) and the limitation on the location and size of
the expansion permanently occupying no more than 25 acres on adjacent
land help ensure that such projects will not have a significant impact
on public safety or the environment. The prior notice procedures also
allow for interested stakeholders to have an opportunity to evaluate
proposals and raise particular concerns regarding a project's impact.
Moreover, limiting blanket-eligible expansions to those within a
plant's existing footprint could incentivize artificially congested
development, resulting in potential safety concerns due to equipment
congestion, which can create new hazards for and from maintenance
activities, increase consequences from hazards, and impede emergency
access and egress. Therefore, we find that such projects may qualify
for the faster and more streamlined blanket procedures, so as to
facilitate and expedite important infrastructure development without
significant adverse impacts on public safety or the environment.
61. Regarding the proposed 25-acre limit on blanket-eligible
expansions outside a plant's existing footprint, Commission staff
evaluated prior authorizations to determine what acreage would allow an
LNG blanket authorization holder to construct new facilities of an
appropriate scope for eligibility under the proposed 90-day prior
notice tier. Staff determined that 25 acres would allow for the
construction of two LNG tanks, a single large liquefaction train (e.g.,
7.8 MTPA (1.08 Bcfd)), approximately 10 smaller liquefaction blocks
(e.g., 20 liquefaction units totaling 12.5 MTPA (1.73 Bcfd)), or five
combined-cycle power generation facilities. Staff determined based on
its experience that the safety and environmental effects of such
projects would be less than significant based on prior examples.\99\ We
emphasize that this analysis does not alter or diminish an applicant's
obligation to comply with the requirements set forth in Sec.
153.108(e)(4). In addition, the proposed regulations include general,
environmental, and engineering conditions and criteria as delineated in
Sec. Sec. 153.106 and 153.108 to limit the impacts. However, we seek
comment on:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ For example, in Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, 190 FERC
] 61,149, the Commission authorized the construction and operation
of the CCL Midscale Trains 8 & 9 Project, two midscale trains that
would permanently occupy approximately 40 acres (i.e., each train
would occupy 20 acres) and that the proposed project ``would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.'' Id. P 130. Similarly, in Port
Arthur LNG Phase II, 184 FERC ] 61,184 (2023), the Commission
authorized the construction and operation of the Port Arthur LNG
Expansion Project, two large scale liquefaction trains that would
permanently occupy approximately 60 acres (i.e., each train occupied
30 acres) and found that the proposed project ``would not constitute
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.'' Id. P 130. See also Sabine Pass Liquefaction
Expansion, LLC, 151 FERC ] 61,012, at P 122 (2015) (finding that the
construction and operation of two liquefaction trains and other
facilities would not constitute a major federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment).
--Whether 25 acres beyond the existing plant footprint is an
appropriate acreage limitation?
--Whether the Commission should consider any additional limits or
criteria for blanket eligibility for projects that extend beyond the
existing plant footprint?
62. In addition, we propose to allow certain pipeline tie-in
facilities to be constructed outside the existing plant footprint.
These facilities would allow LNG blanket authorization holders to
interconnect with pipeline systems without case-specific authorization.
[[Page 66501]]
Such facilities are well understood because many similar facilities
have been constructed under the Commission's section 7 pipeline blanket
program.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ See 18 CFR 157.202(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Cost Limits for LNG Facilities and Auxiliary Systems
63. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should use
cost limits as a proxy to determine what activities are eligible under
the proposed LNG blanket program.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question B7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. Under the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate regulations,
activities are limited based on the cost of the proposed project.\102\
Several commenters oppose cost limits for the construction and
operation of LNG facilities under an LNG blanket program because of the
high variability in equipment cost and supply chain factors.\103\
States comment that cost limits are not an appropriate surrogate for
determining whether a project should be eligible for automatic or prior
notice authorization because the Commission has not shown LNG facility
projects and activities to be routine or generic.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See supra P 11 & note 21.
\103\ See Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 6; BLUE January
23, 2026 Comments at 3; Woodside January 26, 2026 Energy Comments at
2.
\104\ States January 26, 2026 Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. We do not propose to include cost limits as part of the LNG
blanket program for LNG plants. The costs associated with LNG and
auxiliary systems do not serve as a reasonable proxy for their
associated effects. Instead, the classifications we have proposed,
which are based on the physical and operational nature of the
activities at issue, provide a more appropriate proxy for the covered
projects' expected environmental, safety, and hazard effects, and hence
a better criterion for eligibility under the blanket program. Moreover,
the Commission does not regulate rates under NGA section 3 as it does
under section 7, so concerns about effects on ratepayers--one of the
primary reasons for the section 7 cost limits--are not implicated.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See Hackberry LNG Terminal, L.L.C., 101 FERC ] 61,294, at
P 21 (2003) (citing Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, 106
Stat. 2776 (1992)) (noting that the prices, terms, and conditions of
service for first sales of natural gas, including sales of imported
LNG, have been deregulated by statute and finding there is no
regulatory need to require a tariff and rate schedule as a condition
of approving an LNG terminal under section 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Rate Treatment of Section 7 LNG Activities
66. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should treat
section 7 LNG plants different from other interstate natural gas
facilities.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question B7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. Eastern Shore comments that the Commission should not place
cost-based limits on section 7 LNG facilities as long as required
environmental and landowner impact conditions are satisfied.\107\ Given
its experience, Eastern Shore states that these facilities are more
costly than linear pipeline projects.\108\ CH-IV states that the
program should be structured in a manner that ensures automatic
authorization projects have little impact on ratepayers or interstate
pipeline operations and prior notice procedures should be available for
projects likely to have significant impacts on ratepayers or interstate
pipeline operations.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Id. at 4.
\108\ Id.
\109\ CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. As discussed above, we do not propose to include cost limits
for LNG blanket activities. However, any section 7 LNG blanket
activities would be subject to the same rate treatment applicable under
the section 7 pipeline blanket program and our proposed regulations
include reference to the relevant portions of the pipeline blanket
regulations. Thus, for section 7 LNG activities completed under the
automatic authorization category, we propose that the costs be
presumptively eligible for rolled-in rate treatment because the
eligible activities will be for enhanced reliability and safety.\110\
As for activities completed under the prior notice category, we note
that the Commission is proposing changes to its section 7 pipeline
blanket program to allow for incremental rates and any changes made in
that proceeding would apply to the section 7 LNG blanket
activities.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Certification of New Interstate Nat. Gas Pipeline
Facilities, 88 FERC ] 61,227, at 61,746 n.12 (1999).
\111\ See Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Program, 91 FR
31371 (May 27, 2026), 195 FERC ] 61,128 (2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Replacements Under Sec. 2.55 for Section 7 LNG Plants
69. Currently, section 7 LNG certificate holders can replace
facilities that ``have or will soon become physically deteriorated or
obsolete'' under Sec. 2.55 of the Commission's regulations.\112\ Such
a replacement must have a substantially equivalent design capacity, be
located in the same right-of-way or on the same site as the facilities
being replaced, and be constructed using the temporary work space used
to construct the existing facility.\113\ Section 2.55 also allows LNG
certificate holders to construct auxiliary installations, which
includes installations for more efficient or economical operation.\114\
As the activities that are eligible under Sec. 2.55 would be redundant
with the activities under the proposed LNG blanket authorization
program, we propose to remove the eligibility for section 7 LNG
facilities, including auxiliary systems, under Sec. 2.55 for those
entities that choose to apply for and receive a blanket authorization.
To ensure that the activities undertaken pursuant to Sec. 2.55 meet
the same safety and engineering conditions as those done under the
proposed blanket authorization program, we will also require that
section 7 LNG plant operators comply with the requirements in Sec.
153.106(c) and Sec. 153.107(a)(3) and (4) for activities undertaken
pursuant to Sec. 2.55. Recognizing that LNG certificate holders may
have planned projects under Sec. 2.55 and that a sunset period may
accordingly be necessary to avoid unwarranted disruption, we propose to
include a provision that would make the proposed amendments to Sec.
2.55 effective 2 years after the effective date of the rule. After that
time, LNG certificate holders with effective blanket authorizations
would have to rely exclusively on the provisions of the LNG blanket
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ 18 CFR 2.55(b).
\113\ Id.
\114\ Id. 2.55(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Blanket Authorization Procedures
1. Obtaining Blanket Authority
70. When instituting the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate
program in 1982, the Commission required each existing certificate
holder to apply for a blanket certificate \115\ and delegated authority
to staff to act on such applications.\116\ Applying NGA section 7(e)'s
standards, staff issued approximately 65 blanket certificate orders to
existing section 7 pipeline companies in the first two years.\117\
[[Page 66502]]
When a new natural gas company \118\ requests a certificate to
construct and operate interstate transportation facilities, it
typically also requests a section 7 pipeline blanket certificate, and
the Commission acts on such requests in the certificate proceeding for
the project.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,201; see
also 18 CFR 157.204 (section 7 pipeline blanket certificate
application procedures).
\116\ 18 CFR 375.308(v)(8).
\117\ E.g., E. Tenn. Nat. Gas Co., 20 FERC ] 62,413 (1982)
(finding the ``applicant is able and willing properly to do the acts
and to [perform] the service proposed and to conform to the
provisions of the Natural Gas Act and the requirements, rules, and
regulations of the Commission thereunder'') (citing NGA section
7(e), 15 U.S.C. 717f(e)).
\118\ Under the NGA a ``natural gas company'' is defined as a
person engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate
commerce, or the sale in interstate commerce of such gas for resale.
15 U.S.C. 717a(6).
\119\ E.g., Double E Pipeline, LLC, 173 FERC ] 61,074, at P 38
(2020); Adelphia Gateway, LLC, 169 FERC ] 61,220, at P 52 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should require
LNG authorization and certificate holders to apply for a blanket
authorization as it does for natural gas pipeline companies.\120\ The
NOI also sought comment on whether, and if so how, the Commission
should consider an applicant's compliance history when determining
whether to grant blanket authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question A1 (citing 18 CFR
157.204(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. Industry commenters generally support the automatic grant of
LNG blanket authority to existing authorization and certificate holders
and inclusion of a new standard condition in any future section 3
authorization orders.\121\ Other commenters request that the Commission
require LNG authorization and certificate holders to apply for a
blanket authorization.\122\ Earthjustice states that requiring
authorization and certificate holders to request a blanket
authorization would not be burdensome and would allow the public to
comment and provide perspective on whether specific authorization and
certificate holders should not be granted a blanket authorization.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Center for LNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 21; Cheniere
Energy, Inc. January 26, 2026 Comments at 4.
\122\ E.g., BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 3.
\123\ Earthjustice January 26, 2026 Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. Cheniere does not recommend considering prior compliance
history.\124\ Similarly, CLNG does not recommend considering prior
compliance history unless there is an egregious record or a history of
not being forthright in reporting to the Commission.\125\ CLNG notes
that the Commission's Office of Enforcement could address any
compliance issues.\126\ Other commenters propose that the Commission
consider the company's compliance history when acting on a request for
a blanket authorization and retain the ability to revoke such
authorization.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 4.
\125\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 21-22.
\126\ Id. at 21-22.
\127\ CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 2; BLUE January 23,
2026 Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. We propose in Sec. 153.104 to require LNG authorization and
certificate holders to apply for blanket authorization before availing
themselves of the proposed LNG blanket program.\128\ This appropriately
mirrors the approach taken under the section 7 pipeline blanket
certificate program. We also propose to establish a delegation for the
Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) to act on such
requests, to avoid the need for the Commission to address each
case.\129\ By requiring LNG authorization and certificate holders to
apply for a blanket authorization, Commission staff will ensure that
the authorization or certificate holder has requisite plans and
procedures in place (such as an Emergency Response Plan as required
under NGA section 3A). Finally, we note, consistent with other
authorizations, that the Commission retains authority to rescind or
decline to grant a blanket authorization for non-compliance.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ As with the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate
program, a new applicant can request a blanket authorization
concurrently with its request for authorization under section 3 or
section 7.
\129\ See 18 CFR 375.308(v)(8) (delegation to the Director of
OEP to approve blanket certificate applications).
\130\ See Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,203
(explaining, in the section 7 blanket pipeline certificate
proceeding, that the Commission has ``the authority to revoke any
certificate, including a blanket certificate, under appropriate
circumstances'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Stakeholder Notification
75. The NOI sought comment on what stakeholder notification the
Commission should require for projects constructed pursuant to an LNG
blanket program.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question A7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. In response to the NOI, CLNG proposes that for projects
requiring prior notice, the Commission adopt procedures consistent with
Sec. 157.6(d), which requires notification of ``all affected
landowners and towns, communities, and local, state and Federal
governments and agencies involved in the project.'' \132\ In addition,
CLNG proposes that notification also be provided to all customers of
the requesting LNG facility.\133\ Cheniere proposes a more
circumscribed approach, stating that notification should be limited to
agencies with jurisdictional authority and affected landowners only
when activities occur outside the existing, previously-authorized plant
boundary; otherwise, routine in-boundary modifications should not
require public notice.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 25.
\133\ Id.
\134\ Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. We propose to establish landowner notification procedures akin
to the Commission's existing regulations for the section 7 pipeline
blanket program.\135\ For automatic authorization projects, the
notification procedures proposed in Sec. 153.103(d)(1) would require
LNG blanket authorization holders to notify affected landowners, as
defined by the Commission's regulations,\136\ 45 days prior to
commencing construction unless the activity does not involve ground
disturbance, changes to operational air and noise emissions, or adverse
effects on hazards or safety. In addition to the landowner notification
procedures, we propose to add a requirement for automatic authorization
activities that each local municipality (i.e., the city, town, or
similar local political subdivision) in which the LNG terminal or plant
is located be notified, subject to the same exclusion applicable to
landowner notification. For prior notice projects, blanket
authorization holders would be required, as proposed in Sec.
153.103(d)(2), to notify affected landowners and each local
municipality (i.e., the city, town, or similar local political
subdivision) in which the LNG terminal or plant is located within at
least three business days following the date that a docket number is
assigned to the request and at the time the blanket authorization
holder initiates easement negotiations. Last, notification to certain
Federal, state, and local agencies is required under specified
circumstances, as discussed in section III.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 18 CFR 157.203(d). See infra section III.C.8.
\136\ Id. 157.6(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Advance Notice for Automatic Authorization Activities
78. Section 2.55(b) requires notice to the Commission prior to the
commencement of construction of certain larger-scale replacement
projects because the Commission determined that, consistent with
NEPA,\137\ it needed to review replacement activities that could pose
serious, adverse environmental impacts before they occur.\138\ The NOI
sought comment on whether the Commission should require advance
notification to Commission staff of blanket activities prior to
[[Page 66503]]
implementation and, if so, whether 30 days is sufficient.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ NEPA requires Federal agencies to analyze the reasonably
foreseeable effects of a proposed major Federal action. 42 U.S.C.
4332, et seq.
\138\ Revisions to Reguls. Governing NGPA Sec. 311 Constr. & the
Replacement of Facilities, Order No. 544, 57 FR 46487 (Sept. 21,
1992), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,951, at 30,686-87 (1992) (cross-
referenced at 60 FERC ] 61,253).
\139\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question A4.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. Numerous commenters state that no advance notice should be
required for automatic authorization projects.\140\ CH-IV recommends a
30-day notice procedure.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 4-5; Cheniere January
26, 2026 Comments at 5; CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 22.
\141\ CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 2. See 18 CFR
2.55(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
80. We do not propose to require advance notice for the relatively
minor activities eligible for automatic authorization, beyond the
proposed semi-annual operational reporting discussed below in section
III.C.7, and the inspection requirements that are included in each
authorization order. The proposed activities that would be eligible for
automatic authorization are well-understood and must not result in
significant environmental effects. Moreover, the technical reviews,
inspections, and semi-annual operational reporting requirements already
ensure that staff is aware of any significant modifications.
4. Notice and Protest Procedures for Prior Notice Projects
81. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should adopt
the same prior notice procedures as in the section 7 pipeline blanket
regulations.\142\ The NOI also asked which types of protests should be
dismissed, if any.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question A6 (citing 18 CFR
157.205).
\143\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. Most commenters recommend that the Commission adopt a process
similar to the prior notice procedures used in the section 7 pipeline
blanket program. Both Cheniere and BLUE recommend that the Commission
adopt the same 60-day prior notice timeline.\144\ Conversely, and as
discussed above, CLNG recommends a two-tiered approach where smaller
projects would have a 30-day timeline and larger projects (e.g., new
liquefaction trains, tanks, and marine berths) would have a 60-day
timeline.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 4; BLUE January 23,
2026 Comments at 3.
\145\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. As for limiting potential range of eligible protestors, CLNG
proposes that the Commission limit eligible protesters to customers of
the LNG plant and adjacent landowners who can show that they may be
affected by the prior notice project in a different manner than by the
project approved in the original section 3 authorization. CLNG asserts
that these restricted eligibility criteria would prevent individuals or
groups without demonstrated and tangible interests in a project from
delaying it.\146\ CLNG also proposes that the Director of OEP be
authorized to dismiss protests and be required to dismiss any protest
that seeks to relitigate the section 3 authorization or other earlier
proceedings.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Id. at 24.
\147\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. BLUE proposes that the Director of OEP have 30 days to dismiss
a protest if it does not raise a substantive issue, thus providing
staff more time to review the filings than under the section 7 pipeline
blanket program, under which the Director of OEP has only 10 days to
issue such a dismissal.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. Woodside supports the establishment of minimum requirements
that a protest must satisfy. Specifically, Woodside states that a
protest should be required to: (i) identify with particularity the
substantive issue presented by the activity; (ii) set forth in detail
the substantive basis for the protest; and (iii) establish with
substantial supporting evidence that the protestor or the individuals
it represents stand to be materially and substantially affected in an
adverse manner by the activity.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ Woodside January 26, 2026 Comments at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. As discussed above, we propose that the regulations establish a
tiered approach for the notice and protest procedures for prior notice
activities. We propose to establish a 60-day comment period as the
foundation for the LNG blanket authorization program and a longer 90-
day comment period for a second tier of larger prior notice activities
(e.g., liquefaction trains, storage tanks, and marine berths).
87. A shorter time period would be too restrictive to allow
interested parties, including state and local agencies who, within 30
days, might furnish an advisory report under NGA section 3A(c),\150\ to
review the request, and then for Commission staff to perform its review
of environmental and safety issues, respond to any issues raised, and
protest if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ 15 U.S.C. 717b-1(c). Although section 3A does not apply to
section 7 LNG approvals, a 60-day notice period is still appropriate
to provide stakeholders time to review a proposal and to provide
staff sufficient time to complete any environmental review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
88. For larger-scale facilities, we propose to establish a 90-day
notice period. This longer notice period will provide stakeholders and
the Commission sufficient time to evaluate environmental and safety
effects associated with the construction and operation of such
facilities while still providing a more streamlined approval process as
compared to a full section 3 or 7 application. Based on its decades of
experience analyzing such projects, the Commission does not believe a
shorter notice period would be appropriate for these larger scale
facilities.
89. Regarding eligibility criteria for protesters, we propose to
adopt the same approach as our current part 157, subpart F regulations
governing protests. Under those regulations, a protest to a prior
notice is dismissed if it fails to ``raise a substantive issue and
fails to provide any specific detailed reason or rationale for the
objection.'' We note that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
dismisses protests for failure to raise substantive issues pertaining
to the project and failure to provide any specific detailed reason or
rationale for objecting to the pending proposal, thereby allowing the
project to proceed under a blanket authorization.\151\ However, we seek
comment on whether establishing more prescriptive criteria for
protestors could focus prior notice proceedings and help promote the
intended efficiencies of the blanket program. This could include
limiting the persons that may protest a prior notice request to only
those with a substantial interest, Commission staff, and affected
landowners, so as to preclude protests based solely on generic or
irrelevant concerns. We therefore seek comment on the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC, 194 FERC ] 62,131 (2026);
S. Star Cent. Pipeline, Inc., 194 FERC ] 62,097 (2026); Nw. Pipeline
LLC, 194 FERC ] 62,021 (2026).
--Whether, and if so how, to establish eligibility criteria so that
only persons with a demonstrated substantial interest may protest;
--Other potential defined eligibility criteria for protestor
eligibility, including adopting criteria similar to the Commission's
intervention standards \152\ and whether the Commission should require
membership organizations seeking to protest prior notice requests to
provide evidence that they have a member in the relevant geographic
area, or are representing a specific member that is or will be directly
affected by the proposed project. Any proposals should demonstrate how
the criteria do not prevent persons meaningfully impacted by a proposed
project from protesting;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(2); Am. Elec. Power Servs. Corp., 120
FERC ] 61,052, at P 12 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Whether the Commission should establish a designated timeline within
[[Page 66504]]
which it will seek to issue orders adjudicating prior notice protest
proceedings (e.g., 60 days), noting that individual cases present
differing issues and information needs, and thus require differing
processing times. We also seek comment on whether such procedures would
inhibit blanket authorization holders and protestors from negotiating a
settlement that would resolve the protest.
5. Notice To Proceed With Construction
90. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should require
blanket authorization holders to request a notice to proceed from the
Director of OEP or the Director's designee prior to the start of
construction, introduction of hazardous fluids, or other
milestones.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question D4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. CLNG opposes requiring blanket authorization holders to obtain
notices to proceed with blanket activities, except for any automatic
activities that exceed the footprint of the underlying authorization,
for which it recommends requiring a notice to proceed prior to the
start of construction.\154\ Cheniere opposes requiring notices to
proceed for blanket activities altogether, asserting that this
requirement poses an unnecessary administrative burden.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 48.
\155\ Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
92. CH-IV and BLUE support requiring notices to proceed. BLUE
recommends that the Commission require LNG blanket authorization
holders to submit one or multiple implementation plans for site
preparation, construction, commissioning, hazardous fluid introduction,
and in-service, all of which would require a notice to proceed.\156\
CH-IV states that requiring notices to proceed would ensure compliance
with safety and environmental measures.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 7. BLUE specifies in its
response to NOI Question C1 that implementation plans would be
needed for authorized prior notice activities. Id.
\157\ CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
93. We do not propose to require notices to proceed for blanket
activities under an automatic authorization. These activities are well
understood and would not result in changes to hazards and safety, and
environmental effects will be analyzed in the programmatic NEPA
document that will be prepared for this rulemaking. Further, the LNG
blanket authorization holder will need to report automatic
authorization activities in its semi-annual report under proposed Sec.
153.106(c)(2).
94. As for prior notice activities, we propose to require: (1) a
notice to proceed for the commissioning or introduction of hazardous
fluids or to ensure all necessary safety and security systems are
installed and functional, and (2) a notice to commence service.
Requiring just two notices would reduce the burden on both industry and
Commission staff given that a typical case-specific proceeding may
involve hundreds of notices to proceed for each new construction
activity. The proposed approach also balances safety and security
checks done in coordination with other Federal agencies. Although such
notices are not required for section 7 pipeline blanket activities, the
proposed regulations would require blanket authorization holders to
request notices to proceed for section 7 LNG prior notice activities
due to the Commission's role in maintaining safety and security
oversight in coordination with other Federal agencies throughout the
life of an LNG plant.
6. In-Service Deadline
95. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should require
completion of construction and in-service of blanket projects within a
specified timeframe and, if so, what timeframe.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question A8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
96. CLNG and BLUE do not recommend that the Commission include any
in-service timeline as part of an LNG blanket program.\159\ Cheniere
comments that blanket activities should be completed ``within normal
operational schedules.'' \160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 25; BLUE January 23,
2026 Comments at 4.
\160\ Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
97. We propose to require section 3 LNG activities under a blanket
authorization to be constructed and made available for service within
five years of the date on which the activity is deemed authorized. This
is the standard deadline included in orders amending authorizations
under section 3 and therefore should allow sufficient time to complete
proposed blanket activities.\161\ We propose to adopt the same five-
year time limit for section 7 LNG facilities constructed pursuant to a
blanket authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ See, e.g., Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, 190 FERC ]
61,149 at ordering para. (B); Elba Liquefaction Co., L.L.C., 189
FERC ] 61,133, at ordering para. (E) (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Reporting Requirements
98. Semi-annual operational reports are required by authorization
orders and must ``identify changes in facility design and operating
conditions'' and ``plant modifications, including future plans and
progress thereof,'' and include a section entitled ``Significant Plant
Modifications Proposed for the Next 12 Months.'' \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ See, e.g., Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, 190 FERC ]
61,149 at app. A, env't condition 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
99. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should require
blanket authorization holders to document automatic authorization
activities undertaken during the previous calendar year in semi-annual
operational reports and, if so, what information should be required to
be included.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question A4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
100. CLNG, the Center for Regulatory Freedom, and Cheniere support
using the semi-annual operational reports to report any activities
undertaken automatically pursuant to a blanket authorization
program.\164\ CLNG proposes that each semi-annual operational report
include a list of projects undertaken under blanket authorization,
along with descriptions and completion dates for each project.\165\
CLNG also proposes that blanket authorization holders would demonstrate
PHMSA compliance, if required, in the operational reports.\166\ CLNG
proposes that if a blanket authorization holder files the details of a
blanket project as privileged, the blanket authorization holder would
provide a public version that identifies the type of project and its
general title.\167\ BLUE comments that semi-annual operational reports
should include a description, any applicable environmental permits and
certifying statements that applicable state and Federal permits were
obtained, a management of change process, updated design details, and,
if needed, demonstration of PHMSA compliance.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 14; Center for
Regulatory Freedom January 26, 2026 Comments at 11; Cheniere January
26, 2026 Comments at 5.
\165\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 14.
\166\ See id. at 35.
\167\ Id. at 14-15.
\168\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
101. States express concern with the lack of publicly available
information regarding activities at LNG plants.\169\ States and
Earthjustice express the general concern that activities approved
subject to an automatic authorization might not be disclosed to the
public until blanket authorization holders' semi-annual operational
reports that
[[Page 66505]]
would be filed after the activities were completed.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ States January 26, 2026 Comments at 16-17.
\170\ Id. at 20; Earthjustice January 26, 2026 Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
102. We propose that blanket authorization holders be required to
report automatic authorization activities completed under the blanket
authorization program using the existing semi-annual operational
reports. As explained above, activities eligible for automatic
authorization are so well understood as an established industry
practice that little scrutiny is required to determine that they are,
for section 3 terminals, not inconsistent with the public interest or,
for section 7 plants, in the public convenience and necessity.\171\
Although automatic authorization activities might not be disclosed to
the public until after their completion, requiring their inclusion in
semi-annual operational reports will provide the public information on
a more expedited basis than pursuant to our annual reporting
requirement for automatic activities undertaken under the section 7
pipeline blanket program, with respect to which we have not encountered
timeliness concerns.\172\ In our proposed regulations, at Sec. Sec.
153.106(c)(2) and 153.107(a), we require blanket authorization holders
to report a description of the facilities installed; the specific
purpose, location, and beginning and completion date of construction of
the facilities installed, the date service commenced, and, if
applicable, a statement indicating the extent to which the facilities
were jointly constructed; a description of the contacts made, reports
produced, and results of consultations which took place to ensure
compliance with the NHPA, Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), ESA, and
NGA; documentation, including images, showing that restoration of work
areas is progressing appropriately; and a discussion of problems or
unusual construction issues, including those identified by affected
landowners, and corrective actions taken or planned. We remind blanket
authorization holders that the semi-annual report must conform with the
Commission's regulations regarding filings and privileged or critical
energy infrastructure information (CEII), including the requirement
that anything filed under these regulations must include a public
version and a justification for the privileged or CEII treatment.\173\
Generally, information pertaining to items such as offsite emergency
response procedures for public notification and evacuation, and
construction and operating reporting requirements is subject to public
disclosure. In addition to complying with our regulations regarding
non-public information, we propose in Sec. 153.107(c) to require that
if any of the information provided in paragraphs Sec. Sec.
153.107(a)(1) or (a)(5) through (13) is filed as non-public, the
blanket authorization holder shall file a public summary of all changes
undertaken pursuant to blanket authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ See supra note 41.
\172\ See 18 CFR 157.207.
\173\ See id. 388.112(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
103. As for reporting costs, for NGA section 3 blanket activities,
we do not propose to require any specific reporting because the
Commission does not regulate the rates for section 3 LNG
terminals.\174\ For NGA section 7 activities, we propose, as discussed
above in section III.B.5, that blanket authorization holders be
required to include the costs associated with LNG facilities or
auxiliary systems constructed under an LNG blanket authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ See supra note 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Delegations to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
104. We propose to update the delegations to the Director of the
Office of Energy Projects in our regulations to conform with the
addition of the LNG blanket program. These delegations are proposed at:
18 CFR 375.308(v)(6), to dismiss a protest to a prior notice project
that does not raise a substantive issue and fails to provide a specific
detailed reason or rationale; 18 CFR 375.308(v)(8), for approving
applications for an initial blanket certificate or blanket
authorization; 18 CFR 375.308(w)(5), for approving requests for waiver
of landowner notification or local municipality notification
requirements consistent with the proposed regulations; and 18 CFR
375.308(x)(5), for rejecting requests under the blanket programs that
patently fail to comply with the proposed regulations.
D. Environmental and Engineering Conditions
1. Statutory and Regulatory Compliance
105. The NOI sought comment on how blanket activities would comply
with enumerated Federal statutes.\175\ CLNG comments that compliance
with applicable Federal laws, regulations, and permits can be assured
by the conditions in the underlying authorization and recommends that
the blanket authorization framework require as a condition compliance
with Federal permits, including any new permit requirements updated or
revised since issuance of the blanket authorization.\176\ Cheniere
comments that the Commission can rely on established frameworks to
ensure compliance with applicable laws.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question D2. The NOI
listed the following statues: Rivers and Harbors Act; CWA; Migratory
Bird Treaty Act; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act; Marine Mammal Protection Act; ESA; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, NHPA; Farmland Protection Policy
Act; CZMA; Clean Air Act; Pipeline Safety Act; Ports and Waterways
Safety Act; and Marine Transportation Security Act.
\176\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 35, 44.
\177\ Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
106. Similar to the pipeline blanket program,\178\ we propose in
Sec. 153.106(b)(2) that LNG blanket activities that involve ground
disturbance or increases in operational air emissions, operational
noise emissions, or public safety risks must be consistent with all
applicable law including: (1) the CWA and the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Program; (2) the Clean Air Act and air
quality regulations and state implementation plans; (3) NHPA; (4) the
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; (5) CZMA; (6) ESA; (7)
E.O. 11988 (requiring Federal agencies to evaluate the potential
effects of any actions they may take on a floodplain); (8) E.O. 11990
(requiring an evaluation of the potential effects of construction on
wetlands); (9) the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; (10) the National
Wilderness Act; (11) the National Parks and Recreation Act; (12) the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; (13) the
Rivers and Harbors Act; (14) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; (15) the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; (16) the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act; (17) the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act; (18) the Marine Mammal Protection Act; (19) the Farmland
Protection Policy Act; (20) the
[[Page 66506]]
Pipeline Safety Act; \179\ (21) the Ports and Waterways Safety Act;
(22) the Marine Transportation Security Act and (23) Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ See 18 CFR 157.206(b)(2) (requiring activities that
involve ground disturbance or changes to operational air and noise
emissions to be consistent with all applicable law including: (1)
the CWA and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Program; (2) the Clean Air Act and air quality regulations and state
implementation plans; (3) NHPA; (4) the Archeological and Historic
Preservation Act; (5) CZMA; (6) ESA; (7) Executive Order (E.O.)
11988 (requiring Federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects
of any actions they may take on a floodplain); (8) E.O. 11990
(requiring an evaluation of the potential effects of construction on
wetland); (9) the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; (10) the National
Wilderness Act; (11) the National Parks and Recreation Act; and (12)
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act).
\179\ The Pipeline Safety Act is the entire collection of laws
amending and consolidating the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of
1968 and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979.
\180\ We note that the list of statutes is more comprehensive
than that listed in the section 7 blanket certificate program.
However, regardless of the statutes listed, blanket certificate and
authorization holders must comply with ``all applicable laws.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
107. We also propose in Sec. 153.106(b)(3)(iv) to adopt the
requirement of the pipeline blanket program that to be deemed in
compliance with the CWA and E.O. 11988, blanket authorization holders
must adhere to the FERC Plan and Procedures \181\ or obtain written
approval from staff or the appropriate Federal or state agency for the
use of project-specific alternatives.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ The FERC Plan and Procedures area a set of baseline
construction and mitigation measures developed to minimize the
potential environmental effects of construction on upland areas,
wetlands, and waterbodies. They can be viewed on the Commission's
website at: <a href="http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/plan.pdf">http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/plan.pdf</a> and
<a href="https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/wetland-waterbody-construction-mitigation-procedures.pdf">https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/wetland-waterbody-construction-mitigation-procedures.pdf</a>.
\182\ See 18 CFR 157.206(b)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
108. Additionally, we propose adopting the requirements of the
pipeline blanket program for compliance with the NHPA, ESA, as proposed
to be amended, and CZMA. For NHPA compliance,\183\ we propose in Sec.
153.106(b)(3)(i) that the State or Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer, as appropriate, must find that the project would have no
effect on historic properties, consistent with the pipeline blanket
program.\184\ For compliance with the ESA,\185\ we propose in Sec.
153.106(b)(3)(ii) that blanket authorization holders must conduct
informal consultation and receive a determination from the appropriate
Federal agency that the activity is not likely to adversely affect a
listed species or critical habitat or that no further consultation is
necessary prior to proceeding under a blanket authorization, consistent
with the pipeline blanket program.\186\ The Commission, in its May 21,
2026 notice of proposed rulemaking, proposed to revise the pipeline
blanket regulations to clarify that for activities for which the
certificate holder finds, using appropriate Federal databases such as
the FWS's Information for Planning and Consultation website, that an
activity has no effect to listed species or critical habitat, the
certificate holder need only provide documentation of that
finding.\187\ We propose to adopt this clarification for the LNG
blanket program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ The NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account
the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
undertaking by consulting with the State or Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer to determine whether and how a proposed action
may affect historic properties and to seek ways to avoid any adverse
effects. 54 U.S.C. 306108.
\184\ See 18 CFR 157.206(b)(3)(ii); id. part 157, subpart F,
app. II.
\185\ The ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
Federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such
species by consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
or National Marine Fisheries Service if a proposed action may affect
a listed species or critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a).
\186\ See 18 CFR 157.206(b)(3)(i); id. part 157, subpart F, app.
I.
\187\ Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Program, 195 FERC ]
61,128 at P 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
109. For compliance with the CZMA,\188\ we propose in Sec.
153.106(b)(3)(iii) that, prior to construction for automatic
authorization projects and prior to filing a request for prior notice
projects, blanket authorization holders must obtain from the
appropriate state agency a determination that the new automatic or
prior notice project complies with the state's coastal zone management
plan or waive its right of review, consistent with the pipeline blanket
program.\189\ Coastal States Organization (CSO) \190\ comments that
``[c]hanges to the footprint of a project, new facilities or operations
outside of an existing project, and modifications to operations within
a project can create reasonably foreseeable impacts on coastal uses and
resources subject to CZMA Federal consistency review.'' \191\ It calls
on the Commission to complete a national Federal consistency review and
to require that blanket authorization holders secure state review of
consistency with the CZMA prior to approving any blanket activities
with reasonably foreseeable coastal effects not covered by a national
analysis.\192\ Although we do not propose to complete a national
Federal consistency review, our proposal to adopt the requirements of
the pipeline blanket program for compliance with the CZMA would provide
for activity-specific review, as CSO requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ The CZMA provides that ``[n]o license or permit shall be
granted by [a] Federal agency until the state or its designated
agency has concurred with the applicant's certification'' that ``the
proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the
state's approved [coastal management] program and that such activity
will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program.'' 16
U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A). The state's concurrence is conclusively
presumed by its failure to act within 6 months of its receipt of the
applicant's certification. Id.
\189\ See 18 CFR 157.206(b)(3)(iii).
\190\ CSO represents the nation's coastal states, commonwealths,
and territories on policy issues relating to coastal, Great Lakes,
and ocean management.
\191\ CSO January 27, 2026 Comments at 2.
\192\ Id. at 1-2. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's regulations allow Federal agencies to provide
states with consistency determinations for Federal agency activities
that are national or regional in scope and that affect any coastal
use or resource of more than one state. 15 CFR 930.36(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
110. CSO also asserts that any stakeholder notification, public
comment, or protest procedures are not on their own adequate to satisfy
the CZMA and recommends requiring all data necessary for, and aligning
the review timeline with, a Federal or state CZMA consistency review,
which CSO states is typically six months.\193\ Instead, we propose that
blanket authorization holders independently complete CZMA review prior
to constructing automatic authorization projects or prior to filing
prior notice requests, such that aligning filing requirements and
review timelines is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
111. Finally, CSO recommends that the Commission restrict any LNG
blanket program ``to locales where existing LNG facilities and
associated data, analyses, and expertise are concentrated.'' \194\ LNG
blanket authorizations would be limited to operators of existing
facilities or those which will receive a case-specific authorization or
certificate, consistent with CSO's recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
112. The NOI also sought comment on how blanket authorization
holders should demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal
permitting requirements.\195\ CLNG proposes that blanket authorization
holders document all consultations and authorizations either in semi-
annual operational reports for automatic activities or in prior notice
filings.\196\ Cheniere recommends that blanket authorization holders
certify their adherence to Federal statutes and regulations, including
the Clean Air Act (Title V and New Source Review).\197\ CH-IV suggests
that blanket authorization holders document consultations and
authorizations in requests for notice to proceed prior to the start of
[[Page 66507]]
construction, introduction of hazardous fluids, or other
milestones.\198\ BLUE recommends requiring implementation plans for
authorized prior notice activities to document, among other things,
consultations and authorizations.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question C1(1).
\196\ See CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 21-22.
\197\ Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 6-7.
\198\ CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 7.
\199\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
113. For automatic authorization activities, we propose in Sec.
153.107(a)(6) that blanket authorization holders document their
compliance with the ESA, NHPA, and CZMA, as proposed above, in semi-
annual operational reports and in Sec. Sec. 153.107(a)(7)-(9) that
blanket authorization holders provide a list of other federal permits
required for the project. For prior notice filings, consistent with the
pipeline blanket program, we propose in Sec. 153.108(e)(4) that the
request include documentation of compliance with the ESA, NHPA, and
CZMA, as proposed above and in Sec. Sec. 153.108(e)(7)-(9) that the
request provide a list of other federal permits that will be required
for the proposed project. Staff will reject prior notice requests that
do not meet these criteria or consultation requirements.
2. NEPA Compliance and Categorical Exclusions
114. NEPA requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for a proposed major Federal action with a reasonably foreseeable
significant effect on the quality of the human environment.\200\ For a
proposed action that does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant
effect on the quality of the human environment or if the significance
of such effect is unknown, the agency shall prepare a more concise
Environmental Assessment (EA) unless it finds that the proposed action
is covered by a categorical exclusion or is exempt from NEPA review
under another law.\201\ A categorical exclusion describes a category of
actions that an agency has determined normally do not result in a
significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore,
the preparation of an EIS or EA is not normally required.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ 42 U.S.C. 4336(b)(1).
\201\ Id. 4336(a)(2), (b)(2).
\202\ Id. 4336e(1) (defining ``categorical exclusion''); id.
4336(a)(2), (b)(2) (explaining that an agency is not required to
prepare an environmental document for proposed agency actions that
are excluded pursuant to a categorical exclusion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
115. To comply with NEPA for the creation of the LNG blanket
program, we direct Commission staff to prepare a NEPA document to
assess the environmental effects of projects that may be constructed
pursuant to the automatic authorization as well as the impacts of this
rulemaking proceeding.\203\ We propose that activities conducted
pursuant to prior notice procedures will undergo project-specific NEPA
analyses in the form of either (1) a determination that a categorical
exclusion is applicable or (2) an EA, as occurs under the pipeline
blanket program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ See infra section V.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
116. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should
establish new categorical exclusions for LNG blanket activities or
adopt existing categorical exclusions from other Federal agencies.\204\
CLNG, CH-IV, and Cheniere support creating new categorical exclusions
for actions taken under a blanket authorization program.\205\ Cheniere
supports a categorical exclusion for in-footprint modifications,
similar to PHMSA and DOE regulations.\206\ States oppose the creation
of new categorical exclusions for LNG blanket activities.\207\ They
state that unlike the categorical exclusion for pipeline blanket
activities determined by the Commission to normally have no significant
effect on the human environment, the Commission has not similarly
evaluated any category of LNG activities.\208\ According to States,
activities outside of an LNG plant's footprint would likely involve
significant impacts not analyzed in the underlying authorization that
would require preparation of an EIS or EA and may not be categorically
excluded.\209\ The Delaware Riverkeeper Network \210\ also opposes any
expansion of categorical exclusions for LNG facilities, stating that
``[c]limate impacts are cumulative by nature and cannot be meaningfully
addressed through generic assumptions or categorical exclusions.''
\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question C3.
\205\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 43; CH-IV January 16,
2026 Comments at 8; Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 7.
\206\ Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 7.
\207\ States January 26, 2026 Comments at 15.
\208\ Id.
\209\ Id. at 16 & n.56.
\210\ The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is a nonprofit 501(c)(3)
membership organization that works throughout the entire Delaware
River Watershed on the issues, actions, regulations, legislation,
policies, programs and decisions that impact the health of the
Delaware River Watershed waterways.
\211\ Delaware Riverkeeper Network January 26, 2026 Comments at
1, 3 (citing Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
117. We do not propose to establish any categorical exclusions in
this rulemaking. Should the Commission determine that certain
activities normally do not result in a significant effect on the human
environment and for which, therefore, the preparation of a NEPA
document is not required, we will initiate a new proceeding to
establish categorical exclusions.
3. Standard Conditions
118. The NOI sought comment on what Federal requirements could be
relied upon, and what conditions the Commission should adopt, to
minimize the impacts of LNG blanket projects.\212\ Commenters cite
various Federal laws (e.g., the Clean Air Act, CWA, Rivers and Harbors
Act, and ESA) as well as PHMSA, USCG, and other Federal regulations and
the conditions of the underlying authorization order, which could be
relied upon to ensure that a blanket authorization project would not
have significant impacts.\213\ Due to the individualized and tailored
nature of the conditions included in NGA section 3 authorizations, CLNG
recommends that the Commission require LNG blanket authorization
holders to abide by the terms and conditions of underlying
authorizations.\214\ It also asserts that the Commission's existing
inspection process provides the necessary oversight to ensure that
blanket authorizations do not compromise safety or environmental
protection.\215\ BLUE supports the Commission requiring compliance with
certain standard conditions as part of the LNG blanket program and
specifically identifies various conditions regarding design details,
delegated authority to the Director of OEP, and compliance with the
conditions of the underlying authorization.\216\ Woodside indicates
that the US Army Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permitting system could
serve as a model, favorably citing its tiered approach and interagency
collaboration.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Questions D1, D3.
\213\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 44; Cheniere January 26,
2026 Comments at 6.
\214\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 47.
\215\ Id. at 44.
\216\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 8.
\217\ Woodside Energy January 26, 2026 Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
119. Similar to the pipeline blanket program,\218\ we propose in
Sec. 153.106(b) to adopt a standard set of conditions with which
blanket authorization holders would be required to comply when carrying
out both automatic and prior notice activities as part of the LNG
blanket program. This will provide for regulatory certainty and ease of
implementation. The conditions are based on the Commission's extensive
experience with the types of activities
[[Page 66508]]
that we propose to be eligible for blanket authorization. The proposed
standard environmental conditions require, among other things: (1)
compliance with all applicable laws, including enumerated Federal
environmental statutes; \219\ (2) that blanket activities not have a
significant adverse effect on a sensitive environmental area, as
defined at Sec. 157.202(b)(11) of the pipeline blanket regulations;
and (3) that blanket activities comply with certain noise criteria. The
conditions also subject LNG blanket activities to: (1) standard
engineering requirements as well as regular technical reviews and site
inspections by Commission staff; (2) semi-annual reporting; and (3)
reporting of significant non-scheduled events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ See 18 CFR 157.206.
\219\ See supra P 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
120. Regarding engineering design conditions, we propose in Sec.
153.106(c) to require blanket authorization holders to provide standard
engineering information. For prior notice projects, this engineering
information would be filed prior to construction of final design and
require that, prior to introduction of hazardous fluids or
implementation of an uprate, the company shall have all safety and
security systems installed and functional, and request and receive
written approval from the Director of OEP, or the Director's designee.
This would allow staff to further ensure that facilities are safe and
secure prior to activities that may result in safety impacts.
E. Statutory and Regulatory Compliance Conditions
1. Pre-Filing Waiver
121. In NGA section 3A(a), Congress directed the Commission to
promulgate regulations requiring a pre-filing process of at least six
months prior to the filing of an application for authorization to
construct an NGA section 3 LNG terminal and encouraging applicants to
cooperate with state and local officials.\220\ Although the statute
requires a mandatory pre-filing process only for prospective applicants
for new LNG terminals, the Commission's pre-filing procedures at Sec.
157.21(a) of our regulations also require operators to use the pre-
filing process for modifications to existing NGA section 3 LNG
facilities and related jurisdictional natural gas facilities that
involve unaddressed significant state and local safety
considerations.\221\ However, pre-filing is not required where the
Director of OEP determines that prospective modifications do not
involve significant state and local safety considerations that have not
been previously addressed.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ 15 U.S.C. 717b-1(a).
\221\ 18 CFR 157.21(a) (``Examples of such modifications
include, but are not limited to, the addition of LNG storage tanks;
increasing throughput requiring additional tanker arrivals or the
use of larger vessels; or changing the purpose of the facility from
peaking to base load.'').
\222\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
122. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should waive
its pre-filing regulations for blanket activities.\223\ CLNG and
Cheniere support waiving the pre-filing requirements.\224\ CLNG
proposes addressing any state and local safety considerations through
updates to the Emergency Response Plans or in prior notice filings but
does not specify how.\225\ BLUE supports waiving pre-filing if there
are no significant safety considerations, including activities with
identical configurations to equipment previously evaluated within the
existing facility footprint.\226\ Stellar Energy \227\ suggests that
the Commission modify its regulations to require pre-filing only for
new LNG terminals or liquefaction trains and not for projects that
enhance the efficiency of an existing LNG terminal.\228\ CH-IV states
that the Commission should consider modifying when or how it waives its
pre-filing requirements but does not elaborate.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question C2.
\224\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 42; Cheniere January 26,
2026 Comments at 7.
\225\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 42.
\226\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 6.
\227\ Stellar Energy installs technology to enhance and improve
the performance of its customers' turbines, in particular Turbine
Inlet Air Chilling systems.
\228\ Stellar Energy January 23, 2026 Comments at 4.
\229\ CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
123. States oppose waiving pre-filing procedures for LNG blanket
activities, stating that these procedures preserve important statutory
consultation and notice rights for impacted state and local agencies
regarding LNG activities that implicate significant public safety
interests.\230\ They further argue that state and local officials are
best positioned to determine when a proposed activity involves any
significant state or local safety consideration not previously
addressed.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ States January 26, 2026 Comments at 5.
\231\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
124. Consistent with our aim of providing a streamlined review
process for well-understood activities, we propose to waive our pre-
filing regulations for LNG blanket activities. This is appropriate not
only in light of the blanket program's purposes, but also because the
scope of activities that we propose to be eligible for blanket
authorization would not involve significant state and local safety
considerations that have not been previously addressed. Therefore,
waiving pre-filing requirements is consistent with our current
regulatory approach. Regarding States' consultation-related concerns,
we discuss opportunities for state agency input in greater detail
below.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ See infra section III.E.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PHMSA Letter of Determination
125. PHMSA has exclusive authority under the Pipeline Safety Act to
prescribe and enforce minimum safety standards governing the location,
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of LNG facilities
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the NGA.\233\ PHMSA
requires that new, replaced, relocated, or significantly altered LNG
facilities comply with its siting regulations at 49 CFR part 193,
subpart B. In accordance with an MOU with the Commission, PHMSA
examines whether a proposed LNG facility complies with its safety
standards and issues a Letter of Determination (LOD) memorializing its
review.\234\ The issuance of an LOD does not abrogate PHMSA's
continuing authority and responsibility over the applicant's compliance
with its safety standards during construction and future operation of
the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq.
\234\ Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of
Transportation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Regarding Liquefied Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Aug. 31,
2018), <a href="https://cms.ferc.gov/media/mou-phmsa-regarding-lng-transportation-facilities-0">https://cms.ferc.gov/media/mou-phmsa-regarding-lng-transportation-facilities-0</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
126. The NOI sought comment on how LNG blanket activities would
comply with PHMSA regulations.\235\ CLNG contends that the PHMSA
regulations, inspections, procedures, and structural standards provide
adequate regulatory oversight.\236\ It specifically points to
regulations that require Emergency Response Plans and 60-day
notification to PHMSA of rehabilitations, modifications, uprates,
replacements, or upgrades of facilities.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question C1(2).
\236\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 36.
\237\ Id. at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
127. Given the scope of activities that we propose to be eligible
for automatic authorization, an LOD would not be required for automatic
authorization activities.\238\ For prior notice activities,
[[Page 66509]]
we propose in Sec. 153.108(e)(10) to require that blanket
authorization holders obtain from PHMSA and include as part of their
request an LOD stating that the blanket activities comply with the
federal siting requirements or a letter stating that an LOD is not
required. Requests that do not meet these criteria would be rejected by
staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ Specifically, proposed Sec. 153.108(c)(3)(iii) requires
automatic activities not result in significant modification to LNG
facilities beyond what was previously evaluated by PHMSA and
considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
128. We acknowledge that PHMSA has solicited feedback on potential
amendments to the pipeline safety regulations governing LNG plants
\239\ and we will work with PHMSA to ensure the effectiveness of both
of our efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ 90 FR 18949 (May 5, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. USCG Letter of Recommendation
129. Pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 and
USCG regulations, operators of NGA section 3 or 7 facilities that
receive or send out LNG by waterborne vessel must, prior to
construction that would result in an increase in the size or frequency
of LNG marine traffic on the associated waterway, submit a Letter of
Intent (LOI) to USCG describing, as pertinent, the characteristics of
the vessels intended to visit the facility and the frequency of the
visits.\240\ The applicant must also prepare a Waterway Suitability
Assessment (WSA) \241\ for review and approval by the USCG. The WSA
identifies security threats and safety hazards to LNG marine
transportation and identifies appropriate risk management
measures.\242\ The USCG reviews the information provided by the
applicant and makes a determination, called a Letter of Recommendation
(LOR), on the suitability of the waterway for LNG vessels.\243\ Section
813 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 also directs USCG to
make a recommendation to the Commission as to the suitability of marine
traffic associated with a proposed waterside LNG facility,\244\ and the
LOR meets that requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ 33 U.S.C. 1221, et seq.; 33 CFR 127.007(a), (c).
\241\ 33 CFR 127.007(e).
\242\ Id. 127.007(f).
\243\ 33 CFR 127.009. Factors considered by the USCG under its
regulations include: density and characteristics of marine traffic
in the waterway; locks, bridges and other man-made obstructions in
the waterway; and water depth and tides. Id. 127.009(a).
\244\ Public Law 111-281, 813, 124 Stat. 2905, 2999 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
130. The NOI sought comment on how LNG blanket activities would
comply with USCG regulations.\245\ CLNG proposes that blanket
authorizations include as a condition a requirement for an updated LOI
or WSA, where required.\246\ CLNG points to regulations involving one-
year notification for increases in the size or frequency of LNG marine
traffic, pre-operation annual reviews of WSAs, and the development of
emergency manuals as examples of adequate regulatory oversight provided
by the USCG.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question C1(3).
\246\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 37-38.
\247\ Id. at 37-38 (citing 33 CFR 127.007(a)(1), (e), 127.019,
127.307).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
131. Given the scope of activities that we propose to be eligible
for automatic authorization, a new or updated LOR would not be required
for automatic authorization activities.\248\ Blanket authorization
holders would still be required to report modifications to USCG
pursuant to applicable laws and regulations.\249\ For prior notice
activities, we propose in Sec. 153.108(e)(11) to require that blanket
authorization holders obtain from USCG and include as part of their
request a new or updated LOR or a determination that a new or updated
LOI, WSA, or LOR is not required. Staff will reject requests that do
not meet these criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ Specifically, proposed Sec. 153.108(c)(3)(ii) requires
automatic activities not result in an increase in frequency or size
of LNG marine vessels at the LNG terminal beyond that previously
evaluated in a USCG Letter of Recommendation and considered by the
Commission.
\249\ See 33 CFR pt. 105; 33 CFR pt. 127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. DoW Concurrence
132. NGA section 3(f)(3) directs the Commission to obtain the
concurrence of the Secretary of War before authorizing the siting,
construction, expansion, or operation of LNG terminals affecting the
training or activities of an active military installation.\250\ This
requirement applies only to LNG plants authorized under NGA section 3.
As directed by NGA section 3(f)(2), the Commission on November 21,
2007, entered into an MOU with the Secretary of War to ensure
coordination and consultation on the siting, construction, expansion,
and operation of LNG terminals.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ 15 U.S.C. 717b(f)(3).
\251\ Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and the Department of Defense to Ensure
Consultation and Coordination on the Effect of Liquefied Natural Gas
Terminals on Active Military Installations (Nov. 21, 2007, updated
Aug. 29, 2014), <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/media/2007-mou-dod">https://www.ferc.gov/media/2007-mou-dod</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
133. The NOI sought comment on how NGA section 3 blanket activities
would comply with NGA section 3(f)(3).\252\ CLNG contends that
activities it proposes as eligible for automatic authorization and 30-
day prior notice would not rise to the level of requiring new
concurrence from the DoW.\253\ It recommends that the Commission
consult with DoW to revise their MOU to include ``blanket concurrence''
for activities undertaken under automatic authorization or prior notice
that do rise to the level of requiring a new concurrence.\254\ CLNG
also recommends that the Commission use DoW's existing informal
Clearinghouse process for prior notice activities, assuming concurrence
can be received within the 60-day notice period.\255\ BLUE recommends
that prior notice requests document DoW concurrence.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question C1(4).
\253\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 38-39.
\254\ Id. at 39.
\255\ Id. The DoW established the Military Aviation and
Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse to provide a timely,
transparent, and repeatable process to coordinate and oversee the
military mission compatibility evaluation process for all energy
projects or energy-related projects in the United States. Private
parties, state and local officials, and the Commission may request
informal reviews to provide preliminary compatibility determinations
prior to formal project reviews.
\256\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
134. In order to ensure that the blanket authorization program
complies with both the letter and the purposes of section 3(f) of the
NGA, we propose in Sec. Sec. 153.107(a)(10) and 153.108(e)(13) to
require that blanket authorization holders, for both automatic
authorization (prior to construction) and prior notice activities,
obtain DoW concurrence using DoW's informal Clearinghouse process.
However, the Commission will continue to explore whether changes to the
MOU with DoW could result in certain activities, particularly those
subject to automatic authorization, being undertaken without project-
specific concurrence. Blanket authorization holders would document
their compliance in semi-annual operational reports for automatic
authorization activities or in prior notice filings. Prior notice
requests that do not meet these criteria would be rejected by staff.
5. State and Local Safety Considerations
135. NGA section 3A(b) requires the Commission to consult with
states regarding state and local safety considerations prior to issuing
an authorization under NGA section 3.\257\ Under NGA section 3A(c),
states may (but need not) furnish an advisory report on state and local
safety considerations no later than 30 days
[[Page 66510]]
after an application under section 3 is filed, to which the Commission
must specifically respond.\258\ Additionally, NGA section 3A(d) allows
states in which an operational LNG terminal is located to conduct
safety inspections and notify the Commission of any alleged safety
violations on which the Commission or the appropriate Federal agency
shall take appropriate action.\259\ These requirements apply only to
LNG plants authorized under NGA section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ 15 U.S.C. 717b-1(b). State and local safety considerations
include ``(1) the kind and use of the facility; (2) the existing and
projected population and demographic characteristics of the
location; (3) the existing and proposed land use near the location;
(4) the natural and physical aspects of the location; (5) the
emergency response capabilities near the facility location; and (6)
the need to encourage remote siting.'' Id.
\258\ 15 U.S.C. 717b-1(c).
\259\ Id. 717b-1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
136. The NOI sought comment on how NGA section 3 blanket activities
would comply with NGA sections 3A(b)-(d).\260\ CLNG states that
existing LNG facility safety standards and air emissions standards
under state-administered Clean Air Act programs provide the necessary
state oversight to address state and local safety considerations.\261\
CH-IV recommends that blanket authorization holders document that state
and local safety considerations have been addressed in requests for
notice to proceed prior to the start of construction, introduction of
hazardous fluids, or other milestones.\262\ States raise concerns
regarding the compatibility of a blanket authorization program and
statutorily required state consultation.\263\ They state that the
notice and information provided by blanket authorization holders under
the current process promote participation by state and local agencies
to ensure sufficient conditions are adopted to address the unique
safety, security, or environmental impacts associated with the
action.\264\ States assert that a blanket program would undermine
public safety and potentially run afoul of consultation requirements,
particularly automatic authorization activities, which may not be
disclosed to the public until after they are completed.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question C1(5).
\261\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 40.
\262\ CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 7.
\263\ States January 26, 2026 Comments at 19-20.
\264\ Id.
\265\ Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
137. Given the scope of activities that we propose to be eligible
for automatic authorization, we do not think those activities would
involve any additional state and local safety considerations not
addressed in the underlying authorization. Still, in the proceeding in
which the blanket authorization holder receives its blanket
authorization, the state designated agency may file comments or an
advisory report regarding whether activities eligible for automatic
authorization would pose significant safety impacts for that terminal.
The Commission would address the state's concerns in that proceeding.
138. For prior notice activities, we propose in Sec.
153.108(e)(14) to require that blanket authorization holders include as
part of their prior notice filing a letter from the state designated
agency indicating that the activity does not raise any state or local
safety concerns. Alternatively, if such a letter cannot be obtained at
the time of filing the prior notice request, the blanket authorization
holders shall provide evidence that the state designated agency was
notified of the request and that it has 30 days to furnish an advisory
report on state and local safety considerations or may protest. The
proposed 60- or 90-day notice period would provide states with
sufficient time to file an advisory report within the 30-day period
specified in NGA section 3A(c). If a state advisory report is filed,
staff would protest the prior notice request to allow the Commission
sufficient time to specifically respond.
6. Emergency Response Plans
139. NGA section 3A(e) requires that operators develop an Emergency
Response Plan, including a cost-sharing plan, in consultation with the
USCG and state and local agencies for approval by the Commission prior
to construction of an LNG terminal.\266\ This requirement only applies
to LNG plants authorized under NGA section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ 15 U.S.C. 717b-1(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
140. The NOI sought comment on how NGA section 3 blanket activities
would comply with NGA section 3A(e).\267\ CLNG proposes that the
Emergency Response Plan submitted with the underlying authorization
would suffice for all future actions taken through any blanket
authorization.\268\ BLUE comments that activities undertaken pursuant
to a blanket authorization program would require minimal updates to
Emergency Response Plans and, for automatic activities, only updates to
the drawings typically contained in appendices.\269\ States comment
that blanket activities may require a change in the emergency response
and cost-sharing plans.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ NOI, 193 FERC ] 61,141 at P 13, Question C1(6).
\268\ CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 41. CLNG also points to
the PHMSA requirement to file and gain approval of an emergency
evacuation plan and the USCG requirement to file an emergency manual
and receive notice that it has been examined as further emergency
preparedness measures. Id. at 41-42.
\269\ BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 5.
\270\ States January 26, 2026 Comments at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
141. Given the scope of activities that we propose to be eligible
for automatic authorization, we do not expect those activities would
warrant or necessitate any material updates to the emergency response
and cost-sharing plans approved in the underlying authorization
proceeding. For prior notice activities, we propose in Sec.
153.108(e)(15) that blanket authorization holders obtain from all
relevant state and local emergency response organizations and emergency
responders, and include as part of their request, letters stating that
such activities are consistent with the Emergency Response Plan,
including the cost-sharing plan, for the underlying authorization, or
that any changes were developed in consultation with them for the
proposed activity. Alternatively, if such letters cannot be supplied,
blanket authorization holders must supply evidence in their filings
that the emergency response organizations and emergency responders have
been notified that they may protest the filing.\271\ If the blanket
authorization holder believes new or updated plans are needed, the new
or updated plans would need to be submitted as part of the prior notice
request in order to be approved by the Commission prior to
construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ In the event that the blanket authorization holder is
unable to obtain letters because a particular entity does not agree
with the conclusion that either no changes to the Emergency Response
Plan are needed or that the entity agreed to all changes to the
plan, the blanket authorization holder should supply evidence in its
filing that the emergency response organizations, emergency
responders, and the USCG have been notified that they may protest
the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
142. States also raised concerns with the impact of a section 3
blanket authorization program on the availability of data used to
inform decisions local and state authorities make in the development of
LNG emergency response and cost-sharing plans.\272\ We reiterate that
blanket authorization holders would be required to comply with the
Commission's regulations regarding filings and privileged or CEII
treatment thereof and that generally, information pertaining to items
such as offsite emergency response procedures for public notification
and evacuation, and construction and operating reporting requirements,
is subject to public disclosure.\273\ We also propose to require that
if any of the information provided in paragraphs Sec. Sec.
153.107(a)(1) or (a)(5) through (13) is filed as non-public, the
blanket authorization holder
[[Page 66511]]
shall file a public summary of all changes made under its blanket
authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ States January 26, 2026 Comments at 19.
\273\ See supra P 102; 18 CFR 388.112(b)(1) (requiring that any
document filed under these regulations must include a public version
and a justification for privileged or CEII treatment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Severability
143. We propose to include at Sec. 153.101(d) a proviso that if
any provision of the LNG blanket regulations, or the application of any
provision thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
remainder of those regulations and the application thereof to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. Notably, the
regulations proposed herein are not ``in any way intertwined'' and
``operate entirely independently of one another.'' \274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ Davis Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1454, 1459
(D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
Carlson v. Postal Regul. Comm'n, 938 F.3d 337, 351 (D.C. Cir. 2019);
Epsilon Elecs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 857 F.3d 913, 929
(D.C. Cir. 2017); Tel. & Data Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 19 F.3d 42, 50
(D.C. Cir. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Request for Comments
144. The Commission requests and encourages public comments on this
NOPR. Comments may include any related matters or alternative proposals
that commenters may wish to discuss. The Commission will consider
comments it receives and provide responses in a final rule, with
changes, if warranted.
145. Comments are due December 21, 2026. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM26-2-001 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.
146. The Commission encourages that comments 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.
147. 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, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, MD 20852.
V. Regulatory Requirements
A. Information Collection Statement
148. The information collection in this proposed rule is being
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) per its
regulations,\275\ which require that OMB approve certain reporting,
record keeping, and public disclosure requirements imposed by an
agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
149. The Commission estimates that the proposed tiered blanket
authorization program will enable a subset of projects at LNG
facilities to be implemented through either automatic or prior notice
authorization while maintaining appropriate oversight and stakeholder
engagement. As a result, the proposal would reduce the number of full
applications and resultant information collection burden.
150. Natural gas companies and LNG operators file applications with
the Commission so it can review the necessary information related to
the construction, maintenance, and operation of facilities to provide
service or to abandon facilities or service under sections 3 and 7 of
the NGA and determine if the requested authorization meets statutory
and regulatory requirements and should be granted. This NOPR proposal
would provide entities with an opportunity to apply to participate in
two new lower-burden filing approaches. To participate in the new
approaches, entities must apply for and be granted a blanket
authorization:
<bullet> Application for Blanket Authorization that includes a
brief application, together with evidence that the applicant has the
required safety systems, Emergency Response Plans, and appropriate
environmental, engineering and operating procedures to support blanket
activities.
The proposed lower-burden filing approaches are:
<bullet> Prior Notice Filings would include a description of the
project, purpose, and justification, together with engineering and
technical data, and an assessment of any capacity increases or
footprint changes and any environmental or safety impacts. The prior
notice filings also include evidence of landowner notification, the
identification of affected agencies, as well as any environmental
documentation.
<bullet> Automatic Authorizations that will not require prior
filings or applications. These activities must be documented in a semi-
annual operational report, which is already required for these
projects.
151. These proposed new approaches would be alternatives to the
existing full application process, which requires extensive technical,
environmental, and economic materials.
The Commission estimates that this proposed rule will affect the
following existing information collections:
<bullet> FERC-537: Gas Pipeline Certificate: Construction,
Acquisition & Abandonment (OMB Control No 1902-0060).
<bullet> FERC-539: Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import & Export
Related Applications (OMB Control No 1902-0062).
<bullet> FERC-577: Natural Gas Facilities: Environmental Review and
Compliance (OMB Control No 1902-0128).
152. Title: FERC-537: Gas Pipeline Certificate: Construction,
Acquisition & Abandonment.
Action: Revision to an existing information collection.
OMB Control No: 1902-0060.
Respondents: Companies proposing natural gas projects under section
7 of the NGA and jurisdictional natural gas companies.
Frequency of Responses: Ongoing. Natural gas companies file the
necessary information with the Commission so that it can review the
filing of applications for the construction and operation of facilities
to provide service or to abandon facilities or service under section 7
of the NGA to determine if the requested authorization should be
granted.
Necessity of Information: This information is necessary so that the
Commission can fulfill its statutory mandate under the NGA to oversee
natural gas infrastructure and facilities.
Proposed Change: The Commission estimates that this NOPR would
reduce the number of Interstate Certificate and Abandonment
Applications by 1 (from 31 to 30). Note that the Commission published a
separate NOPR \276\ that proposed to reduce the burden associated with
these applications by 9 (from 31 to 22). If both of these NOPRs are
finalized as proposed, the burden reductions would be added together
(e.g., reducing applications by 10 from 31 to 21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Program, 195 FERC ]
61,128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66512]]
Public Reporting Burden: The Commission estimates burden \277\ and
cost as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of
Number of responses per Total number Average burden & cost Total annual burden hours & Cost per
respondents respondent of responses per response \278\ total annual cost respondent ($)
(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (4).................... (3) * (4) = (5)............. (5) / (1)
(3) \279\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 CFR 157.6 Interstate 30 1.39 41.7 500 hrs.; $51,000...... 20,850 hrs.; $2,126,700..... $70,890
Certificate and Abandonment
Applications \280\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (impacted collection .............. ................ 41.7 ....................... 20,850 hrs.; $2,126,700..... ..............
activities).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
153. Title: FERC-539: Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import & Export
Related Applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ Commission staff estimates that the industry's hourly cost
for wages plus benefits is similar to the Commission's $102 FY 2026
average hourly cost for wages and benefits.
\279\ Each of the figures in this column are rounded to the
nearest dollar.
\280\ This proposed rulemaking would reduce the number of
applications. There is no proposed impact on the other parts of this
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action: Revision to an existing information collection.
OMB Control No: 1902-0062.
Respondents: Companies proposing and reporting natural gas projects
under section 3 of the NGA and LNG terminal operators.
Frequency of Responses: Ongoing. Jurisdictional companies file the
necessary information with the Commission so that it can review the
filing of applications for the construction and operation of facilities
to provide service or to abandon facilities or service under section 3
of the NGA to determine if the requested authorization should be
granted.
Necessity of Information: This information is necessary so that the
Commission can fulfill its statutory mandate under the NGA to oversee
natural gas infrastructure and facilities.
Proposed Change: In order to participate in the blanket
authorization program, the Commission proposes that natural gas
companies will need to submit an application that is reviewed by the
Commission. The Commission anticipates that most or all of the relevant
companies will apply to participate in this program over the first
three years, after which there would be very few applications, only
when a new jurisdictional entity is formed. The Commission estimates
that adopting the proposals in this NOPR would reduce the number of
applications seeking authorization under Section 3 of the NGA by 2
(from 6 to 4) as a result of companies shifting to using the blanket
authorization program. When allowed by the program rules and
regulations, participants could submit prior notice fillings instead of
full applications. The Commission estimates that there would be 3 Prior
Notice Fillings each year--2 related to LNG terminals and 1 related to
interstate certificate and abandonment.\281\ Program participants would
need to include information about any activities completed under the
blanket authorization program in their semi-annual operational reports.
These reports are already required as a condition of their NGA
authorization. The Commission is incorporating this reporting burden
into the FERC-539 information collection to reflect that this would be
a regulatory requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ Described above in the estimated impacts to the FERC-537
information collection.
\282\ Commission staff estimates that the industry's hourly cost
for wages plus benefits is similar to the Commission's $102 FY 2026
average hourly cost for wages and benefits.
\283\ After the initial applications in the first 3 years, the
Commission anticipates that there will only be a new application
when a new company enters the market. The Commission estimates this
as 1 application every 3 years.
\284\ These semi-annual operational reports are already required
as part of each company's authorization under section 7 or 3 of the
NGA. The Commission is incorporating this requirement into the
regulations and documenting that shift with this information
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Reporting Burden: The Commission estimates burden and cost
as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of
Number of responses per Total number Average burden & cost Total annual burden hours & Cost per
respondents respondent of responses per response \282\ total annual cost respondent ($)
(1) (2) (1) x (2) = (4).................... (3) x (4) = (5)............. (5) / (1) =
(3) (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 CFR 153.7 Applications...... 4 2 8 15 hrs.; $1,530........ 120 hrs.; $12,240........... $3,060
18 CFR 153.104 Blanket 25 0.33 8 4 hrs.; $408........... 32 hrs.; $3,264............. 408
Authorization Program--
Application \283\.
18 CFR 153.103(c) Blanket 3 1 3 8 hrs.; $816........... 24 hrs.; $2,448............. 816
Authorization Prior Notice
Filings.
18 CFR 153.106(c) Semi-Annual 25 2 50 25 hrs.; $2,550........ 1,250 hrs.; $127,500........ 5,100
Operational Reports \284\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (impacted collection .............. ................ 69 ....................... 1,426 hrs.; $145,452........ ..............
activities).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
154.Title: FERC-577: Natural Gas Facilities: Environmental Review
and Compliance.
Action: Revision to an existing information collection.
OMB Control No: 1902-0128.
Respondents: Companies seeking authorization to site, design,
construct, operate, or modify LNG facilities.
Frequency of Responses: Ongoing. Companies file the necessary
information.
Necessity of Information: This information is necessary so that the
Commission can fulfill its statutory mandate under the NGA to oversee
natural gas infrastructure and facilities.
[[Page 66513]]
Proposed Change: The Commission estimates that this NOPR would
reduce the number of companies' environmental review and compliance
submissions by 3 (from 107 to 104) as a result of companies shifting to
using the blanket certificate program. This would result in a burden
reduction of 9,289 hours and would also significantly decrease the time
before a facilities or infrastructure improvement could be implemented
enabling the company to reap the benefits of the improvement more
quickly (e.g., additional revenue or decreased costs).
Public Reporting Burden: The Commission estimates burden and cost
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cost per
Number of responses per Total number Average burden hours & average cost per Total annual burden hours & total annual respondent ($)
respondents respondent of responses response ($) (rounded) cost ($) (rounded) (rounded)
(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (4)...................................... (3) * (4) = (5).......................... (5) / (1) =
(3) (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies' Environmental Review and 104 16 1,664 193.52 hours; $19,932.56................. 322,017 hours; $32,845,763............... $318,921
Compliance \285\ (18 CFR Parts 2, 153,
157, and 380).
Total (impacted collection .............. ................ 1,664 ......................................... 322,017 hours; $32,845,763............... ..............
activities).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requests comments on:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ This is the number of estimated companies anticipated to
file environmental related information. This is based on previous
years' responses combined with trend information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> the need for this information,
<bullet> whether the information will have practical utility,
<bullet> the accuracy of the provided burden estimates,
<bullet> ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected, and
<bullet> any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden,
including the use of automated information techniques.
155. Send written comments concerning the collection of
information(s) and the associated burden estimate(s) to the Commission
according to the instructions in this NOPR. You must include the Docket
Number and the related OMB Control Number.
B. Environmental Analysis
156. Unless a categorical exclusion or statutory exception applies,
the Commission is required to prepare an EA or an EIS for any major
Federal action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human
environment.\286\ Accordingly, we direct Commission staff to prepare a
NEPA document to assess the environmental impacts of projects that may
be constructed pursuant to the automatic authorization. That document
will also consider the impact of the action we are taking in this
rulemaking proceeding. For prior notice projects, Commission staff will
continue to conduct a case-specific analysis, including determining the
nature of appropriate environmental review, e.g., preparation of an
environmental document or application of a categorical exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ Reguls. Implementing the Nat'l Env't Pol'y Act, Order No.
486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 10, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783
(1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
157. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \287\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if proposed
regulations would not have such an effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
158. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business. LNG
facilities are designated under ``All Other Support Activities for
Transportation'' (i.e., NAICS 488999) as small entities if they do not
exceed the size standard of $25 million.\288\ FERC reviewed the
companies operating LNG facilities and is not aware of any with a
revenue below $25 million. Impacts associated with this proposed rule
are limited to the avoidance of unintended new obligations that would
be imposed on affected small businesses in the absence of a change and
therefore are not significant. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b)
of the RFA, the Commission certifies that the regulations proposed
herein should not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ 13 CFR 121.101; NAICS Association, 488999--All Other
Support Activities for Transportation, <a href="https://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?v=2022&code=221210">https://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?v=2022&code=221210</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory Planning and Review
159. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by
E.O. 14215 (Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies) and affirmed by
E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), directs
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs
and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
has determined this regulatory action is a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended, though not
economically significant under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, OIRA has
reviewed this regulatory action for compliance with the analytical
requirements of E.O. 12866.
160. This regulatory action proposes to establish procedures for
authorizing activities at LNG plants without a case-specific
authorization order from the Commission, which would have the effect of
dramatically streamlining the approval of LNG infrastructure projects
and would be deregulatory in nature. In particular, the proposed rule
would reduce the number of projects subject to the case-specific
application process in Part 153 Subpart B by approximately 3 projects
per year; this streamlining would result in a burden reduction of 3%.
We note that the proposed rule would not change the total number of
projects that would be constructed, just the method for obtaining
regulatory approval. The proposed rule would result in cost savings to
the agency and LNG plant authorization and certificate holders for the
projects that would be covered by the proposed rule because it would
provide a more streamlined administrative process for project proposals
that would otherwise require case-specific review under NGA
[[Page 66514]]
sections 3 or 7. As reflected in the tables above, we estimate that
respondents would save 9,988 hours of effort, which the Commission
estimates as a cost savings of $1,018,776. Moreover, faster approvals
would result in additional cost savings and benefits to authorization
and certificate holders and their customers. We seek comment on how to
quantify those cost savings. Absent this rule, the activities proposed
as eligible for an LNG blanket program would be subject to a less
streamlined permitting process, resulting in increased administrative
costs to the Commission and to authorization and certificate holders.
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be a
deregulatory action under E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation).
E. Document Availability
161. 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>).
162. 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.
163. 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#bed8dbccddd1d0d2d7d0dbcdcbceced1cccafed8dbccdd90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5c3c0d7c6cacbc9cccbc0d6d0d5d5cad7d1e5c3c0d7c68bc2cad3">[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#7c0c091e10151f520e191a190e19121f190e1313113c1a190e1f521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80f0f5e2ece9e3aef2e5e6e5f2e5eee3e5f2efefedc0e6e5f2e3aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.
164. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule
may be found at <a href="http://www.ferc.gov/major-orders-regulations">www.ferc.gov/major-orders-regulations</a> under the NOPR
tab.
List of Subjects
18 CFR Part 2
Electric utilities; Natural gas; Pipelines; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
18 CFR Part 153
Exports; Imports; Natural gas; Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
18 CFR Part 375
Authority delegations (Government agencies); Seals and insignia;
Sunshine Act.
By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Change is concurring
with a separate statement attached.
(S E A L)
Issued: October 15, 2026.
Carlos D. Clay,
Deputy Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
parts 2, 153, and 375, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows.
PART 2--GENERAL POLICY AND INTERPRETATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16
U.S.C. 792-828c, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352.
0
2. Revise Sec. 2.55 to add paragraph (d) and (e):
Sec. 2.55 Auxiliary system installations and replacement facilities.
* * * * *
(d) LNG facilities and auxiliary systems at LNG plants. Beginning
[INSERT DATE TWO YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], this section does not authorize a blanket
authorization holder, as defined by Sec. 153.102(a)(1) of this
chapter, to construct auxiliary installations or replace LNG facilities
and auxiliary systems at liquefied natural gas plants.
(e) Engineering conditions for activities at LNG plants. Beginning
[INSERT DATE TWO YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], the construction of auxiliary installations at LNG
plants and the replacement of facilities at LNG plants are subject to
the requirements of Sec. 153.106(c) and Sec. 153.10
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on October 20, 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.