FERC就LNG工厂“一揽子授权”程序改革发布NOPR，拟简化既有设施改造审批

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Parts 2, 153, 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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following
ways. Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
• Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable native applications and
print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture format.
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by
hand (including courier) delivery.
o Mail via US Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street,
NE, Washington, DC 20426.
o 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. Background2.
A. What is an LNG Plant?2.
B. Existing Statutory and Regulatory Framework for the Commission’s Authorization
and Regulation of LNG Plants 8.
C. The Commission’s Existing Regulations for Authorizing Routine Pipeline
Activities under Section 7 Provide an Analogue for a Program for LNG Plants11.
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 Conditions105.
E. Statutory and Regulatory Compliance Conditions121.
F. Severability143.
IV. Request for Comments 144.
V. Regulatory Requirements148.
A. Information Collection Statement 148.

B. Environmental Analysis156.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 157.
D. Regulatory Planning and Review 159.
E. Document Availability161.
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.
I.

Background
A.

2.

What is an LNG Plant?

An LNG plant is a collection of facilities where natural gas is processed and

cooled to about –260°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.

1 15 U.S.C. 717b; 717f.

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
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
(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

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).
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),
https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/guidance-manual-volume-2.pdf.
4 NGLs include ethane, propane, butane, isobutane, and pentanes.

fired equipment, or to transfer them to truck, rail, or marine
loading facilities or send them out in pipelines;
(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
(6) LNG storage facilities, including piping and valves used
to fill the LNG tanks or vessels, and piping, valves, and intank 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.

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.

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

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.

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
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 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]

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).
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), https://www.ferc.gov/media/2007-mou-dod.

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.

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
C.

The Commission’s Existing Regulations for Authorizing Routine
Pipeline Activities under Section 7 Provide an Analogue for a Program

14 Id. 717b-1(e).
15 Id. 717b-1(c).
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).

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
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
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.”).

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
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
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
15.

In addition to the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate program, § 2.55 of the

Commission’s regulations allows interstate pipeline companies to perform auxiliary

23 Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,368 at 30,200.
24 18 CFR 157.205(h).
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.

installations and facility replacements without a case-specific authorization.27 For
activities undertaken pursuant to either the blanket certificate program or § 2.55,
section 7(c) certificate holders are required to provide advance notice to affected
landowners.28
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 review of engineering,

27 Id. 2.55.

LNG facilities authorized under section 7 of the NGA may use the
procedures outlined in § 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).
29 Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,368 at 30,206.
30 Order No. 686, 117 FERC ¶ 61,074 at PP 18-23.

environmental, safety, and security issues that the Commission believes only can be
properly considered on a case-by-case basis.”31
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

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”).
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),
https://www.ferc.gov/media/2004-interagency-dot-and-uscg. 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), https://cms.ferc.gov/media/mou-phmsaregarding-lng-transportation-facilities-0. 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

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 202333 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-bycase review process for certain replacements, modifications, and expansions is
administratively inefficient and slows down the authorization of needed projects.
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

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.
33 US Energy Info. Admin., The United States Was the World’s Largest Liquefied

Natural Gas Exporter in 2023 (Apr. 1, 2024), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.
php?id=67864; see also US Energy Info. Admin., Global Liquefied Natural Gas Trade
Volumes Reached Record High in 2025 (July 14, 2026),
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67864; US Dep’t of Energy, Office of
Fossil Energy & Carbon Mgmt., Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exports (Dec. 31, 2025),
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/202512/LNG%20Snapshot%20Dec%2031%202025_0.pdf.

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

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.

impacts; and questions as to whether the LNG industry is suitable for a blanket
authorization program. The comments are addressed below.
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 footprint40 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 components41 would be eligible for
automatic authorization.42 Activities that would increase the authorized capacity of the

39 Capacity would be defined at § 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 § 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 § 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

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.
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
A.

Applicability to Section 7 LNG Plants

delegated authorities.
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).

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
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
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.
28.

Eligible Facilities

The NOI sought comment on whether to adopt a tiered approach to the proposed

LNG blanket authorization program under which certain activities are automatically

46 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question B6.
47 Id. P 13, Question B7.
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.

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
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 INGAA54 (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 semiannual 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

51 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Questions A3, B1-B4.
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.

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
30.

Earthjustice59 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 program.60 The States assert that this would
infringe upon the state and local interests protected by the NGA.61
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

57 See, e.g., Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, 190 FERC ¶ 61,149, at app. A,

env’t condition 100 (2025).
58 Id. at 8.
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.

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.
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.
33.

Automatic Authorization

The NOI sought comment on what types of activities the Commission should find

eligible for automatic authorization procedures.63
34.

CLNG commented that the automatic authorization tier should cover

modifications, additions, or improvements to LNG plants that extend beyond the routine

62 Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,368 at 30,200-01.
63 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question B1.

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.
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
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

64 CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 11-13.
65 Id. at 14.

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
37.

CLNG and Cheniere67 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

66 Id. at 12-13.
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 Freedom69 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
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.
40.

Woodside Energy (USA) Inc. (Woodside)73 supports automatic authorizations for

activities that do not materially expand or alter the facility’s previously authorized

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.
71 BLUE is an engineering and consulting firm which provides regulatory services

to various LNG facilities during the permitting, construction, commissioning, and inservice phases.
72 BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 4.
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,

environmental footprint or LNG capacity.74 EcoEléctrica, L.P. (EcoEléctrica),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
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.
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

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 EcoEléctrica is the owner and operator of EcoEléctrica LNG at Guayanilla Bay,

Peñuelas, about nine miles west of Ponce, Puerto Rico.
76 EcoEléctrica Comments at 1.
77 Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,368 at 30,200.

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.
43.

We propose at § 153.108 and § 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
upgraded80) 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:
(a) piping and valves;
(b) process vessels;
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.
79 We propose to define individual components in § 153.102.
80 Upgraded would be defined in § 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 § 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.

(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 Process82 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,

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).

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
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.
2.
47.

Prior Notice

The NOI sought comment on what types of activities the Commission should find

eligible for prior notice procedures.84
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

84 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question B1.
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
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

87 Id. at 15-16.

day-night level (Ldn) 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
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 Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearest
noise sensitive area and a noise survey must be filed within 60 days of the in-service

88 Id. at 16.
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.

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
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
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

90 CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 18-19.
91 See id. at 11.
92 Id. at 19.
93 Staff notes that the US Army Corps of Engineers, not the Commission, has

jurisdiction over dredging.
94 Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,368 at 30,200.

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.
54.

We propose at § 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.
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 § 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, § 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.
57.

Blanket Activities Outside of the LNG Plant Footprint

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
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

95 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question B4.
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.

allowing construction and operation of facilities outside of the plant limits but does not
explain why.98
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

98 CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 6.

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 § 153.108(e)(4). In
addition, the proposed regulations include general, environmental, and engineering

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).

conditions and criteria as delineated in §§ 153.106 and 153.108 to limit the impacts.
However, we seek comment on:
-

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. Such facilities are well understood because many similar facilities have
been constructed under the Commission’s section 7 pipeline blanket program.100
4.
63.

Cost Limits for LNG Facilities and Auxiliary Systems

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
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

100 See 18 CFR 157.202(b)(2)(i).
101 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question B7.
102 See supra P 11 & note 21.
103 See Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 6; BLUE January 23, 2026

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
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
5.
66.

Rate Treatment of Section 7 LNG Activities

The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should treat section 7 LNG

plants different from other interstate natural gas facilities.106
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

Comments at 3; Woodside January 26, 2026 Energy Comments at 2.
104 States January 26, 2026 Comments at 8-9.
105 See Hackberry LNG Terminal, L.L.C., 101 FERC ¶ 61,294, at P 21 (2003)

(citing Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 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).
106 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question B7.

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
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

107 Id. at 4.
108 Id.
109 CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 6.
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.
69.

Replacements under § 2.55 for Section 7 LNG Plants

Currently, section 7 LNG certificate holders can replace facilities that “have or

will soon become physically deteriorated or obsolete” under § 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 § 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 § 2.55 for those
entities that choose to apply for and receive a blanket authorization. To ensure that the
activities undertaken pursuant to § 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 § 153.106(c) and
§ 153.107(a)(3) and (4) for activities undertaken pursuant to § 2.55. Recognizing that
LNG certificate holders may have planned projects under § 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 § 2.55 effective 2 years after the
effective date of the rule. After that time, LNG certificate holders with effective blanket

112 18 CFR 2.55(b).
113 Id.
114 Id. 2.55(a).

authorizations would have to rely exclusively on the provisions of the LNG blanket
program.
C.

Blanket Authorization Procedures
1.

70.

Obtaining Blanket Authority

When instituting the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate program in 1982, the

Commission required each existing certificate holder to apply for a blanket certificate115
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 When a new natural gas
company118 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
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

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).

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.
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
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

120 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question A1 (citing 18 CFR 157.204(a)).
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.
124 Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 4.
125 CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 21-22.
126 Id. at 21-22.

compliance history when acting on a request for a blanket authorization and retain the
ability to revoke such authorization.127
74.

We propose in § 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

127 CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 2; BLUE January 23, 2026

Comments at 3.
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.
75.

Stakeholder Notification

The NOI sought comment on what stakeholder notification the Commission

should require for projects constructed pursuant to an LNG blanket program.131
76.

In response to the NOI, CLNG proposes that for projects requiring prior notice,

the Commission adopt procedures consistent with § 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 inboundary modifications should not require public notice.134
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 § 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

131 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question A7.
132 CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 25.
133 Id.
134 Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 5.
135 18 CFR 157.203(d).
136 Id. 157.6(d)(2).

See infra section III.C.8.

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 § 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.
3.
78.

Advance Notice for Automatic Authorization Activities

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

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).

staff of blanket activities prior to implementation and, if so, whether 30 days is
sufficient.139
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
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.
81.

Notice and Protest Procedures for Prior Notice Projects

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
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

139 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question A4.a.
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).

142 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question A6 (citing 18 CFR 157.205).
143 Id.

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
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
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

144 Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 4; BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments

at 3.
145 CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 17.
146 Id. at 24.
147 Id. at 17.
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
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 60day 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.
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

149 Woodside January 26, 2026 Comments at 1-2.
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.

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:
-

Whether, and if so how, to establish eligibility criteria so that
only persons with a demonstrated substantial interest may
protest;

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).

-

Other potential defined eligibility criteria for protestor eligibility,
including adopting criteria similar to the Commission’s
intervention standards152 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;

-

Whether the Commission should establish a designated timeline
within 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.

90.

Notice to Proceed with Construction

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

152 18 CFR 385.214(b)(2); Am. Elec. Power Servs. Corp., 120 FERC ¶ 61,052, at

P 12 (2007).

Director’s designee prior to the start of construction, introduction of hazardous fluids, or
other milestones.153
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
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
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

153 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question D4.
154 CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 48.
155 Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 7.
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.

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 § 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.
95.

In-Service Deadline

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
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
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.
7.
98.

Reporting Requirements

Semi-annual operational reports are required by authorization orders and must

“identify changes in facility design and operating conditions” and “plant modifications,

158 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question A8.
159 CLNG January 26, 2026 Comments at 25; BLUE January 23, 2026

Comments at 4.
160 Cheniere January 26, 2026 Comments at 5.
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).

including future plans and progress thereof,” and include a section entitled “Significant
Plant Modifications Proposed for the Next 12 Months.”162
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
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

162 See, e.g., Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, 190 FERC ¶ 61,149 at app. A,

env’t condition 100.
163 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question A4(b).
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.

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
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 would be
filed after the activities were completed.170
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

168 BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 5.
169 States January 26, 2026 Comments at 16-17.
170 Id. at 20; Earthjustice January 26, 2026 Comments at 7.
171 See supra note 41.

concerns.172 In our proposed regulations, at §§ 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 § 153.107(c) to
require that if any of the information provided in paragraphs §§ 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.

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.
8.
104.

Delegations to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects

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

174 See supra note 105.
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,

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
106.

Similar to the pipeline blanket program,178 we propose in § 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

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.
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).

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 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
107.

We also propose in § 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 Procedures181 or obtain written
approval from staff or the appropriate Federal or state agency for the use of projectspecific alternatives.182

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.”
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: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/plan.pdf and
https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/wetland-waterbody-constructionmitigation-procedures.pdf.
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 § 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 § 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,

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 US 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.

the certificate holder need only provide documentation of that finding.187 We propose to
adopt this clarification for the LNG blanket program.
109.

For compliance with the CZMA,188 we propose in § 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

187 Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Program, 195 FERC ¶ 61,128 at P 89.
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.

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 activityspecific review, as CSO requests.
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.
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.
112.

The NOI also sought comment on how blanket authorization holders should

demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal permitting requirements.195 CLNG

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).
193 Id. at 2-3.
194 Id. at 3.
195 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question C1(1).

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
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
113.

For automatic authorization activities, we propose in § 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 §§ 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 § 153.108(e)(4) that the request include documentation of compliance with the ESA,
NHPA, and CZMA, as proposed above and in §§ 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.

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.

2.
114.

NEPA Compliance and Categorical Exclusions

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
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.

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).
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 Network210 also opposes any
expansion of categorical exclusions for LNG facilities, stating that “[c]limate impacts are

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.

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.
cumulative by nature and cannot be meaningfully addressed through generic assumptions
or categorical exclusions.”211
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.
118.

Standard Conditions

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

211 Delaware Riverkeeper Network January 26, 2026 Comments at 1, 3 (citing

Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983)).
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.

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
119.

Similar to the pipeline blanket program,218 we propose in § 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 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
§ 157.202(b)(11) of the pipeline blanket regulations; and (3) that blanket activities

215 Id. at 44.
216 BLUE January 23, 2026 Comments at 8.
217 Woodside Energy January 26, 2026 Comments at 3.
218 See 18 CFR 157.206.
219 See supra P 106.

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.
120.

Regarding engineering design conditions, we propose in § 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.

121.

Pre-Filing Waiver

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 § 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

220 15 U.S.C. 717b-1(a).

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
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 Energy227 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

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.
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.

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
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
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
2.

PHMSA Letter of Determination

228 Stellar Energy January 23, 2026 Comments at 4.
229 CH-IV January 16, 2026 Comments at 7.
230 States January 26, 2026 Comments at 5.
231 Id. at 19.
232 See infra section III.E.5.

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.
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

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), https://cms.ferc.gov/media/mou-phmsaregarding-lng-transportation-facilities-0.
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, we propose in § 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.
128.

We acknowledge that PHMSA has solicited feedback on potential amendments to

the pipeline safety regulations governing LNG plants239 and we will work with PHMSA
to ensure the effectiveness of both of our efforts.
3.
129.

USCG Letter of Recommendation

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

238 Specifically, proposed § 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.
239 90 FR 18949 (May 5, 2025).
240 33 U.S.C. 1221, et seq.; 33 CFR 127.007(a), (c).
241 33 CFR 127.007(e).

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.
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
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

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 Pub. L. 111-281, § 813, 124 Stat. 2905, 2999 (2010).
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).

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 § 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.
4.
132.

DoW Concurrence

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

248 Specifically, proposed § 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.
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), https://www.ferc.gov/media/2007-mou-dod.

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
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 §§ 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,

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.

particularly those subject to automatic authorization, being undertaken without projectspecific 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.
135.

State and Local Safety Considerations

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 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.
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

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).
260 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question C1(5).

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
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

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.

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 § 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 60or 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.
139.

Emergency Response Plans

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.
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

266 15 U.S.C. 717b-1(e).
267 NOI, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 at P 13, Question C1(6).

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
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 § 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

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.
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

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.
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 §§ 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 made under its blanket authorization.
F.
143.

Severability

We propose to include at § 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

emergency response organizations, emergency responders, and the USCG have been
notified that they may protest the filing.
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).

regulations proposed herein are not “in any way intertwined” and “operate entirely
independently of one another.”274
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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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 http://www.ferc.gov. 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.

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).

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.

148.

Information Collection Statement

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.
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

275 5 CFR 1320.11.

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:
•

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:
•

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.

•

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:

•

FERC-537: Gas Pipeline Certificate: Construction, Acquisition &
Abandonment (OMB Control No 1902-0060)

•

FERC-539: Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import & Export Related
Applications (OMB Control No 1902-0062)

•

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 NOPR276 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).
Public Reporting Burden: The Commission estimates burden277 and cost as follows:
Number of
Respondent
s
(1)

18 CFR 157.6
Interstate
Certificate
and
Abandonment
Applications

Annual
Number of
Responses
per
Responden
t
(2)

Total
Number
of
Responses
(1)*(2)=(3
)

Average
Burden &
Cost Per
Response

1.39

41.7

500 hrs.;
$51,000

(4)

Total
Annual
Burden
Hours &
Total
Annual
Cost
(3)*(4)=(5
)
20,850
hrs.;
$2,126,70
Cost per
Responden
t
($)
(5)÷(1)279

$70,890

TOTAL
(impacted
collection
activities)

41.7

20,850
hrs.;
$2,126,70
276 Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Program, 195 FERC ¶ 61,128.
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.
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.

no proposed impact on the other parts of this collection.

There is

153.

Title: FERC-539: Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import & Export Related

Applications.
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 semiannual 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.
Public Reporting Burden: The Commission estimates burden and cost as follows:
Number of
Responden
ts
(1)

18 CFR
153.7
Application
s
18 CFR
153.104
Blanket
Authorizati
on Program
Application

Annual
Number
of
Response
s per
Responde
nt
(2)

Total
Number
of
Respons
es
(1)*(2)=(
3)

Average
Burden &
Cost Per
Response

Cost per
Responde
nt
($)
(5)÷(1)

15 hrs.;
$1,530

Total
Annual
Burden
Hours &
Total
Annual
Cost
(3)*(4)=(
5)
120 hrs.;
$12,240

2

25

0.33

4 hrs.;
$408

32 hrs.;
$3,264

$408

(4)

$3,060

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

18 CFR
153.103(c)
Blanket
Authorizati
on Prior
Notice
Filings
18 CFR
153.106(c)
SemiAnnual
Operational
Reports284
TOTAL
(impacted
collection
activities)
154.

1

8 hrs.;
$816

24 hrs.;
$2,448

$816

2

25 hrs.;
$2,550

1,250
hrs.;
$127,500

$5,100

1,426
hrs.;
$145,452

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.

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.

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
Responde
nts
(1)

Companies’
104
Environmenta
l Review and
Compliance
285 (18 CFR
Parts 2, 153,
157, and 380)
TOTAL
(impacted
collection
activities)

Number
of
Response
s Per
Respond
ent
(2)

Total
Number
of
Respons
es
(1) * (2)
= (3)

Average
Burden
Hours &
Average Cost
per Response
($) (rounded)
(4)

1,664

193.52 hours;
$19,932.56

1,664

Total
Annual
Burden
Hours &
Total
Annual Cost
($)
(rounded)
(3) * (4) =
(5)
322,017
hours;
$32,845,763

Cost per
Responde
nt ($)
(rounded)
(5) ÷ (1) =
(6)
$318,921

322,017
hours;
$32,845,763

The Commission requests comments on:
•

the need for this information,

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.

•

whether the information will have practical utility,

•

the accuracy of the provided burden estimates,

•

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected, and

•

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.
156.

Environmental Analysis

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

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).

analysis, including determining the nature of appropriate environmental review, e.g.,
preparation of an environmental document or application of a categorical exclusion.
C.
157.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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.
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.
D.
159.

Regulatory Planning and Review

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

287 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
288 13 CFR 121.101; NAICS Association, 488999 - All Other Support Activities

for Transportation, https://www.naics.com/naics-codedescription/?v=2022&code=221210.

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
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.
161.

Document Availability

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
(http://www.ferc.gov).
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 1-866208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at
(202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
164.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at

www.ferc.gov/major-orders-regulations 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.
(SEAL)
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
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, 26012645; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352.
2. Revise § 2.55 to add paragraph (d) and (e):
§ 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 § 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
§ 153.106(c) and § 153.107(a)(3) and (4) of this chapter.
*****
PART 153—APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT,
OPERATE, OR MODIFY FACILITIES USED FOR THE EXPORT OR IMPORT
OF NATURAL GAS
1. The authority for part 153 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717z; E.O. 10485, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 970, as
amended by E.O. 12038, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 136; DOE Delegation Order No. S1DEL-FERC-2006 (May 16, 2006).
2. Add subpart E to read as follows:
Subpart E—Blanket Authorizations Under Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act
for LNG Plants
3. Add § 153.101 to read as follows:
§ 153.101 Applicability.
(a) Scope. This subpart establishes a procedure whereby a liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminal authorization holder or LNG plant certificate holder may obtain a blanket
authorization allowing certain activities under section 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
(b) Who may apply. This procedure is only applicable to LNG terminal authorization
holders and LNG plant certificate holders.
(c) Availability of case-specific authorizations. Nothing in this subpart shall preclude an
LNG terminal authorization holder or LNG plant certificate holder from proceeding
under any other provision of the Commission’s regulations to obtain Commission
authorization under section 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
(d) Severability. If any provision of this subpart, or the application of such provision to
any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this subpart and the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby.
4. Add § 153.102 to read as follows:
§ 153.102 Definitions.
(a) Subpart E definitions. For purposes of this subpart:
(1) Blanket authorization holder means any LNG terminal authorization holder or

LNG plant certificate holder with an effective blanket authorization issued pursuant to
this subpart.
(2) LNG terminal authorization holder means a person with an effective
authorization issued pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to site, construct, or
operate an LNG terminal.
(3) LNG plant certificate holder means a natural gas company with an effective
certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to section 7 of the Natural
Gas Act to construct and operate LNG facilities.
(4) LNG facilities means those components of an LNG plant that receive, unload,
load, store, transport, gasify, liquefy, or process natural gas. LNG facilities include feed
gas facilities; pretreatment facilities; natural gas liquid facilities; heavy hydrocarbon
condensate facilities; liquefaction facilities; LNG storage facilities; truck transfer
facilities; rail transfer facilities; marine transfer facilities; vaporization or regasification
facilities; sendout gas conditioning facilities; and sendout facilities.
(5) Auxiliary system means 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 vapor handling systems; nitrogen and inert gas systems; instrument and
plant/utility air systems; power generation and electrical systems; utility water and other
utility systems; security systems; cathodic protection systems; relief device, blowdown,
vent, and flare systems; fuel gas systems; spill containment systems; passive protection
systems; hazard detection systems; hazard control systems; firewater systems; structural
and natural hazard mitigation systems; emergency response systems; and emission
control systems.
(6) Components means parts of an auxiliary system or LNG facility including

piping and valves; process vessels; storage containers; rotating equipment; fired
equipment; buildings and structures, including accessways, stairs, ladders, platforms,
hoists, and cranes; electrical components; instrumentation and control system
components; and safety instrument system components.
(7) Pipeline facilities means mainline, lateral, or compressor facilities used to
transport gas to or from an LNG terminal.
(8) Capacity means the (i) import or export capacity of an LNG terminal and (ii)
storage and delivery capacity of interstate LNG plants.
(9) Footprint means the area located: (i) within an LNG plant’s security systems;
and (ii) within the areas protected from natural hazards.
(10) Design limits means: (i) the minimum and maximum design flows; (ii) the
minimum and maximum liquid design levels and volumes; (iii) the minimum (vacuum)
and maximum design pressures; (iv) the minimum design metal temperature and
maximum design temperature, (v) the minimum and maximum compositions, and (vi) the
maximum structural design loads and criteria of the LNG facilities, auxiliary systems,
and components.
(11) Areas protected from natural hazards means areas within storm surge barriers
and tsunami barriers, or areas at or above the site elevations protected from storm surge
levels, tsunami inundation levels, and floodplains at the LNG terminal or plant.
(12) Security systems means security enclosures, access controls, security intrusion
monitoring and detection systems, and security lighting.
(13) Upgraded means providing equal or greater level of safety, security,
reliability, operability, efficiency, and environmental protection.
(14) Modify means to change the design or operational conditions of components

within existing LNG facilities and auxiliary systems, including but not limited to
changing 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.
(15) Piping and valves include all types of piping, tubing, flanges, gaskets,
fittings, valves, actuators, or other components designed or used to convey, direct, start,
or stop fluids within an enclosed system.
(16) Process vessels include heat exchangers, columns, separators, and reactors
and any other pressure vessel or container designed or used to remove, knockout,
separate, distill, combine, heat, cool, react, or change the vapor or liquid fraction,
composition, temperature, or other process condition of fluids.
(17) Storage containers include atmospheric tanks, low-pressure tanks, pressure
vessels, or other containers designed or used as storage for fluids.
(18) Rotating equipment includes pumps, compressors, expanders, companders,
fans, turbines, internal combustion engines, electrical motors, or other equipment and
drivers with rotating or spinning components designed or used to impose or extract work.
(19) Fired equipment includes heaters, furnaces, boilers, incinerators, thermal
oxidizers, vaporizers, flares, fired-turbines, internal combustion engines, and other
equipment designed or used to combust gaseous, liquid, or solid fuel.
(20) Instrumentation and controls include sensors, transmitters, signaling,
fieldbus, basic process control systems, distributed control systems, supervisory control
and data acquisition systems, programmable automation controllers, programmable logic
controllers, programmable logic relays, remote terminal units, remote input/output,
software, human machine interfaces, historians, network architecture, actuators, control

valves, and other integrated components designed or used to measure, monitor, record,
and manually or automatically control physical process conditions, such as flow,
pressure, temperature, level, and composition.
(21) Safety instrumented systems are either: (i) independent safety systems
separate from the basic process control systems or (ii) part of integrated control and
safety systems, comprising sensors, transmitters, certified safety integrity level logic
solvers, segmented or separated servers in network architecture, actuators, blowdown and
emergency shutdown valves with independent or integrated communication networks,
software, human machine interfaces, historians, and other independent or integrated
components designed or used to de-pressurize, de-inventory, isolate, shutdown or
otherwise reduce the risk of process conditions exceeding the basis of design of the
mechanical components and systems that could lead to a loss of containment.
(22) Delivery point means a tap and/or metering and appurtenant facilities, such as
gas heaters, minor gas conditioning, treatment, odorization, and similar equipment,
necessary to enable the blanket authorization holder to deliver gas to any party.
(23) Receipt point means a tap and/or metering and appurtenant facilities such as
gas heaters, minor gas conditioning, treatment, odorization, and similar equipment,
necessary to enable the blanket authorization holder to receive gas from any party.
(24) Project means a unit of improvement or construction that is used and useful
upon completion.
(25) Sensitive environmental area means:
(i) The habitats of species which have been identified as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93-205, as amended) and
essential fish habitat as identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.);
(ii) National or State Forests or Parks;
(iii) Properties listed on, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register
of Historic Places, or the National Register of Natural Landmarks;
(iv) Floodplains and wetlands;
(v) Designated or proposed wilderness areas, national or state wild and
scenic rivers, wildlife refuges and management areas and sanctuaries;
(vi) Prime agricultural lands, designated by the Department of Agriculture;
or
(vii) Sites which are subject to use by American Indians and other Native
Americans for religious purposes.
(26) Emergency means a sudden unanticipated loss of gas supply or capacity that
requires an immediate restoration of interrupted service for protection of life or health or
for maintenance of physical property.
5. Add § 153.103 to read as follows:
§ 153.103 Blanket authorization.
(a) Effect. A blanket authorization issued pursuant to this subpart permits the blanket
authorization holder, in accordance with the provisions of this subpart, to engage in any
of the activities specified in § 153.108 and § 153.109 (as may be amended from time to
time).
(b) Automatic authorization. A blanket authorization issued pursuant to this subpart
permits the blanket authorization holder to engage in activities described in § 153.108(c)
and § 153.109(c) without further Commission approval.
(c) Prior notice required. A blanket authorization issued pursuant to this subpart permits

the blanket authorization holder to engage in activities described in § 153.108(d) and
§ 153.109(d), if the requirements of § 153.105 have been fulfilled.
(d) Landowner and local municipality notification.
(1) Except as identified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, no activity described in
paragraph (b) of this section is authorized unless the blanket authorization holder notifies
all affected landowners, as defined in § 157.6(d)(2), and each local municipality (i.e., the
city, town, or similar local political subdivision) in which the blanket activity would
occur by certified or first class mail at least 45 days prior to commencing construction or
at the time it initiates easement negotiations, whichever is earlier. A landowner or local
municipality may waive the 45-day prior notice requirement in writing as long as the
notice has been provided. For activity required to restore service in an emergency, the
45-day prior notice period is satisfied in the event a company obtains all necessary
easements. The notification shall include at least:
(i) A brief description of the facilities and/or components to be constructed,
modified, or replaced;
(ii) The name and phone number of a company representative who is
knowledgeable about the project; and
(iii) For landowners, a brief description of the effect the construction
activity will have on the landowner’s property and a description of the company’s
environmental complaint resolution procedure that must:
(A) Provide landowners with clear and simple directions for
identifying and resolving their environmental mitigation problems and
concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the right-of
way;

(B) Provide a local or toll-free phone number and the name of a
specific person to be contacted by landowners and with responsibility for
responding to landowner problems and concerns, and who will indicate
when a landowner should expect a response;
(C) Instruct landowners that if they are not satisfied with the
response, they may call the company’s Hotline; and
(D) Instruct landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with the
response, they may contact the Commission’s Landowner Helpline at the
current telephone number and email address, which is to be provided in the
notification.
(2) For activities described in paragraph (c) of this section, the company shall
notify in writing all affected landowners, as defined in § 157.6(d)(2), and each local
municipality (i.e., the city, town, or similar local political subdivision) in which the
blanket activity would occur by certified or first class mail within at least three business
days following the date that a docket number is assigned to the request and at the time it
initiates easement negotiations. The notice should include at least:
(i) A brief description of the company and the proposed project, including
the facilities and/or components to be constructed, modified, or replaced and the
location (including a general location map), the purpose, and the timing of the
project;
(ii) For landowners, a brief description of the effect the construction
activity will have on the landowner’s property and a general description of what
the company will need from the landowner if the project is approved, and how the
landowner may contact the company, including a local or toll-free phone number

and the name of a specific person to contact who is knowledgeable about the
project;
(iii) The docket number (if assigned) for the request;
(iv) A general description of the blanket authorization program and
procedures, as posted on the Commission’s Web site at the time the notification is
prepared, and the link to the information on the Commission’s Web site;
(v) A brief summary of the rights the landowner or local municipality has
in Commission proceedings;
(vi) The following paragraph: This project is being proposed under the
prior notice requirements of the blanket authorization program administered by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under the Commission’s regulations,
you have the right to protest this project within the timeframe required under 18
CFR 153.105(d) in the Commission’s notice of the company’s filing. If you file a
protest, you should include the docket number listed in this letter and provide the
specific reasons for your protest. The protest should be filed with the Secretary of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. A copy of the protest should be
provided to the company. If you have any questions concerning these procedures
you can call the Commission’s Office of External Affairs at (202) 208-1088; and
(vii) The description of the company’s environmental complaint resolution
procedure as described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.
(3) Exceptions.
(i) No landowner or local municipality notice is required for replacements
made to comply with federal regulations, or for safety, environmental, or
unplanned maintenance reasons that are not foreseen and that require immediate

attention by the blanket authorization holder.
(ii) No landowner or local municipality notice is required for activities that
do not involve ground disturbance, increases to operational air and noise
emissions, or increases to public safety risks.
(4) If paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section require a blanket authorization
holder to reveal Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII), as defined by §
388.113(c) of this chapter, to any person, the blanket authorization holder shall follow the
procedures set out in § 157.10(d).
6. Add § 153.104 to read as follows:
§ 153.104 Application procedure.
(a) Who may apply. Any LNG terminal authorization holder that has a Commissionapproved Emergency Response Plan that includes a cost-sharing plan pursuant to
section 3(A) of the Natural Gas Act, any LNG plant certificate holder, or any applicant
requesting authorization to construct or operate an LNG plant, may apply for a blanket
authorization under this subpart in the manner prescribed in §§ 157.6(a) and 385.2011 of
this chapter.
(b) Hearing procedure. Upon receiving an application for a blanket authorization under
this subpart, the Commission will conduct a hearing pursuant to section 3 or section 7 of
the Natural Gas Act and § 157.11 of this chapter.
(c) Issuance.
(1) For applicants which hold an LNG terminal authorization, the Commission
will issue a blanket authorization to the applicant if doing so will not be inconsistent with
the public interest.
(2) For applicants which hold an LNG plant certificate, the Commission will issue

a blanket authorization to the applicant if doing so is required by the present or future
public convenience and necessity.
(d) Application contents. Applications for blanket authorizations shall contain:
(1) Information indicating the exact legal name of the applicant; its principal place
of business; whether the applicant is an individual, partnership, corporation or otherwise;
citation to the proceeding(s) in which the applicant was granted a section 3 authorization
or section 7 certificate; the state under the laws of which the applicant is organized or
authorized to do business; and the name, title, and mailing address and telephone number
of the person or persons to whom communications concerning the application are to be
addressed; and
(2) A statement that the applicant will comply with the terms, conditions and
procedures specified in this subpart.
7. Add § 153.105 to read as follows:
§ 153.105 Notice procedure.
(a) Applicability. No activity described in § 153.108(d) or § 153.109(d), except for
activity required to restore service in an emergency, is authorized by a blanket
authorization granted under this subpart, unless, prior to undertaking such activity:
(1) The notice requirements have been fulfilled in accordance with the provisions
of this section; and
(2) Either
(i) no protest has been filed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section or,
(ii) if a protest has been filed, it has been withdrawn or dismissed pursuant
to paragraph (g) of this section.
(b) Contents. For any activity subject to the requirements of this section, the blanket

authorization holder must file with the Secretary of the Commission, as prescribed in
§§ 157.6(a) and 385.2011 of this chapter, a request for authorization under the notice
procedures of this section that contains:
(1) The exact legal name of the blanket authorization holder and mailing address
and telephone number of the person or persons to whom communications concerning the
request are to be addressed;
(2) The docket number in which its blanket authorization was issued;
(3) Any information required in §§ 153.108 and 153.109 of this chapter for the
particular activity;
(4) A verified statement that the proposed activity complies with the requirements
of this subpart;
(5) Identities and docket numbers of other applications related to the activity. All
related filings must be made within 10 days of the first filing. Otherwise the requests on
file will be rejected under paragraph (c) of this section without prejudice to refiling when
all parties are ready to proceed.
(c) Rejection of request. The Director of the Office of Energy Projects shall reject within
10 days of the date of filing a request which patently fails to comply with the provisions
of paragraph (b) of this section, without prejudice to the blanket authorization holder’s
refiling a complete request.
(d) Publication of notice of request. Unless the request has been rejected pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section, the Secretary of the Commission shall issue a notice of the
request within 10 days of the date of the filing, which will then be published in the
Federal Register. The notice shall designate a deadline for filing protests, or
interventions to the request. The deadline shall be 60 days after the date of issuance of

the notice of the request for activities described by § 153.108(d)(1) and § 153.109(d), and
90 days after the date of issuance of the notice of the request for activities described by
§ 153.108(d)(2).
(e) Protests.
(1) Any person or the Commission’s staff may file a protest prior to the deadline.
Copies of the protest must be served on the Secretary of the Commission and the blanket
authorization holder.
(2) Protests shall be filed in the following form:

United States of America Before the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission
[Name of company holding the blanket authorization] Docket No. [Include
both docket no. of the blanket authorization and the prior notice activity]

Protest to Proposed Blanket Authorization Activity
(Name of Protestor) hereby protests the request filed by (Name of blanket
authorization holder) to conduct a (construction of facilities, abandonment,
etc.) under § 153. of the Commission’s regulations. Protestor seeks to
have this request processed as a separate application.
(Include a detailed statement of Protestor’s interest in the activity and the specific reasons
and rationale for the objection and whether the protestor seeks to be an intervenor.)
(f) Effect of protest. If a protest is filed in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section,
then the blanket authorization holder, the person who filed the protest, any intervenors,
and staff may resolve the protest and file a withdrawal of the protest pursuant to
paragraph (g) of this section prior to the issuance of a Commission order that would have

otherwise been required in the absence of such withdrawal. Informal settlement
conferences may be convened by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects or his
designee. If a protest is not withdrawn or dismissed pursuant to paragraph (g) of this
section, the activity shall not be deemed authorized by the blanket authorization. Instead,
the request filed by the blanket authorization holder shall be treated as an application for
section 3 or section 7 authorization for the particular activity. The Federal Register
notice of the request shall be deemed to be notice of the section 3 or section 7 application
sufficient to fulfill the notice requirement of §§ 157.9 and 157.10.
(g) Withdrawal or dismissal of protests. The protestor may withdraw a protest prior to a
Commission order that would have otherwise been required in the absence of such
withdrawal by submitting written notice of withdrawal to the Secretary of the
Commission and serving a copy on the blanket authorization holder, any intervenors and
any other party requesting service. The withdrawal must state that the blanket
authorization holder and the protestor concur in the withdrawal. Within 10 days of the
filing of a protest, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects will dismiss that protest if
it does not raise a substantive issue and fails to provide any specific detailed reason or
rationale for the objection. If a protest is dismissed, the notice requirements of this
section will not be fulfilled until the earlier of: (1) a 30 day period following the deadline
determined in paragraph (d) of this section has run; or (2) the dismissed protesting party
notifying the Secretary of the Commission that its concerns have been resolved.
(h) Final authorization.
(1) If no protest is filed within the time allowed by the Secretary, the blanket
authorization holder is authorized to conduct the activity under its blanket authorization,
effective on the day after time expires for filing protests and interventions unless, during

that time, the blanket authorization holder withdraws its request in accordance with
§ 385.216 of this chapter.
(2) If any protest is filed within the time allowed for protest and interventions and
is subsequently withdrawn under paragraph (g) of this section, the blanket authorization
holder is authorized to conduct the activity under its blanket authorization, effective upon
the day after the withdrawal of all protests, unless the blanket authorization holder
withdraws its request in accordance with § 385.216 of this chapter prior to that date.
8. Add § 153.106 to read as follows:
§ 153.106 Standard conditions.
Any activity authorized under a blanket authorization issued under this subpart is subject
to the following conditions:
(a) Revisions.
(1) The Commission reserves the right to amend the requirements of this subpart
from time to time.
(2) The blanket authorization is not transferable in any manner and shall be
effective only so long as the blanket authorization holder continues the activities
authorized by the order issuing such authorization and does so in accordance with the
provisions of the Natural Gas Act, as well as applicable rules, regulations, and orders of
the Commission.
(b) Environmental compliance. This paragraph only applies to activities that involve
ground disturbance or increases in operational air emissions, operational noise emissions,
or public safety risks.
(1) The blanket authorization holder shall adopt the requirements set forth in
§ 380.15(a) and (b) of this chapter for all activities authorized by the blanket

authorization and shall issue the relevant portions thereof to construction personnel, with
instructions to use them.
(2) All activities shall be consistent with all applicable law including the
provisions of the following statutes and regulations or compliance plans developed to
implement these statutes:
(i) Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program, 40 CFR part 122 et seq.;
(ii) Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and air quality
regulations and state implementation plans adopted pursuant to 40 CFR parts 5099;
(iii) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.);
(iv) Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-291);
(v) Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et
seq.);
(vi) Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-205, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
(vii) Executive Order 11988, May 24, 1977 requiring Federal agencies to
evaluate the potential effects of any actions it may take on a floodplain;
(viii) Executive Order 11990, May 24, 1977 requiring an evaluation of the
potential effects of construction on wetland;
(ix) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274 et seq.);
(x) National Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133 et seq.);
(xi) National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1 and 230 et
seq.);

(xii) Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.);
(xiii) Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 400 et seq.);
(xiv) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
(xv) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.);
(xvi) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.);
(xvii) Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et
seq.);
(xviii) Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.);
(xix) Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.);
(xx) Pipeline Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.);
(xxi) Ports and Waterways Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.);
(xxii) Marine Transportation Security Act (46 U.S.C. 2101 note and 70101
et seq.);
(xxiii) Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-281, 124
Stat. 2905 (Oct. 15, 2010)).
(3) The blanket authorization holder shall be deemed in compliance with:
(i) Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section only if it adheres to the procedures in
appendix II of part 157 subpart F of this chapter in which case the Commission
finds that there is no effect on any property protected by 16 U.S.C. 470f;
(ii) Paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section only if it adheres to the procedures
in appendix I of part 157 subpart F of this chapter in which case the Commission
finds that endangered species and their critical habitat are protected in accordance
with 16 U.S.C. 1536;

(iii) Paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section only if the appropriate state agency
designated to administer the state’s coastal zone management plan, prior to
construction of the project, waives its right of review or determines that the project
complies with the state’s coastal zone management plan;
(iv) Paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (viii) of this section only if it adheres to
Commission staff’s current “Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and
Maintenance Plan” and “Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation
Procedures” which are available on the Commission Internet home page or from
the Commission staff, or gets written approval from the staff or the appropriate
Federal or state agency for the use of project-specific alternatives to clearly
identified portions of those documents.
(4) Any activity authorized under a blanket authorization shall not have a
significant adverse effect on a sensitive environmental area.
(5) Any activity authorized under a blanket authorization that increases operational
noise emissions shall not have a significant adverse effect on noise sensitive areas, as
follows:
(i) The noise attributable to any new meter station, compressor station,
LNG terminal, or LNG plant, or any modification, upgrade, or update thereto,
such as from new or modified fired or rotating equipment, must not exceed a daynight noise level (Ldn) of 55 dBA at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area (such as
schools, hospitals, or residences).
(ii) Fired and rotating equipment and other noise-emitting components
installed at a meter station, compressor station, LNG terminal, or LNG plant under
this section must be designed to meet the following noise emissions criteria. For

each project, the blanket authorization holder must file a full load noise survey
with the Secretary within 60 days of placing the equipment in service. If a full
load condition noise survey is not possible, the blanket authorization holder must
provide an interim survey at the maximum possible load and provide the full load
survey within 6 months.
(A) If noise emitted from the existing LNG terminal, LNG plant,
meter station, or compressor station at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at
any noise-sensitive area (NSA), or if an addition or modification to an
existing LNG terminal, LNG plant, meter station, or compressor station
operating at full load at or below an Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs causes overall
noise attributable to the facility to exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA at an NSA, the
blanket authorization holder must come into compliance with an Ldn of 55
dBA at NSAs within 1 year of placing the new, replaced, or modified
components in service.
(B) If an addition or modification to an existing LNG terminal, LNG
plant, meter station, or compressor station operating at full load above an
Ldn of 55 dBA at NSAs causes overall noise attributable to the terminal,
plant, or station to increase at an NSA, the blanket authorization holder
must act within 1 year of placing the added or modified facility in service to
reduce noise at NSAs to the level that existed prior to the addition or
modification.
(C) If the initial noise survey demonstrates a need to take action to
mitigate noise, within 60 days of completing such action, the blanket
authorization holder must file a subsequent noise survey with the Secretary

demonstrating that each new fired and rotating equipment or other noiseemitting components at the modified meter station, compressor station,
LNG terminal, or LNG plant complies with the noise level limits.
(6) Any horizontal directional drilling, pile driving, or drilling of wells which will
occur between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. local time must be conducted with the goal of keeping
the perceived noise from the activity at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area (NSA) (such
as schools, hospitals, or residences) at or below a day-night level (Ldn) of 55 dBA.
(7) Any activity otherwise subject to authorization under § 153.109 shall not be
authorized if the activity is located within 0.5 miles of a nuclear power plant which is
either operating or under construction, or for which a construction permit has been filed
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(8) The blanket authorization holder shall act as the Commission’s non-Federal
representative upon acceptance of the blanket authorization for purposes of complying
with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(9) The blanket authorization holder shall act as the Commission’s non-Federal
representative upon acceptance of the blanket authorization for purposes of complying
with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
(c) Engineering compliance.
(1) Facility Inspections. Throughout the life of the replacements, modifications,
and new components, systems, and facilities authorized under this subpart, the blanket
authorization holder and its components, systems, and facilities shall be subject to regular
Commission staff technical reviews and site inspections on at least an annual basis for
LNG terminals and biennial basis for LNG plants in interstate service, or more frequently
as circumstances indicate. Prior to each Commission staff technical review and site

inspection, the blanket authorization holder shall respond to any specific data requests,
including information relating to possible design and operating conditions that may have
been imposed by other agencies or organizations. Up-to-date, detailed piping and
instrumentation diagrams reflecting replacements, modifications, and new components,
systems, and facilities and other pertinent information not included in the semi-annual
reports described below, including events that have taken place since the previously
submitted semi-annual report, shall be submitted as specified in data requests.
(2) Semi-Annual Report. Throughout the life of the replacements, modifications
and new components, systems, and facilities authorized under this subpart, the blanket
authorization holder shall file semi-annual operational reports with the Secretary to
identify changes in design and operating conditions; abnormal operating experiences;
applicable activities (e.g., ship arrivals, quantity and composition of imported and
exported LNG, liquefied and vaporized quantities, trucking quantities, boil off/flash gas
quantities); and plant modifications, including future plans and progress thereof.
Abnormalities shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following, as applicable:
(i) unloading/loading/shipping problems;
(ii) potential hazardous conditions from offsite vessels, transportation
activities (e.g., road, rail, air), or facilities adjacent to the plant site;
(iii) storage container stratification or rollover;
(iv) geysering;
(v) higher than predicted boil-off rates in storage containers;
(vi) storage container pressure excursions (high or low);
(vii) negative pressure (vacuum) within a storage container;
(viii) relative movement of storage container inner vessels;

(ix) cold spots on the storage containers;
(x) storage container vibrations and/or vibrations in associated cryogenic
piping;
(xi) storage container settlement;
(xii) pipe movement including spring hanger position indicator(s) outside
of normal range;
(xiii) significant equipment or instrumentation malfunctions or failures;
(xiv) non-scheduled maintenance or repair (and reasons therefor);
(xv) leaking or inoperative isolation valves;
(xvi) hazardous fluid releases;
(xvii) fires involving hazardous fluids and/or from other sources; and,
(xiii) adverse weather conditions and the effect on the plant and facilities.
(3) Semi-annual operational reports shall be submitted within 45 days after each
period ending June 30 and December 31. In addition to the above items, a section
entitled “Significant Plant Modifications Proposed for the Next 12 Months” shall be
included in the semi-annual operational reports.
(4) Throughout the life of the replacements, modifications and new components,
systems, and facilities authorized under this subpart, the blanket authorization holder
shall notify Commission staff within 24 hours in the event the temperature of any region
of an LNG storage container, including any secondary containment and embedded pipe
supports, becomes less than the minimum specified operating temperature for the
material, and specify procedures for corrective action.
(5) Throughout the life of the replacements, modifications, and new components,
systems, and facilities authorized under this subpart, the blanket authorization holder

shall report to Commission staff significant non-scheduled events, including safetyrelated incidents (e.g., LNG, condensate, refrigerant, or natural gas releases; fires;
explosions; mechanical failures; unusual over-pressurization; and major injuries) and
security-related incidents (e.g., unauthorized attempts to enter site, suspicious activities).
If an abnormality is of sufficient magnitude to threaten public or employee safety, cause
significant property damage, or interrupt service, notification shall be made immediately,
without unduly interfering with any necessary or appropriate emergency repair, alarm, or
other emergency procedure. In all instances, notification shall be made to Commission
staff within 24 hours. This notification practice shall be incorporated into the LNG
plant’s Emergency Response Plan.
(6) In the event of an incident, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects has
delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure operational reliability
and to protect human life, health, property, or the environment, including authority to
direct the LNG facility to cease operations. Following the initial company notification,
Commission staff will determine the need for a separate follow-up report or follow-up
discussion in the upcoming semi-annual operational report. All company follow-up
reports shall include investigation results and recommendations to minimize a
reoccurrence of the incident.
(d) Commencement. Any authorized construction shall be completed and made available
for service by the blanket authorization holder and any authorized operation, or service,
shall be available within five years of the date the activity is authorized pursuant to
§ 153.105(h). The authorization holder may apply to the Director of the Office of Energy
Projects for an extension of this deadline.
(e) Reports. The authorization holder shall file reports as required by this subpart.

9. Add § 153.107 to read as follows:
§ 153.107 General reporting requirements.
(a) Throughout the modification, construction, and operational life of each new, replaced,
or modified LNG facility, auxiliary system, or components thereof authorized by
§ 153.108(c) and § 153.109(c), the blanket authorization holder shall file in the semiannual operational report described in § 153.106(c)(2), or earlier if upon request as part
of a planned modification, construction, or operational technical review and inspection.
The report must include:
(1) a general description and justification of the replacements, modifications, or
new components, systems, or facilities and an explanation of how that modification
provides an equal or greater level of environmental protection than the original
components, systems, or facilities;
(2) revised or new Process Flow Diagrams, Utility Flow Diagrams, and Heat and
Material Balances for any replaced, modified, or new components, systems, or facilities
that change or create new process or utility flows, pressures, temperatures, compositions,
or other conditions;
(3) revised or new plot plans and unit plot plans that depict the location of any
modified or new components, systems, and facilities;
(4) revised or new piping and instrumentation diagrams that depict the integration
of any modified or new components, systems, and facilities;
(5) the beginning and completion date of construction of the facilities installed and
the date service commenced;
(6) a description of the contacts made, reports produced, and results of
consultations which took place to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act,

the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act;
(7) a list of all permits or approvals from local, state, Federal, or Native American
groups or Indian agencies required prior to and during construction, and the status of
each, including the date filed, the date issued, and any known obstacles to approval in
accordance with 18 CFR 380.12(o)(13);
(8) a list of all federal, state, and local regulations and requirements that apply to
the siting, design, construction, testing, monitoring, operation, and maintenance of the
proposed project and an explanation of how the proposed project will comply with the
applicable Federal regulations, including codes and standards incorporated by reference
into Federal regulations in accordance with 18 CFR 380.12(o)(14);
(9) a list of all codes and standards under which the plant (and marine terminal, if
applicable) will be sited, designed, constructed, tested, monitored, operated, and
maintained, and any special considerations or safety provisions that were applied to the
design of plant components in accordance with 18 CFR 380.12(o)(12);
(10) for activities located at LNG terminals, a letter of concurrence from the
Department of War that the proposed activity will have minimal impact on military
installations, operations, or training pursuant to the Natural Gas Act;
(11) documentation, including images, that restoration of work areas is
progressing appropriately;
(12) a discussion of problems or unusual construction issues, including those
identified by affected landowners, and corrective actions taken or planned; and
(13) if applicable, a noise survey verifying compliance with § 157.106(b)(5).
(b) Information filed in paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) meet the definition of CEII, as
defined by § 388.113(c) of this chapter, and shall be filed in accordance with § 388.113.

(c) If any of the information provided in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(5) through (13) is filed
as CEII, as defined by § 388.113(c) of this chapter, or as privileged, pursuant to
§ 388.112 of this chapter, the blanket authorization holder shall file a public summary of
all changes undertaken pursuant to blanket authorization.
10. Add § 153.108 to read as follows:
§ 153.108 LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and associated components at LNG
terminals and LNG plants.
(a) This section applies only to the construction, operation, replacement, and
miscellaneous rearrangement of LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and associated
components for blanket authorization holders who operate LNG terminals authorized
pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act or LNG plants certificated pursuant to
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
(b) This section does not apply to the construction, operation, replacement, and
miscellaneous rearrangement of pipeline facilities for blanket authorization holders who
operate LNG terminals authorized pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act governed
by § 153.109 or pipeline facilities pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act governed
by 18 CFR part 157.
(c) Automatic authorization.
(1) Abandonment. Blanket authorization holders may abandon the following LNG
facilities, auxiliary systems, and associated components that do not impact existing
customers under contract and do not adversely affect the continued safety, reliability, or
environmental protection of the remaining LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, or
associated components:
(i) LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, or associated components that are

degraded, obsolete, or soon to be obsolete;
(ii) LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, or associated components that are
approaching, have reached, or have exceeded their design and service life;
(iii) LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, or associated components that may
be unsafe to continue to operate; and
(iv) LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, or associated components that no
longer offer services under contract.
(2)

Installation, construction, modification, or replacement. Blanket

authorization holders may install, construct, modify, or replace (in-kind or upgraded)
components within existing LNG facilities and auxiliary systems provided that the new
facilities will be:
(i) located within the footprint and the same vertical and horizontal extents
of the existing facilities previously evaluated and authorized at the LNG terminal
or plant by the Commission, or those previously reviewed and approved at the
LNG terminal or plant by Commission staff as part of final design modifications;
(ii) spaced to allow for safe maintenance, access, and egress, and not
increase confinement and congestion levels beyond those previously evaluated and
authorized at the LNG terminal or plant by the Commission, or those previously
reviewed and approved at the LNG terminal or plant by Commission staff as part
of final design modifications; and
(iii) designed using components of the same (in-kind or upgraded) type as
those that have been previously evaluated and authorized at the LNG terminal or
plant by the Commission, or as those previously reviewed and approved at the
LNG terminal or plant by Commission staff as part of final design modifications.

(3) Limitations. The activities authorized by this paragraph must not:
(i) result in an increase (or be associated with an increase) of the authorized
capacity of an LNG terminal or plant;
(ii) result in an increase in frequency or size of LNG marine vessels at the
LNG terminal beyond that previously evaluated in a U.S. Coast Guard Letter of
Recommendation and considered by the Commission;
(iii) result in significant modification to LNG facilities beyond what was
previously evaluated by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and considered by the Commission;
(iv) extend outside the vertical or horizontal extents of the LNG terminal or
plant that were previously evaluated for visual impacts and authorized by the
Commission, previously used to notify U.S. Department of Transportation Federal
Aviation Administration under 14 CFR Part 77, and previously evaluated as a
basis for Department of War concurrence under the Natural Gas Act;
(v) 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;
(vi) locate the LNG facilities and auxiliary systems closer to nuclear power
reactor facilities, which are either operating or under construction, or for which a
construction permit has been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, than
the distance previously evaluated and considered by the Commission;
(d) Prior notice. Subject to the requirements of § 153.105 and appendix I of this subpart,
blanket authorization holders are authorized to:

(1) install, construct, modify, or replace (in-kind or upgraded) components within
existing LNG facilities and auxiliary systems provided that:
(i) the new components or auxiliary systems will:
(A) be within the existing footprint;
(B) be spaced to allow for safe maintenance, access, and egress, and
not increase confinement and congestion levels beyond those previously
evaluated and authorized at the LNG terminal or plant by the Commission
or those previously reviewed and approved at the LNG terminal or plant by
Commission staff as part of final design modifications; and
(C) not have a significant adverse impact to reliability or risks to
public safety of the LNG terminal or plant beyond those previously
evaluated and authorized by the by the Commission or those previously
reviewed and approved at the LNG terminal or plant by Commission staff
as part of final design modifications; and
(ii) any change in flows, levels, volumes, pressures, temperatures,
compositions, or loads will be within the design limits of the new, replaced and
modified LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and components and will be within the
authorized design limits of the remaining LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and
components.
(2) expand an authorized LNG terminal or plant by constructing new LNG
facilities, auxiliary systems, and components provided that the new facilities, systems,
and components will:
(i) be located within the authorized footprint of the LNG terminal or plant
or adjacent to the footprint of the LNG terminal or plant and permanently occupy

no more than 25 additional acres;
(ii) be located on previously disturbed or developed land or waterways;
(iii) be located within industrial zoned areas or areas without zoning;
(iv) be designed using the same (in-kind or upgraded) LNG facilities and
auxiliary systems as those previously evaluated and authorized at the LNG
terminal or plant; and
(v) be located in accordance with the following criteria regarding distances
from nuclear power reactor facilities that are operating or under construction, or
for which a construction permit has been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission:
(A) new or modified LNG containers with LNG storage capacities of
10,000,000 gallons (38,000 cubic meters) or more must be 5 miles or more
from nuclear power reactor facilities;
(B) new or modified LNG containers with LNG storage capacities of
less than 10,000,000 gallons (38,000 cubic meters) but more than 3,000,000
gallons (11,400 cubic meters) must be 3 miles or more from nuclear power
reactor facilities; and
(C) all other new or modified LNG containers, LNG facilities,
auxiliary systems, and associated components must be 2 miles or more
from nuclear power reactor facilities.
(e) Contents of request. In addition to the requirements of § 153.105(b), requests filed for
activities described under paragraph (d) of this section shall contain:
(1) A detailed description of the facilities and a description of the purpose of the
proposed facilities including their relationship to other existing or planned facilities;

(2)
(i) For activities proposed at LNG terminals authorized under section 3 of
the Natural Gas Act, a statement explaining how the proposed project is not
inconsistent with the public interest; or
(ii) for activities proposed at LNG plants authorized under section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act, a statement explaining how the public convenience and necessity
requires approval of the project including a description of the proposed project’s
purpose and beneficiaries;
(3) Process Flow Diagrams, Utility Flow Diagrams, and Heat and Material
Balances for any replaced, modified, or new components, systems, or facilities that
change or create new process or utility flows, pressures, temperatures, compositions, or
other conditions in accordance with 18 CFR 380.12(o)(10);
(4) A concise analysis discussing the relevant issues outlined in § 380.12(a)-(n) of
this chapter. The analysis must identify the existing environmental conditions and the
expected significant impacts that the proposed action, including proposed mitigation
measures, will cause to the quality of the human environment, including impacts
expected to occur to sensitive environmental areas. The analysis must also include the
information described in § 380.12(k) and describe how the proposed action will be made
to comply with applicable State Implementation Plans developed under the Clean Air
Act, if applicable. The analysis must also include a description of the contacts made,
reports produced, and results of consultations which took place to ensure compliance
with the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act and the Coastal
Zone Management Act. Include a copy of the agreements received for compliance with
the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Coastal Zone

Management Act, or if no written concurrence is issued, a description of how the agency
relayed its opinion to the company. Describe how drilling for wells and horizontal
direction drilling would be designed to meet the goal of limiting the perceived noise at
NSAs to an Ldn of 55 dBA or what mitigation would be offered to landowners;
(5) For requests filed pursuant to section (d)(2), a description of any zoning for the
site of the proposed new facilities;
(6) A commitment to having the Environmental Inspector’s report filed every
week;
(7) A list of all permits or approvals from local, state, Federal, or Native American
groups or Indian agencies required prior to and during construction, and the status of
each, including the date filed, the date issued, and any known obstacles to approval in
accordance with 18 CFR 380.12(o)(13);
(8) A list of all federal, state, and local regulations and requirements that apply to
the siting, design, construction, testing, monitoring, operation, and maintenance of the
proposed project and an explanation of how the proposed project will comply with the
applicable Federal regulations, including codes and standards incorporated by reference
into Federal regulations in accordance with 18 CFR 380.12(o)(14);
(9) A list of all codes and standards under which the plant (and marine terminal, if
applicable) will be sited, designed, constructed, tested, monitored, operated, and
maintained, and any special considerations or safety provisions that were applied to the
design of plant components in accordance with 18 CFR 380.12(o)(12);
(10) For LNG facilities under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a
letter stating that the proposed activity complies with the federal siting requirements or

that such compliance is not required;
(11) For activities located at LNG terminals, evidence that the blanket
authorization holder has submitted a new or updated Letter of Intent and Waterway
Suitability Assessment, and received a Letter of Recommendation from the U.S. Coast
Guard that the waterway is suitable for any increase in LNG marine vessel traffic
frequency or size associated with the proposed activity or a determination that a new or
updated Letter of Intent, Waterway Suitability Assessment, or Letter of Recommendation
is not required;
(12) For activities that exceed the height requirements in 14 CFR 77, an
aeronautical study from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) concluding that there is no presumed hazard for the proposed
activity and construction thereof. Alternatively, if a determination of no presumed hazard
cannot be supplied at the time of filing the prior notice request, the blanket authorization
holder shall provide evidence that FAA has been provided with notification in accordance
with 14 CFR 77 and informed that it may protest the request within the timeframes
described in § 153.105;
(13) For activities located at LNG terminals, a letter of concurrence from the
Department of War that the proposed activity will have minimal impact on military
installations, operations, or training pursuant to the Natural Gas Act;
(14) For activities located at LNG terminals, any safety advisory report from the
state agency designated by the Governor indicating the proposed activity does not involve
any state or local or safety concerns. Alternatively, if a safety advisory report cannot be
supplied at the time of filing the prior notice request, the blanket authorization holder
shall provide evidence that the state agency designated by the Governor has been

provided with notification and that the blanket authorization holder has notified the state
agency that it has 30 days to issue a safety report or may protest within the timeframes
described in § 153.105;
(15) For activities located at LNG terminals, letters from all relevant state and
local emergency response organizations and emergency responders responsible for offsite
emergency response in proximity to the LNG terminal or LNG marine vessel transit that
confirm either no changes in Emergency Response Plans, including cost sharing plans,
are needed or that any changes in Emergency Response Plans, including cost sharing
plans, were developed in consultation with them for the proposed activity. Alternatively,
if such letters cannot be supplied at the time of filing the prior notice request, the blanket
authorization holder shall supply evidence that the emergency response organizations and
emergency responders responsible for offsite emergency response in proximity to the
LNG terminal or LNG marine vessel transit, have been notified that they may protest
within the timeframes described in § 153.105;
(16) A preliminary schedule for when the following engineering information
would be filed with the Commission, demonstrating that the proposed activity continues
to meet or exceed federal regulations and meet or exceed codes and standards identified
in the underlying authorizations for the LNG terminal or plant or approved equivalents.
The preliminary schedule should include filing with the Commission all applicable
revised or new final engineering information listed below prior to issuance for
construction, quality management plans prior to construction, pre-commissioning plans
and results prior to commissioning, commissioning plans and procedures prior to
commissioning, commissioning test results prior to introduction of hazardous fluids, and
performance test plans and results and operating and maintenance plans and procedures

prior to commencement of service. The engineering information to be filed, as
applicable, must include:
(i) geotechnical investigations and studies;
(ii) natural hazard investigations and studies;
(iii) structural basis of design, drawings, specifications, analyses and
calculations;
(iv) internal road vehicle protection (e.g., guard rails, barriers, and bollards)
basis of design, drawings, specifications, analyses, and calculations;
(v) security enclosure(s), vehicle barriers, and access controls basis of
design, drawings, specifications, analyses, and calculations;
(vi) security monitoring and intrusion detection basis of design, drawings,
specifications, analyses, and calculations;
(vii) lighting basis of design, drawings, specifications, analyses, and
surveys;
(viii) process flow diagrams and heat and material balances;
(ix) plot plan, unit plot plan, and elevation drawings, or three-dimensional
drawings;
(x) piping and instrumentation diagrams;
(xi) car seal and lock philosophies, car seal and lock programs, and lists of
car-sealed and locked valves;
(xii) process hazard analysis, including any hazard identification studies,
hazard and operability review, layer of protection analyses, and safety integrity
level calculations and verification studies;
(xiii) cause-and-effect matrices for process instrumentation, fire and gas

detection system, or emergency shutdown system with alarms and shutdown
functions, details of the voting and shutdown logic, set points, and test
documentation;
(xiv) piping, flange, fitting, valve, and insulation drawings, isometrics,
specifications, stress analyses, dynamic pressure surge analyses, acoustical and
harmonic vibration analyses, other analyses and calculations, and test
documentation;
(xv) process vessel drawings, specifications, stress analyses, calculations,
and test documentation;
(xvi) rotating equipment drawings, specifications, stress analyses, dynamic
pressure surge analyses, acoustical and harmonic vibration analyses, other
analyses and calculations, and test documentation;
(xvii) storage container system drawings, specifications, analyses,
calculations, and settlement surveys, and test documentation;
(xviii) fired equipment drawings, specifications, analyses, and calculations,
and test documentation;
(xix) electrical single line diagrams, schematics, layout plans, electrical
area classification drawings, specifications, datasheets, studies, analyses,
calculations, and test documentation;
(xx) instrumentation and control drawings, loop diagrams, specifications,
instrumentation lists, safe operating limits (upper and lower), control set points,
alarm setpoints, data sheets, analyses, calculations, factory assessment test, site
acceptance test, site integration test, and other test documentation;
(xxi) safety instrumented system drawings, loop diagrams, specifications,

instrumentation lists, alarm and shutdown setpoints, emergency shutdown valve
closure times, analyses, data sheets, calculations, factory assessment test, site
acceptance test, site integration test and other test documentation;
(xxii) building drawings, specifications, analyses, ventilation calculations,
building siting assessments, analyses, calculations, and test documentation;
(xxiii) pressure and vacuum relief valves basis of design, lists, sizing,
capacity, analyses, and calculations;
(xxiv) spill containment system, including downcomers, basis of design,
drawings, specifications, analyses, capacity calculations; and test documentation;
(xxv) hazard detection, including emergency shutdown button, layout
drawings, lists, specifications, datasheets, voting logic, studies, analyses,
calculations, and test documentation;
(xxvi) hazard control, including fixed and wheeled dry-chemical, hand-held
fire extinguishers, fixed carbon dioxide systems, fixed clean agent systems, and
other suppression systems drawings, specifications, studies, analyses, calculations,
and test documentation;
(xxvii) cryogenic spill protection drawings, specifications, analyses, and
calculations;
(xxviii) vapor barrier drawings, specifications, analyses, and calculations;
(xxvix) blast and fire wall drawings, specification, analyses, and
calculations;
(xxx) passive fire protection drawings, specifications, analyses, and
calculations;
(xxxi) firewater equipment, including supplies, storage, pumps,

shelters/houses, post indicator valves, sectional valves, firewater monitors,
hydrants, hose, water curtains, deluge systems, foam systems, water-mist systems,
and sprinkler systems drawings, specifications, analyses, calculations, and test
documentation;
(xxxii) quality management system plans, including list of hold points and
inspection and test plans, for the owner/operator and engineering, procurement,
and construction contractors and subcontractors;
(xxxiii) clean-out, dry-out, purging, and tightness testing plans;
(xxxiv) pressure/leak procedures and test documentation;
(xxxv) commissioning plans and procedures;
(xxxvi) pre-startup safety procedures and reviews;
(xxxvii) standard operating procedures for startup, shutdown, and
cooldown, and test documentation;
(xxxviii) simultaneous operations procedures;
(xxxix) maintenance procedures and manuals, including hot work
procedures and permits;
(xl) preventative and predictive maintenance program and test
schedules/frequencies, scopes, and documentation;
(xli) offsite contractor procedures;
(xlii) management of change procedures and forms;
(xliii) training procedures and logs;
(xliv) alarm management program and reports;
(xlv) abnormal operating conditions reporting procedures; and
(xlvi) Emergency Response Plans, including cost sharing plans.

(17) For activities at LNG plants authorized under section 7 of the Natural Gas
Act, the blanket authorization holder must include the information required by
§ 157.208(c)(6).
(f) Special conditions for prior notice activities.
(1) Blanket authorization holders shall not segment, separate, or divide projects in
order to meet the acreage limitation set forth in paragraph (d)(2)(i).
(2) Prior to commissioning or introduction of hazardous fluids for prior notice
activities, blanket authorization holders shall request and must receive written
authorization to proceed from the Director of the Office of Energy Projects, or the
Director’s designee. Instrumentation and control, hazard detection, hazard control,
security and other components, systems, or facilities necessary for the safe and secure
introduction of such fluids shall be installed and functional;
(3) Prior to placing prior notice activities in service, blanket authorization holders
shall request and must receive written authorization from the Director of Office of
Energy Projects, or the Director’s designee. Such authorization will only be granted
following a determination that the facilities that have been constructed can be expected to
operate safely as designed, and the rehabilitation and restoration of areas affected by the
project are proceeding satisfactorily;
(4) Within 30 days of placing prior notice activities in service, blanket
authorization holders shall file an affirmative statement, certified by a senior company
official, confirming that the prior notice activities have been installed in compliance with
all applicable conditions, and that continuing activities will continue to be consistent with
all applicable conditions; and
(5) For prior notice activities, throughout the planned modification, construction,

and operational life of replacements, modifications and new components, systems, and
facilities, blanket authorization holders must file revised or new engineering information
in accordance with the schedule of filing submitted pursuant to paragraph (e)(16) to
demonstrate they meet or exceed federal regulations and meet or exceed codes and
standards identified in the underlying authorizations or approved equivalents.
11. Add § 153.109 to read as follows:
§ 153.109 Pipeline facilities at LNG terminals and plants.
(a) This section applies only to the construction, operation, replacement, and
miscellaneous rearrangement of pipeline facilities for blanket authorization holders who
operate LNG terminals authorized pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act.
(b) This section does not apply to construction, operation, replacement, and
miscellaneous rearrangement of LNG facilities or auxiliary systems for blanket
authorization holders that operate LNG terminals authorized pursuant to section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act or to blanket authorization holders who operate LNG plants authorized
pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
(c) Automatic Authorization.
(1) If the project cost does not exceed the cost limitations set forth in column 1 of
table 1 to § 157.208(d), or if the project is required to restore service in an emergency, the
blanket authorization holder is authorized to make miscellaneous rearrangements,
abandon, acquire, construct, modify, replace, or operate any pipeline facility.
(2) The blanket authorization holder may acquire, construct, replace, modify, or
operate any receipt or delivery point.
(d) Prior Notice. If the project cost is greater than the amount specified in column 1 of
table 1 to § 157.208(d), but less than the amount specified in column 2 of table 1 to

§ 157.208(d), the blanket authorization holder is authorized to make miscellaneous
rearrangements, abandon, acquire, construct, modify, replace, or operate any pipeline
facility, subject to the requirements of § 153.105.
(e) In addition to the requirements of § 153.105(c), a request for activities described
under paragraph (d) of this section shall contain:
(1) the information required in §157.208(c)(1) through (5) and (9) through (10);
and
(2) a statement explaining how the proposed project is not inconsistent with the
public interest.
(f) Blanket authorization holders shall not segment, separate, or divide projects in order
to meet the cost limitations set forth in this section.
(g) In the interest of safety and reliability of service, facilities authorized by this section
shall not be operated at pressures exceeding the maximum operating pressure set forth in
the request. In the event that the blanket authorization holder thereafter wishes to change
the maximum operating pressure of facilities constructed under this section, it shall file
an appropriate request pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 157.105(b). Such request
shall include the reasons for the proposed change. Nothing contained herein authorizes
the certificate holder to operate any facility at a pressure above the maximum prescribed
by State law, if such law requires a lower pressure than authorized hereby.
(h) If the actual cost of the project exceeds the per-project cost authorized by this section,
the blanket authorization holder shall apply to the Director of the Office of Energy
Projects for a waiver of those project cost limits.
12. Add Appendix I to Subpart E of Part 153
Appendix I – Management of Change for Significant Adverse Impacts on Reliability

or Public Safety
For activities authorized by 18 CFR 153.108(d), blanket authorization holders must
provide management of change (MOC) documentation of the modification that impacts
the engineering information in 18 CFR 153.108(e)(16). The MOC documentation shall
verify that the following layers of protection provide an equal or greater level of
protection as those previously evaluated and authorized at the LNG terminal or plant by
the Commission, or as those previously reviewed and approved at the LNG terminal or
plant by Commission staff as part of final design:
(a) design of basic process control systems (BPCS), safety instrumented systems (SIS), or
applicable instrumentation and control systems;
(b) design and sizing scenarios for pressure and vacuum relief devices, including flare
and vent systems;
(c) mechanical designs of components including fluid velocity, dynamic hydraulic surge
from valve closures and pumps as well as flow and acoustic induced vibrations;
(d) minimum specification for design metal temperature (MDMT), maximum design
temperature (MDT), maximum design pressures (MDP), maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP), maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of
components, and corrosion allowances;
(e) design and sizing for spill containment and impoundment systems;
(f) spacing and plant layout of LNG facilities and auxiliary systems;
(g) design of ignition controls including electrical area classification and building
ventilation systems;
(h) design of hazard detection systems;
(i) design of emergency shutdown systems, and depressurization or blowdown systems;

(j) design of hazard control systems including layout and travel distance for portable
extinguishers;
(k) design to mitigate impacts of cryogenic spills, overpressures, projectiles, fires, or
other accidental or intentional external impacts that could increase risk to safety;
(l) design and location of cryogenic spill protection, vapor barriers, blast walls, blast
resistant buildings or structures, fire walls, radiant heat shields, passive fire protection
systems, or other passive protection systems to prevent cascading damage;
(m)design of firewater systems including firewater location, design densities, capacity,
and coverage;
(n) design of structural components including any increases in loading from natural
hazards and any larger LNG marine vessels;
(o) scalable procedures in Emergency Response Plans; and
(p) any other studies and/or reports applicable to the modifications.

PART 375—THE COMMISSION
1. The Authority for this section continues to read:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791-825r,
2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
2. Revise § 375.308 to read as follows:
§ 375.308 Delegations to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects.
*****
(v) * * *
(6) To dismiss any protest to prior notice filings made pursuant to §§ 153.105 or
157.205 of this chapter and involving pipeline facilities or LNG facilities and auxiliary

systems that does not raise a substantive issue and fails to provide any specific detailed
reason or rationale for the objection;
***
(8) Applications for blanket certificates of public convenience and necessity
pursuant to subpart F of part 157 of this chapter, including waiver of project cost
limitations in §§ 157.208 and 157.215 of this chapter; applications for blanket certificates
of public convenience and necessity or blanket authorizations pursuant to subpart E of
part 153 of this chapter, including waiver of project cost limitations in § 153.109; and the
convening of informal conferences during the 30-day reconciliation period pursuant to
the procedures in §§ 153.105(f) and 157.205(f).
(w) * * *
(5) Requests for waiver of the landowner notification and local municipality
notification requirements in § 153.103(d) or landowner notification requirements in
§ 157.203(d) of this chapter.
(x) * * *
(5) To reject requests which patently fail to comply with the provisions of
§§ 153.105(b) or 157.205(b) of this chapter;
***
*****

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Authorizations for Certain Activities at Liquefied
Natural Gas Plants

Docket No. RM26-2-001

(Issued October 15, 2026)
CHANG, Commissioner, concurring:
1.
In today’s order, the Commission proposes to revise its regulations to establish a
new blanket certificate program to authorize certain activities at liquified natural gas
(LNG) facilities without case-specific authorizations. Similar to the structure of the
pipeline blanket program,1 the Commission proposes a tiered approach, in which
activities may be eligible for automatic or 60- or 90-day prior notice authorization. The
three tiers intend to reflect a range of projects with different levels of complexity, design
modifications, and environmental and safety impacts. I write separately to draw
particular attention to the class and scope of activities proposed under the 90-day prior
notice procedures and request input from stakeholders regarding the appropriate
eligibility conditions and environmental protection safeguards for that proposal.
2.
Since 1982, the Commission has operated a blanket program for interstate gas
pipelines to undertake certain well-understood activities without case-specific
authorizations. The Commission has twice declined to extend the program to include
LNG facilities, finding that, at the time, LNG plants were not within the class of minor,
well-understood, routine activities intended for the program. However, given the
expertise that the Commission has developed on this topic over the last decade, I support
the proposal to extend this effort to the LNG authorization process via the development
of a new blanket program and to create parity with how gas pipelines are evaluated.
3.
As the new blanket program is developed, it is essential that the Commission
properly tailor the program to both meet our statutory requirements and provide legal
durability and permitting certainty for the natural gas industry. Achieving these
objectives requires that the program captures the appropriate types of activities without
being overly broad. The program’s success will depend on our ability to clearly define
the types of activities that are suitable for ex ante blanket authorization—namely,
activities that are generally well-understood and have minimal impacts on their
surroundings. In contrast, a program without sufficient bounds will likely invite protests
or legal challenges. The program will not succeed in its intended outcome if every
project is protested and thus made ineligible under the blanket.
4.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) includes a reasonable list of
activities proposed to be eligible for automatic and 60-day prior notice authorization, as
supported by the record compiled through the Notice of Inquiry. The information about
the project site and facility design collected and reviewed during the original
1 18 CFR pt. 157, subpart F (2025).

authorization should be sufficient to understand the impacts of activities that will not
expand the project footprint or make only minor modifications to the facilities. However,
the Commission needs more information to understand whether we have set the
appropriate limits for projects that fall under the 90-day prior notice category, namely
those seeking to expand beyond their original facilities’ footprint.
5.
Under the proposed rule, projects that qualify for the 90-day prior notice category
will be subject to three conditions: (1) expansion outside of the original facility’s
footprint must occupy less than 25 acres of adjacent land or water that has been
previously disturbed or developed; (2) expansion outside of the original footprint must
comply with all environmental and engineering conditions in the project’s existing
authorization; and (3) the facilities must be of the same type as those previously
considered and analyzed in the underlying authorization.2 The NOPR does not include a
cost limit as a qualifying condition, finding that, unlike the pipeline blanket program,
project cost is not an appropriate proxy for level of impact for LNG projects. Instead, we
propose to use size of the expansion as a measure to help ensure that projects will not
have a significant impact on public safety or the environment.
6.
I am concerned that we do not yet have enough information in the record to justify
the selection of a 25-acre limit as a proxy for minimal impact of a proposed project. I
understand that a strict non-expansion policy may create additional safety concerns if
applicants are incentivized to propose artificially congested development. However, as
acknowledged in the order, an additional 25 acres could allow for the construction of
projects as large as an additional liquefaction train or five combined-cycle power
generation facilities.3 These kinds of large projects have the potential to create
substantial new environmental and safety impacts despite being conceptually wellunderstood. Thus, qualifying such expansion activities raises questions as to whether
using size of adjacent land (or water) as a limit could lead to the inclusion of projects
larger than what is legally justifiable for a blanket program.
7.
The proposed rule asks stakeholders to provide comment on whether 25 acres
beyond plant footprint is an appropriate acreage limitation, and whether the Commission
should consider any additional limits on eligibility beyond the three conditions. When
evaluating project applications, the Commission must fulfill certain responsibilities under
a number of environmental statutes including the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. These statutes
require detailed analysis of impacts of the project within a certain proposed footprint, but
not necessarily the adjacent land and waterways. Under the proposed 90-day prior notice
authorization, projects could expand into areas that have not been previously analyzed,
even if they do not provide a new or updated environmental review process. I am not yet
convinced that allowing project expansions onto a 25-acre adjacent space with the
information collected in the 90-day prior notice blanket program will be sufficient to

2 NOPR at P 56.
3 Id. P 61.

guarantee our compliance with the Commission’s statutory obligations. Thus, I request
further comment on the following:
Q1: Should the project applicant be required to demonstrate
affirmatively that facilities constructed in areas outside of the
existing footprint that have not been previously studied will
not have a significant environmental impact?
8.
Further, the proposed rule does not preclude applicants from seeking multiple—
and potentially even an unlimited number of—25-acre expansions beyond their original
footprint. Though the proposed regulations include language prohibiting blanket
authorization holders from segmenting projects as a means of complying with the acreage
limitation,4 they do not limit the number of times expansions could be permitted over the
lifetime of the facility, nor do they state a minimum length of time required between
actions. A project with enough adjacent land that had previously been disturbed or
developed could, in theory, double in size—or more—without requiring additional
environmental analysis from the Commission. Without a limit on the total amount of
development that could occur outside of the authorized footprint of an existing facility or
a facility under development, I am concerned about the Commission’s ability to fulfill its
statutory duties. Thus, I request stakeholders to submit further comments on the
following:
Q2: Should the Commission establish: (1) an upper limit on
the number of expansions beyond the project footprint
allowed under a single blanket authorization, either in total
size or in number of expansion projects; and/or (2) a
minimum time period between successive requests?
9.
Given these concerns, I encourage stakeholders to help the Commission build a
robust record on the proposed 90-day prior authorization category and its specific
eligibility conditions. Ultimately, I believe the Commission can establish a blanket
program that accomplishes its goal of increased efficiency while simultaneously
complying with its statutory obligations. I look forward to reviewing the expanded
record to assess how best to achieve both objectives.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.


Judy W. Chang
Commissioner
4 Section 153.108(f)(1) of the proposed regulations.

[FR Doc. 2026-21443 Filed: 10/19/2026 8:45 am; Publication Date: 10/20/2026]