SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. What is an LNG plant?

2. 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.

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]

( printed page 66493)

5. LNG plants operating in interstate commerce are typically peak shaving plants that receive and liquefy natural gas during low demand periods, store it as LNG, and then regasify the LNG and send out the gas to an interstate pipeline during peak demand periods.

6. An LNG plant is composed of two distinct categories of facilities: LNG facilities and auxiliary systems. LNG facilities are those components of an LNG plant that receive, unload, load, store, transport, gasify, liquefy, or process natural gas. LNG facilities include, but are not limited to: ^[3]

(1) feed gas facilities, which include metering stations to receive natural gas; processing vessels to remove water and particulate matter; and compression, pressure regulation, and heating and cooling equipment;

(2) pretreatment facilities, which include equipment to remove carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, mercury, water, or other impurities from the natural gas to safely and reliably liquefy the natural gas;

(3) natural gas liquid (NGL) facilities to extract or remove NGLs from natural gas,^[4] store NGLs, and use them as part of refrigerant makeup in liquefaction facilities or fuel gas for fired equipment, or to transfer them to truck, rail, or marine loading facilities or send them out in pipelines;

(4) 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 in-tank pumps used to withdraw the LNG and transfer it to marine, truck, or rail loading or unloading transfer facilities or vaporization facilities;

(7) marine transfer facilities, including transfer arms, hoses, piping and valves, and other components used to unload or load marine vessels;

(8) truck and rail transfer facilities, including transfer arms, hoses, piping and valves, and other components used to unload or load truck or rail cars;

(9) vaporization or regasification facilities to convert the LNG back into natural gas prior to being sent out in a pipeline or to an end user;

(10) sendout gas conditioning facilities to meet pipeline quality specifications for the sendout gas; and

(11) sendout facilities, including sample stations and metering stations to measure the composition, flow, or other characteristics of the natural gas being sent out to a pipeline.

7. Auxiliary systems are those components of an LNG plant that are not LNG facilities but are necessary to support safe and reliable operation of the plant. Auxiliary systems include, but are not limited to:

(1) vapor handling systems to receive, process, and deliver boiloff gas from LNG containers, flash gas from process vessels, and any vapor generated or displaced from truck, rail, or marine transfer facilities;

(2) fuel gas systems to deliver natural gas to fired equipment;

(3) nitrogen and inert gas systems to unload, produce, and store nitrogen to create an inert nonflammable atmosphere where flammable fluids are handled;

(4) plant, utility, and instrument air systems to supply pneumatic pressure used by valve actuators and other equipment or tools;

(5) utility water systems to store and supply water used by power generation, boilers, heat exchangers, and other components;

(6) power generation and electrical systems, including any onsite main gas turbine, heat recovery steam generators, and emergency backup diesel engine generators, used to generate and supply power;

(7) emission control systems to reduce, control, capture, or transport air emissions;

(8) cathodic protection systems;

(9) relief valve and flare/vent systems used to safely and reliably discharge effluent from releases;

(10) security systems;

(11) spill containment systems used to contain any hazardous liquid spills from components and keep spill containment systems free of stormwater;

(12) passive protection systems, including cryogenic spill protection, vapor barriers, blast walls, passive fire protection, firewalls, radiant heat shields, foam glass blocks, or other systems to prevent cascading damage from hazardous fluid releases;

(13) hazard detection systems;

(14) hazard control systems used to extinguish or control fires;

(15) firewater systems;

(16) structural support systems;

(17) natural hazard mitigation used to monitor, measure, record, or protect LNG plant facilities and components from natural hazards; and

(18) emergency response systems, including any fire brigade buildings and apparatus, used to house and respond to hazardous fluid releases.

B. Existing Statutory and Regulatory Framework for the Commission's Authorization and Regulation of LNG Plants

8. The Commission regulates the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of LNG plants pursuant to sections 3 and 7 of the NGA. Section 3(a) provides for Federal jurisdiction over the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of facilities used to export or import natural gas.^[6] Section 3(e)(1) states that “[t]he Commission shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal.” ^[7] And under section 7(c), the Commission issues certificates of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas and LNG facilities used for the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce.^[8] Under both section 3 and section 7, the Commission has the authority to include terms and conditions in any order authorizing an LNG plant.^[9]

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 ( printed page 66494) training or activities of an active military installation.^[13] Section 3A(e) states that “[i]n any order authorizing an LNG terminal the Commission shall require the LNG terminal operator to develop an Emergency Response Plan [that] shall be prepared in consultation with the United States Coast Guard and State and local agencies and be approved by the Commission prior to any final approval to begin construction [and] shall include a cost-sharing plan.” ^[14] Additionally, section 3A(c) allows states to provide a report on state and local safety considerations, which “the Commission shall review and respond specifically to the issues raised . . . .” ^[15]

10. 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 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 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 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 ( printed page 66495) review of engineering, environmental, safety, and security issues that the Commission believes only can be properly considered on a case-by-case basis.” ^[31]

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]

18. Changes in the LNG market since 2006 have led to an expansion in the number of projects that the Commission regulates. The United States emerged as the world's largest LNG exporter in 2023 ^[33] with seven large-scale LNG export terminals currently in operation, eight new or expanded LNG export projects in construction, and additional LNG terminals and expansions expected over the next several years. Although certain changes and variances are permitted during the construction of an LNG plant, changes to an operating LNG plant—in some cases even routine adjustments like equipment replacements—may currently require case-specific authorization. The current case-by-case review process for certain replacements, modifications, and expansions is administratively inefficient and slows down the authorization of needed projects.

19. Based on these considerations, the Commission believes that the establishment of an LNG blanket program allowing the automatic or prior notice authorization for certain activities is warranted.

II. Notice of Inquiry

20. On November 20, 2025, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) in this proceeding, requesting information and comments on whether and if so how to revise its regulations to allow for the authorization of activities at LNG plants without case-specific authorization under section 3 or 7 of the NGA.^[34] The NOI was published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2025,^[35] and established a 60-day comment period expiring on January 27, 2026.^[36] In response to the NOI, the Commission received 18 comments—eight from LNG and natural gas companies and related trade associations,^[37] one from an energy technology company, two from engineering consulting firms, six from public interest organizations, and one on behalf of nine states' attorneys general.^[38] The comments addressed a variety of issues, including: support for a blanket program as it would allow certain activities at LNG plants to proceed in an expedited fashion; recommendations on how the Commission should implement a program with a tiered authorization system that would allow automatic approval for minor, in-footprint modifications and a prior notice process for moderate changes; recommendations that the LNG blanket program not include costs limits; questions pertaining to how the public and state agencies would receive notice; concerns about environmental effects and safety impacts; and questions as to whether the LNG industry is suitable for a blanket authorization program. The comments are addressed below.

III. Discussion

21. After reviewing the comments received in response to the NOI, the Commission proposes to establish an LNG blanket program to authorize certain activities at LNG plants without case-specific authorization orders under sections 3 and 7 of the NGA.

22. Specifically, the Commission proposes adopting a tiered blanket authorization program like the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate program, including activities that are eligible for automatic authorization or prior notice authorization. In general, activities that would not: (a) increase the authorized capacity of the LNG plant; ^[39] (b) expand the authorized vertical or horizontal extents within the footprint ^[40] of the LNG plant; or (c) result in flows, levels, volumes, pressures, temperatures, compositions, or loads outside any of the design limits of the new, replaced, or modified LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and components and within the authorized design limits of the remaining LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and components ^[41] would be ( printed page 66496) eligible for automatic authorization.^[42] Activities that would increase the authorized capacity of the LNG plant, be located within the footprint of the LNG plant, not result in any change in flows, levels, volumes, pressures, temperatures, compositions, or loads outside the design limits of the new, replaced and modified LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and components, and not result in any aforementioned changes outside the authorized design limits of the remaining LNG facilities, auxiliary systems, and components, would be subject to a 60-day prior notice period. Construction of new LNG facilities, such as liquefaction trains, LNG tanks, and marine berths, and auxiliary systems outside of the footprint of the plant would be subject to a 90-day prior notice period.

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

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. Eligible Facilities

28. The NOI sought comment on whether to adopt a tiered approach to the proposed LNG blanket authorization program under which certain activities are automatically authorized and other activities are authorized after prior notice, and if so how the Commission should define the activities and establish tiers for them.^[51]

29. Generally, in response to the NOI, commenters propose a structure similar to the Commission's section 7 pipeline blanket program, where certain categories of actions would be eligible for automatic authorization and a larger, more complex group of actions would be eligible for prior notice authorization. CLNG,^[52] American Petroleum Institute,^[53] and INGAA ^[54] (collectively, CLNG) propose that the Commission adopt a three-tiered approach which includes: automatic authorizations; standard prior notice authorization for facility modifications that would not result in changes to hazards or public safety; and an expanded prior notice for larger activities like new liquefaction trains, storage tanks, or marine berths.^[55] CLNG requests that the Commission continue to allow some modifications at operational LNG terminals through disclosure in semi-annual operational reports and management of change (MOC) logs (together, Change Reporting Process).^[56] Each order authorizing an LNG plant contains requirements for the authorization or certificate holder to file a semi-annual operational report listing modifications undertaken at the LNG plant and any significant modifications proposed for the next 12 months.^[57] These reports provide early notice to staff of anticipated future construction and maintenance and allow staff to advise LNG companies on whether such modifications require a separate amendment application. Authorizations also include a condition that allows Commission staff to inspect LNG facilities and issue data requests to LNG companies throughout the life of the facilities. Under those delegated powers, Commission staff request MOC logs to verify that modifications undertaken at LNG terminals and plants are consistent with the semi-annual operational reports and that there are no safety or reliability impacts from those changes. CLNG notes, however, that the existing Change Reporting Process lacks clarity, creating “regulatory inconsistencies, inefficiency, and . . . potential non-compliance risk.” ^[58]

30. Earthjustice ^[59] and the Attorneys General for the States of Maryland, Oregon, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont (collectively, States) oppose allowing expansions of new or existing LNG terminals or facilities under a blanket ( printed page 66497) 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 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. Automatic Authorization

33. 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 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 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 Cheniere ^[67] maintain that many optimizations and in-kind modifications that are performed within the existing footprint—such as replacing older equipment with newer, safer models, installing advanced leak detection systems, upgrading fire and gas detection systems, debottlenecking activities, or installing pollution control devices or emissions monitoring devices—would result in no adverse environmental impacts and would yield reliability and safety benefits.^[68]

38. The Center for Regulatory Freedom ^[69] proposes that the automatic authorization tier include low-impact and routine activities such as equipment replacements, maintenance actions, safety system upgrades, and efficiency improvements.^[70]

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 environmental footprint or LNG capacity. ^[74] ( printed page 66498) 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 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 upgraded ^[80] ) including the abandonment of existing equipment, modifications,^[81] or new components at authorized LNG facilities that do not increase the authorized capacity of the LNG terminal or plant and within the authorized vertical and horizontal extents of the footprint and design limits of the LNG plant facilities and auxiliary systems:

(a) piping and valves;

(b) process vessels;

(c) storage containers;

(d) rotating equipment;

(e) fired equipment;

(f) instrumentation and control system components;

(g) safety instrumented system components;

(h) buildings and structures; and

(i) electrical components.

Auxiliary Systems

Replacements (in-kind or upgraded) including the abandonment of existing equipment, modifications, or additions of the following components or systems to maintain or improve the safety and reliability of operations of LNG facilities and that do not increase the authorized capacity of the LNG terminal or plant and within the authorized vertical and horizontal extents of the footprint and design limits of the LNG facilities and auxiliary systems:

(a) vapor handling systems;

(b) fuel gas systems;

(c) nitrogen and inert gas systems;

(d) instrument, plant/utility air systems;

(e) utility water and other utility systems;

(f) power generation and electrical systems;

(g) emission control systems;

(h) cathodic protection systems;

(i) security systems;

(j) relief valve and flare/vent systems;

(k) spill containment systems;

(l) passive protection systems;

(m) hazard detection systems;

(n) hazard control systems;

(o) firewater systems;

(p) structural systems;

(q) natural hazard mitigation systems; and

(r) emergency response systems.

Related Pipeline Facilities

Construction of pipeline facilities under section 3 of the NGA to the same extent as is allowed under the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate program.

44. Activities that would not be eligible for automatic authorization include increases in capacities of the LNG terminal or plant and projects that would extend beyond the existing LNG plant footprint because these activities have the potential for safety and environmental impacts and thus are better suited for the prior notice category of actions.

45. Further, we do not propose to allow increases of the authorized capacity through uprates under automatic authorization, even where efficiencies are realized during construction, because such increases may implicate hazards, safety concerns, and environmental effects associated with increased throughput. Such issues historically have been addressed through safety and environmental reviews prior to start-up. Moreover, the changes vary from plant to plant and may result in more or larger LNG marine vessels, requiring a more detailed analysis by Commission staff or its federal agency partners. Further, these changes could also require a new letter of recommendation from USCG; a letter of determination from PHMSA; concurrence from the DoW; the opportunity for state agencies to submit a state safety advisory report; updated Emergency Response Plans developed in consultation with USCG and state and local agencies; and ESA consultation. Therefore, such uprates would be eligible under prior notice procedures.

46. As for CLNG's proposal that the existing Change Reporting Process ^[82] be preserved as a means to modify LNG plants separate from the blanket program, we disagree. The existing Change Reporting Process does not provide a clear, consistent, and certain regulatory path for modifying LNG plants.^[83] Conversely, the proposed blanket program will provide a path for routine, well understood repairs, replacements, and additions at LNG plants to receive regulatory approval with a shorter time frame, compared with traditional case-specific authorizations. The automatic authorization activities would include those intended to be covered by the semi-annual operational reports and the prior notice procedures would establish a separate streamlined authorization process to provide more consistency and regulatory certainty for those ( printed page 66499) activities while balancing the potential impacts of those activities. Nevertheless, as described below in section III.C.7, the semi-annual reporting requirements would be maintained and would continue to keep staff apprised of planned changes at each LNG plant.

2. Prior Notice

47. 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]

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 day-night level (L_dn ) 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 L_dn of 55 dBA at the nearest noise sensitive area and a noise survey must be filed within 60 days of the in-service date.^[90] CLNG states that all of its proposed prior notice activities would either replicate the design of existing facilities that were previously subject to NEPA review or that would be de minimis or not have significant impacts.^[91] For this tier of activities, CLNG proposes a notice period of 60 days.^[92]

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 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.

( printed page 66500)

Auxiliary Systems

Replacements, including the abandonment of existing components; modifications; or new auxiliary components and systems associated with existing LNG facilities designed to increase the authorized capacity of the LNG terminal or plant and that are within the authorized footprint and design limits.

Related Pipeline Facilities

Construction of pipeline facilities under section 3 of the NGA to the same extent as is allowed under the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate program.

55. We propose at § 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. Blanket Activities Outside of the LNG Plant Footprint

57. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should allow the construction and operation of facilities outside of the footprint of the currently authorized LNG plant.^[95]

58. Some commenters support allowing projects to occur both within and outside of the existing project footprint.^[96] CH-IV International, LLC (CH-IV),^[97] however, opposes allowing construction and operation of facilities outside of the plant limits but does not explain why.^[98]

59. As stated above, we propose to allow for the construction and operation of facilities outside of the LNG plant footprint. However, such facilities would be limited to a 25-acre area and would only be eligible for construction under the 90-day prior notice procedures.

60. We believe it would be unwise to limit expansions to those within the existing footprint. First, we understand, based on the experience of Commission staff, that an appropriately limited category of actions outside LNG plants' existing footprints can be fully and appropriately assessed through the proposed prior notice procedures. In particular, the engineering and environmental conditions ( e.g., requiring that the new facilities be of the same type (in-kind or upgraded) as those previously authorized by the Commission at the same LNG plant or terminal) and the limitation on the location and size of the expansion permanently occupying no more than 25 acres on adjacent land help ensure that such projects will not have a significant impact on public safety or the environment. The prior notice procedures also allow for interested stakeholders to have an opportunity to evaluate proposals and raise particular concerns regarding a project's impact. Moreover, limiting blanket-eligible expansions to those within a plant's existing footprint could incentivize artificially congested development, resulting in potential safety concerns due to equipment congestion, which can create new hazards for and from maintenance activities, increase consequences from hazards, and impede emergency access and egress. Therefore, we find that such projects may qualify for the faster and more streamlined blanket procedures, so as to facilitate and expedite important infrastructure development without significant adverse impacts on public safety or the environment.

61. Regarding the proposed 25-acre limit on blanket-eligible expansions outside a plant's existing footprint, Commission staff evaluated prior authorizations to determine what acreage would allow an LNG blanket authorization holder to construct new facilities of an appropriate scope for eligibility under the proposed 90-day prior notice tier. Staff determined that 25 acres would allow for the construction of two LNG tanks, a single large liquefaction train ( e.g., 7.8 MTPA (1.08 Bcfd)), approximately 10 smaller liquefaction blocks ( e.g., 20 liquefaction units totaling 12.5 MTPA (1.73 Bcfd)), or five combined-cycle power generation facilities. Staff determined based on its experience that the safety and environmental effects of such projects would be less than significant based on prior examples.^[99] We emphasize that this analysis does not alter or diminish an applicant's obligation to comply with the requirements set forth in § 153.108(e)(4). In addition, the proposed regulations include general, environmental, and engineering 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. ( printed page 66501) Such facilities are well understood because many similar facilities have been constructed under the Commission's section 7 pipeline blanket program.^[100]

4. Cost Limits for LNG Facilities and Auxiliary Systems

63. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should use cost limits as a proxy to determine what activities are eligible under the proposed LNG blanket program.^[101]

64. Under the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate regulations, activities are limited based on the cost of the proposed project.^[102] Several commenters oppose cost limits for the construction and operation of LNG facilities under an LNG blanket program because of the high variability in equipment cost and supply chain factors.^[103] States comment that cost limits are not an appropriate surrogate for determining whether a project should be eligible for automatic or prior notice authorization because the Commission has not shown LNG facility projects and activities to be routine or generic.^[104]

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. Rate Treatment of Section 7 LNG Activities

66. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should treat section 7 LNG plants different from other interstate natural gas facilities.^[106]

67. Eastern Shore comments that the Commission should not place cost-based limits on section 7 LNG facilities as long as required environmental and landowner impact conditions are satisfied.^[107] Given its experience, Eastern Shore states that these facilities are more costly than linear pipeline projects.^[108] CH-IV states that the program should be structured in a manner that ensures automatic authorization projects have little impact on ratepayers or interstate pipeline operations and prior notice procedures should be available for projects likely to have significant impacts on ratepayers or interstate pipeline operations.^[109]

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]

6. Replacements Under § 2.55 for Section 7 LNG Plants

69. Currently, section 7 LNG certificate holders can replace facilities that “have or will soon become physically deteriorated or obsolete” under § 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 authorizations would have to rely exclusively on the provisions of the LNG blanket program.

C. Blanket Authorization Procedures

1. Obtaining Blanket Authority

70. When instituting the section 7 pipeline blanket certificate program in 1982, the Commission required each existing certificate holder to apply for a blanket certificate ^[115] and delegated authority to staff to act on such applications.^[116] Applying NGA section 7(e)'s standards, staff issued approximately 65 blanket certificate orders to existing section 7 pipeline companies in the first two years. ^[117] ( printed page 66502) When a new natural gas company ^[118] requests a certificate to construct and operate interstate transportation facilities, it typically also requests a section 7 pipeline blanket certificate, and the Commission acts on such requests in the certificate proceeding for the project.^[119]

71. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should require LNG authorization and certificate holders to apply for a blanket authorization as it does for natural gas pipeline companies.^[120] The NOI also sought comment on whether, and if so how, the Commission should consider an applicant's compliance history when determining whether to grant blanket authorization.

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 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]

2. Stakeholder Notification

75. The NOI sought comment on what stakeholder notification the Commission should require for projects constructed pursuant to an LNG blanket program.^[131]

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 in-boundary 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 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. Advance Notice for Automatic Authorization Activities

78. Section 2.55(b) requires notice to the Commission prior to the commencement of construction of certain larger-scale replacement projects because the Commission determined that, consistent with NEPA,^[137] it needed to review replacement activities that could pose serious, adverse environmental impacts before they occur.^[138] The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should require advance notification to Commission staff of blanket activities prior to ( printed page 66503) 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. Notice and Protest Procedures for Prior Notice Projects

81. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should adopt the same prior notice procedures as in the section 7 pipeline blanket regulations.^[142] The NOI also asked which types of protests should be dismissed, if any.^[143]

82. Most commenters recommend that the Commission adopt a process similar to the prior notice procedures used in the section 7 pipeline blanket program. Both Cheniere and BLUE recommend that the Commission adopt the same 60-day prior notice timeline.^[144] Conversely, and as discussed above, CLNG recommends a two-tiered approach where smaller projects would have a 30-day timeline and larger projects ( e.g., new liquefaction trains, tanks, and marine berths) would have a 60-day timeline.^[145]

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]

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 60-day comment period as the foundation for the LNG blanket authorization program and a longer 90-day comment period for a second tier of larger prior notice activities ( e.g., liquefaction trains, storage tanks, and marine berths).

87. A shorter time period would be too restrictive to allow interested parties, including state and local agencies who, within 30 days, might furnish an advisory report under NGA section 3A(c),^[150] to review the request, and then for Commission staff to perform its review of environmental and safety issues, respond to any issues raised, and protest if necessary.

88. For larger-scale facilities, we propose to establish a 90-day notice period. This longer notice period will provide stakeholders and the Commission sufficient time to evaluate environmental and safety effects associated with the construction and operation of such facilities while still providing a more streamlined approval process as compared to a full section 3 or 7 application. Based on its decades of experience analyzing such projects, the Commission does not believe a shorter notice period would be appropriate for these larger scale facilities.

89. Regarding eligibility criteria for protesters, we propose to adopt the same approach as our current part 157, subpart F regulations governing protests. Under those regulations, a protest to a prior notice is dismissed if it fails to “raise a substantive issue and fails to provide any specific detailed reason or rationale for the objection.” We note that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects dismisses protests for failure to raise substantive issues pertaining to the project and failure to provide any specific detailed reason or rationale for objecting to the pending proposal, thereby allowing the project to proceed under a blanket authorization.^[151] However, we seek comment on whether establishing more prescriptive criteria for protestors could focus prior notice proceedings and help promote the intended efficiencies of the blanket program. This could include limiting the persons that may protest a prior notice request to only those with a substantial interest, Commission staff, and affected landowners, so as to preclude protests based solely on generic or irrelevant concerns. We therefore seek comment on the following:

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

—Other potential defined eligibility criteria for protestor eligibility, including adopting criteria similar to the Commission's intervention standards ^[152] and whether the Commission should require membership organizations seeking to protest prior notice requests to provide evidence that they have a member in the relevant geographic area, or are representing a specific member that is or will be directly affected by the proposed project. Any proposals should demonstrate how the criteria do not prevent persons meaningfully impacted by a proposed project from protesting;

—Whether the Commission should establish a designated timeline within ( printed page 66504) which it will seek to issue orders adjudicating prior notice protest proceedings ( e.g., 60 days), noting that individual cases present differing issues and information needs, and thus require differing processing times. We also seek comment on whether such procedures would inhibit blanket authorization holders and protestors from negotiating a settlement that would resolve the protest.

5. Notice To Proceed With Construction

90. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should require blanket authorization holders to request a notice to proceed from the Director of OEP or the Director's designee prior to the start of construction, introduction of hazardous fluids, or other milestones.^[153]

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 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. In-Service Deadline

95. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should require completion of construction and in-service of blanket projects within a specified timeframe and, if so, what timeframe.^[158]

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. Reporting Requirements

98. Semi-annual operational reports are required by authorization orders and must “identify changes in facility design and operating conditions” and “plant modifications, including future plans and progress thereof,” and include a section entitled “Significant Plant Modifications Proposed for the Next 12 Months.” ^[162]

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 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 ( printed page 66505) 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 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.

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. Delegations to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects

104. We propose to update the delegations to the Director of the Office of Energy Projects in our regulations to conform with the addition of the LNG blanket program. These delegations are proposed at: 18 CFR 375.308(v)(6), to dismiss a protest to a prior notice project that does not raise a substantive issue and fails to provide a specific detailed reason or rationale; 18 CFR 375.308(v)(8), for approving applications for an initial blanket certificate or blanket authorization; 18 CFR 375.308(w)(5), for approving requests for waiver of landowner notification or local municipality notification requirements consistent with the proposed regulations; and 18 CFR 375.308(x)(5), for rejecting requests under the blanket programs that patently fail to comply with the proposed regulations.

D. Environmental and Engineering Conditions

1. Statutory and Regulatory Compliance

105. The NOI sought comment on how blanket activities would comply with enumerated Federal statutes.^[175] CLNG comments that compliance with applicable Federal laws, regulations, and permits can be assured by the conditions in the underlying authorization and recommends that the blanket authorization framework require as a condition compliance with Federal permits, including any new permit requirements updated or revised since issuance of the blanket authorization.^[176] Cheniere comments that the Commission can rely on established frameworks to ensure compliance with applicable laws.^[177]

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 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 ( printed page 66506) Pipeline Safety Act; ^[179] (21) the Ports and Waterways Safety Act; (22) the Marine Transportation Security Act and (23) Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.^[180]

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 Procedures ^[181] or obtain written approval from staff or the appropriate Federal or state agency for the use of project-specific alternatives.^[182]

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, 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 effects not covered by a national analysis.^[192] Although we do not propose to complete a national Federal consistency review, our proposal to adopt the requirements of the pipeline blanket program for compliance with the CZMA would provide for activity-specific review, as CSO requests.

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 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 ( printed page 66507) construction, introduction of hazardous fluids, or other milestones.^[198] BLUE recommends requiring implementation plans for authorized prior notice activities to document, among other things, consultations and authorizations.^[199]

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.

2. NEPA Compliance and Categorical Exclusions

114. NEPA requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed major Federal action with a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment.^[200] For a proposed action that does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment or if the significance of such effect is unknown, the agency shall prepare a more concise Environmental Assessment (EA) unless it finds that the proposed action is covered by a categorical exclusion or is exempt from NEPA review under another law.^[201] A categorical exclusion describes a category of actions that an agency has determined normally do not result in a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, the preparation of an EIS or EA is not normally required.^[202]

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.

116. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should establish new categorical exclusions for LNG blanket activities or adopt existing categorical exclusions from other Federal agencies.^[204] CLNG, CH-IV, and Cheniere support creating new categorical exclusions for actions taken under a blanket authorization program.^[205] Cheniere supports a categorical exclusion for in-footprint modifications, similar to PHMSA and DOE regulations.^[206] States oppose the creation of new categorical exclusions for LNG blanket activities.^[207] They state that unlike the categorical exclusion for pipeline blanket activities determined by the Commission to normally have no significant effect on the human environment, the Commission has not similarly evaluated any category of LNG activities.^[208] According to States, activities outside of an LNG plant's footprint would likely involve significant impacts not analyzed in the underlying authorization that would require preparation of an EIS or EA and may not be categorically excluded.^[209] The Delaware Riverkeeper Network ^[210] also opposes any expansion of categorical exclusions for LNG facilities, stating that “[c]limate impacts are cumulative by nature and cannot be meaningfully addressed through generic assumptions or categorical exclusions.” ^[211]

117. We do not propose to establish any categorical exclusions in this rulemaking. Should the Commission determine that certain activities normally do not result in a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, the preparation of a NEPA document is not required, we will initiate a new proceeding to establish categorical exclusions.

3. Standard Conditions

118. The NOI sought comment on what Federal requirements could be relied upon, and what conditions the Commission should adopt, to minimize the impacts of LNG blanket projects.^[212] Commenters cite various Federal laws ( e.g., the Clean Air Act, CWA, Rivers and Harbors Act, and ESA) as well as PHMSA, USCG, and other Federal regulations and the conditions of the underlying authorization order, which could be relied upon to ensure that a blanket authorization project would not have significant impacts.^[213] Due to the individualized and tailored nature of the conditions included in NGA section 3 authorizations, CLNG recommends that the Commission require LNG blanket authorization holders to abide by the terms and conditions of underlying authorizations.^[214] It also asserts that the Commission's existing inspection process provides the necessary oversight to ensure that blanket authorizations do not compromise safety or environmental protection.^[215] BLUE supports the Commission requiring compliance with certain standard conditions as part of the LNG blanket program and specifically identifies various conditions regarding design details, delegated authority to the Director of OEP, and compliance with the conditions of the underlying authorization.^[216] Woodside indicates that the US Army Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permitting system could serve as a model, favorably citing its tiered approach and interagency collaboration.^[217]

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 ( printed page 66508) that we propose to be eligible for blanket authorization. The proposed standard environmental conditions require, among other things: (1) compliance with all applicable laws, including enumerated Federal environmental statutes; ^[219] (2) that blanket activities not have a significant adverse effect on a sensitive environmental area, as defined at § 157.202(b)(11) of the pipeline blanket regulations; and (3) that blanket activities comply with certain noise criteria. The conditions also subject LNG blanket activities to: (1) standard engineering requirements as well as regular technical reviews and site inspections by Commission staff; (2) semi-annual reporting; and (3) reporting of significant non-scheduled events.

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. Pre-Filing Waiver

121. In NGA section 3A(a), Congress directed the Commission to promulgate regulations requiring a pre-filing process of at least six months prior to the filing of an application for authorization to construct an NGA section 3 LNG terminal and encouraging applicants to cooperate with state and local officials.^[220] Although the statute requires a mandatory pre-filing process only for prospective applicants for new LNG terminals, the Commission's pre-filing procedures at § 157.21(a) of our regulations also require operators to use the pre-filing process for modifications to existing NGA section 3 LNG facilities and related jurisdictional natural gas facilities that involve unaddressed significant state and local safety considerations.^[221] However, pre-filing is not required where the Director of OEP determines that prospective modifications do not involve significant state and local safety considerations that have not been previously addressed.^[222]

122. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should waive its pre-filing regulations for blanket activities.^[223] CLNG and Cheniere support waiving the pre-filing requirements.^[224] CLNG proposes addressing any state and local safety considerations through updates to the Emergency Response Plans or in prior notice filings but does not specify how.^[225] BLUE supports waiving pre-filing if there are no significant safety considerations, including activities with identical configurations to equipment previously evaluated within the existing facility footprint.^[226] Stellar Energy ^[227] suggests that the Commission modify its regulations to require pre-filing only for new LNG terminals or liquefaction trains and not for projects that enhance the efficiency of an existing LNG terminal.^[228] CH-IV states that the Commission should consider modifying when or how it waives its pre-filing requirements but does not elaborate.^[229]

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

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]

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, ( printed page 66509) 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 plants ^[239] and we will work with PHMSA to ensure the effectiveness of both of our efforts.

3. USCG Letter of Recommendation

129. Pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 and USCG regulations, operators of NGA section 3 or 7 facilities that receive or send out LNG by waterborne vessel must, prior to construction that would result in an increase in the size or frequency of LNG marine traffic on the associated waterway, submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to USCG describing, as pertinent, the characteristics of the vessels intended to visit the facility and the frequency of the visits.^[240] The applicant must also prepare a Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) ^[241] for review and approval by the USCG. The WSA identifies security threats and safety hazards to LNG marine transportation and identifies appropriate risk management measures.^[242] The USCG reviews the information provided by the applicant and makes a determination, called a Letter of Recommendation (LOR), on the suitability of the waterway for LNG vessels.^[243] Section 813 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 also directs USCG to make a recommendation to the Commission as to the suitability of marine traffic associated with a proposed waterside LNG facility,^[244] and the LOR meets that requirement.

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 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. DoW Concurrence

132. NGA section 3(f)(3) directs the Commission to obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of War before authorizing the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of LNG terminals affecting the training or activities of an active military installation.^[250] This requirement applies only to LNG plants authorized under NGA section 3. As directed by NGA section 3(f)(2), the Commission on November 21, 2007, entered into an MOU with the Secretary of War to ensure coordination and consultation on the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of LNG terminals.^[251]

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, particularly those subject to automatic authorization, being undertaken without project-specific concurrence. Blanket authorization holders would document their compliance in semi-annual operational reports for automatic authorization activities or in prior notice filings. Prior notice requests that do not meet these criteria would be rejected by staff.

5. State and Local Safety Considerations

135. NGA section 3A(b) requires the Commission to consult with states regarding state and local safety considerations prior to issuing an authorization under NGA section 3.^[257] Under NGA section 3A(c), states may (but need not) furnish an advisory report on state and local safety considerations no later than 30 days ( printed page 66510) after an application under section 3 is filed, to which the Commission must specifically respond.^[258] Additionally, NGA section 3A(d) allows states in which an operational LNG terminal is located to conduct safety inspections and notify the Commission of any alleged safety violations on which the Commission or the appropriate Federal agency shall take appropriate action.^[259] These requirements apply only to LNG plants authorized under NGA section 3.

136. The NOI sought comment on how NGA section 3 blanket activities would comply with NGA sections 3A(b)-(d).^[260] CLNG states that existing LNG facility safety standards and air emissions standards under state-administered Clean Air Act programs provide the necessary state oversight to address state and local safety considerations.^[261] CH-IV recommends that blanket authorization holders document that state and local safety considerations have been addressed in requests for notice to proceed prior to the start of construction, introduction of hazardous fluids, or other milestones.^[262] States raise concerns regarding the compatibility of a blanket authorization program and statutorily required state consultation.^[263] They state that the notice and information provided by blanket authorization holders under the current process promote participation by state and local agencies to ensure sufficient conditions are adopted to address the unique safety, security, or environmental impacts associated with the action.^[264] States assert that a blanket program would undermine public safety and potentially run afoul of consultation requirements, particularly automatic authorization activities, which may not be disclosed to the public until after they are completed.^[265]

137. Given the scope of activities that we propose to be eligible for automatic authorization, we do not think those activities would involve any additional state and local safety considerations not addressed in the underlying authorization. Still, in the proceeding in which the blanket authorization holder receives its blanket authorization, the state designated agency may file comments or an advisory report regarding whether activities eligible for automatic authorization would pose significant safety impacts for that terminal. The Commission would address the state's concerns in that proceeding.

138. For prior notice activities, we propose in § 153.108(e)(14) to require that blanket authorization holders include as part of their prior notice filing a letter from the state designated agency indicating that the activity does not raise any state or local safety concerns. Alternatively, if such a letter cannot be obtained at the time of filing the prior notice request, the blanket authorization holders shall provide evidence that the state designated agency was notified of the request and that it has 30 days to furnish an advisory report on state and local safety considerations or may protest. The proposed 60- or 90-day notice period would provide states with sufficient time to file an advisory report within the 30-day period specified in NGA section 3A(c). If a state advisory report is filed, staff would protest the prior notice request to allow the Commission sufficient time to specifically respond.

6. Emergency Response Plans

139. NGA section 3A(e) requires that operators develop an Emergency Response Plan, including a cost-sharing plan, in consultation with the USCG and state and local agencies for approval by the Commission prior to construction of an LNG terminal.^[266] This requirement only applies to LNG plants authorized under NGA section 3.

140. The NOI sought comment on how NGA section 3 blanket activities would comply with NGA section 3A(e).^[267] CLNG proposes that the Emergency Response Plan submitted with the underlying authorization would suffice for all future actions taken through any blanket authorization.^[268] BLUE comments that activities undertaken pursuant to a blanket authorization program would require minimal updates to Emergency Response Plans and, for automatic activities, only updates to the drawings typically contained in appendices.^[269] States comment that blanket activities may require a change in the emergency response and cost-sharing plans.^[270]

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 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 ( printed page 66511) shall file a public summary of all changes made under its blanket authorization.

F. Severability

143. 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 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 December 21, 2026. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM26-2-001 and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

146. The Commission encourages that comments be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at 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.

147. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically may file an original of their comment by USPS mail or by courier or other delivery services. For submission sent via USPS only, filings should be mailed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submission of filings other than by USPS should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.

V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Information Collection Statement

148. The information collection in this proposed rule is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) per its regulations,^[275] which require that OMB approve certain reporting, record keeping, and public disclosure requirements imposed by an agency.

149. The Commission estimates that the proposed tiered blanket authorization program will enable a subset of projects at LNG facilities to be implemented through either automatic or prior notice authorization while maintaining appropriate oversight and stakeholder engagement. As a result, the proposal would reduce the number of full applications and resultant information collection burden.

150. Natural gas companies and LNG operators file applications with the Commission so it can review the necessary information related to the construction, maintenance, and operation of facilities to provide service or to abandon facilities or service under sections 3 and 7 of the NGA and determine if the requested authorization meets statutory and regulatory requirements and should be granted. This NOPR proposal would provide entities with an opportunity to apply to participate in two new lower-burden filing approaches. To participate in the new approaches, entities must apply for and be granted a blanket authorization:

• 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 NOPR ^[276] that proposed to reduce the burden associated with these applications by 9 (from 31 to 22). If both of these NOPRs are finalized as proposed, the burden reductions would be added together ( e.g., reducing applications by 10 from 31 to 21).

( printed page 66512)

Public Reporting Burden: The Commission estimates burden ^[277] and cost as follows:

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 semi-annual operational reports. These reports are already required as a condition of their NGA authorization. The Commission is incorporating this reporting burden into the FERC-539 information collection to reflect that this would be a regulatory requirement.

Public Reporting Burden: The Commission estimates burden and cost as follows:

154. Title: FERC-577: Natural Gas Facilities: Environmental Review and Compliance.

Action: Revision to an existing information collection.

OMB Control No: 1902-0128.

Respondents: Companies seeking authorization to site, design, construct, operate, or modify LNG facilities.

Frequency of Responses: Ongoing. Companies file the necessary information.

Necessity of Information: This information is necessary so that the Commission can fulfill its statutory mandate under the NGA to oversee natural gas infrastructure and facilities. ( printed page 66513)

Proposed Change: The Commission estimates that this NOPR would reduce the number of companies' environmental review and compliance submissions by 3 (from 107 to 104) as a result of companies shifting to using the blanket certificate program. This would result in a burden reduction of 9,289 hours and would also significantly decrease the time before a facilities or infrastructure improvement could be implemented enabling the company to reap the benefits of the improvement more quickly ( e.g., additional revenue or decreased costs).

Public Reporting Burden: The Commission estimates burden and cost as follows:

The Commission requests comments on:

• the need for this 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. Environmental Analysis

156. Unless a categorical exclusion or statutory exception applies, the Commission is required to prepare an EA or an EIS for any major Federal action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.^[286] Accordingly, we direct Commission staff to prepare a NEPA document to assess the environmental impacts of projects that may be constructed pursuant to the automatic authorization. That document will also consider the impact of the action we are taking in this rulemaking proceeding. For prior notice projects, Commission staff will continue to conduct a case-specific analysis, including determining the nature of appropriate environmental review, e.g., preparation of an environmental document or application of a categorical exclusion.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

157. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) ^[287] generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if proposed regulations would not have such an effect.

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. Regulatory Planning and Review

159. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by E.O. 14215 (Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies) and affirmed by E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined this regulatory action is a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended, though not economically significant under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, OIRA has reviewed this regulatory action for compliance with the analytical requirements of E.O. 12866.

160. This regulatory action proposes to establish procedures for authorizing activities at LNG plants without a case-specific authorization order from the Commission, which would have the effect of dramatically streamlining the approval of LNG infrastructure projects and would be deregulatory in nature. In particular, the proposed rule would reduce the number of projects subject to the case-specific application process in Part 153 Subpart B by approximately 3 projects per year; this streamlining would result in a burden reduction of 3%. We note that the proposed rule would not change the total number of projects that would be constructed, just the method for obtaining regulatory approval. The proposed rule would result in cost savings to the agency and LNG plant authorization and certificate holders for the projects that would be covered by the proposed rule because it would provide a more streamlined administrative process for project proposals that would otherwise require case-specific review under NGA ( printed page 66514) sections 3 or 7. As reflected in the tables above, we estimate that respondents would save 9,988 hours of effort, which the Commission estimates as a cost savings of $1,018,776. Moreover, faster approvals would result in additional cost savings and benefits to authorization and certificate holders and their customers. We seek comment on how to quantify those cost savings. Absent this rule, the activities proposed as eligible for an LNG blanket program would be subject to a less streamlined permitting process, resulting in increased administrative costs to the Commission and to authorization and certificate holders. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be a deregulatory action under E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation).

E. Document Availability

161. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( 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 1-866- 208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email 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.

By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Change is concurring with a separate statement attached.

(S E A L)

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend parts 2, 153, and 375, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 792-828c, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352.

2. Revise § 2.55 to add paragraph (d) and (e):

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. S1-DEL-FERC-2006 (May 16, 2006).

2. Add subpart E to read as follows:

3. Add § 153.101 to read as follows:

4. Add § 153.102 to read as follows:

5. Add § 153.103 to read as follows:

6. Add § 153.104 to read as follows:

7. Add § 153.105 to read as follows:

8. Add § 153.106 to read as follows:

9. Add § 153.107 to read as follows:

10. Add § 153.108 to read as follows:

11. Add § 153.109 to read as follows:

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.

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:

91 FR 66492