RM26-2-000 NOI FRN Published

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 25, 2025 / Proposed Rules
from the Safe Harbor Policy in future
enforcement proceedings. The NOPR
postulated that, by providing
reassurance through codification,
regulatory risk would be reduced and
more participants would elect to report
transactions to price index developers.8
6. Concurrent with the issuance of the
NOPR, the Commission issued a
Proposed Revised Policy Statement 9 on
price indices to encourage additional
market participants to report their
transactions to price index developers,
provide greater transparency into the
natural gas price formation process, and
increase confidence in the accuracy and
reliability of wholesale natural gas
prices. Subsequently, on April 21, 2022,
the Commission adopted a Revised
Policy Statement addressing these
matters.10 In the Revised Policy
Statement, the Commission stated that it
did not intend to act on the NOPR at
that time but reiterated that the Safe
Harbor Policy ‘‘remains in effect.’’ 11
7. Since the issuance of the NOPR, the
price reporting burden for data
providers has lessened and the number
of new data providers has increased,
thereby, bolstering price index
formation. The Revised Policy
Statement, issued in 2022, reduced the
price reporting burden by allowing data
providers to report their monthly
transactions to price index developers
without also being required to report
their daily transactions. The next year,
2023, twenty-three new companies
began reporting to price index
developers according to Form No. 552
submissions.12 Some of these newlyreporting companies report monthly
(rather than monthly and daily)
transactions to price index developers,
taking advantage of the data reporting
flexibilities announced in the Revised

Policy Statement. In addition, some
price index developers have increased
the robustness of their price indices by
including a large number and volume of
fixed-priced transactions from the
Intercontinental Exchange (ICE).13
Further, consistent with the Revised
Policy Statement, four natural gas price
index developers submitted successful
reapprovals in Docket No. PL03–3
demonstrating that their processes
continue to meet all or substantially all
of the Commission’s standards for price
index developers’ indices to be
referenced in Commission-jurisdictional
tariffs.14 These events indicate that
formal amendment of the Commission’s
regulations is not necessary to promote
reporting of transactions to price index
developers at this time.
8. Consistent with the Safe Harbor
Policy, for over two decades the
Commission has neither investigated
nor imposed penalties on any company
for inadvertent reporting errors. As
noted above, in 2022, the Commission
reiterated the Safe Harbor Policy in the
Revised Policy Statement.15 We remain
committed to the Safe Harbor Policy, as
it promotes robust, voluntary reporting
to index developers. Consistent
application of the Safe Harbor Policy
and the Revised Policy Statement will
continue to reduce any lingering
concerns by data providers and other
market participants about the regulatory
risk of reporting to index developers.
The Commission orders: The NOPR is
hereby withdrawn and Docket No.
RM20–7–000 is hereby terminated.
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: November 20, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025–20897 Filed 11–24–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

8 Id. at P 11.
9 Actions Regarding the Comm’n’s Pol’y on Price
Index Formation & Transparency, & Indices
Referenced in Nat. Gas & Elec. Tariffs, 85 FR 83940
(Dec. 23, 2020) 173 FERC ¶ 61,237 (2020) (Proposed
Revised Policy Statement).
10 Actions Regarding the Comm’n’s Pol’y on Price
Index Formation & Transparency, & Indices
Referenced in Nat. Gas & Elec. Tariffs, 87 FR 25237
(April 28, 2022) 179 FERC ¶ 61,036 (2022) (Revised
Policy Statement). The Revised Policy Statement
allowed greater flexibility for market participants
choosing to provide data to index developers. The
Revised Policy Statement permitted market
participants that report transaction data to price
index developers to report either their non-index
based next-day transactions, their non-index based
next-month transactions, or both, to price index
developers. In addition, the Commission
encouraged data providers to report transactions to
as many Commission-approved price index
developers as possible, and allowed data providers
to self-audit on a biennial basis.
11 Id. at P 106.
12 Form No. 552 information may be accessed at
www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/industryforms/form-no-552-download-data.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:28 Nov 24, 2025

Jkt 268001

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Parts 153, 157, and 380
[Docket No. RM26–2–000]

Authorizations for Certain Activities at
Liquefied Natural Gas Plants
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.
13 See, e.g., S&P Global Commodity Insights,
FERC Policy Statement Price Index Developer
Commission Re-approval, Docket No. PL03–3–000,
at P 4 (February 9, 2023) (noting inclusion of ICE
data in the relevant price indices).
14 Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC ¶ 61,237 at
P 76.
15 Id. at P 106.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53251

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission)
seeks information and stakeholder
perspectives to help the Commission
explore whether, and if so how, to
revise our Part 153, 157, and 380
regulations to establish procedures for
authorizing activities at liquefied
natural gas plants without case-specific
authorization orders under sections 3
and 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
DATES: Comments are due January 26,
2026.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by

docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing
through http://www.ferc.gov, is
preferred.
• Electronic Filing: Documents must
be filed in acceptable native
applications and print-to-PDF, but not
in scanned or picture format.
• For those unable to file
electronically, comments may be filed
by USPS mail or by hand (including
courier) delivery.
Æ Mail via US Postal Service Only:
Addressed to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
Æ Hand (Including Courier) Delivery:
Deliver to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, MD 20852.
The Comment Procedures Section of
this document contains more detailed
filing procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Danielle Elefritz (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502–8767.
Andrew Kohout (Technical
Information), Office of Energy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–8053.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. In this notice of inquiry, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) seeks information and
stakeholder perspectives to help the
Commission explore whether, and if so
how, to revise its Part 153, 157, and 380
regulations to establish procedures for
authorizing activities at liquefied
natural gas (LNG) plants 1 without the
need for case-specific authorization
1 LNG facilities make up the larger LNG plant.
LNG plants include LNG terminals authorized
under section 3 of the NGA.

E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM

25NOP1

53252

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 25, 2025 / Proposed Rules

applications and orders under sections
3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
I. Background

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

A. Statutory Framework
2. The Commission regulates the
siting, construction, expansion, and
operation of LNG facilities pursuant to
sections 3 and 7 of the NGA. Section
3(a) provides for federal jurisdiction
over the siting, construction, expansion,
and operation of facilities used to export
or import natural gas.2 Section 3(e)(1)
states that ‘‘[t]he Commission shall have
the exclusive authority to approve or
deny an application for the siting,
construction, expansion, or operation of
an LNG terminal.’’ 3 And under section
7(c), the Commission issues certificates
of public convenience and necessity for
natural gas and LNG facilities used for
the transportation of natural gas in
interstate commerce.4 Under both
section 3 and section 7, the Commission
has the authority to include terms and
conditions in any order authorizing an
LNG facility.5
3. The NGA also includes additional
requirements that must be met prior to
authorizing the construction of LNG
terminals.6 Pursuant to section 3A(a) of
the NGA,7 the Commission promulgated
regulations requiring LNG operators to
use a pre-filing process for an
2 15 U.S.C. 717b(a). The 1977 Department of
Energy (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b))
placed all section 3 jurisdiction under DOE. The
Secretary of Energy subsequently delegated
authority to the Commission to ‘‘[a]pprove or
disapprove the construction and operation of
particular facilities, the site at which such facilities
shall be located, and with respect to natural gas that
involves the construction of new domestic facilities,
the place of entry for imports or exit for exports.’’
DOE Delegation Order S1–DEL–FERC–2006, section
1.21A (May 16, 2006). See EarthReports, Inc. v.
FERC, 828 F.3d 949, 952–53 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
(detailing how regulatory oversight for the export of
LNG and supporting facilities is divided between
the Commission and DOE).
3 15 U.S.C. 717b(e)(1). LNG terminal is defined as:
‘‘all natural gas facilities located onshore or in State
waters that are used to receive, unload, load, store,
transport, gasify, liquefy, or process natural gas that
is imported to the United States . . . , exported to
a foreign country . . . , or transported in interstate
commerce by waterborne vessel, but does not
include (A) waterborne vessels used to deliver
natural gas to or from any such facility; or (B) any
pipeline or storage facility subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission under [section 7].’’
Id. 717a(11).
4 Id. 717f(c)(1)(A).
5 Id. 717b(a), 717b(e)(3), 717f(e). For a discussion
of the Commission’s authority to condition its
approvals of LNG facilities under section 3 of the
NGA, see, e.g., Distrigas Corp. v. FPC, 495 F.2d
1057, 1063–64 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419
U.S. 834 (1974); Dynegy LNG Prod. Terminal, L.P.,
97 FERC ¶ 61,231 (2001).
6 These requirements do not apply to NGA
section 7 LNG facilities, including LNG peak
shaving facilities which store gas in interstate
commerce.
7 15 U.S.C. 717b–1(a).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Nov 24, 2025

Jkt 268001

application for authorization to
construct or modify an LNG terminal.8
Section 3(f) requires that the
Commission obtain the concurrence of
the Secretary of War before authorizing
the siting, construction, expansion, or
operation of LNG facilities affecting the
training or activities of an active
military installation.9 Section 3A(e)
states that ‘‘[i]n any order authorizing an
LNG terminal the Commission shall
require the LNG terminal operator to
develop an Emergency Response Plan
[that] shall be prepared in consultation
with the United States Coast Guard and
State and local agencies and be
approved by the Commission prior to
any final approval to begin construction
[and] shall include a cost-sharing
plan.’’ 10 The plan is to describe any
direct cost reimbursements that the
applicant will provide to state and local
agencies responsible for safety and
security at the LNG terminal and in
proximity to vessels that serve the
facility.11 Additionally, section 3A(c)
allows states to provide a report on state
and local safety considerations which
‘‘the Commission shall review and
respond specifically to the issues raised
. . . .’’ 12
4. Modifications to already-approved,
operating LNG facilities may need to be
undertaken during the life of the
facilities.13 Such modifications may
currently necessitate that the operator
file a case-specific application, on
which the Commission will make a
public interest determination.14
8 18 CFR 157.21. The Commission’s regulations
allow for the Director of the Office of Energy
Projects to waive the mandatory pre-filing
procedures when prospective modifications to an
existing LNG terminal do not involve significant
state and local safety considerations that have not
been previously addressed.
9 15 U.S.C. 717b(f). Pursuant to a Memorandum
of Understanding with the Department of War, the
Commission issues a letter to the Department,
which then responds indicating whether or not
there are no or minimal impacts to military
installations and operations.
10 Id. 717b–1(e).
11 Id.
12 Id. 717b–1(c).
13 LNG projects occurring during operation may
include: safety system installations, existing
equipment upgrades or replacements, emissions
controls, system modifications to enable integration
with non-jurisdictional activities (helium extraction
or offsite carbon capture and sequestration),
uprates, extra power generation, and new LNG
trains, storage tanks, or loading berths.
14 18 CFR part 153 (detailing the requirements for
applications filed pursuant to section 3 of the
NGA); 18 CFR part 157 (detailing the requirements
for applications filed pursuant to section 7 of the
NGA).

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

B. Existing Regulations for Authorizing
Routine Activities Under Section 7
5. Under Part 157, Subpart F of the
Commission’s regulations,15 interstate
pipelines that hold a certificate of
public convenience and necessity under
NGA section 7 may apply for a one-time
blanket certificate to undertake, without
a case-specific authorization, certain
activities automatically, subject only to
annual reporting requirements 16 and
certain other activities after prior
notice,17 both subject to cost limits.18
The blanket certificate program
‘‘provide[s] streamlined procedures
which increase flexibility and reduce
regulatory burden’’ for a generic class of
routine activities with particular
conditions and procedures for
consistency with the Commission’s
statutory obligations under the NGA and
environmental statutes.19
6. In 1982, in instituting the blanket
certificate program, the Commission
explained that:
[T]he final regulations divide the various
actions that the Commission certificates into
several categories. The first category applies
to certain activities performed by interstate
pipelines that either have relatively little
impact on ratepayers, or little effect on
pipeline operations. This first category also
includes minor investments in facilities
which are so well understood as an
established industry practice that little
scrutiny is required to determine their
compatibility with the public convenience
and necessity. The second category of
activities provides for a notice and protest
procedure and comprises certain activities in
which various interested parties might have
a concern. In such cases there is a need to
provide an opportunity for a greater degree
of review and to provide for possible
adjudication of controversial aspects.
Activities not authorized under the blanket
certificate are those activities which may
have a major potential impact on ratepayers,
or which propose such important
considerations that close scrutiny and casespecific deliberation by the Commission is
15 18 CFR part 157, subpart F.
16 Id. 157.203(b), 157.208(a), (e).
17 Id. 157.203(c), 157.208(b).
18 Id. 157.208(d), 157.215(a)(5). The cost limits
are adjusted each year to reflect the ‘‘GDP implicit
price deflator’’ published by the Department of
Commerce for the previous calendar year. Id.
157.208(d).
19 Interstate Pipeline Certificates for Routine
Transactions, Order No. 234, 47 FR 24254, at
24256, 24263 (June 4, 1982), FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 30,368, at 30,201 (1982) (cross-referenced at 19
FERC ¶ 61,216); see also Revisions to the Blanket
Certificate Reguls. & Clarification Regarding Rates,
Order No. 686, 71 FR 63680 (Oct. 31, 2006), 117
FERC ¶ 61,074, at P 7 (2006) (‘‘The blanket
certificate program was designed to provide an
administratively efficient means to authorize a
generic class of routine activities, without
subjecting each minor project to a full, case-specific
NGA section 7 certificate proceeding.’’).

E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM

25NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 25, 2025 / Proposed Rules
warranted prior to the issuance of a
certificate.20

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

7. The notice and protest procedures
for prior notice projects allow anyone,
including Commission staff, to protest a
prior notice project within 60 days and,
if a protest is not withdrawn or
dismissed, the project is reviewed as an
application for case-specific
authorization under NGA section 7(c).21
8. Blanket certificate activities are
subject to the conditions in the
Commission’s regulations implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA),22 as well as requirements that
all blanket certificate activities be
consistent with all applicable laws,
including the Endangered Species Act,
National Historic Preservation Act,
Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and
other applicable statutes relating to
environmental concerns.23
9. In addition to the blanket program,
§ 2.55 of the Commission’s regulations
allows pipeline companies to perform
auxiliary installations and facility
replacements at section 7(c) facilities
without a case-specific authorization.24
For activities undertaken pursuant to
either the blanket certificate program or
§ 2.55, section 7(c) certificate holders
are required to provide advance notice
to affected landowners.25
10. In two earlier blanket certificate
rulemakings decades prior to this, the
Commission declined to extend the
program to include LNG facilities. In the
1982 rulemaking, the Commission
excluded LNG facilities from the
program, finding that they ‘‘may have a
significant impact on ratepayers’’ and
therefore ‘‘should not be authorized
under a blanket certificate, but should
be subjected instead to the scrutiny of
20 Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,368 at
30,200.
21 18 CFR 157.205(h).
22 Id. part 380. Certain activities undertaken
pursuant to the blanket certificate are categorically
excluded from NEPA review. Id. 380.4(a)(21).
23 Id. 157.206.
24 Id. 2.55. LNG facilities authorized under
section 7 of the NGA may use the procedures
outlined in § 2.55.
25 Id. 157.203(d)(1) (requiring affected
landowners to be notified of automatic
authorization projects at least 45 days prior to
commencing construction or at the time it initiates
easement negotiations, whichever is earlier); id.
157.203(d)(2) (requiring affected landowners to be
notified of prior notice projects within three days
following the date that a docket number is assigned
to the application or at the time it initiates easement
negotiations, whichever is earlier); id. 2.55(c)
(requiring a good faith effort to notify in writing
each affected landowner at least five days prior to
commencing any activity except for activities for
which all ground disturbance will be within an
existing above-ground site or those done for safety,
DOT compliance, or environmental or unplanned
maintenance that are not foreseen and that require
immediate attention).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Nov 24, 2025

Jkt 268001

a case-specific determination.’’ 26 In
2006, the Commission revised its
blanket certificate regulations but again
declined to extend the program to
include LNG facilities.27 The
Commission explained that ‘‘LNG plant
facilities are not within the class of
minor, well-understood, routine
activities that the blanket certificate
program is intended to embrace; LNG
plant facilities necessarily require a
review of engineering, environmental,
safety, and security issues that the
Commission believes only can be
properly considered on a case-by-case
basis.’’ 28 The Commission summarized
on rehearing that ‘‘the blanket certificate
program is not well suited to address
the complexity inherent in issues raised
by LNG . . . facilities.’’ 29
11. The Commission’s experience
with LNG facilities in the United States
has changed considerably since the
1982 and 2006 rulemakings. As
mentioned above, the 2006 rulemaking
stated that the complexity of issues
raised by LNG facilities, and the
Commission’s limited experience with
these issues at the time, precluded
including them in the blanket
program.30 Since that time, both the
Commission and industry have gained
significant experience regarding the
engineering, environmental, safety, and
security issues at LNG plants. The
Commission has evaluated more than
100 LNG project applications since 2006
under NGA section 3 and 7. Staff have
also engaged in extensive coordination
with the Department of Transportation’s
(DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the
US Coast Guard (USCG), which are also
involved in safety for these facilities, to
proactively develop established safety
standards and best practices with the
LNG industry.31
26 Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,368 at
30,206.
27 Order No. 686, 117 FERC ¶ 61,074 at PP 18–23.
28 Id. P 21 (quoting Revisions to the Blanket
Certificate Reguls. & Clarification Regarding Rates,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 FR 36276 (June
26, 2006), 115 FERC ¶ 61,338, at PP 29–30 (2006)).
29 Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Reguls. &
Clarification Regarding Rates, Order No. 686–A, 72
FR 37431 (July 10, 2007), 119 FERC ¶ 61,303, at P
22 (2007).
30 Id. PP 22–23.
31 In individual proceedings, the Commission has
issued over 4,500 requirements, including
approximately 4,000 requirements that have been
coordinated with PHMSA and the USCG regarding
the engineering, safety, security, and reliability of
those projects in accordance with a 2004
Interagency Agreement. Interagency Agreement
Among the FERC, USCG, and [PHMSA] for the
Safety and Security Review of Waterfront Import/
Export LNG Facilities, February 11, 2004, https://
www.ferc.gov/media/2004-interagency-dot-anduscg, Accessed October 2025. Approximately 30 of
these orders were issued after a 2018 Memorandum

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53253

12. Changes in the LNG market have
also led to an expansion in the number
of projects that the Commission
regulates. Since 2006, the United States
has emerged as the world’s largest LNG
exporter with seven large-scale LNG
export terminals currently in operation,
eight new or expanded export projects
in construction, and additional
terminals and expansions expected over
the next several years. Although certain
changes and variances are permitted
during LNG terminal construction,
changes to an operating LNG terminal—
in some cases even routine adjustments
like equipment replacements—may
currently require a case-specific
authorization. With more LNG facilities
in operation in the United States, the
current case-by-case review process for
certain replacements, modifications,
and expansions may be administratively
inefficient, slow down needed projects,
and create unnecessary regulatory
uncertainty. In addition, many LNG
facilities under section 7 have been in
operation for 50 years. While many have
been able to replace existing facilities
under § 2.55 provisions, there is less
regulatory certainty whether those
provisions can be used to make
replacements, modifications, or
expansions to accommodate changes in
feed gas compositions, changes in
technology, or other conditions. Thus,
the Commission believes that
reconsidering allowing an automatic
and/or prior-notice authorization
program for certain activities is
warranted.
II. Subject of the Notice of Inquiry
13. The Commission is issuing this
notice of inquiry to consider whether,
and if so how, to revise its Part 153, 157,
and 380 regulations to establish
procedures for authorizing certain
activities at LNG plants without a casespecific authorization order, to provide
regulatory certainty and significantly
streamline liquefied natural gas
of Understanding with DOT for coordination
between the Commission and PHMSA on
determining whether proposed LNG facilities
comply with PHMSA’s siting requirements
contained in 49 CFR part 193 Subpart B.
Interagency Agreement Among the FERC, USCG,
and [PHMSA] for the Safety and Security Review
of Waterfront Import/Export LNG Facilities,
February 11, 2004, https://www.ferc.gov/media/
2004-interagency-dot-and-uscg, Accessed October
2025. Commission staff, along with DOT PHMSA
and US Coast Guard representatives, have also
actively participated in an LNG Technical
Committee and Commission staff has made over
300 proposals since 2016 to update subsequent
versions of the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage,
and Handling of LNG, to improve the safety,
security, and reliability of LNG projects consistent
with the requirements that the Commission imposes
on LNG facilities in its authorization orders.

E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM

25NOP1

53254

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 25, 2025 / Proposed Rules

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

infrastructure permitting. The
Commission seeks comment on the
following questions:
A. Process-Related Questions
A1. If the Commission promulgates
rules to allow for the construction,
expansion, and operation of facilities
without a case-specific section 3
authorization, should the Commission
require each LNG operator to apply for
a blanket section 3 authorization as it
does for natural gas pipelines pursuant
to Part 157, Subpart F (see 18 CFR
157.204(a)) or should all current and
new LNG operators be automatically
granted a blanket authorization?
A2. How, if at all, should the
Commission factor in a current LNG
operator’s compliance history when
determining whether to grant blanket
section 3 authorization?
A3. Under the Commission’s existing
Part 157, Subpart F blanket certificate
regulations for activities under NGA
section 7, there is a two-tiered process
whereby some activities are
automatically authorized while others
require prior notice (see 18 CFR
157.203(a)–(c)). Should the Commission
adopt a similar tiered approach for
activities at LNG terminals under
section 3? If so, should there be
additional or different tiers?
A4. If the Commission allows for the
construction, expansion, operation, and
modification of certain LNG facilities
without prior notice under a blanket
section 3 authorization, should the
Commission:
a. require LNG operators to notify
Commission staff of any proposed
modifications prior to implementing
them, similar to the notification
requirements in § 2.55(b)(1)(iii)? And, if
so, is 30 days’ notice sufficient?; and/or
b. require an LNG operator to file a
semi-annual or annual report
documenting the activities undertaken
during the previous calendar year
pursuant to the blanket authorization
program? Is including this information
in the current semiannual report
sufficient? What information should be
included in such reports?
A5. If the Commission requires prior
notice for some or all activities under a
blanket section 3 authorization, should
the Commission adopt the same notice
requirements as those detailed in the
Commission’s blanket certificate
regulations, including Commission
issuance of a notice within 10 days of
filing if the filing is not rejected and a
60-day notice period thereafter for filing
protests and interventions (see 18 CFR
157.205)?
A6. Should the Commission adopt the
same process concerning protests to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Nov 24, 2025

Jkt 268001

prior notice section 3 LNG projects as is
currently in place for prior notice
blanket certificate pipeline projects, i.e.
that if a protest is filed and not
withdrawn or dismissed, the application
will treated as a request for a section 3
authorization (see 18 CFR 157.205), or
should a different process be required?
If a different process should be required,
which types of protests should be
dismissed, if any?
A7. What stakeholder (e.g., affected
landowner and local, state, and federal
agencies) notification requirements
should the Commission adopt for
projects constructed pursuant to a
blanket authorization program?
A8. Should the Commission require
LNG facilities under a blanket section 3
or 7 authorization be constructed and
placed into service within a specified
timeframe? If so, what timeframe?
B. Project Eligibility
B1. LNG projects occurring during
operation may include, but are not
limited to: (i) replacements of,
modifications to, or new facilities,
systems, or components that improve
efficiency, capacity, reliability, safety, or
emissions and lessen adverse impacts to
the public; (ii) replacements of,
modifications to, or new facilities,
systems, or components that increase
capacity of pretreatment, liquefaction,
storage, transfer, or auxiliary facilities
without exceeding previously evaluated
resource impacts identified in the NEPA
process associated with the plant’s
underlying authorizations; or (iii)
replacements of, modifications to, or
new facilities, systems, or components
that are identical to those previously
evaluated and authorized by the
Commission. If the Commission adopts
a tiered approach similar to that in the
blanket certificate regulations for
natural gas pipelines (18 CFR
157.203(b)–(c)), what categories of
projects should be eligible for automatic
authorization? What categories of
projects should be eligible for prior
notice authorization? How should the
Commission divide these categories,
e.g., based on costs, infrastructure types,
or anticipated environmental effects,
based on one or more of safety, security,
operability, or reliability concerns,
based on the impact on LNG production
or export capacity, or based on other
factors?
B2. What activities and modifications
at authorized and existing LNG plants
would result in no adverse impacts to
the environment or safety? Specifically,
what types of LNG facility
modifications, systems, or components
would have no or beneficial impacts to
the following resources:

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

• Water Resources;
• Water Bodies and Wetlands;
• Wildlife, including Threatened and
Endangered Species;
• Vegetation;
• Cultural Resources;
• Socioeconomics;
• Geological Resources;
• Soils;
• Land Use;
• Recreation;
• Visual Resources;
• Air Quality;
• Noise;
• Reliability; and
• Safety.
B3. What categories of LNG projects
would provide equivalent or greater
level of environmental protection and
safety as compared to what is
authorized at an existing LNG plant?
Specifically, what types of LNG facility
modifications, systems, or components
would result in different impacts but
nevertheless provide an equivalent or
greater level of protection to the
resources listed in question B2?
B4. What categories of LNG projects
would result in less than significant
impacts to the environment and safety
at authorized and existing LNG plants
such that the Commission could
categorically determine that such
projects are not inconsistent with the
public interest under NGA section 3, or
are or will be required by the present or
future public convenience and necessity
under NGA section 7? Specifically, what
types of LNG facility modifications,
systems, or components would result in
less than significant impacts to the
resources listed in question B2?
B5. Should the Commission allow the
construction and operation of additional
facilities under a blanket section 3 or 7
LNG authorization program to occur
outside the authorized LNG plant
limits? If so, what should the
restrictions or criteria be for
construction outside the authorized
plant limits?
B6. Should the Commission revise its
Part 157 blanket certificate regulations
to include modifications to LNG
facilities under section 7? If so, what
types of projects should be subject to
automatic authorization and prior
notice?
B7. Should the Commission require
different cost limits for LNG facilities
under section 7 than for other interstate
natural gas facilities? Are cost-based
limits appropriate for these LNG
facilities? Should there be any other
considerations beyond cost and those
listed above?
C. Statutory and Regulatory Compliance
C1. How should applicants
demonstrate that: (1) other federal

E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM

25NOP1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 25, 2025 / Proposed Rules
permitting agencies have been consulted
and that all necessary federal
authorizations are received prior to
construction; (2) the modified LNG
facilities would meet the federal siting
requirements promulgated by PHMSA;
(3) a Letter of Intent and Waterways
Safety Assessment has been filed with
the USCG and a Letter of
Recommendation that determines the
waterway to be suitable has been issued
by the USCG; (4) the Department of War
has concurred that there would be no or
minimal impacts to military
installations, training, and operations;
(5) state and local safety considerations
have been addressed prior to
construction of facilities per NGA
section 3A(b)–(d); and (6) an emergency
response plan, including a cost sharing
plan, has been developed in
consultation with the USCG and state
and local agencies prior to construction?
C2. Currently, under § 157.21(e) of the
Commission’s regulations, the Director
of OEP may waive after notice prefiling
if there are no significant state and local
safety considerations that have not been
previously addressed. How should
applicants demonstrate that there are no
significant state and local safety
considerations that have not been
previously addressed in order to waive
pre-filing requirements under the NGA
and § 157.21(e) of the Commission’s
regulations per NGA section 3A(a)?
Should the Commission consider
modifying when or how it waives its
prefiling requirements?
C3. To comply with NEPA in
reviewing proposed LNG facilities,
should the Commission consider
establishing additional categorical
exclusions or adopting existing
categorical exclusions from other federal
agencies?

• Endangered Species Act
• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
• National Historic Preservation Act
• Farmland Protection Policy Act
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• Clean Air Act
• Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
• Ports and Waterways Safety Act
• Marine Transportation Security Act
Are there other federal laws to be
considered?
D3. What terms and conditions that
have been historically incorporated into
orders authorizing LNG projects could
be included in a section 3 or section 7
authorization program to ensure no
significant adverse environmental or
safety impacts occur?
D4. Should the Commission require
notice(s) to proceed from the Director of
the Office of Energy Projects or their
designee prior to the start of
construction, introduction of hazardous
fluids, or other milestones, to ensure
that the activities comply with all
necessary safety measures?

D. Conditions of Authorization
D1. What applicable federal laws,
permits, and regulations could be relied
upon to ensure that no significant
engineering, environmental, safety, and
security impacts occur from LNG
facility modifications, systems, and
components authorized under a blanket
program throughout construction and
operation?
D2. How would a blanket section 3
authorization program comply with the
following federal statutes and regulatory
schemes:
• Rivers and Harbors Act
• Clean Water Act
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
• Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act
• Marine Mammal Protection Act

III. Comment Procedures
14. The Commission invites interested
persons to submit comments on the
matters and issues identified in this
notice. Comments are due January 26,
2026. Comments must refer to Docket
No. RM26–2–000, and must include the
commenter’s name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their
address in their comments. All
comments will be placed in the
Commission’s public files and may be
viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document
Availability section below. Commenters
on this proposal are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other
commenters.
15. The Commission encourages
comments to be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission’s
website at http://www.ferc.gov. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Nov 24, 2025

Jkt 268001

E. Cost Impacts
E1. What are the historic and
estimated range of costs for preparation
of an application for modifications to an
NGA section 3 LNG export/import
terminal? Modifications could include
replacements of, modifications to, or
construction, installation, and operation
of new facilities or components of those
facilities, including those that increase
capacity of feed gas, pretreatment,
liquefaction, storage, transfer,
vaporization, sendout, or auxiliary
facilities.
E2. What are the historic and
estimated range of costs for preparation
of an application for modifications to an
NGA section 7 LNG plant?

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53255

Commission accepts most standard
word processing formats. Documents
created electronically using word
processing software must be filed in
native applications or print-to-PDF
format and not in a scanned format.
Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
16. Commenters that are not able to
file comments electronically may file an
original of their comment by USPS mail
or by courier-or other delivery services.
For submission sent via USPS only,
filings should be mailed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Office
of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Submission of
filings other than by USPS should be
delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, MD 20852.
IV. Document Availability
17. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (http://
www.ferc.gov).
18. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
19. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s website
during normal business hours from
FERC Online Support at (202) 502–6652
(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
[email protected].
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: November 20, 2025.
Carlos D. Clay,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025–20898 Filed 11–24–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 342
[Docket No. RM25–2–000]

Supplemental Review of the Oil
Pipeline Index Level
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM

25NOP1