UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 23-2052 ____________ TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE CO., LLC, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING BOARD; STEVEN C. BECKMAN; BERNARD A. LABUSKES, JR.; MICHELLE A. COLEMAN; SARAH J. CLARK; CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA’S FUTURE; DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK; MAYA K. VAN ROSSUM ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1-23-cv-00463) District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner ____________

Argued: October 19, 2023

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, PHIPPS and CHUNG, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 8, 2024) ____________ Andrew T. Bockis SAUL EWING 2 N Second Street Penn National Insurance Plaza, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Patrick F. Nugent Sean T. O’Neill John F. Stoviak SAUL EWING 1500 Market Street Centre Square West, 38th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Elizabeth U. Witmer [ARGUED] SAUL EWING 1200 Liberty Ridge Drive Suite 200 Wayne, PA 19087

Counsel for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC Emma H. Bast Jessica R. O’Neill PENNFUTURE 1429 Walnut Street Suite 701 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Kacy C. Manahan [ARGUED] DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK 925 Canal Street Suite 3701 Bristol, PA 19007

Counsel for Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future

2 Emma H. Bast PENNFUTURE 1429 Walnut Street Suite 701 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Kacy C. Manahan [ARGUED] DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK 925 Canal Street Suite 3701 Bristol, PA 19007

Counsel for Delaware Riverkeeper Network Kacy C. Manahan [ARGUED] DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK 925 Canal Street Suite 3701 Bristol, PA 19007

Counsel for Maya K. van Rossum Margaret O. Murphy [ARGUED] PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 400 Market Street P.O. Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Curtis C. Sullivan PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 909 Elmerton Avenue 3rd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17110

Counsel for Intervenor Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

3 _______________________

OPINION OF THE COURT _______________________ PHIPPS, Circuit Judge.

To construct, extend, or abandon an interstate natural gas pipeline requires permits from both federal and state agencies. In this case, a pipeline company obtained all the permits needed to abandon and replace part of its pipeline and to expand its pipeline through new construction in Pennsylvania. The company then began those endeavors. But within the time permitted by state law, environmental advocates administratively appealed the Pennsylvania state agency’s issuance of three of the required permits to another state agency, as allowed by state law.

With those permits in jeopardy and the construction project underway, the pipeline company initiated this action in the District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief. It also moved to preliminarily enjoin the administrative appeal. In support of its motion, the pipeline company argued that the Natural Gas Act preempts the state law allowing an administrative appeal expressly and also impliedly through field and obstacle preemption. The state agency that issued the permits intervened and supported the pipeline company’s motion. The District Court rejected the preemption arguments and denied the pipeline company’s motion.

In this timely appeal of that decision, the pipeline company challenges that ruling. On de novo review, because none of the theories of preemption advanced by the pipeline company or the state agency apply here, we have affirmed the District Court’s denial of the preliminary-injunction motion for the reasons below.