Air Liquide Large Industries
BusinessSupport
Point of demarcation
Pipeline Safety: Exception for In-Plant Piping Systems
PHMSA-2025-0112-0001NPRM
Comments
10
Last activity Sep 17, 2025
Deadline
31 days
Closes Sep 4, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
+90%
+90% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Pipeline Safety: Exception for In-Plant Piping Systems
- Posted
- Jul 1, 2025
- Comment period
- Jul 1, 2025 – Sep 4, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2025-12130
- CFR
- 49 CFR Part 192
- Topics
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Stance breakdown
+90%
Net support
Support9Other1
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is +90% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Business
3
Individual
1
Government
1
Advocacy
1
Trade association
3
Other
1
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted Jul 1, 2025Deadline Sep 4, 2026
Jul 14Aug 25Sep 1Sep 15
Support9Oppose0Other1
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Business
100%
0%
0%
Trade association
100%
0%
0%
Individual
100%
0%
0%
Government
100%
0%
0%
Advocacy
100%
0%
0%
Other
0%
0%
100%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
| Organization | In-plant piping exception | Point of demarcation | In-plant piping demarcation |
|---|---|---|---|
Air Liquide Large Industries BusinessSupport Air Liquide Large Industries US, L.P. | · | · | |
American Petroleum Institute, GPA Midstream Association, and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Trade associationSupport The American Petroleum Institute, GPA Midstream Association, and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America suppo | · | · | |
Babst Calland BusinessSupport Babst Calland, a law firm, supports the proposed rule to create an in-plant piping exception for gas systems to provide | · | · | |
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Trade associationSupport The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) supports the proposal to codify an exception for in-plant pipi | · | · | |
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) GovernmentSupport The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), a municipally owned utility, supports the proposed rule to codify | · | · | |
Williams Companies, Inc. BusinessSupport The Williams Companies supports the proposed definition of in-plant piping systems but recommends three specific revisio | · | · |
American Petroleum Institute, GPA Midstream Association, and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Trade associationSupport
In-plant piping exception
Babst Calland
BusinessSupport
In-plant piping exception
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Trade associationSupport
Point of demarcation
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)
GovernmentSupport
In-plant piping exception
Williams Companies, Inc.
BusinessSupport
In-plant piping demarcation
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Sep 2, 2025Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)SupportTrade association📎 Attachment
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) supports the proposal to codify an exception for in-plant piping systems in natural gas pipelines to reduce regulatory burdens. However, they request specific clarifications regarding jurisdictional boundaries, the definition of "plant," and flexibility for dual-purpose pressure control equipment to avoid duplicative regulations.
Read comment → - Aug 28, 2025Air Liquide Large IndustriesSupportBusiness📎 Attachment
Air Liquide Large Industries US, L.P. supports the rulemaking to delineate in-plant piping limits but requests specific flexibility regarding pressure control devices. They argue that requiring operators to own or operate devices they don't currently control would be costly and propose an alternative where plants can continue operating these devices subject to specific inspection and qualification standards.
Read comment →