Pipeline Safety: Harmonize Class Location Change Pressure Test Requirements with Subpart J Pressure Test Requirements
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Pipeline Safety: Harmonize Class Location Change Pressure Test Requirements with Subpart J Pressure Test Requirements
- Posted
- Jul 1, 2025
- Comment period
- Jul 1, 2025 – Sep 4, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2025-12128
- CFR
- 49 CFR Part 192
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- Sep 2, 2025Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)SupportTrade association📎 Attachment
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) supports the proposed rule to harmonize pressure test durations for class location changes with Subpart J requirements. They argue that the four-hour duration is technically sufficient for safety and provides much-needed regulatory clarity for pipeline operators.
Read comment → - Sep 2, 2025Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)SupportTrade association📎 Attachment
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) supports the proposed rule to harmonize pressure test durations for class location changes with Subpart J requirements. They argue that the four-hour duration is technically sufficient for safety and provides much-needed regulatory clarity for pipeline operators.
Read comment → - Aug 28, 2025Air Liquide Large IndustriesOpposeBusiness📎 Attachment
Air Liquide Large Industries US, L.P. opposes the proposed rule because it expands the use of a four-hour pressure test without mileage limits and suggests reducing testing duration in areas where pipeline risk increases due to population growth. The company argues that the proposal removes historical safety safeguards and requests that the agency reconsider the rule or at least impose mileage limits.
Read comment →
