49 CFR Part 195: a research guide.

A starting point for researching Part 195, related integrity-management material and the context behind a citation.

Start with a provision.

Identify the provision relevant to your question and read its surrounding text.

Examine the context.

Record the pipeline facts and definitions you need to evaluate. Do not assume a summary for one segment or situation applies to another.

Review related material.

Inspect linked sources and distinguish the regulation from guidance and historical enforcement material.

Worked example: a review question at 195.452

Example prepared: 2026-09-12. This is a fictional research exercise using a historical source slice, not an applicability determination or a current-law review. The question is: what information would a reviewer need before accepting the basis for an integrity-management conclusion about a liquid-pipeline segment?

Identify the source and its role

Use 49 CFR 195.452 in the October 1, 2023 annual edition. In that edition, paragraph (a) addresses which pipelines are covered and paragraph (g) addresses information analysis. Read those paragraphs in their full context before selecting a passage for your notes. This example does not resolve coverage for a real segment.

For a separate supporting record, open PHMSA's Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management Enforcement Guidance, revision December 7, 2015. Read its introductory disclaimer before its discussion of a cited paragraph. It is enforcement guidance, not a case disposition or the 2023 regulation. Its older reproduced code text is not a substitute for the selected regulation edition.

These source locations and document dates were checked for this bounded example on 2026-09-12. Later amendments, present legal effect and applicability to any actual pipeline were not reviewed.

Leave a working note a reviewer can inspect

Fictional known facts: the research concerns a hazardous-liquid segment, and the author has a route sketch. The sketch's date and the supporting consequence analysis have not been supplied.

Source note: the selected reading starts at 195.452(a), then follows the information-analysis paragraph (g). Keep the regulatory passage and the older guidance in separate entries with their editions and roles.

Assumption for review: the sketch represents the segment under discussion. Alternative to examine: its boundaries or surrounding conditions may have changed. Neither statement is an established project fact.

Open check: obtain the dated segment record and the basis of the consequence analysis. A missing record is not evidence that a segment falls outside a requirement. Ask the technical reviewer to identify which facts remain unsupported before the research is used for a decision.

Research checklist

Use this ungated research-review checklist to organize a question and its evidence. It is not a legal compliance checklist, an engineering analysis or a determination of applicability.

• Question: what decision does the research need to support?
• Known versus missing pipeline facts: what is documented, what is assumed and what has not been supplied?
• Provision and paragraph: which exact passage is being examined, and which cross-references remain to be read?
• Official source, edition and date: record the source URL, selected edition, document date and the date you inspected it. Keep these dates distinct.
• Document stage and role: identify regulation, proposal, preamble, interpretation, guidance, allegation or disposition; record any status that still needs confirmation.
• Assumptions and alternatives: state the working assumption and what evidence could change it.
• Unresolved checks: list missing records, later amendments and questions for technical or legal review.
• Reviewer and next step: name who will inspect the basis, what they need to check and the next action.

Keep planning scenarios separate from effective requirements

A planning scenario based on a proposed rule is conditional. Record the proposal's official identifier, date and stage, the scenario it suggests, and what would have to change before acting. A decision based on effective requirements needs a separate check of the applicable text, effective status, dates and project facts. Do not treat a proposal as permission to defer an existing obligation. This example identifies no proposed change or approved deferral.

Check the source and date

Use the cited government regulation or case document to establish what it says. Check the relevant date, scope and later amendments before applying it. Related interpretation letters, guidance, summaries and case allegations have different roles; they do not all state a binding requirement.

Continue your research

Record your question, the source passages you reviewed and anything still uncertain. KONDWIT can help organize that research; your team remains responsible for reviewing the conclusion.

See the research workflow or request a demo.

• Researching 49 CFR 195.452: integrity management.
• High consequence areas: a research guide.