C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER D—WATER PROGRAMS › PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTATION › Subpart B—Primary Enforcement Responsibility

40 C.F.R. § 142.17

Review of State programs and procedures for withdrawal of approved primacy programs

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) At least annually the Administrator shall review, with respect to each State determined to have primary enforcement responsibility, the compliance of the State with the requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 142, subpart B, and the approved State primacy program. At the time of this review, the State shall notify the Administrator of any State-initiated program changes (i.e., changes other than those to adopt new or revised EPA regulations), and of any transfer of all or part of its program from the approved State agency to any other State agency.

(2) When, on the basis of the Administrator's review or other available information, the Administrator determines that a State no longer meets the requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 142, subpart B, the Administrator shall initiate proceedings to withdraw primacy approval. Among the factors the Administrator intends to consider as relevant to this determination are the following, where appropriate: whether the State has requested and has been granted, or is awaiting EPA's decision on, an extension under § 142.12(b)(2) of the deadlines for meeting those requirements; and whether the State is taking corrective actions that may have been required by the Administrator. The Administrator shall notify the State in writing that EPA is initiating primacy withdrawal proceedings and shall summarize in the notice the information available that indicates that the State no longer meets such requirements.

(3) The State notified pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section may, within 30 days of receiving the Administrator's notice, submit to the Administrator evidence demonstrating that the State continues to meet the requirements for primary enforcement responsibility.

(4) After reviewing the submission of the State, if any, made pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the Administrator shall make a final determination either that the State no longer meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 142, subpart B, or that the State continues to meet those requirements, and shall notify the State of his or her determination. Any final determination that the State no longer meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 142, subpart B, shall not become effective except as provided in § 142.13.

(b) If a State which has primary enforcement responsibility decides to relinquish that authority, it may do so by notifying the Administrator in writing of the State's decision at least 90 days before the effective date of the decision.

[54 FR 52140, Dec. 20, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 33661, June 28, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Melissa Mays v. City of Flint, Mich., 871 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Melissa Mays v. City of Flint, Mich., 871 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “See 40 C.F.R. § 142.17 (a)(2). But we disagree with the MDEQ Defendants’ argument that this ability to intervene supports their invocation of federal-officer removal.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 980 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “; see 40 C.F.R. §§ 142.17 (a)(3), (a)(4) (1991).”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 925 F.2d 470 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “40 CFR § 142.17 (a)(2) (1990) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Massachusetts Water Resources Auth., 97 F. Supp. 2d 155 (D. Mass. 2000). “40 C.F.R. § 142.17 (a)(2). The EPA has taken no steps to rescind its delegation of enforcement authority to the DEP.”
Walters v. Flint (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 2× “2017) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 142.17 (a)(2)). Even though the Mays court found that under similar facts, “Michigan was so governing itself when the alleged actions and inactions giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred,” id.”
JAN BURGESS, & all 2,959 individuals identified in the Burgess FTCA Admin. Complaint v. United States (E.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 2× “3d at 447 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 142.17 (a)(2)). As set forth earlier, under the SDWA, those duties belong to EPA in the first instance.”
Waid (E.D. Mich. 2026). “” 40 C.F.R. § 142.17 (a)(2). Here, the United States acknowledges “[t]he scope of EPA’s potential enforcement powers under the SDWA,” but argues that those powers are “not relevant to the Section 324A(b) inquiry because EPA did not in fact revoke primacy or otherwise supplant…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.