40 C.F.R. § 142.34

Entry and inspection of public water systems

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

(a) Any supplier of water or other person subject to a national primary drinking water regulation shall, at any time, allow the Administrator, or a designated representative of the Administrator, upon presenting appropriate credentials and a written notice of inspection, to enter any establishment, facility or other property of such supplier or other person to determine whether such supplier or other person has acted or is acting in compliance with the requirements of the Act or subchapter D of this chapter. Such inspection may include inspection, at reasonable times, of records, files, papers, processes, controls and facilities, or testing of any feature of a public water system, including its raw water source.

(b) Prior to entry into any establishment, facility or other property within a State which has primary enforcement responsibility, the Administrator shall notify, in writing, the State agency charged with responsibility for safe drinking water of his intention to make such entry and shall include in his notification a statement of reasons for such entry. The Administrator shall, upon a showing by the State agency that such an entry will be detrimental to the administration of the State's program of primary enforcement responsibility, take such showing into consideration in determining whether to make such entry. The Administrator shall in any event offer the State agency the opportunity of having a representative accompany the Administrator or his representative on such entry.

(c) No State agency which receives notice under paragraph (b) of this section may use the information contained in the notice to inform the person whose property is proposed to be entered of the proposed entry; if a State so uses such information, notice to the agency under paragraph (b) of this section is not required for subsequent inspections of public water systems until such time as the Administrator determines that the agency has provided him satisfactory assurances that it will no longer so use information contained in a notice received under paragraph (b) of this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1991–1992 · leading case: United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992).
United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 300 j-4(a), (c) (1988), and 40 C.F.R. § 142.34 (1991). They contend that this statutory and regulátory authority rendered the interviews inherently coercive, involving compelling pressures to respond and precluding any option to terminate them.”
United States v. Mitchell, 763 F. Supp. 1262 (D. Vt. 1991). “§ 300j—4(b)(1), and its effectuating regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 142.34 . We assume, therefore, that the conduct of the EPA agents at Websterville was pursuant to the authority of this statute and regulation.”
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.