24 
Upon completion of any inspection, and prior to leaving the location 
dr conveyance where the recombinant DNA activity is being conducted, 
the individual makihgdhe inspection must give to the owner, operator, 
or person in charge a preliminary report summarizing any condition 
or practice which indicates a violation of any regulation or license 
requirement. A final written report must be submitted to the appro- 
priate individual within thirty days of completion of the inspection. 
, In general, since most inspections are intended to be carried out 
by biohazards committees, it is expected that both the responsible 
investigator and the appropriate representative of the institution 
conducting the recombinant DNA activity would, be informed imme- 
diately of any situations not in conformance with the requirements 
of this act. 
The. biohazards committee may require that the deficiency be cor- 
rected before the activity may proceed further, and ttiay be empowered 
to do so by the Secretary under his authority to promulgate adminis- 
trative regulations undfer section 102(d). However, it is expected that 
most investigators and responsible institutions or companies would 
act immediately to cooperate with requests of a biohazards committee 
and that formal action by the Secretary to enforce compliance with 
the provisions of this act under sections i03 and 104 would, in general, 
be unnecessary. It is anticipated that most violations would be of a 
minor nature and be handled informally by the biohazards comipittee. 
It should be borne in mind that a biohazards committee serving a 
particular institution, may also have additional powers granted to 
it by the institution over and above the requirements of the Recom- 
binant DNA Act, in order to enforce institutional safety requirements. 
The committee has carefully crafted this provision to insure that it 
does not depart from Fourth Amendment protections against un- 
reasonable searches. Camara Municipal Court , 387 U.S. 523 (1967) 
and See v. City of Seattle , 387 U.S. 541 (1967) and subsequent cases 
have provided clear instructions to the Congress as to how to design 
a Federal warrantless inspection statute that accomplishes its purposes 
as a crucial part of an effective regulatory mechanism without intrud- 
ing on Fourth Amendment protections. See Colonnade Corp. v. United 
States , 397 U.S. 72 (1970), United States v. Biswell , 406 U.S. 311 
(1972) , and Almeida- Sanchez v. U.S., 413 U.S. 266 ( 1973) . From these 
cases can be culled four considerations utilized by the Supreme Court 
in determining whether an administrative inspection authorized by 
Federal statute is constitutional.: 
( 1 ) was it preceded by adequate notice to the person in charge as to 
the identity of the persons conducting the inspection and the legal 
basis for the action ? 
(2) was the inspection carefully limited in time, place and scone? 
(3) was the inspection of central importance to a valid Federal 
purpose? 
( 4) is there a long history of regulation of the inspected industry ? 
Clearly, the inspection authority meets three of the four tests of 
Colonnade^ Biswetl. and Almeida-Sajnchez. First, inspectors are au- 
thorized to enter and inspect laboratories only after presenting appro- 
priate credentials and a written notice r tb the, person in charge of the 
laboratory ahdulearlv informing sui’h. person of the authority to in- 
spect. Second, inspections may only be rriade <JhHngnoi*mal business 
[Appendix B — 154] 
