Skip to main content
Content Starts Here GSA Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Database Skip to main content

Committee Detail

Hide Section - GENERAL INFORMATION

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee NameNegotiated Rulemaking Committee on All Appropriate InquiryAgency NameEnvironmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year2004Committee Number16567
Original Establishment Date2/19/2003Committee StatusTerminated
Actual Termination Date4/15/2004Committee URLhttp://www.epa.gov/brownfields/regneg.htm
New Committee This FYNoPresidential Appointments*No
Terminated This FYYesMax Number of Members*25
Current Charter Date4/28/2003Designated Fed Officer Position Title*Designated Federal Officer
Date Of Renewal Charter4/28/2005Designated Federal Officer PrefixMs.
Projected Termination Date4/28/2005Designated Federal Officer First Name*Patricia
Exempt From Renewal*NoDesignated Federal Officer Middle NameJ.
Specific Termination AuthorityAgency AuthorityDesignated Federal Officer Last Name*Overmeyer
Establishment Authority*Agency AuthorityDesignated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Establishment Authority*Agency DecisionDesignated Federal Officer Phone*202-566-2774
Effective Date Of Authority*2/19/2003Designated Federal Officer Fax*202-566-2757
Committee Type*ContinuingDesignated Federal Officer Email*overmeyer.patricia@epa.gov
Presidential*No
Committee Function*Regulatory Negotiations Committee
Hide Section - RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*Terminate
Legislation to Terminate RequiredNo
Legislation Status 
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*FY 2004 Accomplishments: The Committee reached consensus on recommended regulatory language on during it's November 12-13,2003 meeting. EPA published in the Federal Register the recommended regulatory language as part of a proposed rule, on August 26, 2004.PAST HISTORY:The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on All Appropriate Inquiry provided a public negotiation forum for a balanced group of stakeholders representing a broad array of interests and backgrounds to negotiate and if possible, reach consensus on recommendations for a proposed rule. The major issues that the Committee discussed and negotiated included:a. Clear definition and description of criteria identified in Brownfields Law:1. The results of an inquiry by an environmental professional2. Interviews with past and present owners, operators, and occupants of the facility for the purpose of gathering information regarding the potential for contamination at the facility3. Reviews of historical sources, such as chain of title documents, aerial photographs, building department records, and land use records, to determine previous uses and occupancies of the real property since the property was first developed 4. Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens against the facility that are filed under Federal, State, or local law5. Reviews of Federal, State, and local government records, waste disposal records, underground storage tank records, and hazardous waste handling, generation, treatment, disposal, and spill records, concerning contamination at or near the facility6. Visual inspections of the facility and of adjoining properties7. Specialized knowledge or experience on the part of the defendant8. The relationship of the purchase price to the value of the property, if the property was not contaminated9. Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property10. The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigationa. Definition of A reasonable time within which all appropriate inquiry must be conductedb. Relationship of federal standard to state program requirementsc. Extent to which federal standard requires documentation or evidence of potential contamination (e.g., sampling and analysis)e. Inclusion (or exclusion) of non-CERCLA contaminants (e.g., petroleum) f. Shelf life of an assessmentThe duties of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on All Appropriate Inquiry are solely advisory in nature. The Committee negotiates the merits and context of the issues listed above as well as the content of the regulatory language for the proposed rulemaking. After each meeting the text of the Committee's working document (the draft proposed regulatory language) is revised to reflect the Committee's negotiations and serves as a starting point for the next meeting's negotiations.The Committee reached consensus on recommended regulatory language on November 14, 2003. EPA published in the Federal Register the recommend regulatory language as part of a proposed rule, on August 26, 2004.
How is membership balanced?*Membership in the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for All Appropriate Inquiry was developed in several ways. We first identified parties who have been involved with us in the analysis and refinement of the liability and all appropriate inquiry issues addressed in the Brownfields Law; second, we retained an expert facilitator to undertake a convening process to identify interested and affected stakeholders. The facilitator interviewed many of the stakeholders that we initially identified, as well as additional stakeholders identified by the initial interviewees, to determine the potentially affected parties, ascertain which parties are interested in participating in a regulatory negotiation, and identify what issues need to be negotiated. In addition, we will publish a Notice of Intent to Negotiate in the Federal Register, as required by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, to determine if other parties not previously identified or contacted will be affected by the rule and identify additional parties interested in participating in the work of the Committee. Special attention was placed on ensuring a balanced membership for the negotiating committee. We initially identified categories of stakeholders potentially affected by the regulation, keeping in mind that the regulatory standards will affect a diverse group of public and private sector entities. Our initial list of affected stakeholders included state and local governments, private real estate interests, public interest groups representing environmental and public health interests, the environmental justice community, Tribal governments, commercial lenders, environmental professionals, and real estate developers. We then identified trade associations and interest groups representing each of these categories of stakeholders and solicited their assistance in identifying other stakeholder interests that should be included in the negotiation. After interviewing over 50 different representatives, we determined that the following categories of interested stakeholders should be included in the negotiations: EPA, other federal government agencies, state environmental agencies, local government, tribal governments, real estate developers, bankers and lenders, environmental interest groups, the environmental justice community, and environmental professionals. We believe that representation from these categories of stakeholders will ensure a balance of governmental interests, as well as a balance between private and public sector interests, a balance of community and commercial interests and a balance amongst the types of private sector interests affected. In addition, as we solicit participation from individual interest groups and trade associations we will attempt to balance the committee across geographical regions and socio-economic groups.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*The Committee met twice during FY 2004 to complete its work. The final meeting of the committee was very relevant given that at the final meeting the Committee reached consensus on recommended regulatory language.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*The Committee was necessary (completed its work in FY 2004) because of the many complex requirements and time-critical deadlines emanating from the Brownfields Law, a number of policy and regulatory processes within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response are undergoing change. Some of these changes require rulemaking, the development of new policies, extensive review and revamping of existing policies, and/or extensive process improvements. A key requirement of the Brownfields Law is the congressionally-mandated schedule for EPA to complete the rulemaking on all appropriate inquiry by January, 2004. This rule will have a profound impact on the commercial real estate industry, including property owners, redevelopers, and commercial lenders as well as state and local governments, development and housing authorities, recreational authorities, environmental consultants, commercial and private users of developed properties, and the general public.It is essential for EPA to have an effective and timely mechanism for the public to engage in meaningful dialogue and for the Agency to have access to the experience, advice and recommendations of knowledgeable and affected parties regarding the standards and requirements to be set forth in a proposed rule setting standards for all appropriate inquiry. The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for All Appropriate Inquiry also will provide an important mechanism to foster communication and a clearer understanding of the liability limitations provided under the Brownfields law and affiliated implementation issues among our many stakeholders. There are no other Agency committees in existence which include the broad spectrum of stakeholders who are vitally interested in and affected by the development of a federal standard for conduction of all appropriate inquiry as required under the Brownfields Law. Without the Committee, the Agency would need to seek separate feedback from a significant number of constituencies, e.g., real estate developers, commercial lenders, environmental professionals, environmental/public interest groups, environmental justice interest groups, state and local governments, other federal agencies, Tribal governments; public health organizations, and the general public. This would be time-consuming, impractical, more costly, and would not engender the healthy dialogue among and between these various groups that is fostered within the negotiated rulemaking process. The Negotiated Rulemaking process as described in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act provides for parties who typically have opposing viewpoints to come together in open, transparent sessions to develop, after careful analysis and discussions, consensus recommendations on a proposed rulemaking for EPA to consider.
Why close or partially close meetings?No meetings were closed or partially closed in FY 2004.
Recommendation RemarksThe Committee held its last meeting on November 12-13, 2003. At that last meeting, the Committee reached consensus on recommended regulatory language for the proposed rule on all appropriate inquiries.
Hide Section - PERFORMANCE MEASURES

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*NoAction Reorganize Priorities*No
Outcome Trust In GovernmentNoAction Reallocate ResourcesNo
Outcome Major Policy ChangesNoAction Issued New RegulationsNo
Outcome Advance In Scientific ResearchNoAction Proposed LegislationNo
Outcome Effective Grant MakingNoAction Approved Grants Or Other PaymentsNo
Outcome Improved Service DeliveryNoAction OtherNo
Outcome Increased Customer SatisfactionNoAction CommentNA
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg RequirementsYesGrants Review*No
Outcome OtherNoNumber Of Grants Reviewed0
Outcome CommentNANumber Of Grants Recommended0
Cost Savings*NoneDollar Value Of Grants Recommended$0.00
Cost Savings CommentNAGrants Review CommentNA
Number Of Recommendations*1Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*Yes
Number Of Recommendations CommentThe committee reached consensus on recommended regulatory language for the proposed rule that would set federal standards for all appropriate inquiries.Access Agency WebsiteYes
% of Recs Fully Implemented*100.00%Access Committee WebsiteNo
% of Recs Fully Implemented CommentThe Agency published the Committee's recommended regulatory language as the proposed rule on all appropriate inquiries.Access GSA FACA WebsiteNo
% of Recs Partially Implemented*0.00%Access PublicationsNo
% of Recs Partially Implemented CommentNAAccess OtherNo
Agency Feedback*YesAccess CommentNA
Agency Feedback CommentWe notified the committee members that we published the rule in the Federal Register.Narrative Description*The negotiated rulemaking committee supported the Agency's efforts to complete its Congressional mandate in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act to promulgate federal standards and practices for the conduct of all appropriate inquiries.
Hide Section - COSTS

COSTS

Payments to Non-Federal Members*$0.00Est Payments to Non-Fed Members Next FY*$0.00
Payments to Federal Members*$1,602.00Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*$0.00
Payments to Federal Staff*$12,998.00Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*$0.00
Payments to Consultants*$0.00Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*$0.00
Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Members*$3,005.00Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Members nextFY*$0.00
Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*$0.00Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*$0.00
Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*$0.00Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staff Next FY*$0.00
Travel Reimb. For Consultants*$0.00Est Travel Reimb to Consultants Next FY*$0.00
Other Costs$19,995.00Est. Other Costs Next FY*$0.00
Total Costs$37,600.00Est. Total Next FY*$0.00
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*0.10Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*0.00
Hide Section - Custom Links

Custom Links

     Committee Level Reports               
Hide Section - MEMBERS,MEETINGS AND ADVISORY REPORTS

MEMBERS,MEETINGS AND ADVISORY REPORTS

To View all the members, meetings and advisory reports for this committee please click here
Hide Section - CHARTERS AND RELATED DOCS

CHARTERS AND RELATED DOCS

No Documents Found
Hide Section - DATA FROM PREVIOUS YEARS

DATA FROM PREVIOUS YEARS

Committee

Data from Previous Years

 
ActionCommittee System IDCommittee NameFiscal Year
 COM-015634Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on All Appropriate Inquiry2003