REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE OR POST A NEW MESSAGE   

  Date  |   Subject  |   Thread

RE: Best Practices for Permitting and Policy

  • Archived: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:34:00 -0400 (EDT)
  • Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:32:37 -0400 (EDT)
  • From: Alan Strasser <astrasser@hazmed.com>
  • Subject: RE: Best Practices for Permitting and Policy
  • X-topic: Permits and Rules

Charlie's description on the misuse of CAGs sponsored by industry is quite an eye opener for those of us who are only familiar with agency-sponsored CAGs. For example, the CAGs I have worked with or have knowledge of have worked through some complex issues that were highly controversial. (I have an article illustrating a major success in Region 1 for interested parties). The diversity of membership, including environmental/community members skeptical of industry, ensured that all interests were represented and that other activists could not second guess the deal. Thisis actually an important safeguard to industry. The diversity of interests is at the heart of the spirit of advisory groups created by federal and state law. Without a breadth of interests at the table, one cannot be sure that all the major issues are raised by individuals with a stake in the outcome. In the policy realm, membership issues were considered by Congress in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 USC sec. 581 at sec. 585). For example, congress states in sec. 585 that to establish a committee under the act, the agency (the choser of the members, usually with assistance from a "convenor" or neutral facilitator) "must determine that a negotiated rulemaking committee can adequately represent the interests that will be significantly affected by a rule..." Also, the Federal Advisory Committee Act applies to such committees. which ensures that records of meeting exists and that meetings are open to public. This ensures deliberations are open to public scrutiny.

To prevent this best practice of using well informed CAGs (via TOSC, TAG, or other means)from being confused by industry-led efforts, I have a recommendation to offer. I think ANY CAG needs to disclose its affiliation (e.g., industry or government) with a federal/state agency at its inception. This practice can help address the membership issue raised. This will help ensure a valuable best practice of government-sponsored CAGs retain their credibility.

Alan Strasser
301-577-9700, Ext. 246.


  Date  |   Subject  |   Thread

Welcome | About this Event | Briefing Book | Join the Dialogue | Formal Comment | Search

This EPA Dialogue is managed by Information Renaissance. Messages from participants are posted on this non-EPA web site. Views expressed in this dialogue do not represent official EPA policies.