state could have an interest in the cleanup. See 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(3)(i)(A) (contemplating publication of notice in a “major local newspaper” (emphasis added)). It does require, however, that the party contact those whom it might hold financially responsible for the cleanup. See 55 Fed.Reg. 8795 (“PRPs ... have a strong interest in participating in cleanup decisions that may affect them[.]”). A foreseeably affected party’s opportunity to comment must also be “meaningful.” 55 Fed.Reg. at 8793 (“[M]eaningful public participation ... is necessary to the achievement of a CERCLA-quality cleanup.” (emphasis added)). This means, at a minimum, that the party’s views must be considered before any final decisions are reached on the key issues. See Reg’l Airport Auth., 460 F.3d at 708 (<HOLDING>); Union Pac., 215 F.3d at 837-38 (holding that
holding that public meetings held after implementation of final remedial action were not meaningful holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees holding while florida courts have recognized that notice of public meetings is mandatory the preparation of an agenda that reflects every issue that may come up at a properly noticed meeting is not and notice need not be given of every potential deviation from a previously announced agenda the public has the right to attend open meetings but no authority to interfere with the decisionmaking process holding that public meetings were not adequate where first was held without sufficient notice and second was held after remedy was already selected by means of consent judgment holding that public meetings were not meaningful where first was held without adequate notice and second was held after remedy was already selected by means of consent judgment