ASARCO Inc., 24 F.3d 1565, 1576 (9th Cir.1994) (“[T]he issue of substantial compliance is a mixed question of law and fact. Its resolution involves the application of the law to a set of facts.”). The NCP sets out a variety of provisions that e); Reg'l Airport Auth., 460 F.3d at 709 (same). B 1 Cooper posits that Aviall cannot prove that it incurred response costs that are consistent with the NCP because it cannot show compliance with the public participation requirement. Aviall opposes this contention on two grounds. First, it maintains that it in fact afforded sufficient opportunity for public comment. Second, it contends that the TNRC’s involvement in the cleanup was itself sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Compare Bedford Affiliates v. Sills, 156 F.3d 416, 428 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) with Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Pierson
holding that significant state involvement satisfies public participation requirement because it serves the identical purpose that the public notice provision seeks to effectuate holding that significant involvement of government agency charged with protecting public environmental interest satisfies public participation requirement in certain circumstances holding that the ncp public participation requirement was fulfilled because the indiana department of environmental management gave public notice and received public comments before issuing an npdes permit for the cleanup even if it did not hold a public hearing holding that public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public