tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9122514974659083342.post5773370261067237781..comments2024-02-02T22:30:20.736-05:00Comments on Chemical Facility Security News: Reader Comment – 11-23-09 – SOCMA ReplyPJCoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03390039682578324978noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9122514974659083342.post-33344692215530459422009-11-25T10:53:48.169-05:002009-11-25T10:53:48.169-05:00My reply can be found at Reader Comment – 11-24-09...My reply can be found at Reader Comment – 11-24-09 SOCMA vs ACC: http://chemical-facility-security-news.blogspot.com/2009/11/reader-comment-11-24-09-socma-vs-acc.htmlPJCoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03390039682578324978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9122514974659083342.post-44807692331059154832009-11-24T11:47:19.738-05:002009-11-24T11:47:19.738-05:00As someone directly involved in the HR 2868 proces...As someone directly involved in the HR 2868 process, I can say unequivocally that ACC was substantively and extensively involved in the Energy and Commerce Committee negotiations. They served their member companies well by engaging early and thoughtfully, and significant changes were made both to the citizen suits, IST, and employee participation provisions as a result. SOCMA was not nearly as involved, and did not have nearly the impact on the final product as a result. Your initial observation was correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com