Maybe this will give Mr. Moffet time to think of a good answer.
I have just a couple of quick comments.
On the point about vagueness, I agree with what Mr. Graham said. “Toxic” is vague. What does it mean? What it means is the language we've promoted, which the federal lawyers came up with. It meets the criteria of section 64. I think that's really quite a simple and elegant solution to this issue.
Industry struggled for some time to figure out what label we should have instead of “toxic,” and various people had different views. This wasn't our idea, it was a federal lawyer's idea, and it seems to cut through the vagueness quite well. It's accurate. It's descriptive. They are the things that meet the criteria of section 64, and those are spelled out in terms of danger to humans or danger to the environment. I think you're adding clarity in that context.