I'll try to answer that question.
We've spoken a little bit about toxic before, in terms of.... I think the question is making reference to the Hydro-Québec case in particular, and to other cases where the question whether CEPA was constitutional in terms of its federal authority to deal with these substances hinged, partially at least, if not fully, on the criminal law idea that these substances were toxic and harmful.
What we are concerned about is that if we tamper with the list as it is and with the term “toxic”, we may raise the possibility of a challenge to that constitutionality.