No, we set standards with which they must be done. We look for their quality measures to make sure the data we're provided meets those standards and were done to protocols that are internationally accepted. When we're sure and satisfied that those are done, we accept them. There are test guidelines that are internationally accepted and approved, and there are ways to validate and replicate those, so it's not necessary to repeat all of the tests in order to be confident in the data provided to us.
If I may, Mr. Cullen, I'll answer your first question. You asked about the health side and how we would measure. The short answer is, I can't—for the reason we talked about earlier. The absence of biomonitoring means that we don't know what's in people in order to measure systematically if things are going up or down. That is a gap that we have.
I'd also like to point out to the committee that while that is very important, it is also not a silver bullet. We would need to consider where those exposures are coming from. As Mr. Smith said, sometimes it's an environmental release; sometimes it's a product release; and it could be in indoor air, more than in ambient air. It's important for us to find all of the exposure pathways and to take action in an integrated fashion—and not all of those will always rest with CEPA. In fact, some of them might be international.
We've banned it; it's no longer used here, no longer used by companies here, and it's no longer in products made here, but the products are coming in from other countries. Are they declaring that? It's transboundary...getting into the air and ending up here, etc.