I would agree that the act doesn't define “significant”. However, I think that, as a matter of fairly routine statutory construction, and the fact that you have in two places in CEPA a reference to significant harm, whereas the term doesn't appear anywhere else, a routine statutory interpretation would suggest that there's a higher standard. The act does not determine exactly how high or how much higher that bar is, and therefore it is a matter of wide open discretion.
The first place it appears is in the private action. As I explained to Mr. Amos, that's never been used, so it's never been tested. The other place it's used is in the provisions related to establishing a threshold for regulating emissions associated with fuel content. We have issued regulations and have not been challenged, so we've passed the test. I can't tell you exactly what the test is though.