Right now, the amendment that you've passed requires an update, as Ms. Collins says. I think an update would explain where things are at and why. It doesn't say that explicitly, though. I think the difference, if I've understood Ms. Collins' motion, is that you would be having to publish in the Gazette each time, on each instrument, that you're not meeting the timelines.
Maybe it's important too to understand that there's one risk assessment per substance. We know what we're assessing. Yes, there's time—you have to gather information and make sure you've formulated the problem correctly and done the right analysis—but you get a draft and then you can move to a final. For risk management instruments, typically there's one principal one, and that's the one that's under the CEPA time clock. Then there may be other ones dealing with different aspects of the risk.
That's why we're insisting that it's important to be able to prioritize among those many risk management instruments that the departments are working on. Greg could probably provide some examples of the variation in those instruments, if that's helpful to understand, but that may be beyond what you're interested in.