With respect to the suggestion that imported pathogens need a higher standard than what I'm suggesting, it seems to me that with the amendment, especially parts (i) and (ii) under (c), we in fact are requiring what's equivalent to a permit by demanding “the location of the places where the activity is conducted”, the name of every organism, and the name of a contact person who is clearly registered.
Secondly, although you say it's somewhat doubtful as to.... I think you expressed the term “unsure” about the signed document. But in effect are you getting a clear statement from each player in this field that they're in agreement with the laboratory biosafety guidelines, which is basically the bottom line that the department said had to be met? So still I guess I'm no more assured or no more.... Any further clarification from the department that this doesn't meet with all the concerns that were raised by the witnesses and is in line with what the department says it wants to accomplish....