As I understand the way this is drafted, it would neutralize the purpose of the AMPs. You have to keep in mind that AMPs would be used in the context of the graduated enforcement policy that we have spoken about, so we likely wouldn't be in a position to issue an AMPs until we've already provided a first warning and then a second warning, anyway. So this would just be adding another 30 days, if I understand correctly, to the period of time that a non-compliant device or a device that's not measuring accurately could sit out in the field.
As it is now, when we do our monitoring inspections or our inspections, if we uncover a problem, we would issue a non-conformance, a non-complying device certificate, and the organization would have 21 days to rectify the situation. Then we would follow up. As I said, it would neutralize the purpose of the AMPs.
If I can add one other point to that, I seem to recall that when Joan Huzar was here from the Canadian consumer initiative, she said that the AMPs, as drafted, didn't go far enough. So it would be contrary to what the consumer groups are expecting in terms of protection as well.