I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Boyle, but let me just clarify this.
In essence, section 6 provides an unfair administrative and financial structure, because in your case, when the asset is not publicly owned, the only source of revenue for you is through tolls and the consumer, as opposed to other federally owned bridges, which by their very nature would have to have capital contributions for any required expansion under section 6. It's possible for section 6 to impose an obligation on you to spend millions of dollars on the possible expansion of assets without a single dollar being contributed to that cost, which then would be passed on to the consumer. Is that correct?