I think if you give the guidance to the agency that the test is “reasonableness”, that test will translate itself into technical numbers over time. I'm not at liberty today, unfortunately, because the technical guidelines haven't been approved yet by the committee under the MOU, but when we get a chance to circulate it you will find that as a matter of pragmatism many of these things have been converted into measurable technical standards; for example, set-back distances in various kinds of operational environments, time and decibel numbers in terms of the density of population where things are being operated, and those sorts of things.
Just as a matter of pragmatism, when you get to the point where you are actually running operations, you pretty much have to do that anyway, sir. The problem with enshrining it in a legislative context is that you build inflexibility into the system that becomes very difficult to manage over time, because technologies change, the nature of operations changes, and—one of the biggest things we've been dealing with, and I think it was mentioned by some of our colleagues the other day—the pace and nature of the development, particularly in urban areas, is changing dramatically. That is going to shift, over time, the difficulties in the management of noise.
If you try to set a baseline that is locked in legislation, I think you're going to take a lot of flexibility out of the system. I'm not sure that's in the best interests of the public.