It's all a balancing exercise. The railways have obligations under the act. If you go to sections 113 to 116, they have an obligation; they cannot refuse traffic. If a shipper goes to them and says, “You carry my traffic”, they can't tell them, “No, I'm not going to carry it.” There's a common carrier obligation; they have to pick up the traffic.
You have to balance their obligation to carry traffic and operate their trains with the other element of the equation, which is, in doing so, to make as little noise as possible. It's all going to be a balancing exercise.
The danger I was explaining is that if you set a norm that is fixed and is applicable to all railway operations in the country, you run the risk.... First of all, you're going to have to set the bar a bit higher, because the norms will have to be susceptible of being applied throughout the country. If you look at the United States—and Ms. Borges can elaborate on that—their standards are set out in regulation and are very high in terms of decibels. If you do that, you run the risk that the railways will only meet these requirements.
What this act does here is allow flexibility for the agency. Even though a railway may meet any standards that are prescribed internationally or nationally, the agency may say, “This is not enough. You have to meet further standards. You have to go further than those standards require.”