In this instance, looking at what is envisioned in the bill and at the procedure under the presidential permit process, I think a great deal of parity has been achieved. A lot of the same issues dealing with new construction or with significant alteration to a span or to a tunnel will be looked at from the perspective of each of the two countries. So on that level there is consistency, and we really don't have a serious argument with that particular part of the language. In the area of security and safety inspections of the span, we have some concern that we could see a new layer of regulation appear that conceivably would be redundant considering the regulation that we're already complying with.
The permit process and the process for improving a new span or a significantly expanded span are very similar now to that described in this bill and to what the United States has done historically.