Okay. I anticipated as much. I just wanted to be certain of that.
Again, I think the salutary advice we received was that the idea that the committee will be looking at it, or has the opportunity to look at it, is going to have a practical effect on the validity of regulations. So I think both the motions satisfy that. If we're not going to be able to change things, there's an enormous distinction to be made. I guess, in one case, if public scrutiny turned out to identify errors, then you would have to go back and change your regulations, as opposed to change one in mid-stream. Is that correct?