To get to the heart of the question, I think the $100,000 penalty is probably light in the grand scheme of things, but the railways have shown that they're starting to comply with the order since it was passed on March 7, so I think that's a positive move. Again, we're after the service, primarily, more so than we're after the compensation.
However, there are two elements to the penalties. One is penalties on a macro level for volume thresholds in the different corridors, and then there are the penalties that would get paid to an individual shipper for failure to meet the terms of a service level agreement.
That's why the regulatory process to arrive at the specific definition of what is an operational term in a service level agreement is so important. If we can identify that the penalties payable to the shipper in service level agreements are on the table for the government arbitrator to rule into a service level agreement, and that the dispute resolution process for liquidated damages could also be arbitrated into a service level agreement, then the grain shippers would have the ability to recover damages, within the terms of that service level agreement, from a rail carrier that doesn't provide good service. Then those damages and penalties could be passed through to the producer who doesn't get to deliver to the elevator because of inadequate rail service.
I see it as two elements: the $100,000 fine paid to the government on a macro national sense for being able to provide adequate capacity into the various corridors, and then penalties payable to specific shippers through the service level agreement process.