I don't have those concerns. I am aware that there are differing views concerning the idea of a separate safety agency.
I want to underscore the importance of distinguishing independence in terms of the function as opposed to independence in terms of the board. The board is fiercely independent with respect to governments, the operators, and stakeholders. We are truly an independent regulatory agency in which safety is the top priority.
The board, I think, has quite appropriately left the question of Judge Wells' recommendation 29(a) to the governments. We have a very professional staff. Safety is our top priority. I can't say it enough times. We do it well.
The board has taken measures consistent with recommendation 29(b) from Judge Wells. We put measures in place to strengthen the independence of the safety function within the board. There are mechanisms in place for the chief safety officer and the safety officers to communicate with the other parts of the board. We've done a gap analysis. We've got a continuous improvement process in place with respect to the safety function. We have bimonthly round tables wherein the chief safety officer comes in, meets with our board, sets the agenda, and the board members are, in turn, free to ask any questions of the chief safety officer.
We've taken it as far as we can, from the board's perspective.