I think we discussed force majeure, either last time or the first time around. I strongly believe force majeure is captured by an operational term. If we tell a railway company to pick up the car on a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, part of an operational term will be that they shall not pick up the car on these days if the following events occur. To me, that's an operational term. There's no ambiguity, no doubt that this is covered.
What's meant to be left out by restricting it to operational terms—as Annette was saying, a deliberate restriction was made—was to leave the non-service obligation aspect of the relationship between the railways and the shippers to be dealt with by the arbitrator. For example, a dispute resolution clause, a liability clause, a mediation clause that would normally be found in agreements, the choice of what law applies in case of dispute—all these clauses you would normally find in a contract were meant to be left outside the scope of the arbitrator's discretion. Essentially, this provision allows the arbitrator to establish the obligation of the railways, but that's the extent of the arbitrator's discussion. He sets the obligation that the railway must comply with in providing adequate and suitable accommodation to the shippers.