Thank you very much.
I want to go back to what I was talking about in my remarks, the safety culture.
Mr. Larson, you said earlier that in your view, safety represented an economic threat, because safety costs are passed on to your clients. I understand. That is the principle of paying and passing on the costs.
Currently, you have the choice between safety and your viability. In my view, self-regulation has limits, despite what you mentioned having done in this regard. I asked you in what proportions, respectively, the choices you made flowed from self-regulation and regulations that are imposed upon you. A larger number of things are imposed by regulation, and therein lies the problem.
If we keep saying that basic regulations that apply nationally do not go far enough, some companies will prefer to invest a great deal in safety, since the safety culture exists. A professor came to talk to us about that specifically. However, other companies or associations will not want to invest in safety, because if they do so, they will have to pass the costs on to their clients.
If there are no national regulations so that everyone pays the same amount for common safety measures, companies will have to choose between viability and safety. Unfortunately, I am not convinced of your willingness to go farther.
Once you have respected the rules that are already established, how do you determine what additional safety measures are warranted given the costs and your concern with not wanting to pass them on to your clients? What are these decisions based on?