We agree with you and we think it does take that step forward. We also, as Mr. Bourque mentioned earlier in response to a previous question about whether or not the language “safe rail operations” went far enough, or included or didn't include—we could argue that all day long in court. I think the amendments presented here just give that clarity so that it doesn't get watered down. The intent may be understood here, but when that's filtered out to the field and to inspectors, that clarity is not there and could be interpreted some other way, whereas in fact this language straightens that.
On March 26th, 2015. See this statement in context.