I can speak to that. We do have short lines that are moving significant amounts of crude, and some of them are able to charge their customers for the additional amount of insurance. They can absorb it into the costs of their operation. In that case, the amount of insurance that is proposed in the bill is commensurate with the risk. It is possible for that railway to recoup its additional costs from its customers. This is not universally true for all the short lines.
What we're suggesting is that there needs to be flexibility in the bill so that companies like Mr. Berthiaume's could go to the agency and argue that its risk is not commensurate with the table that's suggested by the bill and that it pays an amount of insurance that is equal to the risk.