I think one element of the bill relates to a liability cap. As has been alluded to, we have a common carrier obligation, so we have no choice but to move goods that are tendered to the railway, and obviously that includes dangerous goods. The quid pro quo for being essentially compelled by law to move a good, in our view, is a cap on liability. You shouldn't be forced as a company to move a good that could actually bankrupt your company.
I think the intent of the bill and the intent of these regimes is also to trade off a strict liability with a liability cap. A strict liability we automatically pay out, or our insurers automatically pay out, which obviously compensates damaged parties. For that, you have a cap on your liability. This is something that we've been talking about as a company for quite a while.