You gave me the answer and I appreciate that. You mentioned two points there. You mentioned about the regulatory requirements falling short, which is point number one. Secondly, I'm assuming—and please correct me if I'm wrong—that within your accident management plans you identified these crossings as being delinquent. With that I would assume again that they would be then looked at, repaired, replaced, or even done away with.
What I'm getting at is, within your accident management plan, are you bringing the recommendations forward within those regulatory requirements to try to make it better so that either they're going to be removed, fixed, or brought up to date again within those accident management plans, and as a priority?