Clearly, again, nobody is denying that there wasn't something missed. The ICAO regulations and signing up to an ICAO convention, which started in 1939, clearly states the responsibility of the state of design. I think the U.S. is going through what it needs to go through to investigate what happened. We, as a validating authority, are more than willing to collaborate, have been collaborating and will continue to collaborate with them as they investigate the many aspects, as included in the list of things that Mr. Robinson spelled out.
I am confident that our process from a validation perspective is adequate. We are looking at the areas that are new and novel. We are looking at the areas of risk, at the safety concerns, but a validating authority will always be subject to the information we are provided when we do our inquiry. The information has to be made available. A full understanding of the aircraft system and how it was certified must be provided to the validating authority. That is a principle we must uphold.
That is why in this particular case it is the FAA that is going back and re-examining what happened and will be implementing changes in the future, which we will adopt as well, because as we mentioned, for example, on the changed product rule and its interpretation, everybody is using it.