I was there and I'd say that we had a good turnout and most of those that testified did a good job of stating their case. The main argument that was made was that the requirement of pivoting hammer is not neccessary if all other proposed changes are made. I think that the commission heard that loud and clear. I think that some of them already had their heals dug in, and others were more open to the comments and will give it sincere thought before making a final decision. I am cautiously optimistic.

I'd like to know the source of the "first reports" that you are referrring to.