we believe that the commission is the regulateor or another agency such as a the highway patrol should conduct the fingerprint backgrounds on folks. and the - it's pretty straightforward a sensible recommendation. the second is that the commission is regulateor or appeared agency like the highway patrol should have vehicle inflictions and they need to provide those services. lateral they should make sure the vehicles will save. and third we recommended that the commission should eliminate the provisions authorizing the insurance policies of those individuals to be heightened from public view. there's been a lot of speculation or assertions as the adequacy or inadequacy of the coverage that the services provided that the derivatives are afforded or that the passengers get protection from - we think it's impossible for the public to reason ably make the decision of the insurance policies. one of the fundamental concerns is that excess liability policies that those services have won't work if the underlying auto insurance of those individuals which was not meant for transportation is not

lessons and sidecars and those services that doesn't fall squarely within their jurisdictions as taxi regulateorwhere that process is after a number of dismissing of comments and we're a party to this proceedings so we formally submitted comments. there was a draft decision issued i guess it was middle or late july and so the way the process works now that the proposed decide is out they had an open comment period which closed yesterday and the next step is for the commission to hear - to have a hearing on the proposed decision on the comments at which point they could adopt the issue. they could adopt it september 5th at the cpc meeting. so in terms of the substance of the decision