Sure. You're right that municipalities didn't receive stimulus funding perhaps because they didn't have projects that could be completed by March 31, 2011; they didn't put them forward knowing that they wouldn't get them done. So there would surely be concern in some of those communities if there is a national or wide-scale extension to the deadline. The same may hold true for the very many municipalities--in fact, the majority of municipalities--that are going to complete their projects by the deadline. Municipalities really struggled last year to find projects that they knew they could do in what for most projects was probably a fairly compressed timeline. They may have made compromises about the types of projects they decided to choose, knowing that they had to try to at least meet this deadline. If there was a change to the deadline, as I said, a sort of global change to the deadline, it would then, of course, throw into question for community members in those municipalities why they hadn't selected another project, and that they should have known they would have more time.
So there is a certain argument to that. That's why we're suggesting that a case-by-case flexibility, where delays weren't within the control of the municipalities, is going to help deal with that issue. In those cases, municipalities put forward projects that they thought they could do with the time they had. Of course, it turned out that they didn't actually have the time that they were going to have.