OLR RESEARCH REPORT
August 22, 2008
2008-R-0489
NEW HAVEN-HARTFORD-SPRINGFIELD RAIL SERVICE PROJECT
By: James J. Fazzalaro, Principal Analyst
You asked a number of questions relating to the proposal to operate
commuter rail service between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield.
You wanted to know who owns the rail line and the associated
transportation assets and if this could be transferred to the state.
Additionally, you asked:
1. What the recommendations for the project are,
2. What rail equipment will be required to start up the service and its
possible cost,
3. What other improvements or facilities may be required,
4. What the projected ridership is for the proposed start up service,
5. What are the subsidy needs,
6. What are the projected capital construction and operating costs,
7. What is the implementation timeline,
8. What environmental and other approvals may be required, and
9. What some possible sources of funding may be used to pay for the
project.
SUMMARY
The New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail service project
involves a proposal to provide train service during the morning and
afternoon peak commuting period along the existing Amtrak-owned rail
line connecting these three cities. Service would also be provided to the
communities of North Haven, Wallingford, Meriden, Berlin, Newington,
Windsor, Windsor Locks, and Enfield. Stations would be constructed in
Mary M. Janicki, Director
Phone (860) 240-8400
FAX (860) 240-8881
http://www.cga.ct.gov/olr
Connecticut General Assembly
Office of Legislative Research
Room 5300
Legislative Office Building
Hartford, CT 06106-1591
Olr@cga.ct.gov
North Haven, Newington, and Enfield where none currently exist. All of
the other towns currently have rail stations, but they all would undergo
improvements and enhancements under the proposal.
The current proposal for recommended start up service involves bidirectional weekday service during morning and evening commuting
periods on a 30-minute schedule. A possible future “Full Build” scenario
could bring service up to as much as every 15 minutes.
Current estimates for construction for the recommended start-up
service are approximately $291 million. Current estimates of operating
costs are approximately $10 million annually. At the fare schedule
currently being estimated for the service, an annual subsidy of
approximately $8.96 million would be required to cover operating
deficits. The implementation study estimates daily ridership of
approximately 2,200 for the recommended start up service.
Because of the broad range of questions you asked about the project,
we have divided this response into several sections that discuss each
topic in significant detail. We have also added an explanation of a
provision contained in the pending Amtrak reauthorization legislation
currently in conference committee in the U.S. Congress. This provision
states a sense of Congress that the proposed New Haven-HartfordSpringfield rail service is considered an “important transportation
priority.” Should this provision remain in the final legislation, it could
enhance the possibility of some federal funding for the project.
RAIL LINE OWNERSHIP
Amtrak owns the 62-mile rail line from New Haven to Springfield
Amtrak also owns the rail stations in Berlin, Meriden, and Windsor
Locks. The stations in Wallingford and Windsor are owned by the
respective municipalities. The New Haven and State Street stations are
owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The Hartford
station is owned and operated by the Greater Hartford Transit District.
Amtrak also owns the branch platforms at the Berlin, Hartford,
Meriden, Wallingford, Windsor, and Windsor Locks stations. The line is
single track in some locations and double track in others. (The line was
originally entirely double track, but Amtrak removed certain sections of
the second track a number of years ago in a cost reduction effort. All of
the single tracking is located in the Connecticut portion of the line. The
entire track located in Massachusetts is double track.)
August 22, 2008
Page 2 of 15
2008-R-0489
The New Haven-Springfield line is currently classified as Class 4
track. Under Federal Railroad Administration standards, Class 4 track
can provide a maximum allowable operating speed for freight trains of 60
miles per hour and a maximum allowable speed for passenger trains of
80 miles per hour.
Since Amtrak is a federally-funded quasi public corporation,
acquisition of its assets might be accomplished differently than if the
state were trying to acquire private assets. Congress, in effect, controls
Amtrak through the legislation that sets it up, establishes goals for its
operation, and funds its capital and operating costs. It is possible that a
transfer of ownership to the respective states, if it were to be done, could
be done by Congress through an amendment to the federal laws. While
there has been some mention made of the Amtrak possibly transferring
the line and stations for a token amount, I am not aware of any serious
proposal in this regard, nor any analysis that attempts to assign an
acquisition value for the track, signal system, right-of-way and station
assets. Thus, it is difficult to speculate on what this might cost
Connecticut.
The NHHS rail service implementation study did not base any of its
recommendations on a change in ownership status of the rail line and
other assets.
THE RECOMMENDED START-UP SERVICE
Before addressing some of your other questions, it may be helpful to
summarize the service plan recommendations that were made in the
NHHS implementation study done by Wilbur Smith Associates for the
DOT. The final report was issued in June 2005. The study examined a
range of possible implementation strategies ranging from a “Minimum
Build” scenario that involved no additional track construction, no offpeak service, and peak hour train frequency of 30-35 minutes to a
“Maximum Build” scenario that involved complete double tracking of the
line, hourly weekday plus weekend service, and peak hour train
frequency of 15 minutes. The steering committee and study team
reviewing the options developed a recommendation action plan for startup service that involved the following:
 Bi-directional service, Monday through Friday, on a 30-minute
peak hour schedule (at least 14 one-way trips) between New Haven
and Springfield
August 22, 2008
Page 3 of 15
2008-R-0489
 Adding at least 18 miles of extended double track (i.e., restoring
the second track at selected locations to improve reliability and
provide the necessary 30 minute headways at critical times in the
three anchor cities for the service)
 New service to supplement Amtrak’s existing intercity service in the
corridor with, if possible, adjustments to Amtrak’s schedule
 Augment the nine existing stations on the line (counting
Springfield) with construction of three new stations in North
Haven, Newington, and Enfield
 Improve the current station in Windsor Locks by providing facilities
to accommodate a waiting area and transfers between the train
and a shuttle bus connection to Bradley International Airport
 Modify local bus service to provide service to the stations
 Modify all 12 stations to provide high-level platforms, gradeseparated pedestrian facilities and amenities, bicycle racks, and
additional parking
The new station in North Haven is planned for the area near the
Route 40 connector. The Newington station is planned to be adjacent to
the proposed New Britain-Hartford Busway. The Enfield station is
planned for the area in Thompsonville at Bigelow Commons.
The service level recommendation assumes stops at all stations.
Based on this assumption, the estimated travel time from New Haven to
Springfield, including all stops, is 90 minutes. Should consideration be
given to operating an express train that would stop only at the three
anchor cities—New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield—the average travel
time would be reduced by 15 minutes; however, overall ridership might
be reduced.
Future Improvements to Reach Full Build Scenario
The implementation study envisioned the following additional
improvements for future service beyond the proposed start-up service.

Double-track the remaining 20.6 miles of single track sections so
that service could become as frequent as every 15 minutes
August 22, 2008
Page 4 of 15
2008-R-0489

Construct second high-level platforms and grade-separated
pedestrian facilities at Wallingford, Berlin, and Windsor Locks to
accommodate the additional double-track segments

Construct an additional station in the Wharton Brook area on the
former Pratt and Whitney property as development takes place

Provide new commuter rail parking in the new Meriden parking
structure to be built with downtown development plans in Meriden
REQUIRED EQUIPMENT FOR START-UP
The NHHS implementation study looked at two types of train
equipment that could be used on the new service—conventional
commuter rail equipment in the form of a locomotive and three
passenger cars and a set of three self-propelled rail cars known as Diesel
Multiple Units or DMUs. The study’s cost estimates for rail equipment
were based on an assumption of using the conventional rail equipment.
The study concluded that the amount of new equipment that would
be required would depend on which of two possible scenarios was
selected. In one scenario, the DOT and Amtrak would maintain separate
equipment pools. In the other, there would be a single combined
equipment pool (either DOT or Amtrak). In the separate pool scenario,
the study concluded that DOT would need six train sets plus two spare
sets and Amtrak would need three train sets plus one spare set for a
total of 12 sets of equipment. In the combined pool scenario, the
estimate was that a total of 10 train sets would be required (eight for the
service plus two spare sets).
A traditional train set on the service would use two types of cars—cab
cars and coaches. The cab car has an engineer’s compartment while the
coach does not. Using a cab car on the opposite end of the train from
the locomotive creates a “push-pull” configuration that allows the train to
operate in either direction without moving the locomotive to the other
end of the train when changing directions.
The study assumes an average cost of a coach of $1.37 million and an
average cost of a cab car of $1.87 million. The assumed cost range for a
diesel electric locomotive was from $2.8 million for a basic “no frills”
locomotive to $4.5 million for a high-end AC power locomotive. The
rolling stock cost estimate uses the $4.5 million cost for the locomotives.
August 22, 2008
Page 5 of 15
2008-R-0489
The cost estimate for new equipment required for the start-up service
is a total of $70,140,000 broken down as follows—$36 million for eight
locomotives at $4.5 million per unit; $19.18 million for 14 coaches at
$1.37 million per unit; and $14.96 million for eight cab cars at $1.87
million per unit.
The cost for a single three-car DMU set was estimated to be $6.8
million.
Each type of equipment has distinct advantages and disadvantages
for different types of service. DMUs or other types of self-propelled
equipment was estimated to be less expensive to purchase and maintain
than locomotive-hauled equipment and has some operating efficiency
advantages for the type of service being proposed for the NHHS line, but
equipment availability is less certain and operating experience is more
limited. The implementation plan states that “To be conservative, this
study has developed its operating plan using conventional commuter rail
equipment.” (p. 8-21)
THE PROPOSED MAINTENANCE FACILITY
One major element of the proposed project is construction of a
maintenance facility in the New Haven area for the rail equipment. The
implementation study discusses several possible locations for the facility
and estimates costs of land acquisition, construction, and possible
environmental clean-up at approximately $20.7 million. I believe that
the analysis for this aspect of the project was probably conducted
separately from any consideration being given for the new maintenance
facility proposed for servicing the new M-8 cars being purchased for the
Metro North service because the decision to make the large M-8 purchase
had not been made by the time the report was finalized. This aspect of
the project may require further consideration given the plans for the new
New Haven facility. It may be possible to accommodate the NHHS
equipment differently that contemplated in the implementation study.
PROJECTED RIDERSHIP
The implementation study identified the following four types of
passengers who might be attracted to the NHHS service.




Commuters accessing employment hubs in the three anchor cities
Intercity rail ridership to points off the corridor, specifically
connections to Amtrak service in New Haven and Springfield
Riders going to Bradley International Airport
Off-peak non-commuter and weekend users
August 22, 2008
Page 6 of 15
2008-R-0489
The primary tool for estimating ridership was the Connecticut DOT
Statewide Travel Model that is primarily a commuter model which uses
population and employment to calculate expected trips. While the
calculations for the Full Build scenario included additional modeling to
estimate off-peak and weekend potential ridership, the analysis for the
recommended action plan includes primarily peak hour service, plus
Amtrak mid-day and weekend service. Thus it is primarily commuter
ridership.
Based on the DOT model, the year 2025 projected daily commuter
ridership for the recommended plan was 2,208. This compared to 1,606
for the Minimum Build scenario and 3,440 for the Maximum Build
scenario. In addition to the projected commuter ridership, 10% was
added to account for non-commuter ridership. Thus the projected 2025
average daily ridership was 2,428 (2,208 commuters/220 off-peak
riders). Using the standard of 254 days of weekday service projected in
the plan, this equates to approximately 616,700 annual trips. These
would augment an estimated 616 daily trips being taken on Amtrak’s
Vermonter service.
To address concerns that the ridership projections might be too
conservative, additional analysis was performed using a DOT review of
the 2000 Census Journey to Work data for towns being served by the
Shore Line East (SLE) commuter service. DOT’s review indicated that the
SLE service capture rate of the potential commuter market is
approximately 5%, which is more than twice the projection from the
Statewide Travel Model for the NHHS service plan. While the study
states that the two systems are not directly comparable, it concluded
that the higher captured rate for SLE could be considered the higher end
of a range for the NHHS plan. While the study concluded that this
should be considered an optimistic figure, it resulted in a high end
estimate of 5,000 daily trips.
As noted above, the Statewide Travel Demand model uses population
and employment data to calculate expected trips. To my knowledge,
neither the expected fare structure nor the influence the price of gasoline
may have on travel choices are part of this model. However, as indicated
by the range of projected ridership based on the Minimum Build,
Maximum Build, and Recommended scenarios indicates, service
frequency is accounted for in the projections. Please note that the
ridership analysis was conducted primarily in 2004 (long before the
current run up in fuel prices).
August 22, 2008
Page 7 of 15
2008-R-0489
SUBSIDY NEEDS
The one-way fare schedule proposed for making revenue projections
was a range of $2.25 to $9.50. The monthly fare range was projected as
$51 to $210. This is based on a formula of $2.419 plus 14.6 cents per
mile over 10 miles rounded to the nearest 25 cents. The DOT developed
this fare structure, which is similar to the 2005 SLE fare structure.
Monthly fares were calculated at 50% of the one-way fares based on 42
trips per month. The assumption was made that commuters would all
use a monthly pass and non-commuters would pay a one-way fare.
Based on this fare structure and the 2,428 projected weekday trips,
the plan estimates daily revenue of $4,400. Annual revenue based on
254 days of weekday service was projected as $1,117,600 for the
recommended service plan. Annual operating costs based on using
conventional rolling stock were projected at $10.079 million, for a
farebox recovery ratio of 11%. The annual operating deficit was
calculated at $8.96 million; making the subsidy per passenger $14.53.
Annual operating costs for the connecting bus services proposed as
part of the implementation plan was estimated to be $3.8 million. The
2004 Connecticut Transit farebox recovery rate was applied to calculate
the annual operating deficit for these services. This was estimated as
$2.75 million annually.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The implementation plan projects the recommended action plan
capital costs to be a total of $291,259,000. However, you should be
aware that these costs resulted from estimates made primarily in 2004
and early 2005 and recent experience with cost escalations experienced
in the planning for major capital projects such as the New Haven harbor
crossing and the new rail car maintenance facility in New Haven suggest
that actual costs are likely to be higher than those projected in the
implementation plan.
The capital costs were broken down as follows.






$70,140,000 for train equipment
$20,696, 000 for the maintenance facility
$80,966, 000 for station construction and improvements
$33,235,000 for double track construction
$505,000 for bridge improvements
$2,500,00 for Amtrak flagmen
August 22, 2008
Page 8 of 15
2008-R-0489

$83,217,000 (40% additive) for contingencies
TOTAL COST $291,259,000
Capital costs for the bus connecting services recommended in the
implementation plan were estimated as $3.6 million.
The additional capital costs estimated in the implementation plan for
the future Full Build option are approximately $96.2 million. As noted
above, this includes full double tracking and a new station at Wharton
Brook.
OPERATING COSTS
The operating costs for the recommended start-up NHHS service were
calculated by multiplying the projected annual train miles for the startup service times (eight round trips per day) by a representative cost per
train mile. Annual train miles were estimated to be 251,968 not
counting movements necessary for maintenance purposes.
The cost per train mile was calculated using the SLE service as a
model. The analysts used SLE as a model because they felt it most
closely resembled how the NHHS service would operate. The estimate
was based on an average of the actual SLE costs per train mile for 1999,
2000, and 2001. This was calculated at $40 per train mile. Multiplying
this by 251,968 annual train miles yielded the annual costs of
$10,078,720.
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
The implementation plan contains a projected timeline for the various
stages of project implementation. The assumption made in the projected
timeline appears to be that actions would commence immediately
following publication of the implementation plan final report in June
2005. The timeline as originally envisioned called for completion of:





Environmental assessment by June 2006
Final design and property acquisition by April 2008
Equipment procurement by the end of 2009
All required construction by April of 2011
System testing by October 2011.
August 22, 2008
Page 9 of 15
2008-R-0489
Operations would presumably commence thereafter. Thus the
projected timeline shows a period of approximately five years and nine
months from the completion of the environmental assessment to the end
of system testing and beginning of operations.
These timeframes are clearly behind schedule as the DOT is currently
still in the environmental assessment phase of the project in mid-2008.
The aforementioned potential delay in this phase should EPA insist on
preparation of a full EIS makes it appear unlikely the project can be fully
implemented before late 2013 or 2014. One possible area where the
implementation timeline might potentially be compressed is in the area of
equipment procurement. The proposed timeline estimates a period of
three years for procurement of equipment—from January 2007 through
December 2009. Depending on the decisions that are made in this area,
there may be reason to believe that it would not take that long to acquire
the necessary equipment.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER APPROVALS
As you know, DOT has initiated the environmental assessment for the
project. The preliminary review of the potential environmental issues
contained in the implementation plan concluded that addition of the
double track sections was not expected to result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts since they would be within the existing
railroad right-of-way.
The primary environmental impacts are likely to be associated with
the station construction aspects of the project. However, the feasibility
study concluded that the adverse impacts were minor in nature, due
largely to the fact that it was located within an existing rail line and
avoided significant environmental recourses in placing the stations. The
study also notes that there are broad transportation benefits of the
project, it has substantial public support, and it is not expected to be
highly controversial.
The implementation study concludes that the magnitude of the
impacts identified through the preliminary analysis “indicate that
extensive and/or detailed impact studies at the level of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) would not be necessary for this project and that
an Environmental Assessment (EA) would adequately address the
project’s potential minor impacts.” (Final Report p. 8-5)
August 22, 2008
Page 10 of 15
2008-R-0489
This is perhaps why the implementation study’s proposed timeline for
the project allocates only 12 months for an environmental assessment
rather than 18 months to two years, which is typically the timeframe
required for a full EIS. However, as you know, there have recently been
published reports that the EPA intends to require a full EIS for the
project regardless. If this decision cannot be reversed, the environmental
analysis phase of the project would clearly become longer than
envisioned. But, as noted above, the implementation timeline is
relatively long and it might be possible to save time in other aspects of
the implementation process. For example, DOT may want to assess
whether it could shorten the period for rail equipment acquisition by
looking at acquiring existing rolling stock available from other sources,
such as it did when acquiring the VRE rail cars, rather than having the
equipment built new.
The following is a list of some of the possible, though not definitive,
environmental impacts associated with some of the station construction
the implementation study identified:

Potential 100-year floodplain impacts should be coordinated with
the Connecticut DEP at the State Street, Meriden, Newington,
Windsor, and Windsor Locks stations.

The State Street and the proposed North Haven stations are
located within the coastal boundary and thus subject to the
Connecticut Coastal Management Act.

The proposed improvements at the Berlin station on land with
farmland soils require review by the National Resources
Conservation Service

Possible wetlands impacts at the Windsor and Windsor Locks
stations must be further evaluated and, if they cannot be avoided,
construction will require an Inland Wetlands and Watercourses
permit from DEP and, possibly, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permit.

DEP’s Stream Channel Encroachment Lines list indicates that
encroachment lines exist all along the Connecticut River within
Windsor Locks. If construction impacts cannot be avoided, a DEP
Stream Channel Encroachment permit will be required.

Activities at the Wallingford, Berlin, Hartford, and Windsor Locks
stations, and at the proposed station areas in Newington and
Enfield, will have to be coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Office either because the stations are historic
August 22, 2008
Page 11 of 15
2008-R-0489
buildings (Wallingford and Hartford) or there are other historic
properties near or on the station sites. Additional environmental
documentation and mitigation activities may be required.

Due to their proximity to the Connecticut River, the report
recommends that the State Archeologist investigate the Windsor
and Windsor Locks sites as an archeologically sensitive area before
the ground is disturbed as required by the Section 106 regulations
of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
FUNDING
The NHHS commuter service proposal is designated by state law as
one of more than 25 strategic transportation projects and initiatives
(CGS § 13b-79p). These are generally referred to as “Tier 1”
transportation strategy projects. Another of the Tier 1 initiatives
authorizes use rehabilitation of rail passenger coaches for use on SLE,
NHHS, and the Metro North branch lines. Except in a few instances, the
law does not authorize specific amounts for these initiatives. Instead,
they are eligible for use of $1 billion in bond funding that was authorized
in 2006.
The implementation plan assumes a 90/10 split of capital costs
between Connecticut and Massachusetts. This is based largely on the
fact that 10% of the line is located in Massachusetts and 90% in
Connecticut. The plan assigns none of the costs for double tracking to
Massachusetts.
The division of operating costs between the two states would have to
be negotiated as part of a service agreement. The implementation plan
makes an initial recommendation of a 90/10 split, but this could also be
based on some criterion other than the relative track mileage.
Operating costs would likely be a state responsibility. There are
generally no sources of federal transportation funding for operating
expenses, although under certain conditions, the implementation plan
indicates that funding received under the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality program (CMAQ) may be available for some operating costs. The
plan projects an annual operating deficit of almost $9 million for the
start-up service, none of which is currently budgeted for in the DOT
operating budget. For the Full Build service alternative, the annual
operating deficit was estimated to be $44.7 million.
August 22, 2008
Page 12 of 15
2008-R-0489
As already mentioned, the NHHS project is already designated as
eligible for state bond funding. How much of the capital costs will have
to be funded through this source will have to be determined. As
indicated above, the capital cost estimate for the start-up service is
$291.26 million and, for the Full Build scenario, $387.4 million. There
are several sources of federal funds that could provide for some of the
capital costs, but they vary in terms of the state’s likely ability to access
them.
Some of the most significant possible sources of federal funding
identified in the implementation plan are summarized below.

FTA Section 5309 New Starts program—This is a large funding
program, but extremely competitive and it utilizes a travel demand
forecasting model to determine user benefits attributable to
projects that differs significantly from the model DOT uses. The
New Britain-Hartford Busway project is already a possible New
Starts funding candidate.

FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program—
Available federal funding is allocated by formula to all areas with
populations over 50,000. Funding is used for locally determined
capital projects and transportation-related planning.

FTA Section 5311 Non-urbanized Area Formula Grants
Program—Similar program for assistance for public transportation
in areas under 50,000.

Flexible Federal Highway Funding—Some of the federal funds
administered by the Federal Highway Administration and
apportioned to the state under certain programs (for example, the
Surface Transportation Program) can be transferred between
highway and transit projects based on state and regional priorities.
Flex funding designed for use in transit capital projects must
derive from priorities established in the metropolitan and statewide
planning process and must be included in the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program before they can be
transferred.

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF)
Program—The RRIF program is administered by the federal
Railroad Administration and provides loans and loan guarantees
for rail capital projects for things like acquiring, improving, or
rehabilitating intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including
August 22, 2008
Page 13 of 15
2008-R-0489
track, buildings, and shops; refinancing outstanding debt for these
purposes; and developing new intermodal or rail facilities. Eligible
borrowers can be railroads, state and local governments,
government-sponsored authorities or corporations, and joint
ventures that include at least one railroad.

TIFIA Financing—The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act of 1998 established a federal credit program
administered by the U.S. DOT that provides direct loans, loan
guarantees, and standby lines of credit for surface transportation
projects of national or regional significance. This includes transit
projects. A project’s eligible costs, as defined by federal regulation,
must be expected to total at least $100 million or, in the alternate,
be at least 50% of the state’s federal-aid highway apportionments
for the most recent fiscal year, whichever is less.
SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS OF THE PASSENGER RAIL
INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT Act
Congress is currently considering S 294 and HR 6003, known as the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. This is a multi-year
reauthorization and appropriations act for Amtrak and for other
rail purposes. The legislation is currently in conference committee.
Among its provisions is a section making certain findings regarding
public transportation generally and specifically with respect to public
transportation in Connecticut. It also makes a Sense of Congress
statement relating to the proposed NHHS project. The provision (Section
226) states:
“It is the Sense of the Congress that expanded commuter rail service
on the rail line between New Haven, Connecticut, and Springfield,
Massachusetts, is an important transportation priority, and Amtrak
should work cooperatively with the States of Connecticut and
Massachusetts to enable expanded commuter rail service on such line.”
The bill also requires Amtrak to submit a report to Congress and to
the two states’ transportation departments on the total cost of
uncompleted infrastructure maintenance on the New Haven-Springfield
line.
August 22, 2008
Page 14 of 15
2008-R-0489
While it is not clear what the full implications of this Sense of
Congress provision may be, designation of the expanded commuter
service proposal as an important transportation priority is likely to have
some significance with respect to the possibilities of some federal funding
for the project.
JF:ts
August 22, 2008
Page 15 of 15
2008-R-0489