GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 8, 2008 

The Honorable Joseph F. Markosek 

Majority Chairman 

Committee on Transportation 

Pennsylvania House of Representatives 

The Honorable Richard A. Geist 

Minority Chairman 

Committee on Transportation 

Pennsylvania House of Representatives 

Subject: Highway Public-Private Partnerships: More Rigorous Up-Front Analysis 

Could Better Secure Potential Benefits and Protect the Public Interest 

In February 2008, GAO released a report entitled Highway Public-Private 

Partnerships: More Rigorous Up-Front Analysis Could Better Secure Potential 

Benefits and Protect the Public Interest (GAO-08-44) that reviewed: (1) the benefits, 

costs, and trade-offs of highway public-private partnerships; (2) how public officials 

have identified and acted to protect the public interest in these arrangements; and (3) 

the federal role in highway public-private partnerships and potential changes in this 

role. 

The enclosed statement discusses these issues. If you or your staff have any 

questions, please contact Katherine A. Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Individuals making key 

contributions to this report were Phillip Herr (Director), Steve Cohen (Assistant 

Director), Carol Henn, Bert Japikse, Richard Jorgenson, and Matthew Rosenberg. 

Katherine A. Siggerud 

Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Enclosure 
Enclosure 

Mr. Chairmen and Members of the Committee: 

As you know, America’s transportation system is the essential element that facilitates 

the movement of both people and freight within the country. Nevertheless, the 

current federal approach to addressing the nation’s surface transportation problems 

is not working well. Despite large increases in expenditures in real terms for 

transportation, the investment has not commensurately improved the performance of 

the nation’s surface transportation system, as congestion continues to grow and 

looming problems from the anticipated growth in travel demand are not being 

adequately addressed. We have called for a fundamental reexamination of federal 

surface transportation policies, including creating well-defined goals based on 

identified areas of national interest, incorporating performance and accountability 

into funding decisions, and more clearly defining the role of the federal government 

as well as the roles of state and local governments, regional entities, and the private 

sector. 

The private sector has long been involved in surface transportation, as contractors in 

the design and construction of highways. In recent years, the private sector has 

become increasingly involved in assuming other responsibilities including planning, 

designing, and financing. Under some of these arrangements, the private sector is 

being looked to not only to construct facilities, but also to finance, maintain, and 

operate facilities under long-term concession agreements—up to 99 years in some 

cases. In some cases, this involves a constructing a new facility and operating and 

maintaining it. In other cases, this involves operating and maintaining an existing toll 

road and the right to collect tolls in exchange for an up-front payment provided to the 

public sector. 

In February 2008 we issued a report on public-private partnerships in the highway 

sector.1

 This statement is based on this report and focuses on (1) the benefits, costs, 

and tradeoffs to the public sector associated with highway public-private 

partnerships, (2) how public officials have acted to protect the public interest in 

highway public-private partnerships, and (3) the federal role in highway publicprivate partnerships. We did not review the potential concession of the Pennsylvania 

Turnpike as a part of this report and, therefore, are not providing views in this 

statement on the proposed public-private partnership involving this facility. We 

performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives.

 1

GAO, Highway Public-Private Partnerships: More Rigorous Up-front Analysis Could Better Secure 

Potential Benefits and Protect the Public Interest, GAO-08-44 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 8, 2008).

Page 2 GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships
Enclosure 

We limited the term “highway public-private partnerships” to highway-related 

projects in which the public sector enters into a contract, lease, or concession 

agreement with a private sector firm or firms, and where the private sector provides 

transportation services such as designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining 

the facility, usually for an extended period of time. This definition included long-term 

concessions for toll roads in which the private sector firm(s) receives some or all toll 

revenues over the life of the lease or concession agreement with the public sector. 

There are numerous other types of arrangements classified as “public-private 

partnerships” that we did not include. For example, we did not include fee-for-service 

arrangements in which effective ownership of a transportation facility does not 

transfer to the private sector. We also recognize that there may be other forms of 

highway public-private partnerships. We did not include these types of public-private 

partnerships in the scope of our work, and the findings and conclusions of our work 

cannot be extrapolated to those or other types of public-private partnerships. 

In summary: 

• Highway public-private partnerships have the potential to provide numerous 

benefits to the public sector as well as potential costs and trade-offs. Highway 

public-private partnerships created to date have resulted in advantages from the 

perspective of state and local governments, such as the construction of new 

infrastructure without using public funding and obtaining funds by extracting 

value from existing facilities for reinvestment in transportation and other public 

programs. The public can potentially obtain other benefits, such as sharing risks 

with the private sector, more efficient operations and management of facilities, 

and, through the use of tolling, increased mobility and more cost effective 

investment decisions. There are also potential costs and trade-offs—there is no

“free” money in public-private partnerships—they are potentially more costly to 

the public and it is likely that tolls on a privately operated highway will increase to 

a greater extent than they would on a publicly operated toll road. There is also

the risk of tolls being set that exceed the costs of the facility, including a 

reasonable rate of return, should a private concessionaire gain market power 

because of the lack of viable travel alternatives. By leasing existing facilities, the 

public sector may give up more than it gains if the net present value of the future 

stream of revenues (less operating and capital costs) given up exceeds the 

concession payment received. Additionally, because large up-front concession

payments have in part been used to fund immediate needs, it remains to be seen 

whether these agreements will provide long-term benefits to future generations

who will potentially be paying progressively higher toll rates throughout the 

length of a concession agreement. 

• Highway public-private partnerships we have reviewed sought to protect the 

public interest in many ways, largely through concession agreement terms 

prescribing performance and other standards. While these protections are 

important, governments in other countries, including Australia and the United 

Kingdom, have developed systematic approaches to identifying and evaluating

public interest before agreements are entered into, including the use of public 

Page 3 GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships
Enclosure 

interest criteria, as well as assessment tools, and require their use when 

considering private investments in public infrastructure. For example, a state 

government in Australia uses a public interest test to determine how the public 

interest would be affected in eight specific areas, including whether the views and 

rights of affected communities have been heard and protected and whether the 

process is sufficiently transparent. While similar tools have been used to some 

extent in the United States, their use has been more limited. Using up-front public 

interest analysis tools can also assist public agencies in determining the expected 

benefits and costs of a project and an appropriate means to deliver the project. 

Not using such tools may lead to certain aspects of protecting public interest 

being overlooked. 

• Direct federal involvement in highway public-private partnerships has generally 

been limited to projects in which federal requirements must be followed because 

federal funds have or will be used. While direct federal involvement has been 

limited, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has done much to 

promote highway public-private partnerships, but comparatively little either to

assist states and localities in weighing potential costs and trade-offs, or to assess 

how potentially important national interests might be protected in such 

arrangements. Given the minimal federal funding in highway public-private 

partnerships to date, little consideration has been given to potential national 

public interests in them. Highway public-private partnerships may pose national 

public interest implications such as interstate commerce that transcend whether 

there is direct federal investment in a project. GAO has called for a fundamental 

reexamination of federal programs to address emerging needs and test the 

relevance of existing policies. Such a reexamination provides an opportunity to 

identify emerging national public interests, the role of the highway public-private 

partnerships in supporting and furthering those national interests, and how best 

to identify and protect national public interests in future public-private 

partnerships. We believe DOT has the opportunity to play a targeted role in 

ensuring that national interests are considered, as appropriate and have 

recommended that Congress direct the Secretary of Transportation to develop 

and submit objective criteria for identifying national public interests in highway 

public-private partnerships, including any additional legal authority, guidance, or 

assessment tools that would be appropriately required. We recognize this is no 

easy task--any potential federal restrictions on highway public-private 

partnerships must be carefully crafted to avoid undermining the potential benefits 

that can be achieved. 

Highway Public-Private Partnerships Can Potentially Provide Benefits But 

Also Entail Costs, Risks, And Trade-Offs 

Highway public-private partnerships have the potential to provide numerous benefits 

to the public sector. There are also potential costs and trade-offs. 

Page 4 GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships
Enclosure 

Potential Benefits

Highway public-private partnerships created to date have resulted in advantages from 

the perspective of state and local governments, such as the construction of new 

infrastructure without using public funding and obtaining funds by extracting value 

from existing facilities for reinvestment in transportation and other public programs. 

For example, the state of Indiana received $3.8 billion from leasing the Indiana Toll 

Road and used those proceeds to fund a 10-year statewide transportation plan. As we 

reported in 2004, by relying on private sector sponsorship and investment to build 

roads rather than financing the construction themselves, states (1) conserve funding 

from their highway capital improvement programs for other projects, (2) avoid the 

up-front costs of borrowing needed to bridge the gap until toll collections became 

sufficient to pay for the cost of building the roads and paying the interest on the 

borrowed funds, and (3) avoid the legislative or administrative limits that govern the 

amount of outstanding debt these states are allowed to have.2

 All of these results are 

advantages for the states. 

 

In addition to advantages from the perspective of state and local governments, 

highway public-private partnerships potentially provide other benefits, including the 

transfer or sharing of project risks to the private sector. Such risks include those 

associated with construction costs and schedules and having sufficient levels of

traffic and revenues to be financially viable. Various government officials told us that 

because the private sector more reliably analyzes its costs, revenues, and risks 

throughout the life cycle of a project and adheres to scheduled toll increases, it is 

able to accept large amounts of risk at the outset of a project, although the private 

sector prices all project risks and bases its final bid proposal, in part, on the level of 

risk involved. In addition, the public sector can potentially benefit from increased 

efficiencies in operations and life-cycle management, such as increased use of 

innovative technologies. 

Highway public-private partnerships can also potentially provide mobility and other 

benefits to the public sector, through the use of tolling. The highway public-private 

partnerships we reviewed all involved toll roads. These benefits include better 

pricing of infrastructure to reflect the true costs of operating and maintaining the 

facility and thus improved condition and performance of public infrastructure, as 

well as the potential for more cost effective investment decisions by private 

investors. In addition, through congestion pricing, tolls can be set to vary during 

congested periods to maintain a predetermined level of service, creating incentives 

for drivers to consider costs when making their driving decisions, and potentially 

reducing the demand for roads during peak hours. 

Potential Costs, Risks, And Trade-Offs 

 2

GAO, Highways and Transit: Private Sector Sponsorship of and Investment in Major Projects Has 

Been Limited, GAO-04-419 (Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2004).

 

Page 5 GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships
Enclosure 

Although highway public-private partnerships can be used to obtain financing for 

highway infrastructure without the use of public sector funding, there is no “free 

money” in highway public-private partnerships. Rather, this funding is a form of 

privately issued debt that must be repaid. Private concessionaires primarily make a 

return on their investment by collecting toll revenues. Though concession agreements 

can limit the extent to which a concessionaire can raise tolls, it is likely that tolls will 

increase on a privately operated highway to a greater extent than they would on a 

publicly run toll road. Tolls are generally set in accordance with concession 

agreements and, in contrast to public sector practices; allowable toll increases can be 

frequent and automatic. The public sector may lose control over its ability to 

influence toll rates, and there is also the risk of tolls being set that exceed the costs of 

the facility, including a reasonable rate of return if, for example, a private 

concessionaire gains market power because of the lack of viable travel alternatives. 

In addition, highway public-private partnerships also potentially require additional 

costs to the public sector compared with traditional public procurement, including 

the costs associated with (1) required financial and legal advisors, and (2) private 

sector financing compared with public sector financing. 

In addition to potentially higher tolls, the public sector may give up more than it 

receives in a concession payment in using a highway public-private partnership with 

a focus on extracting value from an existing facility. In exchange for an up-front 

concession payment, the public sector gives up control over a future stream of toll 

revenues over an extended period of time, such as 75 or 99 years. It is possible that 

the net present value of the future stream of toll revenues (less operating and capital 

costs) given up can be much larger than the concession payment received. 

Concession payments could potentially be less than they could or should be. 

Conversely, because the private sector takes on substantial risks, the opposite could 

also be true—that is, the public sector might gain more than it gives up. 

Using a highway public-private partnership to extract value from an existing facility 

also raises issues about the use of those proceeds and whether future users might 

potentially pay higher tolls to support current benefits. In some instances, up-front 

payments have been used for immediate needs, and it remains to be seen whether 

these uses provide long-term benefits to future generations who will potentially be 

paying progressively higher toll rates to the private sector throughout the length of a 

concession agreement. Both Chicago and Indiana used their lease fees, in part, to 

fund immediate financial needs -- both also established long-term reserves from the 

lease proceeds. Conversely, proceeds from the lease of Highway 407 ETR in Toronto, 

Canada, went into the province’s general revenue fund. 

Page 6 GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships
Enclosure 

Highway Public-Private Partnerships Have Sought To Protect Public Interest 

In Many Ways, But Use Of Public Interest Criteria Is Mixed In The United 

States 

The public interest in highway public-private partnerships can and has been 

considered and protected in many ways. State and local officials in the projects we 

reviewed heavily relied on concession terms. Most often, these terms were focused 

on, among other things, ensuring performance of the asset, dealing with financial 

issues, and maintaining the public sector’s accountability and flexibility. Included in 

the protections we found in agreements we reviewed were: 

• Operating and maintenance standards: These standards put in place to ensure 

that the performance of the asset is upheld to high safety, maintenance, and 

operational standards and can be expanded when necessary. For example, based 

on documents we reviewed, the standards on the Indiana Toll Road detail require 

the concessionaire to maintain the road’s condition, utility, and level of safety 

including a wide range of roadway issues, such as signage, use of safety features 

such as barrier walls, snow and ice removal, and the level of pavement 

smoothness that must be maintained. 

• Expansion trigger requirements: These triggers require that a concessionaire 

expand a facility once congestion reaches a certain level. Some agreements can

be based on forecasts. For example, on the Indiana Toll Road, when service is 

forecasted to fall below certain levels within 7 years, the concessionaire must act 

to improve service, such as by adding additional capacity at its own cost. 

• Revenue-sharing mechanisms: These mechanisms require a concessionaire to 

share some level of revenues with the public sector. For example, on one Texas 

project, if the annual return on investment of the private concessionaire is at or

below 11 percent, then the state could share in 5 percent of all revenues. If it is 

over 15 percent, the state could receive as much as 50 percent of the net revenues. 

While these protections are important, governments in other countries, including 

Australia and the United Kingdom, have developed systematic approaches to 

identifying and evaluating public interest before agreements are entered into, 

including the use of public interest criteria, as well as assessment tools, and require 

their use when considering private investments in public infrastructure. These tools 

include the use of qualitative public interest tests and criteria to consider when 

entering into public-private partnerships. For example, a state government in 

Australia uses a public interest test to determine how the public interest would be

affected in eight specific areas, including whether the views and rights of affected 

communities have been heard and protected and whether the process is sufficiently 

transparent. These tools also include quantitative tests such as Value for Money and 

public sector comparators, which are used to evaluate if entering into a project as a 

public-private partnership is the best procurement option available. 

Page 7 GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships
Enclosure 

While similar tools have been used to some extent in the United States, their use has 

been more limited. For example, Oregon hired a consultant to develop public sector 

comparators to compare the estimated costs of a proposed highway public-private 

partnership with a model of the public sector’s undertaking the project. While this 

study was conducted before the project was put out for official concession, it was 

prepared after substantial early development work was done by private partners. 

Neither Chicago nor Indiana had developed public interest tests or other tools prior 

to the leasing of the Chicago Skyway or the Indiana Toll Road. Using up-front public 

interest analysis tools can also assist public agencies in determining the expected 

benefits and costs of a project and an appropriate means to undergo the project. Not 

using such tools may lead to certain aspects of protecting public interest being 

overlooked. For example, concerns by local and regional governments in Texas 

resulted in statewide legislation requiring the state to involve local and regional 

governments to a greater extent in future highway public-private partnerships. 

Elsewhere, in Toronto, Canada, the lack of a transparency about the toll rate 

structure and misunderstanding about the toll structure of the 407 ETR facility was a 

major factor in significant opposition to the project. 

Direct Federal Involvement With Highway Public-Private Partnerships Has 

Generally Been Limited, But Identification Of National Interests In Highway 

Public-Private Partnerships Has Been Lacking 

Direct federal involvement in highway public-private partnerships has generally been 

limited to projects in which federal requirements must be followed because federal 

funds have or will be used. However, minimal federal funding has been used in 

highway public-private partnerships to date. While direct federal involvement has 

been limited, the administration and the DOT have actively promoted highway publicprivate partnerships through policies and practices, including the development of 

experimental programs that waive certain federal regulations and encourage private 

investment. For example, until August 2007, federal regulations did not allow private 

contractors to be involved in highway contracts with a state department of 

transportation until after the federally mandated environmental review process had 

been completed. Texas applied for a waiver to allow its private contractor to start 

drafting a comprehensive development plan to guide decisions about the future of the 

corridor before its federal environmental review was complete. These flexibilities 

were pivotal to allowing highway public-private partnership arrangements in both 

Texas and Oregon to go forward while remaining eligible for federal funds. FHWA 

and DOT also promote highway public-private partnerships by developing 

publications to educate state transportation officials about highway public-private 

partnerships and to promote their use, drafting model legislation for states to 

consider to enable highway public-private partnerships in their states, creating a 

public-private partnership Internet Web site, and making tolling a key component of 

DOT’s congestion mitigation initiatives. 

Recent highway public-private partnerships have involved sizable investments of 

funds and significant facilities and could pose national public interest implications 

such as interstate commerce that may transcend whether there is direct federal 

Page 8 GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships
Enclosure 

investment in a project. For example, both the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll 

Road are part of the Interstate Highway System; the Indiana Toll Road is part of the 

most direct highway route between Chicago and New York City and, according to one 

study, over 60 percent of its traffic is interstate in nature. However, federal officials 

had little involvement in reviewing the terms of either of these concession 

agreements before they were signed. In the case of Indiana, minimal federal funds 

were used to construct the toll road, and those funds were repaid to the federal 

government. FHWA played no role in reviewing either the lease or national public 

interests associated with leasing the highway, such as potential impacts on interstate 

commerce, nor did it require the state of Indiana to review these interests. Texas 

envisions constructing new international border crossings and freight corridors, 

which may greatly facilitate North American Free Trade Agreement-related truck 

traffic to other states. However, no federal funding has been expended in the 

development of the project to date. Given the minimal federal funding in highway 

public-private partnerships to date, few mechanisms exist to consider potential 

national public interests in them. For example, FHWA officials told us that no federal 

definition of public interest or federal guidance on identifying and evaluating public 

interest exists. 

The absence of a clear identification and furtherance of national public interests in 

the national transportation system is not unique to highway public-private 

partnerships. We have called for a fundamental reexamination of our surface 

transportation policies, including creating well-defined goals based on identified

areas of national interest, incorporating performance and accountability into funding 

decisions, and more clearly defining the role of the federal government as well as the 

roles of state and local governments, regional entities, and the private sector. Such a 

reexamination provides an opportunity to identify emerging national public interests, 

the role of the highway public-private partnerships in supporting and furthering those 

national interests, and how best to identify and protect national public interests in 

future public-private partnerships. 

Concluding Observations 

Highway public-private partnerships show promise as a viable alternative, where 

appropriate, to help meet growing and costly transportation demands. The public 

sector can acquire new infrastructure or extract value from existing infrastructure 

while potentially sharing with the private sector the risks associated with designing, 

constructing, operating, and maintaining public infrastructure. However, highway 

public-private partnerships are not a panacea for meeting all transportation system 

demands, nor are they without potentially substantial costs and risks to the public—

both financial and nonfinancial—and trade-offs must be made. 

Highway public-private partnerships are fairly new in the United States, and although 

they are meant to serve the public interest, it is difficult to be confident that these 

interests are being protected when formal identification and consideration of public 

and national interests has been lacking, and where limited up-front analysis of public 

interest issues using established criteria has been conducted. Consideration of 

Page 9 GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships
Enclosure 

highway public-private partnerships could benefit from more consistent, rigorous, 

systematic, upfront analysis. Benefits are potential benefits—that is, they are not 

assured and can only be achieved by weighing them against potential costs and tradeoffs through careful, comprehensive analysis to determine whether public-private 

partnerships are appropriate in specific circumstances and, if so, how best to 

implement them. 

Despite the need for careful analysis, the approach at the federal level has not been 

fully balanced, as DOT has done much to promote the benefits, but comparatively 

little either to assist states and localities weigh potential costs and trade-offs, or to 

assess how potentially important national interests might be protected in highway 

public-private partnerships. We have recommended that the U.S. Congress direct the 

Secretary of Transportation to develop and submit objective criteria for identifying 

national public interests in highway public-private partnerships, including any 

additional legal authority, guidance, or assessment tools that would be appropriately 

required. We are pleased to note that in a recent testimony before the U.S. House of 

Representatives, the Secretary indicated a willingness to begin developing such 

criteria. This is no easy task, however. The recent report by the National Surface 

Transportation and Revenue Study Commission illustrates the challenges of 

identifying national public interests as the Policy Commission’s recommendations for 

future restrictions—including limiting allowable toll increases and requiring 

concessionaires to share revenues with the public sector—stood in sharp contrast to 

the dissenting views of three commissioners.3

 We believe any potential federal 

restrictions on highway public-private partnerships must be carefully crafted to avoid 

undermining the potential benefits that can be achieved. Reexamining the federal 

role in transportation provides an opportunity for the U.S. DOT, we believe, to play a 

targeted role in ensuring that national interests are considered, as appropriate. 

(546010)

 3

Transportation for Tomorrow, National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 

Commission, Dec. 2007. 

Page 10 GAO-08-1149R Highway Public-Private Partnerships
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER