CTA Case No. 2678 (Decision)

tl' �� r P I ' " ' I~ Cvlu. l t'..o Lcl Ql.l U.1. CITY - r .... '' . w, ,. � 11\ r -� ~. _1 � .... ?. ' ..$ d 549

- .. . .7:' i l l i s. t . ��P't" 1 l _6t, � ""'"! �1c , t 0 .o 550

-- c. 1 � rt,o rt . .... - r 4 1 19'""~ 1: ttf ~ed i t -J, s Re' J ~f' "'""" II tL e� 0 d (llt!fl." ~ 1 th1iJ ~;U11 P.P tr� 1 551

-"" nt t � In 1� l � ., 552

.. l t "(l '1 .1 t ). 't...T... t~ ) , fl. l .. hil - 553

. -- 0 8 tn p or h f'!i or -.1 flM it i th 1?- ne e r (l) the v 1. 0 1 s do ,o� ., .t ~ b so itn 0 , f d l" cu � tcm t ' .. t 11, 1 77. /7 ....t~ rth'-r<,f"''f:- : c{ -~c~ 111. OOicd';.;. 55 :j