ࡱ> 5@ bjbj22 `iXX . $ppppTXTXTX4Y<pZp@[^v^^^e8ggP$Rpv}c"c0v}v}xx^^B͹v}x^p^v}"܅RTp^4[ `ΜW;TXNT n$0ʧ<$X $ XxxpV$hnsw$h$h$hpp@TXppTXDriving While Disqualified in Saskatchewan Report to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Canada July 2006   Driving while Disqualified in Saskatchewan Prepared for: Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Canada Project No: 62-750007 Prepared by: Jeff Suggett, M. Sc. Manager, Special Projects Final Report July 2006 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. wishes to acknowledge the contribution by Saskatchewan Government Insurance in providing the data that made this study possible. David Koch created the data set that allowed the research questions raised in this report to be answered. Editorial comments, insight into SGIs licensing system, and suggestions on presentation were provided by Kwei Quaye, David Koch and Gary Kraft. Funding for this study was provided by MADD Canada in conjunction with Transport Canada. Table of Contents  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477795" 1.0 INTRODUCTION  PAGEREF _Toc140477795 \h 1  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477796" 1.1 Scope of study  PAGEREF _Toc140477796 \h 2  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477797" 1.2 Organization of report  PAGEREF _Toc140477797 \h 2  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477798" 2.0 CRASH INVOLVEMENT OF UNLICENSED FIRST OFFENDERS  PAGEREF _Toc140477798 \h 3  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477799" 2.1 Crashes involving unlicensed first offenders  PAGEREF _Toc140477799 \h 4  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477800" 2.2 At-fault crashes involving unlicensed first offenders  PAGEREF _Toc140477800 \h 6  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477801" 2.3 Comparison with overall crash trends  PAGEREF _Toc140477801 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477802" 2.4 Concluding remarks  PAGEREF _Toc140477802 \h 8  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477803" 3.0 EVIDENCE OF DRIVING WHILE UNLICENSED  PAGEREF _Toc140477803 \h 10  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477804" 3.1 Methodology used in this study  PAGEREF _Toc140477804 \h 11  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477805" 3.2 Driving while unlicensed  PAGEREF _Toc140477805 \h 12  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477806" 3.3 Driving while licence disqualified  PAGEREF _Toc140477806 \h 14  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477807" 3.4 Concluding remarks  PAGEREF _Toc140477807 \h 16  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477808" 4.0 HIGH RISK OFFENDERS  PAGEREF _Toc140477808 \h 18  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477809" 5.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS  PAGEREF _Toc140477809 \h 21  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477810" 5.1 Conclusions  PAGEREF _Toc140477810 \h 21  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477811" 5.2 Past measures  PAGEREF _Toc140477811 \h 22  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477812" 5.3 Recommendations to SGI  PAGEREF _Toc140477812 \h 24  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc140477813" 5.4 Further research  PAGEREF _Toc140477813 \h 26  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MADD Canada (in partnership with Transport Canada) has funded a study examining evidence of drivers driving while disqualified in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), a Crown corporation responsible for driver and vehicle licensing and the Provinces compulsory automobile insurance program, provided Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. (Synectics) with a comprehensive data set that allowed them to examine trends in disqualifications and driver response to these safe driving measures. This report is the second of two reports examining disqualified first-time Criminal Code (CCC) offenders in Saskatchewan, hereafter referred to as first offenders. Multiple offenders were not included in this study. The previous report, titled Trends in First-Time Licence Disqualifications in Saskatchewan, examined the detailed driving histories of first offenders identifying whether they were completing relicensing requirements and reasons why there was a delay in relicensing (past their eligibility date). This follow up study had two primary purposes. The first purpose was to determine the crash involvement of first offenders during the period they were unlicensed (either during their initial disqualification period or subsequently as a result of an administrative suspension). The second purpose of this study was to examine evidence of first offenders driving during the period they were unlicensed. Crash involvement was examined first for the period 1995 to 2004. The data set provided to Synectics contained information regarding claims made as a result of a crash and whether or not they were considered to be at fault in the crash. While the crash involvement of unlicensed first offenders is relatively small in absolute numbers, the numbers clearly suggest that some of them are continuing to drive and causing crashes. They are also at a higher risk of causing a crash than a typical Saskatchewan driver. Unlicensed first offenders were 1.42 times as likely to be at fault in a crash. This finding lends further credence to the findings of previous research conducted in the United States that clearly demonstrates that unlicensed drivers are a high risk group in terms of fatal crash involvement. At fault crashes involving unlicensed first offenders (expressed as a rate per unlicensed first offender) were also examined. Each year approximately one out of every hundred first offenders are involved in an at fault crash sometime during the period they were unlicensed. Actual crash totals are likely higher in that some first offenders may have fled the scene of the crash or were involved in a single motor vehicle crash that was never reported to SGI. More broadly, the study examined the driving history of first offenders in order to identify evidence of driving while unlicensed. The unlicensed first offender was considered to be driving if they either were involved in a crash, reoffended, committed a traffic offence (under the Highway Traffic Act), or received an administrative suspension for drinking and driving. It should be emphasized that these are the individuals who were caught. Based on more direct methods of observation undertaken in studies undertaken elsewhere, it is likely that the actual number of first offenders driving unlicensed is substantially higher. Legislation that was introduced on August 1, 1996 was used as the basis for assessing changes in the yearly proportion of first offenders showing evidence of driving. This legislation would have affected first offenders with full privilege eligibility dates starting in the following year (1997). First offenders with eligibility dates in the post-1997 period were more likely to show evidence of driving while unlicensed or during their initial disqualification period. Approximately one in five of the first offenders driving histories suggested that they drove on at least one occasion while they were unlicensed in the post-1997 period. Similarly, one in ten of the first offenders driving histories suggest that they drove on at least one occasion during their initial disqualification in the post-1997 period. First offenders with post-1997 eligibility dates were 1.55 times as likely to show evidence of driving during their disqualification period as compared to those with pre-1997 eligibility dates. Groups that have a higher risk of driving while disqualified (showing evidence of driving during their disqualification period) were those who show no sign of participating in addiction screening; these first offenders were referred to addiction screening but never had a follow-up referral to the education or treatment component of the program. These individuals were 2.36 times as likely to show evidence of driving during their disqualification period. Other groups having a higher risk of driving while disqualified were: First offenders who had a conviction for an offence not directly related to alcohol; Youth (aged 20 years or younger); and Younger adults (aged 21 45 years). The findings of this study indicate that some first offenders are still driving and as a result are getting involved in crashes. First offenders who continue to drive have been shown to be at a higher risk of getting involved in a crash. A wide array of treatments has been presented in this report that will discourage first offenders from driving unlicensed and subsequently improve safety on Saskatchewan roads (by reducing the number of crashes). Specific treatments recommended as an outcome of this study are: Reintroducing the requirement that autobody shops not carry out repairs exceeding $1000 on a vehicle if there is no indication that the crash has been reported to the police; A more aggressive approach to vehicle impoundment for all unlicensed drivers showing clear evidence of driving as indicated in their licence history; Following up with individuals failing to attend their initial addiction screening session in a timely fashion; Encouraging police services to distribute to field staff the names of all unlicensed drivers, their vehicle ownership and licence information; Increasing the statutory authority of the police to stop and demand personal identification and licence information; and Targeting of individuals at a higher risk of driving unlicensed through periodic sweeps of their place of residence to determine if the individual is driving. INTRODUCTION MADD Canada (in partnership with Transport Canada) has funded a study examining evidence of drivers driving while disqualified in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), a Crown corporation responsible for driver and vehicle licensing and the Provinces compulsory automobile insurance program, provided Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. (Synectics) with a comprehensive data set that allowed them to examine trends in disqualifications and driver response to these safe driving measures. This report is the second of two reports examining first offenders in Saskatchewan. The previous report, titled Trends in First-Time Licence Disqualifications in Saskatchewan, examined the detailed driving histories of first offenders identifying whether they were completing relicensing requirements and reasons why there was a delay in relicensing (past their eligibility date). This follow up study had two primary purposes. The first purpose was to determine the crash involvement of first offenders during the period they were unlicensed (either during their initial disqualification period or subsequently as a result of an administrative suspension). The second purpose of this study was to examine evidence of first offenders driving during the period they were unlicensed. Offenders included in the study met the following criteria: The offender was convicted of a first offence under the Criminal Code; The offender would have been eligible for a licence on or after January 1, 1993 or before January 1, 2006; The offender was a resident of Saskatchewan at the time of the offence; The offender did not have other CCC convictions on the first conviction date; and There was no appeal activity related to the conviction. For the purposes of this study, the above group of offenders will herein be referred to as first offenders. Further information on the characteristics of the first offenders and the development of the dataset is presented in the previous report. Scope of study This study will examine first offenders in Saskatchewan to identify: Overall and at fault crash involvement; Differences in first offender and overall crash trends; Evidence of first offenders driving while unlicensed/during the disqualification period; and First offender groups more likely to be driving while disqualified. The data set represents the driving histories of the 34,861 first offenders at the time of the data extraction (February 2nd, 2006). All codes referring to events taking place on or after this date would not be included in the data set. Organization of report This report is divided into five sections. Section 1.0 describes the overall scope of the study. Section 2.0 describes the overall and at fault crash involvement of first offenders. Section 3.0 presents evidence of first offenders driving unlicensed and during their disqualification period. Section 4.0 discusses which first offenders were most likely to show evidence of driving during their disqualification period. Section 5.0 presents some concluding remarks and recommendations for SGI. A list of references is located at the end of this report. CRASH INVOLVEMENT OF UNLICENSED FIRST OFFENDERS The data set provided to Synectics indicated any reported crashes occurring during the period the first offender was unlicensed, either during their disqualification period or a subsequent suspension period (e.g. as a result of unpaid fines, failure to complete remedial measures program requirements). Since all of the crashes occurred during the period in time in which the first offender was unlicensed, all of the crashes could have been avoided. There is little previous research detailing the crash involvement of unlicensed drivers or whether they were at fault (compared to the other driver). A cursory review of the literature found the following. A 1993 study by Saskatchewan Government Insurance examining fatal crashes occurring in Saskatchewan during the years 1989 to 1991 found that compared to Saskatchewan drivers in general, drivers in fatal crashes were 5.5 times as likely to have a prior impaired driving CCC conviction, 22 times as likely to have a prior driving while disqualified CCC conviction, and 35 times as likely to have a prior other Criminal Code conviction. Further, the likelihood that drivers in fatal crashes had been convicted previously of impaired driving, driving while disqualified or other Criminal Code offences, increased with increasing level of impairment of the driver in the crash (Koch and Medgyesi 1993). A study by Malenfant et al (2002) suggests that unlicensed drivers in New Brunswick were twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash compared to licensed drivers. A 1997 California study by DeYoung et al estimated that drivers with a suspended or revoked licence were 3.7 times as likely to be involved in a fatal crash than licensed drivers. One of the most significant studies undertaken was a review of Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data in a study funded by the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety. Griffin et al 2000 reported that 20 percent of all fatal crashes in the United States involve at least one driver who was suspended or did not otherwise have a valid license. These drivers were: 1.42 times as likely to be under 40 years of age; 1.19 times as likely to be male; 2.84 times as likely to be driving while intoxicated; and 4.63 times as likely to be a hit and run driver. It should be stressed that these previous study examined the crash histories of all unlicensed drivers while this study only examines the crash histories of a subgroup of unlicensed drivers meeting the criteria specified in Section 1.0 of this report (first offenders). Crashes involving unlicensed first offenders The data set provided to Synectics contains information regarding claims made as a result of a crash involving an unlicensed first offender. The claims data indicates the date of the crash (the loss date) and whether the first offender was at fault. Other details (i.e. number of parties involved, events leading up to the crash, the driver action(s) and condition(s) and outcome) were not provided to Synectics. The results therefore cannot be compared to the results of previous research (that specifically examined fatal crashes). Crash claims are recorded within a drivers history if vehicle damage exceeded $305. According to the Automobile Accident Insurance Act, the driver (or drivers) are required to report the crash to SGI. Claims may be reported to SGI as a result of a crash occurring both within or outside of the province and would include claims involving their own vehicle or a rented vehicle. Parties involved in a crash are required to report the incident to the police if an injury (or death) occurred, alcohol was involved, or one or more vehicles had to be towed, according to the Highway Traffic Act. At police attended crashes, driver information is recorded by the police officer and forwarded to SGI. At multi-vehicle accidents that are not police attended, typically the parties involved will share information and will each report the crash to SGI. Should an unlicensed first offender fail to report the accident, typically SGI (by means of the other involved party) will learn of their involvement and will follow up with a letter requesting that they report the crash and pay for the damages. SGI will update the unlicensed first offenders driving history at that time. If the unlicensed first offender refuses to pay the damages, their license is suspended indefinitely until such time that they either pay the full costs, or agree to pay in agreed upon monthly installments. If the crash was attended by police and the first offender was identified as being unlicensed, it is likely that they will be charged with driving while disqualified. At police attended crashes, police may impound the vehicle for 30 or 60 days (depending on whether it was the first or second time the individual was caught driving while unlicensed). Possible instances in which an unlicensed first offender could be involved in a crash that is not reported to SGI would be: An crash where the first offender did not remain at the scene (hit and run) and the police failed to apprehend them; or A single motor vehicle crash in which the first offender paid for their own repairs or abandoned the vehicle. In the past, when vehicle damages as a result of either of the above occurred were such that the first offender was required to have significant repairs done exceeding $1000, the repairs could only be made if a police sticker was present on the vehicle. Police would perform random checks of auto body shops to verify that police stickers were present on all vehicles having damage exceeding $1000 (according to the auto body shop estimate). If vehicle with damages exceeding $1000 was found with no police sticker, both the owner of the auto body and the vehicle owner were charged. Based on the above, there is a possibility that an unlicensed first offender could conceal a crash from SGI. The records shown in this report can be assumed to be essentially complete for all crashes in which a vehicle was towed, an injury or death resulted or the first offender was clearly intoxicated, as these crashes were attended by the police. The reporting of crashes not meeting this criteria are likely incomplete, given the possibility of a first offender fleeing the scene of the accident or otherwise concealing its occurrence from SGI. At-fault crashes involving unlicensed first offenders When a crash is reported to SGI (either by the other involved party or the first offender), determination of fault is investigated by a claims adjuster. The claims adjuster will determine who is responsible (at-fault) by interviewing each party involved in order to determine the events leading up to the crash. A driver is considered at fault if they were determined to be 50 percent or more responsible. The Highway Traffic Act is used as a guide in determining who is at fault, not the drivers previous history or license status. In some instances, two parties may be deemed to be at fault. An example of how a claims adjuster would determine who is at fault would be their review of the (Motor Vehicle Accident) MVA form that is completed by the police at police attended accidents. If according to the police, Driver 1 ran a red light and struck Driver 2, Driver 1 would be at fault. In single motor vehicle crashes, typically the driver is determined to be at fault, unless there were some unusual circumstances (e.g. black ice). Drivers determined to be at fault in a crash have an opportunity to appeal. SGI began assigning fault to crashes occurring in 1995 onwards. While crash records are available prior to 1995, there is no determination of fault. Crash totals in 2005 and afterwards do not appear to be complete due to the lag between the occurrence of the crash and the updating of the first offenders licence history. Therefore, the following discussion only presents crash data representing the years 1995 to 2004 inclusive. Exhibit 2.1 shows yearly at-fault crashes among first offenders controlling for exposure. The yearly number of at-fault crashes was divided by the number of first offenders who were unlicensed during the same period. In the single year prior to the lengthening of the statutory licence disqualification (1995), the yearly at-fault crash rate (per unlicensed first offender) is approximately 0.007 at-fault crashes per unlicensed first offender. In the years after the lengthening of the statutory license disqualification (1997 2004), the yearly at-fault crash rate fluctuates between 0.008 and 0.012 at-fault crashes per unlicensed first offender. Exhibit 2.1 Yearly at-fault crashes among unlicensed first offenders expressed as a rate per unlicensed first offender  According to the above, since the lengthening of the statutory license disqualification, the at-fault crash involvement of first offenders has increased by approximately 50 percent. Approximately one in a hundred unlicensed first offenders are getting involved in an at-fault crash. Comparison with overall crash trends SGI also provided Synectics with a yearly count of all crashes reported to SGI during the same time period. Over the ten year period (1995 2004), a total of 700,293 crashes were reported to SGI. Given that only 989 crashes involved first offenders, their involvement in crashes is quite low (slightly over 0.1 percent). It should be noted that offenders not meeting the study criteria would not be included in the above total (989). The Relative Risk method was used to calculate the likelihood of a crash involving an unlicensed first offender being at fault compared to overall crash trends in Saskatchewan spanning the years 1995 - 2004. Seventy-seven percent of first offender crashes were at-fault crashes; the first offender was 50 percent or more responsible. In comparison, overall trends in Saskatchewan suggest that individuals are at fault in fifty-four percent of all crashes. Combining all ten years (1995 2004), a first offender crash is 1.42 (1.25 1.61 95% confidence limits) times as likely to be at fault compared to all crashes in Saskatchewan. The results are shown in Exhibit 2.2. Exhibit 2.2 Calculation of Relative Risk: Comparison of at fault first offender crashes to overall at fault crash trends  Concluding remarks This section has presented trends in the crash involvement of unlicensed first offenders over the period 1995 to 2004. While their crash involvement is relatively small compared to the overall provincial crash history, the numbers clearly suggest that some unlicensed first offenders continue to drive and are involved in crashes. In addition, unlicensed first offenders are typically at fault in the crashes reported to SGI. Unlicensed first offenders were found to be at fault in approximately three out of every four crashes in which they were involved. This proportion is significantly higher than overall provincial trends. Crashes involving first offenders were 1.42 times as likely to be at fault compared to overall crash trends in Saskatchewan during the period 1995 2004. At fault crashes involving unlicensed first offenders (expressed as a rate per unlicensed first offender) were also examined. Overall trends suggest that first offenders have a higher likelihood of getting involved in an at-fault crash in recent years (1997 2004) compared to prior to the legislative changes introduced in 1996 (i.e. the lengthening of the statutory licence disqualification and the beginning of the remedial measures program). In the latter years (1997 2004), each year approximately one out of every hundred first offenders are involved in an at fault crash sometime during the period they were unlicensed. Actual crash totals are likely higher in that some first offenders may have fled the scene of the crash or were involved in a single motor vehicle crash. EVIDENCE OF DRIVING WHILE UNLICENSED Driving while unlicensed has become a significant problem because of the ease in which an offender can commit the offence as well as the difficulty of detection by police. Detecting an unlicensed driver is virtually impossible since police officers have no way of determining the drivers licence status without pulling the vehicle over. A 1994 NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) survey conducted in California of first offenders posed the question to the public, What is the likelihood of being caught driving unlicensed? Over seventy-five percent stated that it was either not at all likely or unlikely. Different approaches have been taken to estimate the extent to which individuals who are unlicensed (having either a suspended or revoked license) are continuing to drive. These have included: Observational studies direct observation of the unlicensed individual driving; Self reported data; Estimation based on crash data; and Data collected at police checkpoints. An observational study conducted in Wisconsin and New Jersey demonstrated that driving is prevalent among first time offenders (McCartt et al 2002). Eighty-eight percent of first time offenders drove at least once during their suspension period. The percentage was lower in New Jersey (36 percent). The author stated the different percentages could be explained in part by the degree of police enforcement in both states (New Jersey had a more rigourous enforcement program). National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 500 cites a number of references that claim that three-quarters of all drivers with suspended or revoked licenses continue to drive (Neuman et al 2003). The California study referred to earlier by DeYoung et al (1997) estimated that drivers with a suspended or revoked license (for any reason) comprise 8.8 percent of the driving population based on a review of data within the Fatal Accident Reporting System. Another 3.3 percent had no record of any licence. A recent study funded by Transport Canada used roadside checkpoints to determine the percentage of suspended or prohibited drivers on the roads in the Greater Moncton area. Based on the number of drivers stopped identified as being unlicensed, they estimated that the percentage of motorists driving while unlicensed was 57 percent of the expected value relative to their representation among all drivers (Malenfant et al 2002). This meant that there was only a 43 percent reduction in the number of suspended drivers continuing to drive. Methodology used in this study The approach taken in this study was to examine evidence of first offenders driving while unlicensed based on a review of their driver histories. The driver histories contain events that either were in effect on the first offenders prohibition start date or occurred in between their prohibition start date and relicensing, if it occurred. Events that demonstrated that the first offender was driving during the period they were unlicensed were: A subsequent CCC offence; A traffic offence (according to the Highway Traffic Act); Crash involvement; or A roadside administrative suspension (in which the first offender was charged with drinking and driving). Three types of roadside administrative suspensions were considered in the above. They were: A 24 hour roadside suspension given to experienced drivers having a blood alcohol level exceeding a statutory limit; A 30 day roadside suspension given to probationary drivers having a blood alcohol level above zero (this is extended to 90 days if the conviction is the first offenders second or subsequent); and A 90 day roadside suspension given to experienced drivers having a blood alcohol level above .08 or refusal to provide a breath sample. To be considered as evidence that the first offender was driving while unlicensed, the 24 hour and 30 day roadside suspension had to have occurred after the first offenders prohibition start date. The 90 day roadside suspension had to have occurred at least one week after the first offenders prohibition start date, as those convicted of a 90 day roadside suspension are given one week after the conviction before the suspension period begins. It should be noted here that these are the first offenders who were caught driving while unlicensed. It is not known whether these individuals were habitual drivers or had only been driving during the instances noted in their driving history. Inexperienced and poor drivers would be over represented in this group in that they would be more likely to be involved in a crash or commit a traffic office. The remaining first offenders, having shown no evidence of driving in their driving history, may have also been driving while unlicensed but were successful at avoiding detection by the police or being involved in an accident. Driving while unlicensed Exhibit 3.1 shows the number of first offenders driving while unlicensed/showing no evidence of driving while unlicensed grouped by eligibility year. The number of first offenders with eligibility dates in 1993 through 1996 who were driving while unlicensed remains between 450 and 600. In the period after the introduction of the remedial measures program, this number increases to approximately 650 (for first offenders with eligibility dates in 1998 through 2000). For first offenders with eligibility dates in 2001 and on, the number who were driving gradually declines to around 300 in the last year examined. Exhibit 3.1 First offenders driving unlicensed/showing no evidence of driving unlicensed grouped by year of eligibility  Exhibit 3.2 shows the proportion of first offenders showing evidence of driving unlicensed grouped by year of eligibility. First offenders with eligibility years 1993 through 1996 driving while unlicensed decreased from approximately 21 percent to 14 percent in 1996 before increasing again in 1997. The percentage of first offenders driving while unlicensed fluctuates between 25 and 30 percent between 1997 and 2002 before decreasing rapidly in 2003 through 2004. First offenders with eligibility dates in the post-1997 period would have a longer licence disqualification period and also were shown to require longer to relicense in the previous report. First offenders with eligibility dates in 1997 and on would be unlicensed for a longer period. The sharp decline after 2002 can be partially explained by the shorter period of opportunity these first offenders had to show evidence of driving as well as the delay between the event and the update of the first offenders driving record. In the post-1997 period, one out of every five first offenders shows evidence of driving. Exhibit 3.2 Proportion of first offenders driving unlicensed compared to all first offenders grouped by year of eligibility  Driving while licence disqualified In order to have a truer picture of whether the proportion of first offenders showing evidence of driving is increasing or decreasing, the proportion of first offenders showing evidence of driving prior to their eligibility date was examined (during their disqualification period). These would be first offenders shown to be driving at least once in between their prohibition start date and their eligibility date for relicensing. Exhibit 3.3 shows the number of first offenders driving prior to their eligibility date/not showing evidence of driving prior to their eligibility date (during their period of disqualification) grouped by their year of eligibility. In the pre-1997 period, prior to the introduction of the remedial measures program and the lengthening of the disqualification period, the yearly number of first offenders showing evidence of driving while their licence was disqualified (in the period prior to their eligibility) is between 150 and 250. In the post-1997 period, the yearly number of first offenders showing evidence of driving while their licence was disqualified is approximately 250 300. Exhibit 3.3 First offenders showing evidence of driving while licence disqualified/showing no evidence of driving while licence disqualified grouped by year of eligibility  Exhibit 3.4 shows the proportion of first offenders who show evidence of driving while their license is disqualified grouped by their eligibility year. The proportion of first offenders showing evidence of driving prior to their eligibility date decreases from 1993 to 1996 (from 11 percent to 7 percent) before increasing to 10 percent in 1997. In the post-1997 period, when the disqualification period was longer than the pre-1997 period, the proportion of first offenders showing evidence of driving remains around 10 percent. In the post-1997 period, one of every ten first offenders show evidence of driving while their license is disqualified. Exhibit 3.4 Percentage of first offenders showing evidence of driving during their disqualification period grouped by year of eligibility  The Relative Risk method was used to compare the likelihood of a first offender showing evidence of driving while their licence was disqualified in the pre-1997 eligibility period compared to the post-1997 eligibility period (after the lengthening of the disqualification period and the introduction of the remedial measures requirement). The results are shown in Exhibit 3.5. First offenders in the post-1997 period were 1.55 times as likely to show evidence of driving while their licence was disqualified versus first offenders with eligibility dates in the pre-1997 period. Exhibit 3.5 Calculation of Relative Risk: First offenders showing evidence of driving while licence disqualified (1993 1996 eligibility dates versus 1998 2004 eligibility dates)  Concluding remarks Using a first offenders driving history as an indicator of driving activity while unlicensed, several conclusions may be drawn. There is significant evidence of first offenders continuing to drive while they are unlicensed. After the introduction of the remedial measures program and the lengthening of the disqualification period in 1996, the likelihood of a first offender showing evidence of driving while unlicensed increased. Approximately 20 percent of first offenders with eligibility dates starting in 1997 through to 2002 were shown to be driving while unlicensed. This proportion drops to 15 percent in 2003 and 2004; the lower proportion may be due to the shorter period of opportunity these first offenders had to be caught driving. Similarly, there is an increase in first offenders showing evidence of driving during their initial disqualification period in the period after the introduction of the remedial measures program and the lengthening of the disqualification period. Approximately 10 percent of first offenders with eligibility dates in the post-1997 period were caught driving during their initial disqualification. First offenders in the post-1997 eligibility period were 1.55 times as likely to be caught driving during their initial disqualification as compared to those in the pre-1997 period. The actual number of first offenders driving (at least once) during their disqualification period is likely higher than that estimated in this study. As referenced earlier, other methods used to detect driving activities among unlicensed drivers suggests significantly higher rates (DeYoung et al 1997; McCartt et al 2002; Neuman et al 2003; Malenfant et al 2002). It is likely that there are a significant number of first offenders who escaped notice in that they avoided police detection, did not commit a traffic offence, and were not involved in an accident. HIGH RISK OFFENDERS This section identifies first offenders who are at a high risk of driving while their licence was disqualified (in between their prohibition start date and their eligibility date). The first group identified was first offenders who show no evidence of participating in addiction screening, despite it being a requirement for relicensing. In the previous report, it was identified that 27 percent of all first offenders referred to addiction screening did not receive a subsequent referral to another other program (e.g. DWI course or recovery program). The Relative Risk method was used to compare the likelihood of a first offender showing evidence of driving among those who were referred to addiction screening and having a follow-up referral to another program versus first offenders who were referred to addiction screening and did not have a follow-up referral to another program. All first offenders with eligibility dates in 2005 were removed, given that SGI may not have complete information on them (due to a lag between the event and the recording of the event by SGI). First offenders who were referred to addiction screening and no subsequent referral were 2.36 times as likely to be showing evidence of driving compared to those first offenders who did receive a subsequent program referral. Exhibit 4.1 Calculation of Relative Risk Evidence of driving among first offenders referred to addiction screening who did/did not have a subsequent program referral  The following first offender groups were examined: Alcohol related versus not directly related to alcohol first offenders; Youth offenders (aged 20 years or less on their eligibility date); Younger adult offenders aged 21 45 years on their eligibility date; Older adult offenders aged > 45 years on their eligibility date; Males; Females; and Males aged 21 45 years on their eligibility date (considered to be high risk offenders). The results of the comparisons are shown in Exhibit 4.2. The Relative Risk calculations indicate the probability that the group shown is showing evidence of driving compared to showing no evidence of driving. First offenders with alcohol related and not directly related to alcohol offences were first examined. First offenders with offences not directly related to alcohol offences were more likely to be showing evidence of driving while their licence is disqualified (1.59, 1.31 1.83 95% confidence limits). This finding mirrors the finding in the previous report. First offenders with an offence not directly related to alcohol were more likely to require longer than a year to relicense. According to Saskatchewan Justice, drivers convicted of a CCC offence not directly related to alcohol (i.e. dangerous driving) could have been impaired, however, there was no conclusive evidence available at the trial. First offenders with alcohol related offences were slightly less likely to be showing evidence of driving while disqualified than showing no evidence of driving; however, these results are not statistically significant (0.97, 0.91 1.04 95% confidence limits). Three age groups were examined, youth (<21 years), younger adults (21 45 years) and older adults (>45 years). Their age was calculated based on their eligibility date. Among the three different age groups (youth, younger adults, and older adults) youth were more likely to be showing evidence of driving while disqualified (1.20, 1.09 1.35 95% confidence) as well as younger adults (1.09, 1.01 1.17 95% confidence). In contrast, the older adults were less likely to show evidence of driving while disqualified (0.40, 0.33 0.49 95 % confidence). There was no statistically significant difference among males and females (in terms of their likelihood to show evidence of driving). Exhibit 4.2 Relative Risk calculations: Likelihood of showing evidence of driving/not showing evidence of driving while disqualified among first offender groups  CONCLUDING REMARKS Conclusions This study had two primary purposes. The first purpose was to determine the crash involvement of first offenders during the period they were unlicensed (either during their initial disqualification period or subsequently as a result of an administrative suspension). The second purpose of this study was to examine evidence of first offenders driving during the period they were unlicensed and during their initial disqualification. Crash involvement was examined first for the period 1995 to 2004. The data set provided to Synectics contained information regarding claims made as a result of a crash and whether or not they were considered to be at fault in the crash. While the crash involvement of first offenders who were unlicensed is relatively small in absolute numbers, the numbers clearly suggest that some of them are continuing to drive and causing crashes. They are also at a higher risk of causing an crash than a typical Saskatchewan driver. Unlicensed first offenders were 1.42 times as likely to be at fault in a crash. This finding lends further credence to the findings of previous research conducted in the United States that clearly demonstrates that unlicensed drivers are a high risk group in terms of fatal crash involvement. At fault crashes involving unlicensed first offenders (expressed as a rate per unlicensed first offender) were also examined. Overall trends suggest that first offenders have a higher likelihood of getting involved in an at-fault crash in recent years (1997 2004) compared to prior to the legislative changes introduced in 1996 (i.e. the lengthening of the statutory licence disqualification and the beginning of the remedial measures program). In the latter years (1997 2004), each year approximately one out of every hundred first offenders are involved in an at fault crash sometime during the period they were unlicensed, although this total would not include first offenders who escaped detection by fleeing the scene of the crash or being involved in a single motor vehicle crash. More broadly, this study examined the driving history of first offenders in order to identify evidence of driving while unlicensed. The first offender was considered to be driving unlicensed if they either were in a crash, reoffended, committed a traffic offence (under the Highway Traffic Act), or received an administrative suspension for drinking and driving during their initial disqualification period or a subsequent period in which their license was administratively suspended. Legislation that was introduced on August 1, 1996 was used as the basis for assessing changes in the yearly proportion of first offenders showing evidence of driving. This legislation would have affected first offenders with full privilege eligibility dates starting in the following year (1997). First offenders with eligibility dates in the post-1997 were more likely to show evidence of driving while unlicensed or during their initial disqualification period. Approximately one in five of the first offenders driving histories suggested that they drove on at least one occasion while they were unlicensed in the post-1997 period. Similarly, one in ten of the first offenders driving histories suggest that they drove on at least one occasion during their initial disqualification in the post-1997 period. First offenders with post-1997 eligibility dates were 1.51 times as likely to show evidence of driving during their disqualification period as compared to those with pre-1997 eligibility dates. Groups that have a higher risk of driving while disqualified (showing evidence of driving during their disqualification period) were those who show no sign of participating in addiction screening; these first offenders were referred to addiction screening but never had a follow-up referral to the education or treatment component of the program. These individuals were 2.36 times as likely to show evidence of driving during their disqualification period. Other groups having a higher risk of driving while disqualified were: First offenders who had a conviction for an offence not directly related to alcohol; Youth (aged 20 years or younger); and Younger adults (aged 21 45 years). Past measures There are a wide variety of measures that have been directed against discouraging unlicensed drivers from continuing to drive. This section provides a brief overview of the more common measures directed at first offenders and their effectiveness. Strategies presented in both NCHRP 500, Volume 2: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers and Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Licenses (Neuman et al 2003) and Unlicensed to Kill: The Sequel (Scopatz et al 2003) are: Increasing enforcement in selected areas; Licence status checkpoints; Routinely link citations to driver record; Provide timely and accurate information in driver history records; Block registration of vehicles by drivers lacking a valid licence; Create and distribute hot sheets; Establish driver assistance programs and informational campaigns; Stripe license plate; Impound license plate; Immobilize/impound/seize vehicle; Install ignition interlock device (IID); Mandatory jail time for multiple offenders; Monitor electronically; Incarcerate repeat offenders; and Provide alternative transportation service. Increasing the probability of detection and apprehension has been identified by many as being a key to discouraging unlicensed drivers from driving. Chamberlain and Solomon (unpublished paper) stated that increasing the statutory authority of police to stop vehicles at random and demand documentation would address this issue. Having police check the licence status of individuals stopped at sobriety checkpoints was also identified as a possible treatment, although this would only be effective if the police officer has this information at their immediate disposal. Elvik and Vaas (2004) report on the results of meta-analysis of a variety of studies into the effectiveness of measures directed against discouraging unlicensed drivers from continuing to drive. He reports the following: License suspensions on their own reduced crashes among suspended drivers by 18 percent; Treatment and/or rehabilitation, when used as an alternative to license suspensions, increased crashes by 28 percent (presumably among suspended drivers); and A combination of fines, driving licence suspensions, and imprisonment (for repeat offenders) decreases total crashes by 4 percent. Vehicle impoundment has emerged as a significant deterrent against driving while unlicensed. A 1991 study by NHTSA in Ohio found that vehicle impoundment decreased the offence rates of individuals with suspended licences by 65 percent. A study of a vehicle impoundment program in California indicated a 24 percent drop in subsequent convictions for driving unlicensed among alcohol offenders. Research by DeYoung (1997) into the use of vehicle impoundment in California suggested that the program has reduced subsequent crashes by 25 35 percent and traffic convictions by 18 22 percent among drivers with a suspended licence. Solomon and Chamberlain (unpublished) also advocate the practice of impounding vehicles. The most successful impoundment programs are those in which the impoundment applies regardless of vehicle ownership. An evaluation of a vehicle impoundment program in Manitoba by Beirness et al 1997 found that was a 35 percent decrease in the overall number of charges for driving while suspended after the programs implementation. Distinctive stickers and plates have been used in Washington and Oregon to more easily identify unlicensed drivers. A study in Oregon found a 23 percent drop in crashes among alcohol offenders after this program was implemented (www.madd.org). However, the two programs were allowed to lapse. Recommendations to SGI The findings of this study indicate that some first offenders are still on the road and as a result are getting involved in crashes. First offenders who continue to drive have been shown to be at a higher risk of getting involved in a crash. A wide array of treatments has been presented in this report that will discourage first offenders from driving unlicensed and subsequently improve safety on Saskatchewan roads (by reducing the number of crashes). Some of these first offenders may be escaping detection by fleeing the scene of the crash or may be failing to report a single vehicle crash. Some time in the past, auto body shops were required to not carry out repairs exceeding $1000 if there was no indication that the crash had been reported to the police. This practice, currently discontinued, would be effective at catching individuals trying to have repairs done on their vehicle without notifying SGI or the police of the crash. This study has also shown clear evidence of first offenders driving while unlicensed and during their initial disqualification period. Approximately one in five first offenders were caught driving sometime during the period they were unlicensed. Approximately one in ten first offenders were caught driving sometime during their initial disqualification period. The number of first offenders showing evidence of driving while unlicensed/or during their initial disqualification period has clearly increased since the introduction of the remedial measures program and the lengthening of the disqualification period. It is likely that the increased time these individuals are without a license is increasing the probability that they are caught driving. Short term vehicle impoundment, introduced on August 1, 1996, has been used as a deterrent by police when they have identified that an individual is unlicensed at the scene of a crash, a roadside checkpoint, or when the driver has committed a traffic offence. A more aggressive approach would be to carry out vehicle impoundment of all unlicensed drivers showing evidence of drivers given that this information is available in the licence history. Specifically as a result of this study, it is suggested that first offenders be targeted who show no evidence of participating in the addiction screening program. First offenders are notified immediately upon their conviction of their requirement to participate in addiction screening. As shown in the previous study, 27 percent of all first offenders never receive a subsequent referral to either an education or recovery program, indicating that they have never followed through with the initial addiction screening. These first offenders were 2.36 times as likely to be caught driving during their initial disqualification period. SGI should follow-up with these individuals through a telephone call to remind them of the addiction screening requirements six months into their disqualification. Youth (aged 20 and younger), young adults (21 45 years of age), and first offenders convicted of an offence not directly related to alcohol were also identified as high risk offenders (in continuing to drive). These high risk groups, together with first offenders showing no evidence of participating in the addiction screening program should be targeted by the police enforcement agencies through more aggressive measures such as periodic checks of driving activity at their place of residence. The names of all unlicensed drivers, their vehicle ownership and license information should be further promoted among police enforcement agencies. Increasing the statutory authority of the RCMP to stop and demand personal identification and license information would greatly assist them in identifying and apprehending individuals driving illegally. Roadside sobriety checkpoints should also involve verification of license status. Further research This report has presented clear evidence that some unlicensed drivers are continuing to drive, are getting involved in crashes and are at fault. Several possible avenues of research worth pursuing are: How many crashes involving unlicensed drivers result in a fatality or injury?; What is the crash experience of multiple offenders compared to first offenders?; How does crashes and unlicensed driving activity differ among those who relicense and those who never relicense?; What is the effectiveness of different sanctions (vehicle impoundment, increasing the statutory license disqualification period, ignition interlocks) on reducing crashes and unlicensed driving activity?; How many unlicensed drivers are getting their vehicle impounded and how does this affect their recidivism?; and Why are some groups more likely to be driving while unlicensed? What specific interventions would be effective at discouraging unlicensed driving activity? REFERENCES Beirness, D; Simpson, H; and Mayhew, D. (1997) Evaluation of Administrative Licence Suspension and Vehicle Impoundment Programs in Manitoba, Transport Canada Publication TP-13096 E Scopatz, R; Hatch, C; DeLucia, B; and Tays; K. (2003) Unlicensed to Kill: The Sequel, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety DeYoung, D; Peck, R; and Helander, C; (1997) Estimating the Exposure and Fatal Crash Rates of Suspended/Revoked and Unlicensed Drivers in California, Accident Analysis and Prevention 29, 17 - 23 Elvik, R; and Vaa; T. (2004) The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, Elsevier Ltd. Griffin, L; and DeLaZerda, S (2000) Unlicensed to Kill, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety D. Koch and M. Medgyesi; Examining the Previous Conviction Experience of Saskatchewan Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes Proceedings of the Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference VIII; pp. 187-200; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; June 14-16, 1993 Malenfant, L; Van Houten; R; and Jonah, B. (2002) A study to measure the incidence of driving under suspension in the Greater Moncton area, Accident Analysis and Prevention 34: 439 447 McCartt, A; Geary, L; and Nissen, W. (2002) Observational study of the extent of driving while suspended for alcohol impaired driving, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DTNH22-98-D-45079 Mothers Against Drunk Driving (2002) Sanction Issues Compendium,  HYPERLINK "http://www.madd.org" www.madd.org (Accessed August 3, 2003) Neuman, T; Pfefer, R; Slack, K; and Waller, P; NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 2: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers and Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Licenses, Transportation Research Board  To SGIs knowledge, the offender had not been convicted of a first offence previously.  According to the Highway Traffic Act, in Section 83: (4) The duty to report an accident to a peace officer pursuant to subsection (3) applies if the accident: (a) involves bodily injuries or death; (b) involves an unidentified motor vehicle; (b.1) involves a motor vehicle for which no certificate of registration has been issued pursuant to this Act; (c) involves a motor vehicle that was towed from the scene of the accident as a result of the accident; or (d) involves a person in charge of a motor vehicle who was apparently under the influence of alcohol or drugs as to be incapable for the time being of having proper control of the motor vehicle.  This allowed for a meaningful year-by-year comparison of crash frequency, accounting for the fact that significantly less first offenders met the study criteria in the first few years that at-fault crash records were maintained by SGI.  Subsequent CCC offences and traffic offences are discussed further in the previous report, Trends in First-Time Licence Disqualifications in Saskatchewan.  The 24 hour roadside suspension was introduced in 1996. The 30 day roadside suspension was also introduced in 1996; but occurred infrequently among first offenders. The 90 day roadside suspension was introduced in 2002.  Trends in First-Time Licence Disqualifications in Saskatchewan  Trends in First-Time Licence Disqualifications in Saskatchewan     PAGE  PAGE   PAGE iii Driving While Disqualified in Saskatchewan Report to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Canada July 2006 . PAGE 18 Driving While Disqualified in Saskatchewan Report to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Canada July 2006 . PAGE 20 Driving While Disqualified in Saskatchewan Report to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Canada July 2006 . PAGE 26 Driving While Disqualified in Saskatchewan Report to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Canada July 2006 . PAGE i Driving While Disqualified in Saskatchewan Report to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Canada July 2006 *:kmotuvwxy{|    F I O P U V X Z [ _ ` a ³}xskxksfsxk h2(5hlVUhg5 hv5 hg5hg hlVUhghe^JmH sH hg^JmH sH hlVUhg^JmH sH hlVUhg5CJjhlVUhg5CJU hg\ h?f\jhiUmHnHuh? h2(\ hI9\hihi\ hi\ h9\ h@r\',-./0123456789:;kuz{|!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!S! -$`a$gdg $$p^pa$gdg$$ `a$gdg$a$gdi $da$gdi`|}    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -$`a$gdg-$8^`8a$gdg -$8`8a$gdg -$^a$gdg-$8^`8a$gdg         , F G H I V ` a r s   v !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!"! !"!E!"!Egdg$a$gdg tgdg$$8^`8a$gdg-$8^`8a$gdga s    w x y ϵxmxxZ$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHujBh>hUjh2(U h2(h2(5CJOJQJ_HT'jh2(h>h>*B*Uphh2(hhch2(0J!jhhch2(0J!Uh}h?B* aJph"jh}h?B* UaJphh? h*p\hlhvhghg5B* ph!v w x y L  y>n#}%!"!k  ! gd?f ! $a$ tgd?f$a$gdggdg       * + , F G H I J K L M N j k l m p q λ񏀏oU񏀏2jh2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphu j<h>hUmHnHujh2(UmHnHuh2(mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHu2jh2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphuh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu        ! ±vqgq\gqgvNhhch2(0J!mHnHuj0 h>hUjh2(U h2(h2(5CJOJQJ_HT'jh2(h>h>*B*Uphh2(hhch2(0J!jhhch2(0J!U!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHuh2(mHnHujh2(UmHnHu j6h>hUmHnHu! = > ? @ C D p q r λ菀oU菀2j!h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphu j*!h>hUmHnHujh2(UmHnHuh2(mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHu2j h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphuhhch2(0J!mHnHuh2(mHnHu     ,-./23WXYstuvwxyz{±£p_±£ j#h>hUmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu2j"h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphuh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHuh2(mHnHujh2(UmHnHu j$"h>hUmHnHuòyӲlc_cKlc>ch2(5CJOJQJ_HT'j$h2(h>h>*B*Uphh2(hhch2(0J!jhhch2(0J!U j$h>hUmHnHujh2(UmHnHuh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHu2j#h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphu789;<=>?@\]^_bc˸wf[L[; j &h>hUmHnHujh2(UmHnHuh2(mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu2j%h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphuh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHuh2(5CJOJQJ_HTjhhch2(0J!Uj%h>hUjh2(U h2("#$%()KLҳҀoҳUҀ2j'h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphu j'h>hUmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu2j&h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphuh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHuh2(mHnHujh2(UmHnHu!LMghiklmnopo^QHhhch2(0J!jhhch2(0J!U j(h>hUmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu2j}(h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphuh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHu j(h>hUmHnHuh2(mHnHujh2(UmHnHu !"#$%ABCDGHZ[\vwxz{|}~ykbkh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHuj*h>hU'jq*h2(h>h>*B*Uphj)h>hUjh2(U h2(h2(5CJOJQJ_HTjhhch2(0J!U'jw)h2(h>h>*B*Uphhhch2(0J!h2(&òyӲӤpVò2je,h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphuh2(mHnHu j+h>hUmHnHujh2(UmHnHuh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHu2jk+h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphu "#$%&'CDEFIJ`ab|}~±£p_±£ j-h>hUmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu2j_-h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphuh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHuh2(mHnHujh2(UmHnHu j,h>hUmHnHuòyӲg`YLB8h ;f5B* phh?5B* phh ;fh ;f5B* ph hor5aJ hE.75aJ"jh}h?B* UaJph j.h>hUmHnHujh2(UmHnHuh2(mHnHuhhch2(0J!mHnHu!h2(CJOJQJ_HTmHnHuhhch2(0J!5mHnHu$jhhch2(0J!UmHnHu2jY.h2(h>h>*B*UmHnHphu%!&!##&&W&}&&&!"!"!-!"!-!"!i!"!"!"!K!"!!"! !"!9!"!-!"!E!"!"!"gdT = & FgdTgdM|gdXgdq'gdzK$a$gd ;fOPSUn+et|KZ[48biGgu]!d!!!ȼؼئآآheh4=&hA^h&YhXhM|hM|5\h;MhM|hhoh1w hahi hi6hThh5\hhJhJ6]hJhih@rh6>5\h6>heh4=&6&h(i((([))a**j+ , , ,,,..///101l1m1!K!"!"!"!h !h !E!E!E!h !"!-!"!i!"!i!"!"!"gdogd''gd,Wgd8bgdd~gdXg$a$gd gd2Ngd2N///101T1X1a1l11122222P3`3a33333@4A4g4i4444444444A5B5C5c5f5555555亵𝕝Šwsh}ph}ph!H*h?" hcwh! hcwha;hHhhd/hvNhehdnhUka h5 hTh ho5h:ho5hI+h2(h2(6]h2(ho6]jho0J,UhohB|Oh]4hiEh@rh,Whd~-m11 2i222233@4A4i444B5C526I6s8t8u8!"!E!"!E!"!"! !!"!"!"!"!E!"!"!h !!-!"!"gdgdd~gdXggdXg  & F gda; & FgdI+gddngdVTgdUkagdo & F 0^`0gdo55555/626I6e6i6q6r6t6666667 7n7y7777768A8K8r8s8t8u8v8{8888888899I:P::::ƿƿƿƿ~h}ph*Q[hPhr+>h2(h_ hhhh''hUkahlhl5\hlhhe hvNhvNhvNhvN5hvNhXg5 hvNhdn hvNhXghXgha;hcwhcwaJhcw hcwha;0u8v888k:l:;;<;==>>U?V?@@@@@A3AmAAAB!"!"!K!"!h !"!9!"!h !"!h !"!i!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!  & Fgdlgd*Q[gd*Q[gdHhgdXg & Fgd|:;;:;;;>;C;;I<L<M<<<<<<<<===== >>z>>>>>!@&@2@4@@@ABBBBBBBBBCC:CAChCjCkChh5hPYVh|-hvlah+Fhlhl5\hlh8hnhzih*Q[6hh*Q[6hh h 6 h^'h^'h^'h}ph}p6] hPhPh}phPhh*Q[h 4BBCCDDEEuFvFGGKK;LHCHH̴̼̪ИhORhPYVhbC hw0J,jh0J,Uhh6h5h|-h<hDhhBh+Fh&hwhw6hwhhoh`hvlah6=h vvvvvvvvwpwuwwwwwxضܞܲܞܲh0hYhxhhxh7~5h7~jhT0J,UhBAh7h76]jhBA0J,Uh;hcBh7h4hhghh^j6h^jh#G;/sJsssttctdttu-v.vwwgzz||||||||i}k}!"!"!"!E!"!E!"!E!h !E!"!K!"!!!!"!"!"!"!"!"!! .gd=dgd=gdgd7~gdFsgdxy+yyyy&zfzgzzzzzzzz{${%{|||||||||| }(}I}i}j}k}l}w}}V~W~X~d~e~f~~~~~;ǿӇӇӇhghrhM9huhuhu5\ h/5\ hh=j>hhUhh=5 h=5huh=h0hhh! h5h!h!5hhhh4h<h~hd0k}l}&(K^`awystvv!"!Z+! .!!K!"!9!'!"!!"!!e#!!"!!"! !!\gd%(PgdsL<dgd9 dgdG=gdAgdP9dgdggdggdggdFs;<>v}3L\Mwx{܁%&'(K{҂<>Ec6ik읕hAh= hA5h<]^_`alX`q3XvwxyĽ}yh hhG=jahh0U hG=5\ h5\hG=hG=5\huhh0hghg5\ hhjUhhU h<ABU $-JV}hrhr6] h5\h3d`h3d`5\hrh3d`hahS_Ah(hsL<h%(P hhFjllhhUhP9 h 5 h5 hu5hVkh h05h h 58vw 67)*Ԛ֚ך Sܛ$1!"!-!"!!"!"!h !"!i!"!\!"!!V!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"gdj & Fgd]dgd}gd]gdP9gd & Fgd%(Pgd%(P ]2357uwߗϙ(*5VWrӚԚ՚֚ך ּڴ}hhXhY^5 h=!h]jqh=!h=!U h}5 hj5 hY^55 h@a5 h]5h]h]5h@ah@a5hrhjjhTd0J,Uh@ah]hnhjhP9 hP9hP9h_ h%(Ph#th%(P11_`"#)*ա֡YZWX!E!"!h !"!9!"! !"!h !"!i!"*1"*1E!!K!"!"!"!\ & Fgd gdFgd5gdvN$a$gd_gdP9gdjĜ*^_%9fijlF!p&()ա?VZ]ruv{|ϢӢ379TWXYZҺҲҩ祝hYhh6hh5hh h|6h-!gh-!g6 hh-!gh| h D5h-!gh-!g5h-!gh hrhXhX6 h|5hjhY^5hXhXhX58Uh*T9>٨oabqRt+089U]M϶̶̶̺IJĮ̮̪̠̖̒Њ~hURhvN6hURhvNhFqh'8hhF5\h6>hF5\hh\2zh[hXhM|hF5\h h4hFh5h h=!hS_Aj9wh=!h=!U h_5 hS_A5h_h_5h_1xy޴*9!"Nl޷#I=!"!K!"! !"!9!"!-!"!E!"!"!!-!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"gdvNgdFqgdFgdFdu~-4%&69:gk(lTVejkOM=HL]i 260׿ǻhc`hEh\2zhWu5\hWuh4=JhghB)h2Nhm1h[h\2zh'8hahr^~hvN6hnhFqh h6ThvNhURhvN6?=W{¼üCDοϿefklUVM!"!"!"!"!!"!h !"!E!h !E!"!K!"! !"!K!"! !!K!"!-!"!\gd_gdm1gd'8 0^`0gd6TgdvNMN12%&S!"!K!"!\!"!-!"!K!!h !"!"!E!E!h !E!h !"!"!"!"!" & FgdtUgd% & F0^`0gd%gd%gd%gd_028MNr $%&QRS^g?fghyսչĤչh3h36] h)6] h^oh^o h^o6]h^o h3h3 h36]h35B* phh3hWu h%h%hnhtUh2Nhvh\2zh4=Jh%<ghSTPQfg!"!"!"!h !"!E!"!h !"!"!"!E!"! !"!h !"!h !"!E!"! !!$d7$8$H$a$gd+gdogd.%gd3$a$gd31RSTmnPQ;.:<=>JKefgjԼ긱}sosh%jh%0J,U h3h3h3h.%6]h dh.%0J!jh.%U h3h.%jh.%U h.%6]h.% h)h) h)6]h)h)6]h) h36]h^' h^'h^'h3 h^oh^oh^o h^o6]+qrs`a_`acdfgijlmst|}{s{s{s{s{kkkkjh%Ujh>hUh>hhTdh%6jhTdh%0J,6Uhh%6hTh%CJaJhBAh%6 h%6jh%0J,U hh%hh%^JmH sH  hh%CJ^JaJmH sH hh%6CJaJhh%CJaJh%)Dr`_`bcefhikluv!!?`!?`!?`!?`!?`!!!˳!!!!h]h&`#$gdT++gd$d7$8$H$a$gdvwxyz{| !l#!"!"!l#!"!"!_*!l#!l#!l#!l#!$a$gd@gd(gd< Lh]h&`#$$a$gd@%gdor qrtv}~bcmopqtu{|}~h>hjh%Uj$h%Ujh%Ujh%Uh< Ljh< LUmHnHuh.%?mHnHujh%Uh%j_h%Ujh%UmHnHu> Aq|}2bmnost!l#!l#!l#!*1l#*1l#*1l#*1l#*1!l#!l#!l#!l#!%!l#gdZgd< L$a$gd@gd@r!l#!l#!l#gdZgd< L! gd3 h3h3h$h% 1h/ =!"#$% 1h/ =!"#$% 1h/ =!"#$%4001hP:p*p/ =!"#[$T%h101hP:piE/ =!"#[$T%h-1h0:p4=J= /!["[#$%h*1h:p4=J/ =!"#[$T%h4001hP:p3/ =!"#[$T%hDd V  C 2Asm_syn_logo2R=@kDF=@kJFIFC    #%$""!&+7/&)4)!"0A149;>>>%.DIC;C  ;("(;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;w" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?*( ( ( )Yj̃՛oƍFTYW X( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (EPh(( 3E|f&HOb9ӊ頿pmN6>1jŚ(AEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPmQ@PM/YE\ r}j+;YngmD8VJG=[xAO8&&E_Vz=2#lb~~urZUa{"N{ʵ{jIżWP<ƲE /0}Ez}r}뫢kc,!jmE DAa|VBSQQop)߈Y%⹯xv]F4ܦe9G;}\~#c8;"3VWPAdz;=z_Nx_4drYG?V2-X(Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@(V(e0!Y'  @pqVU|awȒ3%ԑGR@0cVn Bc^"ܰ, s z -˼kf *t5tI$$~Z9eJW~Yo?cW<%.kgkEUJ`\AjwQ@Q@Q@gzͶa,}? '&aHI<דMm?H6i{!F8v'?n*ݨ' J6\{+?Uη5KKE~KJ$p  n朧.#݌p9k~jڍ/.nfZc·ϐӵzUwQEP(((((((((((((QE?~My~e!qYx WTW6uV2*.IjwF 9>YR}ɶs&袺RQE(((jm\G*p]2{}4%p,QY4J,'DSB3C[UleG (dۢ'ӳBM=(VW@AVwvm$ʓ\!FN>MEQ4/<\C*+7 ʌu$T>&5 ͝ ώCW${ 빫EGZN?ɉY*=Ȥz m-:+3O&}yȆX)W:kF QTkMUMpgTdU;m0.a P $$lYεgZ.n)[ g~gmK($aI%2*XH{T$[܋nV<-Yi78fhpfIŸBQHۭ^ӵ;Vp2TE7 %v̹ESԵ{ &4{ۅ8D Y*%L5;W.w!ethQQ`=\׶u{4QE!(5E -nYɆc0c++jWr {W9S~/8uif! ze̠e=Mj+6 \ehnUe9-Յ*QEQETWwPKup" c8#&խ` ~UC;TNj#?2ᶵܩsT%\[".*o^A[i$E#S<=A_ i6o`C1.I'v=Lcg I􍍊( (((+SOm򼉾ͻ2훱ʺ};Xmz 1;;-:\.akY-3"02yw(k_?jni᫫+mR'6Y^GKeO#1U ֡F7W:C\r]~f[FgP5UsMk鲤]ѰdeaЂXԩ 7l{yDf>'&)+i|TRoAXDo/UPnH/OZѻ9rJԠ/*؃~r|{lixv{XdiY 6dN?Iȿפ_j6x:$pn"^׸MI5j4v YՏ#c)?)o6e|aks6D:G *1d;+y#fKt(8jUk"}J HŲ 2F6qW{S^TwU.vN2z{*#({Q旮V7iYc DC.\9_zi$i⸵&]> bFr FjḄsa4&pv9'p;Ns4]v!::(4EP+}mƒ2q|QoV׈,7%|GׯX\xph䳐LS\H5H\ 4年lw)l%P~QGn{Gki-Rh8Dgw/{-}a r'sU=j04kofݐ[ZTTyRVGQEdS%(eP{=BWc3Һ QE09WA3OBfʃW9xt+G Wc$_YZew!8y Oa'К bNM\—@ԊGjuhm1eg{qEܛHax]Ymm [o9"$!g$zb%t+yķ8X[ 8URrMv5VNwf\ņ,NG~*QD-4ĵ/Vf!.֮HH-mhmUm`HCT NvbXD.y; <6=vjM gw#kZČZ#dsض=r)97$q◲i7iҪxfo4gAޚ6|-G]aعf`?*}ny WML:ukoo#\cΤV0ZD#g*MGNMGd5\.s}XZVRYBA(ãwڬQEجaǣVj"־{e'l>5 F]F0Dm*pZUs\ɾM@ZmX^2bHQzddpAq=7ƣmC>T(+Y8$gkf9`CEW7x>)>*ٳJ!>#EKq Ԥ_W1 p}gIjw6d(TpXç̾ WmP[_@`9?Q}C΃T-.Sqp;>.hJ/pH 2=I^,8)6_@RZ)9m# =֥l4G׬Kt*~W5y&a1ּR@tr|{>C-.'f$8{W/+hzݞbͧ 0R%pθFOz WT8uasɯ"Eme$0FpA%GC38+4vfMBX~<}Dc$zRSi$ݓ9߱k5s[qc yum4bI>g#Ԗ` EiF$excDӟ} wl)-? ԢQ@ڝĐO-[|Ƞlן^Fm{ߊ{ -ꌅ]f^Tmk*z+(s;Xo{$ͻnH:2mϹb?6n?XԨГEK_ՃV?ܑro2#URmV9;[Y`4m@$~`Kd5wWY `@9ҭN,!dY$~@QN dZkI&o,Hو3Zu}4z1F߹Bqy!9AV0Kmc(MȤ\UKn#g1g>hP^652U=QF}M2xt>k4I!FcJjp =:$y#en0Ib:{V˱=Lndt)?V[U[{+B[>b:V]Xʬ҄3~;Χλ TqO՚xX.^U eZ[kKzn䅝b1(  '$~׶V wdf'IW\ıGW`9v'~eq,Gsv:lUBd*q9kPY[fKvfˌAO=W4 [[TQEjH( ( ( l$4R8*!Q@#> Oʊ:{wׯOd/omor#Ookը]فO ggq5$E_o~QZ (`QEQEQEQEQEQEQEQEQEQEQEQEQEQEQEQE:((((((((((((((((((((((((h}DyK _Toc140477795}DyK _Toc140477795}DyK _Toc140477796}DyK _Toc140477796}DyK _Toc140477797}DyK _Toc140477797}DyK _Toc140477798}DyK _Toc140477798}DyK _Toc140477799}DyK _Toc140477799}DyK _Toc140477800}DyK _Toc140477800}DyK _Toc140477801}DyK _Toc140477801}DyK _Toc140477802}DyK _Toc140477802}DyK _Toc140477803}DyK _Toc140477803}DyK _Toc140477804}DyK _Toc140477804}DyK _Toc140477805}DyK _Toc140477805}DyK _Toc140477806}DyK _Toc140477806}DyK _Toc140477807}DyK _Toc140477807}DyK _Toc140477808}DyK _Toc140477808}DyK _Toc140477809}DyK _Toc140477809}DyK _Toc140477810}DyK _Toc140477810}DyK _Toc140477811}DyK _Toc140477811}DyK _Toc140477812}DyK _Toc140477812}DyK _Toc140477813}DyK _Toc140477813 Dd 4&ss0  # A"9 {lBv~MC /@= {lBv~MCV>^ . x\]lT`Yu@1)$H kNHY)Q+RD$m)-RR%Z)M!QTsYk4J3gf7s̹+;!)J \ Q널mB,]1HeBt@)r$+'g nT [$R̂r5$U=1v%l(dLLf''fʷܘTzk$+2XRdZ* iT i*b rU-2mll[^#oC~1n9aݏE<n27,;kǞRuc&EcS(wI=l-֊nMl:Va& SuLB{q蓷hɎ x_@H%uHx.bo~zt%As-!Tߟx3Ǎi}]:c23i:O4-{4lb䎄8ّ_YbyUg7BlҎacYב B,{ф-DU\e2` w]j^_TyNX>7E&Q'e2{|>|>%vi։N)1&D?* &Қ oj8o&y߱6{c=F_ņ1Xy:q<ٺE>?""Kyܱ1"o(s^YgflW kQW($7y`` ! I/Y???~T S7c5sm46hK92X3B}p cq2 ?=m+%1~8e7lr7x)N;|p~ybil=\72콶ipc/.g,`=mW2>Uhqlu ү=}=lѫ .~=)= [;-z;zg~e3 #ː\5A%#E l^ͨo0RhR ^|䯒 Ї!5]6qٸֲq5شl[ 6yihO!B]Oύ .{ߥR 2:{WKFs+d;2xzZuqAS?Rܻ oh_@G6~._}?R< Xqzv;߮R_=nL>vaԨZ-uYd$&YIևYCjud!hY-C!k%^sC!d̍&tj !gnL'Y?tȚBV17dX _aT*G[^eƛ'i15o#H{8gX[Ǒ >c5o}UR|t]cňV?;,4ڙ~D2Vz?V 5w-y̵72Xl?bx /߆Cb7{'_޵-^lnr'P[5w&^lPY< }Pw@c-#)?v`)75x]1u풘 Kds嫰Qb14Zh0MVfuaR2?]:»)0keaJDd  0  # A2-cy!+Z+ Ck#J T:`!cy!+Z+ Ck#J4N 'XFCxWOP>-l]TP0Xac,i&1>YF16F|21&OG"K깷X׎9F69w=-B@/<6l%BghOG `Zg0F؃[`- =ch"Q/lAg+5er)J~8V-9Bp_ T 'mph8o=<шߜ?LM:T qy#2HTt,dbuS- GG:Ct,谍:r*wu}=ĄH<ו`;UB;y᭲<[iki/@#O7&*OSM FS|\uѨEu`oVO'򩂮dS !TCfjL1_BGΦy&,B4/3>UJr)33I]IS0wݙd㪲3 3l'Ʒ_Kd/@.9_"˦ixpFf|笤OM%VI#91ISFy "}Mesy:Ь {="~TUVinYk'ދ Mߌ:BLfa_^:3 AT}b+5ǤR c =UlpZׄ{RyT"#8τx]P脒Q2MjV&? zh wvڧ/PdZhK4;XMxj;T25qs~0} D-X"9K-B[h-8v;ŗSXjinV M^l<3RުEjw  Dd 0  # A"> ~$JC ?T @= ~$JCl G' x]G'5Zhp&ʟglk -qEhJm&j9 4͑=0)ꁫ-{ovgvr]}ooqXP8c@k&cXsl(+gel\;-ck= @u@3PT<=B j2І*ٖ'񉊌KL6-N+W[<h4#@*&duh,P:zzz1* /ʍ;$=!D23wn[;wc&c=FTGt8\WY ˲NfrYb~6_ǔ_F28Nalv.YZ*GlK_9m㱷#ZΗMhK{򟾾Ե`X$xmWD2jJ [WuGMJA*`؎#ǗO,,jm_^浝X|zP:͆8ϳ~|eicq_Gh\X¸ >?]?߳`u|.T>nI6}ݹrwOAYLk̼7Ƨۥ73q,}=IZ/)Dzh,4(h<f# ( ɻbZ8'Q28 tm55N |!_c|!!kǖ7<]2r\p1 417`}֜E$FۂSdkolv@BkfʷwnnIBJ/P=Pjz% ( +}AM_@̀$A?S3i4PsIX[g+z׊JM 687jS6?>V8# +}7X}<ǘC??IC^c̡^_什G2Ws_G2WsqM$d!_l-.ڛ0wdozQcfߧ|!`75|!_`!}8}u/"_ %[n+廗4]unRO Iɰ>#!~,b6,Mlgڭ_-{`/+Wz~,}N;>:V6k>hpG=1GS11ڡFqz^={eC~a3m6T0; QC~Ԑ3 yx^5䵆Q~r-k :bdI-݄GL߶`%'-.ߏ[0 0OiC Gyyr|*#ƍ9kG, Y)}"~ߖE/>W2C0BPP[6Ҝ8̷ҟG2qVƛa%*^fc~yxdޣ#~3q-xGK}3qp7<.?qw( +kN7E9]܂ǃG,9p]XM>cB'W6o*Z?|`u|ߘwc3K|J)[CxW5Dϑ#9 j* Dd 0  # A" E\{ʅ KT @=z E\{ʅZ G'H x\hUU?>KmX?ɖcmt>Fe9$ZS7Z#EQI*e2AFLZЌJɇ ~{{\^t|w|Ϗ|}^ "} $91S)cwg͌:y (v(;'=A7bP T U(g7C<(?xV{I] tToftJ"^ ux(l.$YQF7b|xx]i@b<T4hHa]Z"GmCm[m/A[ "Q2'-<% 3[WOcOuu~y0gHUFz{ul: X_{C ?C ..`],TiT('숽B"n~9VW;|U쿫v]Xb?wi:UsVrřؼ(kA>C>ֿC_Lo;PoۥN,{69U~~H]5o\eBVw(w4w&Ve=v,TT}S k}bJ-Q>U4r8U Ʊo@\Pq7ta6܃6 ["]ˈ::v"o#6"'z"/$ :L5!i穥Ϥi?^CyJ֜T}/ې]L*?D䇈| 6"o#z"'BM3٧9:8^uy"]U5>(`L_sq?P`.WmT?:'*#ٗ%C~EߡK't9Ē/Ψ:!Rޱ~'M5Vnn{a>Z6ϠQH9lwgr,xh=yHC9;ܐ6f— 7sC.v;@nh\3lqeˀ/66uJ9|dͩa#ցi9VW _8_Cmk_/lQl|=Cop[l>m?7?>]hq|] l1[t8P^/Y{go: *s|f=ͩIm9 ڞcU@e (w{@c6̭aig^6^&mHY0MMܕ&g¶:H[RV$TvmZm-#mI[[aŮ`ll&ҖIjڕ9=O3#蒡?)cૣ֐GUy?I"?ICD>D_K+!"_L䋉Ȼ|o#^"%A"$rꯖ׸7y?'e#&]1U8n0b>Ynn>[,H)ҳ erWz /Jٌ4k o^׳X+lam+1=)q;sm5Y9隝qK JR~{hihL}].8ҝ~gqӌ)sߏaU'cgM. Cli0Ħ%Qϛ>6ɺD] 9S,lR|l]PI K>K>6c8{_3 6S35H~N`IK bs!6lJ@xY&YňM!64{7a޸҈tbӄ&OqѥyM[5l״1ebkv4l7F#H֥w?`.7=C ?}>6ɺ d]ܰOMd&ŕ=wT4w{//y}n5['7ݯ}' @i E34wQiOF|lůG ?Gc{5̀_6>@l~El ZfG e_2O6~8 M"~+5F=a6~80M]uj]cAqK/mf9 =a[kC5v;WvO؆yx&C4| Uݰ=`{ c8tP 1Vߔ>Ud뷣:巙bZ6U*p2V/9;#mNGE_04 Dd *!0  # A" VBp;Q UT @= VBp;QLl6 BR'R x]]lTk_P@ U(aڧ 0)&:4}Ԯ iQ$hQRaHTU!4Fi5-H=g\t|9wΝ;sݵBtҁӤ?,BoܼI)ZAP5}@ !d)[ЀXT=$[ s|}uzt$ joq0tKJj.-,"=b|/|*KephВaW]|݇ݷ_ʳpD7\FzX ۷u\ .;cYfMpL8a++u!l A w:!7D'>ܳDn %E n-:F bm=_X&Ō}ByIߋ ڒzN'l Sd ѾuGw'W,_AߣM|d8,q}\?8>zMwpb)ִ,~`Q{Z{ wo϶˶~̙3+}=ٕV/1W񻯠^-=Ԝ֤4o/5YOҼۖPs[Ҽџya~G,H JF+mUnIAYiwF8Xr#H JF0= ǣa$H J x6ྥ-p;GRPV70Yr H JF^8.Fg{GRPV# ϔχ1 z/>b4|ICUKjjR:,}sx[c 5ICc̡rK>]ICc̝g+#~064D6P:lj@?,Y5tQ'>zh9G;<1w1׫8}ˏ9sO/ɿKyMEeȶ{|ϱL[;2A&?'ckL~ɧ4Y|'2µ+XMD5Yr&<\ eaM2skP:in%vz}5P% (wjv(=/'`ǹP%x^pѴWc [7L^\~c"lɑ-4[Sϴ;9#~| s"[zɖOL.7&:Xx$bLB[\`r^#Gcr\0IĘقX\5&w˂ߗ901ʘ "MExs׈- VOL2L2WJCE|?)0y6.&m~ Qk-AOLt{c4G. arIF%.1&[N&<1ɑ$''G'n[&W=1CoL..\wŘr0& `dm baldvP{#}|zRM5(<()$?"slc7Fy'|oJoC7 Rż25S0'Ly+-9z)n[|?1Fx/YwLx*Kx x3E#3 G<\w^9FmS|V!o(_m{܁m&u[[ ]lFv]|V!(m7߁mw$lV!7('!Cؚbl=Ϭ(m{ہm.gc{r֊r>^ ^B[Qc; ۆ*m+a;3(WLilܖF_v<?:iKs*DmLwɪf-3XieZ4_QS&{9$v^< Dd !|0  # A" 8&%I.`\O" %bT @= 8&%I.`\O"\5 R' x\klT>swǮCJ0ld%(]ֶš"T2JI j$*]jA ?VE?JiPKH R?B "-%E43sΞwM{/fΜ;s<{1(}C@Vlں@Co]IL v(ee˒ZL-EVe˔( {WdH-m؇.+l]B|/ˋ<99 PNL VLw`ZQwV@Kc0eT _vΕtl'7r(;碷QZ5վ_Ս _7v6]?- ؅jGf!87M@6xw&^G7A/!}$3ш!-˪g.i9w߽3i+j٩57&}/xqb+ eh%K۰̈ψ@z+);E'TVJ[^w}-J]jMU]1S{#r߫:5gfԩ 5+SU\q}\T#&|yzE[mղd 3YL͘VaeڟŚULy,}A6jJ[>I\| e9XK>α>N2IeQb!g~of*ۜ=r9&cG-[_4ơ^3OG`Zi 6|jG͙{^Y7g{y{y+@!G cEϠEzA HwHo0 i#=hЋPٍ3Ƙ _3D=Jzӗy︀5*ѱbƶwJ}[s X5WU&mc1F91c68̱FkF=l\Fa$oE1̟D1Eעzv|I~VdA)m`C|?*^)mk{ߥ5=GTN3!?ZQWa6i{I сt7Vt-ڨ0o"ϋHo|7(ma6I)6t'w*mJa6KKGu)!1߁AEע/{<=m| _ -ߨZVtysuX.QOgӟ1:GqL'Lҵ]ͱ@u'Hdt8xd")]2'?xAFAvEvdo\~'e 0 ,P$k!jZ$jèQD%/3n:Sov1G?.7[R!>k/1%Ɵ` _(J60e?c/2 ƿu,^rl{wc%۠.+j|$ZO[NtXq){dri˱f ~ :-zy++?WO˯PwװԂf L#X߁X&>8P~E`ڭT3o'Q9i)*3=c%Ƨ7y3%]^_gc'-cK\MP˔]IQK˄#&Wo[0I=]%cLL.w 7LnE9&1FL:cLuψR#&L4xNlsD {`ynvgxHؔ貍98_vX8_xe0|9H~Kg|)(a3q) 6#acaZv?nL,e\$L8_^#_`Z]6_s~.7:m"OZ%|1)Eba|RsYbLul.o˿-Wxe>@qŷּݎkޜq|&L݂HvV!Ι8 ~2ɱ %&clg%^x O[<7l3B5O1>l{-l{"a*muaoۇ#a*uw؂HV!~X Sl;bi/c;<ş]}`l$lKpMJ;Oqll_%Y}5Bva}F}k6g6p[7򱑿& V/ə̈́je2V@|Y/[F+Dd s'WW0  # A2d- Imul`!md- Im$qYa@;xWOoT?g)8uUȰK4Dm%zPjnwlh|#qP@|q.>=,z\A%3oq줛.V77 0 ^d~e' YpIbwŇ2&1yG!G-ؾAKa읯1|#q_~={o= ~`~ =rNeoA~Jj{ݞޟ::>:|GqKGXKXv5Ji/KR\^81" 8ĥH~6PzvRޱui6ijIllY8gwݶԶE}ѶeM7EE&fQ~t(- $g |Ρ|4gBs\k*xY=C/BB:zLHG?8F655BZ^8C"Ayn;F[m漋Y1wX#([+׷PYԗL-4VFoa} i_#k(mZ.Vmnpnshę_Ŝm\. ]Gj.Yj4 UzMF3[``^1|{hEF}k{In}S fɚ,[7J~0|6cw]Ok?V0U97C[}Uc-;׈Vˀ8^quw+1'}rP4qᘃ$!A?o=EFIo;M1cYSj$^Ǐ=r#ߧu؋Xآq0:u}ɶC# s\v"keap,<[eU]nɑjbiKґ@UP܅bUU,U(r!EIҨّ'ik4%zs\h̡,Mzyq0=C[K2-l$9O@i{I_֞_1N ~IK&rk·\pr2ʏ0{j<;ȔAɔ{t^q 'WJ_!̫2ձ@Na8%'D3kٿO\::dYlk|n2yNjK-/`->G~,6s$)wn[`[md:#h{*d;A )ͷyN#XVzUV~#׽ɞ3fmvF(n^̧EɮUTWUsA'n6q`Ry{0Rxu i??]Gx0O][)cy v/%D!sw1+Q)<[qostӶtEe[RޜU5E@Tl6YQqw:M~0P;;a +-kZ C맭׌7Yz=fzu^'=d&3z:mZv{VכP_6@8B1W ƭb #V4Z<⽰2]˷Ql?vU# Uc<'µf+d ɎjVl;MFFvl`ZĮjnVwwcEwBU섟;`n?_ygm Dd 6~~0  # A2V؀)՛> 5}w`!V؀)՛> 5#Qv'xՙOlǟH'QYuajuE )Q5д^͢dbJr c;lb@Sw=} ЃСh(lC&hE,B"8#Fb( Ǹ[YB >u"h4"HD8~\ڱG'#/bIǤb=gl}$&:{#nGluMjwf"O'VS[olMj*Ϗ+ b@o1yMPe+шӿH=gW^tMӰzK(ΡZ@Ȁ =hϽ`OwsnwPo+}EpL5 ϣѽ gkvR}i1Z`|WyְovӶ^l2cb<~;HO G,F=љϬn2J.,1n2.ď#>3F|73s="cO3裡Ǚ*mauV-E'< ©Bj -gY YB=,b*M~,2&J`Mょ>IA ӣxu%IU)yc2aShgm^;CQUu]ط-8 $&8*S3,?AYXڗFoqncOiϡݺe]l<B9k f)Gr`KO(݇!|1@<"I-ګݵnbg,D|sd84ZyUɻq߉<^QBSu%^@J_Ղ}l",g`/X3خ_vԛZ0+ƛ?th{ޞcZęqtw^. C^! ;BovJ SjTx JfDVy2G$S gK̮Y TqeHH$]dzM/,yo7_bMj-jSrk71uPoJVCVzj'TU^CjCuȩ@USsZj50pLU=)TՎkIt긒Ƹh9oY3VkpSEtݳuKu)oUK%1eC $+-V}uKyR/G3 L=ړ (qOZѼ']sS{5aqOrvŜFkOr1֞=2OnNOƴM#+ZwMq 説Z2=U}P\jQXբ+=U-+lkQ>wjJ3 vHށKM]W;Q^Wղjyj!UNՕ꺿vƬeutѤC=Oϳ-?̼ K> =ogUio+`Mvݶl;a,ovgް6 2 hΡiϋ\{^#;;>#G#)qmS#>rkӵx[{;@Gq * v=#uE*᮹DyK  www.madd.orgyK *http://www.madd.org/Dd|L  C (Alogo_72R]=辱(m_F]=辱(m_JFIFHH,Photoshop 3.08BIMHHAdobed       S  s!1AQa"q2B#R3b$r%C4Scs5D'6Tdt& EFVU(eufv7GWgw8HXhx)9IYiy*:JZjzm!1AQa"q2#BRbr3$4CS%cs5DT &6E'dtU7()󄔤euFVfvGWgw8HXhx9IYiy*:JZjz ?N*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbXלyfM2Ә-dU**]Eb/n,F|wiDg(iWӊ1_ > _L1LO,mY.ICUxP݃aSZhhiVWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*Һ8|A<濝@ռѧi׺9iO/; y)Z5 w58F98Mtx~UyY{8&c;n(˻0U1EG32O!^-voדe\h*0Ͳ,Wbwo: 9cm# 28o,m;ZųGHX\בڽRN+&Jnot]Fm4;;8(S'=I͈)&ѸPUثT^M|i6ND(JǸ;&!1E&cߔQ_4·PyN"<VeVn t6 4A;3\Wb]IB+;O;Vy}K> ~,jhthi㈢NG r|%նI3j8RDF`ޕڴ8E D)}5%4QTRIUf2YIMKl`VX"r~+CyoAd#[^EqAL ao)R(d-2Uj' d?zU[ٵ#\]9_Ј1捣"jEhرQcuCu1i%g!bYgG@ij% *£/rV; !޲CHe Ĉn>+E*em(˹56g=ͤQB"dh 6Z Xi%ybbxF"XZFy)jd,9K{[;M'$ZxCq<6U641$z;)$"t;o[P-ƒq K !#be!?Ic?- :] 3M3 ʫq/|%28oi7H$6Z[M}ԁ_V1Ҭd*E+A8t,Ml}ksCm[>IHW=⍨:mău/?LZ1)ߒ ӡTc$\N#ct˿+,nUklb,{_(0&xPl6 VjQ1 ~FSb+( hﴷnQne8BWDI1DMjMz JԑMF,; 1fEt#GFp~?F_/)ڕV\mHWbVr#G"=80"mQ 8DUӀXwAd>z`2-J. t1YzNq51;;8 \4,q݊v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbٗDd|L  C (Alogo_72R]=辱(m_:F]=辱(m_JFIFHH,Photoshop 3.08BIMHHAdobed       S  s!1AQa"q2B#R3b$r%C4Scs5D'6Tdt& EFVU(eufv7GWgw8HXhx)9IYiy*:JZjzm!1AQa"q2#BRbr3$4CS%cs5DT &6E'dtU7()󄔤euFVfvGWgw8HXhx9IYiy*:JZjz ?N*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbXלyfM2Ә-dU**]Eb/n,F|wiDg(iWӊ1_ > _L1LO,mY.ICUxP݃aSZhhiVWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*Һ8|A<濝@ռѧi׺9iO/; y)Z5 w58F98Mtx~UyY{8&c;n(˻0U1EG32O!^-voדe\h*0Ͳ,Wbwo: 9cm# 28o,m;ZųGHX\בڽRN+&Jnot]Fm4;;8(S'=I͈)&ѸPUثT^M|i6ND(JǸ;&!1E&cߔQ_4·PyN"<VeVn t6 4A;3\Wb]IB+;O;Vy}K> ~,jhthi㈢NG r|%նI3j8RDF`ޕڴ8E D)}5%4QTRIUf2YIMKl`VX"r~+CyoAd#[^EqAL ao)R(d-2Uj' d?zU[ٵ#\]9_Ј1捣"jEhرQcuCu1i%g!bYgG@ij% *£/rV; !޲CHe Ĉn>+E*em(˹56g=ͤQB"dh 6Z Xi%ybbxF"XZFy)jd,9K{[;M'$ZxCq<6U641$z;)$"t;o[P-ƒq K !#be!?Ic?- :] 3M3 ʫq/|%28oi7H$6Z[M}ԁ_V1Ҭd*E+A8t,Ml}ksCm[>IHW=⍨:mău/?LZ1)ߒ ӡTc$\N#ct˿+,nUklb,{_(0&xPl6 VjQ1 ~FSb+( hﴷnQne8BWDI1DMjMz JԑMF,; 1fEt#GFp~?F_/)ڕV\mHWbVr#G"=80"mQ 8DUӀXwAd>z`2-J. t1YzNq51;;8 \4,q݊v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbٗDd|L  C (Alogo_72R]=辱(m_ѨF]=辱(m_JFIFHH,Photoshop 3.08BIMHHAdobed       S  s!1AQa"q2B#R3b$r%C4Scs5D'6Tdt& EFVU(eufv7GWgw8HXhx)9IYiy*:JZjzm!1AQa"q2#BRbr3$4CS%cs5DT &6E'dtU7()󄔤euFVfvGWgw8HXhx9IYiy*:JZjz ?N*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbXלyfM2Ә-dU**]Eb/n,F|wiDg(iWӊ1_ > _L1LO,mY.ICUxP݃aSZhhiVWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*Һ8|A<濝@ռѧi׺9iO/; y)Z5 w58F98Mtx~UyY{8&c;n(˻0U1EG32O!^-voדe\h*0Ͳ,Wbwo: 9cm# 28o,m;ZųGHX\בڽRN+&Jnot]Fm4;;8(S'=I͈)&ѸPUثT^M|i6ND(JǸ;&!1E&cߔQ_4·PyN"<VeVn t6 4A;3\Wb]IB+;O;Vy}K> ~,jhthi㈢NG r|%նI3j8RDF`ޕڴ8E D)}5%4QTRIUf2YIMKl`VX"r~+CyoAd#[^EqAL ao)R(d-2Uj' d?zU[ٵ#\]9_Ј1捣"jEhرQcuCu1i%g!bYgG@ij% *£/rV; !޲CHe Ĉn>+E*em(˹56g=ͤQB"dh 6Z Xi%ybbxF"XZFy)jd,9K{[;M'$ZxCq<6U641$z;)$"t;o[P-ƒq K !#be!?Ic?- :] 3M3 ʫq/|%28oi7H$6Z[M}ԁ_V1Ҭd*E+A8t,Ml}ksCm[>IHW=⍨:mău/?LZ1)ߒ ӡTc$\N#ct˿+,nUklb,{_(0&xPl6 VjQ1 ~FSb+( hﴷnQne8BWDI1DMjMz JԑMF,; 1fEt#GFp~?F_/)ڕV\mHWbVr#G"=80"mQ 8DUӀXwAd>z`2-J. t1YzNq51;;8 \4,q݊v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbٗDd|L  C (Alogo_72R]=辱(m_hF]=辱(m_JFIFHH,Photoshop 3.08BIMHHAdobed       S  s!1AQa"q2B#R3b$r%C4Scs5D'6Tdt& EFVU(eufv7GWgw8HXhx)9IYiy*:JZjzm!1AQa"q2#BRbr3$4CS%cs5DT &6E'dtU7()󄔤euFVfvGWgw8HXhx9IYiy*:JZjz ?N*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbXלyfM2Ә-dU**]Eb/n,F|wiDg(iWӊ1_ > _L1LO,mY.ICUxP݃aSZhhiVWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*Һ8|A<濝@ռѧi׺9iO/; y)Z5 w58F98Mtx~UyY{8&c;n(˻0U1EG32O!^-voדe\h*0Ͳ,Wbwo: 9cm# 28o,m;ZųGHX\בڽRN+&Jnot]Fm4;;8(S'=I͈)&ѸPUثT^M|i6ND(JǸ;&!1E&cߔQ_4·PyN"<VeVn t6 4A;3\Wb]IB+;O;Vy}K> ~,jhthi㈢NG r|%նI3j8RDF`ޕڴ8E D)}5%4QTRIUf2YIMKl`VX"r~+CyoAd#[^EqAL ao)R(d-2Uj' d?zU[ٵ#\]9_Ј1捣"jEhرQcuCu1i%g!bYgG@ij% *£/rV; !޲CHe Ĉn>+E*em(˹56g=ͤQB"dh 6Z Xi%ybbxF"XZFy)jd,9K{[;M'$ZxCq<6U641$z;)$"t;o[P-ƒq K !#be!?Ic?- :] 3M3 ʫq/|%28oi7H$6Z[M}ԁ_V1Ҭd*E+A8t,Ml}ksCm[>IHW=⍨:mău/?LZ1)ߒ ӡTc$\N#ct˿+,nUklb,{_(0&xPl6 VjQ1 ~FSb+( hﴷnQne8BWDI1DMjMz JԑMF,; 1fEt#GFp~?F_/)ڕV\mHWbVr#G"=80"mQ 8DUӀXwAd>z`2-J. t1YzNq51;;8 \4,q݊v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbٗDd|L  C (Alogo_72R]=辱(m_F]=辱(m_JFIFHH,Photoshop 3.08BIMHHAdobed       S  s!1AQa"q2B#R3b$r%C4Scs5D'6Tdt& EFVU(eufv7GWgw8HXhx)9IYiy*:JZjzm!1AQa"q2#BRbr3$4CS%cs5DT &6E'dtU7()󄔤euFVfvGWgw8HXhx9IYiy*:JZjz ?N*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbXלyfM2Ә-dU**]Eb/n,F|wiDg(iWӊ1_ > _L1LO,mY.ICUxP݃aSZhhiVWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*Һ8|A<濝@ռѧi׺9iO/; y)Z5 w58F98Mtx~UyY{8&c;n(˻0U1EG32O!^-voדe\h*0Ͳ,Wbwo: 9cm# 28o,m;ZųGHX\בڽRN+&Jnot]Fm4;;8(S'=I͈)&ѸPUثT^M|i6ND(JǸ;&!1E&cߔQ_4·PyN"<VeVn t6 4A;3\Wb]IB+;O;Vy}K> ~,jhthi㈢NG r|%նI3j8RDF`ޕڴ8E D)}5%4QTRIUf2YIMKl`VX"r~+CyoAd#[^EqAL ao)R(d-2Uj' d?zU[ٵ#\]9_Ј1捣"jEhرQcuCu1i%g!bYgG@ij% *£/rV; !޲CHe Ĉn>+E*em(˹56g=ͤQB"dh 6Z Xi%ybbxF"XZFy)jd,9K{[;M'$ZxCq<6U641$z;)$"t;o[P-ƒq K !#be!?Ic?- :] 3M3 ʫq/|%28oi7H$6Z[M}ԁ_V1Ҭd*E+A8t,Ml}ksCm[>IHW=⍨:mău/?LZ1)ߒ ӡTc$\N#ct˿+,nUklb,{_(0&xPl6 VjQ1 ~FSb+( hﴷnQne8BWDI1DMjMz JԑMF,; 1fEt#GFp~?F_/)ڕV\mHWbVr#G"=80"mQ 8DUӀXwAd>z`2-J. t1YzNq51;;8 \4,q݊v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb.T@T XgNormal$d a$ CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH @ Xg Heading 1d$ & F$d  %d  &d  'd  -D`@&M N O P Q 5;B* CJph`@` Xg Heading 2 & F@&B* OJQJ\]^JaJphd@d  Heading 3$ & F<@&6B* OJQJ\^JaJphDA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List TOT Title on Cover5B* CJ0OJQJaJ0ph6O6 Firms$a$ 6CJ \BOB Heading5B* CJOJQJphXO1"X Table Bullets# & F P^`P<O2< Table Text CJOJQJ4 @B4 Footer  !hORh Header and Footer !d6B* CJOJQJph`Ob` Annotated Bibliography Title 5B*phZOrZ Style1 !&`#$6B* CJOJQJphNON Appendix Heading$a$ ;CJ0aJ0RYR  Document Map-D M OJQJ^JNON Table Title TextB*OJQJphZOZ Annotated Bib Table Title 5B*phPOP Annotated Bib Row Header5T0@T  List Bullet# & F 0^`0@@@TOC 1  ! 5mHnHu.@. TOC 2 ^.. TOC 3 ^6U@6  Hyperlink >*B*phZ^@"Z Normal (Web)"$ddd[$\$a$ CJOJQJ&O1& texhtmlDB@BD Body Text$d5$7$8$H$aJ4@R4 Header % !<P@b< Body Text 2& B* phvsv Z Table Grid7:V'0'$d a$dOd text 2-column#( 7d5$7$8$9DH$ OJQJaJ.)@.  Page NumberFV@F FollowedHyperlink >*B* ph>@> L Footnote Text+CJaJ@&@@ LFootnote ReferenceH*F>@F gTitle-$da$5CJOJQJaJ)J?1PGkUlw2YuU"   YYYUU Y  !             ay $ h "h Dh fh h h h *i" z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z v z z z z z z zxay } $+v08?FOfU\-_4gmty~ySC%0   v  %L|Ce` !,-./0123456789:;kuz{|},FGHIV`arsvwxyLy>n# } % %&W}h i [!!a""j# $ $ $$$&&''/)0)l)m)) *i****++@,A,i,,,B-C-2.I.s0t0u0v000k2l2;3<35566U7V788888939m999::;;<<==u>v>??CC;D^$Lhkln  ! # C [ w z { }   " # % E a } =J X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%̕X #07;"),!! !!!!!  kP?"$Z§q\ l\y"$/4Z:e’+ R$]=辱(m_@h  OP(  HB  C DHB # C DHB % C DHB 4 C DHB 9 C DHB < C DHB L C DHB M C DHB N C DHB O C D j(  ZB  s *DԔB S  ?u|$T,z4Lt"UL!ULt"U#!U%L !UM!U9L1UN!U<L !UO!U _Toc140477795 _Toc140477796 _Toc140477797 _Toc140477798 _Toc140477799 _Toc140477800 _Toc140477801 _Toc140477802 _Toc140477803 _Toc140477804 _Toc140477805 _Toc140477806 _Toc140477807 _Toc140477808 _Toc140477809 _Toc140477810 _Toc140477811 _Toc140477812 _Toc140477813 $+2.v0:ISX-_Pihr(zv+ $+H.0:I TYQ_nirJz8{DD:*4:*t^T8b:*=T[$C|t)|9LKl84ޙt<.ߙTld D<> ɛL dl;4T, L< 5TDdCDĀ|0 / Lb h i Djܝ,#Ǜt@Bk,tߜ}l*?lܞL |ޜ!"Ԑ:*Ր:*֐:*#\Z8b9T :y;N<؛= $Dr%L!&H'!(<),c*ܚ+,8-<./|014?2Z3D4$5x6g7Uddmm  t t b b yy88/ / F$F$$$d&d&)*?*?*&,&,-=6=666a8a8yVyVEWEWCXCX[[lclczczcZdZdddffXgXgNN \\22|55IIll&&1VRR44jj%%[[      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz**jj#ss# # n n EE,; ; L$L$$$p&p&**K*K*2,2,-J6J666n8n8VVQWQWOXOX[[ucucccdddddd f f^g^gZZffƹƹ>>==OOvv/==d^^@@pp11aa  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzVz *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/hx *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsiv *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags_{*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/>y*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonName8c*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate  11993199622003200638DayMonthYearzv{zzvz{yz{z{zvzvzvz{c  zvz{zvzvc  c  zvzvc  zvzvz{zvzvzvzvzvzvzvzvzvz{zvz{c  zvzvzvzvzvzvzvzvc  zvz{zvzxxzvc  zvzvzvzvz{zvz{zvz{zvz{zvz{#s|2 ; ] f hr !!""Q#X#Z%c%%%&&2'='p'{'))00556 66667::r<{<YO`OPP3T>JJSS*p-pww25WZ՗ޗtw68 w{PR`::::::::::::::::::::::::::kxIay } $$z$$++2.I.88::S!TXY/kJkkkgrr(zKz̃v 1ԙ9W{Zy`q{}bmor` Chris George \nLN8aMbQpa?hH<E.AP8BR;ViI[h_y,>4EinQp I+^|Hp` JLtGQ RY2 J> k =!>!"$"("6I"k"$9,%.%4=&L&wT&N3'X'^'x'F|'b(0)B)j})$ *B*CM*Y*+ )+H:+G+_+2,5-B-g-!/A/d/ 00Y0v0}091W1 G2hi2B 3338D3\34E>4]45-E5Y^5]e5y66~a67E.7DS7U7\7)8ks8I99v,9M9P9\9qg9v9x : :;m`;a;e;sL<LU<zV<T =5=6=X=>'$>r+>v4>?.%?T@;@f@ ABAIAS_AcA"vABB[BBRBb C@4C:C:CJHCV}C D D@%D)7DnDEXEfZEF+F#G!GB1G\G\GksGKHdsHtIqI5I5GI[IJJ$JS%J7J:J4=JUJxJ: KzKUK< L1LCLELcLqLM_ Mg!M;M tMxM0NN2N_QK_q_}_`H```c`3d`Ih`@au a:aUa ]aUkavla3bcbcd!dTdodee*e1eXe{ezf2f ;f?f@f8Nfff-!gR'gXgh:h_hmhi)inizi/j:j^jgjk*7k\kQlkcw)v"F%lAKh^orL2g>h?Y! 9[g t9e/p|l!`+`8luuPNb P)67H A#@iwiEWExH]|=g.KguX!9AwzEPms^ltf$<4AyT?"naw7 Jbn@FsQ |HTe*5/_+b7WDI Wq} :Eu}_`7l'6BW(r`!J){op}Ta*xe ]z]{E(iZ!DCOe?7:lHanbtC}aSxb>~]+k%|-VT~r|z+8;8 *[qru'8;Q`WtYm1m;Y=BQRq' J('68UR"Xs1?G#} 1rX7DY~\RRXWbX_Gwx OZ:f\,05KTUorv|+ &>6W["Ny"+M[v7~o=%&''Vd{&4>**Hf5v^9O_o{ K_{6aoq RRq1M_a7F@r h/@#7_H63oAADg[_l//5]_EVk$q7 2VXqu!l2p5CX"B'H[!/1n2^}p j9G=g2is|{T*o.}HPh}~h (FNW"aZqu ~!3(]cO8b<-IHyL; Pg 4w@&pu{yv~&Ugx~-<Sd#"ZW:Hhux%j2v5tPdg '4xbP^%bmI_6@ee@Dee@UnknownG: Times New Roman5Symbol3& : Arial?5 : Courier NewE& Century Gothic5& zaTahoma;Wingdings"qhwcf"m"mY[24d 3qXR(?a xTDevelopment of Winter Severity Indicator Models for Canadian Winter Road Maintenance Jeff Suggett Chris George<         Oh+'0 $0<L dp    UDevelopment of Winter Severity Indicator Models for Canadian Winter Road Maintenance eve Jeff Suggettf WeffeffNormalg Chris Georgef W2riMicrosoft Word 10.0@F#@28Kܥ@E;@E;"՜.+,D՜.+,< hp|  TSHmA UDevelopment of Winter Severity Indicator Models for Canadian Winter Road Maintenance TitleHLTt _PID_HLINKS_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnceATx]Quhttp://www.madd.org/>n_Toc140477813>h_Toc140477812>b_Toc140477811>\_Toc140477810>V_Toc140477809>P_Toc140477808>J_Toc140477807>D_Toc140477806>>_Toc140477805>8_Toc140477804>2_Toc140477803>,_Toc140477802>&_Toc140477801> _Toc1404778001_Toc1404777991_Toc1404777981_Toc1404777971_Toc1404777961_Toc1404777952winter seveirty index ebsugget@cogeco.cadeJeff & Brenda Suggett (home)diceff  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F W;Data R1Table'QWordDocument`iSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q