OOS LS-51 COMPARISON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS ADMiNISIRATICN This booklet was prepared in the Bureau of Labor Standards, Office of Occupational Safety. Direct requests for information to the Bureau of Labor Standards, Washington, D.C. 20210, Attention Code 3-223 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 75 cents STATE SAFETY CODE COMPARISON STUDIES (ti^t^ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS Digitized by tine Internet Arclnive in 2011 witli funding from University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries with support from LYRASIS and the Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/statesafetycodecOOunit FOREWORD These code comparison studies are the prod- uct of a cooperative effort between the States and the Bureau of Labor Standards. We appre- ciate each State's contribution which enabled us to evaluate the requirements of that State's safety codes and to have our evaluation con- firmed by the appropriate State officials. We have incorporated with each chart an appraisal of the State's safety rulemaking ac- tivity to permit each study to be used inde- pendently. When removed from the booklet for review by different parties concerned with specific standards, each comparison is complete. The several safety standards committees now actively reviewing and revising the stand- ards included in this latest study will find this study very enlightening. We believe this booklet of code comparisons will serve as a useful means of communicating information of the national posture in safety standards to all the States and to the safety standards committees and their sponsors who devote much time and effort to the develop- ment and promotion of national voluntary stand- ards. We thank particularly thoseStateagencies and officials who assisted our staff in making these studies. I 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword i i i Background on the Code Comparison Studies vii CHARTS AND PROGRESS REPORTED Comparison of State Safety Codes With USAS - Woodworlcliv« thon iiandord t*,^ lot reitntlive than ttondord [ I No iiotui* «r cod* Z8. 1-1961, and corresponding provisions ol available State laws (statutory and admmistiativei. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION SEPTEMBER 1966 STATUTE— Bo».t low anocted by Stol* Ugillotion CODE — Pfoviiion*. promulgotBd by o Slot* odmirtiitrolive agency. having Iha lorca and ef^ecr of Icrw COMPARISON OF STATE SAFETY CODES WITH USAS-WINDOW CLEANING, A39.1-1959 WINDOW CLEANING The initial code comparison study between |Bthe "American Safety Code for Window Clean- sing, " ASA A39.1 -igs^and the applicable State safety regulations was made in 1963. At that time 24 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia had mandatory safety codes for win- dow cleaning, and only two States were still using statutory provisions. This left 24 States which had no minimum mandatory safety re- quirements for the hazards of window cleaning. The uniformity for worker protection under the laws of the States was poor. • The impact study shows a small improve- ment. Now 23 States lack some type of safety requirement for window cleaning. There is ap- preciable change in the degree of uniformity for worker protection. SOURCE- Unilad Sl«tc) ol Am LECENU ^ s- ..-'•.» ..-. Fj^ l*» (■iliifli>* Ihan nendar. [ [ N» ti.:]Nii a< (od* •3 Safely Code for Window Ci mg. USAS A19.1 - 19S8, DEFINITIONS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR i AND LABOR STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION April 196T SPECIFIC NOTES GENERAL NOTES On Au|uil 74,19S6.lhe Am«iican StarxlSTdi Atsociation wdt icconilituled »t Iht Unilad SIttai olAmtnca Slandndi Inilitute. Slandirdi appiovad a$ A Laboi itatoi^ 'Section 44-6)t and 44-617 of Iba Kanias Slatulai, 1949. ii miaiD'atad by tha oOica of the Altoinoy Oan- eral to piovide aullioiily (o fie Kama* Oapaiiment o' Labor lo itquire recognliad itandaidi For Induidial aalaly and fieallfi. The Kantas Of- paitment ol Laboi adminiiitadvely adopted ... all ASA Standard* at « rninimuiK requliement tor industrial la'ety and Htallh.* Thac ! inlended lo mow compariion or Slate lant wiin appiicaoie pio*i»ioni ot me »ianoara» oi tn* United Stales or Amend Standaidf institul*. Tbe cAaitt do nol illempi to evaluate Ihe Slate en- foicamenl pioceduias oi lo weiiti tfie imporUnte of spetidc pio»i»ions. The Charts Should tt toftiideiedonly as one ola number of meeni ol eval- uating (ha Stale pro|rai>> lor piolectlen of noikeis m the aiea coveied by the SUte law. Rule 1 of lh« Basic Saraiy ManuaMefrecli that 'Macmneiy, tools, 0' othci devices nol codas of the Siaic of Aikansasl shall be i the applicable pioviiioni of (he 'Amaiicai Coda applying iheielo.'" • JunaS, 19S9)sia(es,in part, :ovaied by (hose codes [safaly iteguaided in accoidance with Slandaiils Assoc lalMn Saraty RuleSOol Laboi.mada puiiuant lo Section S4-tI2(dl a by codes of theAmeiican Standards As> The DepailmenI ot Laboi i' tion's 'Satety Coda lot Wind 7 The Depatlmanl of Laboi an tuad at lagulalloni to apply and affecl of law, the Amaik ln|.* ASA A)9,l - 19S9. itntt Indusliy on Junel,l9GS adopted i In all places of amployitiant with tfi n Standaid'Safely Code for Window Rule 1 or Genaii July I. 19G0),pi uieO which does ican Slandaids f I Rules, NoKh Dakota Industnal lafaty Coda (adopted ivides thai no machine, tool, o( oihei daviea ahall nol comply wllh Ihe applicable safety code of theAm COMPARISON OF STATE SAFETY CODES WITH USAS-MECHANICAL POWER-TRANSMISSION APPARATUS B15. 1-1958 w MECHANICAL POWER-TRANSMISSION APPARATUS The first study of this area covered by the "American Standard Safety Code for Mechanical Power— Transmission Apparatus," ASA B15.1- 1958, and the applicable State safety regula- tions was completed in 1960. This study showed '31 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Co- lumbia had mandatory minimum safety codes, and 10 States were using statutory provisions only to cover the hazards of this equipment. The degree of uniformity for worker protection among the States was fair, however 10 States had no mandatory minimum safety requirements for these hazards. The impact study showed no change in the number of States with some type of minimum mandatory safety requirements for protection against the hazards of mechanical power trans- mission apparatus. There was a slight improve- ment in the degree of uniformity for worker protection among the State requirements. S 1... n U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR KAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS ADMIHISTRATIOH APRIL 196T STATUTE - aitu ^^m COMPARISON OF STATE SAFETY CODES WITH USAS-TEXTILE SAFETY CODE, LI. 1-1956 ^^^^B lu^ 1. DEFINITIONS 3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND PICKERS CARDS MACHINES 9 SLASHEKS- CYLINDER OBYERS | ■ SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS _ " 9 i 5 i i s 1 3 t I § 1 3 § 1 1 g & s i £ < i ill 1 i i 1 = f 5 1 1 1 j 1 1 a S E 1 i 1 1 s £ s * ii i li 1 1* if i i * * i i ill ' 1^ 2S 1 1 fi ii gi i| Ii 1 1! 3 S ii if S i i 4 Si J II Ii 1 7 1 i 1 1 1 5. || 11 1 i S 1 3 i g 1 1 3 i 5 i £ 1 IS 1 1 S s_ 5i ii S i i s i 1 s i ^^^^m SI*I( - 2 - i ;, S r 2 ^ 5 = = = S = ^ s s 5 = ~ s ;; 2 •4 R a 5 R 2 n 2 s ! 2 S s 3 5 5 ™ ;:; :: ^ i ; :; : - 5 ^ 3 3 J ;; ::; 2 ;; 2 ! ~ Z : ^ -) ^ * 5 ^^^^^^^K AlASAMA CODE ' ^^^^^^^B ALASKA CODE ,'. .■• V c^ ^^^^^^^B ARIZONA ^^^^^^^B ARKANSAS COOE -■ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ f^-:- ^ <^ SN ^ ^ ^{SM§$S3$JJJJ$JJS$J^ ^^^^^^^B CAUFORNIA CODE § i%:- f^ ;. :•:;> •^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^i^ % ^^^^^^^B COLORADO CODE ^ ^^^^^^^B CONNECTICUT CODE ^ >;. ^^^^^^^B DELAWARE ^ ^^^^^^^B FLORIDA CODE i^ •' •"i ,v !^ V y. ,'.' ^^v j$|$; ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^^^^^B OEOROIA coot 1 5S ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ §^^^^^ ^^^^^^^B HAWAII CODE >!^ ^ ^ ^ 1$^ ^ ^^^^^^^B IDAHO CODE ^ y i^ ^^^^^^^B lUtNOIS CODE ^ f§ ^ {;! :•: ^ '^ ifi ^^^^^^^B INDIANA COD! ^ 5f^ 5^^ ^ ?S '^A:-* ^ ^ '.'.■ ^^^^^^^B IOWA SIATUIt ^^^^^^Bp KANSAS STATUTE • ^ ^ i^ "\^ ^ ^ :<^ ^ ^ ^ ^ !^ ^ ^ ^ "^ ^ ^ ^ ^ •^ <^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^JJJ^m^^^J^^K^^^^^J^^^ TEXTILE SAFETY The first textile code comparison study was made in 1962. At that time 37 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia had admin- istratively promulgated safety regulations, and eight States were still using statutory provi- sions only for the textile industry. The degree of uniformity for worker protection under the States' requirements was almost nonexistent. The impact study showed almost no change in this area over the 5-year period with only one State making any changes to its rules dur- ing this time. KINTUCKY CODE > LOUISIANA COOE MAINE CODE MARYLAND COD(6 ^^iJ^J^^mi^M^^^ MASSACHUSCnS STAIUTt ,v • • MICHIGAN STAIUIE !■;■ MINNESOTA cooe !^ ■•■' '!:; •! ','j 5^^ MISSISSim code' \ MISSOURI STATUTE !•' :•'• MONTANA NEBRASKA coot ,v y NEVADA COOE •"i ^ !v :• NEW HAMPSHtRf CODE ;•' NEW JERSEY CODf 5|5 ^ ■^ ^^^ 5^ ^ ^ ^ Iv *•■ '■" NEW MEXICO COOE ^ :-3 >; £-| NEW YORK CODf ^ *»'i r ^^^ ^^ NORTH CAROUNA COOE ^ y 'r< NORTH DAKOTA COOfS ^^:'^ R^ m^m^^^^ ^^;i|^ ^ ^ ^$$ijj{^ OHIO code ^ ^^^ '.', ^^^^^^^K, OKLAHOMA COOE ^ S^ ^ ^^^^^^^B OREGON CODE !i^ ^^^v S '"•i"'" L'^ ^^^^^^^B PENNSYLVANIA COOE ^ ■" !j!j !^ '•" ^^^^^^^B RHODE ISLAND COOE ^ ^ ^ ^S^ .; ^^^^^^^B SOUTH CAROUNA COOE ^^^^^^^B SOUTH DAKOTA ^^^^^^^B TENNESSEE CODE y ^^^^^^^B TEXAS CODE 1 ^^^^^^^B UTAH COOE ,•.' ^^^^^^^B VERMONT CODE ,•■' •y !"! :•: ^^^^^^^B VIRGINIA STATUTE .• ^^^^^^^B WASHINGTON COOE ^ ■:^ ^^^^^^^B WEST VIRGINIA STATUTE ■,' '.', ^^^^^^^B WISCONSIN coot \\ !^!^ ^ ^^^^^^^B WYOMING STATUTE >I !• ^^^^^^^B' DIST OF COLUMBIA COOE ^Iv Iv ;J [^ ^^^^^^^B PUERTO RICO CODE ■^ SOURCE United Stales ol Ametica Standard Textile Safety Code. USAS No, L1.M956. and cot responding o'ovisions ol available Stale laws (staluloiy and adminisl.alive). LEGEND DEFINITIONS Fo. SPECIFIC and GENERAL NOTES see Sheet No, 2 ^ Sor.. o, or ...ilor ,o s.ondc.d STATUTE -Bos.c low enoc.ed by ""S- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ^ Stole leg.sloi.on WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION K^ More •eilriclive Ihon ilondord August 1967 ^ COOE-Pfovi.ions, promolgoled P«*J Lett >eilr>ct>ve Ihon tlondord by a Stole odministro>iv« ^_^ ogency, having the forte ond 1 1 No jlotote 01 code eflect of law COMPARISON OF STATE SAFETY CODES WITH USAS-TEXTILE SAFETY CODE, LI. 1-1956 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS ■ : 1 ^■S S z tlASHfRS- ENCIOSED HOT wimi 1} Gill ■ OXES .. u LOOMS 17 HEACH RANGEI KIERS 30 wiaiLZJNC KNTER FA AMES )YEINC JIGS 14 DtTlHC IROWRi EXTIAaORS IB 7t 30 31 33 33 34 ROPE WUHII 36 37 3B 39 40 - 43 43 44 45 46 47 4B 49 so 5 GENERAL NOTES On August 2». 1966. Ifie Araer-can Slandaids Associalion was leconslituted as Ihe Uniled States ot Ametrca Slandards Instilote. Standards approved as Amencan Slandaids ate now deiignated USA Slandaids. Theie is no cn.mge in their index identiltcalton or technical conteni. i The charts in iftis seiies ate intended to show a compaiison ol Slate taws with ap- plicable piovis'ons ot the standa^ ^ ^: OKLAHOMA coot 1 ^ ^ ijL OREOON COM ^ i^ rtNNinVANIA CODE ^ •"i 5^ ^ '«■ - - - ^ - ^^ ji^^ RHODE lUANO COM iOUIH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA tENNESSIE TEXAS COM 1 • coot COM Sil UTAH VERMONT COM ■:iiSf- COOf «■ VIIQINIA WEJt VIIQINIA STATUTE CODt "• ■■" ;• '.• '•■ ■■« ,•. .' ^1 SiS^- HMUIE - — — ~ — -^ — -- - — " - — — _ — _ — _ — _ _ — _ _ w — _ _ _ , ,_ _ „ ^ __ _ __ ^ „„ WYOMING ITATUn — — — — — ' ~- — — - — — — — ^ — — — — — — — ' " — ^ — - '- — - — - — — - — ^ — - - - ~- - - i^ ^ - "~ - ■^ z DItl OF COLUMBIA fWRIOItCO COM ^ COM N^ 'A-: ii- IfGENO ^ s. , ..,„.lor lo ..oodord "-S- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ^ WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS ADMIHISTRfiTION ^ Mo., .•iir.cl.v* iKon tlandord AugUSt 19S7 ^ U» -..tfntiv. than ilondo'd 1 I No ttoiuti or (od» 13 1 ABRASIVE WHEELS f The first code comparison study for abra- sive wheels, using the then current "American Standard Safety Code for the Use, Care, and Protection of Abrasive Wheels," ASA B7.1- 1947, and the applicable State safety laws and codes was completed in 1953. At that time, 20 States had administratively promulgated safety codes and .one State used only statutory provi- sions to cover these hazards. Twenty-seven States had no mandatory safety requirements for abrasive wheels. Little, if any, uniformity was found for worker protection among the State requirements. In 1961 the second study was made, using the 1956 revision of the abrasive wheel safety standard. Thirty-one States now had adminis- tratively promulgated minimum mandatory safety codes, and five States were using statutory provisions only to cover abrasive wheel haz- ards. Fourteen States still did not have any mandatory minimum safety requirements for abrasive wheels. The degree of uniformity of worker protection improved slightly. The impact study which is the culmination r of these particular studies shows some further ■-• improvement in State safety requirements. The impact study used the latest revision of the abrasive wheel safety standard (USAS B7,1- » 1964) as a basis for this comparison. Thirty- k two States now have administratively promul- gated minimum mandatory safety code require- ments; and one State is still using statutory provisions. The advisory exhaust ventilation provisions in the standard was not included in this evaluation. With the exclusion of these provisions, there are now 17 States and Puerto _ Rico that have no mandatory minimum require- ■ ments for abrasive wheel hazards. In summary, over this period of 14 years, an increase of 12 States now administratively promulgate minimum safety codes for abrasive wheel hazards which did not do so before 1953. In this time, the degree of uniformity for worker protection among the various State safety re- quirements has improved very little for abra- sive wheel hazards. COMPARISON OF STATE SAFETY CODES WITH USAS-THE USE,CARE, AND PROTECTION OF ABRASIVE WHEELS B7.1-1964 SHEETl OF 2 SHEETS 1 ts I is 1 1^ SCOPE AND DEFIHITIONS HANOUNG, STORAGE AHO INSPECTION GENERAL MACHINE CONDITIONS SAFETY GUARDS FLANGES i 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 5 i 1 1 i P i i i i 1 i i 8 1 1 1 5 i 3 o 5 s i q: 1 1 13 i! 1 Si i i 1 1 1 S \ 1 si il si 11 is Si ■s. t 15 ii ii ii 1 II i s 1 1 1 1 1 1 -a i i 1 is ii ill §3 si 11 ;£|; it; si 3 s 1 s K s! i 3 2 S £ 5 i s 5 :§ 2f? S 5 ! 1 i = • ^' --.W\' '. i ; .- i 5 i . - -1 s 5 5 1 i £ 8 :;_ ^ i ^ ~ -, ' • - E = ~ : 2 - 5 " ~ I : s 5 = - 3 ~ ',\ = - ;; s - ^ = ^ "4 :; V ; ; :;■ ^ ; ;^ ; i' ; :; 3 i :: : : H ; 1: ^ ,.,.-,„,-, .^ ^ ~ ;^ ":; ^ ;: ^: CODE ■V ALASKA CODE >J«| '/// 5ks ^ •;• ^K- '■* ARIZONA V ^ ^ ^/Ui .;.; <*^ v/ ^ '//. ki% ^ t:-!iS ■;• ■:• :•: ARKANSAS CODE- ^ /■' '^^ %: ^ ^ ^ ' 1 ""T'T"- r.- - W'mm-' vr V'\ 1 ' ■ W ^ k 'y/A yMiAi€MmMi CALIFORNIA root '/, ; \ i COLORADO CODE' v! _ „ _ (- „ CONNECTICUT roof ^ i^ y/r ■:•: 1.. ,, ■X .. ^f 'm^/, W^mfi ^:::p^ i. M^-W'iMmMiW.WA DELAWARE „ FLORIDA rrtOE - >^ W// fiSf:-: ■;• OEOROIA CODE' a ^ ^ ^ s^ f^ •^ ^ a '<■/ // y/M? '/m 5^ i% % ^ mmm/. ■'// % .^WMmW^W^WMk HAWnil COPE ^ i;!; ^ ^ v/W/. ^ % •%J $? ■;•; I0AI4O CODE I;I; ILLINOIS CODE INDIANA CODE !•*■ X; j<^ ^Fx IOWA KANSAS statutf' % % 5^ ■d ^ ^ 5^ ^ % % %i ^/-mWMi: , r^ ^ % MWm.WM.^ ;^iii KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND code' y//mmmmw/mm^mwAmymimmm^^ MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA CODE W j^ ?^ '.•« i MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA CODE ■;• ^ •;■ !•:• NEVADA CODE # /// •'•< V. vi V: I;!; '.•'.- ;■;. ' * "/A :;:;:: •i$:::;ii ii NEW HAMPSHIRE CODE J: - - - :::; '.■J IV[ L ^ NEW JERSEY CODE ^^ ^ % ^:::: %^ ?^ ^g^:::*^- :ls"S,:5: "^wmM. NEW MEXICO ' NEW YORK CODE ^. \'\ X; ¥; "/■ %^ % i^% :S::i^ :::;*^ ¥;:: ]>> ., , ir?i5?iii NORTH CAROLINA coot l«j» \'\* NORTH DAKOTA code' V/. ',., ■0 %? ''^, ^ 0^ ^ '?.' .^ .;t; - - V7 '^y. *!*-• ■:•: ' y^y % ""'■'r ■'-•|"T^ ' i OHIO CODE :•:• •.' — ^ OKLAHOMA CODE - - ^ \ ^ - ;.;. ;^ _ '.*. ■> ;.;. ■.V OREGON CODE % .„ „- - - - - -- - - - -^ ~ Y/ % -ff •i-i 'V PENNSYLVANIA code" i,i,i 0, ,i,(,icj ilj^O.1.0 Siltl, CoO* 1* IW Uie. Cts mlerpieted bythe Commis- sioner at Labor as applying to the latest USASI slandard. 'The tndustiijl Commission by Resotulion, dated May 26, 19S8, contwed in effect cei lain Cudes on April <, 19S0, Whether 01 not (his Besolulion has Ihe foiee of law has nol Seen deleiin'ied. 'Rufe 60 ol the Commissi oner of Labor, made curtuarit to Section S4-I?2(d) of the Georgia statute, states Ihal operations and equ'pmenl. nol covered by Other rules. Shall be governed by codes ot Ihe American Standards Association. II is ihteipieled bir the Commissioner ol Labor as applying lo the latest USASI standard. * The CommiSSionef Ot Latw states -Section «.636 and flMJ? ol the Kansas Slahjtes, 1 M9, 15 interpreted bv the otltce of Ihe Attorney General tti provide aulhouty to the Kansas Department ol Utoi to require recoEniied standards lor industrial safely and health. The Kansas Department ol Labor administratively adopted , this ASA Slandaidasa minimum leguiiement loi mduslrial salety and health." *The OepartmenI ol Labw and Industiy on June 1, )96S sdopteu ano issued as regul»lions to apply >n all places ol employment wilh Ihe loice and ellecl of law Ihe United Slates Standard 'Safety Cede lor The Use, Care and Prateclion ol ACtasive Wheels,' USAS 97 1-1964. 'Rule 1 ot General Rules, Norlh Dakota General Salely Code (adaptei) July 1, 196DI Oiovides that no ihachme. tool. 01 other device shall be used which does nol comply with with the applicable safety code ol the American Slandaids Association, *The Depaitmsnt ol Labor and Induslrv on July U, 196$ adopted hni issued as regula- tions with the loice and ellecl of law Ihe 'Umted Stales ol Ancnca Standard Salety Code lor the Use, Ca/e and ProlBChonolACicasive Wheels,' USAS 67 1-I96«, 'The Minimum Wage and Induslrial Salely Board uiei approved United States ot America Slandaids Inslilule's salelv codes as guides lo correct ha;jrds and hazardous conditions 1 £ ^ 1 2 5 1 s 1 li li li ii li |5 ^^ if i i 1 i • l| i 1 i i i 1 1 L Is is i i i , i 1 o i 1 i i 1 s 1 1 i i i a S i S S i s S II is li is = i - t ; f : = - ; ; .: z :,- ,- ' ;: ^ % - ; ' : ; = ; 3 ■ (iiif ,;.; •X ' Of,. :;:; Y/, ^ V* ^ 'yy. ^ i, UniZONA n,i,[' ■•!• ;^ // /-* v. m ^ J^ i^ V ARKANSAS , r,[it ■ '4 ^ w. '//, ^ «^ y//, f/' '//, /^ i^ ■f y// y/y yy y//f ■•//, ^ yy, Vy, ^ yy ^ ^ •^ ^ ^ CALIFORNIA < ncF ;.;. •.'. 'i.\ ^ COLORADO ..n';l ' :•:• CONNECTICUT ■ r,,,, % Iv ^ % % %* y: V/i ''/// ^ *•% y/y, y/y, '"!/, ^i? // 'f/. /y, ^ y// DELAWARE FLORIDA rnui X; •;•; yy OEORSIA rusii ' ^ ^ % ^ ^ % V/i ^ % -;? r^ ^/ 'A % % y/y ^/y '/y V/ y/ ;% i^ y/y HAWnil C'iDf r •:• fx X; / IDAHO cnrjt :.;. ILLINOIS <:oD[ INDIANA tmi ;%; IOWA ■.riMit T'' % ;^ %^ ^'Z y// V//^ % 'Y/, y//, y/A y//. y//. % % //, V/. % yy/. %; y/y y/y yy. ^ // KENTUCKY MAINE HAnVLANO codf'' '//. ^/; '//, % ^ (^ '-//, ^/^ / ^ '■'//, Vy y/y y//, ;;^ y/- yy. ; ' MASSACHUSETTS MICHIOAN MINNESOTA rODl .'. MISSISSIPPI - MISSOURI NEBRASKA ( m> X; •■> NEVADA roDi V/A ^ iii: '// ;•:• % ■;•; >:; '// K-: V '•■>. 'y/y, yy ^; X; ;.;. i-:- :•:• .,- NEW HAMPSHIRE 1 (im .V Vt ■;•! y/- ■.: '■•'•• •X IS NEW JERSEY ' iinf \-\\ sd % V// X; i^ % ^ /? ^^ V/ tv 7^, ':•: V. 'y,// yy yyy, i% 'y/,. yyy ^ % m NEW MEXICO NEW YORK 1 0[)( ¥; % y/y y//, '.•\\ %: :•:■ •■'■ '•'■ y/, % '/ y,y. /,, ' ' ,' X" '•j» ;.;. NORTH CAROLINA rnpL ■:=^ ~ "^ ^ "^ NORTH DAKOTA Ul(1[ 'A ?^^ >';/ .^^ /,: '/// ^;? r^ !i<^ V/, •Y, ;^ y^y ^^ yy. /y <^ Vy, % % ■ ,.- ~ OHIO , iUit v). — — -^ r-r- _ -_ ^ _ . Iv _ Vs _ _ _ _ ^ rr OREGON n.. '-^ ■S - - — - — ' ^-' — -^' ' * - -^ — - Tj; -.. - n - ^ -- — -t; '»'l — - PENNSYLVANIA n-n.f' ,,, '^^ % y//_ Vy, 'yy, i2 /. ■ y , , ■" ^ ■^ "^s RHODE ISLAND ffinr ... •;•; ; '/y, %. ;;:: :;:; '//. %$ j% % ^ " ^ i % SOUTH CAROLINA ■~ ■^ SOUTH DAKOTA n ~ ~ " — ip[i[ " — — h- ~ ~ ~ " ~~ — UTAH um i', •r. ~ ~ ~ — — ^ — — — -^ — VIROINIA riHii •, '•'• !•• ■ \*v J.J. V. v. ^ ' ' ^ — — — v; — 17; •,• WASHtNQTON . m -M V,' ~ ~ ~~ "" st; ^~ "^ — — — »v — iV WEST VIROtNIA WISCONSIN iiin[ ^ — - - _, - - - - ~ iH J %, "X .y - - - ^ - — - - — — — ft; — X" s DIST OFCOLUMBIA PUERTO RICO miif — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - i - - - - - ^ - - - LEGEND l.y^ S*»« ti 01 tia.U. la tlmoard |^ Leii r»lt », Ill daid WA GE u ND S LAB )EP OR ART SIA ME US NT RD 19 OF AC 67 LA Ml BO R RAT ON See Sheel lo. 1 loi OEflHITIOHS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08859 2471 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210 OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR I THIRD CLASS MAIL _1