DOCSLIB.ORG

In Construction in Construction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Construction in Construction Program Development Peer-Reviewed Hearing Conservation in Construction New Perspectives on an Old Problem By Donald J. Garvey ccupational noise-induced hearing loss pressure, muscle tension, sleeplessness and fatigue (NIHL) has been a major concern since the (Basner, Babisch, Davis, et al., 2014). Obeginning of the industrial revolution. Sev- While hearing loss continues to be a problem for eral hundred years later, noise and hearing loss re- the construction industry, a significant amount of main major concerns for the construction workforce, research provides insight as to why the problem management and OSH professionals. One study of persists, shortcomings in past efforts to control more than 1,300 noise measurements indicated that noise and new ideas to combat this problem. This approximately 70% of the construction workers in- article focuses on two areas of construction hearing volved had a full-shift time-weighed conservation: IN BRIEF average (TWA) exposure at or above the 1) Use of hearing protection devices (HPDs). •Noise and hearing loss NIOSH recommended exposure limit While engineering controls are the preferred remain major concerns for (REL) of 85 dBA. About 10% of those method to prevent occupational exposure, HPDs the construction workforce, workers had full-shift average exposures are typically the control method implemented in project owners and managers above the current OSHA construction construction. Accepting this for now, how can se- and OSH professionals. permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 90 lection and wearing practices be improved to maxi- •This article focuses on two dBA (Neitzel, Stover & Seixas, 2011). mize use and actual effectiveness? areas of construction hearing Noise levels of typical construction 2) Training. What techniques and insights can conservation: use of hearing equipment can range from approxi- be make training more impactful for workers and protection devices and train- mately 88 dBA for circular saws to 96 do more to encourage hearing-healthy attitudes ing, both of which can boost dBA for chipping guns to 102 dBA for and behaviors in the workforce? use and promote consistent jackhammers (ANSI/ASSE, 2013). In While a discussion of engineering controls is wearing of protective gear. calculations made by the Center for beyond the scope of this article, such controls are Construction Research and Training a critical part of an effective hearing conservation (2013) using data from the 2010 Na- program. Readers can find a brief review of infor- tional Health Interview Survey, 21% of construc- mation sources on engineering controls and a dis- tion workers self-reported some type of hearing cussion of NIOSH’s Buy Quiet program on p. 33. problem. In addition, exposure to noise has been associated with increased pulse rate, high blood Use of Hearing Protection Devices On construction sites, HPDs are the most com- TEK S Donald J. Garvey, CSP, CIH, ARM, is a technical service specialist and construc- mon method used to control noise exposures. tion industrial hygienist with 3M’s Personal Safety Division in St. Paul, MN. Prior to Unfortunately, actual use, and more importantly ef- OMAZ LEV 3M, he was a construction industrial hygienist for The St. Paul Companies. Garvey fective use, of HPDs are typically poor. Low usage T holds an M.S. in Environmental Health from the University of Washington. He is rates of HPDs are attributed to the transient nature an AIHA Fellow and a past chair of its Construction Committee. Garvey is a profes- of the workforce; the abstract, gradual and painless sional member of ASSE’s Northwest Chapter and a member of the Society’s Con- nature of NIHL; the lack of an immediate cause-ef- struction Practice Specialty. He has published several articles in Professional Safety and is author of the industrial hygiene chapter in the second edition of ASSE’s fect loop; and the potential annoyance and discom- Construction Safety Management and Engineering textbook. fort caused some experience when wearing HPDs. ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/ 30 ProfessionalSafety SEPTEMBER 2015 www.asse.org Effective use depends on both duration of use One recent development that can help address and actual attenuation achieved. Several studies some of these areas is fit testing of hearing protec- have reported that construction workers, on aver- tion. Several manufacturers now provide methods age, use HPDs about 20% to 40% of the time that to fit test earplugs. The two basic types of fit-test- measured noise levels exceeded 85 dBA (Edelson, ing methodology are: HPDs are the Neitzel, Meischek, et al., 2009; Neitzel & Seixas, 1) Subjective. Results are based on the subject’s most com- 2005). In addition, the noise attenuation that most response to a test signal. mon method workers receive during actual use is significantly 2) Objective. Results are based on physical mea- less than the manufacturer’s published noise re- surement of sound levels to calculate ear plug at- used to duction rating (NRR) for the HPD used. However, tenuation. control noise individual results are highly variable and depend All field attenuation estimation systems yield exposures on proper HPD selection and use, with many wear- a metric termed personal attenuation rating (PAR; ers experiencing attenuation approaching the NRR Hager, 2011). Currently no standardized method on construc- and others experiencing much less (Edelson, et al., exists for PAR calculation so inherent differences tion sites. 2009; Neitzel & Seixas, 2005). Variable attenuation between test methods and conditions can yield Actual use, combined with actual usage time hinders accurate different PARs. Still, fit testing can be a significant predictions of total noise protection achieved over improvement in estimating a worker’s expected and more the course of a work day. Using the formula: protection from a specific HPD. importantly R = 10 x log{100/[100 – P(1 – 10-N/10)]} Hager (2011) identifies several benefits of fit effective testing that address many of the problems cited as the realized attenuation (R) of an HPD with factors in nonuse of HPDs. use, of HPDs a nominal NRR (N) of 30 worn for 90% of a full •HPDs can be selected on a basis of both com- 8-hour shift (P) in percent would be less than 10 dB are typically fort and adequate protection, instead of protection (Arezes & Miguel, 2002). In a field study, actual us- poor. alone. As noted, comfort is a critical factor in de- er-attained attenuation levels combined with wear termining usage of HPDs. Fit testing can identify time produced realized net HPD protection levels the most comfortable HPDs for a user that still pro- of less than 3 dB (Neitzel & Seixas, 2005). vides adequate protection. Many factors prompt low HPD use. For example: •Avoiding overprotection. Fit testing can help •Lack of comfort. Several studies have recom- identify the HPD that provides the lowest, yet still mended that comfort be given more emphasis than sufficient noise attenuation, which may result in NRR. More comfort with subsequently greater work- less interference with communication and warning er acceptance (i.e., wear time) but less attenuation, signals. may still give more overall protection versus high at- •Wearer training and motivation. Fit testing can tenuation but less wear time (Arezes & Miguel, 2002; demonstrate to the wearer that s/he can successfully Neitzel, Meischke, Daniell, et al., 2008). use an HPD and achieve an acceptable fit. For roll- •Lack of availability on the job site. Convenience down types of earplugs in particular, this can help the is critical. If HPDs are not readily available, workers wearer understand the difference between proper and are likely not to leave their job location to find them. improper roll down and correct depth of insertion. •Lack of training on proper HPD use. Training •Trainer training. Fit testing can help the trainer/ and the importance to workers of feeling that they HPD-dispensing person learn how to recognize can properly select and don HPDs is a critical factor good/poor fit and the effect on attenuation. in their decision to wear HPDs. •Inventory management. Additional makes or •Over attenuation. As noted, HPDs are often models may need to be added to the inventory to selected solely on the basis of high NRR. How- provide an adequate selection (or conversely, while ever, many TWA occupational noise exposures are still providing a variety of options, perhaps not as 95 dBA or less (Franks, 1988). An HPD that deliv- many HPDs must be stocked as originally thought). ers 10 dB of actual attenuation will cover many ex- •Use when following up standard threshold posures and reduce noise exposure below 85 dBA. shifts to show that the HPD used is appropriate for ANSI/ASSE A10.46 suggests that attenuation be- the individual’s noise environment. low 70 dBA is overprotection that may needlessly •Prioritize retraining for employees who may interfere with speech communication or warning need additional help with obtaining and maintain- signals and should be avoided. European Union ing adequate attenuation. guidelines (BS EN 458:2004) suggest an optimal •Documentation for audits or help in determin- “protected level” of 75 to 80 dBA, with an accept- ing hearing loss etiology. able range of 70 to 85 dBA. While construction is currently exempt from •Personal selection. In some cases, only one type 29 CFR 1910.95(c), Hearing Conservation, safety of HPD is provided. Any single product may over- professionals should be aware that OSHA has not protect workers or be uncomfortable for some to accepted PAR as a method to comply with Appen- wear. Ear canal size and shape varies significantly dix B of 29 CFR 1910.95. Contractors may want to from person to person. A protector that fits well for consider that any PAR-based HPD selection also one person with good attenuation may be uncom- complies with Appendix B.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hearing Conservation Program
    HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM Program Element R2-10-207(11)(c) Each agency shall develop, implement, and monitor a Hearing Conservation Program element when applicable. Harmful sound, or noise, must be identified and evaluated with sound pressure level (SPL) monitoring devices when it is present in the workplace. Employers must protect employee hearing via engineering controls, administrative controls, or hearing protection devices (HPDs) when the OSHA Action Limit is met or exceeded in the workplace. Definition: A hearing conservation program is a written program that is designed to prevent hearing loss in employees that work in environments where noise levels above 85 dBA or a daily noise dose of 50% over an 8-hour time- weighted average (TWA) are present. Why do I need this This program is needed to ensure employers have program? assessed noise levels which may result in hearing damage, and to ensure that employees exposed to noise are protected and monitored to prevent hearing loss. How do I know if this Employers must establish and implement a Hearing program applies to my Conservation Program for those employees who are agency and my specific exposed to a sound level greater than the “Action job hazards? Level” of 85 dBA TWA and/or 50% of the Daily Noise Dose. Impulsive noise levels shall not exceed 140 dBC. The key elements of an effective Hearing Conservation Program are: a) Noise exposure monitoring and analysis b) Use of engineering controls c) Use of administrative controls d) Use and selection of proper hearing protection devices (HPDs) e) Initial and annual audiometric testing f) Initial and annual employee training g) Recordkeeping; and h) Annual program evaluation Hearing Conservation Program, R2-10-207(11)(c) Page 1 of 4 January 2015 What are the minimum There are five OSHA required Hearing Conservation required elements and/ Program elements: or best practices for a Hearing Conservation 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizational Behavior Seventh Edition
    PRINT Organizational Behavior Seventh Edition John R. Schermerhorn, Jr. Ohio University James G. Hunt Texas Tech University Richard N. Osborn Wayne State University ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 7TH edition Copyright 2002 © John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a data base retrieval system, without prior written permission of the publisher. ISBN 0-471-22819-2 (ebook) 0-471-42063-8 (print version) Brief Contents SECTION ONE 1 Management Challenges of High Performance SECTION FOUR 171 Organizations 81 Organizational Behavior Today 3 Illustrative Case: Creating a High Performance Power 173 Learning About Organizational Behavior 5 Organization 84 Empowerment 181 Organizations as Work Settings 7 Groups in Organizations 87 Organizational Politics 183 Organizational Behavior and Management 9 Stages of Group Development 90 Political Action and the Manager 186 Ethics and Organizational Behavior 12 Input Foundations of Group Effectiveness 92 The Nature of Communication 190 Workforce Diversity 15 Group and Intergroup Dynamics 95 Essentials of Interpersonal Communication Demographic Differences 17 Decision Making in Groups 96 192 Aptitude and Ability 18 High Performance Teams 100 Communication Barriers 195 Personality 19 Team Building 103 Organizational Communication 197 Personality Traits and Classifications 21 Improving Team Processes 105
    [Show full text]
  • 422 PART 227—OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE Subpart A—General
    Pt. 227 49 CFR Ch. II (10–1–20 Edition) by the BLS. The wage component is weight- 227.15 Information collection. ed by 40% and the equipment component by 60%. Subpart B—Occupational Noise Exposure 2. For the wage component, the average of for Railroad Operating Employees the data from Form A—STB Wage Statistics for Group No. 300 (Maintenance of Way and 227.101 Scope and applicability. Structures) and Group No. 400 (Maintenance 227.103 Noise monitoring program. of Equipment and Stores) employees is used. 227.105 Protection of employees. 3. For the equipment component, 227.107 Hearing conservation program. LABSTAT Series Report, Producer Price 227.109 Audiometric testing program. Index (PPI) Series WPU 144 for Railroad 227.111 Audiometric test requirements. Equipment is used. 227.113 Noise operational controls. 4. In the month of October, second-quarter 227.115 Hearing protectors. wage data are obtained from the STB. For 227.117 Hearing protector attenuation. equipment costs, the corresponding BLS rail- 227.119 Training program. road equipment indices for the second quar- 227.121 Recordkeeping. ter are obtained. As the equipment index is APPENDIX A TO PART 227—NOISE EXPOSURE reported monthly rather than quarterly, the COMPUTATION average for the months of April, May and APPENDIX B TO PART 227—METHODS FOR ESTI- June is used for the threshold calculation. 5. The wage data are reported in terms of MATING THE ADEQUACY OF HEARING PRO- dollars earned per hour, while the equipment TECTOR ATTENUATION cost data are indexed to a base year of 1982. APPENDIX C TO PART 227—AUDIOMETRIC BASE- 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Tinnitus Characteristics at High-And Low-Risk Occupations from Occupational Noise Exposure Standpoint
    PERSPECTIVE DOI: 10.5935/0946-5448.20210016 International Tinnitus Journal. 2021;25(1):87-93 Tinnitus characteristics at high-and low-risk occupations from occupational noise exposure standpoint Mehdi Asghari ABSTRACT Introduction: The aim of the present study was to compare tinnitus characteristics in high- and low-risk occupations from the occupational noise exposure standpoint, considering demographic data, hearing loss and concomitant diseases. Methods: Demographic data, characteristics of tinnitus, hearing and concomitant diseases were recorded in the questionnaires. Their pure tone air conduction thresholds were determined using a double-channel diagnostic Audiometer and the Bone Conduction was assessed using a B-71 bone vibrator. Results: Totally, 6.3% subjects (6.8% high-risk group and 5.6% low-risk group) had subjective tinnitus, mainly as whistling sound. In the high-risk group, tinnitus was mainly left-sided (41.18%) and hearing loss was mild. Bilateral tinnitus (52.63%) and slight hearing loss were observed predominantly in the low-risk group. Conclusions: The study showed higher incidence of tinnitus in high-risk professions regarding with occupational noise exposure. Keywords: Tinnitus; Loudness; Hearing loss; Noise exposure; High-risk occupations. 1Department of Medical Sciences, Arak University, Iran *Send correspondence to: Mehdi Asghari Department of Medical Sciences, Arak University, Iran. E-mail: [email protected], Phone: +81302040753 Paper submitted on February 07, 2021; and Accepted on April 18, 2021 87 International Tinnitus Journal, Vol. 25, No 1 (2021) www.tinnitusjournal.com INTRODUCTION 20 to 60 years referred to XXX Occupational Medicine Centers in 2018, Arak, Iran. Inclusion criteria included Tinnitus is a sound sensation in the ears or head in the age ≥18, at least a fifth grade education, wok experience absence of an external auditory or electrical source.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventing Hazardous Noise and Hearing Loss
    Preventing Hazardous Noise and Hearing Loss during Project Design and Operation Prevention through Design (PtD) Prevention through Design (PtD) Why is PtD Needed? Description of can be defined as designing out Integrating PtD concepts into busi- Exposure or eliminating safety and health ness processes helps reduce injury and hazards associated with processes, Prolonged exposure to high noise levels structures, equipment, tools, or illness in the workplace, as well as costs can cause hearing loss and tinnitus. work organization. The National associated with injuries. PtD lays the Other health effects include headaches, Institute for Occupational Safety foundation for a sustainable culture of fatigue, stress, and cardiovascular and Health (NIOSH) launched a safety with lower workers’ compensation problems [Yueh et al. 2003]. High noise PtD initiative in 2007. The mission expenses, fewer retrofits, and improved levels can also cause workers to be dis- tracted and interfere with communica- is to reduce or prevent occupational productivity. When PtD concepts are in- injuries, illnesses, and fatalities by tion and warning signals. If workers do troduced early in the design process, re- considering hazard prevention in not hear warning signals, they may not the design, re-design, and retrofit of sources can be allocated more efficiently. take precautions to prevent hazards or new and existing workplaces, tools, injuries [NIOSH 1996, 1998; Yoon et al. equipment, and work processes Summary 2015; Cantley et al. 2015]. [NIOSH 2008a,b]. Exposure to high noise levels in the workplace can cause hearing loss and Workers at Risk Contents affect worker productivity and compen- An estimated twenty-two million work- ▶ Why is PtD Needed sation costs.
    [Show full text]
  • FAA/OSHA Aviation Safety and Health Team, First Report
    FAA / OSHA Aviation Safety and Health Team First Report Application of OSHA’s Requirements to Employees on Aircraft in Operation December 2000 FAA/OSHA Aviation Safety and Health Team (First Report) Table of Contents Executive Summary. ..................................................................................................ii Introduction. .............................................................................................................. iv Discussion....................................................................................................................1 Issue 1 - Recordkeeping. .........................................................................................2 Issue 2 - Bloodborne pathogens. .............................................................................6 Issue 3 - Noise. ......................................................................................................11 Issue 4 - Sanitation. ...............................................................................................14 Issue 5 - Hazard communication. ..........................................................................18 Issue 6 - Anti-discrimination. ................................................................................22 Issue 7 - Access to employee exposure/medical records.......................................25 Matters for Further Consideration. .......................................................................27 Appendices. A. FAA/OSHA Memorandum of Understanding, August 7, 2000. ...................29
    [Show full text]
  • MARCH, 1970 Ilini’Tj-Ljiril’ Jleu/S Qtie U\Lmgty-Cafmes^
    MARCH, 1970 Ilini’tj-lJiriL’ Jleu/s QTie u\lmGty-cAfmes^. umn March, 1970 Speaking of potential, have you •w heard about Turi Wideroe? A most at­ As I sit here about to start my tractive young lady Airline Captain Monthly Message to you, the sun is from Oslo, Norway. Hope she will shining on glistening white snow and become a Ninety-Nine and let us all the temperature is zero. There isn’t a in on her secret to success. I know you all join me in wishing her well MARCH, 1970 cloud in the sky and I’m thinking in her new assignment. We’re all so ahead a couple of hours and the fact proud of our feminine accomplish­ THE NINETY-NINES, Inc. that I will be flying today and this ments in the field of aviation. After all Will Rogers World Airport brings to mind how very hard a long this is what our Ninety-Nines’ Museum International Headquarters win’er is on people. I guess people just Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73159 is made of. aren’t like bears content with hiberna­ Sectional Meeting time is here and Headquarters Secretary tion. It seems easy to let little things “Project Awareness” will be our LORETTA GRAGG begin to bother you when you feel theme. You know the best way to learn couped up and winter is that kind of a subject is to teach it. So get involved Editor thing at times. With Spring in the air in this Seminar on Ninety-Nineman- HAZEL McKENDRICK let’s all get the cob-webs out of our ship.
    [Show full text]
  • Occupational Noise Exposure Noise, Or Unwanted Sound, Is One of the Most Pervasive Occupational Health Problems
    Occupational Noise Exposure Noise, or unwanted sound, is one of the most pervasive occupational health problems. It is a by-product of many industrial processes. Sound consists of pressure changes in a medium (usually air), caused by vibration or turbulence. These pressure changes produce waves emanating away from the turbulent or vibrating source. Exposure too high levels of noise causes hearing loss and may cause other harmful health effects as well. The extent of damage depends primarily on the intensity of the noise and the duration of the exposure. Noise-induced hearing loss can be temporary or permanent. Temporary hearing loss results from short-term exposures to noise, with normal hearing returning after a period of rest. Generally, prolonged exposure to high noise levels over a period of time gradually causes permanent damage. OSHA's hearing conservation program is designed to protect workers with significant occupational noise exposures from suffering material hearing impairment even if they are subject to such noise exposures over their entire working lifetimes. Monitoring The hearing conservation program requires employers to monitor noise exposure levels in a manner that will accurately identify employees who are exposed to noise at or above 85 decibels (dB) averaged over 8 working hours, or an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA.) That is, employers must monitor all employees whose noise exposure is equivalent to or greater than a noise exposure received in 8 hours where the noise level is constantly 85 dB. The exposure measurement must include all continuous, intermittent, and impulsive noise within an 80 dB to 130-dB range and must be taken during a typical work situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 28, Issue 13 Virginia Register of Regulations February 27, 2012 1039 PUBLICATION SCHEDULE and DEADLINES
    VOL. 28 ISS. 13 PUBLISHED EVERY OTHER WEEK BY THE VIRGINIA CODE COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Register Information Page .........................................................................................................................................1039 Publication Schedule and Deadlines.......................................................................................................................1040 Petitions for Rulemaking ............................................................................................................................................1041 Notices of Intended Regulatory Action .................................................................................................................1042 Regulations .......................................................................................................................................................................1043 8VAC115-30. Richard Bland College Weapons on Campus Regulation (Final) ..................................................................1043 10VAC5-40. Credit Unions (Final)........................................................................................................................................1043 11VAC10-20. Regulations Pertaining to Horse Racing with Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Final) ................................................1045 11VAC10-50. Racing Officials (Final)..................................................................................................................................1052
    [Show full text]
  • Noise Induced Hearing Loss: an Occupational Medicine Perspective Emily Z
    Noise induced hearing loss: An occupational medicine perspective Emily Z. Stucken MD Michigan Ear Institute Robert S. Hong MD, PhD Michigan Ear Institute Corresponding author: Robert S. Hong MD, PhD Michigan Ear Institute 30055 Northwestern Highway, Suite #101 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Phone (248) 865-4444 Abstract Purpose of review: Up to 30 million workers in the United States are exposed to potentially detrimental levels of noise. While reliable medications for minimizing or reversing noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) are not currently available, NIHL is entirely preventable. The purpose of this article is to review the epidemiology and pathophysiology of occupational NIHL. We will focus on at-risk populations and discuss prevention programs. Current prevention programs focus on reduction of inner ear damage by minimizing environmental noise production and through the use of personal hearing protective devices. Recent findings: Noise induced hearing loss is the result of a complex interaction between environmental factors and patient factors, both genetic and acquired. The effects of noise exposure are specific to an individual. Trials are currently underway evaluating the role of antioxidants in protection from, and even reversal of, NIHL. Summary: Occupational NIHL is the most prevalent occupational disease in the United States. Occupational noise exposures may contribute to temporary or permanent threshold shifts, though even temporary threshold shifts may predispose an individual to eventual permanent hearing loss. Noise prevention programs are paramount in reducing hearing loss as a result of occupational exposures. Key words: occupational noise induced hearing loss, occupational noise exposure, hearing protection programs Introduction Hearing loss is the most widespread disability in Westernized society.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing the Risks from Occupational Noise
    Cover Noise Report 6/10/05 15:05 Pagina 1 C M Y CM MY CY CMY K 1 EN European Agency for Safety and Health at Work TE-68-05-535-EN-C EUROPEAN WEEK FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK EN 1 In order to improve the working environment, ISSN 1681-0155 as regards the protection of the safety and health 2. of workers as provided for in the Treaty and successive Community strategies and action programmes concerning health and safety at Reducing the risks from occupational noise occupational Reducing the risks from the workplace, the aim of the Agency shall be to provide the Community bodies, the Member States, the social partners and those involved in the field with the technical, scientific and economic information of use in the field of safety and health at work. 3. 1. http://osha.eu.int Reducing the risks from occupational noise European Agency for Safety and Health at Work Gran Vía 33, E-48009 Bilbao Tel.: +34 944 794 360 Fax: +34 944 794 383 E-mail: [email protected] EUROPEAN WEEK Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 15 ISBN 92-9191-167-4 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work Agency for Safety European and Health at European Agency for Safety and Health at Work Compuesta Noise Report 6/10/05 15:07 Página 1 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work EUROPEAN WEEK FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK EN 1 ISSN 1681-0155 2. 3. 1. Reducing the risks from occupational noise European Agency for Safety and Health at Work Noise Report 6/10/05 15:07 Página 2 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
    [Show full text]
  • Workforce Development and Unemployment Insurance Provisions
    ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FLORIDA GEORGIA GUAM HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA Implementation of the MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNE- SOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NE- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: VADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLA- HOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA PUERTO RICO RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST Workforce Development and VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO CON- Unemployment Insurance ProvisionsNECTICUT DELAWARE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FLORIDA GEORGIA GUAM HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMP- SHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH FINAL REPORT CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA PUERTO RICO RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAR- OLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VER- October 2012 MONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCON- SIN WYOMING ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FLORIDA GEORGIA GUAM HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KEN- TUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA
    [Show full text]