Philip Morris
Smoking in the Workplace City of San Jose Ordinance 21830
Fields
- Type
- PAMP, PAMPHLET
- Area
- SLAVITT,JOSHUA/OFFICE
- Site
- N340
- Named Person
- Surgeon General
- Named Organization
- Ca Poll
- Californians for Nonsmokers Rights
- City of San Jose City Council
- Code Compliance Division
- Epa, Environmental Protection Agency
- Martin Field
- American Cancer Society
- American Lung Assn
- Request
- Stmn/R1-037
- Stmn/R1-102
- Document File
- 2025684071/2025684856/Americans for Non Smokers
- 2025684072/2025684855/Americans for Non Smokers
- Litigation
- Stmn/Produced
- Author (Organization)
- Code Compliance Division
- San Jose Dept Neighborhood Preservation
- Master ID
- 2025684073/4854
- 2025684073
- 2025684074
- 2025684075-4854 Legislative Approaches to A Smoke Free Society
- 2025684085-4138 A Study of Public Attitudes Toward Cigarette Smoking and the Tobacco Industry in 780000
- 2025684139-4144 Proposition P: Anatomy of A Nonsmokers' Rights Ordinance. The Basics of Beating the Tobacco Industry
- 2025684145-4152 California City and County Smoking Ordinances
- 2025684153-4154 States Placing Limitations Nonsmoking in Public Places. States with Laws Addressing Smoking in the Workplace
- 2025684155-4230 Bibliography on Involuntary Smoking
- 2025684231-4232
- 2025684233-4234 Tobacco Smoke and the Nonsmoker
- 2025684235-4241 Testimony of James L. Repace in the Matter on Senate Bill 1440, the Nonsmokers' Rights Act of 850000. Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs Washington, D.C. 850930
- 2025684242-4248 Testimony of Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services
- 2025684249-4255 Testimony of Alfred Munzer, M.D. On Behalf of the Coalition on Smoking or Health and Its Member Organizations the American Lung Association the American Heart Association the American Cancer Society on the Nonsmokers' Rights Act of 850000 Before the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services Committee on Government Affairs U.S. Senate 850930
- 2025684256-4262 Written Testimony of Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D. Submitted to the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office, and General Services Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate for Hearing on S.1440 the Non-Smokers Rights Act of 850000 850930
- 2025684263-4278 Statement of the Honorable Bill Ross Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation S-1440, on the Non-Smokers Rights Act of 850000 Before the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Washington, D.C. 850930
- 2025684279-4297 Clean Your Room A Compendium on Air Pollution
- 2025684298-4308 Indoor Pollutants
- 2025684309-4310
- 2025684311-4312 Celebrities Who Have Supported Nonsmokers' Rights
- 2025684313 Known Causes of Residential Fires National Figures for 810000
- 2025684314 Known Causes of Residential Fires California Figures for 810000
- 2025684315-4320 Tobacco Industry Conglomerates - Status Report on Diversification in the Tobacco Industry 840000 Representative Products
- 2025684321-4326 Written Testimony of Professor Marvin M. Kristein. Ph.D. Departments of Economics and Community and Preventive Medicine State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office, and General Services Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Hearing on S. 1440, to Restrict Smoking to Designated Areas in All U.S. Government Buildings 850930
- 2025684327-4349 How Much Can Business Expect to Profit From Smoking Cessation?
- 2025684350-4353 Wanted: Smoking Policies for the Work Place. Company Activities in Smoking Control
- 2025684354-4367 A Smokefree Workplace An Employers' Guide to Nonsmoking Policies
- 2025684368 California Poll Majority Would Restrict Smoking
- 2025684369-4372 Strong Sentiment to Restrict Smoking in Public Places
- 2025684373
- 2025684374-4375
- 2025684376 Summary of Results of the 830400 Survey by the Gallup Organization 'survey of Attitudes Towards Smoking'
- 2025684377 840000 Gallup Monthly Report on Eating Out
- 2025684378-4383 the Prevention Index 850000 A Report Card on the Nation's Health Summary Report
- 2025684384-4386 People of Michigan Say 'yes' - They Do Want to Limit Smoking in Public Places
- 2025684387-4389 Public Support for A State Law Restricting Smoking in Public Places
- 2025684390-4391
- 2025684392-4429 Michigan Survey 8
- 2025684430-4436 Testimony of Harry Perlstadt, Ph.D, M.P.H., Chairperson Michigan Coalition on Smoking or Health Before the Michigan House Public Health Committee Sub-Committee on H. B. 4500
- 2025684437 Summary of 800000 Minnesota Poll
- 2025684438 Good Idea Defies Smoke Screen
- 2025684439 Thy Neighbor's Lungs
- 2025684440 Smoking Your Wife to Death
- 2025684441 Oh, to Breathe in Nassau County...
- 2025684442 Contra Costa Packs It in
- 2025684443 Clearing the Air
- 2025684444-4445 Secondhand Smoke
- 2025684446 Tobacco Company Crusaders Try Weapon of 'courtesy'
- 2025684447 Cigarette Makers Set Greed Record
- 2025684448 Why Does Anyone in This Nation Still Smoke Cigarettes?
- 2025684449 Good Neighbor
- 2025684450-4451 Frisco Votes An Antidote to Smoking Poison
- 2025684452 News Item: San Francisco Passes Toughest Anti-Smoking Law in U.S.
- 2025684453 'thank You for Smoking'
- 2025684454
- 2025684455
- 2025684456-4457
- 2025684458
- 2025684459
- 2025684460
- 2025684461 5 Regulation of Smoking - Initiative Statute Argument in Favor of Proposition 5. Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 5
- 2025684462-4474 Cigarette Smoke and the Nonsmoker
- 2025684475-4482 A Rebuttal to the Tobacco Industry's Paper, 'cigarette Smoke and the Nonsmoker'
- 2025684483-4486 Response to American Lung Association of Superior, California Document 'the Need for Smoking Control Legislation in Butte County: A Case Statement'
- 2025684487-4488
- 2025684489-4493 A Statement on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking
- 2025684494 Los Angeles City Public Smoking Issue Public Opinion Survey Summary of Findings
- 2025684495 Survey of Los Angeles City Voters 506 Interviews Margin of Error: Plus or Minus 5 Percent
- 2025684496
- 2025684496A Poll Shows L.A. Voters Oppose Anti-Smoking Law for Business
- 2025684497
- 2025684498
- 2025684499-4500 Appendix: A Slanted Poll on Smoking Law
- 2025684501-4504 Michigan Tobacco and Candy Distributors and Vendors Association Michigan Statewide Survey 850429 - 850430
- 2025684505-4506 Account of Tobacco Institute Poll in Fort Collins, Colorado, 841100
- 2025684507-4509 Tobacco Institute Poll Raising Eyebrows Here
- 2025684510-4522 Development of A Comprehensive Ordinance Regulating Smoking in Enclosed Public Places and Places of Employment
- 2025684523-4532 Regulation of Smoking in Public Places and the Workplace
- 2025684533-4549 Opinion 82 - 55 Regulation of Smoking in the Workplace in the City and County of San Francisco
- 2025684550-4565 Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684566-4577
- 2025684578-4581 Addiction Mortality in the United States, 800000: Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Substances
- 2025684582-4605 Economic Costs of Smoking: An Analysis of Data for the United States
- 2025684606-4611 Questions and Answers on Proposed Nonsmokers' Rights Legislation
- 2025684612-4631 A Quantitative Estimate of Nonsmokers' Lung Cancer Risk From Passive Smoking
- 2025684632-4633 the Oregon Indoor Clean Air Act and You An Explanation of the Law and the Rules for Its Implementation
- 2025684640 Cityline Thank You for Observing San Diego's New No Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684641-4642 Thank You for Observing San Diego's No-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684643-4645 City of Ft. Collins No-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684646-4653 the Smoking Policy Handbook
- 2025684654-4655
- 2025684656 Equal Employment Opportunities 42 Uscs 2000e-2. Discrimination Because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, or National Origin
- 2025684657 Compiled Laws Annotated 37.2202 Employer, Prohibited Acts
- 2025684658-4669 Model Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance
- 2025684670-4680 An Ordinance Amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment.
- 2025684681-4686 Ordinance Number 0-15865 An Ordinance Amending Chapter IV, Article 5, Division 1 of the San Diego Municipal Code by Amending Sections 45.0101, 45.0102, 45,0103, 45.0104, 45. 0105, 45.0107 and 45.0108 Relating to Regulation of Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment
- 2025684687-4689 Ordinance No. 298-83 (Health Regulations) Amending Part II, Chapter V, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Health Code) by Adding Article 19 Thereto, Regulating Smoking in the Office Workplace
- 2025684690-4702 Ordinance No. 85-005 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 37 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Smoking
- 2025684703-4704 Ordinance No. 85-016 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 37, Section 37.22, of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Smoking
- 2025684705-4709 Ordinance No. 3476 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Smoking in Elevators, Public Restrooms, and Indoor Service Lines and Regulating Smoking in the Workplace
- 2025684710-4716 Ordinance No. 16.84 An Ordinance of the City of Mountain View Repealing Section 21.46 of the Mountain View City Code, and Adding Article II to Chapter 21, Relating to the Protection of One's Right to Fresh Air Through the Prohibition and Regulation of Smoking in Certain Places
- 2025684717-4720 Proposed Ordinance Regarding Smoking in the Workplace
- 2025684721 San Francisco Anti-Smoking Law A Success
- 2025684722 Sf Controls Are Working Smokers Survive Their New Habit
- 2025684723 A Month with Smoking Law: Problems Resolved Smoothly
- 2025684724-4726 County Close to Being Smoke-Free
- 2025684727
- 2025684728-4731 No Smoking Ordinance, Implementation and Enforcement.
- 2025684732-4733
- 2025684734-4734A
- 2025684735 No Smoking Ordinance Information
- 2025684736-4738 Non-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684739-4739A Smoking Ordinance - Status Report on Implementation of Enforcement and Effectiveness
- 2025684740-4751 the San Francisco Experience with Regulation of Smoking in the Workplace: the First Twelve Months
- 2025684752-4753
- 2025684754
- 2025684755-4757
- 2025684758-4761 Contact List for Information Regarding the Experience of California Cities Relative to Enforcement of Existing Smoking Regulation Ordinances
- 2025684762-4763
- 2025684764-4773 Testimony of Robert D. Tollison on the 'non-Smokers Rights Act of 850000' S. 1440 Before U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services
- 2025684774-4815 Economic Impact of Instituting Smoking Prohibitions in U.S. Government Buildings
- 2025684816-4819 Pleasant Hill City Council Considers Model Smoking Law
- 2025684820 L.A. Councilman to Propose Anti-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684821 L.A.'s Gravy Train Does the City Council Care How Tawdry It Looks?
- 2025684822 City Panel Studies No-Smoking Proposal
- 2025684823 Watered Down No-Smoking Law Gets Preliminary Ok. No-Smoking Ordinance Endorsed
- 2025684824 L.A. Council Acts to Limit Smoking at Places of Work 10-1 Vote for Measure
- 2025684825-4826 Council Adopts Tough Law on Smoking on Job
- 2025684827-4828 Conflicts Mostly Solved Few Fired Up Over L.A. Smoking Law
- 2025684829 L.A. Council Acts to Ease Curbs on Smoking at Work Victory for Businesses
- 2025684830 Tobacco Firms Act to Snuff Out Smoking Law View Weakening of L.A. Plan As Just A First Step
- 2025684831 No-Smoking Law Opponent Hosting Council at Resort. Council: Desert Retreat
- 2025684832-4833 L.A. Strengthens Draft Ordinance to Curb Smoking Penalty for Retaliation. Orange County Revives Anti-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684834 Council Puts Some Muscle Back in L.A. Smoking Law
- 2025684835 L.A. Approves Strict on-Job Smoking Law Smoking: Law Approved, Goes to Bradley
- 2025684836 Bradley to Sign No-Smoking Ordinance, Press Aide Says
- 2025684837 the Region Law's Opposition Doused
- 2025684838 Clock Running for No-Smoking Plans
- 2025684839-4841 Smoking on the Job No More Ifs, Ands, Butts - It's Law
- 2025684842-4843 A Month with Smoking Law: Problems Resolved Smoothly
- 2025684844 Jonesville County Health Coalition Announces Introduction of Jonesville Smoking Law
- 2025684845-4847 Medical Association Head Endorses Nonsmokers' Rights Plan
- 2025684848-4854 Michael Schildberger Show Radio 310 Melbourne Australia Friday, 850726 9:10 A.M.
Related Documents:
Document Images
I
THE' LETiTER OF THE LAW
The following provisions must be incildded in
your company poiicy.
SPACES WH'ICH MUST BE DECLARED
NiO'N-SMOKING'
Eievators Meeting; Rooms
Restrooms Auditoriums
Conference Rooms Medicai Facilities
Hallways
SPACES' WHICH MAY BE DESIGNATED
EITHER NON-SMOKING,ANDVOR'
SMOKING PERMITTED
Private Offices
Immediate Work Areas
Lobbies
Cafeterias"
Employee,Lounges'
'Cafeterias-Mo smoking area of not less than
2A of the seating,capacity and floor space.
"Employee Lounges-Same as cafeterias or, if
more than oneJounge,'L2 the number of
lounges must be non,smoking.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE...
The employer is responsible for, conditions at
the workplace. Hie is liable for the actions of his
employees, It is the employer who will be fined.
WHAT' IS THE PENALTY?
Maximum Penalties:
First Conviction ..................... ..$100
Second Conviction .................. $200
Third Conviction .................... $500
Fourth conviction ............ Misdemeanor
($1i0010~or six months iniail, or both).
I
1
B'B~-4
ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS?
The only workplaces which are not covered by
the Law are:
1)~Private Homes
2) Property leased or owned by other
governmental agencies.
3)1Norkpiaces occupied exciusively' by smokers.
DEFINITIONS YOU MAY
NEED TO KNOW:
Smoke or Smoking:
Means and includes the combustion ~ of, any
lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette of any kind or the
lighting of'any pipe, cigar,,cigarette of any kind,
or any similiar article or any other combustible
substance in any manner or in any form.
Empioyer:
Means any person who hires the services of'an
individual person for compensation fon services
to be rendered l in the workplace.
Employee:
Means any person' who i is employed by anyy
employer in consideration for direct or indirect
monetary wages or profit. .
VMorkpiace:
Means any enclosed area of a structure or
portion thereof, intended for occupancy byy
business entities excluding health facilities,
theaters, auditoriums, pavilions, exposition
halls, retail stores and eating establishments.
Workplace includas,,but is not limited to,
office space in office buildings, research
and dewelopmentfacilities and manufacturing
facilities.
20 :5GS4f3S

'I
SPIRIT'OF THE' LAW
11 is the expressed intent'of the City Council~to
require companies to accommodate the needs
of non-smokers and to protect health at the
workplace. Section 3, A.5'states "In any dispute
arising,underthe smokimg policy, the rights of'
the non-smokers shall be given precedence."
This phase embodies the spirit of'the law.
OPIAJbR' HEALTH HAZARD
With the 1984 Surgeon General's Report
pointing out the hazards of'secondhand or
passive smoke, the time for regulation has
arrived. In,addition, research by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency recently concludedi
that tobacco smoke is "the country's most
dangerous airborne carcinogen" resulting in
500-5000 excess deaths per year.
Tobacco smoke contains rnany,
harmful chemicals amongithem:
nicotine
tar
carbon monoxide
cyanide
ammonia
nitric oxide
benzene
carbon disulfidee
formaldehyde
DDT
acetylene
acetone
I
,
BB-5:
Many of these are more prevalent in side-
st'ream (from the butt end) smoke than in the
mainstream smoke which the smoker inhales.
Compared to smoke the smoker inhales,
sidestream smoke contains:
2 times the amount of itar and nicotine
3 times as much benzopyrene
5 times as much carbon monoxide
50 times as much nitrosamines
Passive smoking has been shown to be linked
to cancer in non-smokers, respiratory disease im
children, decreased pulmonary function, and'a
host of ottier, physical reactions. Studies show
that 713% of persons without allergy problems
will experience some physical symptoms when
placed in a smokey room.
A APIAJOR NUJSANCE
Even those individuals who are not concerned
with health risks are concerned for other
reasons.
Burning eyes, scratchy throats, and tobaccoo
odors are but a few of't'heir complaints.
Z '~02~5G 8~~~:3f

I PUTTING THE LA'VI[' INTO EFFECT
in order to speedily comply with the law, you
may have to overlook the recommended
procedure for putting aismoking policy intoo
effect. The period between the City Council vote
and the !aw's'taking effect'should have been
sufficient, to allow for an employee survey and
establishment of an advisory committee to
review input. Now, however, it is time for
Implementation.
~ You will still need a commtttee and'an
ttt~~~~ individual who will be "incharge'". There
must be someone who receives complaints and l
acts on them; and'employees must know who
this is. Perhaps you already have a safeYyy
committee or health cornmittee which may be
pressed into service.
You must spend time and effort
communicating the policy to employees.
Putting a concise copy of therules in each!
employee's salary envelope is a good way
to get attention. Use as many routes of'
communication as possible: companyy
newsletters, office memos, staff'meetings,
intercoms, union mettings, etc. In a large
company you will want to surveyemptoyees.a
few, weeks after to determine their levet of
awareness:.
F /~ i Enforcing the policy should be no more
{,~~ diHicult than enforcing other personnel
policies if the policy has been written correctly
and has the support of'management.
Remember that'fines are levied against
employers, novindividuat smokers!!
BB-6
F / a i' Follow.up is essential. After a few months
`,;~' have elasped, assess employee
attitudes regarding the policy, Then use this
input to refine the policy.
You may be surprised by the ease
with which the policy is impiemer~ted.
Studies have shown that:
92% of Minnesotans favored their: state law
which regulated smoking in the workplace
and Iatso other public areas, (tJ1inne'apolis.
Tribune).
In 1984, the Ca!ifornia Poll'found that 70% of'
those surveyed favored the designation of
certain areas for smoking in workplace.
A sunrey'by Martin~Field in 1984 showed 85%
of Californians (and'that includes 7@%0 of
smokers) believe secondhand smoke is very
or somewhat hazardous for non.srnokers.
MAKING TiHE' LAW WORK FOR
YOU: WHEN THERE' ARE
DIFFERENCES OF O'PINION
Surveys tell us that most smokers (around 85%)
will obey laws and rules restricting smoking.
However;,smoking tobacco has now been
recognized as an addiction, and many smokers
who earnestly desire to quit must try several
times before succeeding. Therefore; it is
unrealistic to assume that alllsmokers will obey
all provisions of a new smoking poliiry without
some testing of limits. A few smokers may feel
harassed andlrebel: Also, many non-smokers

lY
may have harbored hostility toward smokers for
yearsandlmaysuddenly feel vindicated by a
smoking policy and thus make unreasonable
demands. These are examples of temporary
negative reactions which will require
understanding and diplomacy. Such problems
can ~be best handled through the following:
CLEAR SPECIFIC POLICIES
Policies should 'speli out requirements inn
detail if possible: How much square footage or
percent oflfloor space? Which rooms are
smoking,iounges, which areas of'the cafeteria?
Who receives complaints?
SEGREGATION
Providing distance between smokers and'non-
smokers will alleviate much of the passive
smoking problem:.. provided that the room is
large enough to allow sufficient distance.
Smoke drifts!IThere is even some evidence too
show that the human body "Attracts" tobacco
smoke. Keep this in mind when allowing,for
amount of'separation. Ideally, there should be a
wall or barrierbetween smokers and non-
smokers, butthe Law does not require this. The
next best situation would be the placement of
alllsmokers in one area and all non-smokers ini
another, with at least six (6) feet of space
between the two:sections.
IMPROVED VENTILATION
Ventilation decreases the amount of tabacco
smoke inritants in a room by diluting the
polluted air withiresh ai'r. If, smoking is allowed
in a roomthere should be at least six (6) air
exchanges per hour. This will need to be
increased if'the room is very smokey or if'the
occupants are very sensitive to tobacco smoke.
Smoking areas are best placed under or near
windows or return air ducts. The prevailing air
flow shouid be toward the smoking areas:
Beware of ventilation systems which transport
smoke from ione area to another.
A,IR PURIFICATION
If ventilation does not allow for sufficient dilution
of smokey air, the air should be filtered: Again,,
air purification can only help: It cannot, remove
toxic gases from the air, such as carbon
monoxide; andlmost purifiers are designed to
serve relatively small areas.
ION GENERATORS
Ion generators cleanse the ai'r by attracting i
particles of smoke. They have been rated
effective but have the disadvantage of'
causing the accumulation of tobacco smokee
particles on walls;,floors; tables, etc., requiring
cleaning.
TASLEITOP AIR'FICTERATION SYSTEMS
These purifiers filter air but' have low,
capacities and'.are easily overloaded in rooms
with more than one smoker.
WHOLE ROOM A4R FILTERATION SYSTEMS
H.E.P.A. or high efficiency particulate air
filters are considered the most effective ty,pe
of'filtrationsysterns. They have two: main,
drawbacks: cost and size.
SMOKELESS ASHTRAYS
Smokeless ashtrays are probably the least
effective machines for control of smoke.
These are primarily useful for those smokers
who let cigarettes "burn down" without much
actual smoking. Most are not powerfut
enough to get rid of smoke that comes from a
cigarette not ptaced in the ashtray.
a
t
BB-7

;2;
THE LAW MAKES $$ CENTS $'$
Companies who conform to the spirit of'the
law and offer smoking cessation opportunities
should experience a decrease in their smoking
population. Good news should follow:
INCREASED PRODUCTIVI TEstimates blame smoking for approximately
6% of lost productivity, Studies vary, saying
$5'00-5675' per year per smoker is lost.
LOWERED ABSENTEEISM & ILLNESS
Smokers are absent 33%-50% more often than
non-smokers.
FEWER ACCIDENTS
Smokers have twice the accidents of
nonsmokers,
REDUCED MAINTENANCE COSTS
Less c!eaning, repair,,and replacemeni costs.
Merle Norman cosmetics saved S1'3S00ithe first
year of'its ban on smoking for its 825
emp!oyees.
SAVINGS ON INSURANCE
LESS TURNOVER & RETAILING
CONCERN FOR!EMPLOYEES
Making smoking socially unacceptable should
convince some individuals to quiit.,Expressing
eoncerniover the welfare of employees and
ofteringprograms on-site is an excel!ent morale
booster.
BB:-8
WHERE TO F{ND HELP
You may obtainia copy of Ordinance 21830 from,
the City Clerk at (408) 277-4424.
Any inquiries or complaints should be directed
to the Code Compliance Division at (408)
277-4527
Loca!!hea!th agencies are also anxious to help.
Your local Lung Association, for instance, will
provide model policies; free signs, free
consultation regarding; policy, implementation,
health literatureand tips on quittingismoking; if
can send a trained faci!itatorto your company
to !ead a stop smoking group. The following are
some of the groups which offer such
assistance:
AMERiCAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
1469 Park Ave:
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 998-5864
AtWIERICA?if'CANCER SOCIETY
1537 Parkmoor Ave.
San Jose, CA 95159
(408) 287-59Y3
I
CALIFORNIANSI FOR tiIONSMOKERS' RIGHTS
2054 University Ave.
Berke!ey, CA 94704
(415) 841-3032
This brochure was preparedlby the City
of San Jose Department of'Neighborhood
Preservation, Code Comp!iance Division; in
cooperation with the American Lung
Assoctatlon 1

---
