Search

ADA Title III protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination at places of public accommodation. Because the definition of "public accommodations" is broad, the title requires accessibility and nondiscrimination at entities that individuals visit on a frequent basis, as well as at entities that individuals visit to enhance the quality of their lives. The broad coverage came at a price - in return for a broad list of covered entities, civil rights advocates agreed to a limited set of remedies under ADA Title III. This article explores the legislative history underlying this compromise, and its implications for enforcement of the title. The author concludes that the current trend of under-enforcement of ADA Title III should cause us to consider enhancing remedies at the state and federal level.

Over the last several decades, there has been a movement toward the inclusion of people with disabilities in mainstream social institutions. The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which supports the full participation of people with disabilities in society and mainstream institutions, illustrates the shift in attitudes toward people with disabilities. Rather than being perceived as having a social or medical problem, individuals with disabilities are increasingly viewed as people with challenges that can be solved if appropriate policies and supports are available for addressing them.

On 19 July 1991, President Bush issued Executive Order 12769 repealing the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 (CAAA). Bush stated that “the Government of South Africa has taken all the steps specified in Section 311(a) and Title III Section 501(c) and 504(b) of the act” (exhibit 15). Although other, more limited, sanctions remained in place, this action marked a major shift, both legally and philosophically, in the United States relationship with South Africa. CAAA stipulated five conditions that had to be met before sanctions were lifted: 1. The release of Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners 2. The repeal of the South African state of emergency and the release of all persons detained under it 3. The repeal of the ban (in South Africa) of political parties 4. The repeal of Group Areas and Population Registration Acts 5. Good-faith negotiations with members of the Black majority

This chapter provides an introduction to the book on laws and regulations, specific instructions, and guidelines related to the safety and health of workers. The aim of this book is to improve hazardous waste operations efficiency through knowledge and training of the work force, and to reduce the cost of hazardous waste cleanups through reduced lawsuits and liability losses of employers and individuals. Several of the key hazardous waste, health, and safety-related regulations are briefly summarized in the book. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)—the Superfund law—to provide liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment, and the cleanup of abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal sites. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 extended CERCLA and added new authorities under Title III of SARA that included Emergency Planning, Community Right-to-Know, and Toxic Chemical Release Reporting. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 sets the standards for waste handling, storage, and disposal. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 provides the regulation of the labeling, packaging, placarding, manifesting, and transporting of hazardous materials.

There is increasing public concern over potential exposure to airborne chemical substances from all sources. Industries in Houston have cooperated to implement a comprehensive regional monitoring program to address the issue of long-term community exposure to toxic airborne chemicals. The initial results from the HRM Volatile Organic Indicator Compound Study have been used effectively to address public concerns regarding the air quality impact of airborne toxic emissions reported under Section 313 of SARA Title III.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 [also known as the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Title III], as modified by Executive Order 12856, requires that all federal facilities evaluate the need to submit an annual Toxic Chemical Release Inventory report as prescribed in Title III, Section 313 of this Act. This annual report is due every July for the preceding calendar year. Owners and operators who manufacture, process, or otherwise use certain toxic chemicals above listed threshold quantities are required to report their toxic chemical releases to all environmental mediums (air, water, soil, etc.). At Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), no EPCRA Section 313 chemicals were used in 1998 above the reportable threshold limits of 10,000 lb or 25,000 lb. Therefore LANL was not required to submit any Toxic Chemical Release Inventory reports (Form Rs) for 1998. This document was prepared to provide a detailed description of the evaluation on chemical usage and EPCRA Section 313 threshold determinations for LANL for 1998.

Background. The objective was to assess the use of physician-prescribed special diets, food preferences, and daily and occasional drug use by elderly participants in a Title III-C Nutrition Program.Methods. Data were collected by nonrandom interviews of congregate and meals-on-wheels clients. Chi-square was used to assess whether food and drug behaviors were related to six population variables: ethnicity, age, gender, congregate versus meals-on-wheels clients, proportion of noon meal usually eaten, and whether clients lived alone or with others.Results. Special diets and daily and occasional medications showed no significant differences with regard to the six variables. Broccoli was the food disliked most frequently. Suggestions that certain foods be served more frequently were greater among white than black clients (p < .001) and among home delivery than among congregate clients (p < .005). Persons who regularly ate half or less of the noon meal made more suggestions for cooking foods differently (p < .005) and had longer lists of favorite foods (p < .001) than those who usually ate most of or all of the meal. Persons who lived alone had more suggestions for cooking foods differently (p < .005) and serving certain items more often (p < .05) than those who lived with other persons. Favorite foods, changes in cooking methods, and frequency of offering certain foods were not related significantly to age or to gender.Conclusions. Certain suggested changes in food choices and preparation can be implemented within Title III guidelines and may improve food intakes. While medicinal intakes were similar to those reported previously for the elderly cohort, there is reason for concern with regard to drug-induced illness.

The objective of this evaluation is to provide recommendations to ensure consistency between the technical baseline requirements, baseline design, and the as-constructed SFWS/SNPWS. Recommendations for resolving discrepancies between the as-constructed systems, the technical baseline requirements, and the baseline design are included in this report. Cost and schedule estimates are provided for all recommended modifications. This report does not address items which do not meet current safety or code requirements. These items are identified to the CMO and immediate action is taken to correct the situation. The report does identify safety and code items for which the A/E is recommending improvements. The recommended improvements will exceed the minimum requirements of applicable code and safety guidelines. These recommendations are intended to improve and enhance the operation and maintenance of the facility.

The objective of this evaluation is to provide recommendations to ensure consistency between the technical baseline requirements, baseline design, and the as-constructed Subsurface Lighting System. Recommendations for resolving discrepancies between the as-constructed system, and the technical baseline requirements are included in this report. Cost and Schedule estimates are provided for all recommended modifications. This report does not address items which do not meet current safety or code requirements. These items are identified to the CMO and immediate action is taken to correct the situation. The report does identify safety and code items for which the A/E is recommending improvements. The recommended improvements will exceed the minimum requirements of applicable code and safety guide lines. These recommendations are intended to improve and enhance the operation and maintenance of the facility.

The objective of this evaluation is to provide recommendations to ensure consistency between the technical baseline requirements, baseline design, and the as-constructed Muck Storage System. Recommendations for resolving discrepancies between the as-constructed system, the technical baseline requirements, and the baseline design are included in this report. Cost and Schedule estimates are provided for all recommended modifications. This report does not address items which do not meet current safety or code requirements. These items are identified to the CMO and immediate action is taken to correct the situation. The report does identify safety and code items for which the A/E is recommending improvements. The recommended improvements will exceed the minimum requirements of applicable code and safety guide lines. These recommendations are intended to improve and enhance the operation and maintenance of the facility.

The objective of this evaluation is to provide recommendations to ensure consistency between the technical baseline requirements, baseline design, and the as-constructed Access Roads. Recommendations for resolving discrepancies between the as-constructed system, the technical baseline requirements, and the baseline design are included in this report. Cost and Schedule estimates are provided for all recommended modifications. This report does not address items which do not meet current safety or code requirements. These items are identified to the CMO and immediate action is taken to correct the situation. The report does identify safety and code items for which the A/E is recommending improvements. The recommended improvements will exceed the minimum requirements of applicable code and safety guide lines. These recommendations are intended to improve and enhance the operation and maintenance of the facility.

The purpose of this document is to define the work that must be accomplished by the NIF Project during Title III Engineering. This definition is intended to be sufficiently detailed to provide a framework for yearly planning, to clearly identify the specific deliverables so that the Project teams can focus on them, and to provide a common set of objectives and processes across the Project. This plan has been preceded by similar documents for Title I and Title II design and complements the Site Management Plan, the Project Control Manual, the Quality Assurance Program Plan, the RM Parsons NIF Title III Configuration Control Plan, the Integrated Project Schedule, the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, the Configuration Management Plan, and the Transition Plan.

This Title III Evaluation Report (TER) provides the results of an evaluation that was conducted on the Material and Personnel Handling System. This TER has been written in accordance with the ''Technical Document Preparation Plan for the Mined Geologic Disposal System Title III Evaluation Reports'' (BA0000000-01717-4600-00005 REV 03). The objective of this evaluation is to provide recommendations to ensure consistency between the technical baseline requirements, baseline design, and the as-constructed Material and Personnel Handling System. Recommendations for resolving discrepancies between the as-constructed system, the technical baseline requirements, and the baseline design are included in this report. Cost and Schedule estimates are provided for all recommended modifications.

Flat panel display research has comprised a substantial portion of the national investment in new technology for economic and national security for the past nine years. These investments have ben made principally via several Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programs, known collectively as the continuing High Definition Systems Program, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense Production Act Title III Program. Using input from the Army, Navy, and Air Force to focus research and identify insertion opportunities, DARPA and the Title III Program Office have made investments to develop the national technology base and manufacturing infrastructure necessary to meet the twin challenge of providing affordable displays in current systems and enabling the DoD strategy of winning future conflicts by getting more information to all participants during the battle. These research programs are reviewed and opportunities for applications are described. Future technology development, transfer, and transition requirements are identified. Strategy and vision are documented to assist the identification of areas meriting further consideration.© (1997) COPYRIGHT SPIE--The International Society for Optical Engineering. Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCIL4), Title III, Section 313 [also known as the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA)], as modified by Executive Order 12856, requires all federal facilities to submit an annual Toxic Chemical Release Inventory report every July for the preceding calendar year. Owners and operators of manufacturing, processing, or production facilities are required to report their toxic chemical releases to all environmental mediums (air, water, soil, etc.). At Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), nitric acid was the only toxic chemical used in 1997 that met the reportable threshold limit of 10,000 lb. Form R is the only documentation required by the Environmental Protection Agency, and it is included in the appendix of this report. This report, as requested by DOE, is provided for documentation purposes. In addition, a detailed description of the evaluation and reporting process for chemicals and processes at LANL has been included.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that hospitals and burn centers be designed and constructed so that all public and common-use areas are accessible. At least 10% of patient bedrooms and toilets must be accessible to persons with mobility disorders. The purpose of this study was to determine whether four hospitals with burn centers complied with Title III of the ADA. The burn centers agreed to participate in this study only if they were first assured anonymity, because of the Health Care Financing Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires that each hospital comply. With use of the ADA accessibility guidelines, we developed a survey instrument that was validated by a state government building inspector. This tool was used to inspect the burn center facility and common use areas in four hospitals with burn centers. In the four hospitals, numerous architectural barriers to persons with disabilities were noted. No burn center had a designated accessible room for persons with disabilities. The bedrooms, bathrooms, sinks, bathtubs, and toilets were not accessible to persons with disabilities. The common-use areas in the hospitals, in contrast, had few architectural barriers to persons with disabilities. Only one burn center had plans to eliminate architectural barriers in its hospital. Because the four hospitals with burn centers had numerous architectural barriers for persons with disabilities, it can be concluded they do not comply with Title III of the ADA and are subject to severe penalty from the Health Care Financing Administration and the U.S. Department of Justice.

(2004). Americans with Disabilities Act (Title III) Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance: Vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 9-10.

This chapter presents an overview of the federal and state environmental compliance requirements related to worker safety and right to know. Most workplaces in the United States are regulated under the provisions of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Federal OSH Act) and its many state counterparts. The Federal OSH Act provides for both federal and state authority over workplace health and safety. The main areas of OSHA that a professional hazards manager should be familiar with are: the Hazard Communication Standard, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard, Fire Protection Standard, Chemical Process Safety Management Standard, and Laboratory Standard. OSHA and state worker protection agencies require employers to plan for emergencies in the workplace, and to train employees to perform whatever emergency response roles they are assigned in employers' plans. Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) establishes several different reporting and planning requirements for businesses that handle, store, or manufacture certain hazardous materials. These reports and plans provide federal, state, and local emergency planning and response agencies with information about the amounts of chemicals businesses use, routinely release, and spill. Title III requires states to develop emergency planning programs. In addition, many states have developed additional emergency planning, release reporting, and/or community right-to-know programs.

This chapter throws light on the preliminary list of computer applications and system of potential use under Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III. The chapter contains a list of computer software applications and has been assembled as a reference source to assist Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and others in locating potentially useful software applications. The list includes systems identified from readily available information sources. The principal intent is to identify software that is applicable to the information collection, data management, and reporting, planning, or scheduling requirements of Title III SARA. The chapter discusses the list of categories that have been used in evaluating each of the systems.

This chapter describes identification of regulatory requirements. The objective of this chapter is to discuss track regulatory deadline and assist in the assessment of compliance with reporting requirements, as additionally recording the status of the required information and log requests for information. These criteria concentrate on planning and response requirements of Title III of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The chapter discusses a partial list of the possible capabilities the applications may possess with regard to the identification of regulatory requirements.

This chapter discusses technical guidance for hazardous analysis. This chapter contains a checklist of criteria developed to help Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), or other groups considering purchasing software to identify computerized applications to assist in emergency response planning as outlined in the chapters of the Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis (NRT-1). The checklist identifies many ways that software applications can be of assistance. The priorities and needs of the local planning district dictate which criteria are to be considered, and may require development of additional criteria. This chapter also describes a few of the ways that a software application can explain the requirements under Title III and assist in compliance with requirements, such as tracking deadlines and responding to requests for information. Finally, understanding the planning processes described in these documents and how the information being assembled will be used is a prerequisite for determining which computer application can best address the specific set of needs involved.

This field practice internship final report gives an overview of the field practice, which was completed at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Environmental Management Department, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The field practice focused on the completion of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Section 312, Tier II Report. The field practice internship was conducted on a full-time basis between December 13, 1993 through February 18, 1994. Sheila Poligone, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Coordinator served as the field practice preceptor.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), requires regulated facilities to publicly disclose information about the chemicals they store, use, dispose of, or release. The information is used to encourage and support emergency planning for responding to chemical accidents and to provide local governments and the public with information about possible chemical hazards in their communities.

This study was designed to determine the compliance of restaurants to the wheelchair accessibility standards set forth in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. The standards that were operationalized in this study are also found in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The data were collected at 120 sites in three midwestern states. For one who uses a wheelchair, parking the car is often an obstacle to eating out. Only 53% of the restaurants surveyed provide handicapped parking. Entering the building may also be a problem. Of the restaurants that required a ramp, only 66% provided them. Inside the restaurant, the key problems were accessible restrooms and the height of tables. The study provided comparisons between restaurants in rural and urban settings, as well as comparisons between conventional restaurants and fast food restaurants. No notable differences emerged for these comparisons.

Abstract Environmental regulations on reporting of hazardous chemical releases have proven to be very complex and confusing. An effort by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the author has been undertaken to provide the oil and gas industry concise and straightforward guidance on which releases are reportable to which government agencies. This paper addresses the various federal reporting requirements addressed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), commonly referred to as SARA Title III; and the Clean Water Act (CWA). This paper covers the reporting of what most in industry consider emergency or incidental releases. These are releases which are typically unplanned and not covered by a permit issued by a government agency. The paper does not address state and local requirements which, in many cases, may be more stringent. A series of flowcharts (Figures #1 - #7) have been developed to provide guidance on release reporting. The flowcharts are designed to help the user make accurate reporting decisions in an efficient manner. Introduction Reporting of releases to government agencies is driven primarily by the following legislation and their associated regulations:the Clean Water Act (CWA),the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), andthe Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA Title III). To properly report releases, one must have a basic understanding of the factors which may require a release to be reported. To avoid unnecessary reporting, it is also important to understand the numerous exclusions or exemptions that are available to industry. These key factors are addressed in Figures #1 through #7. The release of a "hazardous substance" is a common precondition for reporting under all three legislative acts. P. 343^

This article reports on the Ohio Quality Assurance Project, a two year demonstration. The project developed a model quality assurance system for in-home supportive services funded by Title III of the Older Americans Act including home health aide, personal care, homemaker, transportation and escort, home delivered meals, chore and home maintenance services. Using four planning and service areas in the state of Ohio comprising over 40 countries, the project developed, implemented and evaluated quality assurance standards and monitoring activities for Older Americans Act services. In addition, a second part of the project included in-depth case studies with consumers receiving in-home care.

Objective:Investigate Emergency Physicians' knowledge about the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III legislation, passed by the United States Congress in 1986, and to determine the factors contributing to their level of preparedness in dealing with patients exposed to toxic chemicals.Methods:A 115-item questionnaire was mailed to the medical directors of all emergency departments (EDs) in the State of New York. The results of the cross-sectional survey were analyzed using standard statistical methods.Results:One hundred and eighty-seven (72%) of the directors of EDs in New York State responded to the survey. Three years after SARA was enacted, only 33% of the directors had heard about this legislation. Only 18% had been invited to attend the meetings of the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC). Sixty percent of the directors knew whether or not the LEPC had devised plans that defined a role for their EDs in responding to environmental emergencies. This knowledge about community planning mainly had an effect on preparedness of the EDs. Preparedness also was predicted by how recently the EDs had treated patients exposed to toxic chemicals, the perception that emergency physicians had a legitimate role in planning for and responding to chemical emergencies, and how often emergency physicians had attended continuing education courses about hazardous materials.Conclusion:Despite the finding that some emergency physicians are involved in community preparations, two main problems persist in planning a medical response to environmental emergencies. First, the ED directors generally are unaware of the legislation that mandates these preparations and are not interacting with community planners. Second, there is not full involvement by the local EDs in the LEPC planning efforts.Recommendations:A procedure is needed to disseminate information about legislation which affects emergency physicians, such as SARA, and about regional planning for environmental emergencies. Dissemination should include education about the professions' role in planning for and providing care for patients exposed to toxic chemicals.

Using data from Connecticut's management information system for Title III funds, we found, first, that such services are reaching at least one person in every town and thus modestly fulfilling a gateway function; about 9% of Connecticut's elderly use Title III services, with 20% of the oldest old obtaining such services. Nutrition services are reaching the most elderly, both numerically and geographically; among the oldest old (85+), home care service use was most widespread Indices of use were not statistically related to specific characteristics of the towns' populations (i.e., percentage of elderly, poor, or minority elderly), but small cities and rural towns had the highest use levels. Presence of nutrition sites within the town and service through two of the five area agencies on aging (AAAs) were also correlated with high service use, controlling for the rural-urban continuum. Those two AAAs received the highest per capita amount of Title III funds, based on the state's targeting formulas.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (Title III) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) was designed to provide communities with information about many hazardous substances stored, transported, or released in their local environments. The toxic chemical release reporting section (Section 313 of the Act) is the focus of this paper. Under Section 313, certain businesses must report annually on their total aggregate releases of toxic chemicals to air, water, and land. These aggregate data are referred to as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). In the first years of reporting, there will be some initial difficulties in understanding and using the TRI data. Because the reporting is new, the release data are expected to be limited in type and quality. The TRI data will be useful for conducting screening level comparisons, planning, and priority setting activities. Temporal or spatial comparisons can be made between TRI emissions and other emissions data, standards or permits. TRI data can be a component for consideration in land use planning. Risk screening of TRI data can help to set priorities for follow-up data collection, and analyses must not imply greater accuracy or certainty than is permitted by the limitations in the data. Quantitative risk assessment, epidemiologic studies which establish causal links to health clusters, and definitive answers to health questions will require additional data.

Risk communication has become increasingly more important since a number of accidents (notably in Seveso in Italy, Bhopal in India, and Chernobyl in the USSR) showed the need for improved communication of the risks of technological activities. These events have resulted in a number of activities and led to regulations like the Seveso Directive in Europe and SARA’s Title III in the US (see chapter 4). As a result a number of risk communication processes have been designed and started. It has been argued, especially in chapter 1, that new relationships have to be developed. Lessons from earlier experience with activities in which different social groups are involved as in focus groups (see chapter 9), have been applied to this new area of concern, especially in the US.

Has the Single Act really changed European Political Cooperation (EPC)? Words, when skillfully used, can mean a lot in the world of lawyers. Thus, the fairly general heading of Title III of the Single Act – ‘Treaty Provisions on European Cooperation in the Sphere of Foreign Policy’ – may be seen as encapsulating both the importance and the limits of the changes introduced by that part of the Act. The reference to ‘Treaty provisions’ suggests that the ‘High Contracting Parties’ – as, significantly, the member states of the European Community are called in that part of the Act – intended to give legal value to the commitments therein contained. At the same time, the use of an expression like ‘cooperation in the sphere of foreign policy’, which was preferred to the more integrated (and Community-like) ‘common foreign policy’, clearly indicates that their intention was not to alter radically the set of procedures which have characterised EPC from its inception. One could therefore argue that we find in the very heading of Title III the essence of the changes contained in that part of the Act: a formal ‘legalisation’ of a process which was not hitherto regarded as legally binding, but no substantive transformation of its functioning, if one excludes the long awaited creation of a Secretariat.

The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 is a joint attempt by the Federal Government and the various state governments of the United States to provide for scenic development and road beautification of Federal-Aid highway systems. There are three major sections of the Act: Title I and Title II deal with provisions for limiting and controlling outdoor advertising and junkyards adjacent to highways; Title III is concerned with the need for landscaping and scenic enhancement of highway systems.

The world community desires accurate and reliable information about possible health hazards from exposure to chemicals in the environment. For example, Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA, U.S. Congress, 1986) requires plant operators to disclose data on air, water, and waste emissions for over 300 chemicals. But, emissions data, by themselves, are not sufficient to assess potential health hazards. Two additional informational needs remain. The first is for either a direct measure or an accurate estimate of actual exposure concentrations. The second need, which is the topic of this paper, is for acceptably safe exposure guidelines. The approach proposed here provides a resource-effective means to derive such guidelines. This paper reviews the histories of some currently applied methodologies, draws on their best features, and proposes a logically and operationally attractive alternative. While this method was developed for atmospheric emissions, the procedure will work equally well for guidelines for exposures by other routes.

Previous studies have estimated the "human capital depreciation" of women re-entering the work force after voluntary, lengthy interruptions. Those studies have found reduced real wages and furthermore the decrease is positively related to the length of the interruption. Upon re-entry, however, real wages grow rapidly as human capital is restored. This paper develops a model of the wage histories of dislocated workers. Similar to labor force re-entrants, those dislocated workers who become re-employed would experience wages below their final wage prior to dislocation and the decrease should be associated with the length of dislocation. However, the model suggests that since the career disruptions are involuntary and since occupational shifts generally occur, recovery will not be rapid nor complete. The model is estimated with data from a sample of workers in Ohio who had been dislocated and received services under Title III of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). This data set has the limitation that the observations are for workers who chose to receive services, but it also has the advantage that the effects of a variety of training interventions on outcomes can be determined.

In 1994, Briar Cliff College received a Title III grant for ‘Integrating Technology into Education’ which ties technical innovations such as Internet and e‐mail to new courses and changes in existing courses. Long a user of our local network's electronic mail for individual correspondence, I proposed to modify one of my courses, Creative Writing, to use e‐mail as the required means of initial publication and critiquing. A description of the course's media, the pedagogical backgrounds for this change, and my hopes and fears for the course and the medium, will constitute this paper.

The years between 1954 and 1965 witnessed a dramatic shift in the racial climate of the United States. Segregation was systematically challenged, requiring citizens of all ages to confront the reality of a changing societal landscape. This push for change was particularly significant in education, where the ideals of equality and social improvement collided with the realities of prejudice, inferiority, and violence. In 1963, at the height of this volatile period, the University of Michigan and the Tuskegee Institute embarked on a partnership that strove to benefit both schools through a series of academic and cultural exchanges. The Michigan-Tuskegee Exchange Program was one of the first interinstitutional programs initiated between predominandy white northern universities and predominandy black southern colleges, and many of the specific activities undertaken were later echoed in the provisions of Title III of the 1965 Higher Education Act. A number of such programs, including Indiana?Stillman, Brown-Tougaloo, Wisconsin-North Carolina College, and Southern Illinois-Winston Salem, were developed in 1964 and 1965, while the Michigan Tuskegee venture was formulated in June 1963.1 The motivation for creating such programs was the recognition that "the predominantly Negro colleges . . . were not especially favorably supplied with the necessities for excellence,"2 meaning teachers trained at leading research universities, academic resources, exposure of talented students to educational opportunities outside the black-college system, and strong curricula. In order to assist these schools, a university with high-quality academic programs lent support to a black college in its quest for

The events of 11 September 2001 highlighted the vulnerability of US citizens and the US society in general to terrorist attacks. Since then, numerous governmental agencies and scientific bodies have emphasised the need to enhance the biosecurity of the US food supply. Food biosecurity is the prevention of intentional contamination of food with hazardous biological agents through tampering or other malicious, criminal or terrorist actions or threats. As part of the nation?s response to this issue, Congress passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2002. Title III of the Bioterrorism Act includes a number of provisions designed to improve the food safety efforts of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including new authority to protect the food supply against terrorist acts and other threats.

Republican Party leaders have rushed legislation through two House committees and plan floor action by the end of the month on the portion of "Contract with America" that most affects environmental, health, and safety protections. It is also the part that most irritates environmental groups and pleases the business sector. That portion is known formally as Title III of H.R. 9, the Job Creation & Wage Enhancement Act—colloquially called the "risk bill." A companion bill, S. 343, has been introduced in the Senate by majority leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.). Title III requires federal agencies to conduct comprehensive risk assessments before issuing any new regulation. It also mandates cost-benefit analyses for any proposed rule for which compliance would cost industry more than $25 million; such analyses would determine whether the rule would be issued. And Title III allows private parties to challenge in court both the science an agency used to develop a regulation and whether ...

In 1968, in response to several high-profile criminal cases involving the surveillance of U.S. citizens without a warrant,' Congress passed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, known as the Federal Wiretap Act ("FWA").i Before passage of the FWA, Congress saw a gap in federal, state, and local provisions regarding forms of surveillance due to technological innovation. It concluded that the present state of the law was "extremely unsatisfactory" and served "neither the interests of privacy nor law enforcement."3 The FWA embodies the dual purposes of Congress: first, protecting the privacy of wire and oral communications and the integrity of court proceedings; and second, preserving the ability of law enforcement to use taps in legitimate criminal investigations.4 With respect to the first goal, the statute provides strict limits on the ability of law enforcement officials to tap suspects without proper approval and authorizes civil suits against officials who violate the Act.5 With respect to the second goal, Congress recognized that wiretapping was an effective evidence-gathering mechanism, in particular against organized crime. Congress feared that the safeguards it established to protect innocent citizens from wiretapping (limits on unapproved tapping, plus civil suits for violations) could overdeter the use