text:
Dietyloamid kwasu D-lizergowego (LSD, LSD-25) – organiczny związek chemiczny, amid kwasu D-lizergowego i dietyloaminy; psychodeliczna substancja psychoaktywna, pochodna ergoliny.
 Informacje ogólne
 Jest to jedna z najaktywniejszych substancji psychodelicznych o właściwościach halucynogennych – 100 razy bardziej czynna biologicznie niż psylocybina i 4000 razy bardziej niż meskalina. Po raz pierwszy LSD zostało zsyntetyzowane w 1938 r. przez szwajcarskiego chemika Alberta Hofmanna w laboratoriach firmy Sandoz (obecnie Novartis). Początkowo planowano wykorzystać tę substancję jako lek działający pobudzająco na układ krwionośny i oddechowy. W trakcie dalszych badań poznano jego psychodeliczne właściwości. Lek był w latach 40. i 50. XX wieku stosowany w psychiatrii. W latach 60. i 70. XX w. jako narkotyk LSD uzyskało popularność w pewnych kręgach młodzieży szczególnie związanych z ruchem hipisowskim.
 LSD weszło w krąg zainteresowań CIA, która rozpoczęła w latach 50. XX w. eksperymenty z jej wywiadowczym i militarnym zastosowaniem. Projekt ten znany jest pod kryptonimem MKULTRA.
 Szkodliwość
 Zgodnie z wynikami badań prof. Davida Nutta z Bristol University i członka rządowej Komisji Doradczej ds. Nadużywania Narkotyków (ACMD) z 2007 r. LSD jest jedną z najmniej groźnych substancji psychoaktywnych. W jego klasyfikacji używek LSD zajmuje miejsce czternaste z dwudziestu, podczas gdy alkohol – piąte. Pod uwagę wzięto 3 czynniki: szkody zdrowotne, ryzyko uzależnienia oraz szkodliwość społeczną. W kolejnym badaniu Nutta z 2010 r. (gdzie liczbę kryteriów rozszerzono do 16) LSD zajmuje nawet niższe miejsce – osiemnaste z dwudziestu w ogólnym zestawieniu. Tuż obok znalazł się inny psychodelik tj. psylocybina. Ponadto używanie obu substancji niesie ze sobą najniższą szkodliwość dla otoczenia (na czele znalazł się alkohol).
 Dawkowanie
 LSD jest jedną z najaktywniejszych pod względem aktywnej dawki spośród dotychczas odkrytych substancji. Dawki LSD mierzy się w mikrogramach. W porównaniu z meskaliną czy MDMA, których dawki wahają się w przedziale od kilkudziesięciu do kilkuset miligramów, LSD jest pięćset do tysiąca razy aktywniejszy.
 Jednorazowa dawka LSD waha się w przedziale od 100 do 500 μg – jest to mniej więcej jedna dziesiąta masy ziarenka piasku. Efekt progowy występuje już przy 20 μg. Nie są znane przypadki uzależnienia ani fizycznego ani psychicznego od LSD. Silna tolerancja fizjologiczna przy codziennym zażywaniu LSD występuje po 2–3 dniach i utrzymuje się przez ok. 3 dni. Występuje też zjawisko tolerancji krzyżowej LSD z psylocybiną i meskaliną.
 Przypadkowe przedawkowanie LSD ze skutkiem śmiertelnym uważa się za mało prawdopodobne. Szacuje się, że LD50 LSD dla człowieka zawiera się w przedziale 0,2–1 mg/kg. Prawdopodobnie jedyny przypadek przedawkowania LSD miał miejsce w 1975 roku w Kentucky; znaleziono ciało martwego mężczyzny, bez żadnych anatomicznych przyczyn śmierci, u którego stężenie LSD w wątrobie odpowiadało podaniu dożylnie około 320 mg LSD. Do roku 2008 zarejestrowano 8 przypadków omyłkowego donosowego zażycia bardzo dużych dawek LSD, po którym poziom substancji w osoczu wynosił 1–7 mg/100 ml, jednak wszystkie osoby zostały wyleczone.
 Działanie psychoaktywne LSD może zostać zniwelowane poprzez zażycie benzodiazepin, np. klonazepamu czy diazepamu. W znacznym stopniu hamują je też leki przeciwpsychotyczne, takie jak chloropromazyna. Istnieją teorie, że mleko, wapń czy cukier mogą regulować psychodeliczne działanie LSD, jednak nie znalazły one potwierdzenia w badaniach.
 Działanie
 LSD jest agonistą receptora 5-HT2A. LSD działa na zasadzie sprzężenia zwrotnego dodatniego, krótkotrwale obniża poziom serotoniny, co prowadzi do jej nadprodukcji. Po ok. 150–240 minutach LSD w wyniku rozpadu przestaje oddziaływać z komórkami i następuje nagły wzrost przewodnictwa – impulsy między neuronami są silniejsze, co prowadzi do wykorzystywania połączeń, które w normalnym stanie (bez nadmiaru neuroprzekaźnika) nie byłyby wykorzystane, bądź miałyby mniejszy wpływ na reakcję mózgu. Może to prowadzić – zależnie od ilości – do potęgowania odczuć, halucynacji, synestezji oraz do trwałych zmian w strukturze połączeń między neuronami, co może mieć zróżnicowane następstwa.
 Stosunkowo rzadkim zjawiskiem są reminiscencje – po tygodniach, miesiącach, nawet latach od zażycia środka przejawiają się epizodycznie niektóre efekty LSD, które trwają od kilku sekund do kilku godzin. Gdy te nawroty są chroniczne, mówi się o HPPD (Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder) (według DSM-IV).
 Okres działania LSD nazywa się potocznie słowem trip (ang. trip – podróż). Pojawiają się efekty sensoryczne: wzmocnienie percepcji zmysłowej lub częściej jej zaburzenia (szczególnie wzrokowe, rzadziej dotykowe lub proprioceptywne), efekty synestetyczne, zaburzenia poczucia czasu. W większości przypadków pojawiają się bardzo przyjemne uczucia, często opisywane jako mistyczne (np. zjednoczenia z całym wszechświatem, bezpośredniego odczuwania obecności bóstwa). Po zażyciu LSD może pojawić się zjawisko zwane bad trip, często wiązane z negatywnym stanem emocjonalnym, wzmacnianym przez LSD.
 Fizyczne skutki działania LSD
 Fizyczne reakcje na LSD są bardzo różne, jednak najczęściej występują: hipertermia, gorączka, podniesiony poziom cukru we krwi, skurcze macicy, gęsia skórka, przyspieszony puls, nadprodukcja śliny, szczękościsk, pocenie się, rozszerzenie źrenic, bezsenność, parestezje, drgawki i synestezja. Zażywający LSD wymieniają też odrętwienie, roztrzęsienie, osłabienie i mdłości. W latach 60. XX wieku Eric Kast badał przydatność LSD w walce z silnymi bólami nowotworowymi. Już niskie (niepsychoaktywne) dawki są równie skuteczne jak tradycyjnie używane opiaty, z tą różnicą, że działanie przeciwbólowe utrzymuje się dużo dłużej, nawet tydzień po zażyciu jednej dawki. Kast sądził, że efekt ten związany jest ze zmniejszeniem lęku i niepokoju. Prowadzone są badania nad tym zjawiskiem (od 2006 roku), z użyciem psychodelicznej tryptaminy, psylocybiny jako substancji zmniejszającej lęk i niepokój związany ze śmiertelnymi nowotworami.
 Wywiad przeprowadzony wśród osób cierpiących na klasterowy ból głowy (objawiającego się bardzo silnymi bólami głowy) wykazał, że u większości z nich zażycie LSD lub psylocybiny niwelowało ból; środki te wydłużały też okresy pomiędzy kolejnymi atakami. Do celów leczniczych dla tego schorzenia zaproponowano pochodną bromową LSD (dietyloamid kwasu 2-bromolizergowego, BOL-148), która nie wykazuje działania halucynogennego.
 Zastosowania medyczne
 Alkoholizm
 W analizie randomizowanych badań klinicznych ze ślepą próbą, opublikowanych w latach 1967–1971, przeprowadzonych na dorosłych, prawie wyłącznie mężczyznach, którzy rozpoczęli leczenie alkoholizmu, stwierdzono zmniejszenie nadużywania alkoholu u 60% chorych, którym podano LSD w porównaniu do 40% z próby kontrolnej. Korzystny wpływ LSD stwierdzono w czasie kontroli 3 i 6 miesięcy po podaniu LSD. Po roku wpływ ten był niewielki i statystycznie nieznaczący. Znaczący statystycznie, korzystny wpływ LSD na utrzymanie abstynencji zanikł po 6 miesiącach od podania. Efektywność pojedynczej dawki LSD jest porównywalna do efektywności leków podawanych codziennie w leczeniu alkoholizmu, takich jak naltrekson, akamprozat czy disulfiram. Po podaniu pacjentom LSD często zwiększyła się samoakceptacja, pacjenci wykazywali większą otwartość oraz byli bardziej optymistyczni w stosunku do swoich możliwości sprostania przyszłym problemom, jednak w konfrontacji ze swoim życiem u większości z czasem zanikła inspiracja, euforia i dobre intencje uzyskane pod wpływem LSD. Zastosowano dawki 210–800 μg. Mediana dawki wyniosła 500 μg.
 Choroby afektywne
 Szwajcarski psychiatra Peter Gasser jest prawdopodobnie jedynym lekarzem legalnie stosującym LSD w swojej prywatnej praktyce – zgodę uzyskał w 2014 r. Wcześniej, przez 7 lat razem ze współpracownikami prowadził badania (zaaprobowane przez Szwajcarskie Ministerstwo Zdrowia, a sponsorowane przez Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) nad wspomaganą LSD psychoterapią zaburzeń lękowych u osób nieuleczalnie chorych (głównie na raka). Wyniki opublikowane w 2014 r. wskazywały na korzyści, takie jak obniżenie lęku i podniesienie jakości życia. Subiektywne odczucia badanych to łatwiejszy dostęp do emocji, konfrontacja z nieuświadomionymi lękami, swoiste oczyszczenie (katharsis). Poprawa utrzymywała się przez min. 12 miesięcy.
 Gasser stosuje LSD zarówno w terapii indywidualnej, jak i grupowej, w ramach tzw. „humanitarnego stosowania leków” (), które pozwala mu na używanie substancji także u pozostałych pacjentów (nie tylko nieuleczalnie chorych). Prawo zezwala mu na stosowanie dawki maks. 200 μg, jednak zwykle ogranicza ją do 100 μg, zwłaszcza podczas pierwszej sesji.
 Historia
 LSD zostało zsyntetyzowane z nadzieją, że będzie lekiem działającym rozkurczowo na macicę w trakcie porodu oraz że będzie miało działanie stymulujące. Podczas badań w laboratoriach Sandoz naukowcy zauważyli, że zwierzęta, którym podano LSD, były niespokojne. Fakt ten nie zwrócił ich szczególnej uwagi i Hofmann zarzucił badania nad LSD, by zająć się innymi pochodnymi kwasu lizergowego.
 Po pięciu latach z bliżej nieznanych przyczyn postanowił jednak wrócić do badań nad tym związkiem. Pewnego dnia podczas tych badań poczuł się nienaturalnie zmęczony i postanowił położyć się spać. Gdy leżał, stan zmęczenia i przyjemnego odurzenia się wzmagał i towarzyszyły temu niewyraźne halucynacje, stan ten po dwóch godzinach minął. Wywnioskował, że w jakiś sposób któraś z substancji, które aktualnie miał w laboratorium, dostała się do jego organizmu, podejrzenie padło właśnie na LSD. Po trzech dniach postanowił przeprowadzić eksperyment na samym sobie. Odmierzył sobie dawkę 0,25 mg (250 μg) i rozpuścił w wodzie.
 Jak później opisywał swoje doznania, „po godzinie demon opanował moją duszę”, był niezwykle przerażony i sądził, że umiera. „Wszyscy ludzie, których widziałem, mieli na sobie straszne maski”. Lekarz, który go zbadał, stwierdził jednak tylko trochę powiększone źrenice. Postanowił więc pojechać do domu – na rowerze, co stało się później legendą często przedstawianą na znaczkach nasączanych LSD. Odurzenie stopniowo ustępowało i uspokajał się.
 Później Albert Hofmann opowiadał znajomym o swoich doświadczeniach z LSD, w większości jednak nie chciano mu wierzyć, gdyż w tym czasie nie znano jeszcze związków, które w tak małej dawce mogą mieć tak silne działanie. Później jednak wielu chemików, psychologów i psychiatrów przeprowadziło na sobie eksperymenty z LSD, które w pełni potwierdziły obserwacje Hofmanna. Halucynacje wywoływane tą substancją inspirowały także artystów, m.in. niemieckiego pisarza Ernsta Jüngera, znajomego Hofmanna, który opisał swoje doświadczenia z LSD w książkach „Strahlungen” i „Drogen und Rausch”.
 Firma Sandoz zaczęła produkować LSD jako lek w formie tabletek 25 μg i ampułek 100 μg pod nazwą handlową Delysid. W latach 60. XX w. nasiliło się bardzo zjawisko pozamedycznego używania tego leku, zwłaszcza w środowisku hipisów. Po kilku latach dyrektor firmy Sandoz powiedział Hofmannowi, że lepiej by było, gdyby LSD nie został odkryty.
 Kilka lat później (1967), FDA wykreśliła LSD z amerykańskiego lekospisu, co zmusiło firmę Sandoz do zaprzestania jego produkcji. Od tego czasu datuje się historia LSD jako nielegalnego narkotyku.
 W 2001 roku policja w Stanach Zjednoczonych odkryła laboratorium produkujące LSD w silosie po rakietach atomowych. Znaleziono w nim 40,1 kg LSD, czyli około 401 milionów dawek po 100 μg. Alexander Shulgin prowadził również badania nad LSD i efekty swoich badań opisał razem z żoną Ann Shulgin w książce TiHKAL (opisuje metody syntezy i działanie wielu tryptamin, w tym LSD).
 Innym badaczem wpływu LSD na umysł jest psychiatra Stanislav Grof. Efekty badań opisał w swoich książkach, z których w Polsce wydano „Przygoda odkrywania samego siebie”, „Poza mózg – narodziny, śmierć i transcendencja” oraz „Obszary nieświadomości. Raport z badań nad LSD”.
 Chemia
 LSD jest pochodną ergoliny. Otrzymywane jest zwykle w reakcji kwasu lizergowego z dietyloaminą. Kwas lizergowy otrzymuje się przez alkaliczną hydrolizę lizergamidów – ergotaminy i erginy. LSD jest cząsteczką chiralną, z dwoma asymetrycznymi atomami węgla (C-5 i C-8), czyli ma 4 możliwe stereoizomery.
 Aktywny biologicznie LSD to izomer (+)-D, czyli mający konfigurację absolutną (5R,8R). Inne izomery LSD nie mają właściwości psychoaktywnych. Izomery lizergamidów 5S (czyli L) nie występują w naturze i nie mogą być otrzymane z kwasu D-lizergowego. Podczas syntezy z kwasu D-lizergowego powstaje zawsze pewna ilość tzw. izo-LSD, czyli izomeru 5R,8S. Izomer ten może zostać oddzielony przez chromatografię cieczową lub może być poddany reakcji izomeryzacji do aktywnej formy LSD. Bardzo czysta sól LSD podczas potrząsania emituje delikatne błyski białego światła, z kolei w świetle UV LSD przybiera barwę niebieskawą.
 Stabilność
 Jak pisał Alexander Shulgin, LSD jest wyjątkowo delikatną cząsteczką. Jej stabilność uwarunkowana jest przechowywaniem w formie wodnego roztworu soli w niskiej temperaturze, bez dostępu tlenu i światła. Cząsteczka LSD ma dwa słabe punkty, wiązanie pomiędzy 8 atomem węgla a grupą amidową oraz podwójne wiązanie pomiędzy 8 atomem węgla a pierścieniem aromatycznym. Pierwszy słaby punkt wrażliwy jest na pH. Jeśli jest ono zbyt wysokie LSD przekształca się w nieaktywne izo-LSD. Pod wpływem światła LSD w roztworze przekształca się w również nieaktywne lumi-LSD, poprzez zerwanie podwójnego wiązania. Kolejnym czynnikiem szkodzącym LSD jest chlor, nawet tak niska zawartość chloru jak w wodzie wodociągowej może całkowicie wyeliminować cząsteczki LSD z roztworu.
 Otrzymywanie
 LSD otrzymywane jest zwykle w kilkuetapowej syntezie, w której najważniejszym substratem jest jeden z lizergamidów, najczęściej ergotamina – alkaloid sporyszu. Z ergotaminy otrzymuje się kwas lizergowy, który przeprowadza się w produkt końcowy będący racemiczną mieszaniną LSD i izo-LSD. Stosunek ergotaminy użytej jako substratu do ilości otrzymanej substancji końcowej wynosi w przybliżeniu 5:1.
 Formy nielegalnej dystrybucji
 Wyjściową formą LSD jest czysty związek w postaci krystalicznego proszku. Taka forma LSD jest trudna w nielegalnej dystrybucji ze względu na konieczność odważania bardzo małych dawek. Najpopularniejszą formą dystrybucji LSD są kartoniki nasączone roztworem tej substancji. Produkowane są w arkuszach z tektury o grubości około 0,5 mm, które nasącza się roztworem LSD. Stężenie jest tak dobrane, aby na jednym znaczku znajdowała się jedna dawka (ok. 100–200 μg) LSD, aplikowana doustnie. Zazwyczaj arkusz opatrywany jest wzorem graficznym. Niektóre z nich stały się bardzo znane i doczekały kilkukrotnych wznowień. Zaletą takiej formy przyjmowania LSD jest to, że zaledwie kilka innych substancji psychoaktywnych działa w tak małych dawkach (m.in. DOB, DOI, Bromo-DragonFLY), że mogłyby znaleźć się na znaczkach, zatem zmniejsza to ryzyko, że można zamiast LSD przyjąć jakąś bardziej groźną dla zdrowia lub życia substancję.
 Rzadziej LSD bywa rozprowadzane także w formie małych tabletek (ang. microdot), plasterków żelatynowych, a także kapsułek z czystą solą LSD. Dawniej najpopularniejszą formą były kostki cukru nasączone roztworem.
 Stan prawny
 LSD w USA zdelegalizowano w 1966 roku. W Polsce znajduje się w wykazie substancji psychotropowych w grupie I-P, czyli nieprzydatnych w medycynie oraz groźnych dla zdrowia. W Czechach od 1 stycznia 2010 roku posiadanie do 5 tabletek LSD nie podlega karze.
 Przypisy
 Bibliografia
 J.R. Maclean, D.C. Macdonald, F. Ogden, E. Wilby, „LSD-25 and mescaline as therapeutic adjuvants.” w: H. Abramson (red.), The Use of LSD in Psychotherapy and Alcoholism, Bobbs-Merrill: New York, 1967, s. 407–426.
 K.S. Ditman, J.J. Bailey, „Evaluating LSD as a psychotherapeutic agent,” s. 74–80; A. Hoffer, „A program for the treatment of alcoholism: LSD, malvaria, and nicotinic acid,” s. 353–402. W: H. Abramson (red.), The Use of LSD in Psychotherapy and Alcoholism, Bobbs-Merrill: New York, 1967
 Psychodeliczne lizergamidy
 Agonisty receptorów serotoninowych


type: legislation

jurisdiction: US

text:
 110th CONGRESS
 2d Session
 S. 2913
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED
 STATES
 AN ACT
 To provide a limitation on judicial
 remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan
 works.
 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
 Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of
 2008.
 2.Limitation on remedies in cases involving
 orphan works
 (a)Limitation on remediesChapter 5 of title 17, United States Code,
 is amended by adding at the end the following:
 514.Limitation on remedies in cases involving
 orphan works
 (a)DefinitionsIn this section, the following definitions
 shall apply:
 (1)Notice of claim of
 infringementThe term
 notice of claim of infringement means, with respect to a claim
 of copyright infringement, a written notice sent from the owner of the
 infringed copyright or a person acting on the owner's behalf to the infringer
 or a person acting on the infringer's behalf, that includes at a
 minimum—
 (A)the name of the owner of the infringed
 copyright;
 (B)the title of the infringed work, any
 alternative titles of the infringed work known to the owner of the infringed
 copyright, or if the work has no title, a description in detail sufficient to
 identify that work;
 (C)an address and telephone number at which
 the owner of the infringed copyright or a person acting on behalf of the owner
 may be contacted; and
 (D)information reasonably sufficient to permit
 the infringer to locate the infringer’s material in which the infringed work
 resides.
 (2)Owner of the infringed
 copyrightThe owner of
 the infringed copyright is the owner of any particular exclusive right
 under section 106 that is applicable to the infringement, or any person or
 entity with the authority to grant or license such right on an exclusive or
 nonexclusive basis.
 (3)Reasonable compensationThe term reasonable
 compensation means, with respect to a claim of infringement, the amount
 on which a willing buyer and willing seller in the positions of the infringer
 and the owner of the infringed copyright would have agreed with respect to the
 infringing use of the work immediately before the infringement began.
 (b)Conditions for eligibility
 (1)Conditions
 (A)In generalNotwithstanding sections 502 through 506,
 and subject to subparagraph (B), in an action brought under this title for
 infringement of copyright in a work, the remedies for infringement shall be
 limited in accordance with subsection (c) if the infringer—
 (i)proves by a preponderance of the evidence
 that before the infringement began, the infringer, a person acting on behalf of
 the infringer, or any person jointly and severally liable with the infringer
 for the infringement—
 (I)performed and documented a qualifying
 search, in good faith, to locate and identify the owner of the infringed
 copyright; and
 (II)was unable to locate and identify an owner
 of the infringed copyright;
 (ii)provided attribution, in a manner that is
 reasonable under the circumstances, to the legal owner of the infringed
 copyright, if such legal owner was known with a reasonable degree of certainty,
 based on information obtained in performing the qualifying search;
 (iii)included with the public distribution,
 display, or performance of the infringing work a symbol or other notice of the
 use of the infringing work, the form and manner of which shall be prescribed by
 the Register of Copyrights, which may be in the footnotes, endnotes, bottom
 margin, end credits, or in any other such manner as to give notice that the
 infringed work has been used under this section;
 (iv)asserts in the initial pleading to the
 civil action eligibility for such limitations; and
 (v)at the time of making the initial discovery
 disclosures required under rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
 states with particularity the basis for eligibility for the limitations,
 including a detailed description and documentation of the search undertaken in
 accordance with paragraph (2)(A) and produces documentation of the
 search.
 (B)ExceptionSubparagraph (A) does not apply if the
 infringer or a person acting on behalf of the infringer receives a notice of
 claim of infringement and, after receiving such notice and having an
 opportunity to conduct an expeditious good faith investigation of the claim,
 the infringer—
 (i)fails to engage in negotiation in good
 faith regarding reasonable compensation with the owner of the infringed
 copyright; or
 (ii)fails to render payment of reasonable
 compensation in a reasonably timely manner after reaching an agreement with the
 owner of the infringed copyright or under an order described in subsection
 (c)(1)(A).
 (2)Requirements for searches
 (A)Requirements for qualifying
 searches
 (i)In
 generalA search qualifies under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I) if the
 infringer, a person acting on behalf of the infringer, or any person jointly
 and severally liable with the infringer for the infringement, undertakes a
 diligent effort that is reasonable under the circumstances to locate the owner
 of the infringed copyright prior to, and at a time reasonably proximate to, the
 infringement.
 (ii)Diligent
 effortFor purposes of clause (i), a diligent effort—
 (I)requires, at a
 minimum—
 (aa)a
 search of the records of the Copyright Office that are available to the public
 through the Internet and relevant to identifying and locating copyright owners,
 provided there is sufficient identifying information on which to construct a
 search;
 (bb)a
 search of reasonably available sources of copyright authorship and ownership
 information and, where appropriate, licensor information;
 (cc)use of
 appropriate technology tools, printed publications, and where reasonable,
 internal or external expert assistance; and
 (dd)use of
 appropriate databases, including databases that are available to the public
 through the Internet; and
 (II)shall include
 any actions that are reasonable and appropriate under the facts relevant to the
 search, including actions based on facts known at the start of the search and
 facts uncovered during the search, and including a review, as appropriate, of
 Copyright Office records not available to the public through the Internet that
 are reasonably likely to be useful in identifying and locating the copyright
 owner.
 (iii)Consideration
 of recommended practicesA qualifying search under this
 subsection shall ordinarily be based on the applicable statement of Recommended
 Practices made available by the Copyright Office and additional appropriate
 best practices of authors, copyright owners, and users to the extent such best
 practices incorporate the expertise of persons with specialized knowledge with
 respect to the type of work for which the search is being conducted.
 (iv)Lack of
 identifying informationThe fact that, in any given
 situation,—
 (I)a particular copy
 or phonorecord lacks identifying information pertaining to the owner of the
 infringed copyright; or
 (II)an owner of the
 infringed copyright fails to respond to any inquiry or other communication
 about the work,
 shall not be
 deemed sufficient to meet the conditions under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I).(v)Use of
 resources for chargeA qualifying search under paragraph
 (1)(A)(i)(I) may require use of resources for which a charge or subscription is
 imposed to the extent reasonable under the circumstances.
 (B)Information to
 guide searches; recommended practices
 (i)Statements of
 recommended practicesThe Register of Copyrights shall maintain
 and make available to the public and, from time to time, update at least one
 statement of Recommended Practices for each category, or, in the Register’s
 discretion, subcategory of work under section 102(a) of this title, for
 conducting and documenting a search under this subsection. Such statement will
 ordinarily include reference to materials, resources, databases, and technology
 tools that are relevant to a search. The Register may maintain and make
 available more than one statement of Recommended Practices for each category or
 subcategory, as appropriate.
 (ii)Consideration
 of relevant materialsIn maintaining and making available and,
 from time to time, updating the Recommended Practices in clause (i), the
 Register of Copyrights shall, at the Register’s discretion, consider materials,
 resources, databases, technology tools, and practices that are reasonable and
 relevant to the qualifying search. The Register shall consider any comments
 submitted to the Copyright Office by the Small Business Administration Office
 of Advocacy. The Register shall also, to the extent practicable, take the
 impact on copyright owners that are small businesses into consideration when
 modifying and updating best practices.
 (3)Penalty for failure to complyIf an infringer fails to comply with any
 requirement under this subsection, the infringer is not eligible for a
 limitation on remedies under this section.
 (c)Limitations on remediesThe limitations on remedies in an action
 for infringement of a copyright to which this section applies are the
 following:
 (1)Monetary relief
 (A)General ruleSubject to subparagraph (B), an award for
 monetary relief (including actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and
 attorney’s fees) may not be made other than an order requiring the infringer to
 pay reasonable compensation to the owner of the exclusive right under the
 infringed copyright for the use of the infringed work.
 (B)Further limitationsAn order requiring the infringer to pay
 reasonable compensation for the use of the infringed work may not be made under
 subparagraph (A) if the infringer is a nonprofit educational institution,
 museum, library, archives, or a public broadcasting entity (as defined in
 subsection (f) of section 118), or any of such entities' employees acting
 within the scope of their employment, and the infringer proves by a
 preponderance of the evidence that—
 (i)the infringement was performed without any
 purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
 (ii)the infringement was primarily educational,
 religious, or charitable in nature; and
 (iii)after receiving a notice of claim of
 infringement, and having an opportunity to conduct an expeditious good faith
 investigation of the claim, the infringer promptly ceased the
 infringement.
 (2)Injunctive relief
 (A)General ruleSubject to subparagraph (B), the court may
 impose injunctive relief to prevent or restrain any infringement alleged in the
 civil action. If the infringer has met the requirements of subsection (b), the
 relief shall, to the extent practicable and subject to applicable law, account
 for any harm that the relief would cause the infringer due to its reliance on
 subsection (b).
 (B)ExceptionIn a case in which the infringer has
 prepared or commenced preparation of a new work of authorship that recasts,
 transforms, adapts, or integrates the infringed work with a significant amount
 of original expression, any injunctive relief ordered by the court may not
 restrain the infringer’s continued preparation or use of that new work,
 if—
 (i)the infringer pays reasonable compensation
 in a reasonably timely manner after the amount of such compensation has been
 agreed upon with the owner of the infringed copyright or determined by the
 court; and
 (ii)the court also requires that the infringer
 provide attribution, in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances, to
 the legal owner of the infringed copyright, if requested by such owner.
 (C)LimitationsThe
 limitations on injunctive relief under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not be
 available to an infringer or a representative of the infringer acting in an
 official capacity if the infringer asserts that neither the infringer nor any
 representative of the infringer acting in an official capacity is subject to
 suit in the courts of the United States for an award of damages for the
 infringement, unless the court finds that the infringer—
 (i)has complied with
 the requirements of subsection (b); and
 (ii)pays reasonable
 compensation to the owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright
 in a reasonably timely manner after the amount of reasonable compensation has
 been agreed upon with the owner or determined by the court.
 (D)Rule of constructionNothing in subparagraph (C) shall be
 construed to authorize or require, and no action taken under such subparagraph
 shall be deemed to constitute, either an award of damages by the court against
 the infringer or an authorization to sue a State.
 (E)Rights and privileges not
 waivedNo action taken by an
 infringer under subparagraph (C) shall be deemed to waive any right or
 privilege that, as a matter of law, protects the infringer from being subject
 to suit in the courts of the United States for an award of damages.
 (d)Preservation of other rights, limitations,
 and defensesThis section
 does not affect any right, or any limitation or defense to copyright
 infringement, including fair use, under this title. If another provision of
 this title provides for a statutory license that would permit the use
 contemplated by the infringer, that provision applies instead of this
 section.
 (e)Copyright for derivative works and
 compilationsNotwithstanding
 section 103(a), an infringer who qualifies for the limitation on remedies
 afforded by this section shall not be denied copyright protection in a
 compilation or derivative work on the basis that such compilation or derivative
 work employs preexisting material that has been used unlawfully under this
 section.
 (f)Exclusion for fixations in or on useful
 articlesThe limitations on
 remedies under this section shall not be available to an infringer for
 infringements resulting from fixation of a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural
 work in or on a useful article that is offered for sale or other commercial
 distribution to the
 public.
 .
 (b)Technical and conforming
 amendmentThe table of
 sections for chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at
 the end the following:
 514. Limitation on remedies in
 cases involving orphan
 works.
 .
 (c)Effective date
 (1)In generalThe amendments made by this section
 shall—
 (A)take effect on the later of—
 (i)January 1, 2009; or
 (ii)the date which is the earlier of—
 (I)30 days after the date on which the
 Copyright Office publishes notice in the Federal Register that it has certified
 under section 3 that there exist and are available at least 2 separate and
 independent searchable, electronic databases, that allow for searches of
 copyrighted works that are pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, and are
 available to the public; or
 (II)January 1, 2013; and
 (B)apply to infringing uses that commence on
 or after that effective date.
 (2)DefinitionIn this subsection, the term
 pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works has the meaning given
 that term in section 101 of title 17, United States Code.
 3.Databases of pictorial, graphic, and
 sculptural worksThe Register
 of Copyrights shall undertake a process to certify that there exist and are
 available databases that facilitate a user’s search for pictorial, graphic, and
 sculptural works that are subject to copyright protection under title 17,
 United States Code. The Register shall only certify that databases are
 available under this section if such databases are determined to be effective
 and not prohibitively expensive and include the capability to be searched using
 1 or more mechanisms that allow for the search and identification of a work by
 both text and image and have sufficient information regarding the works to
 enable a potential user of a work to identify or locate the copyright owner or
 authorized agent. Prior to certifying that databases are available under this
 section, the Register shall determine, to the extent practicable, their impact
 on copyright owners that are small businesses and consult with the Small
 Business Administration Office of Advocacy regarding those impacts. The
 Register shall consider the Office of Advocacy’s comments and respond to any
 concerns.
 4.Report to CongressNot later than December 12, 2014, the
 Register of Copyrights shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
 Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on
 the implementation and effects of the amendments made by section 2, including
 any recommendations for legislative changes that the Register considers
 appropriate.
 5.Study on remedies for small copyright
 claims
 (a)In generalThe Register of Copyrights shall conduct a
 study with respect to remedies for copyright infringement claims by an
 individual copyright owner or a related group of copyright owners seeking small
 amounts of monetary relief, including consideration of alternative means of
 resolving disputes currently heard in the United States district courts. The
 study shall cover the infringement claims to which section 514 of title 17,
 United States Code, apply, and other infringement claims under that
 title.
 (b)ProceduresThe Register of Copyrights shall publish
 notice of the study required under subsection (a), providing a period during
 which interested persons may submit comments on the study, and an opportunity
 for interested persons to participate in public roundtables on the study. The
 Register shall hold any such public roundtables at such times as the Register
 considers appropriate.
 (c)Report to congressNot later than 2 years after the date of
 the enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall prepare and submit
 to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the
 Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the study conducted under
 this section, including such administrative, regulatory, or legislative
 recommendations that the Register considers appropriate.
 6.Study on copyright deposits
 (a)In generalThe Comptroller General of the United
 States shall conduct a study examining the function of the deposit requirement
 in the copyright registration system under section 408 of title 17, United
 States Code, including—
 (1)the historical purpose of the deposit
 requirement;
 (2)the degree to which deposits are made
 available to the public currently;
 (3)the feasibility of making deposits,
 particularly visual arts deposits, electronically searchable by the public for
 the purpose of locating copyright owners; and
 (4)the impact any change in the deposit
 requirement would have on the collection of the Library of Congress.
 (b)ReportNot later than 2 years after the date of
 the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the
 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
 the House of Representatives a report on the study conducted under this
 section, including such administrative, regulatory, or legislative
 recommendations that the Comptroller General considers appropriate.
 Passed the Senate September 26 (legislative day, September
 17), 2008.
 Secretary


type: wikipedia

text:
Miloš Kirschner (16. března 1927 Praha-Libeň – 2. července 1996 Praha) byl český loutkář, herec, zpěvák, dlouholetý ředitel a hlavní interpret Divadla Spejbla a Hurvínka.
 Život
 Od roku 1946 studoval mezinárodní právo na Právnické fakultě Univerzity Karlovy, v roce 1949 musel studium předčasně ukončit pro protikomunistickou činnost. Začátkem padesátých let byl zatčen a odsouzen za protistátní činnost. Po uplynutí trestu ho zařadili do Pomocných technických praporů (PTP), které se také nazývaly Černí baroni. Po absolvování vojenské služby byl v roce 1951 přijat do Divadla Spejbla a Hurvínka. Už od roku 1952 interpretoval hlavní role. V roce 1956 ho prof. Josef Skupa jmenoval svým nástupcem. Teprve v roce 1966 byl jmenován ředitelem divadla. Po jeho smrti se vedení divadla ujala jeho manželka Helena Štáchová.
 Pod vedením Miloše Kirschnera se vyvíjel charakter dvojice loutek Spejbla a Hurvínka. Přijal tradici a současně přišel s inovacemi jevištními a tematickými. Na rozdíl od Josefa Skupy interpretoval své role i v cizích jazycích. Za 44 let práce navštívil 30 zemí.
 Psal odborné články, scénáře a divadelní hry. Mnohá představení divadla byla zaznamenána na gramofonové desky. Podílel se na tvorbě Večerníčků. Kromě divadla vystupoval v televizi a v rozhlase. Taktéž hrál ve filmech, které se natáčely v Československu i v zahraničí. Za svou práci obdržel řadu ocenění: např. titul zasloužilý umělec i národní umělec v roce 1987 (u příležitosti životního jubilea). Je pohřben se svou manželkou Helenou Štáchovou na Olšanských hřbitovech.
 Galerie
 Diskografie
 diskografie není úplná
 2004 Dobrý večer s Waldemarem – FR, CD – 10. Ach ta láska nebeská – Waldemar Matuška & Miloš Kirschner & Helena Štáchová
 Reference
 Externí odkazy
 Narození 1927
 Úmrtí 1996
 Čeští herci
 Čeští loutkoherci
 Čeští zpěváci
 Dětská hudba
 Českoslovenští zasloužilí umělci
 Českoslovenští národní umělci
 Čeští divadelní ředitelé
 Čeští divadelní režiséři
 Divadlo Spejbla a Hurvínka
 Muži
 Narození v Libni
 Pohřbení na Olšanech
 Úmrtí v Praze


text:
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 Fish and Wildlife Service
 50 CFR Part 17
 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0045]
 [MO 92210-0-0008]
 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mexican Gray Wolf as an Endangered Subspecies With Critical Habitat
 AGENCY:
 Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 ACTION:
 Notice of petition finding and initiation of status and critical habitat review.
 SUMMARY:
 We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on two petitions to list the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) (Mexican wolf) as an endangered subspecies and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Although not listed as a subspecies, the Mexican wolf is currently listed as endangered within the broader listing of gray wolves. Based on our review, we find that the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the Mexican wolf subspecies may warrant listing such that reclassifying the Mexican wolf as a separate subspecies may be warranted. One of the petitions also requested listing of the Mexican wolf as an endangered Distinct Population Segment (DPS). While we have not addressed the DPS portion of the petition in this finding, we will further evaluate that information during the status review. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the Mexican wolf subspecies to determine if listing the Mexican wolf as a subspecies or DPS is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding the Mexican wolf. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petitions, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
 DATES:
 To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we receive information on or before October 4, 2010. After this date, you must submit information directly to the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we may not be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.
 ADDRESSES:
 You may submit information by one of the following methods:
 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for docket FWS-R2-ES-2010-0045 and then follow the instructions for submitting comments.
 • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2010-0045; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
 We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more details).
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113, by telephone (505-346-2525) or by facsimile (505-346-2542). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 Information Requested
 When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing an entity may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of that entity (status review). To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on the status of the Mexican wolf. We request information from the public, other governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties concerning the status of the Mexican wolf. We seek information on:
 (1) The historical and current status and distribution of the Mexican wolf, its biology and ecology, taxonomy, and ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies and its habitat in the United States and Mexico; and
 (2) Information relevant to the factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
 (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
 (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
 (c) Disease or predation;
 (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
 (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence and threats to it or its habitat.
 Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
 You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as full references and page numbers) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
 Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 Background
 Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
 Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly review the status of the species, which is subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
 Petition History
 On August 11, 2009, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the Mexican wolf be listed as an endangered subspecies or DPS and critical habitat be designated under the Act. On August 12, 2009, we received a petition dated August 10, 2009, from WildEarth Guardians and The Rewilding Institute requesting that the Mexican wolf be listed as an endangered subspecies and critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petitions clearly identified themselves as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner(s), as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). On October 22, 2009, we responded with letters to the petitioner(s) indicating that the petitions were under review and that we would make a finding as to whether or not the petitions present substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. In response to complaints from the petitioners, we have agreed, pursuant to a stipulated settlement agreement, to complete the 90-day finding in response to these petitions by July 31, 2010. This finding addresses both petitions.
 Previous Federal Actions
 The Mexican wolf was listed as an endangered subspecies on April 28, 1976 (41 FR 17742). The gray wolf species (Canis lupus) in North America south of Canada was listed as endangered on March 9, 1978, except in Minnesota where it was listed as threatened (43 FR 9607). This listing of the species as a whole subsumed the previous Mexican wolf subspecies listing, although it stated that the Service would continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for the purpose of research and conservation (43 FR 9607). We initiated recovery programs for the gray wolf in three broad geographical regions of the country: the Northern Rockies, the Great Lakes, and the Southwest. In the Southwest, a recovery plan was developed specifically for the Mexican wolf, acknowledging and implementing the regional gray wolf recovery focus on the conservation of the Mexican wolf as a subspecies. The 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan recommended a two-pronged approach to conservation that included establishment of a captive breeding program and reintroduction of wolves to the wild (Service 1982, p. 28).
 In 1996, we published a Final Environmental Impact Statement, “Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States,” after assessing potential locations for the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf. On April 3, 1997, the Department of the Interior issued its Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and on January 12, 1998, a final rule, “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico” (63 FR 1752), was published and established the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area in central Arizona and New Mexico, and designated the reintroduced population as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the Act. In March of that year, 11 Mexican wolves from the captive breeding program were released to the wild.
 On April 1, 2003, we published a final rule revising the listing status of the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States (68 FR 15804). Within that rule, we established three DPS designations for the gray wolf. Gray wolves in the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS were reclassified from endangered to threatened, except where already classified as threatened or as an experimental population. Mexican wolves in the Southwestern DPS retained their previous endangered or experimental population status. On January 31, 2005, and August 19, 2005, U.S. District Courts in Oregon and Vermont, respectively, ruled that the April 1, 2003, final rule violated the Act (Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 1:03-1348-JO (D.Or. 2005) and National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 1:03-CV-340, (D. Vt. 2005)). The Courts invalidated the revisions of the gray wolf listing, and also invalidated the three DPS designations in the April 1, 2003, rule and the associated special regulations. The status of the Mexican wolf was not changed by the listing rule or the Courts' invalidation of the rule, but the invalidation of the three DPS designations suspended ongoing recovery planning efforts for the Southwestern DPS as the DPS was no longer considered valid.
 Species Information
 The Mexican wolf is a genetically distinct subspecies of the North American gray wolf; adults weigh 23-41 kilograms (kg) (50-90 pounds (lbs)) with a length of 1.5-1.8 meters (m) (5-6 feet (ft)) and height at shoulder of 63-81 centimeters (cm) (25-32 inches (in)) (Young and Goldman 1944; Brown 1983, p. 119). Mexican wolves are typically a patchy black, brown to cinnamon, and cream color, with primarily light underparts (Brown 1983, p. 118); solid black or white Mexican wolves do not exist as seen in other North American gray wolves.
 Integration of ecological, morphological, and genetic evidence supports several conclusions relevant to the southwestern United States regarding gray wolf taxonomy and range. First, there is agreement that the Mexican wolf is distinguishable from other gray wolves based on morphological and genetic evidence. Second, recent genetic evidence continues to support the observation that historic gray wolf populations existed in intergradations across the landscape as a result of their dispersal ability (Leonard et al. 2005, pp. 9-17). Third, evidence suggests that the southwestern United States (southern Colorado and Utah, Arizona and New Mexico) included multiple wolf populations distributed across a zone of intergradation and interbreeding, although only the Mexican wolf inhabited the southernmost extent (Leonard et al. 2005, pp. 9-17). Currently, Mexican wolves exist in the wild only where they have been reintroduced, and that population has oscillated between 40 and 60 wolves since 2003.
 Historically, Mexican wolves were associated with montane woodlands and adjacent grasslands (Brown 1983, p. 19) in areas where ungulate prey were numerous. Wolf packs establish territories, or home ranges, in which they hunt for prey. Data from 2008 on the reintroduced Mexican wolf population shows an average home range size of 195 square miles (mi2) (505 square kilometers (km2 )), with home ranges varying from approximately 60 to 503 mi2 (155 to 1302 km2) (Service 2010, p. 37). Recent studies have shown the preferred prey of Mexican wolves to be elk (Reed et al. 2006, pp. 1127-1133; Merkle et al. 2009, pp. 480-485).
 Gray wolves die from a variety of causes including disease, malnutrition, debilitating injuries, interpack strife, and human exploitation and control (Service 1996, p. A-2). In the reintroduced Mexican wolf population, causes of mortality have been largely human-related (vehicular collision and illegal shooting). Additionally, reintroduced Mexican wolves have been removed from the wild for management purposes. To date, the Mexican wolf population has had a failure (mortality plus removal) rate too high for natural or unassisted population growth, and, as stated above, the population has oscillated between 40 and 60 wolves since 2003. The most recent end-of-year population survey in 2009 documented 42 Mexican wolves in the wild (Service 2010, pp. 26, 61).
 Evaluation of Information for this Finding
 Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
 In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant, if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
 The petitioners assert that listing the Mexican gray wolf under the Act as a subspecies is both biologically warranted and legally required. It is important to mention that we already recognize the endangered status of the Mexican wolf under the current listing of the gray wolf species (43 FR 9607). However, this 90-day finding evaluates the information provided by the petitioners and other information readily available in our files, and determines whether it is substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing of the Mexican wolf as a subspecies may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
 The petitioners assert that listing the Mexican wolf as a subspecies under the Act is appropriate on the basis of taxonomy. The petitioners cite Young and Goldman 1994, Hall 1981, Bogan and Melhop 1983, Hoffmeister 1986, Nowak 1995, Leonard et al. 2005, Wayne et al. 1992, Garcia-Moreno et al. 1996, and Hedrick et al. 1997 in asserting that the Mexican wolf is clearly identified as a taxonomically valid subspecies. Information in our files support this assertion and indicate that, in the past, the Service has recognized the Mexican wolf as a taxonomically valid subspecies (41 FR 17742; 43 FR 9607).
 The petitioners assert the Mexican wolf is in danger of extinction due to four of the five factors set forth at 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E), stating the only factor not considered a threat to the Mexican wolf is Factor B. Several analyses of the five listing factors have been conducted for the Mexican wolf. The initial proposal to list the Mexican wolf as endangered in 1975 (40 FR 17590), and the 1978 listing of the entire gray wolf species as endangered throughout the coterminous United States (except for Minnesota, where it was classified as threatened) (43 FR 9607), found that threats from habitat loss (Factor A), sport hunting (Factor B), and inadequate regulatory protection from human persecution (Factor D) were responsible for the subspecies' decline and near extinction.
 We again assessed threats to the Mexican wolf in 2003 as part of the Southwest DPS when we reclassified the gray wolf into three DPSs (68 FR 15804). The reclassification rule stated that habitat destruction or modification (Factor A) was not currently considered a threat or deterrent for restoration of southwestern (Mexican) gray wolves. “Take” for commercial or recreational purposes, Factor B, was not considered a threat, nor were diseases and parasites (Factor C). Illegal killing was considered in Factor C in the 2003 rule, and was recognized as a factor that may slow, but not likely preclude, recovery in the Southwest. Regulatory protection for reintroduced Mexican wolves was deemed adequate (Factor D). Finally, public attitudes toward gray wolves were cited as a primary determinant in the long-term recovery status of wolves (Factor E), and the 2003 rule anticipated that the potential for human-wolf conflicts would increase as the number of wolves increased.
 The most recent analysis of the five listing factors was performed in the Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment (Service 2010, pp. 44-62). While Factor A was not considered a threat to the current wild population of Mexican wolves, the document states the degree to which habitat alteration may hinder future recovery must consider projections of future events and landscape trends in relation to updated recovery criteria. According to Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 536-548; 2006, pp. 25-37), there are a number of adequately sized, ecologically suitable blocks of habitat in the Southwest, southern Rockies, and Mexico for establishment of wolf populations; however, as the petitioners assert, these sites may be impacted in the future by human population growth and associated road development.
 The petitioners assert that disease and predation (Factor C) are a current threat to the Mexican wolf. Disease and predation have not been recognized as a threat in any of our analyses. In the recent Conservation Assessment, disease is not considered a threat to the Mexican wolf based on known occurrences in the wild population and the active vaccination program (Service 2010, p. 51). Predation is also not considered a threat to the Mexican wolf because no wild predator regularly preys on wolves (Service 2010, p. 51).
 The petitioners assert that regulatory protections for Mexican wolves are inadequate (Factor D). The petitioners refer to restrictions within the 1998 rule (63 FR 1752), recommendations in the program's Three-year review (Paquet et al. 2001) that have not been implemented, and an unpublished powerpoint by Parsons and Ossario (2007) to show that current regulatory mechanisms are a primary cause for the failure to reach reintroduction objectives. We will further evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms during our status review.
 The petitioners assert that other natural or manmade factors (Factor E) affect the continued existence of the Mexican wolf. The petitioners reference studies of captive Mexican wolves by Hedrick et al. (1997) and Fredrickson et al. (2007) and assert the Mexican wolf contains reduced genetic diversity from their original population, and that signs of inbreeding depression have been observed such as smaller size, reduced fertility, and lower litter sizes. Information in our files generally supports this assertion. However, while inbreeding may have the potential to decrease fitness, growth rate, and genetic variation of the current wild population unless management actions to increase genetic representation are employed (Service 2010, pp. 58-60), the information presented by the petitioners and readily available in our files does not indicate that inbreeding may be a current threat to the captive population of Mexican wolves.
 Finally, the petitioners assert that federal control of wolves, illegal shootings, and vehicular collisions affect the continued existence of the Mexican wolf (Factor E). Information in our files supports the assertion that two sources of human-caused mortality (vehicular collision and illegal shooting) are responsible for the majority of the deaths within the wild population of Mexican wolves, and that the cumulative effects from the combination of human-caused wolf mortality and removal of wolves for management purposes has resulted in a failure rate (combined removal and mortality) too high to allow recovery through unassisted population growth (Service 2010, p. 61).
 Finding
 Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
 Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition presents “substantial scientific and commercial information,” which is interpreted in our regulations as “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). We have reviewed the petitions and the literature cited in the petitions, and evaluated the information to determine whether the sources that were cited supported the petitioned actions. We also reviewed reliable information that was readily available in our files to clarify and verify information in the petitions. Based on our evaluation of the information provided in the petitions, we find that the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Mexican wolf as a subspecies may be warranted. One of the petitions received also included listing the Mexican wolf as a DPS. Since substantial scientific or commercial information was found at the subspecies level, in this finding we did not assess whether the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating listing the Mexican wolf as a DPS may be warranted. However, we will fully assess whether the species warrants listing as either a subspecies or a DPS in the 12-month finding.
 On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that reclassification of the gray wolf to list the Mexican wolf as a subspecies throughout its entire range may be warranted. Because we have found that the petitions present substantial information indicating that listing the Mexican wolf as a subspecies may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing the Mexican wolf as a subspecies under the Act is warranted.
 The “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
 References Cited
 A complete list of references cited in this finding is available upon request from the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
 Author
 The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
 Authority
 The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
 Dated: July 12, 2010
 Wendi Weber,
 Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
 [FR Doc. 2010-19199 Filed 8-3-10; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-S


jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 51996PC0044(11)
 Förslag till rådets förordning (EG) nr .../96 om ändring av förordning (EEG) nr 1308/70 om den gemensamma organisationen av marknaden för lin och hampa
 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning nr C 125 , 27/04/1996 s. 0020
 Förslag till RÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG) nr . . ./96 av den . . .om ändring av förordning (EEG) nr 1308/70 om den gemensamma organisationen av marknaden för lin och hampa (96/C 125/11) 96/0063 (CNS)EUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNINGmed beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av den Europeiska gemenskapen, särskilt artikel 43 i detta,med beaktande av kommissionens förslag,med beaktande av Europaparlamentets yttrande,med beaktande av Ekonomiska och sociala kommitténs yttrande, ochmed beaktande av följande:I artikel 4.2 sista stycket i förordning (EEG) nr 1308/70 (1), senast ändrad genom förordning (EG) nr 3290/94 (2), föreskrivs att stödet för lin skall differentieras med hjälp av koefficienter för ökning och minskning baserade på den genomsnittliga avkastning som registrerats i de homogena produktionsområdena för de olika skördemetoderna. Med hänsyn till nya odlings- och skördemetoder, särskilt i vissa regioner där linodling inte förekommer eller har liten utbredning, har det visat sig lämpligt att avskaffa de nuvarande koefficienterna och fastställa ett reduktionsbelopp för stödet i de fall då den skördemetod som används inte inbegriper hela plantan. Detta syfte kan åstadkommas genom minskning av stödet vid andra skördemetoder än dem där hela plantan dras upp.Marknaden för lin har under de senaste åren genomgått mycket kraftiga förändringar vad gäller fiberpriset och följaktligen även vad gäller gemenskapens arealer med linodling. För att bidra till marknadens stabilitet samt för att undvika en alltför stor ökning av budgetutgifterna bör man införa en ordning med en högsta garantiareal med en minskning av stödnivån i proportion till överskridandet av denna areal. Med hänsyn till att aktörerna måste anpassa sig till den ordningen bör det föreskrivas att den införs från och med regleringsåret 1997/98.Erfarenheten kan tyckas visa att andra anpassningar av ordningen är nödvändiga. Det bör därför fastställas ett förfarande som tillåter rådet att utvärdera ordningen på grundval av en rapport från kommissionen som skall läggas fram senast före inledningen av regleringsåret 1999/2000.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1 Förordning (EEG) nr 1308/70 ändras på följande sätt:1. I artikel 4.2 skall tredje stycket ersättas med följande:"Stödbeloppet för lin som skördas på annat sätt än genom uppdragning av hela strået, i förekommande fall minskat med innehållet belopp i enlighet med artikel 2.3 samt eventuellt minskat i enlighet med bestämmelserna i punkt 2a, minskat med stödbeloppet. Detta belopp än fastställt med hänsyn till olika produktionskostnader för skördemetoder av den här typen och skörd genom uppdragning av hela strået, minskat med värdeskillnad av producerade fibrer. Detta stödbelopp skall fastställas innan regleringsåret inleds enligt förfarandet i artikel 12."2. I artikel 4 skall följande föras in som punkt 2a:"2a Det skall införas en högsta garantiareal för vilken stödet för lin enligt punkt 1 beviljas. Denna areal fastställs för varje regleringsår till 81 500 ha. Om de arealer som faktiskt är besådda och skördade under ett regleringsår överskrider den högsta garantiarealen minskas stödet för det regleringsåret, i förekommande fall minskat med innehållet belopp i enlighet med artikel 2.3, dessutom i varje medlemsstat med en procentsats som motsvarar överskridandet. Minskningen av stödet skall fastställas enligt förfarandet i artikel 12."3. Artikel 16 skall ersättas med följande:"Artikel 16Om det blir nödvändigt att införa övergångsåtgärder för att underlätta genomförandet av de anpassningar av ordningen som föreskrivs för regleringsåret 1997/98, skall dessa åtgärder vidtas enligt förfarandet i artikel 12. De skall tillämpas längst till och med slutet av regleringsåret 1997/98."4. Följande artikel 16a skall föras in:"Artikel 16aSenast innan regleringsåret 1999/2000 inleds skall kommissionen lägga fram en rapport för rådet om hur stödordningen för lin och hampa fungerar. Om rapporten tyder på att det är nödvändigt, skall rådet med kvalificerad majoritet, på kommissionens förslag och efter samråd med Europaparlamentet besluta om eventuella anpassningar av ordningen, med hänsyn tagen till tidigare erfarenhet av ordningen, å ena sidan, och stödordningen för jordbruksgrödor och bomull, å andra sidan."Artikel 2 Denna förordning träder i kraft den tredje dagen efter det att den har offentliggjorts i Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning.Den skall tillämpas från och med den 1 augusti 1997, med undantag av artikel 1.3 som skall tillämpas från och med förordningens ikraftträdande.Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla medlemsstater.Utfärdad . . .På rådets vägnar. . .(1) EGT nr L 146, 4.7.1970, s. 1.(2) EGT nr L 349, 31.12.1994, s. 105.


type: caselaw

text:
 16.4.2005
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 93/2
 SODBA SODIŠČA
 (peti senat)
 z dne 24. februarja 2005
 v zadevi C-320/04: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Velikemu vojvodstvu Luksemburg (1)
 (Neizpolnitev obveznosti države - Direktiva 2000/43/ES - Neizvršitev prenosa v predpisanem roku)
 (2005/C 93/04)
 Jezik postopka: francoščina
 V zadevi C-320/04 Komisija Evropskih skupnosti (zastopnik: D. Martin) proti Velikemu vojvodstvu Luksemburg (zastopnik: S. Schreiner), zaradi tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES, vložena dne 27. julija 2004, je Sodišče (peti senat) v sestavi R. Silva de Lapuerta, predsednica senata, J. Makarczyk in J. Klučka (poročevalec), sodnika, generalni pravobranilec: P. Léger, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, dne 24. februarja 2005 razglasilo sodbo, katere izrek se glasi:
 1.
 Veliko vojvodstvo Luksemburg s tem, da ni sprejelo potrebnih zakonov in drugih predpisov za uskladitev z Direktivo Sveta 2000/43/ES z dne 29. junija 2000 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost, ni izpolnilo obveznosti iz te direktive.
 2.
 Velikemu vojvodstvu Luksemburg se naloži plačilo stroškov.
 (1) UL C 228, 11.9.2004.


type: other

text:
ΠΔ – Αποφάσεις – Σελίδα 63 – Υπουργείο Εσωτερικών
 08.10.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 40313 Κατανομή πιστώσεων των ΚΑΠ των Δήμων για κάλυψη έργων και επενδυτικών δραστηριοτήτων έτους 2013, (ΣΑΤΑ)
 08.10.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 40246 Απόδοση εσόδων από τους Κεντρικούς Αυτοτελείς Πόρους σε όλους τους Δήμους της Χώρας, προς κάλυψη λειτουργικών και λοιπών γενικών δαπανών τους, για το μήνα Σεπτέμβριο 2013
 04.10.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 39738 Επιχορήγηση Νομικών Προσώπων των ΟΤΑ για την εξόφληση ληξιπρόθεσμων υποχρεώσεών τους προς τρίτους
 04.10.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 39737 Επιχορήγηση Νομικών Προσώπων των ΟΤΑ για την εξόφληση ληξιπρόθεσμων υποχρεώσεών τους προς τρίτους
 03.10.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 38871 Επιχορήγηση Δήμων από ΚΑΠ 2013 ποσού 112.988.331,31 € προς καταβολή προνοιακών επιδομάτων στους δικαιούχους, για Ιούλιο – Αύγουστο 2013
 03.10.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 39014 Επιχορήγηση Περιφερειών από τους ΚΑΠ έτους 2013 ποσού 5.574.124,00€, προς καταβολή διατροφικού επιδόματος στους κατά νόμο δικαιούχους, μηνός Σεπτεμβρίου τρέχοντος έτους
 02.10.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 38900 Τροποποίηση της αριθ. 36610/19-9-2013 Απόφασης του Υπουργού Εσωτερικών «Συγκρότηση των Πειθαρχικών Συμβουλίων στις Περιφέρειες»
 ΥΠΗΡΕΣΙΑ: ΟΡΓ. & ΛΕΙΤ. ΟΤΑ
 26.09.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 38560 Ρυθμίσεις θεμάτων εξόφλησης ληξιπρόθεσμων υποχρεώσεων ΟΤΑ Α ́ & Β ́ βαθμού καθώς & Νομικών Προσώπων τους, προς τις εταιρείες ΕΥΔΑΠ ΑΕ & ΕΥΑΘ ΑΕ
 20.09.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 37734 Επιχορήγηση των Περιφερειών της Χώρας από τους Κεντρικούς Αυτοτελείς Πόρους έτους 2013, για την κάλυψη δαπανών μεταφοράς μαθητών
 20.09.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 37736 Επιχορήγηση της Ένωσης Περιφερειών Ελλάδας με ποσό ύψους 500.000,00 €, από τους Κεντρικούς Αυτοτελείς Πόρους των Περιφερειών έτους 2013, προς κάλυψη λειτουργικών δαπανών της
 19.09.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 36610 Τροποποίηση της αριθ. 10755/20-3-2013 Απόφασης του Υπουργού Εσωτερικών «Συγκρότηση των Πειθαρχικών Συμβουλίων στις Περιφέρειες»
 13.09.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 43574 Καθορισμός της διαδικασίας και των προϋποθέσεων υπαγωγής στις ρυθμίσεις του ν. 3386/2005, πολιτών τρίτων χωρών, συνοδών Ελλήνων πολιτών με τετραπληγία, παραπληγία, νοητική στέρηση ή αναπηρία σε ποσοστό τουλάχιστον ογδόντα ( 80%) τοις εκατό
 ΦΕΚ: B 2360ΥΠΗΡΕΣΙΑ: ΜΕΤΑΝΑΣΤΕΥΤΙΚΗΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗΣ
 06.09.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 35703 Απόδοση εσόδων από τους ΚΑΠ σε όλους τους Δήμους της Χώρας, προς κάλυψη λειτουργικών και λοιπών γενικών δαπανών τους, για το μήνα Αύγουστο 2013
 05.09.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 34712 Κατανομή μηνός Αυγούστου, συνολικού ποσού 7.419.421,20€, εσόδων από τους ΚΑΠ έτους 2013, προς κάλυψη δαπανών των Περιφερειών
 05.09.2013 Αρ. Πρ. 34709 Επιχορήγηση των Περιφερειών της χώρας από τους Κ ΑΠ έτους 2013 με συνολικό ποσό 5.449.769,66€, προς καταβολή του διατροφικού επιδόματος, για το μήνα Αύγουστο του τρέχοντος έτους


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31995L0009
 Directive 95/9/CE de la Commission du 7 avril 1995 modifiant la directive 94/39/CE établissant une liste des destinations des aliments pour animaux visant des objectifs nutritionnels particuliers (Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)
 Journal officiel n° L 091 du 22/04/1995 p. 0035 - 0038
 DIRECTIVE 95/9/CE DE LA COMMISSION du 7 avril 1995 modifiant la directive 94/39/CE établissant une liste des destinations des aliments pour animaux visant des objectifs nutritionnels particuliers (Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)LA COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES,vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne,vu la directive 93/74/CEE du Conseil, du 13 septembre 1993, concernant les aliments pour animaux visant des objectifs nutritionnels particuliers (1), et notamment son article 6 point c),considérant que les dispositions de l'article 6 point c) de la directive 93/74/CEE prévoient que les mesures adoptées conformément au point a) peuvent être modifiées en fonction de l'évolution des connaissances scientifiques et techniques; que lesdites mesures ont été arrêtées par la directive 94/39/CE de la Commission (2);considérant que certains objectifs nutritionnels n'ont pu être inclus à l'origine dans la liste des destinations des aliments pour animaux visant des objectifs nutritionnels particuliers en raison de l'absence, à l'époque, de méthode communautaire pour le calcul de la valeur énergétique des aliments pour animaux familiers;considérant que l'adoption au niveau communautaire d'une méthode pour le calcul de la valeur énergétique permet à présent l'inclusion dans la liste desdits objectifs nutritionnels;considérant, en outre, qu'il y a lieu d'adapter et de compléter, sur la base des données disponibles, la liste d'objectifs nutritionnels établie pour les équidés;considérant que les mesures prévues à la présente directive sont conformes à l'avis du comité permanent des aliments pour animaux,A ARRÊTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DIRECTIVE:Article premier L'annexe de la directive 94/39/CE est modifiée conformément à l'annexe de la présente directive.Article 2 1. Les États membres mettent en vigueur les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à la présente directive au plus tard le 30 juin 1995. Ils en informent immédiatement la Commission.Lorsque les États membres adoptent ces dispositions, celles-ci contiennent une référence à la présente directive ou sont accompagnées d'une telle référence lors de leur publication officielle. Les modalités de cette référence sont arrêtées par les États membres.2. Les États membres communiquent à la Commission le texte des dispositions essentielles de droit interne qu'ils adoptent dans le domaine régi par la présente directive.Article 3 La présente directive entre en vigueur le troisième jour suivant celui de sa publication au Journal officiel des Communautés européennes.Article 4 Les États membres sont destinataires de la présente directive.Fait à Bruxelles, le 7 avril 1995.Par la CommissionFranz FISCHLERMembre de la Commission(1) JO n° L 237 du 22. 9. 1993, p. 23.(2) JO n° L 207 du 10. 8. 1994, p. 20.ANNEXE 1. À la partie B, après l'objectif nutritionnel « Réduction de l'accumulation hépatique du cuivre » concernant les chiens et les chats, les objectifs nutritionnels suivants sont insérés:>TABLE>2. À la partie B, le texte des objectifs nutritionnels particuliers concernant les équins est remplacé par le texte suivant:>TABLE>


text:
The Joy Homestead, also known as the Job Joy House, is an historic house on Old Scituate Avenue in Cranston, Rhode Island. This -story gambrel-roof wood-frame house was built sometime between 1764 and 1778. It was occupied by members of the Joy family until 1884, and was acquired by the Cranston Historical Society in 1959. The house is believed to a stopping point on the first day's march in 1781 of the French Army troops en route from Providence to Yorktown during the American Revolutionary War.
 The house was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1971. The Historical Society offers tours.
 See also
 Nathan Westcott House, another 18th-century house next door
 National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence County, Rhode Island
 References
 External links
 Cranston Historical Society
 Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Rhode Island
 Houses in Cranston, Rhode Island
 Museums in Providence County, Rhode Island
 Historic house museums in Rhode Island
 National Register of Historic Places in Providence County, Rhode Island


text:
C 48/22 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 20.2.1999
 Archivo del los asuntos acumulados C-388/97 Archivo del asunto C-409/97 (1)
 y C-389/97 (1) (1999/C 48/44)
 (1999/C 48/40)
 Mediante auto de 19 de noviembre de 1998, el Presidente
 Mediante auto de 11 de noviembre de 1998, el Presidente de la Sala Primera del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comuni-
 del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas ha dades Europeas ha decidido archivar el asunto C-409/97:
 decidido archivar los asuntos acumulados C-388/97 y Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas contra Gran
 C-389/97 (peticiones de decisión prejudicial del Conseil Ducado de Luxemburgo.
 d'EÂtat): Fromagerie Philipona SA y otros contra RepuÂblica
 Francesa.
 (1) DO C 41 de 7.2.1998.
 (1) DO C 7 de 10.1.1998.
 Archivo del asunto C-415/97 (1)
 Archivo del asunto C-253/98 (1) (1999/C 48/45)
 (1999/C 48/41)
 Mediante auto de 24 de noviembre de 1998, el Presidente
 del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas ha
 Mediante auto de 11 de noviembre de 1998, el Presidente decidido archivar el asunto C-415/97: Comisión de las
 del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas ha Comunidades Europeas contra RepuÂblica Italiana.
 decidido archivar el asunto C-253/98: Comisión de las
 Comunidades Europeas contra Reino de BeÂlgica.
 (1) DO C 41 de 7.2.1998.
 (1) DO C 278 de 5.9.1998.
 Archivo del asunto C-167/98 (1)
 Archivo del asunto C-397/97 (1) (1999/C 48/46)
 (1999/C 48/42)
 Mediante auto de 2 de diciembre de 1998, el Presidente
 Mediante auto de 13 de noviembre de 1998, el Presidente del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas ha
 del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas ha decidido archivar el asunto C-167/98 (petición de decisión
 decidido archivar el asunto C-397/97: Comisión de las prejudicial planteada por el Oberster Gerichtshof): Wes-
 Comunidades Europeas contra RepuÂblica Italiana. tdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale contra Johannes Leon.
 (1) DO C 26 de 24.1.1998. (1) DO C 209 de 4.7.1998.
 Archivo del asunto C-274/94 (1) Archivo del asunto C-305/98 P (1)
 (1999/C 48/43) (1999/C 48/47)
 Mediante auto de 17 de noviembre de 1998, el Presidente Mediante auto de 7 de diciembre de 1998, el Presidente
 del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas ha del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas ha
 decidido archivar el asunto C-274/94: Reino Unido de decidido archivar el asunto C-305/98 P: David T. Keeling
 Gran BretanÄa e Irlanda del Norte contra Comisión de las contra Oficina de armonización del mercado interior (mar-
 Comunidades Europeas. cas, disenÄos y modelos).
 (1) DO C 351 de 10.12.1994. (1) DO C 312 de 10.10.1998.


text:
22.5.2010
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 C 134/35
 Ordinanza del Tribunale 24 marzo 2010 — Lind/Commissione
 (Causa T-5/09) (1)
 («Ricorso per risarcimento danni - Conseguenze per la sanità pubblica dell’incidente nucleare di Thule (Groenlandia) - Direttiva 96/29/Euratom - Mancata adozione da parte della Commissione di provvedimenti nei confronti di uno Stato membro - Ricorso manifestamente infondato in diritto»)
 2010/C 134/59
 Lingua processuale: l'inglese
 Parti
 Ricorrente: Brigit Lind (Greve, Danimarca) (rappresentante: avv. I. Anderson)
 Convenuta: Commissione europea (rappresentanti: E. White e M. Patakia, agenti)
 Oggetto
 Ricorso diretto ad ottenere il risarcimento del danno subito a causa dell’asserita mancata adozione da parte della Commissione delle misure necessarie per imporre al Regno di Danimarca di adottare le disposizioni legislative e amministrative che gli consentissero di conformarsi alla direttiva del Consiglio 13 maggio 1996, 96/29/Euratom, che stabilisce le norme fondamentali di sicurezza relative alla protezione sanitaria della popolazione e dei lavoratori contro i pericoli derivanti dalle radiazioni ionizzanti (GU L 159, pag. 1), e di applicare tali disposizioni ai lavoratori coinvolti nell’incidente nucleare di Thule (Groenlandia).
 Dispositivo
 1)
 Il ricorso è respinto.
 2)
 La sig.ra Brigit Ling è condannata alle spese.
 (1) GU C 69 del 21.3.2009.


text:
23.1.1999 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften C 20/29
 Streichung der Rechtssache C-296/97 (1) Streichung der Rechtssache C-377/97 (1)
 (1999/C 20/48) (1999/C 20/51)
 Mit Beschluû vom 7. Oktober 1998 hat der Präsident des Mit Beschluû vom 9. Oktober 1998 hat der Präsident des
 Gerichtshofes der Europäischen Gemeinschaften die Strei- Gerichtshofes der Europäischen Gemeinschaften die Strei-
 chung der Rechtssache C-296/97 (Vorabentscheidungsersu- chung der Rechtssache C-377/97 Ð Kommission der Euro-
 chen des Oberverwaltungsgerichts für das Land Nord- päischen Gemeinschaften gegen Griechische Republik Ð
 rhein-Westfalen) Ð Ulrich Gloger gegen Bergamt Kamen, angeordnet.
 Streithelfer: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim
 Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (1) ABl. C 7 vom 10.1.1998.
 Ð angeordnet.,
 (1) ABl. C 318 vom 18.10.1997.
 Streichung der verbundenen Rechtssachen C-239/96 und
 C-240/96 (1)
 Streichung der Rechtssache C-369/97 (1) (1999/C 20/52)
 (1999/C 20/49)
 Mit Beschluû vom 14. Oktober 1998 hat der Präsident des
 Mit Beschluû vom 8. Oktober 1998 hat der Präsident des Gerichtshofes der Europäischen Gemeinschaften die Strei-
 Gerichtshofes der Europäischen Gemeinschaften die Strei- chung der verbundenen Rechtssachen C-239/96 und
 chung der Rechtssache C-369/97 (Vorabentscheidungsersu- C-240/96 Ð Vereinigtes Königreich Groûbritannien und
 chen des Obersten Gerichtshofs) Ð Schutzverband gegen Nordirland, unterstützt durch die Bundesrepublik Deutsch-
 unlauteren Wettbewerb gegen F. W. Woolworth Co. land, durch das Königreich Dänemark und durch den Rat
 Gesellschaft mbH Ð angeordnet. der Europäischen Union gegen Kommission der Europäi-
 schen Gemeinschaften, unterstützt durch das Europäische
 (1) ABl. C 370 vom 6.12.1997. Parlament Ð angeordnet.
 (1) ABl. C 269 vom 14.9.1996.
 Streichung der Rechtssache C-382/97 (1)
 (1999/C 20/50)
 Streichung der Rechtssache C-370/97 (1)
 Mit Beschluû vom 8. Oktober 1998 hat der Präsident des (1999/C 20/53)
 Gerichtshofes der Europäischen Gemeinschaften die Strei-
 chung der Rechtssache C-382/97 (Vorabentscheidungsersu- Mit Beschluû vom 20. Oktober 1998 hat der Präsident des
 chen des Verwaltungsgerichtshofs) Ð Gerhard Köbler Gerichtshofes der Europäischen Gemeinschaften die Strei-
 gegen Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Forschung und chung der Rechtssache C-370/97 (Vorabentscheidungsersu-
 Kunst Ð angeordnet. chen des Obersten Gerichtshofs) Ð Poloco SA gegen Jür-
 gen Denz Ð angeordnet.
 (1) ABl. C 7 vom 10.1.1998.
 (1) ABl. C 387 vom 20.12.1997.