Health sciences libraries in Kuwait: a study of their resources, facilities, and services

The purpose of this study was to examine the current status of health sciences libraries in Kuwait in terms of their staff, collections, facilities, use of information technology, information services, and cooperation. Seventeen libraries participated in the study. Results show that the majority of health sciences libraries were established during the 1980s. Their collections are relatively small. The majority of their staff is nonprofessional. The majority of libraries provide only basic information services. Cooperation among libraries is limited. Survey results also indicate that a significant number of health sciences libraries are not automated. Some recommendations for the improvement of existing resources, facilities, and services are made.

Compliance Strategies for Gasoline Distribution Facilities

Gasoline Distribution Generally Available Control Technology (GD GACT) is a Federal environmental regulation that is specifically written and enforced to reduce HAP emissions from gasoline distribution (GD) facilities. The regulation targets four specific types of GD facilities: bulk gasoline terminals, bulk gasoline plants, pipeline breakout stations, and pipeline pumping stations. A GD GACT compliance plan was developed for a particular, representative example of each type of GD facility affected by the regulation. Each facility in the study is owned and operated by a single company. The compliance plans were developed to meet the regulatory requirements contained within GD GACT. The compliance plans will be implemented at each facility prior to the January 10, 2011 compliance date.

Potential sites for wireless telecommunications facilities

created by the Cape Cod Commission's geographic information systems department.

The EU essential facilities doctrine. Research Papers in Law, 6/2006

Introduction. The essential facilities doctrine may be seen as the ‘extra weight’ which is put onto the balance, in order to give precedence to the maintenance of competition over the complete contractual freedom of undertakings controlling an important and unique facility. The main purpose of the doctrine is to impose upon such ‘dominant’ undertakings the duty to negotiate and/or give access to the facility, against a reasonable fee, to other undertakings, which cannot pursue their own activity (and therefore will perish) without access to such a facility. This very simple description of the content of the doctrine underlines its limitations: through the imposition of a duty to negotiate or contractual obligations, the rule tends to compensate for the weaknesses of the competitive structure of a market, which are due to the existence of some essential facility. In other words, the doctrine does not by itself provide a definitive solution to the lack of competition, but tends to contractually maintain or even create some competition.1 The doctrine of essential facilities originates in the US antitrust case law of the Circuit and District Courts, but has never been officially acknowledged by the Supreme Court. It has been further developed and hotly debated by scholars in the US, both from a legal and from an economic viewpoint. In the EU, the essential facilities doctrine was openly introduced by the Commission during the early 1990s, but has received only limited and indirect support by the Court of First Instance (the CFI) and the European Court of Justice (the ECJ). It also indirectly inspired the legislation concerning the deregulation of traditional ‘natural’ monopolies. The judicial origin of the doctrine, combined with the hesitant application by the appeal courts, both in the US and the EU, cast uncertainty not only on the precise scope of the doctrine, but also on the issue of its very existence. These questions receive a particular light within the EU context, where the doctrine is called upon to play a different role from its US counterpart. In order to address the above issues, we will first pretend that an EU essential facility doctrine does indeed exist and we shall try to identify the scope and content thereof, through its main applications (Section 1). Subsequently, we will try to answer the question whether such a doctrine should exist at all in the EU (Section 2).