Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Online
If you require information about toxic chemicals, visit the National Toxicology Program (NTP) at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/. The NTP was established in 1978 by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to coordinate toxicological testing programs within the department; strengthen the science base in toxicology; develop and validate improved testing methods; and provide information about potentially toxic chemicals to health regulatory and research agencies, the scientific and medical communities, and the public.
The NTP is an interagency program consisting of relevant toxicology activities of the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH/NIEHS) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH), and the Food and Drug Administration's National Center for Toxicological Research (FDA/NCTR). The NIH's National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) was a charter agency; however, the NCI Carcinogenesis Bioassay Program was transferred to the NIEHS in 1981. The NCI remains active in the program through membership on the NTP Executive Committee. The NTP's mission is to evaluate agents of public health concern by developing and applying tools of modern toxicology and molecular biology.
The program is administered by the NTP director, who is also the director of the NIEHS. Primary program oversight is provided by the NTP Executive Committee, composed of the heads of federal health research and regulatory agencies. Primary scientific oversight is provided by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors and its Technical Reports Review Subcommittee.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.