Sentences with phrase «final rule language»

The final aspects of the fiduciary standard will be shrouded in some mystery until the final rule language actually emerges from OMB, George explains, but she still predicts pretty confidently that the biggest impact is going to be on the IRA market and rollover accounts.

(See FHWA's Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule web site for presentations, final rule language, informational materials, examples of rule implementation, and guidance on implementing the rule, etc..)

Not exact matches

The administration is including language in the final rule to make clear how a contractor's current sick leave policy can comport with the mandate.

And even if it does show up in the final rule, it would still take serious commitment on the part of local school districts to adopt and enforce such language in actual practice.

The state Board of Regents gave final approval to a rule change easing the requirement that districts provide extra help to all students who failed the state's math and English language arts tests.

This «final» product is weak on ethical standards and comprehensive oversight, and despite language that made my key issues — term limits, an enhanced «two hat» rule and special elections for legislative vacancies — more palatable, they were still ignored.

NSF will examine Program Solicitation language to remove any restrictions that might prevent grantee compliance with the final overtime rule.

The judge's ruling appears to contradict language in the «Final Statement of Reasons» on the Parent Empowerment Act that states, «Nothing in these regulations precludes a parent / guardian from withdrawing his / her signature from a petition at any time,» according to the Victorville Daily Press, the local daily newspaper.

This amendment, therefore, restores language to the version that became a final rule on June 25, 2008.

In addition, this document corrects and clarifies misleading language in the DBE final rule.

FMCSA posted a Privacy Impact Analysis (PIA) of the proposed rule in the docket on December 2, 2008.1 FMCSA is publishing this revised PIA to include changes that reflect differences in the NPRM and the Final Rule as well as implementation and operational decisions made since the publishing of the NPRM, and to clarify language used in the initial PIA (77 FR 24104, April 20, 20rule in the docket on December 2, 2008.1 FMCSA is publishing this revised PIA to include changes that reflect differences in the NPRM and the Final Rule as well as implementation and operational decisions made since the publishing of the NPRM, and to clarify language used in the initial PIA (77 FR 24104, April 20, 20Rule as well as implementation and operational decisions made since the publishing of the NPRM, and to clarify language used in the initial PIA (77 FR 24104, April 20, 2012).

Nonetheless, while signing the documents last week, Johnson told the Chronicle that he takes the DEA concerns seriously and has done his best to address them in the language of the state's final proposed rule — which, barring any revisions requested by the AG, will become law this fall.

FERC is to take final action (i.e. issue a final rule) within 60 days of DOE's proposal being published in the Federal Register (this means no public comments on proposed language).

It may comprise: advice on complying with pre-action protocols; exploring the different avenues available for alternative dispute resolution (ADR); providing clients with a glossary of terms they will be come across in the court process; instruction sheets in plain English to explain aspects of procedure and the essential law to be applied (translated to be available in Welsh or foreign languages); how to provide disclosure; preparing court documents such as witness statements, case and costs summaries, chronologies and skeleton arguments; complying with the Rules in relation to service of documents, the preparation of statements of case, the appointment and instruction of expert witnesses; the importance of CPR Pt 36; or how to prepare for and what to expect at a financial dispute resolution (FDR) or a final hearing / trial.

To clarify the interaction between these provisions, in the final rule we have specifically added language to the paragraph addressing disclosures for law enforcement that permits covered entities to comply with legal mandates, and have included a specific cross reference in the provision of the final rule that permits covered entities to make other disclosures required by law.

Therefore, the final rule includes new language, in § 164.510 (b)(4), which allows covered entities to use or disclose protected health information to a public or private entity authorized by law or its charter to assist in disaster relief efforts, for the purpose of coordinating with such entities to notify, or assist in the notification of (including identifying or locating) a family member, an individual's personal representative, or another person responsible for the individual's care regarding the individual's location, general condition, or death.

The final rule includes such language to address situations such as where a public hospital performs medical examiner functions.

In § 164.530 (i), (j), and (k) of the final rule, we amend the NPRM language in several respects.

In the final rule, we modify the definition of health oversight agency by eliminating from the definition the language in proposed § 164.510 (c)(now § 164.512 (d)-RRB-.

In § 164.512 (d) of the final rule, we modify the proposed language to include civil and criminal investigations.

In the final rule, we have amended the language in the waiver criteria to make clear that these criteria relate only to the privacy interests of the individual.

We have added explicit language to the final rule which excludes the excepted benefit programs, as defined in section 2971 (c)(1) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg - 91 (c)(1).

We have changed the language in § 164.502 (g)(3)(i) of the final rule to provide a minor the right to act as an individual when the minor can obtain care without the consent of a parent and the minor consents to such care.

Under the final rule, they will have to obtain consent for treatment and health care operations, as well, but this may entail only minor changes in the language of the consent to incorporate these other categories and to conform to the rule.

In the final rule, we eliminate the third category and also slightly modify language in the second category to read: «the purposes for which the protected health information may be used or disclosed.»

In the final rule, we also have clarified our intent not to interfere with existing requirements for IRBs by amending the language in the waiver criteria to make clear that these criteria relate to the privacy interests of the individual and are separate from the criteria that would be applied by an IRB to any evaluation of the underlying research.

Response: We agree and as described above have added language to the final rule to clarify that the «excepted benefits» as defined under 42 U.S.C. 300gg - 91 (c)(1), which includes liability programs such as property and casualty benefit providers, are not health plans for the purposes of this rule.

In the final rule, we add new language (§ 164.512 (d)(3)-RRB- to address situations in which health oversight activities are conducted in conjunction with an investigation regarding a claim for public benefits not related to health (e.g., claims for Food Stamps).

Response: As described in the proposed rule, this category implements the language at the beginning of the statutory definition of the term «health plan»: «The term «health plan» means an individual or group plan that provides, or pays the cost of, medical care * * * Such term includes the following, and any combination thereof * * *» This statutory language is general, not specific, and as such, we are leaving it general in the final rule.

Response: The final rule retains the proposed language in these two provisions with one change.

Comment: A provider organization argued for inclusion of language in the final rule that specifies that real or perceived «ownership» of the mental health record does not negate the requirement that patients must specifically authorize the disclosure of their psychotherapy notes.

We therefore do not include a model notice in the final rule, and do not require inclusion of specific language in the notice (except for a standard header).

They suggested specific language for the final rule.

The final rule adopts this language.

Note again the following language from the Stage 2 final rule:

Looking at other courts interpreting this language, the court ruled that two - year period began after the final unlawful occurrence.

In addition, the final rule omits the language «as if it were the creditor» to avoid any suggestion that settlement agents, by providing the Closing Disclosure, would assume duties outside the scope of § 1026.19 (f).