Sentences with phrase «state preemption provisions»

Not exact matches

Furthermore, the NLEA contains a preemption provision mandating that no state law claim can impose any food labeling requirement that is «not identical» to the NLEA requirements.

The preemption provisions upset the historical federal - state balance in financial regulation, wrongfully interfere with traditional state enforcement authority, and frustrate the ability of state regulators to protect student borrowers who rely on federal student loan programs.

Some of these claims may be affected by the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act's (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 1360) preemption provisions regarding state breach of warranty and failure - to - warn defect claims.

In a scathing indictment of the over-reaching effects of ERISA preemption, Judge William Young of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts implored Congress to amend ERISA's civil enforcement provision to allow recovery against utilization review providers and insurers.

Response: The concern underlying this comment is that ERISA plans, which are not now subject to certain state laws because of the «field» preemption provision of ERISA but which are subject to the rules below, will become subject to state privacy laws that are «more stringent» than the federal requirements, due to the operation of section 1178 (a)(2)(B), together with section 264 (c)(2).

(a) A request to except a provision of State law from preemption under § 160.203 (a) may be submitted to the Secretary.

Other commenters supported the proposed preemption provision — not to preempt a state law to the extent it authorizes or prohibits disclosure of protected health information regarding a minor to a parent.

To the extent state laws contain provisions regarding portability, access, or renewability, as well as privacy requirements, a covered entity will need to evaluate the privacy provisions under the Title II preemption provisions, as explained in the preemption provisions of the rules, and the other provisions under the Title I preemption requirements.

Section 160.204 would require persons requesting to except a provision of state law from preemption under § 160.203 (a) to submit a written request, that meets the requirements of this section, to the Secretary to except a provision of state law from preemption under § 160.203.

What the comments summarized above appeared to assume is that the preemption provisions of section 1178 operate to broadly and generally invalidate any state law that comes within their ambit.

Many other comments, however, recommended changing the proposed preemption provisions to preempt state privacy laws on as blanket a basis as possible.

It was also suggested that there be provision for granting extensions of the compliance date, based on some criteria, such as a good faith effort to comply or that the compliance dates be extended to two years following completion of a «state - by - state preemption analysis» by the Department.

Numerous comments, particularly from plans and providers, argued that the proposed preemption provisions were burdensome, ineffective, or insufficient, and that complete federal preemption of the «patchwork» of state privacy laws is needed.

Comment: Several comments stated that, as drafted, the preemption provisions would be effective as of the rule's effective date (i.e., 60 days following publication), even though covered entities would not be required to comply with the rules for at least another two years.

We considered whether the preemption provision of section 264 (c)(2) of HIPAA would give effect to state laws that would otherwise be preempted by section 514 (a) of ERISA.

Section 264 also contains a preemption provision that provides that contrary provisions of state laws that are more stringent than the federal standards, requirements, or implementation specifications will not be preempted.

Coventry Health Care v. Nevils (Does the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act's express - preemption provision preempt state laws that prevent carriers from seeking subrogation or reimbursement and, if so, is preemption by contract consistent with the Supremacy Clause)(co-counsel on the merits)