However, one looks in vain at ERA 1996, s 129 (or in the corresponding
provision considered in Taplin, s 78
of the Employment Protection Act 1975) for any reference to exceptionality as a material consideration when construing the
statutory word «likely».
Fourth, in § 160.203, several criteria relating to the
statutory grounds for exception determinations have been further spelled out: (1) The
words «related to the
provision of or payment for health care» have been added to the exception for fraud and abuse; (2) the
words «to the extent expressly authorized by statute or regulation» have been added to the exception for state regulation
of health plans; (3) the
words «
of serving a compelling need related to public health, safety, or welfare, and, where a standard, requirement, or implementation specification under part 164
of this subchapter is at issue, where the Secretary determines that the intrusion into privacy is warranted when balanced against the need to be served» have been added to the general exception «for other purposes»; and (4) the
statutory provision regarding controlled substances has been elaborated on as follows: «Has as its principal purpose the regulation
of the manufacture, registration, distribution, dispensing, or other control
of any controlled substance, as defined at 21 U.S.C. 802, or which is deemed a controlled substance by state law.»