Rule Sample Clauses

Rule. The greater amount of the actual cost of the transferred goods and services as determined in accord- ance with applicable Federal cost prin- ciples, or 75 percent of the best cus- tomer price of the transferred goods and services, shall be deemed to be al- lowable costs; provided, however, that in no event shall the aggregate of these allowable costs exceed 30 percent of the non-Federal share of the total cost of the joint research and development program.
Rule. Except as stated in the next sentence, time spent at any time during a single service day by an eligible employee who is traveling on Postal Service business to one or more locations outside of the local commuting area and back to the home community is compensable. Also applicable to this settlement is Handbook F-15, Travel and Relocation, Chapter 7.d, Determining Daily Expenses, which states: " Mileage. When it is advantageous to the Postal Service, you may be authorized to depart directly from and return directly to your home. The Postal Service may reimburse you for any mileage that exceeds the distance between your home and your permanent duty station. If the mileage is less than that between your home and your permanent duty station, you may not claim a mileage reimbursement. You may claim out-of-pocket expenses such as tolls, parking, etc." Accordingly, the parties agree that any case currently being held in abeyance pending this national dispute will be withdrawn at the step where it is being held. Patrick M. Devine Manager, Contract Administration (APWU) United States Postal Service q- 0-13 Mich el M rns Director, Industrial Relations American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
Rule. But even if it had done so its decision would have fallen within the limits of common law adjudication. There is nothing here to shock or surprise even a delicate judicial sensibility.
Rule. If ------------------------------------------------------------ the Company receives written confirmation from NASDAQ that both the Common Stock and the Company's Class B common stock, par value $0.001 per share, are included for purposes of the Nasdaq 19.99% Rule (the "Nasdaq Confirmation"), then the Company shall provide to the Investor a letter or other written document containing the following representation: Under the Nasdaq 19.99% Rule, both the Common Stock and the Company's Class B common stock, par value $0.001 per share, are included when making a determination regarding the number of shares of common stock outstanding immediately prior to June 19, 2000, or at any other time a determination of the number of shares outstanding is made for purposes of the Nasdaq 19.99% Rule or determining the Exchange Cap (as defined in Section 12 of the Series B Certificate of Designations and in Section 11 of the Series D Certificate of Designations).
Rule. In its final rule to list the Chiricahua leopard frog under the Act, the USFWS included a rule under Section 4(d) of the Act that exempts from the Section 9 regulations incidental take of Chiricahua leopard frogs resulting from livestock use of or maintenance activities at livestock tanks located on private, State, or tribal lands (USFWS 2002). This rule and the Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued in association with this Agreement could result in redundant, overlapping, or contradictory take authorities. The Section 4(d) rule will take precedence over the Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit associated with this Agreement. If the Section 4(d) rule is no longer in affect for any reason, e.g. reclassification of the species from Threatened to Endangered status, the USFWS intends that the Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit will govern with respect to authorized activities (see Sections 2.6 and 2.12.2) within the Agreement’s covered area.
Rule. The Omnibus Rule makes BA contracts applicable to arrangements involving a business associate and a subcontractor of that business associate in the same manner that business associate contracts apply to arrangements between a covered entity and its direct business associate. If a subcontractor creates, receives, maintains, or transmits PHI, then a BA must have a BAA with the subcontractor. HHS emphasizes the continued need for BA contracts even though BAs now are held directly accountable for many provisions of HIPAA. HHS notes that BAA are necessary to clarify and limit permissible uses and disclosures of PHI, ensure business associates are contractually responsible for activities for which they are not directly liable under HIPAA, and clarify respective responsibilities related to patient rights, such as access to PHI. Each agreement in the BA contract chain must be as or more stringent than the one above it regarding the uses and disclosures of PHI. “Patterns of Activity” and HIPAA BA Compliance Status A CE or BA is not in compliance with Business Associate obligations: ❑ If it knew of a pattern of activity, or practice of its business associate or subcontractor that constituted a material breach or violation of BA’s or subcontractor’s obligation(s); ❑ Unless it takes reasonable steps to cure the breach or end the violation; and if unsuccessful, terminates the arrangement, if feasible (No requirement to notify HHS).
Rule. In no event shall the "average actual deferral percentage" (as defined below) for Members who are "highly compensated employees" for any Plan Year bear a relationship to the "average actual deferral percentage" for Members who are not "highly compensated employees" which does not satisfy either subsection 4(i)(i)(A) or (B) below.
Rule. Estoppel: If the Plaintiff is successful, the defendant is ‘estopped’ from denying the parties had a legally binding agreement, even absent a formal, enforceable contract. Reliance Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance) Plaintiff must prove: (1) The existence of a promise, (1) A significant amount of reliance placed on the promise made, that (3) caused the claimant to be in a disadvantageous or detrimental position This is an equitable remedy, to prevent unjust enrichment. Analysis: Addie hired her colleague, Cal to prepare an investment plan for the lotto money Laurie won. Conclusion: Addie delivered one-third of the prize money to Laurie both times that she won the lotto prize money, as per their agreement. Laurie accepted and benefited from the prize money, and the circumstances would be inequitable if Laurie does not follow through on their agreement, and to deliver Addie her one-third of the prize money. Further, Addie detrimentally relied on Laurie following through on the contract by hiring Cal to prepare an investment plan for the lotto money, as per the Addie/Laurie agreement.