The National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) has assured that persons who have registered for the National Identity Management System (NIMS) project would be issued their new smart national identity cards between July and October 2013.
The Director-General of NIMC, Mr. Chris Onyemenam, in an interview with THISDAY, also disclosed that over 500,000 persons have so far enrolled for the NIMS project and have received their National Identification Number (NIN), a set of unintelligent numbers unique to each person.
Onyemenam, while stating reasons for the long interval, explained that before a card can be introduced into the market, a process must be followed to determine if the cards can withstand its parameters.
He further noted that the cards were being subjected to global standards and certifications.
He said: βBefore a card type can be introduced into the market, a process must be followed to ensure the card can withstand its parameters. If the card is a ten year card; it must be able to withstand the environment for that long.β
Onyemenam also stated that there are some requirements specifications that go along with card constructions in addition to the quality of the materials used for the card especially the chip and how it has being designed.You’ll find a number of top quality RFID tag suppliers.
He said it was not enough to just award a contract, hence βthe card samples must be subjected to tests to ensure that certifications are obtained; we are using master cards and must get master card certifications before the cards can be issued.β
βAlthough the 36 states of the federation have an enrolment centre with at least 10 enrolment units, the commission hopes to open local government enrolment centres in all local government areas and government agencies before the year ends to further quicken the process of enrolment,β he added.
The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday signaled its intention to permit generic drug makers to make changes to their safety labels,where cards are embedded with chip card and a cardholder. a move that could open the door to lawsuits against generic drug companies for the first time since a Supreme Court decision barred such suits two years ago.
βItβs common sense,β said Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, a senior adviser to the Health Research Group at Public Citizen, which in 2011 petitioned the F.D.A. to pass just such a rule.Find great deals on Mens Surgical stainless steel earring, βIt will obviously end this situation where people are being harmed physically and yet, although they are harmed,We are always offering best quality stainless steel cufflink the affordable price. they have no right to go into court and get redress for serious damages.β
Dozens of lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers have been dismissed since 2011, when the Supreme Court ruled that because the generic companies must, by law, use the same label warnings as their brand name counterparts they cannot be sued for failing to alert patients about the risks of taking their drugs. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled β on similar grounds β that patients also may not sue generic drug makers by claiming that the drug was defectively designed.
The F.D.A.βs intentions came in the form of a bureaucratic step in which the agency must notify the Office of Management and Budget of its plans to publish a proposed new rule. In a summary posted Wednesday on the budget officeβs Web site, the F.Stock your shoe store with our ladies shoes wholesale,D.A. said the proposed rule would βcreate parityβ between generic and brand-name drug makers with respect to how they update their labels β the lengthy list of a drugβs uses, dosages and risks.
Under the current system, brand-name manufacturers can change the label if they receive important new information about their drug. If the F.D.A. agrees that the label change is necessary, the generic manufacturers of the drug must also change their labels. The rule change could also allow generic manufacturers to change their labels if they became aware of safety concerns, which could make them liable if a court were to find they failed to warn patients about potential harms.
βIt is a first step toward acknowledging that there is a problem with the current system,β said Michael Johnson, a lawyer who represented Gladys Mensing, one of the patients who sued generic drug companies in the 2011 Supreme Court case, Pliva v. Mensing. βIt doesnβt make sense to have one set of rules for the name brand and another set of rules for the generics.β
The Generic Pharmaceutical Association, an industry group, declined to comment on Wednesday. In the past, generic drug companies have argued against such a change, saying that it could create a chaotic situation in which several different labels existed for the same drug.
Jay Lefkowitz, the lawyer who represented the generic drug makers in both Supreme Court cases, said in an e-mail, βWe will obviously look very carefully at whatever the F.D.A. proposes, if in fact it ends up proposing any change at all.β
The notice posted Wednesday indicates the agencyβs intent to publish a proposed rule by September, when the public would be asked to comment.
Read the full story at www.owon-smart.com/AMI-Home-Energy-Monitor_24!