Search Results for keywords:"court order"

The U.S. Department of Labor is revising its regulations to comply with a court order that vacated parts of a 2021 rule about tipped workers. The rule originally defined when an employee could be considered to be working in two different jobs and how tips could be used to cover minimum wage requirements. Following the court's decision, the Department is returning to regulations that were in place before these changes. This update is a technical correction and does not change any current requirements for paying tipped employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is delaying the effective date of a rule that requires new health warnings on cigarette packages and advertisements. This delay, ordered by a court in Texas, pushes the effective date to January 14, 2022, from its original date of June 18, 2021. The rule implements the Tobacco Control Act, mandating vivid graphics depicting the harmful effects of smoking. The postponement was needed due to legal challenges and court orders.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released a revised guidance for companies about submitting plans for cigarette packaging and advertising. This update, stemming from a court order, suggests that companies send their plans to the FDA by March 16, 2021, following a change in the effective date of related regulations to January 14, 2022. The guidance is part of the Tobacco Control Act's requirements, ensuring cigarette packages and advertisements carry new warning labels and graphics to inform the public about health risks. The FDA clarifies that this guidance reflects current thinking but is not binding, allowing companies to take different approaches if they meet legal requirements.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is opening a public comment period on their explanation for why they did not treat the northern distinct population segment (DPS) of the southern subspecies of the scarlet macaw as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This decision is in compliance with a U.S. District Court order that highlighted the lack of explanation in an earlier rule. The Service explained that section 4(e) of the ESA, which allows for a species to be treated as endangered based on similarity of appearance, applies only to species not already listed under section 4(a) as threatened, like the northern DPS that is already listed as threatened. They argued that treating the northern DPS as endangered based on similarity of appearance wouldn’t provide additional benefits or protections.