Employee Benefits Law

The Internal Revenue Service has announced in a notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 3202) that it will hold a public hearing in Washington, D.C. on June 5, 2012, to discuss proposed regulations relating to the determination of governmental plan status. The proposed regulations were previously published in the Federal Register on Nov. 8, 2011, (our Nov. 7, 2011, bulletin regarding the proposed regulations can be found here). Outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing must be received by Feb. 6, 2012.

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding the public hearing and how the proposed rulemaking may impact your governmental plan, please contact Mary Beth Braitman, Terry A.M. Mumford, Katrina Clingerman, Lisa Harrison or your Ice Miller Employee Benefits attorney.

Ice Miller is proud to have joined so many others last week in Indianapolis to show support for the National FFA and its student leaders. Ice Miller's relationship with FFA began just four years ago, but our commitment to its mission and efforts is deep. We judged outstanding student competitions - including the Star in Ag Placement and the Diversified Livestock Entrepreneurship proficiency. We led workshops on the Farm Bill and how to pursue advanced studies and even a career in law. And, we hosted many of the other industry partners who share our commitment to these talented students.

It is the very positive impression made through National officer visits and other meetings with so many FFA members that has pushed us to do more for FFA. Consider just a few of the talented officers we have met:

• Paul Moya was an '08/'09 National President and is finishing his degree at Notre Dame and considering a career in law;

• Riley Branch is another '08/'09 National officer who is in his first year at Texas Tech Law School; and

• Alex Henry was a National officer last year who shared her career goal of someday becoming the Secretary of Agriculture.  

The efforts and aspirations of so many other FFA officers and members clearly deserve recognition as well. I mention these three because they have inspired Ice Miller to help FFA develop the next generation of talented leaders who will become lawyers, business executives, policy makers and government leaders. 

Today's food and agriculture industries continue to develop and refine complex strategies to address market, business and weather related risks. Increasingly, though, the industry is challenged with burdensome policy and regulations that pose a significant threat. As this trend is likely to continue, our future leaders need to develop the tools today to critically evaluate these issues and to learn how to deal with and, where possible, shape them.

At Ice Miller, we remain committed to helping open these young minds. We do this by relaying the importance of basic legal services, such as business or farm estate planning or intellectual property protection – many of their own successful start-up businesses could already use these services ... by debating the merits of today's farm subsidies with them and brainstorming new policy ideas for their future ... and by candidly sharing what it takes to get through law school and what to do with that degree once you have it!  

In a time when our overall jobs and employment outlook remains quite challenging, it is refreshing to think of the immense opportunities for young people in agriculture. The students of the FFA will be a part of an agriculture industry that will feed the 7 billion people on our planet, improve human health, create new sources of energy and help care for our planet's environment. Ice Miller is extremely proud to support this great organization and its talented young leaders. 

Kristina Tridico, partner and member of the agricultural law team at Ice Miller LLP, authored this blog.

Beth Bechdol and I participated in Farm Journal's Top Producer Summer Seminar in Moline, Ill on June 7-8, 2011. The audience of 130 was mostly commercial, full-time farmers from across the country (mostly from the Midwest).

I led a breakout session on agricultural legal "pitfalls" and focused primarily on critical environmental regulatory issues for agriculture. I also spent time describing more positive opportunities for producers with on-farm alternative energy projects, including wind, solar, biomass and others. The PowerPoint presentation from the session is available below for reference.  The discussion on enhanced regulatory scrutiny of the agriculture industry was timely, as news sources reported today that Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate, has questioned the sincerity of the Environmental Protection Agency over a campaign the Senator is calling EPA's "Charm Offensive." According to Johanns, as reported by Hoosier Ag Today, "the problem is what the EPA is selling publicly to farmers and ranchers just doesn't match up with reality. They say one thing on the road while the regulatory train just continues to barrel forward in Washington."

The overall themes of the conference sessions centered on how farmers should plan for the future - whether it be in business management, risk management, commodity marketing, access to credit and financing, regulatory compliance, or estate and succession planning. It was clear from our conversations with producers that estate planning and corporate and tax restructuring are front of mind and can be seen as overwhelming efforts. This is something we hear frequently from our clients as well. For more details please visit the firm's farm restructuring and estate planning services web site.

We look forward to being a part of future Farm Journal events and conferences. After 135 years of providing quality information to farmers, they clearly know and appreciate the issues most critical to success in farming.

Post Tags:

Agribusiness

Agricultural Law

I have had the privilege the last two years to serve on the Steering Committee for the Indiana Humanities Council's (IHC) Food for Thought Initiative. IHC has convened an enthusiastic and diverse group of partners to develop the multi-year Food for Thought Initiative. They recognized that the need for food links all of us, but the food we eat, the way we grow, prepare and eat it, our mealtime rituals, traditions and conversations…all of these elements distinguish us as cultures and individuals.

Food for Thought is an examination and celebration of the ways food helps to define Indiana’s culture, considering food in the context of history, law, politics, science, the arts, religion, ethnicity and our place in the world. Through this program, Hoosiers have shared and sampled the cultures reflected at the state’s table and addressed the local and global issues of hunger, nutrition, food production, obesity, food security and safety.

There have been numerous events connected to Food for Thought, including a one-night community conversation about food and ethnic identity called Chew on This. More than 150 people met at one of nine locally-owned restaurants for the fun evening full of diverse views and opinions. Last Fall, IHC joined with Spirit and Place and several sponsors including Ice Miller and hosted an evening conversation with internationally recognized chefs, Anthony Bourdain and Eric Ripert.

There also is a traveling exhibit designed to engage and educate Hoosiers about global and local food issues, increase awareness about Indiana’s rich agricultural history and stimulate conversation among families and communities. The exhibit will be traveling across the state this summer and is well worth the visit. The summer schedule is below.

June 4 - 19: Randolph County Convention & Visitors Bureau, Winchester

July 19 - Aug. 3: Knox County Public Library, Vincennes

Aug. 5 - 21: Indiana State Fair, Indianapolis

Aug. 30 - Sept. 8: West Lafayette Public Library, West Lafayette

Sept. 10 - Oct. 2: Evansville-Vanderburgh Public Library, Evansville

At a time when there is much debate over the "right kind" of food or the "right kind" of agriculture, IHC has motivated Hoosiers to think about ALL kinds of food and agriculture. There's a lot more "food for thought" on IHC's website at http://www.indianahumanities.org/foodforthought/.

Over the years, the interest in agritourism has grown. The popularity of farmers' markets is high. Families look for activities which are educational and entertaining, many of which include visits to farms and ranches. Further, with the continued focus on exercise, outdoor activities such as hiking and trail riding are popular. However, although the interest in these activities is generally viewed favorably, the increased number of participants, many of whom are inexperienced, means an increase in the potential liability to the providers of these agritourism activities. Starting this summer, agritourism providers can now take a few simple steps to limit the potential liability they may face from the inherent risks of agritourism activities. In Indiana Code Section 34-31-9, effective July 1, 2011, the Indiana General Assembly created a safe haven for agritourism providers who provide a statutory warning to participants and meet other specific requirements

The protections provided by this new statute apply not only to traditional activities at agricultural, horticultural, or agribusinesss operations where the general public is allowed or invited to participate in, view or enjoy the activities for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes and animal exhibitions at an agricultural fair, but also to a broader range of natural resource based activities and attractions. Ind. Code Section 34-31-9-2(1)(2)(3). Essentially, the statute limits liability which may arise from the "inherent risks of agritourism activities." In the statute, inherent risks are defined as "those conditions, dangers, or hazards that are an integral part of an agritourism activity." Ind. Code Section 34-31-9-4.

In order to fall within the safe haven created by the statute, a warning sign must be posted which includes specific language about the potential risks. The sign must be visible from the main entrance and contain lettering of a specific size. Alternatively, all participants can sign a release containing the same warning language. If all of the statutory requirements are met, then a participant or his/her representative cannot make a claim for injury, loss, damage or death, caused by the inherent risks of an agritourism activity. However, as with any statute, there are exceptions and exclusions. For instance, this statute does not limit liability for injuries caused by improperly trained employees or due to a known dangerous condition on the land which is unknown by the participant.

So if you operate a pumpkin patch, have land with hiking trails or may be otherwise involved with agrotourism, you will want to take the steps needed to meet the requirements of this statute so that your business can take advantage of all of the protections which it affords. Further, you should also be prepared to address the exceptions - through well documented training sessions of employees, discussions of potential risks with participants, and other steps.

Ice Miller's agricultural law group monitors this and other similar issues for clients in the food and agricultural industries. View our full list of services at our agribusiness website. If you would like to further discuss this new statute or how to implement these statutory protections, please contact Judy Okenfuss at judy.okenfuss@icemiller.com or (317) 236-2115.

Anthony Aaron, partner and member of the agricultural law team at Ice Miller LLP, authored this blog.

By the year 2050, experts predict that the world's population will grow to over nine billion people and we will need to double food production. At the same time, many American consumers, particularly "early adopters" (thought and opinion leaders who seek information and frequently drive change) seem concerned that modern agriculture is not "farming" and express their preference for food produced locally, by organic methods or by other means that are not sufficiently scalable to feed the world.

On May 9 and 10, I attended the Center for Food Integrity's North American Strategy Conference on Animal Agriculture at Hamburger University in Oak Brook, Illinois. The conference brought together a group of organizations and companies who engaged with consumers, reporters and "mommy bloggers" to better understand their perspectives and how to bridge the gap. Many of the panelists were "early adopters" on food issues and expressed their preference for local or organic foods and for shopping at Whole Foods or farmer's market – in other words, food sources that many would not equate with "modern agriculture." At the same time, several panelists expressed a desire to feel a connection with their food by getting to know the producer personally at a farmers market, by having a garden or even visiting a farm.

Charlie Arnott, the CEO of Center for Food Integrity (CFI), also reviewed some of CFI's research on the attitudes of early adopters toward the food system. One of CFI's findings that left me deeply puzzled is that only half of early adopters are "very concerned" with having enough food to feed the U.S. and only 31 percent are "very concerned" with having enough food to feed the developing world. Yet, with the world's population headed to nine billion by 2050, and needing to double food production in the same time frame, we are faced with a choice of whether or not to produce enough to feed the world – and if we choose not to, the consequences could be dire.

The closing speaker was Ted McKinney, Elanco Animal Health's Senior Director of Global Corporate Affairs. He described affordable food, food choice and sustainable global food production as three rights that must be recognized in order to make the dream of providing nine billion people with safe, affordable and abundant food a reality. So, it seems that our challenge is to convince policymakers and consumers that we need to produce enough food to feed the world, while preserving consumer's right to choose the foods that fit their lifestyles and means. As Vanessa Druckman, one of the blogger panelists, put it, "We need to find food selections that work for the entire world, not just people like me who can choose to buy organic and grass-fed."

Ice Miller is a proud sponsor of many CFI events and routinely participates in its conferences to stay abreast of its research and information, as well as other research, information and policies affecting agriculture and agribusinesses. If you're interested in seeing more of the conference discussion, check out #CFI11 on Twitter.

Post Tags:

Agribusiness

Agribusiness Law

Jennifer Johnson, associate in the business litigation group with a focus on product liability at Ice Miller LLP, authored this blog.

Last week I attended the Association of Equipment Manufacturer's Product Liability seminar in Bloomingdale, Ill. The seminar focused on how technical personnel and corporate representatives of equipment manufacturing companies and outside counsel can work together during litigation proceedings for effective litigation tactics and strategies. The topics ranged from coordinating litigation on a national scale to the important role corporate representatives can take in alternative dispute resolution. Some of the key themes which emerged are:

• The importance of a well-organized litigation program at the corporate level. One speaker highlighted the challenges emerging from cooperation and organization of the plaintiffs' bar. For example, many plaintiff's attorneys' associations maintain forums on specific products where the attorneys can share common claims involving a product, document libraries where attorneys can share successful pleadings, and deposition repositories that attorneys can use to research a corporate representative in a matter. In order to combat this cooperation by the plaintiffs' bar, manufacturers need to coordinate their litigation on a company level to ensure that the manufacturer's discovery responses and other pleadings do not contradict those filed in cases in other jurisdictions. The plaintiff's attorneys are sharing these documents and will use them to surprise a corporate representative at deposition or trial. Manufacturers typically accomplish such coordination by employing internal litigation managers or product specialists, or by employing national counsel.
• Recent changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may benefit manufacturers, specifically changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which governs expert witness discovery. The new version of Rule 26 will provide more protection to communications between counsel and a testifying expert witness. The most relevant changes include that draft expert reports and communications relating to an expert's opinions will no longer be discoverable by the other side.
• Deposition preparation should begin early in a matter. This perspective highlights the importance of, an incident reporting network. After an initial meeting with counsel, the corporate representative should learn why he or she was selected to serve as corporate representative, whether there are any deadlines he or she needs to be aware of, the time frame in which the deposition is likely to occur, and the number of documents that the attorney anticipates the corporate representative will need to review. After this meeting, the corporate representative should have a good sense of whether he is the right witness. If so, the representative should expect to meet with counsel at least one more time where the "nitty gritty" details of the case will be discussed. Corporate representatives should be proactive in preparing for depositions and should not hesitate to contact counsel with questions or concerns.
• One speaker noted that it should not be the objective of the corporate representative to "win" the deposition or trial. Rather, their demeanor should reflect that they are trying to be helpful by educating the jury and/or opposing counsel. Thus, it is important to use basic terms that anyone can understand and to maintain a calm presence in front of the jury or, in the case of a videotaped deposition, the videographer.

Ice Miller represents a number of clients on product liability matters, including those in the agricultural and construction equipment industries. For help or more information about how Ice Miller can assist your business with additional background on the litigation process and the important role corporate representatives and technical personnel play in it, please contact Jim Petersen, Judy Okenfuss, or Jen Johnson.

Post Tags: Agribusiness, Agriculture Law, Product Liability, AEM Conference 2011.

In previous articles in this space, we have suggested that employers should review their employment handbooks for rules and policies that may be found unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (Act). On March 31, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued another such reminder to us all.

Read about the National Labor Relations Board policy.

On March 18, 2011, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued Technical Release 2011-01 (2011 Technical Release) to provide an extension of the non-enforcement period relating to certain interim procedures for internal claims and appeals under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The Technical Release serves to extend and modify the original non-enforcement period that was provided under Technical Release 2010-02 (2010 Technical Release), issued by the DOL on Sept. 20, 2010. The 2011 Technical Release gives employers that sponsor non-grandfathered group health plans yet more time to comply with PPACA's requirement to have an effective internal claims and appeals process, which is generally effective for plan years beginning on or after Sept. 23, 2010.

Read the entire article on the extended delay in enforcement of internal claims and appeals.

Months of speculation came to an end March 24, 2011 when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final amended regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), which took effect on January 1, 2009.

The EEOC's final regulations, which are effective 60 days from their publication in the Federal Register on March 25, 2011, contain significant changes from the pre-Amendments Act ADA. Consistent with Congress's stated purpose in passing the ADAAA, the new regulations expand the ADA's coverage by lowering the standard for proving disability. Although the new regulations do little to quell employer fears of increased liability under the ADAAA, the EEOC has retreated, at least incrementally, from some of the more controversial positions it took in the proposed regulations.

This article highlights some of the more significant changes effected by the final ADAAA regulations, and their likely impact on employers, noting where the EEOC has pulled back from positions it took in its proposed regulations.

Read the entire article about the final ADAAA regulations.

Everyone would probably agree that kittens are cute, cuddly and playful. But a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court has made playing with cats more risky for employers.

The case in question, Staub v. Proctor Hospital, involved what is known as the "cat's paw theory" of proving employment discrimination. Under this theory, it is generally recognized that an employer can be liable for employment discrimination even when the person who made the adverse employment decision was unbiased if the decision was influenced by the discriminatory acts and animus of a non-decision maker (such as biased reports of misconduct). The decision maker is considered to be the "paw" of the discriminatory cat. Over the years the courts have differed somewhat in their application of this theory.

Read the entire article.

          On February 24, 2011, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the Department of the Treasury issued final regulations under 31 CFR Part 1010 addressing the reporting of foreign financial accounts and the form used to file these reports (Form TD-F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, which is commonly referred to as the "FBAR" form). While the language in the final regulations is substantially consistent with the proposed FBAR rules that were published one year ago (read our March 10, 2010 summary of the proposed regulations), the FinCEN clarifies and revises certain provisions regarding which persons will be required to report accounts and which accounts will be reportable, as well as any specific exceptions to the filing requirements.

          The final rules are effective March 28, 2011, and apply to FBARs required to be filed by June 30, 2011, for foreign financial accounts maintained in 2010 and for reports required to be filed for all subsequent years. In addition, filers who properly deferred their filing obligations under IRS Notice 2010-23 (which extended the FBAR filing due date from June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2011 for certain groups) may, but are not required to, apply the provisions of the final rule in determining their FBAR filing requirements for reports due June 30, 2011, for foreign financial accounts maintained in years beginning before 2010.

          Note that the regulations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) have been reorganized; therefore, the text of the final FBAR regulations have been renumbered for consistency. The regulations that were originally under 31 CFR 103.24 in their proposed form now appear under 31 CFR 1010.350 as the final regulations.

Applicability to Governmental Pension Plans

          The regulations still exempt governmental pension plans from the FBAR filing requirements. The proposed rules were accompanied by proposed revisions to the FBAR instructions which, among other things, specifically exempted governmental entities from the filing requirements, as follows:

A foreign financial account of any governmental entity is not required to be reported on an FBAR by any person. For purposes of this form, governmental entity includes: (1) a college or university that is an agency or instrumentality of, or owned or operated by, a governmental entity; and (2) an employee retirement or welfare benefit plan of a governmental entity. (Emphasis added.)

          While the FinCEN states in the preamble that the FBAR instructions have been revised to reflect the language adopted in the final regulations, the instructions were not included in the final regulations, and the rules do not explicitly make the above statement. However, when the final FBAR instructions are released, we expect they will include this exemption. In addition, the final rules retain the language from the proposed rules excepting from the filing requirements persons who have a financial interest in or signature or other authority over an account of any State or any political subdivision thereof. 31 CFR 1010.350(c)(4).

          Thus, the rules provide a filing exemption for the accounts of governmental pension plans, both with respect to the plan itself and with respect to the plan's employees with signature authority over foreign investments. The exemption is applicable for accounts held during 2010 and subsequent years. In addition, both pension plan employees with signature authority over accounts but no financial interest in those accounts who took advantage of the extension provided in IRS Notice 2010-23, and pension plans having commingled funds, none of which were mutual funds, which did not file an FBAR for prior years in reliance on Notice 2010-23, may rely on the final regulations to determine whether the delayed filing is now required.

          For more information about FBAR, the final rule, and how the FBAR materials may impact your governmental plan, please contact Mary Beth Braitman, Terry A.M. Mumford, Katrina M. Clingerman,  Lisa Harrison, or your Ice Miller LLP employee benefits attorney.

Earlier this year, the Western Farm Press publication interviewed Roger McEowen, director of Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation (CALT), about his thoughts on the most significant agriculture-related legal developments of 2010.  Many of these involved court decisions while others were legislative or regulatory actions at the federal level.   The list is a diverse one and highlights biotechnology approvals as well as environmental, depreciation, tax, livestock marketing, and food safety issues, among others.  Read the entire list of top 10 farming related law stories of 2010. 

Checking job applicants' credit history, a common screening practice of many employers, has come under attack from state legislatures, private litigants and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  In August 2010, Illinois enacted the Employee Credit Privacy Act, making it the fourth state to ban employers from inquiring about the credit histories of job applicants or employees, or obtaining copies of their credit reports.  Three months later, Loudy Appolon, an applicant for employment at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine, filed a class action lawsuit against the university after it informed her she would not be hired because of her credit history.  Just last month, the EEOC sued Kaplan Higher Education over its use of credit histories in the hiring process.

The common thread binding all of these challenges to the consideration of credit records in the hiring process is the claim that this practice discriminates against African Americans, Hispanics and perhaps other protected groups.

Read the entire article about using credit checks in the hiring process.

Who would imagine that you could, with the magic of the Internet and from the comfort of your living room, sell or buy shares of later stage private companies that you hear about over the Internet (or for some on TV or in old fashioned newspapers or magazines)?  Companies like Groupon, Twitter and Facebook come to mind.

For employees and other owners of promising young companies that are not yet public (or possibly may never be publicly-held), these new online “markets” are a potential source of liquidity.

Read the entire online trading article authored by Ice Miller attorney Joseph DeGroff for Inside INdiana Business.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law No. 111-203 (Dodd-Frank) was signed into law on July 21, 2010.  Among other changes to securities law, Dodd-Frank imposes registration and other obligations, including fiduciary duties, upon municipal advisors who engage in certain activities with respect to "municipal entities."  See Section 975 of Dodd-Frank.  These new obligations include the requirement, which became effective Oct. 1, 2010, to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  In addition, Dodd-Frank grants the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) regulatory authority over municipal advisors, so municipal advisors will be required to comply with the MSRB's registration and other requirements as well as those of the SEC.

Read the entire alert regarding municial advisor registration under Dodd-Frank Act.

The H-1B visa category is the most common classification available to foreign professionals working in the U.S.  This category, however, is subject to an annual quota or "cap" each fiscal year, and based on numbers recently released by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the cap for fiscal year 2011 is expected to be exhausted very soon.  Employers should also note that a revised form for H-1B and certain other nonimmigrant filings requires employers to make attestations regarding "deemed exports" or the release of controlled technology or technical data to foreign nationals.  While the regulations regarding release of this type of information to foreign nationals are not new, employers should review their export control compliance procedures to ensure they have appropriate plans and policies in place to comply with the attestation requirement.

Read the entire article on the H-1B visa.

Employment Laws to Focus on in 2011

Goodbye 2010, hello 2011.  As we settle in to 2011 after a busy holiday season, we must refocus on the year ahead.  For most of us, this time of year brings New Year's resolutions and planning for the upcoming year.  For employers, this time should include reviewing their employment policies and procedures and making any necessary updates to ensure compliance with the various changes in the law that occurred in 2010.

Read the article which provides an overview of some of the employment related statutes and regulations that arose in 2010.

On Dec. 17, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the Act).  Among a variety of other matters, the Act includes an extension of favorable tax treatment relating to certain investments in small businesses made on or before Dec. 31, 2010.  The deadline for such investments to be eligible to receive favorable tax treatment is now Dec. 31, 2011.  

The previously enacted Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 created a temporary exclusion for 100 percent of any gain recognized on the sale of qualified small business stock (QSBS) acquired after Sept. 27, 2010, and before Jan. 1, 2011.  In addition, during this period, the excluded gain is not treated as a preference item for purposes of alternative minimum tax, although other limitations may apply.  The Act results in an extension of a potentially significant federal income tax benefit to non-corporate investors, essentially reducing to zero the federal tax rate for capital gains on QSBS to which the change applies.

Read an overview of the QSBS provisions.

If you have questions regarding the Act or QSBS provisions, please contact Kristine Danz or Janice Wilken.

A new federal rule was proposed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Dec. 21, 2010, that is bound to please unions and trouble employers.  Under the new rule, most private employers would be required to display posters informing workers about their right to form a union, to bargain with their employers, to distribute union literature and to engage in other union activity.  In addition to "posting" the union rights information on bulletin boards and in other prominent locations, the rule would also require employers who communicate by e-mail or other electronic means to post the notice electronically.

The proposed rule comes on the heels of the recess appointment of former union lawyer Craig Becker to the NLRB.  The new rule also comes as unions continue to struggle to reverse a long trend of declining union membership in the private sector.  The latest figures show that just 7.2 percent of private sector employees belong to a union.

The proposed rule could take effect after a 60 day comment period.