XML 32 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES FirstEnergy has various financial and performance guarantees and indemnifications which are issued in the normal course of business. These contracts include performance guarantees, stand-by letters of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds and indemnifications. FirstEnergy enters into these arrangements to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties by enhancing the value of the transaction to the third party. As of June 30, 2020, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $1.7 billion, consisting of parental guarantees on behalf of its consolidated subsidiaries ($1.0 billion), other guarantees ($114 million) and other assurances ($503 million). COLLATERAL AND CONTINGENT-RELATED FEATURES In the normal course of business, FE and its subsidiaries may enter into physical or financially settled contracts for the sale and purchase of electric capacity, energy, fuel and emission allowances. Certain agreements contain provisions that require FE or its subsidiaries to post collateral. This collateral may be posted in the form of cash or credit support with thresholds contingent upon FE’s or its subsidiaries’ credit rating from each of the major credit rating agencies. The collateral and credit support requirements vary by contract and by counterparty. Certain agreements entered into by FE and its subsidiaries have margining provisions that require posting of collateral. As of June 30, 2020, $1 million of collateral has been posted by FE or its subsidiaries. These credit-risk-related contingent features stipulate that if the subsidiary were to be downgraded or lose its investment grade credit rating (based on its senior unsecured debt rating), it would be required to provide additional collateral. The following table discloses the potential additional credit rating contingent contractual collateral obligations as of June 30, 2020:
Potential Collateral Obligations |  |  |  |  |  | Utilities and FET |  | FE |  | Total
|  |  | (In millions) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Contractual Obligations for Additional Collateral |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Upon Further Downgrade |  |  |  |  |  | $ | 47 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 47 |
Surety Bonds (Collateralized Amount) (1) |  |  |  |  |  | 66 |  |  | 257 |  |  | 323 |
Total Exposure from Contractual Obligations |  |  |  |  |  | $ | 113 |  |  | $ | 257 |  |  | $ | 370 |
(1)Surety Bonds are not tied to a credit rating. Surety Bonds’ impact assumes maximum contractual obligations (typical obligations require 30 days to cure). OTHER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES FE is a guarantor under a $120 million syndicated senior secured term loan facility due November 12, 2024, under which Global Holding’s outstanding principal balance is $114 million as of June 30, 2020. In addition to FE, Signal Peak, Global Rail, Global Mining Group, LLC and Global Coal Sales Group, LLC, each being a direct or indirect subsidiary of Global Holding, continue to provide their joint and several guaranties of the obligations of Global Holding under the facility. In connection with the facility, 69.99% of Global Holding’s direct and indirect membership interests in Signal Peak, Global Rail and their affiliates along with FEV’s and WMB Marketing Ventures, LLC’s respective 33-1/3% membership interests in Global Holding, are pledged to the lenders under the current facility as collateral. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water quality, hazardous and solid waste disposal, and other environmental matters. While FirstEnergy’s environmental policies and procedures are designed to achieve compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, such laws and regulations are subject to periodic review and potential revision by the implementing agencies. FirstEnergy cannot predict the timing or ultimate outcome of any of these reviews or how any future actions taken as a result thereof may materially impact its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. Clean Air Act FirstEnergy complies with SO2 and NOx emission reduction requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, utilizing combustion controls and post-combustion controls and/or using emission allowances. CSAPR requires reductions of NOx and SO2 emissions in two phases (2015 and 2017), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.4 million tons annually and NOx emissions to 1.2 million tons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances with some restrictions. The D.C. Circuit ordered the EPA on July 28, 2015, to reconsider the CSAPR caps on NOx and SO2 emissions from power plants in 13 states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. This follows the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling generally upholding the EPA’s regulatory approach under CSAPR, but questioning whether the EPA required upwind states to reduce emissions by more than their contribution to air pollution in downwind states. The EPA issued a CSAPR update rule on September 7, 2016, reducing summertime NOx emissions from power plants in 22 states in the eastern U.S., including Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, beginning in 2017. Various states and other stakeholders appealed the CSAPR update rule to the D.C. Circuit in November and December 2016. On September 6, 2017, the D.C. Circuit rejected the industry’s bid for a lengthy pause in the litigation and set a briefing schedule. On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit remanded the CSAPR update rule to the EPA citing that the rule did not eliminate upwind states’ significant contributions to downwind states’ air quality attainment requirements within applicable attainment deadlines. Depending on the outcome of the appeals, the EPA’s reconsideration of the CSAPR update rule and how the EPA and the states ultimately implement CSAPR, the future cost of compliance may materially impact FirstEnergy’s operations, cash flows and financial condition. In February 2019, the EPA announced its final decision to retain without changes the NAAQS for SO2, specifically retaining the 2010 primary (health-based) 1-hour standard of 75 PPB. As of June 30, 2020, FirstEnergy has no power plants operating in areas designated as non-attainment by the EPA. In August 2016, the State of Delaware filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that the Harrison generating facility’s NOx emissions significantly contribute to Delaware’s inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition sought a short-term NOx emission rate limit of 0.125 lb./mmBTU over an averaging period of no more than 24 hours. In November 2016, the State of Maryland filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that NOx emissions from 36 EGUs, including Harrison Units 1, 2 and 3, significantly contribute to Maryland’s inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition sought NOx emission rate limits for the 36 EGUs by May 1, 2017. On September 14, 2018, the EPA denied both the States of Delaware and Maryland’s petitions under CAA Section 126. In October 2018, Delaware and Maryland appealed the denials of their petitions to the D.C. Circuit. In March 2018, the State of New York filed a CAA Section 126 petition with the EPA alleging that NOx emissions from nine states (including West Virginia) significantly contribute to New York’s inability to attain the ozone NAAQS. The petition seeks suitable emission rate limits for large stationary sources that are affecting New York’s air quality within the three years allowed by CAA Section 126. On May 3, 2018, the EPA extended the time frame for acting on the CAA Section 126 petition by six months to November 9, 2018. On September 20, 2019, the EPA denied New York’s CAA Section 126 petition. On October 29, 2019, the State of New York appealed the denial of its petition to the D.C. Circuit. On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the EPA’s denial of the Delaware petition and affirmed in part the denial of Maryland petition deferring to the EPA’s finding that upwind sources with SCR controls, including Harrison, are already optimizing their use and therefore it is not cost effective to require additional control measures. Thus, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeals filed by the States of Delaware and Maryland as to Harrison. The D.C. Circuit Court remanded to the EPA the issue raised in the Maryland petition, of whether EGU’s in upwind states utilizing SNCR controls could increase operating time thereby reducing NOx emissions that may impact downwind states’ ozone compliance. On July 14, 2020, the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded the New York petition to the EPA for further consideration. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the loss or range of loss. Climate Change There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions at the state, federal and international level. Certain northeastern states are participating in the RGGI and western states led by California, have implemented programs, primarily cap and trade mechanisms, to control emissions of certain GHGs. Additional policies reducing GHG emissions, such as demand reduction programs, renewable portfolio standards and renewable subsidies have been implemented across the nation. At the international level, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change resulted in the Kyoto Protocol requiring participating countries, which does not include the U.S., to reduce GHGs commencing in 2008 and has been extended through 2020. The Obama Administration submitted in March 2015, a formal pledge for the U.S. to reduce its economy-wide GHG emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. In 2015, FirstEnergy set a goal of reducing company-wide CO2 emissions by at least 90 percent below 2005 levels by 2045. As of December 31, 2018, FirstEnergy has reduced its CO2 emissions by approximately 62 percent. In September 2016, the U.S. joined in adopting the agreement reached on December 12, 2015, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings in Paris. The Paris Agreement’s non-binding obligations to limit global warming to below two degrees Celsius became effective on November 4, 2016. On June 1, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the Paris Agreement. FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO2 emissions, or litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require material capital and other expenditures or result in changes to its operations. In December 2009, the EPA released its final “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for GHG under the Clean Air Act” concluding that concentrations of several key GHGs constitutes an “endangerment” and may be regulated as “air pollutants” under the CAA and mandated measurement and reporting of GHG emissions from certain sources, including electric generating plants. The EPA released its final CPP regulations in August 2015 to reduce CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs and finalized separate regulations imposing CO2 emission limits for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel fired EGUs. Numerous states and private parties filed appeals and motions to stay the CPP with the D.C. Circuit in October 2015. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the rule during the pendency of the challenges to the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. On March 28, 2017, an executive order, entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” instructed the EPA to review the CPP and related rules addressing GHG emissions and suspend, revise or rescind the rules if appropriate. On October 16, 2017, the EPA issued a proposed rule to repeal the CPP. To replace the CPP, the EPA proposed the ACE rule on August 21, 2018, which would establish emission guidelines for states to develop plans to address GHG emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. On June 19, 2019, the EPA repealed the CPP and replaced it with the ACE rule that establishes guidelines for states to develop standards of performance to address GHG emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. Depending on the outcomes of further appeals and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, the future cost of compliance may be material. Clean Water Act Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal CWA and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy’s facilities. In addition, the states in which FirstEnergy operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy’s operations. The EPA finalized CWA Section 316(b) regulations in May 2014, requiring cooling water intake structures with an intake velocity greater than 0.5 feet per second to reduce fish impingement when aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system to a 12% annual average and requiring cooling water intake structures exceeding 125 million gallons per day to conduct studies to determine site-specific controls, if any, to reduce entrainment, which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facility’s cooling water system. Depending on any final action taken by the states with respect to impingement and entrainment, the future capital costs of compliance with these standards may be material. On September 30, 2015, the EPA finalized new, more stringent effluent limits for the Steam Electric Power Generating category (40 CFR Part 423) for arsenic, mercury, selenium and nitrogen for wastewater from wet scrubber systems and zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water. The treatment obligations phase-in as permits are renewed on a five-year cycle from 2018 to 2023. On April 13, 2017, the EPA granted a Petition for Reconsideration and on September 18, 2017, the EPA postponed certain compliance deadlines for two years. On November 4, 2019, the EPA issued a proposed rule revising the effluent limits for discharges from wet scrubber systems and extending the deadline for compliance to December 31, 2025. The EPA’s proposed rule retains the zero discharge standard and 2023 compliance date for ash transport water, but adds some allowances for discharge under certain circumstances. In addition, the EPA allows for less stringent limits for sub-categories of generating units based on capacity utilization, flow volume from the scrubber system, and unit retirement date. Depending on the outcome of appeals and how any final rules are ultimately implemented, the future costs of compliance with these standards may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergy’s operations may result. On September 29, 2016, FirstEnergy received a request from the EPA for information pursuant to CWA Section 308(a) for information concerning boron exceedances of effluent limitations established in the NPDES Permit for the former Mitchell Power Station’s Mingo landfill, owned by WP. On November 1, 2016, WP provided an initial response that contained information related to a similar boron issue at the former Springdale Power Station’s landfill. The EPA requested additional information regarding the Springdale landfill and on November 15, 2016, WP provided a response and intends to fully comply with the Section 308(a) information request. On March 3, 2017, WP proposed to the PA DEP a re-route of its wastewater discharge to eliminate potential boron exceedances at the Springdale landfill. On January 29, 2018, WP submitted an NPDES permit renewal application to PA DEP proposing to re-route its wastewater discharge to eliminate potential boron exceedances at the Mingo landfill. On February 20, 2018, the DOJ issued a letter and tolling agreement on behalf of EPA alleging violations of the CWA at the Mingo landfill while seeking to enter settlement negotiations in lieu of filing a complaint. The EPA has proposed a penalty of $900,000 to settle alleged past boron exceedances at the Mingo and Springdale landfills. Negotiations are continuing and WP is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Regulation of Waste Disposal Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the RCRA, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Certain CCRs, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste disposal requirements pending the EPA’s evaluation of the need for future regulation. In April 2015, the EPA finalized regulations for the disposal of CCRs (non-hazardous), establishing national standards for landfill design, structural integrity design and assessment criteria for surface impoundments, groundwater monitoring and protection procedures and other operational and reporting procedures to assure the safe disposal of CCRs from electric generating plants. On September 13, 2017, the EPA announced that it would reconsider certain provisions of the final regulations. On July 17, 2018, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule extending the deadline for certain CCR facilities to cease disposal and commence closure activities, as well as, establishing less stringent groundwater monitoring and protection requirements. On August 21, 2018, the D.C. Circuit remanded sections of the CCR Rule to the EPA to provide additional safeguards for unlined CCR impoundments that are more protective of human health and the environment. On December 2, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule accelerating the date that certain CCR impoundments must cease accepting waste and initiate closure to August 31, 2020. The proposed rule allows for an extension of the closure deadline based on meeting proscribed site-specific criteria. On July 29, 2020, the EPA published a final rule revising the date that certain CCR impoundments must cease accepting waste and initiate closure to April 11, 2021. The final rule allows for an extension of the closure deadline based on meeting proscribed site-specific criteria. FE or its subsidiaries have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may require cleanup under the CERCLA. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2020, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, FirstEnergy’s proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $104 million have been accrued through June 30, 2020. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately $68 million for environmental remediation of former MGP and gas holder facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC. FE or its subsidiaries could be found potentially responsible for additional amounts or additional sites, but the loss or range of losses cannot be determined or reasonably estimated at this time. OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS United States v. Larry Householder, et al On July 21, 2020, a complaint and supporting affidavit containing federal criminal allegations were unsealed against the now former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and other individuals and entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Householder. Also, on July 21, 2020, and in connection with the investigation, FirstEnergy received subpoenas for records from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the S.D. Ohio. FirstEnergy was not aware of the criminal allegations, affidavit or subpoenas before July 21, 2020. FirstEnergy is cooperating fully in the investigation. No contingency has been reflected in FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements as a loss is neither probable, nor is a loss or range of a loss reasonably estimable. Legal Proceedings Relating to United States v. Larry Householder, et al In addition to the subpoenas referenced above under “—United States v. Larry Householder, et. al,”, certain FE stockholders and FirstEnergy customers filed several lawsuits against FirstEnergy and certain current and former directors, officers and other employees, and the complaints in each of these suits is related to allegations in the complaint and supporting affidavit relating to Ohio House Bill 6 and the now former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and other individuals and entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Householder. •Gendrich v. Anderson, et al and Sloan v. Anderson, et al (Common Pleas Court, Summit County, OH); on July 26, 2020 and July 31, 2020, respectively, purported stockholders of FE filed shareholder derivative action lawsuits against certain FE directors and officers, alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty. •Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio); on July 27, 2020, a purported customer of FirstEnergy filed a putative class action lawsuit against FE and FESC, alleging civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations. •Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio); on July 28, 2020, a purported stockholder of FE filed a putative class action lawsuit against FE and certain FE officers, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of FE common stock from February 21, 2017 through July 21, 2020, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by FirstEnergy concerning its business and results of operations. •Buldas v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al and Hudock and Cameo Countertops, Inc. v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio); on July 31, 2020 and August 5, 2020, respectively, purported customers of FirstEnergy filed putative class action lawsuits against FE and FESC alleging civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Ohio Corrupt Activity Act. •Emmons v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al (Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, OH); on August 4, 2020, a purported customer of FirstEnergy filed a putative class action lawsuit against FE, FESC, OE, TE and CEI, alleging several causes of action, including negligence and/or gross negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair or deceptive consumer acts or practices. •Miller v. Anderson, et al (Federal District Court, N.D. Ohio); on August 7, 2020, a purported stockholder of FE filed a shareholder derivative action lawsuit against certain FE directors and officers, alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs in each of the above cases, seek, among other things, to recover an unspecified amount of damages. The Ohio Attorney General may be considering legal action and, in a letter dated July 24, 2020, notified FE of its duty to not destroy documents in its custody or control regarding Ohio House Bill 6. The outcome of any of these lawsuits is uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on FE’s or its subsidiaries’ financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. No contingency has been reflected in FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements as a loss is neither probable, nor is a loss or range of a loss reasonably estimable. Nuclear Plant Matters Under NRC regulations, JCP&L, ME and PN must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission their retired nuclear facility, TMI-2. As of June 30, 2020, JCP&L, ME and PN had in total approximately $882 million invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of their retired TMI-2 nuclear generating facility. The values of these NDTs also fluctuate based on market conditions. If the values of the trusts decline by a material amount, the obligation to JCP&L, ME and PN to fund the trusts may increase. Disruptions in the capital markets and their effects on particular businesses and the economy could also affect the values of the NDTs. On October 15, 2019, JCP&L, ME, PN and GPUN executed an asset purchase and sale agreement with TMI-2 Solutions, LLC, a subsidiary of EnergySolutions, LLC, concerning the transfer and dismantlement of TMI-2. This transfer of TMI-2 to TMI-2 Solutions, LLC will include the transfer of: (i) the ownership and operating NRC licenses for TMI-2; (ii) the external trusts for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of TMI-2; and (iii) related liabilities of approximately $900 million as of June 30, 2020. There can be no assurance that the transfer will receive the required regulatory approvals and, even if approved, whether the conditions to the closing of the transfer will be satisfied. On November 12, 2019, JCP&L filed a Petition with the NJBPU seeking approval of the transfer and sale of JCP&L’s entire 25% interest in TMI-2 to TMI-2 Solutions, LLC. Also on November 12, 2019, JCP&L, ME, PN, GPUN and TMI-2 Solutions, LLC filed an application with the NRC seeking approval to transfer the NRC license for TMI-2 to TMI-2 Solutions, LLC. On Monday, August 10, 2020, JCP&L, ME, PN, GPUN, TMI-2 Solutions, LLC, and the PA DEP reached a settlement agreement regarding the decommissioning of TMI-2. The settlement agreement provides for increased and detailed oversight by the PA DEP over the decommissioning work, expenditures, and environmental impacts of the dismantlement of TMI-2 by TMI-2 Solutions, LLC. In addition, the PA DEP withdrew its objection to the TMI-2 transfer in the NRC proceedings. Both the NRC and NJBPU proceedings are ongoing. Assets and liabilities held for sale on the FirstEnergy Consolidated Balance Sheet associated with the transaction consist of asset retirement obligations of $709 million, NDTs of $882 million as well as property, plant and equipment with a net book value of zero, which are included in the regulated distribution segment. FES Bankruptcy On March 31, 2018, FES, including its consolidated subsidiaries, FG, NG, FE Aircraft Leasing Corp., Norton Energy Storage L.L.C. and FGMUC, and FENOC filed voluntary petitions for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court and emerged on February 27, 2020. See Note 3, “Discontinued Operations,” for additional discussion. Other Legal Matters There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy’s normal business operations pending against FE or its subsidiaries. The loss or range of loss in these matters is not expected to be material to FE or its subsidiaries. The other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described under Note 9, “Regulatory Matters.” FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. In cases where FirstEnergy determines that it is not probable, but reasonably possible that it has a material obligation, it discloses such obligations and the possible loss or range of loss if such estimate can be made. If it were ultimately determined that FE or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise made subject to liability based on any of the matters referenced above, it could have a material adverse effect on FE’s or its subsidiaries’ financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration