XML 28 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.0.814

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies. Automotive Environmental Matters Federal-Mogul is a defendant in lawsuits filed, or the recipient of administrative orders issued or demand letters received, in various jurisdictions pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) or other similar national, provincial or state environmental remedial laws. These laws provide that responsible parties may be liable to pay for remediating contamination resulting from hazardous substances that were discharged into the environment by them, by prior owners or occupants of property they currently own or operate, or by others to whom they sent such substances for treatment or other disposition at third party locations. Federal-Mogul has been notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other national environmental agencies, and various provincial and state agencies that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under such laws for the cost of remediating hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA and other national and state or provincial environmental laws. PRP designation often results in the funding of site investigations and subsequent remedial activities. Many of the sites that are likely to be the costliest to remediate are often current or former commercial waste disposal facilities to which numerous companies sent wastes. Despite the potential joint and several liability that might be imposed on Federal-Mogul under CERCLA and some of the other laws pertaining to these sites, its share of the total waste sent to these sites has generally been small. Federal-Mogul believes its exposure for liability at these sites is limited. Federal-Mogul has also identified certain other present and former properties at which it may be responsible for cleaning up or addressing environmental contamination, in some cases as a result of contractual commitments and/or federal or state environmental laws. Federal-Mogul is actively seeking to resolve these actual and potential statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations. Although difficult to quantify based on the complexity of the issues, Federal-Mogul has accrued amounts corresponding to its best estimate of the costs associated with such regulatory and contractual obligations on the basis of available information from site investigations and best professional judgment of consultants. Total environmental liabilities, determined on an undiscounted basis, were $16 million and $15 million as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Federal-Mogul believes that recorded environmental liabilities will be adequate to cover its estimated liability for its exposure in respect to such matters. In the event that such liabilities were to significantly exceed the amounts recorded by Federal-Mogul, our Automotive segment's results of operations could be materially affected. At September 30, 2015, Federal-Mogul estimates reasonably possible material additional losses, above and beyond its best estimate of required remediation costs as recorded, to approximate $44 million. Asset Retirement Obligations Federal-Mogul has identified sites with contractual obligations and several sites that are closed or expected to be closed and sold. In connection with these sites, Federal-Mogul has accrued $19 million and $24 million as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, for asset retirement obligations ("ARO"), primarily related to anticipated costs of removing hazardous building materials at its facilities, and has considered impairment issues that may result from capitalization of these ARO amounts. Federal-Mogul has conditional asset retirement obligations ("CARO"), primarily related to removal costs of hazardous materials in buildings, for which it believes reasonable cost estimates cannot be made at this time because it does not believe it has a reasonable basis to assign probabilities to a range of potential settlement dates for these retirement obligations. Accordingly, Federal-Mogul is currently unable to determine amounts to accrue for CARO at such sites. Other Matters On April 25, 2014, a group of plaintiffs brought an action against Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. (“F-M Products”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Federal-Mogul, alleging injuries and damages associated with the discharge of chlorinated hydrocarbons by the former owner of a facility located in Kentucky. Since 1998, when F-M Products acquired the facility, it has been cooperating with the applicable regulatory agencies on remediating the prior discharges pursuant to an order entered into by the facility’s former owner. Federal-Mogul is unable to estimate any reasonably possible range of loss for reasons including that the plaintiffs did not claim any amount of damages in their complaint. F-M Products intends to vigorously defend this litigation. Energy Unconditional Purchase Obligations CVR leases various equipment, including railcars, and real properties under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 lease expense was $7 million and $7 million, respectively. The lease agreements have various remaining terms. Some agreements are renewable, at CVR's option, for additional periods. It is expected, in the ordinary course of business, that leases will be renewed or replaced as they expire. Additionally, in the normal course of business, CVR has long-term commitments to purchase oxygen, nitrogen, electricity, storage capacity and pipeline transportation services. Crude Oil Supply Agreement On August 31, 2012, Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC ("CRRM"), and Vitol Inc. ("Vitol") entered into an Amended and Restated Crude Oil Supply Agreement (as amended, the "Vitol Agreement"). Under the Vitol Agreement, Vitol supplies the petroleum business with crude oil and intermediation logistics, which helps to reduce the CVR Refining's inventory position and mitigate crude oil pricing risk. The Vitol Agreement will automatically renew for successive one-year terms (each such term, a "Renewal Term") unless either party provides the other with notice of nonrenewal at least 180 days prior to the expiration of any Renewal Term. The Vitol Agreement currently extends through December 31, 2016. Litigation From time to time, CVR is involved in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including matters such as those described below under "Environmental, Health and Safety Matters." Liabilities related to such litigation are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. It is possible that management’s estimates of the outcomes will change due to uncertainties inherent in litigation and settlement negotiations. Except as described below for our Energy segment, there were no new proceedings or material developments in proceedings that we previously reported in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 ("2014 Form 10-K") and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015 ("2015 Form 10-Qs"). In the opinion of CVR's management, the ultimate resolution of any other litigation matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that management’s beliefs or opinions with respect to liability for potential litigation matters are accurate. As previously disclosed in our 2014 Form 10-K, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS”) and Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. (“DB”) both filed suit against CVR in state court in New York in 2012, alleging that CVR failed to pay them fees allegedly due by CVR pursuant to an engagement letters in which GS and DB were engaged to assist CVR and the CVR board of directors in connection with a tender offer for CVR’s stock, made by Carl C. Icahn and certain of his affiliates. In September of 2014, judgment was entered against CVR in both cases. CVR appealed, and subsequently paid both judgments, subject to a right of refund if successful on appeal. In October 2015, CVR entered into settlement agreements with each of GS and DB pursuant to which (i) CVR received settlement proceeds, (ii) the parties executed a mutual release and (iii) CVR’s appeals have been dismissed. The settlements did not have a material effect on our condensed consolidated financial statements. Rentech Nitrogen Mergers Litigation On August 29, 2015, Mike Mustard, a purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC and the members of the Rentech Nitrogen Board, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Mustard Lawsuit”). The Mustard Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the consideration offered by CVR Partners is unfair and inadequate and that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process, certain of the defendants have breached their duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, and are engaging in self-dealing. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants: (i) failed to take steps to maximize the value of Rentech Nitrogen to its public shareholders, (ii) failed to properly value Rentech Nitrogen, and (iii) ignored or did not protect against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed transaction. The Mustard Lawsuit also alleges that Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC aided and abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties. On October 6, 2015, Jesse Sloan, a purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, CVR Partners and the members of the Rentech Nitrogen Board, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Sloan Lawsuit”). The Sloan Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the attempted sale of Rentech Nitrogen to CVR Partners was conducted by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that (i) Rentech Nitrogen GP and the Rentech Nitrogen Board breached their obligations under the partnership agreement and their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by causing Rentech Nitrogen to enter into the merger agreement and failing to disclose material information to unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen, (ii) the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated fiduciary duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen based primarily on allegations of inadequate consideration, restrictive deal protection devices and improper disclosure, (iii) each of the defendants aided and abetted in the foregoing breaches described in items (i) and (ii), and (iv) Rentech Nitrogen and the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 thereunder based on improper disclosure contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-206982), which was filed with the SEC by CVR Partners on September 17, 2015. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these actions seek to enjoin the mergers and seek unspecified money damages. The lawsuits are at a preliminary state, and the outcome of any such litigation is uncertain. An adverse ruling in these actions may cause the mergers to be delayed or not be completed, which could cause the CVR Partners not to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of the mergers. No amounts have been recognized in our condensed consolidated financial statements regarding the lawsuits. Flood, Crude Oil Discharge and Insurance As previously disclosed in our 2014 Form 10-K and the 2015 Form 10-Qs, CRRM filed a lawsuit against certain of its environmental insurance carriers requesting insurance coverage indemnification for the June/July 2007 flood and crude oil discharge losses at CRRM’s Coffeyville refinery. During the second quarter of 2015, CRRM entered into a settlement agreement and release with the insurance carriers involved in the lawsuit, pursuant to which (i) CRRM received settlement proceeds of $31 million, (ii) the parties mutually released each other from all claims relating to the flood and crude oil discharge and (iii) all pending appeals have been dismissed. Of the settlement proceeds received, $27 million were recorded as a flood insurance recovery in the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2015. The remaining $4 million of settlement proceeds reduced CVR Refining's $4 million receivable related to this matter which was included in other assets as of December 31, 2014. Environmental, Health and Safety Matters ("EHS") The petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are subject to various stringent federal, state, and local EHS rules and regulations. Liabilities related to EHS matters are recognized when the related costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of these costs are based upon currently available facts, existing technology, site-specific costs, and currently enacted laws and regulations. In reporting EHS liabilities, no offset is made for potential recoveries. CRRM, CRNF, Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC ("CRCT"), Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC ("WRC") and Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC ("CRT") own and/or operate manufacturing and ancillary operations at various locations directly related to petroleum refining and distribution and nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing. Therefore, CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT have exposure to potential EHS liabilities related to past and present EHS conditions at these locations. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and related state laws, certain persons may be liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. These persons can include the current owner or operator of property where a release or threatened release occurred, any persons who owned or operated the property when the release occurred, and any persons who disposed of, or arranged for the transportation or disposal of, hazardous substances at a contaminated property. Liability under CERCLA is strict, and under certain circumstances, joint and several, so that any responsible party may be held liable for the entire cost of investigating and remediating the release of hazardous substances. Similarly, the Oil Pollution Act generally subjects owners and operators of facilities to strict, joint and several liability for all containment and clean-up costs, natural resource damages, and potential governmental oversight costs arising from oil spills into the waters of the United States, which has been broadly interpreted to include most water bodies including intermittent streams. CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT are subject to extensive and frequently changing federal, state and local environmental and health and safety laws and regulations governing the emission and release of hazardous substances into the environment, the treatment and discharge of waste water, and the storage, handling, use and transportation of petroleum and nitrogen products, and the characteristics and composition of gasoline and diesel fuels. The ultimate impact of complying with evolving laws and regulations is not always clearly known or determinable due in part to the fact that their operations may change over time and certain implementing regulations for laws, such as the federal Clean Air Act, have not yet been finalized, are under governmental or judicial review or are being revised. These laws and regulations could result in increased capital, operating and compliance costs. As previously reported, the petroleum and nitrogen fertilizer businesses are party to, or otherwise subject to administrative orders and consent decrees with federal, state and local environmental authorities, as applicable, addressing corrective actions under RCRA, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The petroleum business also is subject to (i) the Mobile Source Air Toxic II ("MSAT II") rule which requires reductions of benzene in gasoline; (ii) the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS"), which requires refiners to either blend "renewable fuels" in with their transportation fuels or purchase renewable fuel credits, known as RINs, in lieu of blending; and (iii) "Tier 3" gasoline sulfur standards. Except as otherwise described below, there have been no new developments or material changes to the environmental accruals or expected capital expenditures related to compliance with the foregoing environmental matters from those provided in our 2014 Form 10-K and the 2015 Form 10-Qs. CRRM, CRNF, CRCT, WRC and CRT each believe it is in substantial compliance with existing EHS rules and regulations. There can be no assurance that the EHS matters described or referenced herein or other EHS matters which may develop in the future will not have a material adverse effect on our Energy segment's business, financial condition, or results of operations. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our Energy segment had environmental accruals of $3 million and $1 million, respectively. CVR's management periodically reviews and, as appropriate, revises its environmental accruals. Based on current information and regulatory requirements, CVR's management believes that the accruals established for environmental expenditures are adequate. Environmental expenditures are capitalized when such expenditures are expected to result in future economic benefits. For the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, capital expenditures were $9 million and $23 million, respectively, and were incurred for environmental compliance and efficiency of the operations. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, environmental compliance and efficiency capital expenditures were $27 million and $83 million, respectively. The cost of RINs for the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 was $19 million and $19 million, respectively, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, the cost of RINs were $93 million and $82 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the petroleum business' biofuel blending obligation was $21 million and $52 million, respectively, which was recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Metals Environmental Matters Certain of PSC Metals' facilities are environmentally impaired in part as a result of operating practices at the sites prior to their acquisition by PSC Metals and as a result of PSC Metals' operations. PSC Metals has established procedures to periodically evaluate these sites, giving consideration to the nature and extent of the contamination. PSC Metals has provided for the remediation of these sites based upon management's judgment and prior experience. PSC Metals has estimated the liability to remediate these sites to be $28 million and $28 million at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. Management believes, based on past experience, that the vast majority of these environmental liabilities and costs will be assessed and paid over an extended period of time. PSC Metals believes that it will be able to fund such costs in the ordinary course of business. Estimates of PSC Metals' liability for remediation of a particular site and the method and ultimate cost of remediation require a number of assumptions that are inherently difficult to make, and the ultimate outcome may be materially different from current estimates. Moreover, because PSC Metals has disposed of waste materials at numerous third-party disposal facilities, it is possible that PSC Metals will be identified as a PRP at additional sites. The impact of such future events cannot be estimated at the current time. PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws with respect to certain sites with which PSC Metals may have had a direct or indirect involvement. It is alleged that PSC Metals and its subsidiaries or their predecessors transported waste to the sites, disposed of waste at the sites or operated the sites in question. In addition, PSC Metals' Knoxville location was the subject of investigations by the State of Tennessee under the federal Superfund law. These investigations were performed by the State of Tennessee pursuant to a contract with the EPA. PSC Metals is exploring a potential settlement of the matter. Currently, PSC Metals cannot assess the impact of any cost or liability associated with these investigations. With respect to all other matters in which PSC Metals has been designated as a PRP under U.S. federal and state superfund laws, PSC Metals has reviewed the nature and extent of the allegations, the number, connection and financial ability of other named and unnamed PRPs and the nature and estimated cost of the likely remedy. Based on reviewing the nature and extent of the allegations, PSC Metals has estimated its liability to remediate these sites to be immaterial at each of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014. If it is determined that PSC Metals has liability to remediate those sites and that more expensive remediation approaches are required in the future, PSC Metals could incur additional obligations, which could be material. In November and December of 2011, PSC Metals received three notices of violation ("NOV") from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”) for hazardous waste and water violations related to its Festus, Missouri location. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement with MDNR that resolves these NOVs. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has established adequate reserves for the cost of this settlement. In addition, PSC Metals believes that it has a claim for indemnification against the prior owner of the facility associated with the above-referenced notices of violation. MDNR and PSC Metals, as part of the resolution of MDNR's NOVs, have undertaken sampling for lead at residences near PSC Metals' Festus yard. Approximately 67 residences were sampled and tested, and of those, approximately 15 tested above residential standards for lead contamination. PSC Metals has entered into a settlement agreement with MDNR which resolves MNDR’s claims and requires limited soil remediation at the 15 residences. PSC Metals is in the process of completing the final stages of the remediation required by the settlement agreement. Currently, PSC Metals believes that it has adequately reserved for the cost of remediation associated with its Festus yard and the residential areas near the yard. However, PSC Metals cannot assess its liability with certainty at this time. Additionally, PSC Metals believes that liability for off-site contamination was retained by the prior owner of the Festus yard and accordingly, it would have a claim for indemnification against the prior owner. Railcar On October 24, 2014, ARI filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Gyansys, Inc. ("Gyansys"). The complaint asserts a claim against Gyansys for breaching its contract with ARI to implement an enterprise resource planning system. ARI seeks to recover monetary damages in an amount still to be determined, but which ARI alleged exceeds $25 million. Gyansys filed a response to the suit denying its responsibility. It also counterclaimed against ARI for a breach of contract and wrongful termination, seeking damages in excess of $10 million and equitable relief. At this time, ARI does not have sufficient information to reasonably form an estimate of the potential outcome (gain or loss) of this litigation. On September 9, 2015, the court denied ARI's motion to dismiss the wrongful termination counterclaim. However, ARI continues to believe that Gyansys' counterclaims lack merit and will continue to vigorously defend against these counterclaims. Other Matters Pension Obligations Mr. Icahn, through certain affiliates, owns 100% of Icahn Enterprises GP and approximately 88.8% of Icahn Enterprises' outstanding depositary units as of September 30, 2015. Applicable pension and tax laws make each member of a “controlled group” of entities, generally defined as entities in which there is at least an 80% common ownership interest, jointly and severally liable for certain pension plan obligations of any member of the controlled group. These pension obligations include ongoing contributions to fund the plan, as well as liability for any unfunded liabilities that may exist at the time the plan is terminated. In addition, the failure to pay these pension obligations when due may result in the creation of liens in favor of the pension plan or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") against the assets of each member of the controlled group. As a result of the more than 80% ownership interest in us by Mr. Icahn’s affiliates, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. As a result of our ownership of more than 80% in our subsidiaries, we and our subsidiaries are subject to the pension liabilities of all entities in which Mr. Icahn has a direct or indirect ownership interest of at least 80%. ACF and Federal-Mogul, are the sponsors of several pension plans. All the minimum funding requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for these plans have been met as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014. If the plans were voluntarily terminated, they would be underfunded by approximately $623 million and $474 million as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. These results are based on the most recent information provided by the plans’ actuaries. These liabilities could increase or decrease, depending on a number of factors, including future changes in benefits, investment returns, and the assumptions used to calculate the liability. As members of the controlled group, we would be liable for any failure of ACF and Federal-Mogul to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon a termination of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul. In addition, other entities now or in the future within the controlled group in which we are included may have pension plan obligations that are, or may become, underfunded and we would be liable for any failure of such entities to make ongoing pension contributions or to pay the unfunded liabilities upon termination of such plans. The current underfunded status of the pension plans of ACF and Federal-Mogul requires them to notify the PBGC of certain “reportable events,” such as if we cease to be a member of the ACF and Federal-Mogul controlled group, or if we make certain extraordinary dividends or stock redemptions. The obligation to report could cause us to seek to delay or reconsider the occurrence of such reportable events. Starfire Holding Corporation ("Starfire") which is 99.4% owned by Mr. Icahn, has undertaken to indemnify us and our subsidiaries from losses resulting from any imposition of certain pension funding or termination liabilities that may be imposed on us and our subsidiaries or our assets as a result of being a member of the Icahn controlled group. The Starfire indemnity (which does not extend to pension liabilities of our subsidiaries that would be imposed on us as a result of our interest in these subsidiaries and not as a result of Mr. Icahn and his affiliates holding more than an 80% ownership interest in us, and as such would not extend to the unfunded pension termination liability for Federal-Mogul) provides, among other things, that so long as such contingent liabilities exist and could be imposed on us, Starfire will not make any distributions to its stockholders that would reduce its net worth to below $250 million. Nonetheless, Starfire may not be able to fund its indemnification obligations to us.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration