Tag: Regulatory

Watt’s New? Michigan Energy Newsletter – May 2013

Varnum LLP

New DTE Electric PPAs for Wind Energy

Two 20-year power purchase agreements (PPAs) between DTE Electric and Pheasant Run Wind, LLC and Pheasant Run Wind II, LLC received ex parte approval from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) on May 15, 2013. Each PPA is for 74.8 MW of wind energy for projects in Michigan’s Thumb region. Also approved was an option agreement wherein DTE Electric can purchase the Pheasant Run Wind II project. This option expires on March 31, 2014. These contracts resulted from unsolicited proposals from Next Era Resources on a timetable which would qualify for production tax credit benefits. The price in each PPA is “up to” $49.25 per MW hour (4.925¢ kWh). The average net capacity factor is estimated to be 43%. Geronimo Energy LLC attempted to intervene at the MPSC, arguing that its 100 MW Apple Blossom Wind Project in Huron County was a competing proposal that would pass through the same tax benefit. Its request that DTE Electric be made to undertake a competitive bidding process was rejected and its petition was denied.

Five Ethanol Plants in Michigan

Michigan has five corn ethanol refineries. In 2008 it appeared there would be six more, but ultimately the demand for ethanol in Michigan did not justify 11 facilities. The operating plants are in Riga Township, Albion, Caro, Marysville, and Lake Odessa. Generally they have 40-50 employees, each with a capacity between 50-60 million gallons per year. Total ethanol production in the state is approximately 240 million gallons per year.

Offshore Team Sails to Cleveland

Muskegon-based Andrie Inc. has been hired to assist in the development of an offshore wind energy project in Lake Erie. The company’s 90’ by 50’ jack-up barge recently traveled to Cleveland to assist in lake bottom sediment testing seven to nine miles offshore. A jack-up barge is a floating platform with long poles in each of the four corners that can be lowered into the water down to the lake bottom to secure the platform above the water surface. LEEDCo, a public-private partnership, is developing a 27 MW, five to nine turbine offshore project.

Energy Forum Update

Initial review and gap analysis of the information presented at the seven energy forums and on line is now being conducted. It is expected that the gap analysis will be complete by the end of May. The month of June will see an effort to fill in the gaps. By the end of June it is expected everything needed for reports will be in hand. Draft reports are targeted for the end of September, with public comment beginning as early as mid-October.

Nuclear Plant Off-Line Again

The Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in Covert has been shut down due to a water leakage issue in the Safety Injection Refueling Water Tank. The leak was estimated to be 34 gallons per day, with 79 gallons of slightly radioactive water having drained into Lake Michigan. A half-inch crack about the width of a thumbnail is believed to have been the source of the leak. Entergy Corporation, a New Orleans-based company, owns and operates the Palisades facility and has a 15-year power purchase agreement with Consumers Energy that will expire in 2021.

43 Degrees North @ Muskegon

The Michigan Energy and Technology Center has been formed by a consortium of companies to generate economic activity in the state. The founding members of the group include Consumers Energy, Energetx Composites LLC, Rockford Berge, Sand Products Co., and Verplank Dock Co. Initial affiliate members are Astraeus Wind Energy Inc. and Ventower Industries. The group will initially focus on two projects. The first is to enhance the infrastructure at the Port of Muskegon, the only deep water port on the Michigan side of Lake Michigan. In support of this project, Consumers Energy has made a commitment to allow access to its coal port at the Cobb generating plant, which will be idled within the next three years. The second project is a pilot program by Michigan State University to develop a virtual clean technology and logistics research center [MTEC @ MSU] to assist in developing clean energy technology, scaling up manufacturing, and transporting products.

Michigan Energy Fair Returns

The Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association will conduct the 13th annual Michigan Energy Fair in Ludington on June 7-8. The event will take place at the Mason County Fairgrounds. The program on Friday is intended for energy professionals, facility managers, and educators and will run from noon to 5 p.m. There is a $25 charge for the workshops. The Saturday events begin at 9 a.m., will be more oriented toward the general public, and are free. Energy Fair exhibits will provide information on solar, wind, energy efficiency, and other energy related topics.

Michigan Shorts

NextEra has ordered 59 1.7 MW wind turbines from General Electric for its Tuscola II project scheduled to be complete by the end of the year.  Tecogen has purchased the proprietary 5300 permanent magnet generation line as part of the liquidation of Danotek Motion Technologies of Canton.  The Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association has been awarded a $33,304 grant from the Michigan Energy Office to conduct a feasibility study of community solar in Michigan.  Ornicept, a startup with technology to study bird migration issues associated with wind turbines, has relocated to Ann Arbor.  Muskegon’s Wastewater Management System director has reported that six months of meteorological testing by Gamea Energy has confirmed average wind speeds are sufficient to support a viable wind energy project Ω The Michigan Public Service Commission has approved an opt out option for residential smart meters consisting of an initial fee of $67.20 and a $9.80 monthly fee.  NextEra has selected General Electric’s new 1.7-100 brillant wind turbine for its new Michigan wind farm project.  WindTronics LLC of Muskegon has ceased manufacturing its gearless wind turbine and ended operations.  Nexteers Sunsteer solar tracking system is manufactured in Michigan with 90 percent U.S. content and 50 percent Michigan content.

Article By:

 of

Department of Energy Approves Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Export Authorization for Freeport LNG – A Win for LNG Exports?

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

The Department of Energy recently authorized Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. (“FLEX”) to export LNG to non-Free Trade Agreement countries. Importantly, this is the first order on LNG exports issued by the DOE since it collected comments on its two-part LNG Export Study and likely represents the analysis DOE will use in reviewing the queue of pending LNG export applications.

FLEX proposes to export 1.4 Bcf/day from the Freeport LNG terminal, which is situated on the Gulf Coast in Texas. After filing its export application, FLEX secured long-term contracts with three entities for 88 percent of the requested export capacity; most of the gas for export would be sourced from Texas, and in particular, the Eagle Ford Shale.

By way of background, as the domestic natural gas markets shifted to favoring LNG exports in recent years, numerous applications were filed with the DOE for authorization to export LNG. In response to this onslaught, DOE commissioned a two-part study, consisting of (1) an Energy Information Administration study on the effects on increased natural gas exports on domestic energy markets; and (2) a NERA Economic Consulting study on the macroeconomic imports of LNG exports (together, the “LNG Export Study”). The NERA study has recently been the subject of substantial debate as DOE noted that it received over 188,000 comments and 2,700 reply comments, though DOE admits the majority of such comments were nearly identical form letters. Substantive and unique comments numbered nearly 800, with 11 different economic studies prepared by commenters.

In general, the FLEX order is a positive development for LNG exporters for two main reasons:  (1) DOE found the LNG Export Study to be sufficiently reliable and supportive of LNG exports; and (2) DOE strongly suggested that it would let market forces govern LNG exports (while being closely monitored by DOE). The FLEX order tracks with and builds upon DOE’s last order granting authorization for LNG exports to non-FTA countries, Sabine Pass, issued nearly two years ago. In approving the application as “not inconsistent with the public interest,” DOE considered the same public interest factors relied upon in its earlier Sabine Pass order, namely, the economic impacts, international impacts, and security of natural gas supply. DOE continued to consider the factors identified in its now-expired 1984 policy guidelines, including whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE’s policy of promoting market competition.

While at first glance the FLEX order appears to represent a big win for the LNG export industry, there are several conclusions worth attention. Arguably, the order is a broad endorsement of free-market principles as DOE determined the competitive market to be the proper mechanism for allocating a scare resource like natural gas. However, although DOE did not state it would impose limits or caps on LNG exports, DOE did indicate that it will take a “measured approach” in reviewing other pending LNG export applications. “Specifically, DOE/FE will assess the cumulative impacts of each succeeding request for export authorization on the public interest with due regard to the effect on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals.” This approach suggests lower-queued applications may face a higher hurdle due to the cumulative impacts of the preceding applications and possibly suggests that DOE has a “cap” in mind. Third, DOE confirmed that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will conduct the environmental review, subject to independent review by DOE. Fourth, DOE found that the net economic benefits to the U.S. from LNG exports outweigh potential harms. Fifth, DOE continued to caution LNG export applicants that it will monitor the market and the impact of LNG exports and “may issue, make, amend, and rescind such orders . . . as it may find necessary . . . .” Such statements continue to inject some uncertainty into the contracting process. Finally, DOE suggested that local and regional benefits in terms of employment and income may be important in deciding whether to grant specific applications. Moreover, with respect to FLEX project, DOE noted that no one challenged the data provided by applicant in this regard.

A significant issue raised by commenters on the LNG Export Study was to what extent LNG exports would raise natural gas prices, how natural gas production would react to increased demand, and whether the net economic benefits accruing from LNG exports would outweigh negative impacts for higher domestic natural gas prices. As discussed in the FLEX order, DOE is clearly concerned about these issues, but it found arguments persuasive that the U.S. had a substantial oversupply of natural gas that would mitigate the preceding concerns. DOE cautioned that it would closely monitor the domestic natural gas markets and reiterated its authority to revise or rescind LNG export authorizations should the public interest require it. DOE did not indicate what market conditions would trigger such action, but changes in the domestic natural gas oversupply condition could be pivotal in subsequent approvals of LNG export applications or in rescinding/amending already issued export authorizations.

DOE imposed numerous conditions on the export authorization, including a requirement that FLEX must file publicly with DOE (a) all executed long-term contracts associated with the long-term export of LNG; and (b) all executed long-term contracts associated with the long-term supply of natural gas to the terminal. DOE noted that commercially sensitive provisions may be redacted. DOE also reduced the duration of FLEX’s requested 25-year export authorization and approved only a 20-year authorization.

Overall, our sense is that the FLEX order is a step in the right direction for the LNG exports industry and is a sign that, after a two-year study period, DOE once again will begin its process of issuing non-FTA export authorizations. As previously rumored, we expect that those projects that are further along in the development process (e.g., those that have completed FERC’s pre-filing process and have commercial arrangements in place for a sizable portion of the terminal capacity) will receive priority processing regardless of the project’s place in DOE’s queue. As a result, less developed projects will face greater uncertainty, especially if DOE has a “cap” in mind. Further, project sponsors should continue to include provisions in their contracts that address the possibility that DOE would modify or revoke a non-FTA authorization in the event of changes to the current domestic natural gas oversupply condition.

Article By:

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Creditability of UK Windfall Tax

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

In a rare unanimous decision with potentially far-reaching impact on taxpayers claiming foreign tax credits, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a “windfall tax” imposed by the United Kingdom was creditable under IRC Section 901.

On May 20, 2013, in a rare unanimous decision with potentially far-reaching impact on taxpayers claiming foreign tax credits, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a “windfall tax” imposed by the United Kingdom was creditable under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 901.  This decision definitively establishes the principles to be applied when determining whether a foreign tax is creditable under Section 901, expressly favoring a “substance-over-form” evaluation of a foreign tax’s economic impact.

The UK windfall tax was enacted in 1997 as a means to recoup excess profits earned by 32 UK utility and transportation companies once owned by the government.  During the 1980s and 1990s, the UK sold several government-owned utility companies to private parties.  After privatization, the UK Government prohibited these companies from raising rates for an initial period of time.  Because only rates and not profits were regulated, many of these companies were able to greatly increase their profits by becoming more efficient.  The increased profitability of these companies drew public attention and became a hot political issue in the United Kingdom, which ultimately resulted in Parliament enacting a windfall tax designed to capture the excess or “windfall” profits earned by these companies during the years they were prohibited from raising rates.  The tax was 23 percent of any “windfall” earned by such companies, which was calculated by subtracting the price for which the company was sold by the United Kingdom from an imputed value based on the company’s average annual profits.  Both PPL Corporation and Entergy Corporation owned interests in two of these 32 privatized companies and took a U.S. tax credit for the windfall taxes paid to the United Kingdom.

IRC Section 901 grants U.S. citizens and corporations an income tax credit for “the amount of any income, war profits and excess-profits taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States.”  Whether a foreign tax is creditable for U.S. income tax purposes is based upon the “predominant standard for creditability” laid out in Treasury Regulation §1.901-2.  Under that approach, a foreign tax is an income tax “if and only if the tax, judged on the basis of its predominant character,” satisfies three tests.  The foreign tax must be imposed on realized income (i.e., income that has already been earned), the basis of gross receipts (i.e., revenue) and net income (i.e., gross receipts less significant costs and expenditures).  See Treas. Reg. §1.901-2(a)(3).

The Supreme Court’s decision resolved a split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits on how to apply the predominant standard for the creditability test set forth in the regulations.  The Third and Fifth Circuits took opposite views of two U.S. Tax Court decisions, PPL Corp.  v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 304 (2010), and Entergy Corp.  v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-197, which both held in favor of the taxpayers that the practical effect of the UK windfall tax, the circumstances of its adoption and the intent of the members of Parliament who enacted it evidenced that the substance of the tax was to tax excess profits, and therefore was creditable.

In PPL Corp. v. Commissioner, 665 F.3d 60 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit reversed the Tax Court, refusing to consider the practical effect of the UK windfall tax and the intent of its drafters.  Instead, the court focused solely on the text of the UK statute, which in its estimation was a tax on excess value and not on profits.  In contrast, in Entergy Corp. v. Commissioner, 683 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 2012), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court, finding that the tax’s practical effect on the taxpayer demonstrated that the purpose of the tax was to tax excess profits.  The court explained that Parliament’s decision to label an “entirely profit-driven figure a ‘profit-making value’ must not obscure the history and actual effect of the tax.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with both the Fifth Circuit and the Tax Court.  In applying the rules of the Treasury Regulations, the Supreme Court reinforced the three basic principles to determine whether a tax is creditable.  First, a tax that functions as an income tax in most instances will be creditable even if a “handful of taxpayers” may be affected differently.  This means that the controlling factor is the tax’s predominant character.  Second, the economic effect of the tax, and not the characterization or structure of the tax by the foreign government, is controlling on whether the tax is an income tax.  This extends the principle of “substance over form” to the characterization of a foreign tax.  Third, a tax will be an income tax if it reaches net gain or profits.  Applying these principles to the PPL case, the Supreme Court found that the predominant character of the windfall tax was that of an excess profit tax and was therefore creditable.

The PPL decision will likely have far-reaching effects on courts that wrestle with whether certain taxes paid overseas are creditable for U.S. income tax purposes.

Article By:

of

Plan for the Worst, Hope for the Best: Why You Must Have a HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) Risk Assessment

McBrayer

“The single biggest and most common compliance weakness is the lack of a timely and thorough risk analysis.”

-Leon Rodriguez, head of the U.S. Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights

When the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) auditor drops by your health facility to ensure that you are complying with HIPAA, one thing is for certain: he will be asking to see your Risk Assessment. Do you have one? Is it completed? Has it been used to develop and implement appropriate policies and procedures?

Audit Risks Are Real

The OCR is cracking down on covered entities’ and business associates’ compliance with HIPAA. Audits are becoming commonplace and resulting in more and more providers being hit with fines and sanctions. You may think that even if you are subject to an audit, then penalty will be a slap on the wrist. Think again. The maximum penalty for a HIPAA violation is now $1.5 million. Maybe you are too small of a provider to be the target of an audit? Think again, again. In January of 2013, Hospice of North Idaho agreed to pay the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) $50,000 to settle potential HIPAA violations stemming from a 2010 incident involving a stolen, unencrypted laptop. It was the first HIPAA breach settlement involving less than 500 people. The hospice did not have a risk assessment in place.

Risk Assessments Are Not Optional

A HIPAA risk assessment is a thorough investigation and analysis of areas where there is potential risk of violating HIPAA laws. A risk assessment is not optional and it is not just a checklist. Covered entities, and now business associates, are required to have an assessment done. Specifically, entities must:

Conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information held by the covered entity.

These assessments are critical to compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule. An assessment should include questions addressing administrative, physical, and technical safeguards, and the Breach Notification Rule. Many assessments are created in the form of a table and not only analyze the level of the risk, but also whether there is a policy in place and who should be responsible for ensuring each provision is implemented.

Risk Assessments Are Just the First Step

Once your facility’s risk assessment is complete, then it and any relevant accompanying documents should be kept in your HIPAA security files. Assessing risks is only a first step. You must use the results of your risk assessment to develop and implement appropriate policies and procedures. The use of a privacy officer is highly recommended. Consider offering training to employees where a sign-in sheet is required and certifications are provided once training is complete. This kind of documentation will be very beneficial when the OCR auditor is at your door.

Article By:

 of

Department of State Releases June 2013 Visa Bulletin

Morgan Lewis logo

EB-2 category for all chargeable areas other than China and India remains current, with considerable forward movement—but continued backlog—in the EB-3 category for a second month in a row.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its June 2013 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the June 2013 Visa Bulletin Say?

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: Foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from all countries other than China and India remain current. A cutoff date of July 15, 2008, reflecting minor forward movement, has been imposed for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from China. A cutoff date of September 1, 2004 remains in effect for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from India.

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category for all countries, with considerable forward movement for EB-3 individuals chargeable to countries other than India and the Philippines.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: September 1, 2008 (forward movement of 275 days)

India: January 8, 2003 (forward movement of 17 days)
Mexico: September 1, 2008 (forward movement of 275 days)

Philippines: September 22, 2006 (forward movement of 7 days)

Rest of the World: September 1, 2008 (forward movement of 275 days)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

In November 2012, the EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India became current. This meant that EB-2 individuals chargeable to countries other than China and India could file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after November 1, 2012. The June Visa Bulletin indicates that the EB-2 category will continue to remain current for these individuals through June 2013.

China

The June Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of July 15, 2008 for EB-2 individuals chargeable to China. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to July 15, 2008 may file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after June 1, 2013.

India

Since October 2012, the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India has been September 1, 2004. The June Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to September 1, 2004 may file an AOS application or have the application approved through June 2013.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

The May Visa Bulletin announced that the cutoff dates for EB-3 individuals chargeable to most countries had advanced significantly in an attempt to generate demand and fully utilize the annual numerical limits for the category. The June Visa Bulletin indicates that the cutoff dates for EB-3 individuals chargeable to most countries have advanced significantly for a second month in a row. The June Visa Bulletin notes that this forward movement is not indicative of what can be expected in the future, and that rapid forward movement in cutoff dates is often followed by a dramatic increase in demand for numbers within the following three to six months. If such demand materializes, such movement in cutoff dates may slow, or stop, for a period of time.

China

The May Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of December 1, 2007 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to China. The June Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of September 1, 2008 for these individuals, reflecting forward movement of 275 days. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to September 1, 2008 may file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after June 1, 2013.

India

Additionally, the May Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of December 22, 2002 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to India. The June Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of January 8, 2003 for these individuals, reflecting forward movement of 17 days. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to January 8, 2003 may file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after June 1, 2013.

Rest of the World

The May Visa Bulletin also indicated a cutoff date of December 1, 2007 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to the Rest of the World. The June Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of September 1, 2008 for these individuals, reflecting forward movement of 275 days. This means that individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India with a priority date prior to September 1, 2008 may file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after June 1, 2013.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the June 2013 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website here.

Article By:

of

The Jobs Act: Improving Access to Capital Markets for Smaller Companies

GT Law

On April 5, 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act or “Jobs Act” was signed into law by President Obama with the stated purpose of increasing American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. Specifically, the Jobs Act:

  • creates a new category of “emerging growth company” under the securities laws and reduces certain financial reporting and disclosure obligations on these companies for up to 5 years after their initial public offering;
  • directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the prohibition on general solicitations for private offerings under Rule 506 of Regulation D and resales under Rule 144A;
  • legalizes crowdfunding through brokers and “funding portals”;
  • authorizes the SEC to increase the maximum amount permitted to be raised in a Regulation A offering from $5 million to $50 million in any 12-month period; and
  • increases the number of shareholders of record that a company may have before it becomes obligated to file SEC reports.

Creation of the ‘Emerging Growth Company’ Designation

The Jobs Act creates the “emerging growth company” as a new category of issuer under both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act.

Definition of “Emerging Growth Company”

An “emerging growth company” is an issuer that had total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion during its most recently completed fiscal year. The issuer would continue to be an “emerging growth company” until the earlier of:

  • the last day of the fiscal year during which it had total annual gross revenues of $1 billion or more;
  • the last day of the fiscal year of the issuer following the fifth anniversary of its initial public offering;
  • the date on which the issuer has, during the previous 3-year period, issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt; and
  • the date on which it is deemed a “large accelerated filer.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, an issuer that consummated an IPO on or prior to December 8, 2011 will not be eligible to be deemed an emerging growth company. The relief provided to emerging growth companies is available immediately.

Benefits for Emerging Growth Companies

Emerging growth companies will have more lenient disclosure and compliance obligations with respect to executive compensation, financial disclosures and certain new accounting rules. Specifically, an emerging growth company will not be required to:

  • comply with “say on pay” proposals or pay versus performance disclosures;
  • include more than two years of financial statements in the registration statement for its IPO;
  • include selected financial data for any period prior to the earliest audited period presented in connection with its IPO; or
  • comply with new or revised accounting standards that are only applicable to public reporting companies.

In addition, emerging growth companies will be exempt from the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or SOX, and be given a longer transition period for compliance with new audit standards. Further, SOX has been amended to provide that any rules of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, requiring mandatory audit firm rotation or auditor discussion and analysis will not apply to an emerging growth company. In addition, any future rules adopted by the PCAOB would not apply to audits of emerging growth companies unless the SEC determines otherwise.

The Jobs Act provides that emerging growth companies may start the IPO process by confidentially submitting draft registration statements to the SEC for nonpublic review. Confidentially submitted registration statements would need to be publicly available at least 21 days prior to beginning the road show for the IPO. Emerging growth companies would also be free to “test the waters” with qualified institutional buyers and institutional accredited investors before and during the registration process.

Analyst Reports for Initial Public Offerings of Emerging Growth Companies

The Jobs Act removes some of the restrictions on investment banks underwriting public offerings while simultaneously providing analyst research reports on a particular issuer that was designated as an “emerging growth company.”

Elimination of Prohibition on General Solicitation For Accredited Investors and Qualified Institutional Buyers

The Jobs Act directs the SEC to revise its rules to:

  • provide that the prohibition against general solicitation or general advertising will not apply to offers and sales of securities made pursuant to Rule 506, provided all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors, and
  • provide that the prohibition against general solicitation or general advertising will not apply to offers and sales made under Rule 144A, provided that the seller reasonably believes that all purchasers of the securities are qualified institutional buyers.

It is currently unclear whether these exemptions will apply to offerings exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act to the extent they do not satisfy all of the conditions of Rule 506. The SEC has 90 days from the date of enactment of the Jobs Act to promulgate rules to effect elimination of the specified prohibitions on general solicitation and general advertising.

Creation of a ‘Crowdfunding’ Exemption

Crowdfunding refers to the recent (often internet facilitated) technique of seeking financing for a business through small investments from a relatively large pool of individual investors. Under current securities laws, crowdfunding raises a number of problematic registration exemption issues. The Jobs Act attempts to remedy this by creating a new crowdfunding exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act for transactions involving the issuance of securities through a broker or SEC-registered “funding portal,” for which:

  • the aggregate amount of securities sold in the previous 12 months to all investors by the issuer is not more than $1 million; and
  • individual investments by any investor in the securities during any 12-month period are limited to:
    • the greater of $2,000 or 5 percent of the annual income or net worth of such investor, as applicable, if either the annual income or the net worth of the investor is less than $100,000; and
    • 10 percent of the annual income or net worth of such investor, as applicable, not to exceed a maximum aggregate amount sold of $100,000, if either the annual income or net worth of the investor is equal to or more than $100,000.

Such securities would be considered restricted securities subject to a one-year holding period, with certain exceptions, such as sales to accredited investors or family members. The Jobs Act also provides express securities fraud remedies against the issuer of securities sold under the crowdfunding exemption, which includes extending liability to directors, partners and certain senior officers of the issuer.

Disclosure Requirements

The issuer must file with the SEC, provide to the broker or funding portal, and make available to potential investors at least 21 days prior to the first sale, certain information about the issuer. This information is similar to what many companies currently use in offering memoranda in private offerings and includes:

  • the name, legal status, physical address and website of the issuer;
  • the names of officers, directors and greater than 20% shareholders;
  • a description of the issuer’s current and anticipated business;
  • a description of the financial condition of the issuer, including, for offerings where the aggregate amounts sold under the crowdfunding exemption are:
    • $100,000 or less, income tax returns for the most recently completed fiscal year and financial statements, certified by the principal executive officer of the issuer;
    • more than $100,000, but less than $500,000, financial statements reviewed by an independent public accountant; or
    • more than $500,000, audited financial statements;
  • a description of the intended use of proceeds;
  • the target offering amount and the deadline to raise such amount;
  • the price to the public of the securities, or method to determine the price;
  • a description of the ownership and capital structure of the issuer, including the terms of the offered security and each other security of the issuer and how such terms may be modified, limited, diluted or qualified;
  • risks to purchasers of minority ownership and corporate actions, including issuances of shares, sales of the issuer or its assets or transactions with related parties; and
  • such other information as the SEC may prescribe.

The issuer must also annually file with the SEC and provide to investors its results of operations and financial statements.

‘Blue Sky’ Pre-emption

Securities sold pursuant to the crowdfunding exemption are “covered securities” for purposes of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act, or NSMIA, and, therefore, are exempt from state securities registration requirements, or “Blue Sky,” laws. This preemption does not prohibit state enforcement actions based on alleged fraud, deceit, or unlawful conduct.

Creation of ‘Funding Portals’

A person acting as an intermediary in an offer or sale of securities under this new crowdfunding exemption will have to register with the SEC as a broker or funding portal and will also need to register with any applicable self-regulatory organizations. Such intermediary will also have to comply with a number of requirements designed to ensure that investors are informed of the possible risks associated with a new venture, including conducting background checks on each officer, director and greater than 20% shareholders of the issuer. Additionally, the Jobs Act instructs the SEC to promulgate rules or regulations under which an issuer, broker or funding portal would not be eligible, based on its disciplinary history, to utilize the exemption.

SEC Rulemaking

The SEC is directed to issue rules as may be necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors to implement the crowdfunding exemption within 270 days after the enactment of the Jobs Act. In addition, the dollar amounts are to be indexed for inflation at least every five years for changes in the consumer price index.

Raising the Regulation A Limit to $50 million

The Jobs Act amends Section 3(b) of the Securities Act to direct the SEC to amend Regulation A so as to increase the aggregate offering amount that may be offered and sold within the prior 12-month period in reliance on Regulation A from $5 million to $50 million. The SEC is required to review the limit every two years and to increase the amount as it determines appropriate or explain to Congress its reasons for not increasing the limit on Regulation A offerings.

No ‘Blue Sky’ Pre-emption

Predecessor bills would have made the Regulation A exemption more appealing by making Regulation A offered securities exempt from “Blue Sky” laws. Although the Jobs Act does not provide that securities offered under Regulation A are explicitly exempt, it does have a provision requiring the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the impact of Blue Sky laws on offerings made under Regulation A. Securities offered and sold to “qualified purchasers,” to be defined under NSMIA, or on a national securities exchange would be “covered securities” and exempt from Blue Sky laws.

Modifying Registration Thresholds

Currently, Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act requires an issuer with assets in excess of $1 million and a class of security held by more than 500 shareholders of record to register such security with the SEC and, therefore, become subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. The Jobs Act amends the registration thresholds to require registration only when an issuer has:

  • either 2,000 or more shareholders of record, or 500 shareholders of record who are not accredited investors, and
  • assets in excess of $10 million.

Exceptions to “Held of Record” Definition

Further, the Jobs Act amends the definition of “held of record” to exclude securities held by persons who received the securities pursuant to an employee compensation plan in transactions exempted from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. It also directs the SEC to adopt rules providing that securities acquired under the crowdfunding exemption are similarly excluded.

Increased Thresholds for Community Banks

The Jobs Act amends Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act by increasing the shareholder registration threshold in the case of an issuer that is a bank or a bank holding company to 2,000 persons. The bill also makes it easier for banks and bank holding companies to deregister and cease public company compliance requirements by increasing the threshold for deregistration for those entities from 300 persons to 1,200 persons.

Implementation of the Jobs Act

SEC Rulemaking and Studies

The Jobs Act directs the SEC to adopt rules implementing certain provisions of the act as well as to conduct a number of studies and report back to Congress.

SEC Concerns

A number of SEC Commissioners, including Chairman Mary Schapiro, have publicly expressed concerns on the balance between enhancing capital formation and the reduction in investor protections. The Jobs Act does not affect Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Act and adds some additional securities fraud remedies, so issuers should continue to be scrupulous about compliance with their disclosure obligations.

Full Text of the Jobs Act

The Jobs Act was enacted on April 5, 2012. The text of the act is currently available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3606enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr3606enr.pdf.

Article By:

 of

IRS, Treasury Department Issue Proposed Rules Governing Minimum Value, Affordability, and Wellness Programs

Mintz Logo

A key policy goal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Act”) is the expansion of health insurance coverage to all Americans. The concepts of “minimum value” and its correlate “actuarial value” speak to the generosity of that coverage. What constitutes minimum value is important both for employers that sponsor group health plans and for low-income individuals seeking government subsidies to help pay for coverage through newly established public insurance exchanges. Recently issued proposed regulations provide important clarifications on how employers determine minimum value, and how those determinations impact their compliance with the Act. The proposed rule also clarifies the relationships among minimum value and affordability, on the one hand, and wellness programs, Health Reimbursement Accounts and Health Savings Accounts, on the other. This advisory explains these and other features of the proposed regulations.

Overview

Beginning in 2014, the Act requires most U.S. citizens and green card holders to maintain health insurance coverage, which the Act refers to as “minimum essential coverage.” The phrase minimum essential coverage refers not to the content but to the source of coverage, which can include Medicare, Medicaid, or an “eligible employer-sponsored plan,” among others. Low income individuals may qualify for premium tax credits and cost sharing reductions (collectively, “premium assistance”) to assist with the purchase of coverage through public insurance exchanges. Where an individual is eligible for coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored group health plan that is both affordable and provides minimum value, however, that individual is ineligible for premium assistance.

Beginning in 2014, the Act also imposes certain obligations on “applicable large employers” — i.e., employers with 50 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees — under which these employers must either offer group health plan coverage or face the prospect of a penalty. These “employer shared responsibility” (or “pay-or-play”) rules include two options:

  • The “no-coverage” prong:
    The employer fails to offer to at least 95% of its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in a group health plan of the employer, and any full-time employee qualifies for premium assistance, or

  • The “coverage” prong
    The employer offers to at least 95% of its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in a group health plan of the employer that is either unaffordable or fails to provideminimum value, and one or more full-time employees qualifies for premium assistance.

These rules are set out in new Internal Revenue Code section 4980H. The no-coverage prong is referred to more formally in proposed regulations as the “4980H(a) penalty,” and the coverage prong, the “4908H(b) penalty.” Both penalties are determined monthly, but they are easiest to understand when expressed as an annual amount. The no-coverage penalty is determined by multiplying the number of the employer’s full-time employees (excluding the first 30) by $2,000. In contrast, the coverage penalty (i.e., the penalty for offering coverage that is either unaffordable or fails to provide minimum value) is determined by multiplying the number of the employer’s full-time employees who qualify for premium assistance by $3,000. This latter penalty can never exceed the 4980H(a) penalty. Where an employer makes an offer of coverage that is both affordable and provides minimum value, there is no penalty.

Coverage is affordable if the employee premium for self-only coverage does not exceed 9.5% of an employee’s household income. Recognizing the difficulty with obtaining household income data, proposed regulations under Code section 4980H provide three proxies or safe harbors for determining affordability: W-2 income, rate-of-pay, and (lowest) Federal Poverty Limit.

Minimum value

A plan fails to provide minimum value if the plan’s “share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of the costs.” A plan with a minimum value of 100% would cover all benefit costs with no cost-sharing. Anything below 100% simply means that the covered employee or family member will pay a portion of the costs for covered services. The lower the value, the more the employee will need to pay by way of co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance and other cost sharing requirements.

The terms “minimum value” and “actuarial value” both describe the percentage of expected health care costs a health plan will cover for a “standard population.” In the case of minimum value, it’s a population that reflects typical self-insured group health plans. In the case of actuarial value, the standard population is a population that reflects the average health risk of the individual and/or small group health markets.

When determining actuarial value for individual and small group coverage, the services that must be covered include “essential health benefits.”1 For minimum value determinations involving large and self-funded groups, the standards are less clear. Should minimum value be based on the plan’s share of the cost of coverage for all essential health benefits? Or should it be based on the plan’s share of the costs of only those benefits that the plan actually covers? Both prior guidance (i.e., IRS Notice 2012-31) and the proposed regulations concede that there is no support under the Act for the former approach, and both reject the latter. In Notice 2012-31, the Treasury Department and the IRS charted a middle path, noting that the Act directs that the statutory phrase “percentage of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under a group health plan” is determined under rules contained in the regulations to be promulgated by HHS relating to actuarial value, and that the determination of whether an employer-sponsored plan provides minimum value “will be based on the actuarial value rules with appropriate modifications.” Notice 2012-31 proposed that, for an employer-sponsored plan to provide minimum value, it would be required to cover four core categories of benefits: physician and mid-level practitioner care, hospital and emergency room services, pharmacy benefits, and laboratory and imaging services.

HHS has since published a final rule defining the “percentage of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under a group health plan” as

  1. The anticipated covered medical spending for essential health benefits (EHB) coverage … paid by a health plan for a standard population,

  2. Computed in accordance with the plan’s cost-sharing, and

  3. Divided by the total anticipated allowed charges for EHB coverage provided to a standard population.

HHS provided employers with three ways to determine actuarial and minimum value:

  • AV and MV calculators. Employer-sponsored plans may determine their actuarial or minimum value by entering information about the cost-sharing features of the plan for different categories of benefits into an online calculator made available by HHS.

  • Design-based safe harbor checklists. Employers will be able to use safe harbor checklists. If the employer-sponsored plan’s terms are consistent with or more generous than any one of the safe harbor checklists, the plan would be treated as providing minimum value.

  • Actuarial certification. For plans with nonstandard features that preclude the use of the AV calculator, or the MV calculator, actuarial value or minimum value is determined based on the AV or MV calculator with adjustments as certified to an actuary.

The proposed regulations include a fourth option: For small groups, plans that satisfy any of the metal tiers (platinum, gold, silver, and bronze) specified for coverage under a public insurance exchange are deemed to provide minimum value.

The minimum value proposed regulation coordinates with and builds on the HHS final regulation. The proposed regulations refer to the proportion of the total allowed costs of benefits provided to an employee that are paid by the plan as the plan’s “MV percentage.” According to the proposed regulation,

“The MV percentage is determined by dividing the cost of certain benefits the plan would pay for a standard population by the total cost of certain benefits for the standard population, including amounts the plan pays and amounts the employee pays through cost-sharing, and then converting the result to a percentage.” (Emphasis added).

A plan with an MV percentage of 60% or more is deemed to provide minimum value. Anything less, and a plan fails to provide minimum value.

The proposed regulations do not require an employer to provide coverage for all EHB categories. Instead, minimum value is measured with reference to “benefits covered by the employer that also are covered in any one of the EHB benchmark plans.” Or, put another way, a plan’s anticipated spending for benefits provided under any particular EHB-benchmark plan for any state “counts towards” that plan’s MV. Thus, while large groups are not required to offer EHBs, their minimum value percentage is tested against an EHB benchmark plan. The categories of EHB provided in the IRS/HHS calculator include:

  • Emergency Room Services

  • All Inpatient Hospital Services (including mental health and substance use disorder services)

  • Primary Care Visit to Treat an Injury or Illness (except Preventive Well Baby, Preventive, and X-rays) Specialist Visit

  • Mental/Behavioral Health and Substance Abuse Disorder Outpatient Services

  • Imaging (CT/PET Scans, MRIs)

  • Rehabilitative Speech Therapy

  • Rehabilitative Occupational and Rehabilitative Physical Therapy

  • Preventive Care/Screening/Immunization

  • Laboratory Outpatient and Professional Services

  • X-rays and Diagnostic Imaging

  • Skilled Nursing Facility

  • Outpatient Facility Fee (e.g., Ambulatory Surgery Center)

  • Outpatient Surgery Physician/Surgical Services

  • Drug Categories

    • Generics

    • Preferred Brand Drugs

    • Non-Preferred Brand Drugs

    • Specialty Drugs

Safe harbor minimum value plans

The proposed regulations establish the following safe harbor plan designs for plans that cover all of the benefits included in the minimum value calculator:

  • A plan with a $3,500 integrated medical and drug deductible, 80% plan cost sharing, and a $6,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit for employee cost-sharing;

  • A plan with a $4,500 integrated medical and drug deductible, 70% plan cost sharing, a $6,400 maximum out-of-pocket limit, and a $500 employer contribution to an HSA; and

  • A plan with a $3,500 medical deductible, $0 drug deductible, 60% plan medical expense cost-sharing, 75% plan drug cost-sharing, a $6,400 maximum out-of-pocket limit, and drug co-pays of $10/$20/$50 for the first, second and third prescription drug tiers, with 75% coinsurance for specialty drugs.

HSAs, HRAs, and wellness programs — Impact on minimum value

The proposed regulations provide that current year employer contributions to a health savings account (HSA) and amounts newly made available under a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) that is integrated with an eligible employer-sponsored plan and that are limited to the payment or reimbursement of medical expenses count toward the plan’s share of costs included in calculating minimum value. But if the HRA can be applied toward both the reimbursement of medical expenses and the payment of premiums, employer HRA credits may not be used in the minimum value determination. An integrated HRA is an HRA that coordinates with an employer’s group health plan.

The proposed regulations also provide that a plan’s share of costs for minimum value purposes is generally determined without regard to reduced cost-sharing available under a nondiscriminatory wellness program. But in the case of nondiscriminatory wellness programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use, minimum value may be calculated assuming that every eligible individual satisfies the terms of the program. These rules apply to wellness program incentives that affect deductibles, co-payments, or other cost-sharing.

HSAs, HRAs, and wellness programs — Impact on affordability

Because HSAs cannot be used to pay premiums, they don’t affect affordability.

Amounts newly made available under an integrated HRA for the current plan year are taken into account in determining affordability if the employee may use the amounts only for premiums or if he or she may choose to use the amounts for either premiums or cost-sharing. According to the preamble to the proposed regulation, treating amounts that may be used either for premiums or cost-sharing towards affordability prevents double counting the HRA amounts when assessing minimum value.

Tracking the rules for determining minimum value, after 2014, wellness incentives may not be included as either additions to, or deletions from, an individual’s plan premium for purposes of calculating affordability unless the incentive is related to a tobacco cessation program. Thus, the affordability of a plan that charges a higher initial premium for tobacco users will be determined based on the premium that is charged to non-tobacco users, or tobacco users who complete the related wellness program, such as attending smoking cessation classes.

2014 Transition Rule

For purposes of applying the employer shared responsibility rules, for plan years beginning before January 1, 2015, an employer will not incur a penalty under the coverage prong where an employee qualifies for premium assistance if the offer of coverage would have been affordable or would have satisfied minimum value based on the required employee premium and cost-sharing determined as if the employee satisfied the requirements of any such wellness program (including a wellness program relating to tobacco use). This rule applies only to wellness plan terms and incentives in effect as of May 3, 2013, and only to employees who are in a category of employees eligible for the program as of that date.

The following table summarizes the rules governing wellness programs, HSAs and HRAs:

Health Savings Accounts, Health Reimbursement Accounts, and Non-discriminatory Wellness Programs: Summary of Impact on Affordability and Minimum Value

 

Affordability

Minimum Value

Current-year contributions to Heath Savings Accounts

Does not apply, since HSAs can’t be used to pay premiums

Amounts contributed by an employer for the current plan year to an HSA are taken into account in determining the plan’s share of costs for MV purposes.

Current-year contributions to integrated Heath Reimbursement Accounts—premiums and payment/reimbursement of medical expenses

Applies for purposes of the affordability determinations

Amounts newly made available under an integrated HRA for the current plan year are not taken into account for MV purposes.

Current-year contributions to integrated Heath Reimbursement Accounts—Limited to payment/reimbursement of medical expenses

Applies for purposes of the affordability determinations

Amounts newly made available under an integrated HRA for the current plan year are taken into account for MV purposes.

Non-discriminatory wellness programs for 2014

For purposes of applying the employer shared responsibility rules (i.e., Code § 4980H), affordability is determined by assuming that each employee satisfies the requirements of a wellness program (including a wellness program relating to tobacco use).

For purposes of applying the employer shared responsibility rules (i.e., Code § 4980H), MV is determined by assuming that each employee satisfies the requirements of a wellness program (including a wellness program relating to tobacco use).

Non-discriminatory wellness programs—other than tobacco cessation for 2015 and later years

Affordability is determined by assuming that each employee fails to satisfy the requirements of a wellness program.

A plan’s share of costs is determined without regard to reduced cost-sharing available under a nondiscriminatory wellness program.

Non-discriminatory wellness programs—tobacco cessation for 2015 and later

Affordability is based on the premium charged to non-tobacco users (or tobacco users who complete the alternative standard).

A plan’s share of costs is determined assuming every eligible individual satisfies the terms of a nondiscriminatory wellness program.

Modified Rule for Retirees

The proposed regulations provide that a pre-Medicare retiree who declines to enroll in available retiree coverage may qualify for premium assistance. This is similar to the rule adopted in final regulations under Code section 36B, under which an individual who may enroll in continuation coverage required under federal law or a state law is eligible for minimum essential coverage only for months that the individual is enrolled in the coverage. Under this proposed rule, a low-income retiree who declines to enroll in an employer’s retiree health plan may still qualify for premium assistance despite that employer’s coverage is both affordable and provides minimum value.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Offers Updated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Guidance Q&A’s Pertaining to Cancer, Diabetes, Epilepsy and Intellectual Disabilities

barnes

In a measure to keep up with the changes made by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA) in relation to what employees and applicants must show to establish that they have a “disability,” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has revised its informal “Question and Answer” guidance forms pertaining to four categories of medical conditions – cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities– to provide clarification as to how employers should address such conditions and to confirm that individuals having each of the types of conditions discussed “should easily be found to have a disability” within the ADA’s initial prong of the definition of a disability. These revised forms can be found by clicking on the links above.

The revised guidance materials include not only a general discussion of each type of condition and discuss prohibitions against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against individuals with such conditions, they further discuss the means by which employers can obtain, use and disclose medical information relating to such conditions and possible accommodation scenarios for such conditions. In addition, the EEOC explicitly states its position as to why individuals with each type of medical condition at issue should be found to have a disability under the ADA/ADAAA:

1.    “[P]eople who currently have cancer, or have cancer that is in remission, should easily be found to have a disability within the meaning of the first part of the ADA’s definition of disability because they are substantially limited in the major life activity of normal cell growth or would be so limited if cancer currently in remission was to recur . . . Similarly, individuals with a history of cancer will be covered under the second part of the definition of disability because they will have a record of an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity in the past . . .  Finally, an individual is covered under the third (“regarded as”) prong of the definition of disability if an employer takes a prohibited action (for example, refuses to hire or terminates the individual) because of cancer or because the employer believes the individual has cancer.”

2.    “[I]ndividuals who have diabetes should easily be found to have a disability within the meaning of the first part of the ADA’s definition of disability because they are substantially limited in the major life activity of endocrine function . . . Additionally, because the determination of whether an impairment is a disability is made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, diabetes is a disability even if insulin, medication, or diet controls a person’s blood glucose levels. An individual with a past history of diabetes (for example, gestational diabetes) also has a disability within the meaning of the ADA . . . Finally, an individual is covered under the third (“regarded as”) prong of the definition of disability if an employer takes a prohibited action (for example, refuses to hire or terminates the individual) because of diabetes or because the employer believes the individual has diabetes.”

3.    “[I]ndividuals who have epilepsy should easily be found to have a disability within the meaning of the first part of the ADA’s definition of disability because they are substantially limited in neurological functions and other major life activities (for example, speaking or interacting with others) when seizures occur . . . Additionally, because the determination of whether an impairment is a disability is made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, epilepsy is a disability even if medication or surgery limits the frequency or severity of seizures or eliminates them altogether . . . An individual with a past history of epilepsy (including a misdiagnosis) also has a disability within the meaning of the ADA . . . Finally, an individual is covered under the third (“regarded as”) prong of the definition of disability if an employer takes a prohibited action (for example, refuses to hire or terminates the individual) because of epilepsy or because the employer believes the individual has epilepsy.”

4.    “[I]ndividuals who have an intellectual disability should easily be found to have a disability within the meaning of the first part of the ADA’s definition of disability because they are substantially limited in brain function and other major life activities (for example, learning, reading, and thinking) . . . An individual who was misdiagnosed as having an intellectual disability in the past also has a disability within the meaning of the ADA . . . Finally, an individual is covered under the third (“regarded as”) prong of the definition of disability if an employer takes a prohibited action (for example, refuses to hire or terminates the individual) because of an intellectual disability or because the employer believes the individual has an intellectual disability.”

The guidance provided by the EEOC also contains multiple examples and fact patterns for employers to consider in making decisions in their workplaces when faced with situations involving employees and applicants having the identified conditions.

Shippers Rolling the Dice to Gain Oil Pipeline Capacity

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

With the growing capacity constraints on oil pipelines, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) has recently extended the bounds of what it considers acceptable methods of apportioning limited capacity. In Seaway Crude Pipeline Company LLC, 143 FERC ¶ 61,036 (2013), the Commission approved a new lottery system that will select, at random, new shippers who will be permitted to tender the minimum monthly volume requirement. The catch, however, is that there are approximately 275 new shippers on the system, meaning a given shipper has roughly only a 5 percent chance of winning the lottery each month. And to achieve regular shipper status and thus gain access to the 90 percent of system capacity reserved for regular shippers, it must win that lottery twelve consecutive times.

After reversing flow on its Longhaul System and commencing north-to-south transportation service, Seaway saw the number of new shippers dramatic multiply from 5 (when to service commenced) to 275 by April, 2013. Seaway alleged that some of the proliferation was due to shippers attempting to game the system and broker capacity in the secondary market. Like other oil pipelines, Seaway dedicates 90 percent of the system capacity to regular shippers and 10 percent to new shippers, and to achieve regular shipper status, Seaway’s customers must tender the minimum volume (60,000 barrels per month) for 12 consecutive months. Before the lottery, Seaway allocated the 10 percent of capacity to new shippers on a pro rata basis, but with so many new shippers, none was able to meet the requirements to achieve regular shipper status because of the relatively high minimum tender requirement. As a result the number of new shippers multiplied with those shippers informally aggregating batches to meet Seaway’s minimum monthly tender requirement.

Seaway concluded that such a system was unworkable and proposed a lottery system to replace its existing pro rata system. The lottery system will use a software-generated random process to determine which new shippers will be allowed to tender the 60,000 barrel minimum each month, meaning about 13 new shippers will get capacity for a given month.

Despite several protests, the Commission approved Seaway’s lottery system for two main reasons. First, the Commission reasoned that the lottery system will deter manipulation during the nomination process and thus make capacity more readily available to legitimate new shippers; and second, the lottery would not be unduly discriminatory because the system would apply to all new shippers.

Although this is not the first time that the Commission has approved the use of a lottery system to award new shipper capacity when a pipeline faces apportionment problems, Seaway’s proposed lottery system, coupled with the requirement that new shippers must tender the minimum monthly volumes for 12 consecutive months, means that it will be highly improbable for new shippers to ever achieve regular shipper status, unless the number of new shippers dramatically decreases. Thus, the decision treads slightly new ground on what the Commission is willing to consider as a “reasonable” remedy to address the multiplication of new shippers and the vast over-nomination issues some crude pipelines are facing in the current environment.

Finally, the Seaway decision underscores the importance of open seasons as being the principle method of obtaining reliable transportation service on oil pipelines. For example, gaining access to the Longhaul System as a new shipper is difficult enough because a prospective new shipper will now have to win the lottery simply to tender the minimum amount requirement in one month. However, to gain access to the remaining 90 percent of system capacity, that prospective customer must win the new shipper lottery 12 consecutive times. By contrast, Seaway held two opens seasons for capacity on its Longhaul System and committed shippers were able to access the 90 percent of the system capacity reserved for regular shippers. Thus, shippers seeking access to reliable capacity might consider a commitment during an open season rather than gambling on a future—and perhaps unforeseen—lottery.

Article By:

 of

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Expands Reconciliation Opportunities

DrinkerBiddle

In the May 13, 2013 Federal Register, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the expansion of its Reconciliation Prototype program to include post-importation duty preference claims under the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, and the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.  CBP announced this expansion will take effect for post-importation duty preference claims filed on or after August 12, 2013.

The expansion will enable importers to file post-entry duty preference claims under the above-referenced free trade agreements (FTAs) where they are unable to confirm qualification at the time of entry.  Using the Reconciliation program, importers will electronically flag as-yet-unqualified imports at the time of entry.  Presuming the requisite supporting information becomes available within 12 months of the date of entry, importers can then file a Reconciliation entry to make their duty preference claim and receive corresponding duty refunds.  Importers who are not yet part of the Reconciliation program, but would like to take advantage of these expanded opportunities, must apply to participate by submitting the requisite application to CBP Headquarters.

CBP has been utilizing the Reconciliation Prototype program since 1998 as part of its National Customs Automation Program Reconciliation provides importers an automated mechanism to identify at the time of entry certain undeterminable information (that does not affect admissibility), and provide that information at a later date through an entry-by-entry or aggregate filing. Importers identify this provisional information by placing an electronic “flag” at the time the entry summary is filed.  Prior to expansion to allow for various post-entry FTA claims, importers could only flag information relating to: 1) value issues other than claims based on manufacturing defects; 2) classification issues, on a limited basis; 3) issues concerning value aspects of entries filed under heading 9802, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); and 4) issues concerning merchandise entered under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The expansion of the Reconciliation program to these additional FTAs is consistent with the original opportunities to file post-entry NAFTA claims, as well as previous expansion of the Reconciliation program to include the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement and the Dominican Republic-Central America-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. As importers have experienced with Reconciliation for NAFTA, allowing for post-importation duty claims under these new trade agreements allows for a streamlined mechanism for filing post-entry refund claims, and allows importers to file potentially thousands of post-entry claims under a single Reconciliation entry and receive a single duty refund check from CBP in response.

Importers may elect not to file their post-entry duty preference claims via the Reconciliation prototype, and expansion of the program does not prohibit importers from continuing to file post-entry claims using traditional processes in accordance with 19 U.S.C § 1520(d).However, once an importer flags an entry summary indicating that it may pursue post-importation duty preference claims via the Reconciliation process, the importer locks itself into the process and waives its rights to file a traditional paper filing pursuant to 19 U.S.C.§ 1520(d). If, after having flagged the entry, an importer fails to file a post-entry Reconciliation claim under one of the approved FTAs, the importer will not be assessed liquidated damages for a late file or no file Reconciliation (which can happen for post-entry valuation adjustments that are flagged but not reconciled). Rather, the flagged FTA entry will simply liquidate at the end of the 12-month period as entered, i.e., with the payment of duties and fees.

Reconciliation can be an effective trade compliance and risk management tool. Among other things, it allows importers to streamline multiple post-entry FTA claims, and can also serve as a compliance vehicle to flag undetermined or provisional values at the time of entry – providing an automated method to make entry corrections or adjustments once the relevant information has been finally determined. The extension of the Reconciliation Prototype to these additional FTAs provides importers with additional tools to manage their duty preference programs.

Article By:

 of