Associates Jamie Lee and Casey Patchunka and Project Policy Advisor Jessica Monahan also contributed this Advisory.
To help our clients navigate the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, Arnold & Porter has established a Coronavirus Task Force covering a wide range of issues and challenges. Subscribe to our "Coronavirus (COVID-19)" mailing list to receive our latest client Advisories and register for upcoming webinars.
The coronavirus has swept across the United States, paralyzing much of the nation, ending a record run on Wall Street, and inducing a level of economic uncertainty and anxiety that threatens to plunge the United States-along with the rest of the world-into a global recession or depression. The resulting crisis has created unprecedented emergencies for corporations, associations, and small businesses. Handling these extraordinary challenges, which cut across traditional legal disciplines, requires a fully coordinated effort based on accurate and up-to-date information about available resources and the rapidly evolving legal and regulatory landscape.
This is the latest update summarizing recent federal government actions addressing the coronavirus crisis, accurate as of the time of publication. In addition to this written update, Arnold & Porter intends to host a webinar on the final legislative package when it clears Congress and becomes law, which we currently forecast to happen between August 7 and 14.
The Path to HEROES and HEALS in Congress
Background: The coronavirus pandemic has forced Congress to move with unprecedented speed to respond to the crisis. Since March 1, Congress has passed four major pieces of legislation totaling almost $3 trillion dollars in new spending to support all elements of the American economy during the pandemic: (1) March 6 - the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act ($8.3 billion); (2) March 18 - the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ($104 billion); (3) March 27 - the CARES Act ($2.2 trillion); and (4) April 24 - the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act ($484 billion).
Passage of those four bills shared a few attributes. First, the process was almost entirely controlled by top House and Senate leadership, with some input from Committee Chairmen and Ranking Members, but almost no meaningful input from rank and file Representatives and Senators. Second, the normal committee process and regular order were bypassed. Third, one chamber of Congress took control of the process for each bill and left the other chamber to accept a finished product.
The Process: Passage of the fifth package is going to be different and much more challenging. The House passed the HEROES Act on May 15 as a bold $3 trillion opening bid reflecting the policy priorities of numerous Democratic constituencies. Unlike the first four COVID-19 packages, HEROES is a partisan package that did not consider political priorities from the minority party, leading to just one Republican in the House voting for the bill.
The partisanship in the House was the first sign of trouble for the Senate. The White House and Republican Senate leadership decided to delay consideration of the next COVID-19 bill until late in the summer, allowing them to see if economic and healthcare conditions improved enough to reduce the cost and scope of the next package. That delay has largely backfired on President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Two of the most politically popular provisions of CARES-a moratorium on evictions expired on July 24 and enhanced unemployment benefits will run out before August 1-and Republicans will take most of the political blame for a reduction in support. Since HEROES passed the House, there has been a resurgence of cases across the country, straining healthcare resources anew and dragging down the nascent economic recovery from the March to May nationwide shutdown. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have had two months to consolidate their priorities and now are negotiating from a position of strength, as polling data shows an increasing likelihood Democrats will win the White House and both chambers of Congress in November.
In fact, the HEALS package lacks complete Republican support to start in the Senate. Key fiscal hawks like Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have announced their opposition to a package that exceeds $1 trillion, and they strongly oppose many of the key elements in HEALS and the expected final deal, like continuing enhanced unemployment benefits and providing more state and local funding. As the package develops, each layer of additional spending may push away additional Senate Republicans in safe seats. Conversely, the Senate Republicans from swing states up for reelection in 2020, the seats that will decide who controls the Senate in 2020, have all the political motivation needed to support growing the HEALS package to at least $1.5 trillion or more.
The Players: The White House has new players on the field for this round of negotiations. Former conservative firebrand Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) is now the White House Chief of Staff and will handle negotiations along with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The perception is that Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer got the better of Secretary Mnuchin in CARES Act and Paycheck Protection Program Act negotiations earlier this spring. Pelosi and Schumer will also have some level of coordination with the Biden campaign given the impact of this relief package on the 2020 Presidential election. White House Chief of Staff Meadows wants to drive a better bargain for the White House through negotiations with two Democratic leaders he regularly attacked while serving in the House.
10 Negotiation Inflection Points: The policy differences between HEROES and HEALS are deeper than the $2 trillion dollar difference in their costs. Here are some of the key negotiation points for the weeks ahead:
Total Spending - The HEROES Act has more than $3 trillion in new spending, while the HEALS package comes in right around $1 trillion. Negotiations between the White House, Congressional Republicans, and Congressional Democrats will not get very far until they agree on a target spending level for the overall bill.
Liability Coverage - Senate Republicans have included more than 60 pages of legislation designed to allow businesses to reopen and operate free of worry from lawsuits related to the virus. Republicans have made it clear this is a must-have for them, and Democrats will have the chance to demand some changes to the language or gain additional spending in exchange for allowing the liability shield to become law.
Food Stamps - HEROES included extended SNAP benefits through September of 2021, expanded the minimum and maximum monthly benefit, suspended job-related requirements, and prevented the implementation of pending Trump Administration rules that would reduce access to SNAP. The HEALS legislative package includes no funding or policy changes for SNAP. At a time of record or near-record levels of unemployment, it is hard to believe the final package will not include some level of help in this area.
Education Operations - Both HEROES and HEALS provide $100 billion or more for K-12 and higher education, and up to $10 billion for early childcare support as well. House Democrats though are claiming the money in HEROES two months ago, when schools were assumed to be opening in person this fall, are now insufficient as a rising tide of a second wave of the pandemic pushes more education to a pure online experience. In turn, Senate Republicans have conditioned much of their education funding on requiring schools to have in-person education. Those philosophical differences and final funding levels will need to be ironed out in the pending negotiations.
State and Local Funding - HEROES includes hundreds of billions in funding for state and local governments to remain fully operational during the pandemic. The HEALS package includes no funding for this purpose at all.
Transportation - HEROES includes tens of billions of dollars to support every portion of the transportation sector. HEALS includes $10 billion for the continued operation of the nation's largest airports but is otherwise silent on funding various transportation modes.
Unemployment - House Democrats in HEROES want to continue the $600 enhanced unemployment benefit for the foreseeable future. In HEALS, Senate Republicans have proposed to reduce the enhanced benefit in two stages, first to $200, and then to a cap of 70% of a recipient's prior income.
Student Loans - The CARES Act created a student loan repayment moratorium. Both HEROES and HEALS propose to extend that moratorium but they differ on the length of the extension and who will be covered by the extension.
Evictions - The CARES Act had a short-term federal moratorium on evictions. The HEROES Act provides an extension of the moratorium for up to an additional year and includes additional forbearance for homeowners in arrears on their mortgages. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has said the moratorium will be extended but seems to want a shorter period and more limitations than what Democrats have included in HEROES.
Paycheck Protection Program - HEROES includes more funding and expands the number of entities who can apply. HEALS also has more funding but has rejected most of the additional eligibility in the House bill. HEALS also includes a proposal to allow for a second loan for smaller companies that have suffered major financial losses, but there is intense lobbying to expand eligibility and ease conditions for those second loans.
Testing and Healthcare Coverage - Congressional Democrats clearly believe the United States trails other advanced nations in testing efficiency, contact tracing, and healthcare response to the pandemic. Republicans have been more hesitant to add new testing and healthcare resources to this package because so much of what was allocated in Families First and CARES for these purposes still has not been spent.
Timeline: The introduction of HEALS is the first step to finding a middle ground between HEALS and the HEROES Act the House passed in May. We now expect trilateral negotiations involving the White House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Senators McConnell and Schumer, and the Senate leadership - including Chairmen and Ranking Members of several key Committees. Congress could pass a short-term (four to six week) bill to address expiring provisions of the CARES Act and delay consolidation of HEROES/HEALS into a final package until the end of the fiscal year (September 30) but we consider that relatively unlikely. Instead, we expect these negotiations to take five to twelve days, and forecast the next package will be on the President's desk sometime between August 7 and August 14.
Major elements of the HEALS Act are covered in this Advisory. Use the links below to navigate to different sections of this analysis:
The HEALS (Health, Economic Assistance, Liability protection, Schools) Act
S. _, the Coronavirus Response Additional Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020
TITLE III - Department of Defense
Coronavirus Defense Production Act Purchases: The bill appropriates $5.3 billion, to remain available until expended, for purchases under the Defense Production Act of 1950, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.
Defense Health Program: The bill appropriates $705 million, to remain available until September 30, 2021, for the Defense Health Program to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes $530 million for research, development, testing and evaluation.
TITLE VII - Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Indian Health Service: The bill appropriates $605 million, to remain available until September 30, 2021, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. The bill requires the Director of the Indian Health Service to, within 30 days of enactment, provide to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees a spend plan of anticipated uses of funds made available to the Indian Health Service.
Indian Health Facilities: The bill appropriates $1 billion, to remain available until September 30, 2021, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes funds for acquisition of sites, purchase and erection of modular buildings, and purchases of trailers, for provision of domestic and community sanitation facilities for Indians.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): The bill appropriates $3.4 billion, to remain available until September 30, 2024, for "CDC-Wide Activities and Program Support" to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes at least $1.5 billion for grants to or cooperative agreements with States and localities to carry out surveillance, epidemiology, laboratory capacity, infection control, immunization activity, mitigation, communications, and other preparedness and response activities. This also includes $500 million for activities to plan, prepare for, promote, distribute, administer, monitor, and track seasonal influenza vaccines to ensure broad-based distribution, access, and vaccine coverage. The bill requires the CDC to, within 60 days of enactment, report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees on an enhanced seasonal influenza vaccination strategy. This sum includes $200 million for global disease detection and emergency response, and requires the CDC to provide annual reports evaluating how investments have improved infectious disease response. The bill directs $200 million for public health data surveillance and analytics modernization, and requires the CDC to, within 180 days of enactment, report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees on updates to the public health data surveillance and IT systems modernization. The bill includes $1 million to develop and maintain a Public Safety Officer Suicide Reporting System.
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: The bill appropriates $290 million, to remain available until September 30, 2024, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases: The bill appropriates $200 million, to remain available until September 30, 2024, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: The bill appropriates $480.6 million, to remain available until September 30, 2024, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes $55 million for Regional Biocontainment Laboratories.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: The bill appropriates $172.7 million, to remain available until September 30, 2024, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.
National Institute of Mental Health: The bill appropriates $200 million, to remain available until September 30, 2024, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities: The bill appropriates $64.3 million, to remain available until September 30, 2024, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences: The bill appropriates $1.2 billion, to remain available until September 30, 2024, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.
National Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of the Director: The bill appropriates $12.9 billion, to remain available until September 30, 2024, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes $10.1 billion for offsetting the costs related to reductions in lab productivity resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. This sum includes $1.3 billion to support additional scientific research. This sum includes $1.2 billion to accelerate the research and development of therapeutic interventions and vaccines in partnership. This sum includes $240 million for supplements to existing research training awards for extensions and other costs. The bill directs the Director of NIH to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (Academies) to develop a decision framework to assist domestic and global health authorities in planning an equitable allocation of coronavirus vaccines. The bill requires the Academies to consider risk factors related to health disparities, health care access, underlying health conditions, racial and ethnic impacts, higher-risk occupations, first responders, geographic distribution of the virus, and vaccine hesitancy in developing the plan, and provide recommendations to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices by September 18, 2020.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: The bill appropriates $4.5 billion for Health Surveillance and Program Support, to remain available until September 30, 2021, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes $1.5 billion for substance abuse prevention and treatment block grants, and $2 billion for community mental health services block grants. This sum includes $600 million for Certified Community Behavior Health Clinic Expansion grants. This sum includes $50 million for suicide prevention programs. This sum includes $100 million for activities and services under Project AWARE.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS): The bill appropriates $150 million for Program Management, to remain available until September 30, 2023, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes funds for strike teams for resident and employee safety in skilled nursing facilities, including activities to support clinical care, infection control, and staffing. The bill requires CMS report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, within 30 days, outlining a plan for executing strike team efforts.
Administration for Community Living: The bill appropriates $75 million for Aging and Disability Services Programs, to remain available until September 30, 2021, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes $58 million for activities authorized under the Older Americans Act of 1965, including $3 million to implement a demonstration program on strategies to recruit, retain, and advance direct care workers.
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund: The bill appropriates $29 billion, to remain available until September 30, 2024, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, including the development of necessary countermeasures and vaccines, prioritizing platform-based technologies with U.S.-based manufacturing capabilities, the purchase of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, necessary medical supplies, as well as medical surge capacity, addressing blood supply chain, workforce modernization, telehealth access and infrastructure, initial advanced manufacturing, novel dispensing, enhancements to the U.S. Commissioned Corps, and other preparedness and response activities. This sum includes funds for the Secretary of HHS to purchase vaccines in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation guidance on fair and reasonable pricing. The bill permits the Secretary to take such measures authorized under current law to ensure vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics developed from funds provided in this Act will be affordable in the commercial market. The bill requires the Secretary to ensure protections remain for individuals with pre-existing conditions enrolled in group or individual health care coverage. The bill allows for products purchased with this sum to be deposited in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). The bill includes $2 billion for the SNS, as well as $20 billion for Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for necessary expenses of manufacturing, production, and purchase, at the discretion of the Secretary, of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and small molecule active pharmaceutical ingredients, including the development, translation, and demonstration at scale of innovations in manufacturing platforms. The bill directs that funds may be used for construction or renovation of U.S.-based next generation manufacturing facilities. The bill includes $6 billion to plan, prepare for, promote, distribute, administer, monitor, and track coronavirus vaccines. The bill requires the Director of CDC to, within 60 days, report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees on a comprehensive coronavirus vaccine distribution strategy. The bill requires the Secretary to, within 30 days and every 30 days thereafter, report to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees on uses of funding for Operation Warp Speed, including details on contracts.
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund: The bill appropriates an additional $8.01 billion, to remain available until September 30, 2022 to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes $7.6 billion for the Health Resources and Services Administration - Primary Health Care account for grants, cooperative agreements, and other necessary expenses. This sum includes $250 million for the Health Resources and Services Administration - Bureau of Health Workforce account, to remain available until September 30, 2022, for Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education.
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund: The bill appropriates $16 billion for testing, contact tracing, surveillance, containment, and mitigation to monitor and suppress COVID-19. This would include: (1) tests for both active infection and prior exposure, including molecular, antigen, and serological tests; (2) the manufacturing, procurement and distribution of tests, testing equipment and testing supplies, including personal protective equipment needed for administering tests; (3) the development and validation of rapid, molecular point-of-care tests, and other tests, support for workforce; (4) epidemiology; (5) to scale up academic, commercial, public health, and hospital laboratories; (6) to conduct surveillance and contact tracing, (7) support development of COVID-19 testing plans; (8) and other related activities related to COVID-19 testing, to remain available until expended, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally. This sum includes $15 billion for States and localities for necessary expenses for testing, contact tracing, surveillance, and related activities.
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund: The bill appropriates $25 billion to reimburse eligible health care providers (via the Provider Relief Fund) for health care related expenses or lost revenues attributable to coronavirus, to remain available until expended, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.
S. _, the American Workers, Families, and Employers Assistance Act
TITLE III - Supporting Patients, Providers, Older Americans, and Foster Youth in Responding to COVID-19
Subtitle A - Promoting Access to Care and Services
Maintaining 2021 Medicare Part B Premium and Deductible at 2020 Levels Consistent with Actuarially Fair Rates: The bill maintains the 2021 Medicare Part B premium and deductible at 2020 levels consistent with actuarially fair rates. Transitional government contributions shall be transferred from the General Fund to the Trust Fund an amount, as estimated by the Chief Actuary of CMS. This provision is designed to protect Medicare beneficiaries from the projected increase in Medicare premiums due to the economic conditions arising out of the public health emergency and the Advance Payment program loans to providers from the Supplemental Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund.
Improvements to the Medicare Hospital Accelerated and Advance Payments Program During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: The bill requires the Secretary, upon request of a provider or supplier receiving a payment under the Part B Medicare Advance Payments program, to provide up to 270 days before offsetting claims to recoup the payment and to allow providers and suppliers not less than 14 months from the date of the first advance payment before requiring payment of the outstanding balance in full. The bill also would allow hospitals 270 days (instead of the 120 days provided in Section 3719 of the CARES Act) before offsetting claims and further delay the date on which the outstanding balance must be paid for 18 months (instead of the 12 months provided in CARES). The bill would make discretionary the Secretary's authority to grant or deny hospital loan requests submitted on or after July 9, 2020. Unlike Section 30206 of the HEROES Act, the bill does not address the interest rate for loans to Medicare Part A and B providers or the permissible per-claim recoupment percentage. The HEROES Act would also provide two years for outstanding balances to be fully paid.
Authority to Extend Medicare Telehealth Waivers: The bill extends the Secretary authority to waive or modify requirements with respect to telehealth services through December 31, 2021, even if the public health emergency has ended before that time. The Secretary must post information describing the requirements applicable to telehealth services and other virtual services under Medicare Parts A and B and the Medicare Advantage program within three months of enactment of the bill, and prior to waiving or modifying such requirements. The Secretary must also conduct a study on the impact of telehealth and other virtual services furnished under the Medicare program and issue such report within 15 months of the date of enactment of the bill. The bill also requires the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) to conduct an evaluation by June 15, 2021 of telehealth services under Medicare Part B related to the COVID-19 public health emergency and the appropriate treatment of such expansions after the expiration of the public health emergency. Section 303 extends the telehealth coverage waivers provided by the CARES Act.
Extending Medicare Telehealth Flexibilities for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Rural Health Clinics: The bill extends Medicare telehealth flexibilities for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) for five years beyond the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Section 3704 of the CARES Act authorized RHCs and FQHCs to furnish distant site telehealth services to Medicare beneficiaries only during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Temporary Carryover for Health and Dependent Care Flexible Spending Arrangements: The bill allows for carryover through 2021 for health flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) and dependent care flexible spending arrangements (DCFSAs) of unused benefits or contributions remaining in a health flexible spending arrangement. FSA account users may roll over up to $2750 in unused benefits or contributions (the maximum allowed in 2020). DCFSA account holders may carry over unused benefits or contributions up to the maximum specified in the Internal Revenue Code for the plan.
On-Site Employee Clinics: The bill establishes certain qualified items and services provided by an employer on-site clinic as a Health Savings Account eligible expense through December 31, 2021.
Subtitle B - Emergency Support and COVID-19 Protection for Nursing Homes.
Establishing COVID-19 Strike Teams for Nursing Facilities: Similar to Section 30209 of HEROES, the bill authorizes the Secretary to establish and support the operation of strike teams comprised of individuals with relevant skills, qualifications, and experience to respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Promoting COVID-19 Testing and Infection Control in Nursing Facilities: The bill authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with the Elder Justice Coordinating Council administered by the Administration for Community Living, to support the efforts of nursing homes participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to respond to COVID-19 through the development of online training courses for personnel of participating providers; enhanced diagnostic testing of visitors to, personnel of, and residents of, participating providers in communities where more frequent testing is warranted; development of training materials for personnel of participating providers; and providing support to participating providers in areas deemed by the Secretary to require additional assistance due to COVID-19 infections. The Secretary is required to develop training courses on best practices for infection control and prevention and to create an interactive website to disseminate training materials.
Promoting Transparency in COVID-19 Reporting by Nursing Facilities: The bill requires the Secretary to provide, at least weekly during the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Governor of each State with a list of all participating nursing home providers in the State with respect to which the reported cases of COVID-19 in visitors to, personnel of, and residents of, such providers increased during the previous week.
Funding: The bill provides that the Secretary may use amounts appropriated for COVID-19 response and related activities under the CARES Act and subsequently enacted legislation for purposes of implementing the provisions of Subtitle B - Emergency Support and COVID-19 Protection for Nursing Homes.
S. _, the Safely Back to School and Back to Work Act
TITLE I - Health Provisions
Improving Earlier Access to Diagnostic Tests: The bill requires the Secretary, in coordination with the Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to establish and publish policies and procedures, within 180 days of enactment, for public and private entities to access samples of specimens containing infectious disease agents that support the development of diagnostic tests, treatments, or vaccines, to address emerging infectious diseases for biomedical research. This bill allows the CDC to enter into public-private partnerships to assist in the immediate and rapid development, validation, and dissemination of diagnostic tests for purposes of biosurveillance or other immediate public health response activities to address an emerging infectious disease that have the potential to cause a public health emergency.
Sustained On-Shore Manufacturing Capacity for Public Health Emergencies: The bill expands the activities of BARDA to include activities to support manufacturing surge capacities and capabilities to increase the availability of medical countermeasures to respond to public health threats like COVID-19, including promoting and facilitating domestic manufacturing surge capacity contracts. This bill removes all salary restrictions in the Medical Countermeasure Innovation Partner program.
Improving and Sustaining State Stockpiles: The bill directs the Secretary (through the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response) to award grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for state medical stockpiles needed during a public health emergency, such as personal protective equipment, ventilators, and other medical products. The bill requires recipients to submit a stockpiling plan to the Secretary for maintaining the state stockpile and are subject to reviews and audits as determined by the Secretary. The bill authorizes $1 billion for each fiscal years 2021 through 2030.
Strengthening the Strategic National Stockpile: The bill aims to improve the SNS by allowing the Secretary to partner with medical product manufacturers, distributors, or other entities to increase the stockpiling and manufacturing capacity to be provided during or in advance of a public health emergency.
Guidance for States and Indian Tribes on Accessing the Strategic National Stockpile: The bill requires the Secretary to publish guidance on how states, localities, territories, and Indian tribes can request assistance through the SNS within 15 days of enactment of the bill.
Modernizing Infectious Disease Data Collection: The bill would enhance CDC's infectious disease data collection and biosurveillance by integrating and updating applicable data systems and networks in collaboration with State and local public health officials. The bill would also direct the CDC to expand public meeting topics to include a review strategies to integrate laboratory testing and epidemiology systems as well as strategies to improve the exchange of electronic health information between health care providers, public health departments, and federal agencies to better provide detection of infectious diseases and inform public health preparedness and response. The bill clarifies that public-private partnerships would be eligible grantees to achieve such modernization. The bill requires a report from HHS to Congress on the improvements of biosurveillance modernization within one month of enactment of the bill.
Centers for Public Health Preparedness: The bill authorizes the Secretary to award grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to institutions of higher education or other nonprofit entities to establish a network of ten regional Centers for Public Health Preparedness, which will support state and local health departments, health care coalitions, and the public by disseminating research related to public health preparedness and response, identifying and developing relevant evidence-based practices, helping to prepare through drills, exercises, and training, and providing technical assistance and expertise during public health emergencies.
Telehealth Plans: The bill allows employers to offer telehealth as an accepted benefit to employees who are not full-time or do not qualify for their employer's coverage during the declared COVID-19 public health emergency until the later of January 1, 2022 or the date on which the COVID-19 public health emergency ends.
Protection of Human Genetic Information: The bill prohibits the collection, storing, analyzing, dissemination or use of human genetic information collected incidental to diagnostic and serologic testing for COVID-19 for purposes other than diagnostic or serologic testing, unless permitted with explicit, written patient consent. Violations will be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $100 for each violation.
Reagan-Udall Foundation and Foundation for the National Institutes of
Health: The bill increases the funding to be transferred to public-private partnerships by the FDA and NIH from between $500,000 and $1,250,000 to between $1,250,000 and $5,000,000, the purpose of which is to research and develop tests, treatments, and vaccines for COVID-19.
S. _, the Restoring Critical Supply Chains and Intellectual Property
TITLE I - U.S. Made Act
Domestic Purchasing Requirement for Personal Protective Equipment Acquisitions for the Strategic National Stockpile: The bill requires funds appropriated to the Secretary for the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) be used to purchase personal protective equipment (PPE) that was grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States. Covered items would include PPE equipment and clothing (and materials/components), sanitizing supplies and other medical supplies such as disinfecting wipes, curtains, beds, testing swabs, gauze and bandages, tents, tarpaulins, covers or bags, as well as any other textile medical supplies and equipment. This requirement does not apply to certain materials for which a non-availability determination was made or for procurements for amounts less than $150,000. Any procurement falling under these exceptions require notification by the Secretary within seven days on the relevant website maintained by the General Services Administration. The Secretary shall ensure training for the relevant HHS workforce engaged in maintenance of the SNS during the fiscal year 2021.
Investment Credit for Qualifying Medical PPE Manufacturing Projects: The bill creates an investment tax credit worth 30% of the basis of any tangible personal property necessary for the production of PPE placed in service by the taxpayer during the taxable year. The credit is only available pursuant to certifications awarded by the Treasury Secretary. The Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, shall establish a "qualifying medical personal protective equipment manufacturing project program" to consider and allocate credits for qualified investments. This program will select projects based on their ability to create jobs, to produce PPE needed by the SNS, to help achieve medical manufacturing independence, and to meet surges in demand for PPE. This program is capped at $7.5 billion.
Special Rules for Transfers of Intangible Property Relating to Medical PPE to United States Shareholders: The bill provides a special rule for the transfer of qualified intangible property from a controlled foreign corporation to its domestic corporate shareholder such that the property's fair market value is treated as not exceeding its basis. So long as no portion of the distribution is a dividend, then under the provision, no gain shall be recognized the United States shareholder. Qualified intangible property is any patent or formula for use in production of PPE. The Secretary shall issue regulations and guidance necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
The bill would: (1) establish temporary rules for
coronavirus-related claims; (2) provide protections for employers,
businesses, schools and health care providers; (3) grant temporary
labor and employment law protections; (4) and clarify existing
products liability protections.
Exposure Actions: The bill would create an exclusive cause of action for coronavirus exposure claims -- that is, civil actions brought by individuals who allege that exposure to coronavirus caused personal injury or the risk of person injury. The cause of action would cover all coronavirus exposure claims that arise between December 1, 2019 and up until either the end of the coronavirus emergency declaration or October 1, 2024. The cause of action would govern any covered claim against persons, schools, colleges, charities, churches, government agencies, associations, and businesses. It would preempt all state laws that impose liability for coronavirus exposure on broader grounds and would establish a one-year statute of limitations. The bill further provides that defendants are not liable for coronavirus exposure so long as they undertook reasonable efforts in light of all the circumstances to comply with the applicable mandatory coronavirus standards and regulations in effect at the time of the alleged exposure. If a plaintiff can establish that the defendant did not take reasonable steps to comply with the applicable standards and regulations, the plaintiff must further show that the defendant's gross negligence or willful misconduct caused an actual exposure to coronavirus that caused the plaintiff's personal injury.
Healthcare Protections: The bill also would create an exclusive cause of action for coronavirus medical liability claims against health care providers. This cause of action would allow for claims alleging personal injury caused by the prevention, treatment, diagnosis, or care of coronavirus, or care for any other purpose directly affected by the coronavirus. Health care providers would include doctors, nurses, facilities, administrators and volunteers. Once again, this cause of action would extend to injuries occurring between December 1, 2019 and up until either the end of the coronavirus emergency declaration or October 1, 2024, with a default statute of limitations of one year. As with exposure claims, states would be permitted to further limit liability for coronavirus medical liability claims. The bill would not preempt the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, government enforcement actions, claims of intentional discrimination, or existing federal laws governing vaccine injuries.
Procedural and Substantive Provisions for Suit: The bill provides further clarification on federal jurisdiction over any coronavirus-related actions, limitations on damages, preemption of state laws, pleading requirements, and discovery limitations.
Labor and Employment: The bill would protect employers from liability under federal labor and employment laws for action taken to comply with coronavirus-related public health guidance and regulations. This section would foreclose lawsuits for injuries caused by workplace coronavirus testing unless the injuries were caused by gross negligence or intentional misconduct of the employer. This section also creates an exception to employer notification laws.
Protections for Products: The bill would extend liability protections to products, such as types of PPE and hand sanitizer, if they meet certain FDA requirements. This section also clarifies liability protections based on methods of distribution of approved countermeasures.
The bill (1) amends certain provisions of the existing Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"); (2) provides for second draw PPP loans ("Second Draw loans") for certain borrowers; (3) creates long-term, low-interest rate loans ("Recovery Sector loans") for certain recovery sector businesses; and (4) establishes a facility (the "Small Business and Domestic Production Recovery Investment Facility") to provide long-term debt with equity features to registered SBA Small Business Investment Companies ("SBICs") to invest in certain small businesses, manufacturing businesses in the domestic supply chain, and businesses in low-income communities.
Paycheck Protection Program Amendments
The bill would make several changes to the PPP, which is administered by the Small Business Administration ("SBA"). Overall, the SBA Administrator would be allowed to make commitments of $749 billion for PPP and Second Draw loans made from February 15, 2020 through December 31, 2020. The bill would rescind $100 billion previously appropriated under the CARES Act (Pub. L. 116-136) and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 116-139), and then appropriate $190 billion for the PPP and Second Draw loans.
Expanded List of Forgivable Expenses: Currently, allowable and forgivable expenses for PPP loans include payroll costs, mortgage interest payments, rent, utilities, and interest on debt obligations incurred before February 15, 2020. The bill would expand the list of forgivable expenses to include: certain operations expenditures, such as payments for software, cloud computing, and other human resources and accounting needs; costs related to property damage due to public disturbances during 2020 that are not covered by insurance; supplier costs pursuant to a pre-February 15, 2020 contract for goods and that are essential to the recipient's current operations; and the cost of personal protective equipment and adaptive investments to help a business comply with federal health and safety COVID-19 guidelines between March 1 and December 31, 2020. In addition, the bill would amend the definition of "payroll costs" to include other employer-provided group insurance benefits.
Flexible Covered Period: Currently, a PPP loan's covered period for loan forgiveness generally begins on the loan disbursement date, with some exceptions depending on the borrower's pay period, and ends either 8 weeks or 24 weeks after that date. For the purpose of loan forgiveness, the bill would permit a borrower of a PPP loan to select the end date for the loan forgiveness covered period as any date between 8 weeks following the disbursement of the loan and December 31, 2020.
Simplified Forgiveness Application: The bill would simplify the loan forgiveness application process for smaller loans by reducing the amount of documentation submitted. For loans under $150,000, borrowers would not need to submit documentation except to attest to a good faith effort to comply with PPP loan requirements. Borrowers would also have to retain relevant records for three years. For loans between $150,000 and $2 million, borrowers would not need to submit documentation beyond the certification required by the CARES Act. Borrowers of such loans also would need to retain relevant records and worksheets for three years. The Administrator would retain the ability to review and audit these loans for fraud. The SBA would have to submit regular reports to the House and Senate Small Business Committees regarding their review and audit plan to mitigate fraud risks in PPP.
Eligibility of 501(c)(6) and Destination Marketing Organizations: The bill would expand eligibility for the PPP loans to 501(c)(6) organizations (1) that did not receive more than 10% of receipts from lobbying, (2) for which lobbying activities do not comprise more than 10% of receipts, (3) that have 50 or fewer employees, and (4) that are receiving loans of no more than $500,000. In addition, 501(c)(6) Chambers of Commerce with 300 or fewer employees and Destination Marketing Organizations that are 501(c)(6) organizations, quasi-government entities, or political subdivisions of a state or local government with 300 or fewer employees are also eligible.
Maximum Amount for First Round PPP Loans: The bill would reduce the maximum amount for a first round PPP loan from $10 million to $2 million. This would only apply to loans made after the date of enactment of the bill.
Increasing Loan Amounts: For businesses whose maximum loan amounts have increased due to changes in the SBA's and Treasury Department's interim final rules that permit such increases, the bill would allow them to work with their lenders to increase the loan value. It is not entirely clear from the language of the bill whether the PPP loan, as so increased, would be subject to the $2 million limit set forth above.
Definition of Seasonal Employer: The bill would add a definition of "seasonal employer" for purposes of the PPP. A seasonal employer would be one that (1) operates for no more than 7 months in a year, or (2) earned no more than one-third of its receipts in any 6 months in the prior calendar year.
Lender Safe Harbor: PPP lenders would be protected against enforcement actions if they, in good faith, relied on a certification or documentation submitted by a PPP borrower. A similar safe harbor currently exists in program guidance issued by the SBA and Treasury Department.
Bankruptcy: If the Administrator were to make a written determination that certain small business debtors are eligible for PPP loans, the bill would establish a special procedure in bankruptcy for courts to approve PPP loans for these debtors. These loans would be given superpriority claims in bankruptcy. This would sunset two years from the date of enactment.
Conflicts of Interest: The bill would require the President, Vice President, head of an Executive department, or a Member of Congress, as well as close family members, to disclose their public official status when receiving PPP, Second Draw, and Recovery Sector loans.
Overview of Paycheck Protection Program Second Draw Loans: Currently, PPP loan borrowers are may only receive one PPP loan. Under the PPP Second Draw loans program created by the bill, certain businesses that received a PPP loan previously would be eligible to receive a Second Draw loan. The bill would direct the SBA to allow lenders to approve Second Draw loans using existing program guidance and standard operating procedure for the SBA 7(a) program to the maximum extent possible, thus avoiding the need to issue new guidance.
Eligibility: To be eligible to receive a Second Draw loan, a business would need to meet the SBA's small business concern annual receipts size standard (if applicable) or the alternative size standard, employ not more than 300 employees, and demonstrate at least a 50% reduction in gross receipts during the first or second quarter of 2020 as compared to the same quarter in 2019. Businesses, certain non-profits, veterans' organizations, tribal businesses, self-employed individuals, sole proprietors, independent contractors, and small agricultural cooperatives would be eligible. In addition, businesses in NAICS Code 72 would be eligible if no single location employs more than 300 employees. However, certain businesses would not be eligible, such as certain ineligible businesses under existing SBA regulations, publicly-traded businesses, financial services businesses that received a PPP loan, and entities affiliated with the People's Republic of China.
Importantly, it does not appear that the exceptions to the affiliation rules applicable to first round PPP loans are applicable to Second Draw loans.
Loan Terms: Borrowers could only receive one Second Draw loan. In general, borrowers would be able to receive a Second Draw loan of up to 2.5 times the average total monthly payroll costs in the one year prior to the loan request, up to a maximum amount of $2 million. This calculation could differ for seasonal employers and new entities. If a business previously received a PPP loan, the total of the PPP loan and Second Draw loan may not exceed $10 million.
Loan Forgiveness: The Second Draw loan would be eligible for loan forgiveness equal to the sum of payroll costs; certain mortgage, rent, and utility payments; certain operations expenditures; certain property damage costs; certain supplier costs; and certain worker protection expenditures, in each case incurred during the loan forgiveness covered period selected by the borrower. The PPP requirement that at least 60% of the loan be used for payroll costs to receive full forgiveness also would apply to Second Draw loans.
Lenders and Set-Asides: The bill would authorize the Administrator to reimburse lenders for 3% of the principal amount of Second Draw loans up to $350,000 and 1% of any principal amount in excess of $350,000. The bill would also set aside $25 billion for businesses with 10 or fewer employees and $10 billion for loans to be made by community financial institutions; and insured depository institutions, credit unions, and farm credit institutions with assets of less than $10 billion. In addition, the bill would direct the Administrator to issue guidance addressing barriers to access to capital for underserved communities.
Overview of 7(a) Recovery Sector Loans: The bill would create Recovery Sector loans, which are a subset of 7(a) loans that are long-term, low-interest, and available to recovery sector businesses. The bill would allow commitments for Recovery Sector loans at $100 billion beginning on February 15, 2020 and ending December 31, 2020. The bill would appropriate $57.7 billion for these loans to be available until September 30, 2021.
Eligibility: Recovery Sector loans would be available to seasonable employers and businesses located in low-income census tracts that: (1) meet certain of the SBA's small business size standards; (2) employ 500 or fewer employees; and (3) demonstrate at least a 50% reduction in gross revenue in the first or second quarter of 2020 compared to the same quarter in 2019 (similar to the Second Draw Loans). Entities that are ineligible for PPP Second Draw loans or that received a Second Draw loan are not eligible for Recovery Sector loans.
Loan Terms: The Recovery Sector loan maximum amount would be two times the borrower's average annual receipts, up to $10 million. Recovery Sector loans have a maturity of 20 years and an interest rate equal to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) plus 3% per annum, although the SBA will pay the difference between such interest rate, and 1% so long as the loan remains in regular servicing status. The SBA would guarantee the loan 100%. The loan could be used for working capital, acquisition of fixed assets, and refinancing existing indebtedness. Unlike traditional 7(a) loans, the borrower would not have to demonstrate it cannot obtain credit elsewhere. Payments of principal and interest would be deferred for the first two years of the loan, with the option for the Administrator to extend the deferral period for another two years.
Lenders: The bill would require the SBA to establish a process to make PPP lenders eligible to make Recovery Sector loans. The Administrator would be authorized to reimburse lenders for 3% of the principal amount of the loan up to $350,000 and 1% of any principal amount in excess of $350,000. In addition, the bill would require the SBA to substantially reduce barriers to sell these loans on the secondary market.
Overview of Small Business Growth and Domestic Production Recovery Investment Facility: The bill would establish the Small Business and Domestic Production Recovery Investment Facility, which would commit to purchase long-term debt with equity features from registered SBA Small Business Investment Companies ("SBICs") to invest in small businesses with significant revenue losses from COVID-19, manufacturing businesses in the domestic supply chain, and businesses in low-income communities. Until the Administrator determines that the small business sector has recovered from the pandemic, at least 50% of SBICs' investment under this program would need to be invested in COVID-19 recovery small businesses and critical supply chain businesses. In addition, a portion of SBICs' capital would need to be invested in businesses owned by socially disadvantaged individuals. The bill would appropriate $10 billion for the investment facility.
Participating Investment Companies: In addition to current SBICs, the SBA would be allowed to consider non-bank, non-levered applicants for the investment facility. The SBA would select participating investment companies by considering the likelihood the applicant-company would either meet its financial goals, create and preserve jobs, recover output lost due to COVID-19, increase supply chain resiliency, or aid in the economic development of small businesses in low-income census tracts.
Commitments and SBIC Bonds: The Administrator would be authorized to make commitments to and purchase equity-like bonds ("SBIC Bonds") from participating SBICs. The Administrator's commitment would be the lesser of two times the SBIC's regulatory capital and $200 million. The SBIC Bonds would have a term of at least 15 years and an interest rate of up to 2% per annum which may be payable in kind. The Administrator will participate in the SBIC's profits at a specified rate. The bill includes certain additional limitations on distributions of profits and fees by the SBIC.
Future Actions: While the HEALS Act includes an expansion of the PPP program, several issues will likely need to be addressed in the final legislative package. Small businesses have expressed concern the requirements for a second PPP lean are too burdensome. Banks have expressed concern that the streamlined forgiveness provisions are still too onerous and asked lawmakers to consider a single question attestation that PPP funds were used in accordance with the program's guidelines to retain employees. We expect these provisions, and several other provisions-including the HEALS-proposed long term loans-to continue to evolve before the final legislative package.
American Workers, Families, and Employers Assistance Act
Title I - FURTHER RELIEF FOR WORKERS AFFECTED BY CORONAVIRUS
Improvements to Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation to better match lost wages: The CARES Act provided an additional $600 per week unemployment insurance payment to eligible beneficiaries. This legislation proposes to reduce that payment to $200 per week through October 5, 2020. After October 5, the $200 additional payment would be replaced with a new payment of up to $500, that, when added to the underlying state payment, totaled 70% of the beneficiary's lost wages. Under the legislation, states could devise their own payment method or use the method outlined in the legislation. States could also seek a waiver to continue a flat payment for two months if unable to provide a second payment tied to lost wages. Beginning in October, the additional payment would count as income in determining eligibility for federal low-income programs.
Supplemental emergency unemployment relief for governmental entities and nonprofit organizations: The legislation would increase the federal subsidy from 50% to 75% of the cost of providing additional unemployment benefits.
Conforming eligibility for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance to disaster unemployment assistance and accelerating appeal review: The legislation would streamline the procedures necessary for qualification for unemployment benefits, and would allow states to handle appeals in the same way they currently handle appeals for state UI benefits.
Improvements to State unemployment systems and strengthening program integrity: The legislation would provide additional resources to State unemployment systems to upgrade their systems and to strengthen their ability to fight fraud.
TANF Coronavirus Emergency Fund: The legislation would provide states with flexible resources to provide short-term relief under the TANF program. This assistance is capped at $2 billion.
Title II - ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND EMPLOYERS TO REOPEN THE ECONOMY
Subtitle A - RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES
Additional 2020 Recovery Rebates for Individuals: As under the CARES Act, which passed earlier this year, this bill proposes to provide a payment of $1,200 to US citizens and US residents with adjusted gross income of up to $75,000 ($150,000 if the taxpayer files as married filing jointly). The payment phases out between $75,000 and $99,000 for single filers (or above $146,500 for heads of households with one dependent, $198,000 for married filing jointly with no dependents). In addition, the bill proposes to provide payments of $500 per dependent. Unlike the CARES act, this bill would use a more generous definition of dependent, such that older children and other dependents qualify.
The bill also seeks to make technical corrections to the payments authorized under the CARES Act, such as retroactively disallowing the deceased from claiming the payment and barring prisoners from receiving such payments. In addition, the bill also generally would protect the payment from garnishment.
Subtitle B - JOB CREATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Enhanced employee hiring and retention payroll tax credit: This legislation seeks to expand eligibility for the employee retention credit created under the CARES Act. It would expand the credit to reimburse up to 65% of $30,000 in wages, up from 50% of $10,000 in wages. It would also increase the number of eligible employers by allowing those who have suffered a decline in gross receipts of 25% as measured from the same quarter the previous year, down from the 50% declined required under the CARES Act. It also would widen the definition of eligible employers to include tax-exempt organizations.
Under the CARES Act, those employers with more than 100 employees only received the credit to the extent that employee was not providing services; those with 100 or fewer employees received the credit regardless of whether the employee provided services. This bill proposes to increase that threshold to 500 employees. The bill would also make other changes to the CARES Act program, such as clarifying that qualified wages include group health plan expenses, consistent with recent IRS guidance.
Temporary expansion of work opportunity tax credit: The legislation would create a new class of Work Opportunity Tax Credit eligible employees, allowing employers to qualify for the credit by hiring an employee who had qualified for unemployment assistance prior to hiring. The employee would have to begin work after the date of enactment and before January 1, 2021. In that case, the employer would be eligible for a credit of 50% of the first $10,000 in wages paid to that employee.
Safe and healthy workplace tax credit: The legislation would create a refundable payroll credit equal to 50% of the cost of several different types of types of expenses incurred for the primary purpose of preventing the spread of COVID-19. The categories of eligible expenses include those designed to protect employees, such as personal protective equipment and testing, those designed to protect workplaces, such as modifications to workspaces to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and technology improvements, such as contactless point of sale upgrades and tools to track employee-customer interactions. The credit is capped, not to exceed $1,000 per employee for the first 500 employees, $750 for the next 500 employees, and $500 per employee thereafter, per quarter. The credit would be available for the self-employed as well.
COVID-19 assistance provided to independent contractors: Between March 12, 2020 and January 1, 2021, the legislation would provide a safe harbor to the operators of "marketplace platforms," i.e., those websites or apps that facilitate the "provision of goods or services by providers to recipients," such that they do not jeopardize their independent contractor relationship with the individuals who provide services using the marketplace platform. This safe harbor would allow the operators to provide financial assistance because of the reduced business caused by COVID-19, COVID-19 related health benefits, equipment to protect the individual or their customers from COVID-19, or provide cleaning or training services related to COVID-19.
Subtitle C - CARES ACT CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS
Application of special rules to money purchase pension plans: The legislation would allow money purchase pension plans to qualify for the special coronavirus-related distribution rules created under the CARES Act.
Clarification of delay in payment of minimum required contributions: This bill would provide a technical correction, moving the deadline for any minimum required contribution from January 1, 2021 to January 4, 2021.
Employee certification as to eligibility for increased CARES Act loan limits from employer plan: The legislation would allow a plan administrator to rely on an employee's self-certification regarding eligibility for retirement plan loans, and would make this certification retroactive as if it were part of the CARES Act.
Election to waive application of certain modifications to farming losses: Under the CARES Act, farmers could claim a five-year carryback of net operating losses. This legislation would allow farmers to retain a two-year carryback if that is what the taxpayer had previously elected. This section also allows farmers who previously waived the carryback to revoke the waiver. This provision would be retroactive, as if it had been enacted as part of the CARES Act.
Oversight and audit reporting: This legislation would expand the number of Congressional committees with oversight authority to include Senate Finance and House Ways and Means.
Title IV - ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND PAYMENTS AND STATE TAX CERTAINTY FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS
Expansion of allowable use of Coronavirus Relief Fund payments by States and Tribal and Local Governments: The legislation would grant additional flexibility to uses of the Coronavirus Relief Funds available to state, tribal, and local governments, including expanding the period of time the funds may be used and allowing their use to cover revenue shortfalls. The provision also adds certain program integrity provisions, including maintenance of effort requirements and audit flags, and limitations, such as prohibitions to their use in pension funds.
Accountability for the disbursement and use of State or government relief payments: The legislation would require mandatory reporting to Treasury on the uses of these funds. This provision would also establish a quarterly reporting requirement to Congress by Treasury's Inspector General.
State tax certainty for employees and employers: The legislation would create a uniform procedure for assessing state and local income taxes on remote and mobile workers. Under the legislation, prior to 2025, employees who perform services in multiple states would be subject to state income tax only in their state of residence and any state in which they perform services in excess of 30 days (90 days in the case of certain healthcare workers for 2020). In addition, this provision would allow employers to treat employees' wages as earned at their normal work location until the earlier of when the employees return to such location or the end of 2020. Additionally, for that same specified period, employers generally will not be treated as creating a taxable presence in a state due to the employment of remote workers in such state.
The Supporting America's Restaurant Workers Act: This legislation would allow 100% of the cost of a business meal to be deducted, as long as it was provided by a restaurant and incurred before January 1, 2021.
To view the full article please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.


COLOMBO: Sri Lankan cricket has been going through a rough patch as of recent and it seems like the problems are never-ending. Now according to reports, former Sri Lankan captain Angelo Mathews has been ruled out of the opening Test against Pakistan to be played in UAE owing to a grade one tear in his calf muscle, that he sustained during a training session.
The all-rounder hasn’t been at his best when it comes to fitness in recent times. He missed the entire Bangladesh series which included Tests due to the same injury. Earlier this year, he hurt his hamstring on the South Africa tour in January which forced him to miss games as well.
History of injuries
Even last year, Mathews tore his calf muscle during the fourth One-Day International against Australia which resulted in him missing out on the remainder of the tour. He also missed the Test series against Zimbabwe. These injuries have surely rocked him at a crucial stage in his career where he’s been trying to reinvent himself.
Also, his injuries have come at a time when the Sri Lankan cricket is facing its worst times whether it be in terms of administration or in terms of performance. After losing to Bangladesh at home, the islanders put up a pathetic display against India who completely whitewashed them in all formats that too in their own backyard.
The all-rounder has scored close to 10000 runs in international cricket alongside taking more than 100 wickets. At the age of 30, he still has a lot to offer to the Sri Lankan team and quite many feats to accomplish. However, he would’ve to work really hard upon his fitness to stay relevant for longer.


text: In addition to increased morbidity and mortality caused by respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, air pollution may also negatively affect the brain and contribute to central nervous system diseases. Air pollution is a mixture comprised of several components, of which ultrafine particulate matter (UFPM; <100 nm) is of much concern, as these particles can enter the circulation and distribute to most organs, including the brain. A major constituent of ambient UFPM is represented by traffic-related air pollution, mostly ascribed to diesel exhaust (DE). Human epidemiological studies and controlled animal studies have shown that exposure to air pollution may lead to neurotoxicity. In addition to a variety of behavioral abnormalities, two prominent effects caused by air pollution are oxidative stress and neuroinflammation, which are seen in both humans and animals and are confirmed by in vitro studies. Among factors which can affect neurotoxic outcomes, age is considered the most relevant. Human and animal studies suggest that air pollution (and DE) may cause developmental neurotoxicity and may contribute to the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autistic spectrum disorders. In addition, air pollution exposure has been associated with increased expression of markers of neurodegenerative disease pathologies.

domain: medical


Anti-Semitic Beer Pong Shakes Community, Draws Strong Response
As the town and the high school confront difficult questions about underage drinking, anti-semitism, and the effects of social media, the Princeton Police Department (PPD) continues to investigate last week’s “Nazis v Jews” beer pong incident, which involved a number of Princeton High School students.
“We are investigating who provided alcohol to the minors,” stated Lieutenant Jon Bucchere of the PPD. It is not a criminal violation for minors to possess and consume alcohol on private property, he added, so “many times these cases are hard to prove.”
Nobody, according to Mr. Bucchere, has come forward as a victim in the incident, and there have been no charges of harassment or anti-semitism. The Police Department became aware of the incident on Friday when they received an anonymous tip. They continue to investigate and follow up on leads, but to prove criminal culpability they must have evidence of who provided the alcohol or of an adult who knowingly made available a place for underage drinking.
A photo of the beer pong game, showing seven high school students around a table, on which are numerous cans of Coors Light beer and cups arranged in a design of a swastika at one end of the table and a Star of David at the other, had been circulating on social media for several days.
This particular anti-semitic and “profoundly offensive” version of the beer pong drinking game has been around for at least five years, according to the Anti-Defamation League, its “over-the-top insensitivities” include allowing the “Jews” to hide one of their cups as the “Anne Frank” cup and the “Nazi” team to “Auschwitz” their opponents, requiring one of the players to temporarily sit out.
The School Board responded strongly to the incident, stating, “Princeton Public Schools do not tolerate prejudices of any kind. Clearly we have work to do. The issues we are presented with С bias, ethnic insensitivity, underage alcohol abuse, and inappropriate social media use С are neither new nor unique to Princeton, but this incident has brought them into sharp focus.
Though possible disciplinary consequences for the students involved remain confidential, The Board statement went on to say, “this incident raises difficult questions for all of us in the community about what we are teaching our children both in school and at home. As a district we will closely examine our efforts to address the root causes of these problems to ensure that the Princeton Public Schools remain first and foremost a place of tolerance and caring.”
School Superintendent Steve Cochrane stated that the administration was talking with those students involved and their families, and at the same time was “focused on the lessons this incident has for all of us.” Emphasizing that “as a community we all have a role in teaching our children to make good decisions, to be legally responsible, and to be respectful members of a diverse society,” he said “an incident such as this one forces us to take a look at our efforts in educating our children in the values that may be most important to their success in life.”
Pointing out the high school’s commitment “to take care of our students and to teach important lessons,” Principal Gary Snyder stated, ”Our students, faculty, and community are hurt. We are in a restorative process that will require time to address the varying degrees and reasons for pain. Our process will be one of education on the following topics: underage drinking; specifically, Holocaust education, and, more broadly, education on all areas of diversity; the use of social media; and the topic of civic discourse on complicated issues.”
Mr. Snyder went on to point out, “Unfortunately, we are in a negative light, but our strength as a school has always been our reliance on educational discourse to see us through difficult days.”
High School social studies teacher Jeff Lucker will address the implications of the incident in his classroom. ”The issue of Holocaust education is one of great interest and concern to me,” he said, noting that “the Holocaust, underage drinking, and the use and abuse of social media definitely require discussion.”
Mr. Lucker plans to “universalize the issues in his discussions with his students, rather than dwelling on particulars of the beer pong incident.” Last Friday, however, “with the TV trucks within sight on Moore Street,” Mr. Lucker explained to his students why the discussion would be postponed. “With feelings of anger, frustration, fear, and embarrassment running so strong, I felt it was an atmosphere in which even the most well-intentioned comments could be easily misconstrued and misrepresented. As I told them, ‘There is a time and a place; this is the place, but not the right time.’”
In a widely circulated blog post, high school junior Jamaica Ponder decried the incident and criticized the students involved, “Putting the picture on social media means that someone was proud enough of the game to want to show it off,” the blog stated. “Meaning that they must be trapped in the delusional mindset that making a drinking game based off of the Holocaust is cool. Or funny. Or anything besides insane. Because that’s what this is: insanity.”
Princeton Council President Lance Liverman has announced that a Host Liability Forum, focusing on the problem of underage drinking, is scheduled for May 18 from 7 to 9 p.m. in the meeting room of the municipal building. “It’s an entire country issue,” Mr. Liverman stated. “It happens all over. If you’re a parent, and it happens in your home and you’re aware of it, that’s a problem. People hosting — that’s what we’re trying to impact. Also, I’m not sure these kids understood historically what they were doing.”


Modern vehicles are equipped with a plethora of sensors to ensure optimal performance and efficiency. Among these sensors, the Engine Coolant Temperature sensor plays a critical role. It helps in keeping the engine operating at the optimal temperature. This device also helps to maintain the vehicle’s fuel efficiency and emission control. However, regular maintenance and addressing any ECT sensor-related problems is a must to ensure a smooth and efficient driving experience.
Let’s delve into the details of the ECT sensor, its function, its working principles and its location in the engine.
What is an Engine Coolant Temperature Sensor
The Engine Coolant Temperature (ECT) sensor is also known as the Coolant Temperature Sensor or Coolant Sender. Moreover, it is a vital component in a vehicle’s engine management system. The primary ECT sensor function is to monitor the temperature of the engine coolant and provide real-time data to the Engine Control Unit (ECU) or Powertrain Control Module (PCM). This information is crucial for the engine’s performance, fuel efficiency, emissions and overall operation.
Functions of ECT Sensor
The ECT sensor serves two primary functions:
Engine Performance and Fuel Management
Also, the engine’s performance and fuel management are dependent on its operating temperature. When the engine is cold, it requires a richer fuel mixture to start and run smoothly. As the engine warms up, the fuel mixture needs to be adjusted to a leaner ratio to optimise fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. The ECT sensor continuously provides temperature data to the ECU, enabling it to adjust the fuel injection and ignition timing accordingly.
The ECT sensor also plays a crucial role in warning the driver about potential engine overheating. If the engine temperature rises too high, the ECU can trigger a warning light on the dashboard to alert the driver. Additionally, in some vehicles, it may activate the engine’s cooling fan to help dissipate excess heat. In this scenario, you must replace the coolant temperature sensor for better performance.
As a result, if the engine is cold, the ECU enriches the fuel mixture to improve cold-starting and reduce engine wear. Conversely, if it’s hot, the ECU leans the fuel mixture to prevent overheating. The ECT sensor data also enables the ECU to manage the operation of the radiator’s cooling fan.
Engine Coolant Temperature (ECT) Sensor Working
The ECT sensor utilises a thermistor, which is a type of resistor whose electrical resistance changes with temperature. As the engine coolant temperature varies, the resistance of the thermistor changes proportionally. When the engine coolant temperature is cold, the resistance is high and as the temperature increases, the resistance decreases. Also, this characteristic allows the ECT sensor to generate a variable voltage signal based on the coolant temperature.
For instance, when you start your car, the engine is cold and the ECT sensor’s resistance is high. As the ECU receives this information, it increases the length of the fuel injectors’ pulses. This then enriches the air-fuel mixture and adjusts the ignition timing. As the engine warms up, the ECT sensor’s resistance decreases and the ECU leans out the fuel mixture and normalises the car ignition timing. However, in case of a bad engine control module, your car engine won’t be able to monitor the engine cooling system.
Location of the Engine Coolant Temperature Sensor
The exact location of the ECT sensor can vary depending on the vehicle’s make and model. However, some common locations include:
- Near the Thermostat Housing: In many vehicles, the ECT sensor is placed near the thermostat housing. The car thermostat is responsible for regulating the flow of coolant through the engine based on its temperature. Placing the ECT sensor near the thermostat housing allows it to measure the coolant temperature as it exits the engine. However, make sure you keep an eye on the signs of the bad thermostat to avoid any issues while driving.
- Cylinder Head: Another common location for the ECT sensor is on the cylinder head or engine block. Placing the sensor here allows it to monitor the temperature of the engine’s metal components directly.
- Coolant Outlet Pipe: In some vehicles, the ECT sensor is located on the coolant outlet pipe. This pipe carries coolant from the engine to the radiator, making it an ideal spot to measure the coolant’s temperature.
- Radiator: In a few cases, the ECT sensor is mounted on the car radiator itself. This location provides information about the coolant temperature after it has passed through the engine and is ready to be cooled down.
It’s essential to consult the vehicle’s service manual or a qualified mechanic to locate the specific position of the ECT sensor in a particular vehicle.
Common ECT Sensor Problems
While the ECT sensor is a reliable component, it can encounter issues over time. Some common bad ECT sensor symptoms are:
The ECT sensor’s performance can degrade, leading to inaccurate temperature readings. This can cause the engine to run rich or lean, impacting fuel efficiency and emissions.
If the ECT sensor fails to detect rising engine temperatures accurately, it may not trigger the cooling fan at the right time. This can lead to an overheating car engine.
Check Engine Light
A malfunctioning ECT sensor can trigger the check engine light on the dashboard, indicating a potential problem with the sensor or its circuit.
Hard Starting or Stalling
In some cases, a faulty ECT sensor can cause difficulty starting the engine, especially when cold it causes engine stalling.
The Engine Coolant Temperature Sensor may be a small component in your car, but its function and operation are vital for your engine’s optimal performance, fuel efficiency and emission control. A malfunctioning ECT sensor can lead to poor fuel economy, engine damage, or emission test failure. Hence, maintaining a healthy ECT sensor is just as important as any other component of your vehicle’s engine management system.
To wrap up, the next time your vehicle displays a warning light or shows signs of car overheating, remember the crucial role the humble ECT sensor plays.
Besides, if you buy a used car in the UAE make sure you check its dashboard warning light to avoid any costly repairs. A little knowledge about your vehicle’s workings can go a long way in preventive maintenance and repair.
Stay updated with the dubizzle car blog to know more about car parts and their functions.


text:
A review of A Heteroglossic Theory of Proto-Genbun Itchi in Edo and Early Meiji Writings, by Kelly J. Hansen.
Historians and historiographers of modern Japanese literature have long debated the fraught relationship between “reality” and the language in which it is inevitably encoded and described. A teleological view of literary modernity often presumes a clean break between ossified tradition and modern innovation. Accordingly, analyses of the various calls for mimesis and linguistic transparency subsumed under the name genbun itchi have largely focused on the Meiji era as a period of such rupture — a time during which earlier views of language and representation were abandoned in favor of new (largely European-derived) theories of literary realism. Kelly Hansen’s 2009 dissertation challenges this reductive viewpoint by highlighting points of continuity and development across the perennially contested “early modern/modern” cultural divide. Through her theorization and discussion of “proto-genbun itchi,” Hansen deconstructs genbun itchi’s mystique as a privileged discourse standing distinct from earlier Japanese literary history and situates it in a larger context that acknowledges connections with Meiji Japan’s often suppressed literary past. Rather than search for a decisive origin or foundational work (such as the oft-celebrated Ukigumo of Futabatei Shimei), Hansen’s theory of proto-genbun itchi explores the overlooked connections that are suppressed or effaced through the creation of such an origin. Her dissertation effectively traces a “growing awareness of the gap between the spoken and written languages” (p. 6) from the beginning of the Edo period through the early Meiji.
Hansen’s introduction begins with a re-examination of two works conventionally identified as starting points for discussion of the nascent genbun-itchi “movement”: Futabatei Shimei’s Ukigumo (the first installment of which was published in 1887) and Tsubouchi Shōyō’s Shōsetsu shinzui of 1885. The former is particularly important to Hansen’s discussion as a “self-proclaimed attempt at a Western-style realist novel” (p. 3) — one held up by Meiji-era and contemporary critics alike as the decisive point of rupture between Edo-period belles-lettres and a new literature predicated on notions of bunmei kaika. Hansen challenges this characterization and introduces the theoretical constructs she will use to situate the work within a larger field of linguistic experimentation — much of which, she argues, built upon Edo-period observations about literature and language. Of particular importance to Hansen’s definition of “proto-genbun itchi” are a re-examination of the term “realism” as it was used by Meiji-era writers and literary theorists, and an important distinction between “transparency” and “opacity” as a way of considering linguistic discourse apart from questions of realism and literary mimesis.
Chapter 1 provides a thorough survey of secondary scholarship relating to Ukigumo and the critical corpus of both Futabatei Shimei and Tsubouchi Shōyō. Hansen demonstrates the degree to which recent scholarship on these writers has focused on these works within the paradigms of bunmei kaika and Japanese interest in Western literary models. She argues that this traditional interpretation obscures a far more complex discourse about language and representation in the early Meiji and mystifies Ukigumo as a sui generis progenitor of genbun itchi. Hansen suggests that this characterization ignores both alternate theoretical trajectories explored by the contemporaries of Futabatei and Shōyō, as well as the necessity of examining pre-Meiji discussions of the status of language in evaluating the historical significance of Futabatei and Shōyō’s corpus.
Chapter 2 challenges the paradigms presented earlier by focusing on Edo-period discussions of language, script, and linguistic diversity. Of particular importance to Hansen’s discussion is Edo-period Japanese scholars’ troubled and evolving relationship with the Chinese language in which the texts comprising a classical education were written. Hansen presents a number of philological challenges to “Chinese linguistic hegemony” (p. 78), including the work of Itō Jinsai, whose focus on “ancient meanings” (kogigaku) was related to his interest in applying the contents of texts to everyday (Japanese) life. The second section of the chapter analyzes the ideas of Ogyū Sorai, whose philological research highlighted the lexical, syntactic, and morphological differences between the Japanese and Chinese languages. Building upon the research of Yoshikawa Kōjirō and Emanuel Pastreich, Hansen argues that Sorai’s rejection of Japanese glosses (wakun) and insistence upon approaching Chinese texts as a foreign language created a foundation for later scholars to claim parity or even superiority for the Japanese language vis-à-vis Chinese. This idea is developed in Hansen’s subsequent discussion of the kokugaku scholar Motoori Norinaga.
Chapter 3 moves from the philological research of Edo-period classical scholars to the commercial sphere with an examination of heteroglossia and linguistic experimentation in popular literature. Hansen provides surveys of the print industry and trends in education and literacy, and connects these categories to the reading public’s increased (albeit often indirect) involvement in discussions about linguistic representation. She identifies dialogization and heteroglossia as defining features of Edo-period written production and emphasizes the increased awareness of a gap between archaic written forms and vernacular dialogue. In looking forward to the Meiji period, Hansen is particularly interested in the binary between transparency and opacity she described in her introduction. Interest in contemporary society and the increased use of vernacular-derived written language might be used to characterize writers on either side of the Edo-Meiji divide. However, Hansen’s discussion of popular literature in the Edo period demonstrates the degree to which authors were interested in the “opaque” polysemic effects of intertextuality, relationships between text and illustration, and humorous manipulation of kanji and kana glosses. Hansen concludes that an examination of these works reveals that the desire for “transparency” voiced by literary experimenters in the Meiji period cannot be understood as a question of using colloquial-based dialogue alone. On the contrary, authors of gesaku in particular were interested in the obfuscating or linguistically problematic (and therefore humorous) effects of colloquial language.
Hansen’s final chapter chronicles Meiji-period interest in transparency through an examination of the rise of the newspaper industry and the concomitant shift from woodblock printing to movable type. Engaging previous scholarship by Maeda Ai and Peter Kornicki, Hansen considers the effects the reformatting and realignments necessitated by transference to movable type would have on a reader accustomed to the gestalt relationship between image and text in woodblock prints. Her study returns to Futabatei Shimei’s Ukigumo with the primary intention of positioning the novel alongside the many experiments with voice, narration, and syntax carried out by Futabatei and his contemporaries — experiments whose critical intention or focus has largely been effaced by Ukigumo’s later canonization. The study concludes with a call for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between early Meiji-period experimentation and Edo-period discussions of language and literary representation. Kelly Hansen’s study fits in well with a growing body of scholarship devoted to the deconstruction or demystification of boundaries between the modern and premodern in Japanese cultural production, and her dissertation effectively and eloquently proposes a method for reconceptualizing these lines of demarcation.
William C. Hedberg
University of North Carolina-Wilmington
Futabatei Shimei, Ukigumo
Tsubouchi Shōyō, Shōsetsu shinzui
Itō Jinsai, Gomō jigi
Oygū Sorai zenshū
Kanagaki Robun, Takahashi Oden yasha monogatari
University of Hawai’i, 2009. 275 pp. Primary Advisor: Joel Cohn.
Image: From Shikitei Samba’s Ukiyoburo, Waseda University Library.

domain: library


tisdag 29 juli 2014
Opus Update; broad side
Just a short update on the progress of the Opus Magna. To get the sides of the hull ready for plaster and detailing I need to add the weapon sponsons for the broad sides. In total there will be 18 mounts, 10 for the main lance batteries and 8 for close defence. The lace batteries consists of 10 quad linked "plasma lances" counts as lascannons or something similar. The other 8 points carries hurricane bolter arrays, in total there are 96 bolters, the equivalent of an entire marine company. Appart from this there are also 12 heavy bolters mounted in the hull itself.
This is only the weapons mounted in the hull below the flight deck, there will be more guns in the tower and around the battlements.
Now I just need to drill out the barrels of some 84 bolters...


Repair and service of burners in residential and utility buildings
Residential and utility buildings
Repair and service of burners
Why is it worth ensuring good burners condition?
We service oil, gas, multi-oil and pellet burners. It is worth taking care of the good condition of the burners, because a neglected burner results in faster wear of other components of the heating system, which directly translates into increased heating and operating costs. Certainly, the financially more advantageous solution is prevention than failure and then costly repair of the boiler.
Warranty and post-warranty service
Warranty and post-warranty service of the above mentioned burners is not only cleaning and maintenance, but also their proper adjustment. Only when the burner is properly adjusted will our heating system pay back to us with less frequent repair needs and lower operating costs.
Cooperation with us is more than repair and service
In the event of a more serious breakdown, through which you would be forced to stop for a long time in the supply of heating to the building, we offer a temporary solution for the time of repair, which is the use of a burner with properly matched power.
Our services regarding the repair and maintenance of burners are primarily:
Appropriate technical facilities and many years of experience are the key reason why you should outsource repair or service to your burner, regardless of whether it is a small or large company, institution, single-family house or multi-family building. The conclusion of a long-term contract is a guarantee of calmness, efficiency and reliability of the heating installation.


text:
What if you could make a sofa fire-resistant without chemicals linked to myriad environmental and human health problems – from developmental disorders in toddlers, to fertility disruption in adults, to a troubling pattern of cancers among firefighters?
In the four decades since California changed manufacturing practices nationwide by requiring that foam-filled furniture, mattresses, infant clothes and other products be treated with flame retardants, policymakers and legislators have struggled with a difficult trade-off.
- On the one hand are the real but murky long-term risks from chemicals known or assumed to have some toxicity in people, in circumstances where exposure resists measurement.
- On the other, there’s the danger of sudden death by fire or asphyxiation when the sofa goes up in flames.
In recent years, firefighters have complicated the policy debate by making a potent case in Minnesota and other states (including California) that some of the retardants used in upholstered furniture aren’t nearly as effective as people like to think.
They argue that it’s time to modernize an approach in which manufacturers build their cushions to pass California flammability tests without any effective oversight of the chemicals they use to get there, or assurance of real-world benefits.
Meanwhile, studies show that flame retardants have become a widespread contaminant in coastal ecosystems [PDF] as well, with significant concentrations found throughout the bivalves, fish and mammals of their food webs.
As manufacturers struggle toward new methods that supplant some portion of the standard halogen- or bromine-based retardants with, for example, certain fire-resistant natural oils, a chemical engineering team at the University of Texas announced last week that it has come up with an even simpler solution:
A completely natural and cheaply synthesized substance that outperforms traditional retardants (at least at laboratory scale) and can be applied to the outside of a polyurethane foam cushion rather than larded through it. Because the layer is very thin and flexible, it carries the side benefit of a 20 to 30 percent reduction in the cushions’ weight.
A cousin to neurotransmitter
The substance is known as polydopamine, and if that sounds to you like some kind of brain chemical associated with pleasure, addiction and Parkinson’s disease, you are on the right track.
A chemical cousin to the neurotransmitter dopamine, polydopamine is essential to the well-being of common mussels – not because it regulates their moods or enables them to enjoy cocaine, cigarettes and video games, but because it sticks to pretty much anything.
When mussels secrete polydopamine from their feet, they can cling indefinitely not only to rocks being battered by saltwater surf, but “to virtually any surface, including Teflon, the material used in nonstick cookware.”
Stickiness was one virtue that got the researchers, led by Christopher Ellison of UT’s Cockrell School of Engineering, to thinking about polydopamine. The other was, for you chemists in the house, its “dihydroxy-ring structure linked with an amine group that can be used to scavenge or remove free radicals.”
When the polyurethane foam of a sofa cushion burns, they explained last month in a journal of the American Chemical Society, certain carbon-centered free radicals are released, “and their removal is critical to stopping the fire from continuing to spread.” Exposed to an open flame or high heat, they found,
Polydopamine also produces a protective coating called char, which blocks the fire’s access to its fuel source — the polymer. The synergistic combination of both these processes makes polydopamine an attractive and powerful flame retardant.
Putting idea to the torch
That was the theory, anyway. To test it, the researchers mixed up a batch of synthetic polydopamine, diluted it with plain water, then soaked chunks of polyurethane foam in the mixture for periods ranging from one to three days. This resulted in a thin “nanocoating” that got a little thicker with the longer soak times but still added far less volume to the foam than conventional retardants.
Then came the fun part, which you can see in a video here.
Using a butane torch remarkably like the kitchen gadget I use to finish a crème brûlée, only bigger, the scientists exposed the treated and untreated chunks of foam to a flame estimated at 1,300 degrees Celsius (almost 2,400o F.). According to their paper,
Upon exposure to direct flame, the neat control foam immediately ignited, formed a polyurethane melt pool, and was completely consumed while the fire was transferred to underlying materials by melt dripping.
For polydopamine-coated foams, no melt dripping was exhibited regardless of thickness, but an improvement in overall performance was observed as deposition thickness/time was increased. [Foam treated for three days] retained the original shape of the foam upon exposure to the torch and the flame self-extinguished quickly, leaving a part of the foam unburned, whereas [one-day] foams collapsed and were severely damaged.
In all cases, after the fires went out, the treated foams were found to be covered with a sturdy char layer, indicating that the polydopamine coating had survived the fire and offered protection against re-ignition.
Tests with high heat but no flame
The researchers then exposed foam chunks to intense “heat flux” without an open flame, using methods and metrics that were over my head but essentially gauge how intensely a substance is burning by measuring how much oxygen it consumes.
Char layers did not form in these tests, but the chunks with polydopamine coatings showed significant flammability reductions, again increasing with treatment time. Basically, once the liquid drips produced by initial melting of the foam had been consumed, the flames went out.
Returning to the plain-language summary of the university’s announcement:
Using far less polydopamine by weight than typical of conventional flame retardant additives, the UT Austin team found that the polydopamine coating on foams leads to a 67 percent reduction in peak heat release rate, a measure of fire intensity and imminent danger to building occupants or firefighters. The polydopamine flame retardant’s ability to reduce the fire’s intensity is about 20 percent better than existing flame retardants commonly used today.
Researchers have studied the use of synthetic polydopamaine for a number of health-related applications, including cancer drug delivery and implantable biomedical devices. However, the UT Austin team is thought to be one of the first to pursue the use of polydopamine as a flame retardant.
Ellison and his team are now testing to see whether they can shorten the nanocoating treatment process or develop a more convenient application process.
* * *
The full paper, published in the journal Chemistry of Materials, is available here but access isn’t free to nonsubscribers.

domain: news