COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In August 2010, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) filed a civil complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court against the Company and Franklin Fueling Systems, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company). The complaint relates to a third-party-supplied component part of the Company's Healy 900 Series nozzle, which is part of the Company's Enhanced Vapor Recovery (“EVR”) Systems installed in California gasoline filling stations. This part, a diaphragm, was the subject of a retrofit during the first half of 2008. As the Company previously reported, in October 2008 CARB issued a Notice of Violation to the Company alleging that the circumstances leading to the retrofit program violated California statutes and regulations. The Company and CARB worked to resolve the diaphragm matter without court action, but were unable to reach agreement.

The claims in the complaint mirror those that CARB presented to the Company in the Notice of Violation, and include claims that the Company negligently and intentionally sold nozzles with a modified diaphragm without required CARB certification. The Company believes that, throughout the period to which the complaint relates, it acted in full cooperation with CARB and in the best interests of CARB's vapor emissions control program. Although the complaint seeks penalties of at least $25.0 million, it is the Company's position that there is no reasonable basis for penalties of this amount.

In addition, as the Company has previously reported, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (“SMAQMD”) issued a Notice of Violation to the Company concerning the diaphragm matter in March 2008. Discussions with that agency about the circumstances leading to the retrofit in its jurisdiction and the resolution of the agency's concerns did not result in agreement, and in November 2010 SMAQMD filed a civil complaint in the Sacramento Superior Court, mirroring the claims brought by CARB with respect to the diaphragm issue and also alleging violation of SMAQMD rules. SMAQMD's suit asks for at least $5.0 million in penalties for the violations claimed in its jurisdiction.

In July 2010, the Company entered into a tolling agreement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) and began discussions with that agency about the circumstances leading to the retrofit in its jurisdiction and the resolution of the agency's concerns. Those discussions did not result in agreement and in December 2010, SCAQMD filed a civil complaint against the Company in Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint alleges violations of California statutes and regulations, similar to the complaint filed by CARB, as well as violation of SCAQMD rules, and seeks penalties of at least $12.5 million. The SCAQMD complaint does not allege an intentional violation of any statute, rule, or regulation. This case has now been consolidated with the CARB case in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The Company believes that there is no reasonable basis for the amount of penalties claimed in the SMAQMD and SCAQMD suits. The Company has answered the SMAQMD and SCAQMD complaints, as well as the CARB complaint, denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses. Discovery in all these cases commenced but has been stayed until October 31, 2012, and the consolidated CARB and SCAQMD cases are set for trial on December 17, 2012.

Neither CARB's filing of its suit nor the air district suits have any effect on CARB's certification of the Company's EVR System or any other products of the Company or its subsidiaries, and so do not interfere with continuing sales. CARB has never decertified the Company's EVR System and does not propose to do so now.

The Company remains willing to discuss these matters and work toward resolving them. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of discussions to resolve these matters or any proceedings with respect to them. Penalties awarded in the CARB or any air district proceedings or payments resulting from a settlement of these matters, depending on the amount, could have a material effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position, and net cash flows.

On July 31, 2009, Sta-Rite Industries, LLC and Pentair, Inc. filed an action against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging breach of the parties' 2004 Settlement Agreement and tortious interference with contract based on the Company's pricing of submersible electric products and seeking damages in excess of $10.0 million for each claimant. The Company has denied liability, is defending the case vigorously, and has filed a counterclaim alleging Sta-Rite and Pentair's breach of the same Settlement Agreement. Both the Company and Sta-Rite/Pentair filed Motions for Summary Judgment. The judge granted the Company's motion and dismissed Sta-Rite/Pentair's claims against it in September 2011. The judge also granted Sta-Rite/Pentair's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Company's counterclaim. Sta-Rite/Pentair is appealing the dismissal of its claims. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for November 29, 2012. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation, and any settlement or adjudication of this matter, depending on the amount, could have a material effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position, and net cash flows.

The Company is defending various other claims and legal actions, including environmental matters, which have arisen in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, based on current knowledge of the facts and after discussion with counsel, these claims and legal actions can be successfully defended or resolved without a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position, and net cash flows.

As of September 29, 2012, the Company had $29.8 million of commitments primarily for conditional agreements related to building expansions as well as for the purchase of machinery and equipment.

The Company provides warranties on most of its products. The warranty terms vary but are generally two years from date of manufacture or one year from date of installation. In 2007, the Company began offering an extended warranty program to certain Water Systems customers which provides warranty coverage up to five years from the date of manufacture. Provisions for estimated expenses related to product warranty are made at the time products are sold or when specific warranty issues are identified. These estimates are established using historical information about the nature, frequency, and average cost of warranty claims. The Company actively studies trends of warranty claims and takes action to improve product quality and minimize warranty claims. The Company believes that the warranty reserve is appropriate; however, actual claims incurred could differ from the original estimates, requiring adjustments to the reserve.

The changes in the carrying amount of the warranty accrual, as recorded in the "Accrued expenses" line of the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet for the nine months ended September 29, 2012, are as follows:



(In millions)
Beginning balance	$	9.9
Accruals related to product warranties	5.0
Additions related to acquisitions	0.4
Reductions for payments made	(5.6		)
Ending balance	$	9.7