LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 14 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We operate in highly regulated industries and must deal with regulatory inquiries or investigations from time to time that may be initiated for a variety of reasons. We are also involved in a variety of civil litigation from time to time. The Company establishes an accrued liability for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters when the loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss is not probable or a probable loss is not reasonably estimable, no liability is recorded. These accruals represent management’s best estimate of probable losses and, in such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the amounts accrued. Legal and regulatory matters inherently involve significant uncertainties based on, among other factors, the stage of the proceedings, developments in the applicable facts or law, and the unpredictability of the ultimate determination of the merits of any claim, any defenses the Company may assert against that claim and the amount of any damages that may be awarded. The Company’s accrued liabilities for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters may change in the future as a result of new developments, including, but not limited to, the occurrence of new legal matters, changes in the law or regulatory environment, adverse or favorable rulings, newly discovered facts relevant to the matter, or changes in the strategy for the matter. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Contract Class Action Lawsuits. As we have previously disclosed, we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or “whistle blower”) action captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390, which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously disclosed. Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the “MDL Action”). On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the allegations therein. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 8, 2016, and we filed an answer to that pleading on March 25, 2016, generally denying the allegations therein and asserting a variety of affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 29, 2016. On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court certified a class of “[a]ll persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003 through the date of trial resided in the United States (except Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as ‘Small Quantity’ or ‘SQ’ customer, and were charged and paid more than their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle’s medical waste disposal good and services pursuant to Stericycle’s automated price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be excluded from the class.” On March 2, 2017, Stericycle filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification relating to the Court’s class certification decision. That motion is currently pending while the parties consider whether there would be any benefit to engaging in mediation. Discussions through and overseen by a mediator have ensued between the parties, and the parties may determine to take further steps toward engaging in formal mediation or take other steps toward a consensual resolution of the matter. The case remains ongoing. We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these class action lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) we do not know whether the class currently certified by the Court will remain certified through trial and judgment, or whether or how the class definition might be altered, (iii) we do not know how many individual plaintiffs will be determined to meet the court’s definition of the class, (iv) we do not know what the ultimate disposition on the merits of any class claim as well as our defenses to that claim may be, (v) we do not know whether formal mediation or other steps may lead to a consensual resolution of the matter and the discussions to date have not provided us with a basis to make such an estimate, and (vi) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiffs are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates. Securities Class Action Lawsuit. On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, our directors and certain of our current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016. On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July 28, 2016, inclusive. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Complaint adding the Company as a named defendant in plaintiff’s claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act, which had previously been asserted only against the Underwriters and certain officers and directors. On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 1, 2017. Plaintiffs’ response to that motion is due May 19, 2017. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of this lawsuit, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) we do not know whether the court will certify any class of plaintiffs or, if any class is certified, how the class would be defined, and (iii) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiffs are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits. On September 1, 2016, a purported stockholder filed a putative derivative action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by causing the Company to allegedly overcharge certain customers in breach of those customers’ contracts, otherwise provide unsatisfactory customer service and injure customer relationships, and make materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies between February 7, 2013 and the present. On March 1, 2017, another purported stockholder filed a putative derivative action complaint containing substantially similar allegations in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as nominal defendant. The Company notes, among other things, that both of these filings are in violation of the Company’s Bylaws, which require any such actions to be brought in a court in Delaware. None of the defendants in either of these derivative actions has been served with the applicable complaint. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable and (ii) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiffs are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates. Shareholder Demand Letter. On October 18, 2016, the Company received a letter from an attorney purporting to represent a current stockholder of the Company demanding, pursuant to Del. Ct. Ch. R. 23.1, that the Company’s Board of Directors take action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of the Company. The factual allegations set forth in the letter are similar to those asserted in the Securities Class Action Lawsuit and the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. The letter asserts breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the management, operation and oversight of the Company’s business and in connection with alleged false, misleading and/or incomplete statements regarding the Company’s business practices. The Company’s Board of Directors has constituted a Special Demand Review Committee to investigate the claims made in the demand letter, which investigation is ongoing. TCPA Lawsuit. On June 3, 2016, a plaintiff filed a putative class action, captioned Ibrahim v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 16-cv-4294 (N.D. Ill.), against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle Communication Solutions, Inc., under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), asserting that the defendants called plaintiff and others in violation of that statute. Plaintiff challenges our use of pre-recorded messages that urge the owners of recalled products to return or obtain repairs for those products. Plaintiff seeks certification of two nationwide classes. One class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall, where the called party was not the same individual who, according to Stericycle’s records, was the intended recipient of the call. The second class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall after such person had communicated to Stericycle that Stericycle did not have consent to make any such calls to their cellular telephone number. On July 28, 2016, we answered the complaint, denying the material allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses. Among the asserted defenses is the “emergency” exception to the TCPA, which exempts calls made to promote public health and safety. On December 19, 2016, before any substantial discovery in the case, we filed a motion for summary judgment primarily on the basis of the “emergency” exception. On February 1, 2017, plaintiff responded to our motion by requesting additional discovery. The court permitted plaintiff to obtain some but not all of the requested discovery, and we have provided additional documents in response to that order. On April 5, 2017, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint which would add a claim under the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act (which does not include an “emergency” exception) and certain additional allegations. We filed an opposition to this motion on April 28, 2017, contending that the proposed amendments are futile and that we are entitled to summary judgment. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of this lawsuit, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) we do not know whether the court will certify any class of plaintiffs or, if any class is certified, how the class would be defined, and (iii) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiff are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates. Environmental Matters. Our Environmental Solutions business is regulated by federal, state and local laws enacted to regulate the discharge of materials into the environment, remediate contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. As a result of this continuing regulation, we frequently become a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving various governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in these proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by us or by other parties to which either we or the prior owners of certain of its facilities shipped wastes. From time to time, we may be subject to fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. On February 29, 2016, we entered into a statute of limitations tolling agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah relating to that Office’s investigation of the same facts underlying the notice of violation (the “NOV”) issued by the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the “DAQ”) that resulted in our December 2014 settlement with the DAQ that we have previously disclosed. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating whether the matters forming the basis of the NOV constitute criminal or civil violations of the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes. On May 9, 2017, we extended the tolling agreement to June 30, 2017. Under the tolling agreement as extended, the period from March 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 will be excluded from any calculation of time for the purpose of determining the statute of limitations concerning any charges that we violated federal statutes. The agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt or wrongdoing on our part and cannot be construed as a waiver of any other rights or defenses that we may have in any resulting action or proceeding. We continue to cooperate with the investigation and have engaged in discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office regarding their current factual and legal positions. We are evaluating the U.S. Attorney’s positions and, after we have completed our factual and legal review, intend to explore a number of potential alternatives, including a negotiated resolution and potential litigation. We have not accrued any amounts in respect of this investigation, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) the Company and the U.S. Attorney’s Office continue to exchange information and develop their respective factual and legal positions, and (ii) in our judgment, the factual and legal issues raised in the investigation are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other investigations with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.

NOTE 14 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We operate in highly regulated industries and must deal with regulatory inquiries or investigations from time to time that may be initiated for a variety of reasons. We are also involved in a variety of civil litigation from time to time.

The Company establishes an accrued liability for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters when the loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss is not probable or a probable loss is not reasonably estimable, no liability is recorded. These accruals represent management’s best estimate of probable losses and, in such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the amounts accrued. Legal and regulatory matters inherently involve significant uncertainties based on, among other factors, the stage of the proceedings, developments in the applicable facts or law, and the unpredictability of the ultimate determination of the merits of any claim, any defenses the Company may assert against that claim and the amount of any damages that may be awarded. The Company’s accrued liabilities for loss contingencies related to legal and regulatory matters may change in the future as a result of new developments, including, but not limited to, the occurrence of new legal matters, changes in the law or regulatory environment, adverse or favorable rulings, newly discovered facts relevant to the matter, or changes in the strategy for the matter. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Contract Class Action Lawsuits. As we have previously disclosed, we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other “similarly situated” customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or “whistle blower”) action captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390, which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously disclosed.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the “MDL Action”). On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the allegations therein. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 8, 2016, and we filed an answer to that pleading on March 25, 2016, generally denying the allegations therein and asserting a variety of affirmative defenses.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 29, 2016. On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Court certified a class of “[a]ll persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003 through the date of trial resided in the United States (except Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as ‘Small Quantity’ or ‘SQ’ customer, and were charged and paid more than their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle’s medical waste disposal good and services pursuant to Stericycle’s automated price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be excluded from the class.” On March 2, 2017, Stericycle filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification relating to the Court’s class certification decision. That motion is currently pending while the parties consider whether there would be any benefit to engaging in mediation. Discussions through and overseen by a mediator have ensued between the parties, and the parties may determine to take further steps toward engaging in formal mediation or take other steps toward a consensual resolution of the matter. The case remains ongoing.

We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these class action lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) we do not know whether the class currently certified by the Court will remain certified through trial and judgment, or whether or how the class definition might be altered, (iii) we do not know how many individual plaintiffs will be determined to meet the court’s definition of the class, (iv) we do not know what the ultimate disposition on the merits of any class claim as well as our defenses to that claim may be, (v) we do not know whether formal mediation or other steps may lead to a consensual resolution of the matter and the discussions to date have not provided us with a basis to make such an estimate, and (vi) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiffs are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.

Securities Class Action Lawsuit. On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, our directors and certain of our current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016.

On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July 28, 2016, inclusive. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Complaint adding the Company as a named defendant in plaintiff’s claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act, which had previously been asserted only against the Underwriters and certain officers and directors.

On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 1, 2017. Plaintiffs’ response to that motion is due May 19, 2017.

We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of this lawsuit, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) we do not know whether the court will certify any class of plaintiffs or, if any class is certified, how the class would be defined, and (iii) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiffs are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits. On September 1, 2016, a purported stockholder filed a putative derivative action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by causing the Company to allegedly overcharge certain customers in breach of those customers’ contracts, otherwise provide unsatisfactory customer service and injure customer relationships, and make materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies between February 7, 2013 and the present. On March 1, 2017, another purported stockholder filed a putative derivative action complaint containing substantially similar allegations in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against certain officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as nominal defendant. The Company notes, among other things, that both of these filings are in violation of the Company’s Bylaws, which require any such actions to be brought in a court in Delaware. None of the defendants in either of these derivative actions has been served with the applicable complaint.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable and (ii) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiffs are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.

Shareholder Demand Letter. On October 18, 2016, the Company received a letter from an attorney purporting to represent a current stockholder of the Company demanding, pursuant to Del. Ct. Ch. R. 23.1, that the Company’s Board of Directors take action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and directors of the Company. The factual allegations set forth in the letter are similar to those asserted in the Securities Class Action Lawsuit and the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. The letter asserts breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the management, operation and oversight of the Company’s business and in connection with alleged false, misleading and/or incomplete statements regarding the Company’s business practices.

The Company’s Board of Directors has constituted a Special Demand Review Committee to investigate the claims made in the demand letter, which investigation is ongoing.

TCPA Lawsuit. On June 3, 2016, a plaintiff filed a putative class action, captioned Ibrahim v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 16-cv-4294 (N.D. Ill.), against us and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Stericycle Communication Solutions, Inc., under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), asserting that the defendants called plaintiff and others in violation of that statute. Plaintiff challenges our use of pre-recorded messages that urge the owners of recalled products to return or obtain repairs for those products.

Plaintiff seeks certification of two nationwide classes. One class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall, where the called party was not the same individual who, according to Stericycle’s records, was the intended recipient of the call. The second class includes people who received one or more cellular telephone calls from Stericycle featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice message relating to a product recall after such person had communicated to Stericycle that Stericycle did not have consent to make any such calls to their cellular telephone number.

On July 28, 2016, we answered the complaint, denying the material allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses. Among the asserted defenses is the “emergency” exception to the TCPA, which exempts calls made to promote public health and safety. On December 19, 2016, before any substantial discovery in the case, we filed a motion for summary judgment primarily on the basis of the “emergency” exception. On February 1, 2017, plaintiff responded to our motion by requesting additional discovery. The court permitted plaintiff to obtain some but not all of the requested discovery, and we have provided additional documents in response to that order.

On April 5, 2017, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint which would add a claim under the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act (which does not include an “emergency” exception) and certain additional allegations. We filed an opposition to this motion on April 28, 2017, contending that the proposed amendments are futile and that we are entitled to summary judgment.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of this lawsuit, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) we do not know whether the court will certify any class of plaintiffs or, if any class is certified, how the class would be defined, and (iii) in our judgment, the factual and legal allegations asserted by plaintiff are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other proceedings with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.

Environmental Matters. Our Environmental Solutions business is regulated by federal, state and local laws enacted to regulate the discharge of materials into the environment, remediate contaminated soil and groundwater or otherwise protect the environment. As a result of this continuing regulation, we frequently become a party to legal or administrative proceedings involving various governmental authorities and other interested parties. The issues involved in these proceedings generally relate to alleged violations of existing permits and licenses or alleged responsibility under federal or state Superfund laws to remediate contamination at properties owned either by us or by other parties to which either we or the prior owners of certain of its facilities shipped wastes. From time to time, we may be subject to fines or penalties in regulatory proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities.

On February 29, 2016, we entered into a statute of limitations tolling agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah relating to that Office’s investigation of the same facts underlying the notice of violation (the “NOV”) issued by the State of Utah Division of Air Quality (the “DAQ”) that resulted in our December 2014 settlement with the DAQ that we have previously disclosed. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating whether the matters forming the basis of the NOV constitute criminal or civil violations of the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes. On May 9, 2017, we extended the tolling agreement to June 30, 2017. Under the tolling agreement as extended, the period from March 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 will be excluded from any calculation of time for the purpose of determining the statute of limitations concerning any charges that we violated federal statutes. The agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt or wrongdoing on our part and cannot be construed as a waiver of any other rights or defenses that we may have in any resulting action or proceeding.

We continue to cooperate with the investigation and have engaged in discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office regarding their current factual and legal positions. We are evaluating the U.S. Attorney’s positions and, after we have completed our factual and legal review, intend to explore a number of potential alternatives, including a negotiated resolution and potential litigation.

We have not accrued any amounts in respect of this investigation, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) the Company and the U.S. Attorney’s Office continue to exchange information and develop their respective factual and legal positions, and (ii) in our judgment, the factual and legal issues raised in the investigation are sufficiently unique that we are unable to identify other investigations with circumstances sufficiently comparable to provide guidance in making estimates.