Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 04, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company is involved in various legal proceedings relating to environmental issues, employment, product liability, workers’ compensation claims and other matters. The Company periodically reviews the status of these proceedings with both inside and outside counsel, as well as an actuary for risk insurance. Management believes that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on operations or financial condition taken as a whole. In connection with the 2010 merger with Black & Decker, the Company assumed certain commitments and contingent liabilities. Black & Decker is a party to litigation and administrative proceedings with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of these assert claims for damages and liability for remedial investigations and clean-up costs with respect to sites that have never been owned or operated by Black & Decker but at which Black & Decker has been identified as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"). Other matters involve current and former manufacturing facilities. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has asserted claims in federal court in Rhode Island against certain current and former affiliates of Black & Decker related to environmental contamination found at the Centredale Manor Restoration Project Superfund ("Centredale") site, located in North Providence, Rhode Island. The EPA has discovered a variety of contaminants at the site, including but not limited to, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticides. The EPA alleges that Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates are liable for site clean-up costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") as successors to the liability of Metro-Atlantic, Inc., a former operator at the site, and demanded reimbursement of the EPA’s costs related to this site. Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates contest the EPA's allegation that they are responsible for the contamination, and have asserted contribution claims, counterclaims and cross-claims against a number of other PRPs, including the federal government as well as insurance carriers. The EPA released its Record of Decision ("ROD") in September 2012, which identified and described the EPA's selected remedial alternative for the site. Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates are contesting the EPA's selection of the remedial alternative set forth in the ROD, on the grounds that the EPA's actions were arbitrary and capricious and otherwise not in accordance with law, and have proposed other equally-protective, more cost-effective alternatives. On June 10, 2014, the EPA issued an Administrative Order under Sec. 106 of CERCLA, instructing Emhart Industries, Inc. and Black & Decker to perform the remediation of Centredale pursuant to the ROD. Black & Decker and Emhart Industries, Inc. dispute the factual, legal and scientific bases cited by the EPA for such an Order and have provided the EPA with numerous good-faith bases for Black & Decker’s and Emhart Industries, Inc.’s declination to comply with the Order at this time. Black & Decker and Emhart Industries, Inc. continue to vigorously litigate the issue of their liability for environmental conditions at the Centredale site including anticipated completion of a Phase I trial in late July 2015. If either or both entities are found liable, the Company's estimated remediation costs related to the Centredale site (including the EPA’s past costs as well as costs of additional investigation, remediation, and related costs such as EPA’s oversight costs, less escrowed funds contributed by primary PRPs who have reached settlement agreements with the EPA), which the Company considers to be probable and reasonably estimable, range from approximately $68.1 million to $139.7 million, with no amount within that range representing a more likely outcome until such time as the litigation is resolved through judgment or compromise. The Company’s reserve for this environmental remediation matter of $68.1 million reflects the fact that the EPA considers Metro-Atlantic, Inc. to be a primary source of contamination at the site. As the specific nature of the environmental remediation activities that may be mandated by the EPA at this site have not yet been finally determined through the on-going litigation, the ultimate remedial costs associated with the site may vary from the amount accrued by the Company at July 4, 2015. In the normal course of business, the Company is involved in various lawsuits and claims. In addition, the Company is a party to a number of proceedings before federal and state regulatory agencies relating to environmental remediation. Also, the Company, along with many other companies, has been named as a PRP in a number of administrative proceedings for the remediation of various waste sites, including 31 active Superfund sites. Current laws potentially impose joint and several liabilities upon each PRP. In assessing its potential liability at these sites, the Company has considered the following: whether responsibility is being disputed, the terms of existing agreements, experience at similar sites, and the Company’s volumetric contribution at these sites. The Company’s policy is to accrue environmental investigatory and remediation costs for identified sites when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that no amount in the range of probable loss is considered most likely, the minimum loss in the range is accrued. The amount of liability recorded is based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual site and includes such factors as existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and prior experience in remediation of contaminated sites. The liabilities recorded do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. As assessments and remediation progress at individual sites, the amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. As of July 4, 2015 and January 3, 2015 the Company had reserves of $175.9 million and $177.3 million, respectively, for remediation activities associated with Company-owned properties, as well as for Superfund sites, for losses that are probable and estimable. Of the 2015 amount, $14.8 million is classified as current and $161.1 million as long-term which is expected to be paid over the estimated remediation period. As of July 4, 2015, the Company has recorded $21.8 million in other assets related to funding received by the EPA and placed in a trust in accordance with the final settlement with the EPA, embodied in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 3, 2013. Per the Consent Decree, Emhart Industries, Inc. (a dissolved, former indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of The Black & Decker Corporation) (“Emhart”) has agreed to be responsible for an interim remedy at a site located in Rialto, California and formerly operated by West Coast Loading Corporation (“WCLC”), a defunct company for which Emhart was alleged to be liable as a successor. The remedy will be funded by (i) the amounts received from the EPA as gathered from multiple parties, and, to the extent necessary, (ii) Emhart's affiliate. The interim remedy requires the construction of a water treatment facility and the filtering of ground water at or around the site for a period of approximately 30 years or more. Accordingly, as of July 4, 2015, the Company's cash obligation associated with the aforementioned remediation activities including WCLC is $154.1 million. The range of environmental remediation costs that is reasonably possible is $134.5 million to $268.5 million which is subject to change in the near term. The Company may be liable for environmental remediation of sites it no longer owns. Liabilities have been recorded on those sites in accordance with policy. The Company and approximately 60 other companies comprise the Lower Passaic Cooperating Parties Group (the “CPG”). The CPG members and other companies are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) of the lower seventeen miles of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey (the “River”). The Company’s potential liability stems from former operations in Newark, New Jersey. As an interim step related to the 2007 AOC, the CPG members voluntarily entered into an AOC on June 18, 2012 with the EPA for remediation actions focused solely at mile 10.9 of the River. The Company’s estimated costs related to the RI/FS and focused remediation action at mile 10.9, based on an interim allocation, are included in environmental reserves as of July 4, 2015 and January 3, 2015. On April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) and proposed plan which addressed various early action remediation alternatives for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. The proposed plan describes the remedial alternatives considered to address contaminated sediments in the River and identifies the EPA’s preferred alternative - the removal of sediments bank to bank in the lower 8.3 miles of the River and constructing an engineered cap over the dredged area. The preferred alternative would include the removal and disposal of 4.3 million cubic yards of sediment, would cost approximately $1.7 billion according to the EPA’s estimate, and take 5 years to complete. The EPA has received public comment on the FFS and proposed plan (including comments from the CPG and other entities asserting that the FFS and proposed plan do not comply with CERCLA) which public comment period ended on August 20, 2014. The CPG submitted to the EPA the draft RI report in February 2015 and draft FS report in April 2015 for the entire lower seventeen miles of the River. The EPA’s final decision whether to adopt the proposed plan or a different alternative will be made after the EPA has taken into consideration the public comments. According to the EPA, it will issue a Record of Decision regarding the FFS and proposed plan by the end of 2015. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate its liability related to the remediation efforts, excluding the RI/FS and remediation actions at mile 10.9, as the RI/FS is ongoing, the ultimate remedial approach and associated cost has not yet been determined, and the parties that will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations are not yet known. The amount recorded for identified contingent liabilities is based on estimates. Amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. Actual costs to be incurred in future periods may vary from the estimates, given the inherent uncertainties in evaluating certain exposures. Subject to the imprecision in estimating future contingent liability costs, the Company does not expect that any sum it may have to pay in connection with these matters in excess of the amounts recorded will have a materially adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings relating to environmental issues, employment, product liability, workers’ compensation claims and other matters. The Company periodically reviews the status of these proceedings with both inside and outside counsel, as well as an actuary for risk insurance. Management believes that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on operations or financial condition taken as a whole.

In connection with the 2010 merger with Black & Decker, the Company assumed certain commitments and contingent liabilities. Black & Decker is a party to litigation and administrative proceedings with respect to claims involving the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of these assert claims for damages and liability for remedial investigations and clean-up costs with respect to sites that have never been owned or operated by Black & Decker but at which Black & Decker has been identified as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"). Other matters involve current and former manufacturing facilities.

The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has asserted claims in federal court in Rhode Island against certain current and former affiliates of Black & Decker related to environmental contamination found at the Centredale Manor Restoration Project Superfund ("Centredale") site, located in North Providence, Rhode Island. The EPA has discovered a variety of contaminants at the site, including but not limited to, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticides. The EPA alleges that Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates are liable for site clean-up costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") as successors to the liability of Metro-Atlantic, Inc., a former operator at the site, and demanded reimbursement of the EPA’s costs related to this site. Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates contest the EPA's allegation that they are responsible for the contamination, and have asserted contribution claims, counterclaims and cross-claims against a number of other PRPs, including the federal government as well as insurance carriers. The EPA released its Record of Decision ("ROD") in September 2012, which identified and described the EPA's selected remedial alternative for the site. Black & Decker and certain of its current and former affiliates are contesting the EPA's selection of the remedial alternative set forth in the ROD, on the grounds that the EPA's actions were arbitrary and capricious and otherwise not in accordance with law, and have proposed other equally-protective, more cost-effective alternatives. On June 10, 2014, the EPA issued an Administrative Order under Sec. 106 of CERCLA, instructing Emhart Industries, Inc. and Black & Decker to perform the remediation of Centredale pursuant to the ROD. Black & Decker and Emhart Industries, Inc. dispute the factual, legal and scientific bases cited by the EPA for such an Order and have provided the EPA with numerous good-faith bases for Black & Decker’s and Emhart Industries, Inc.’s declination to comply with the Order at this time. Black & Decker and Emhart Industries, Inc. continue to vigorously litigate the issue of their liability for environmental conditions at the Centredale site including anticipated completion of a Phase I trial in late July 2015. If either or both entities are found liable, the Company's estimated remediation costs related to the Centredale site (including the EPA’s past costs as well as costs of additional investigation, remediation, and related costs such as EPA’s oversight costs, less escrowed funds contributed by primary PRPs who have reached settlement agreements with the EPA), which the Company considers to be probable and reasonably estimable, range from approximately $68.1 million to $139.7 million, with no amount within that range representing a more likely outcome until such time as the litigation is resolved through judgment or compromise. The Company’s reserve for this environmental remediation matter of $68.1 million reflects the fact that the EPA considers Metro-Atlantic, Inc. to be a primary source of contamination at the site. As the specific nature of the environmental remediation activities that may be mandated by the EPA at this site have not yet been finally determined through the on-going litigation, the ultimate remedial costs associated with the site may vary from the amount accrued by the Company at July 4, 2015.

In the normal course of business, the Company is involved in various lawsuits and claims. In addition, the Company is a party to a number of proceedings before federal and state regulatory agencies relating to environmental remediation. Also, the Company, along with many other companies, has been named as a PRP in a number of administrative proceedings for the remediation of various waste sites, including 31 active Superfund sites. Current laws potentially impose joint and several liabilities upon each PRP. In assessing its potential liability at these sites, the Company has considered the following: whether responsibility is being disputed, the terms of existing agreements, experience at similar sites, and the Company’s volumetric contribution at these sites.

The Company’s policy is to accrue environmental investigatory and remediation costs for identified sites when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that no amount in the range of probable loss is considered most likely, the minimum loss in the range is accrued. The amount of liability recorded is based on an evaluation of currently available facts with respect to each individual site and includes such factors as existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, and prior experience in remediation of contaminated sites. The liabilities recorded do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. As assessments and remediation progress at individual sites, the amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. As of July 4, 2015 and January 3, 2015 the Company had reserves of $175.9 million and $177.3 million, respectively, for remediation activities associated with Company-owned properties, as well as for Superfund sites, for losses that are probable and estimable. Of the 2015 amount, $14.8 million is classified as current and $161.1 million as long-term which is expected to be paid over the estimated remediation period. As of July 4, 2015, the Company has recorded $21.8 million in other assets related to funding received by the EPA and placed in a trust in accordance with the final settlement with the EPA, embodied in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 3, 2013. Per the Consent Decree, Emhart Industries, Inc. (a dissolved, former indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of The Black & Decker Corporation) (“Emhart”) has agreed to be responsible for an interim remedy at a site located in Rialto, California and formerly operated by West Coast Loading Corporation (“WCLC”), a defunct company for which Emhart was alleged to be liable as a successor. The remedy will be funded by (i) the amounts received from the EPA as gathered from multiple parties, and, to the extent necessary, (ii) Emhart's affiliate. The interim remedy requires the construction of a water treatment facility and the filtering of ground water at or around the site for a period of approximately 30 years or more. Accordingly, as of July 4, 2015, the Company's cash obligation associated with the aforementioned remediation activities including WCLC is $154.1 million. The range of environmental remediation costs that is reasonably possible is $134.5 million to $268.5 million which is subject to change in the near term. The Company may be liable for environmental remediation of sites it no longer owns. Liabilities have been recorded on those sites in accordance with policy.

The Company and approximately 60 other companies comprise the Lower Passaic Cooperating Parties Group (the “CPG”). The CPG members and other companies are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) of the lower seventeen miles of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey (the “River”). The Company’s potential liability stems from former operations in Newark, New Jersey. As an interim step related to the 2007 AOC, the CPG members voluntarily entered into an AOC on June 18, 2012 with the EPA for remediation actions focused solely at mile 10.9 of the River. The Company’s estimated costs related to the RI/FS and focused remediation action at mile 10.9, based on an interim allocation, are included in environmental reserves as of July 4, 2015 and January 3, 2015. On April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) and proposed plan which addressed various early action remediation alternatives for the lower 8.3 miles of the River. The proposed plan describes the remedial alternatives considered to address contaminated sediments in the River and identifies the EPA’s preferred alternative - the removal of sediments bank to bank in the lower 8.3 miles of the River and constructing an engineered cap over the dredged area. The preferred alternative would include the removal and disposal of 4.3 million cubic yards of sediment, would cost approximately $1.7 billion according to the EPA’s estimate, and take 5 years to complete. The EPA has received public comment on the FFS and proposed plan (including comments from the CPG and other entities asserting that the FFS and proposed plan do not comply with CERCLA) which public comment period ended on August 20, 2014. The CPG submitted to the EPA the draft RI report in February 2015 and draft FS report in April 2015 for the entire lower seventeen miles of the River. The EPA’s final decision whether to adopt the proposed plan or a different alternative will be made after the EPA has taken into consideration the public comments. According to the EPA, it will issue a Record of Decision regarding the FFS and proposed plan by the end of 2015. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate its liability related to the remediation efforts, excluding the RI/FS and remediation actions at mile 10.9, as the RI/FS is ongoing, the ultimate remedial approach and associated cost has not yet been determined, and the parties that will participate in funding the remediation and their respective allocations are not yet known.

The amount recorded for identified contingent liabilities is based on estimates. Amounts recorded are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional technical and legal information that becomes available. Actual costs to be incurred in future periods may vary from the estimates, given the inherent uncertainties in evaluating certain exposures. Subject to the imprecision in estimating future contingent liability costs, the Company does not expect that any sum it may have to pay in connection with these matters in excess of the amounts recorded will have a materially adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.