XML 49 R29.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Environmental Matters The following table presents the location and amount of reserves for environmental liabilities in the Company's consolidated statements of financial position (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2023 |  | 2022
Other current liabilities | $ | 31 |  |  | $ | 66 |
Other noncurrent liabilities | 211 |  |  | 220 |
Total reserves for environmental liabilities | $ | 242 |  |  | $ | 286 |
The Company periodically examines whether the contingent liabilities related to the environmental matters described below are probable and reasonably estimable based on experience and ongoing developments in those matters, including continued study and analysis of ongoing remediation obligations. The Company expects that it will pay the amounts recorded over an estimated period of up to 20 years. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of the established accruals for environmental liabilities at this time. A substantial portion of the Company's environmental reserves relates to ongoing long-term remediation efforts to address contamination relating to fire-fighting foams containing perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"), perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), and/or other per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") at or near the Tyco Fire Products L.P. (“Tyco Fire Products”) Fire Technology Center ("FTC") located in Marinette, Wisconsin and surrounding areas in the City of Marinette and Town of Peshtigo, Wisconsin, as well as the continued remediation of PFAS, arsenic and other contaminants at the Tyco Fire Products Stanton Street manufacturing facility also located in Marinette, Wisconsin (the “Stanton Street Facility”). The use of fire-fighting foams at the FTC was primarily for training and testing purposes to ensure that such products sold by the Company’s affiliates, Chemguard, Inc. ("Chemguard") and Tyco Fire Products, were effective at suppressing high intensity fires that may occur at military installations, airports or elsewhere. On July 18, 2023, Tyco Fire Products announced that it plans to discontinue the production and sale of fluorinated firefighting foams by June 2024, including AFFF products, and will transition to non-fluorinated foam alternatives. Tyco Fire Products has been engaged in remediation activities at the Stanton Street Facility since 1990. Its corporate predecessor, Ansul Incorporated (“Ansul”), manufactured arsenic-based agricultural herbicides at the Stanton Street Facility, which resulted in significant arsenic contamination of soil and groundwater on the site and in parts of the adjoining Menominee River. In 2009, Ansul entered into an Administrative Consent Order (the "Consent Order") with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to address the presence of arsenic at the site. Under this agreement, Tyco Fire Products’ principal obligations are to contain the arsenic contamination on the site, pump and treat on-site groundwater, dredge, treat and properly dispose of contaminated sediments in the adjoining river areas, and monitor contamination levels on an ongoing basis. Activities completed under the Consent Order since 2009 include the installation of a subsurface barrier wall around the facility to contain contaminated groundwater, the installation and ongoing operation and monitoring of a groundwater extraction and treatment system and the dredging and offsite disposal of treated river sediment. In addition to ongoing remediation activities, the Company is also working with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ("WDNR") to investigate and remediate the presence of PFAS at or near the Stanton Street Facility as part of the evaluation and remediation of PFAS in the Marinette region. Tyco Fire Products is operating and monitoring the recently constructed Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System ("GETS"), a permanent groundwater remediation system that extracts groundwater containing PFAS, treats it using advanced filtration systems, and returns the treated water to the environment. Tyco Fire Products has also completed the removal and disposal of PFAS-affected soil from the FTC. The Company's reserves for continued remediation of the FTC, the Stanton Street Facility and surrounding areas in Marinette and Peshtigo are based on estimates of costs associated with the long-term remediation actions, including the continued operation of the GETS, the implementation of long-term drinking water solutions, continued monitoring and testing of the wells, the operation and wind-down of other legacy remediation and treatment systems and the completion of ongoing investigation obligations. PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by EPA and other environmental and health agencies and researchers. In March 2021, EPA published its final determination to regulate PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. In March 2023, EPA announced a proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (“NPDWR”) for six PFAS compounds including PFOA and PFOS. The NPDWR proposes establishing legally enforceable levels, called Maximum Contaminant Levels, of 4.0 parts per trillion for each of PFOA and PFOS. EPA indicated that it anticipates finalizing the regulation by the end of 2023. In August 2022, EPA published a proposed rule that would designate PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). In April 2023, EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("ANPR") seeking input on whether it should expand the proposed rule to designate as "hazardous substances" under CERCLA: (1) seven additional PFAS; (2) the precursors to PFOA, PFOS, and the seven additional PFAS; or (3) entire categories of PFAS. It is difficult to estimate the Company’s ultimate level of liability at many remediation sites due to the large number of other parties that may be involved, the complexity of determining the relative liability among those parties, the financial viability of other potentially responsible parties and third-party indemnitors, the uncertainty as to the nature and scope of the investigations and remediation to be conducted, changes in environmental regulations, changes in permissible levels of specific compounds in drinking water sources, or changes in enforcement theories and policies, including efforts to recover natural resource damages, the uncertainty in the application of law and risk assessment, the various choices and costs associated with diverse technologies that may be used in corrective actions at the sites, and the often quite lengthy periods over which eventual remediation may occur. It is possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of additional environmental studies or other factors could change the Company's expectations with respect to future charges and cash outlays, and such changes could be material to the Company's future results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Nevertheless, the Company does not currently believe that any claims, penalties or costs in addition to the amounts accrued will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, the Company has identified asset retirement obligations for environmental matters that are expected to be addressed at the retirement, disposal, removal or abandonment of existing owned facilities. Conditional asset retirement obligations were $13 million and $17 million at September 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively. FTC-Related Remediation and Litigation On June 21, 2019, the WDNR announced that it had received from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (“WDHS”) a recommendation for groundwater quality standards as to, among other compounds, PFOA and PFOS. The WDHS recommended a groundwater enforcement standard for PFOA and PFOS of 20 parts per trillion. Although Wisconsin approved final regulatory standards for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and surface water in February 2022, the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board did not approve WDNR's proposed standards for PFOA and PFOS in groundwater. The WDNR has initiated a rulemaking proceeding for a rule that would establish groundwater quality standards for PFOA, PFOS, perfluorobutane sulfonic acid and its potassium salt (“PFBS”) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid and its ammonium salt (“HFPO-DA”). WDNR indicates that the rule could be finalized by the winter of 2023-2024. In July 2019, the Company received a letter from the WDNR directing the expansion of the evaluation of PFAS in the Marinette region to include (1) biosolids sludge produced by the City of Marinette Waste Water Treatment Plant and spread on certain fields in the area and (2) the Menominee and Peshtigo Rivers. On October 16, 2019, the WDNR issued a “Notice of Noncompliance” to Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. regarding the WDNR’s July 2019 letter. The WDNR issued a further letter regarding the issue on November 4, 2019. In February 2020, the WDNR sent a letter to Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. further directing the expansion of the evaluation of PFAS in the Marinette region to include investigation activities south and west of the previously defined FTC study area. In September 2021, the WDNR sent an additional “Notice of Noncompliance” to Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. concerning land-applied biosolids, which reviewed and responded to the Company’s biosolids investigation conducted to that date. On April 10, 2023, the WDNR issued a third “Notice of Noncompliance” to Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. concerning land-applied biosolids in the Marinette region. Tyco Fire Products and Johnson Controls, Inc. believe that they have complied with all applicable environmental laws and regulations. The Company cannot predict what regulatory or enforcement actions, if any, might result from the WDNR’s actions, or the consequences of any such actions. In March 2022, the Wisconsin Department of Justice (“WDOJ”) filed a civil enforcement action against Johnson Controls Inc. and Tyco Fire Products in Wisconsin state court relating to environmental matters at the FTC (State of Wisconsin v. Tyco Fire Products, LP and Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 22-CX-1 (filed March 14, 2022 in Circuit Court in Marinette County, Wisconsin)). The WDOJ alleges that the Company failed to timely report the presence of PFAS chemicals at the FTC, and that the Company has not sufficiently investigated or remediated PFAS at or near the FTC. The WDOJ seeks monetary penalties and an injunction ordering these two subsidiaries to complete a site investigation and cleanup of PFAS contamination in accordance with the WDNR's requests. The parties are proceeding with fact discovery and the court has set a trial date of December 3, 2024. The Company is vigorously defending this civil enforcement action and believes that it has meritorious defenses, but the Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or outcome of this action. In October 2022, the Town of Peshtigo filed a tort action in Wisconsin state court against Tyco Fire Products, Johnson Controls Inc., Chemguard, Inc., and ChemDesign, Inc. relating to environmental matters at the FTC (Town of Peshtigo v. Tyco Fire Products L.P. et al., Case No. 2022CV000234 (filed October 18, 2022 in Circuit Court in Marinette County, Wisconsin)). The Town alleges that use of AFFF products at the FTC caused contamination of water supplies in Peshtigo. The Town seeks monetary penalties and an injunction ordering abatement of PFAS contamination in Peshtigo. The case has been removed to federal court and transferred to a multi-district litigation ("MDL") before the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The Company plans to vigorously defend against this case and believes that it has meritorious defenses, but the Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or outcome of this action. In November 2022, individuals filed six actions in Dane County, Wisconsin alleging personal injury and/or property damage against Tyco Fire Products, Johnson Controls Inc., Chemguard, Inc., and other unaffiliated defendants related to environmental matters at the FTC. Plaintiffs allege that use of AFFF products at the FTC and activities by third parties unrelated to the Company contaminated nearby drinking water sources, surface waters, and other natural resources and properties, including their personal properties. The individuals seek monetary damages for their personal injury and/or property damage. These lawsuits have been transferred to the MDL. Subsequently, several additional plaintiffs have direct-filed in the MDL complaints with similar allegations. These lawsuits are presently at the beginning stages of litigation. The Company is vigorously defending these cases and believes that it has meritorious defenses, but the Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or outcome of this action. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") Litigation Two of the Company's subsidiaries, Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products, have been named, along with other defendant manufacturers, suppliers and distributors, and, in some cases, certain subsidiaries of the Company affiliated with Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products, in a number of class action and other lawsuits relating to the use of fire-fighting foam products by the U.S. Department of Defense (the "DOD") and others for fire suppression purposes and related training exercises. Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products contain or break down into the chemicals PFOS and PFOA and/or other PFAS compounds and that the use of these products by others at various airbases, airports and other sites resulted in the release of these chemicals into the environment and ultimately into communities’ drinking water supplies neighboring those airports, airbases and other sites. Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, diminution in property values, investigation and remediation costs, and natural resources damages, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive relief to address remediation of the alleged contamination. In September 2018, Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard filed a Petition for Multidistrict Litigation with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) seeking to consolidate all existing and future federal cases into one jurisdiction. On December 7, 2018, the JPML issued an order transferring various AFFF cases to the MDL. Additional cases have been identified for transfer to or are being directly filed in the MDL. AFFF Putative Class Actions Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 43 pending putative class actions in federal courts originating from 16 states and territories. All of these cases have been direct-filed in or transferred to the MDL. AFFF Individual or Mass Actions There are more than 5,400 individual or “mass” actions pending that were filed in state or federal courts originating from 52 states and territories against Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products and other defendants in which the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in property values. The cases involve plaintiffs from various states including approximately 7,000 plaintiffs in Colorado and more than 5,400 other plaintiffs. The vast majority of these matters have been tagged for transfer to, transferred to, or directly-filed in the MDL, and it is anticipated that several newly-filed state court actions will be similarly tagged and transferred. There are several matters that are proceeding in state courts, including actions in Arizona, Illinois and Virginia. Tyco and Chemguard are also periodically notified by other individuals that they may assert claims regarding PFOS and/or PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of AFFF. AFFF Municipal and Water Provider Cases Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products have been named as defendants in more than 720 cases in federal and state courts involving municipal or water provider plaintiffs that were filed in state or federal courts originating from 35 states and territories. The vast majority of these cases have been transferred to or were directly filed in the MDL, and it is anticipated that the remaining cases will be transferred to the MDL. These municipal and water provider plaintiffs generally allege that the use of the defendants’ fire-fighting foam products at fire training academies, municipal airports, Air National Guard bases, or Navy or Air Force bases released PFOS and PFOA into public water supply wells and/or other public property, allegedly requiring remediation. The MDL court set the first case for trial on June 5, 2023 (City of Stuart (Florida) v. 3M Co. et al.). On April 26, 2023, the parties entered a stipulation dismissing Chemguard with prejudice from the City of Stuart case, and on May 4, 2023 the parties entered into a stipulation dismissing Tyco with prejudice from the City of Stuart case. On June 5, 2023, the MDL court continued the trial date for the City of Stuart case, and the parties remaining in that case later reached settlement. The parties in the MDL have designated four additional plaintiffs as water provider bellwether cases and are conducting initial discovery into those cases. The parties are also working to identify potential personal injury cases for an additional bellwether phase. Tyco and Chemguard are also periodically notified by other municipal entities that those entities may assert claims regarding PFOS and/or PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of AFFF. State or U.S. Territory Attorneys General Litigation related to AFFF In June 2018, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al No. 904029-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at locations across New York, including Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh and Gabreski Air National Guard Base in Southampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in Plattsburgh, Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, and unspecified “other” sites throughout the State. The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages associated with contamination at these sites. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In February 2019, the State of New York filed a second lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at additional locations across New York. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In July 2019, the State of New York filed a third lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at further additional locations across New York. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In November 2019, the State of New York filed a fourth lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at further additional locations across New York. This suit has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In April 2021, the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit in the superior court of the State of Alaska against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State’s land and natural resources allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations throughout the State. The State’s case has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. The State of Alaska has also named a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, as third-party defendants in two cases brought by individuals against the State. These two cases have also been transferred to the MDL. In early November 2021, the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina filed four individual lawsuits in the superior courts of the State of North Carolina against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State’s land, natural resources, and property allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at four separate locations throughout the State. These four cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In October 2022, the Attorney General filed two similar lawsuits in the superior courts of the State of North Carolina regarding alleged PFAS damages at two additional locations. These two cases have also been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In addition, 29 other states and territories have filed 31 lawsuits against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFAS damage of each of those State's environmental and natural resources allegedly resulting from the manufacture, storage, sale, distribution, marketing, and use of PFAS-containing AFFF within each respective State. The states and territories are: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico. All of these complaints, other than Delaware and South Carolina, have been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. It is anticipated that the Delaware and South Carolina complaints will be removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. Other AFFF Related Matters In March 2020, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians (a federally recognized Tribe) and two tribal corporations filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, and the United States with respect to PFAS contamination allegedly resulting from the use and disposal of AFFF by the United States Air Force at and around Fairchild Air Force Base in eastern Washington. This case has been transferred to the MDL. In October 2022, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (a federally recognized tribe) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFAS contamination allegedly resulting from the use and disposal of AFFF at Duluth Air National Guard Base in Duluth, Minnesota. This complaint has been transferred to the MDL. In July 2023, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (a federally recognized tribe) direct-filed a lawsuit in the MDL against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFAS contamination allegedly resulting from the use and disposal of AFFF at Duluth Air National Guard Base in Duluth, Minnesota. The Company is vigorously defending all of the above AFFF matters and believes that it has meritorious defenses to class certification and the claims asserted, including statutes of limitations, the government contractor defense, various medical and scientific defenses, and other factual and legal defenses. The government contractor defense is a form of immunity available to government contractors that produced products for the United States government pursuant to the government’s specifications. In September 2022, the AFFF MDL Court declined to grant summary judgment on the government contractor defense, ruling that various factual issues relevant to the defense must be decided by a jury rather than the Court. The Company has a historical general liability insurance program and is pursuing coverage under the program from various insurers through insurance claims discussions and litigation pending in a state court in Wisconsin and a federal district court in South Carolina. The insurance litigation involves numerous factual and legal issues and remains at a relatively early stage. However, there are numerous factual and legal issues to be resolved in connection with these claims, and it is extremely difficult to predict the outcome or ultimate financial exposure, if any, represented by these matters, and there can be no assurance that any such exposure will not be material. Asbestos Matters The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. The following table presents the location and amount of asbestos-related assets and liabilities in the Company's consolidated statements of financial position (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2023 |  | 2022
Other current liabilities | $ | 58 |  |  | $ | 58 |
Other noncurrent liabilities | 364 |  |  | 380 |
Total asbestos-related liabilities | 422 |  |  | 438 |
Other current assets | 28 |  |  | 37 |
Other noncurrent assets | 273 |  |  | 263 |
Total asbestos-related assets | 301 |  |  | 300 |
Net asbestos-related liabilities | $ | 121 |  |  | $ | 138 |
The following table presents the components of asbestos-related assets (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2023 |  | 2022
Restricted |  |  |
Cash | $ | 20 |  |  | $ | 6 |
Investments | 231 |  |  | 239 |
Total restricted assets | 251 |  |  | 245 |
Insurance receivables for asbestos-related liabilities | 50 |  |  | 55 |
Total asbestos-related assets | $ | 301 |  |  | $ | 300 |
The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption may impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Self-Insured Liabilities The Company records liabilities for its workers' compensation, product, general and auto liabilities. The determination of these liabilities and related expenses is dependent on claims experience. For most of these liabilities, claims incurred but not yet reported are estimated by utilizing actuarial valuations based upon historical claims experience. The Company maintains captive insurance companies to manage its insurable liabilities. The following table presents the location and amount of insurable liabilities in the Company's consolidated statements of financial position (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2023 |  | 2022
Other current liabilities | $ | 86 |  |  | $ | 89 |
Accrued compensation and benefits | 21 |  |  | 22 |
Other noncurrent liabilities | 226 |  |  | 230 |
Total self-insured liabilities | $ | 333 |  |  | $ | 341 |
The following table presents the location and amount of insurable receivables in the Company's consolidated statements of financial position (in millions):
| September 30,
| 2023 |  | 2022
Other current assets | $ | 6 |  |  | $ | 10 |
Other noncurrent assets | 14 |  |  | 20 |
Total insurance receivables | $ | 20 |  |  | $ | 30 |
Other Matters The Company is involved in various lawsuits, claims and proceedings incident to the operation of its businesses, including those pertaining to product liability, environmental, safety and health, intellectual property, employment, commercial and contractual matters, and various other casualty matters. Although the outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to us, it is management’s opinion that none of these will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Costs related to such matters were not material to the periods presented.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration