Contingencies and Commitments	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Contingencies and Commitments
Contingencies and Commitments	11. Contingencies and Commitments *Environmental* Carpenter is subject to various federal, state, local and international environmental laws and regulations relating to pollution, protection of public health and the environment, natural resource damages and occupational safety and health. Although compliance with these laws and regulations may affect the costs of Carpenter’s operations, compliance costs to date have not been material. Carpenter has environmental remediation liabilities at some of its owned operating facilities and has been designated as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to certain third-party Superfund waste disposal sites and other third party owned sites. Additionally, Carpenter has been notified that it may be a PRP with respect to other Superfund sites as to which no proceedings have been instituted against Carpenter. Neither the exact amount of remediation costs nor the final method of their allocation among all designated PRP’s at these Superfund sites has been determined. The liability for future environmental remediation costs is evaluated by management on a quarterly basis. Carpenter accrues amounts for environmental remediation costs that represent management’s best estimate of the probable and reasonably estimable costs related to environmental remediation. During fiscal years 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company increased the liabilities recorded for environmental remediation costs by $0.3 million, $0.7 million and $0.3 million, respectively. The liabilities recorded for environmental remediation costs at Superfund sites, at other third party-owned sites and at Carpenter-owned current or former operating facilities remaining at June 30, 2013 and 2012 was $14.8 million and $14.5 million, respectively. Estimates of the amount and timing of future costs of environmental remediation requirements are inherently imprecise because of the continuing evolution of environmental laws and regulatory requirements, the availability and application of technology, the identification of currently unknown remediation sites and the allocation of costs among the PRP’s. Based upon information currently available, such future costs are not expected to have a material effect on Carpenter’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows over the long-term. However, such costs could be material to Carpenter’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular future quarter or year. *Boarhead Farms* In June 2002, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania titled Boarhead Farm Agreement Group v. Advanced Environmental Technology Corporation et al. (since amended to include the individual members). The suit alleges that the Company and the other named defendants contributed to damages caused at Boarhead Farms, a Superfund site located in Bridgeton, Pennsylvania. The Boarhead Farms site was the home of a now defunct chemical and waste hauling company that the Company and many others engaged to dispose of certain wastes during the 1970’s. The plaintiff group was individually named as PRP’s for the Boarhead site in the EPA’s “Record of Decision” in November 1998. Their June 2002 lawsuit against various defendants, including Carpenter, sought contributions for a portion of costs incurred for various site cleanup activities as well as contributions to future cleanup efforts. The suit went to trial in June 2008. Prior to trial, all of the named co-defendants, except for Carpenter, reached an out of court settlement with the plaintiffs. Carpenter denied the claims made by the plaintiff group. On August 18, 2008, the Court awarded the plaintiffs judgment against the Company for 80 percent of the plaintiffs’ past costs of remediating the site, including prejudgment interest from June 18, 2002 to January 1, 2008, and held the Company liable for 80 percent of future costs of the cleanup activities at the site. The Company appealed the Court’s decision and oral arguments took place before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on December 17, 2009. On April 12, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the previous judgment by the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. As of June 30, 2011, the Company recorded a liability related to this case of $21.8 million. On July 19, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement providing for a dismissal of the lawsuit and a complete release, in the Company’s favor, by all parties to the litigation in exchange for a payment of $21.8 million, which the Company paid in September 2011. The Company expects that no additional liabilities will be incurred related to this matter. *Export Regulations Violations* During fiscal year 2008, the Company became aware of potential violations of federal export regulations at a business unit that had been recently divested. Upon investigation, the Company discovered that approximately 40 foreign nationals employed over time at the business unit’s facility may have been exposed to protected technical data related to the production of various products for military applications. An export license from the Department of State and the Department of Commerce is required prior to the exporting of technical data for military applications. The Company has applied for and received similar applications for other business units, but did not have such a license for the divested business unit. Violations of Federal export regulations can be subject to civil penalties depending upon the severity of the violation. The Company filed voluntary disclosures with the Department of State and the Department of Commerce before the divestiture of the business unit on March 31, 2008. The Department of State responded to the voluntary disclosure without assessing civil penalties. The Department of Commerce has not yet responded to the voluntary disclosure. It is not possible to determine the amount, if any, of civil penalties that may be assessed by the Department of Commerce. The statute of limitations for this matter has expired. As a result, the Company has not recorded any liability for potential penalties as of June 30, 2013 and does not expect to incur any liabilities related to this matter. *Other* The Company is defending various routine claims and legal actions that are incidental to its business, and the Company is subject to contingencies that are common to its operations, including those pertaining to product claims, commercial disputes, employment actions, employee benefits, compliance with domestic and foreign laws, personal injury claims, patent infringement and tax issues. The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company’s future results of operations and liquidity cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing (both as to recording future charges to operations and cash expenditures) of the resolution of such matters. While it is not feasible to determine the outcome of these matters, management believes that the total liability from these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows over the long-term. However, there can be no assurance that an increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, proceedings or investigations will not be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular future quarter or year. The Company has entered into purchase agreements primarily for various key raw materials at market related prices, all made in the normal course of business. The commitments include both fixed and variable price provisions. Raw material prices as of June 30, 213 were used for commitments with variable pricing. The purchase commitments covered by these agreements aggregate to approximately $408.6 million as of June 30, 2013 all of which relates to fiscal year 2014.

11. Contingencies and Commitments

Environmental

Carpenter is subject to various federal, state, local and international environmental laws and regulations relating to pollution, protection of public health and the environment, natural resource damages and occupational safety and health. Although compliance with these laws and regulations may affect the costs of Carpenter’s operations, compliance costs to date have not been material. Carpenter has environmental remediation liabilities at some of its owned operating facilities and has been designated as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to certain third-party Superfund waste disposal sites and other third party owned sites. Additionally, Carpenter has been notified that it may be a PRP with respect to other Superfund sites as to which no proceedings have been instituted against Carpenter. Neither the exact amount of remediation costs nor the final method of their allocation among all designated PRP’s at these Superfund sites has been determined. The liability for future environmental remediation costs is evaluated by management on a quarterly basis. Carpenter accrues amounts for environmental remediation costs that represent management’s best estimate of the probable and reasonably estimable costs related to environmental remediation. During fiscal years 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company increased the liabilities recorded for environmental remediation costs by $0.3 million, $0.7 million and $0.3 million, respectively. The liabilities recorded for environmental remediation costs at Superfund sites, at other third party-owned sites and at Carpenter-owned current or former operating facilities remaining at June 30, 2013 and 2012 was $14.8 million and $14.5 million, respectively.

Estimates of the amount and timing of future costs of environmental remediation requirements are inherently imprecise because of the continuing evolution of environmental laws and regulatory requirements, the availability and application of technology, the identification of currently unknown remediation sites and the allocation of costs among the PRP’s. Based upon information currently available, such future costs are not expected to have a material effect on Carpenter’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows over the long-term. However, such costs could be material to Carpenter’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular future quarter or year.

Boarhead Farms

In June 2002, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania titled Boarhead Farm Agreement Group v. Advanced Environmental Technology Corporation et al. (since amended to include the individual members). The suit alleges that the Company and the other named defendants contributed to damages caused at Boarhead Farms, a Superfund site located in Bridgeton, Pennsylvania. The Boarhead Farms site was the home of a now defunct chemical and waste hauling company that the Company and many others engaged to dispose of certain wastes during the 1970’s. The plaintiff group was individually named as PRP’s for the Boarhead site in the EPA’s “Record of Decision” in November 1998. Their June 2002 lawsuit against various defendants, including Carpenter, sought contributions for a portion of costs incurred for various site cleanup activities as well as contributions to future cleanup efforts. The suit went to trial in June 2008. Prior to trial, all of the named co-defendants, except for Carpenter, reached an out of court settlement with the plaintiffs. Carpenter denied the claims made by the plaintiff group. On August 18, 2008, the Court awarded the plaintiffs judgment against the Company for 80 percent of the plaintiffs’ past costs of remediating the site, including prejudgment interest from June 18, 2002 to January 1, 2008, and held the Company liable for 80 percent of future costs of the cleanup activities at the site. The Company appealed the Court’s decision and oral arguments took place before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on December 17, 2009. On April 12, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the previous judgment by the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. As of June 30, 2011, the Company recorded a liability related to this case of $21.8 million. On July 19, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement providing for a dismissal of the lawsuit and a complete release, in the Company’s favor, by all parties to the litigation in exchange for a payment of $21.8 million, which the Company paid in September 2011. The Company expects that no additional liabilities will be incurred related to this matter.

Export Regulations Violations

During fiscal year 2008, the Company became aware of potential violations of federal export regulations at a business unit that had been recently divested. Upon investigation, the Company discovered that approximately 40 foreign nationals employed over time at the business unit’s facility may have been exposed to protected technical data related to the production of various products for military applications. An export license from the Department of State and the Department of Commerce is required prior to the exporting of technical data for military applications. The Company has applied for and received similar applications for other business units, but did not have such a license for the divested business unit. Violations of Federal export regulations can be subject to civil penalties depending upon the severity of the violation. The Company filed voluntary disclosures with the Department of State and the Department of Commerce before the divestiture of the business unit on March 31, 2008. The Department of State responded to the voluntary disclosure without assessing civil penalties. The Department of Commerce has not yet responded to the voluntary disclosure. It is not possible to determine the amount, if any, of civil penalties that may be assessed by the Department of Commerce. The statute of limitations for this matter has expired. As a result, the Company has not recorded any liability for potential penalties as of June 30, 2013 and does not expect to incur any liabilities related to this matter.

Other

The Company is defending various routine claims and legal actions that are incidental to its business, and the Company is subject to contingencies that are common to its operations, including those pertaining to product claims, commercial disputes, employment actions, employee benefits, compliance with domestic and foreign laws, personal injury claims, patent infringement and tax issues. The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company’s future results of operations and liquidity cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing (both as to recording future charges to operations and cash expenditures) of the resolution of such matters. While it is not feasible to determine the outcome of these matters, management believes that the total liability from these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows over the long-term. However, there can be no assurance that an increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, proceedings or investigations will not be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular future quarter or year.

The Company has entered into purchase agreements primarily for various key raw materials at market related prices, all made in the normal course of business. The commitments include both fixed and variable price provisions. Raw material prices as of June 30, 213 were used for commitments with variable pricing. The purchase commitments covered by these agreements aggregate to approximately $408.6 million as of June 30, 2013 all of which relates to fiscal year 2014.