Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 15 – Commitments and Contingencies In 1992, the Company identified certain soil and groundwater contamination at AC Products, Inc. (“ACP”), a wholly owned subsidiary. In voluntary coordination with the Santa Ana California Regional Water Quality Board (“SACRWQB”), ACP has been remediating the contamination, the principal contaminant of which is perchloroethylene (“PERC”). In 2004, the Orange County Water District (“OCWD”) filed a civil complaint against ACP and other parties seeking to recover compensatory and other damages related to the investigation and remediation of the contamination in the groundwater. Pursuant to a settlement agreement with OCWD, ACP agreed, among other things, to operate the two groundwater treatment systems to hydraulically contain groundwater contamination emanating from ACP’s site until the concentrations of PERC released by ACP fell below the current Federal maximum contaminant level for four consecutive quarterly sampling events. In February 2014, ACP ceased operation at one of its two groundwater treatment systems, as it had met the above condition for closure. Based on the most recent modeling, it is estimated that the remaining system will operate for another nine months to thirty three months. As of March 31, 2016, the Company believes that the range of potential-known liabilities associated with the balance of the ACP water remediation program is approximately $0.2 million to $0.9 million, for which the Company has sufficient reserves. The low and high ends of the range are based on the length of operation of the treatment system as determined by groundwater modeling. Costs of operation include the operation and maintenance of the extraction well, groundwater monitoring and program management. The Company believes, although there can be no assurance regarding the outcome of other unrelated environmental matters, that it has made adequate accruals for costs associated with other environmental problems of which it is aware. Approximately $0.2 million and $0.3 million was accrued at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, to provide for such anticipated future environmental assessments and remediation costs. An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds received from insurance settlements. To date, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary’s total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is less than $3.0 million (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary’s primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of their policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is insolvent, and the other primary insurers asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and 2007 for $15.0 million and $20.0 million, respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary’s asbestos litigation. In 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier is paying 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims. The agreement continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing a minimum of two years prior written notice. As of March 31, 2016, no notice of termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The Company believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary’s primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary. If the subsidiary’s assets and insurance coverage were to be exhausted, claimants of the subsidiary could actively pursue claims against the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship. The Company does not believe that such claims would have merit or that the Company would be held to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of the subsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the nature of the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number of such claims that have resulted in any payment, the potential availability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiary level, the additional availability of the Company’s own insurance and the Company’s strong defenses to claims that it should be held responsible for the subsidiary’s obligations because of the parent-subsidiary relationship, the Company believes it is not probable that the Company will incur losses. The Company has been successful to date having claims naming it dismissed during initial proceedings. Since the Company may be in this early stage of litigation for some time, it is not possible to estimate additional losses or range of loss, if any. As initially disclosed in 2010, one of the Company’s subsidiaries may have paid certain value-added-taxes (“VAT”) incorrectly and, in certain cases, may not have collected sufficient VAT from certain customers. The VAT rules and regulations at issue are complex, vary among the jurisdictions and can be contradictory, in particular as to how they relate to the subsidiary’s products and to sales between jurisdictions. Since its inception, the subsidiary had been consistent in its VAT collection and remittance practices and had never been contacted by any tax authority relative to VAT. The subsidiary later determined that for certain products, a portion of the VAT was incorrectly paid and that the total VAT due exceeded the amount originally collected and remitted by the subsidiary. In response, the subsidiary modified its VAT invoicing and payment procedures to eliminate or mitigate future exposure. In 2010, three jurisdictions contacted the subsidiary and, since then, the subsidiary has either participated in an amnesty program or entered into a settlement whereby it paid a reduced portion of the amounts owed in resolution of those jurisdictions’ claims. In 2013, an additional jurisdiction issued an assessment against the subsidiary for certain tax years. During the fourth quarter of 2015, the subsidiary participated in an amnesty program whereby it paid a reduced portion of the amounts owed in resolution of the jurisdictions’ claims. As a result, the Company had no remaining accruals for these or any other related tax assessments at March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015. In analyzing the subsidiary’s exposure, it is difficult to estimate both the probability and the amount of any potential liabilities due to a number of factors, including: the decrease in exposure over time due to applicable statutes of limitations and actions taken by the subsidiary, the joint liability of customers and suppliers for a portion of the VAT, the availability of a VAT refund for VAT incorrectly paid through an administrative process, any amounts which may have been or will be paid by customers, as well as the timing and structure of any tax amnesties or settlements. In addition, interest and penalties on any VAT due can be a multiple of the base tax. The subsidiary may contest any tax assessment administratively and/or judicially for an extended period of time, but may ultimately resolve its disputes through participation in tax amnesty programs, which are a common practice for settling tax disputes in the jurisdictions in question and which have historically occurred on a regular basis, resulting in significant reductions of interest and penalties. Also, the timing of payments and refunds of VAT may not be contemporaneous, and, if additional VAT is owed, it may not be fully recoverable from customers. As of March 31, 2016, the Company believes there is one potentially impacted jurisdiction remaining, and if the jurisdiction were to initiate audits and issue assessments, the remaining exposure, net of refunds, could be from $0 million to $1.0 million, assuming the continued availability of future amnesty programs or settlements to reduce the interest and penalties. If there are future assessments but no such future amnesty programs or settlements, the potential exposure could be higher. The Company is party to other litigation which management currently believes will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Note 15 – Commitments and Contingencies

In 1992, the Company identified certain soil and groundwater contamination at AC Products, Inc. (“ACP”), a wholly owned subsidiary. In voluntary coordination with the Santa Ana California Regional Water Quality Board (“SACRWQB”), ACP has been remediating the contamination, the principal contaminant of which is perchloroethylene (“PERC”). In 2004, the Orange County Water District (“OCWD”) filed a civil complaint against ACP and other parties seeking to recover compensatory and other damages related to the investigation and remediation of the contamination in the groundwater. Pursuant to a settlement agreement with OCWD, ACP agreed, among other things, to operate the two groundwater treatment systems to hydraulically contain groundwater contamination emanating from ACP’s site until the concentrations of PERC released by ACP fell below the current Federal maximum contaminant level for four consecutive quarterly sampling events. In February 2014, ACP ceased operation at one of its two groundwater treatment systems, as it had met the above condition for closure. Based on the most recent modeling, it is estimated that the remaining system will operate for another nine months to thirty three months.

As of March 31, 2016, the Company believes that the range of potential-known liabilities associated with the balance of the ACP water remediation program is approximately $0.2 million to $0.9 million, for which the Company has sufficient reserves. The low and high ends of the range are based on the length of operation of the treatment system as determined by groundwater modeling. Costs of operation include the operation and maintenance of the extraction well, groundwater monitoring and program management.

The Company believes, although there can be no assurance regarding the outcome of other unrelated environmental matters, that it has made adequate accruals for costs associated with other environmental problems of which it is aware. Approximately $0.2 million and $0.3 million was accrued at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, to provide for such anticipated future environmental assessments and remediation costs.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds received from insurance settlements. To date, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary’s total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is less than $3.0 million (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary’s primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of their policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is insolvent, and the other primary insurers asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and 2007 for $15.0 million and $20.0 million, respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary’s asbestos litigation. In 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier is paying 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims. The agreement continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing a minimum of two years prior written notice. As of March 31, 2016, no notice of termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The Company believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary’s primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary.

If the subsidiary’s assets and insurance coverage were to be exhausted, claimants of the subsidiary could actively pursue claims against the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship. The Company does not believe that such claims would have merit or that the Company would be held to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of the subsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the nature of the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number of such claims that have resulted in any payment, the potential availability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiary level, the additional availability of the Company’s own insurance and the Company’s strong defenses to claims that it should be held responsible for the subsidiary’s obligations because of the parent-subsidiary relationship, the Company believes it is not probable that the Company will incur losses. The Company has been successful to date having claims naming it dismissed during initial proceedings. Since the Company may be in this early stage of litigation for some time, it is not possible to estimate additional losses or range of loss, if any.

As initially disclosed in 2010, one of the Company’s subsidiaries may have paid certain value-added-taxes (“VAT”) incorrectly and, in certain cases, may not have collected sufficient VAT from certain customers. The VAT rules and regulations at issue are complex, vary among the jurisdictions and can be contradictory, in particular as to how they relate to the subsidiary’s products and to sales between jurisdictions. Since its inception, the subsidiary had been consistent in its VAT collection and remittance practices and had never been contacted by any tax authority relative to VAT. The subsidiary later determined that for certain products, a portion of the VAT was incorrectly paid and that the total VAT due exceeded the amount originally collected and remitted by the subsidiary. In response, the subsidiary modified its VAT invoicing and payment procedures to eliminate or mitigate future exposure.

In 2010, three jurisdictions contacted the subsidiary and, since then, the subsidiary has either participated in an amnesty program or entered into a settlement whereby it paid a reduced portion of the amounts owed in resolution of those jurisdictions’ claims. In 2013, an additional jurisdiction issued an assessment against the subsidiary for certain tax years. During the fourth quarter of 2015, the subsidiary participated in an amnesty program whereby it paid a reduced portion of the amounts owed in resolution of the jurisdictions’ claims. As a result, the Company had no remaining accruals for these or any other related tax assessments at March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015.

In analyzing the subsidiary’s exposure, it is difficult to estimate both the probability and the amount of any potential liabilities due to a number of factors, including: the decrease in exposure over time due to applicable statutes of limitations and actions taken by the subsidiary, the joint liability of customers and suppliers for a portion of the VAT, the availability of a VAT refund for VAT incorrectly paid through an administrative process, any amounts which may have been or will be paid by customers, as well as the timing and structure of any tax amnesties or settlements. In addition, interest and penalties on any VAT due can be a multiple of the base tax. The subsidiary may contest any tax assessment administratively and/or judicially for an extended period of time, but may ultimately resolve its disputes through participation in tax amnesty programs, which are a common practice for settling tax disputes in the jurisdictions in question and which have historically occurred on a regular basis, resulting in significant reductions of interest and penalties. Also, the timing of payments and refunds of VAT may not be contemporaneous, and, if additional VAT is owed, it may not be fully recoverable from customers. As of March 31, 2016, the Company believes there is one potentially impacted jurisdiction remaining, and if the jurisdiction were to initiate audits and issue assessments, the remaining exposure, net of refunds, could be from $0 million to $1.0 million, assuming the continued availability of future amnesty programs or settlements to reduce the interest and penalties. If there are future assessments but no such future amnesty programs or settlements, the potential exposure could be higher.

The Company is party to other litigation which management currently believes will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.