FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS:

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS:

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS:

NOTE 10—FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS:

Current accounting guidance defines fair value as the price that would be received in the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Guidance requires disclosure of the extent to which fair value is used to measure financial assets and liabilities, the inputs utilized in calculating valuation measurements, and the effect of the measurement of significant unobservable inputs on earnings, or changes in net assets, as of the measurement date. Guidance establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy based upon the transparency of inputs utilized in the measurement and valuation of financial assets or liabilities as of the measurement date. Level 1 inputs include quoted prices for identical instruments and are the most observable. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for similar assets and observable inputs such as interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity rates and yield curves. Level 3 inputs are not observable in the market and include management’s own judgments about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. The use of observable and unobservable inputs is reflected in the hierarchy assessment disclosed in the table below.

As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company held certain financial assets that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis. These included derivative hedging instruments related to the foreign currency forward contracts and purchase of certain raw materials, investments in trading securities and available for sale securities, including an auction rate security (ARS). The Company’s available for sale and trading securities principally consist of municipal bonds and mutual funds that are publicly traded.

The following tables present information about the Company’s financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and indicate the fair value hierarchy and the valuation techniques utilized by the Company to determine such fair value:

	Estimated Fair Value December 31, 2012
	Total			Input Levels Used
	Fair Value			Level 1			Level 2		Level 3
Cash and equivalents	$	63,862		$	63,862		$	—	$	—
Auction rate security	9,485			—			—		9,485
Available for sale securities, excluding the auction rate security	84,568			—			84,568		—
Commodity futures contracts, net	(112		)	(112		)	—		—
Trading securities	49,378			49,378			—		—
Total assets measured at fair value	$	207,181		$	113,128		$	84,568	$	9,485

	Estimated Fair Value December 31, 2011
	Total		Input Levels Used
	Fair Value		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Cash and equivalents	$	78,612	$	78,612	$	—	$	—
Auction rate security	7,453		—		—		7,453
Available for sale securities, excluding the auction rate security	57,835		—		57,835		—
Foreign currency forward contracts	205		—		205		—
Commodity futures contracts	203		203		—		—
Commodity options contracts	—		—		—		—
Trading securities	41,768		41,768		—		—
Total assets measured at fair value	$	186,076	$	120,583	$	58,040	$	7,453

Available for sale securities which utilize Level 2 inputs consist primarily of municipal bonds, which are valued based on quoted market prices or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency.

A summary of the aggregate fair value, gross unrealized gains, gross unrealized losses, realized losses and amortized cost basis of the Company’s investment portfolio by major security type is as follows:

	December 31, 2012
	Amortized		Fair		Unrealized					Realized
Available for Sale:	Cost		Value		Gains		Losses			Losses
Auction rate security	$	8,410	$	9,485	$	1,075	$	—		$	—
Municipal bonds	84,199		84,551		352		—			—
Mutual funds	20		17		—		(3		)	—
	$	92,629	$	94,053	$	1,427	$	(3	)	$	—

	December 31, 2011
	Amortized		Fair		Unrealized					Realized
Available for Sale:	Cost		Value		Gains		Losses			Losses
Auction rate security	$	8,410	$	7,453	$	—	$	(957	)	$	—
Municipal bonds	57,389		57,791		402		—			—
Mutual funds	45		44		—		(1		)	—
	$	65,844	$	65,288	$	402	$	(958	)	$	—

As of December 31, 2012, the Company’s long-term investments include $9,485 ($13,550 original cost) of Jefferson County Alabama Sewer Revenue Refunding Warrants, originally purchased with an insurance-backed AAA rating. This is an auction rate security that is classified as an available-for-sale security. Due to adverse events related to Jefferson County and its bond insurance carrier, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (FGIC), as well as events in the credit markets, the auctions for this auction rate security have failed since 2008. As such, the Company continues to estimate the fair value of this auction rate security utilizing a valuation model with Level 3 inputs, as defined by guidance. The primary input to the valuation model was a limited number of market trades during 2012, ranging from 71% to 76% of the original par value. The other factors considered include the credit risk of the collateral underlying the auction rate security, the credit risk of the bond insurer, interest rates, and the amount and timing of expected future cash flows including assumptions about the market expectation of the next successful auction or possible negotiated settlement between the County and debt holders. The Company continues to receive all contractual interest payments on this auction rate security on a timely basis, there has been no default, it is insured by FGIC and the Company has the intent and ability to hold this auction rate security until recovery of its amortized cost basis. Representatives of Jefferson County and the bondholders were in negotiations to reach a settlement agreeable to the bondholders and the insurers, and since a settlement could not be reached, the County filed for bankruptcy. FGIC is also in bankruptcy. Rulings by the bankruptcy court could have adverse effects to the holders of warrants and other debt, and further reduce the market value of this auction rate security resulting in an additional other-than-temporary impairments and charges to net earnings. The Company is not currently able to determine the outcome of this bankruptcy, or the amount and timing of the ultimate net proceeds that it may recover. See also the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations regarding Jefferson County auction rate security.

The Company classified this auction rate security as non-current and has included it in long-term investments on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position at December 31, 2012 and 2011 because the Company believes that the current condition of the auction rate security market may take more than twelve months to improve.

The following table presents additional information about the Company’s financial instruments (all ARS) measured at fair value on a recurring basis using Level 3 inputs at December 31, 2012 and 2011:

	2012		2011
Balance at January 1	$	7,453	$	6,775
Unrealized gain recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss	2,032		678
Balance at December 31	$	9,485	$	7,453

The fair value of the Company’s industrial revenue development bonds at December 31, 2012 and 2011 were valued using Level 2 inputs which approximates the carrying value of $7,500 for both periods. Interest rates on these bonds reset weekly based on current market conditions.

In addition to assets and liabilities that are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis, guidance requires the Company to record assets and liabilities at fair value on a nonrecurring basis generally as a result of impairment charges. Assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis during 2012 and 2011 are summarized below:

	December 31, 2012
	Fair Value		Level Used to Determine Fair Value
	Basis		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Equity method investment	$	2,127	$	—	$	—	$	2,127

	December 31, 2011
	Fair Value		Level Used to Determine Fair Value
	Basis		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3
Equity method investment	$	3,935	$	—	$	—	$	3,935

As disclosed in Note 1, during the fourth quarter of 2012 the Company recognized an impairment of $850 in an equity method investment. The fair value was determined based on Level 3 inputs.