17.
Other (Charges) Gains, Net
## Table 0 ##
2013 During the three months ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded $6 million of employee termination benefits, $3 million of contract termination costs and $3 million of long-lived asset impairment losses related to the December 2013 closure of its acetic anhydride facility in Roussillon, France.
In addition, the Company recorded $14 million of employee termination benefits, $30 million of contract termination costs and $31 million of long-lived asset impairment losses as a result of the December 2013 closure of its VAM facility in Tarragona, Spain.
The long-lived asset impairment losses related to both the Company's Roussillon acetic anhydride facility and Tarragona VAM facility were measured at the dates of impairment to fully write-off the related property, plant and equipment at both facilities (Note 4).
During the three months ended December 31, 2013, the Company determined its Singapore acetic acid production unit should be assessed for impairment based on local market conditions affecting demand for acetic acid and downstream products, the cost to operate the unit, contractual obligations and an interim arbitration ruling (Note 23).
As a result, the Company concluded that the long-lived assets at its Singapore acetic acid production unit were fully impaired.
Accordingly, the Company recorded long-lived asset impairment losses, measured at the date of impairment, of $46 million to fully write-off the related property, plant and equipment.
The Singapore acetic acid operations are included in the Acetyl Intermediates segment.
The Company calculated the respective fair values of the long-lived assets of the Roussillon, France acetic anhydride facility, the Tarragona, Spain VAM facility and the Singapore acetic acid unit using a discounted cash flow model incorporating discount rates commensurate with the risks involved for each of the reporting units.
This fair value measurement of long-lived assets is classified as Level 3 measurements under FASB ASC Topic 820.
The key assumptions used in the discounted cash flow valuation models included discount rates, growth rates, cash flow projections and terminal value rates.
Discount rates, growth rates and cash flow projections involve significant judgment and are based on management's estimate of current and forecasted market conditions and cost structure.2012 During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded $5 million of employee termination benefits, related to the closure of the Company's acetate flake and acetate tow manufacturing operations at its Spondon, Derby, United Kingdom site (Note 4).
Also during the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company concluded that certain long-lived assets were partially impaired at its acetate flake and acetate tow manufacturing operations in Spondon, Derby, United Kingdom.
Accordingly, the Company wrote down the related property, plant and equipment to its fair value of $3 million, measured at the date of impairment, resulting in long-lived asset impairment losses of $8 million for the year ended December 31, 2012.
The Company calculated the fair value using a discounted cash flow model incorporating discount rates commensurate with the risks involved for the reporting unit.
This fair value measurement of long-lived assets is classified as a Level 3 measurement under FASB ASC Topic 820.
The key assumptions used in the discounted cash flow valuation model include discount rates, growth rates, cash flow projections and terminal value rates.
Discount rates, growth rates and cash flow projections involve significant judgment and are based on management's estimate of current and forecasted market conditions and cost structure.
Cost of Product Sales.
## Table 1 ##
Our gross margin increased in fiscal 2008 to 58% from 56% in fiscal 2007 due to the inclusion of Cytyc’s products, which have higher gross margins than our Breast Health and Skeletal Health products offset by the additional amortization expense almost entirely related to the merger with Cytyc.
Cost of Product Sales.
The cost of product sales increased 100% in fiscal 2008 compared to fiscal 2007 primarily due to the addition of $196.0 million of cost of product sales from the Cytyc products included in our results since October 22, 2007 and, to a lesser extent, increased product sales of our historical products discussed above.
Included in the additional Cytyc cost of product sales is approximately $42.3 million of additional costs related to sales of acquired Cytyc inventory that was written up to fair value for purchase accounting purposes as of the date of acquisition.
The cost of product sales as a percentage of product revenue in fiscal 2008 was 36% as compared to 43% in the prior year.
These costs as a percentage of product sales decreased primarily due to the higher gross margins earned on Cytyc product sales compared to our historical products, partially offset by the additional charges for the write-up to fair value for the Cytyc inventory sold as noted above.
Also contributing to the decrease in cost of product sales as a percentage of product revenue was increased revenues and improved profitability associated with the shift in mammography product sales to our Selenia full field digital mammography systems.
Our higher Selenia system sales resulted in an improved absorption of fixed manufacturing costs.
Partially offsetting the decreases in costs as a percentage of product sales were charges associated with a MRI inventory impairment charge and related purchase obligations totaling $4.5 million, and $3.9 million related to sales of acquired Third Wave inventory that was written up to fair value in connection with purchase accounting in fiscal 2008.
We identified certain costs recorded within “Cost of Service and Other Revenues” in our Consolidated Statement of Operations during the first three quarters of fiscal 2008 that more appropriately should be classified as “Cost of Product Sales”.
We determined that the reclassification was not material to our consolidated financial statements and corrected the classification in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008.
We also reclassified these costs related to prior periods to the current presentation, which resulted in an increase in “Cost of Product Sales” and a corresponding decrease in “Cost of Service and Other Revenues” of $9.3 million in the three months ended December 29, 2007; $12.3 million in the three months ended March 29, 2008; and $13.3 million in the three months ended June 28, 2008.
Cost of Product Sales—Amortization of Intangible Assets.
Cost of product sales—amortization of intangible assets increased primarily due to $80.2 million of amortization of intangible assets obtained as part of the merger with Cytyc in the first quarter of fiscal 2008.
The underlying intangible assets substantially relate to acquired developed technology and know-how.
These intangible assets are generally being amortized over their estimated useful lives of between 8.5 and 15 years.
December 31, 2011, the Company recognized a decrease of $3 million of tax-related interest and penalties and had approximately $16 million accrued at December 31, 2011.
NOTE 12 DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS The Company is exposed to certain market risks such as changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, and commodity prices, which exist as a part of its ongoing business operations.
Management uses derivative financial and commodity instruments, including futures, options, and swaps, where appropriate, to manage these risks.
Instruments used as hedges must be effective at reducing the risk associated with the exposure being hedged and must be designated as a hedge at the inception of the contract.
The Company designates derivatives as cash flow hedges, fair value hedges, net investment hedges, and uses other contracts to reduce volatility in interest rates, foreign currency and commodities.
As a matter of policy, the Company does not engage in trading or speculative hedging transactions.
Total notional amounts of the Company’s derivative instruments as of December 28, 2013 and December 29, 2012 were as follows:
## Table 2 ##
Following is a description of each category in the fair value hierarchy and the financial assets and liabilities of the Company that were included in each category at December 28, 2013 and December 29, 2012, measured on a recurring basis.
Level 1 — Financial assets and liabilities whose values are based on unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in an active market.
For the Company, level 1 financial assets and liabilities consist primarily of commodity derivative contracts.
Level 2 — Financial assets and liabilities whose values are based on quoted prices in markets that are not active or model inputs that are observable either directly or indirectly for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.
For the Company, level 2 financial assets and liabilities consist of interest rate swaps and over-the-counter commodity and currency contracts.
The Company’s calculation of the fair value of interest rate swaps is derived from a discounted cash flow analysis based on the terms of the contract and the interest rate curve.
Over-the-counter commodity derivatives are valued using an income approach based on the commodity index prices less the contract rate multiplied by the notional amount.
Foreign currency contracts are valued using an income approach based on forward rates less the contract rate multiplied by the notional amount.
The Company’s calculation of the fair value of level 2 financial assets and liabilities takes into consideration the risk of nonperformance, including counterparty credit risk.
Level 3 — Financial assets and liabilities whose values are based on prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both unobservable and significant to the overall fair value measurement.
These inputs reflect management’s own assumptions about the assumptions a market participant would use in pricing the asset or liability.
The Company did not have any level 3 financial assets or liabilities as of December 28, 2013 or December 29, 2012.
The following table presents average balance data and operating interest income and expense data for our banking operations, as well as the related interest yields and rates and interest spread for the years indicated:

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">(In $ millions)</td></tr><tr><td>Employee termination benefits</td><td>-23</td><td>-6</td><td>-22</td></tr><tr><td>Kelsterbach plant relocation (Note 27)</td><td>-13</td><td>-7</td><td>-47</td></tr><tr><td>Plumbing actions</td><td>—</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Asset impairments</td><td>-81</td><td>-8</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>Plant/office closures</td><td>-33</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial disputes</td><td>-8</td><td>2</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>-158</td><td>-14</td><td>-48</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="6"> Years Ended</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">September 27, 2008</td><td colspan="2">September 29, 2007</td><td colspan="2"> Change</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> Amount</td><td>% of Product Sales</td><td> Amount</td><td>% of Product Sales</td><td> Amount</td><td> %</td></tr><tr><td><i>Cost of Product Sales</i></td><td>$535,082</td><td>36%</td><td>$267,470</td><td>43%</td><td>$267,612</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td><i>Cost of Product Sales—Amortization of Intangible Assets</i></td><td>95,310</td><td>6%</td><td>11,262</td><td>2%</td><td>84,048</td><td>746%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$630,392</td><td>42%</td><td>$278,732</td><td>44%</td><td>$351,660</td><td>126%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>(millions)</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Foreign currency exchange contracts</td><td>$517</td><td>$570</td></tr><tr><td>Interest rate contracts</td><td>2,400</td><td>2,150</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity contracts</td><td>361</td><td>320</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$3,278</td><td>$3,040</td></tr></table>

Question: what percent of total derivatives are from interest rate contracts in 2013?
Answer: 0.73215