<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?><InstanceReport xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"><Version>2.2.0.25</Version><hasSegments>false</hasSegments><hasScenarios>false</hasScenarios><ReportLongName>10701 - Disclosure - Commitments and Contingencies</ReportLongName><DisplayLabelColumn>true</DisplayLabelColumn><ShowElementNames>false</ShowElementNames><RoundingOption /><HasEmbeddedReports>false</HasEmbeddedReports><Columns><Column><Id>1</Id><IsAbstractGroupTitle>false</IsAbstractGroupTitle><LabelColumn>false</LabelColumn><CurrencyCode>USD</CurrencyCode><FootnoteIndexer /><hasSegments>false</hasSegments><hasScenarios>false</hasScenarios><MCU><KeyName>1/1/2011 - 3/31/2011
USD ($)

USD ($) / shares

</KeyName><CurrencySymbol>$</CurrencySymbol><contextRef><ContextID>Duration_1_1_2011_To_3_31_2011</ContextID><EntitySchema>http://www.sec.gov/CIK</EntitySchema><EntityValue>0000004281</EntityValue><PeriodDisplayName /><PeriodType>duration</PeriodType><PeriodStartDate>2011-01-01T00:00:00</PeriodStartDate><PeriodEndDate>2011-03-31T00:00:00</PeriodEndDate><Segments /><Scenarios /></contextRef><UPS><UnitProperty><UnitID>Unit12</UnitID><UnitType>Standard</UnitType><StandardMeasure><MeasureSchema>http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217</MeasureSchema><MeasureValue>USD</MeasureValue><MeasureNamespace>iso4217</MeasureNamespace></StandardMeasure><Scale>0</Scale></UnitProperty><UnitProperty><UnitID>Unit16</UnitID><UnitType>Standard</UnitType><StandardMeasure><MeasureSchema>http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance</MeasureSchema><MeasureValue>shares</MeasureValue><MeasureNamespace>xbrli</MeasureNamespace></StandardMeasure><Scale>0</Scale></UnitProperty><UnitProperty><UnitID>Unit18</UnitID><UnitType>Divide</UnitType><NumeratorMeasure><MeasureSchema>http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217</MeasureSchema><MeasureValue>USD</MeasureValue><MeasureNamespace>iso4217</MeasureNamespace></NumeratorMeasure><DenominatorMeasure><MeasureSchema>http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance</MeasureSchema><MeasureValue>shares</MeasureValue><MeasureNamespace>xbrli</MeasureNamespace></DenominatorMeasure><Scale>0</Scale></UnitProperty><UnitProperty><UnitID>Unit1</UnitID><UnitType>Standard</UnitType><StandardMeasure><MeasureSchema>http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance</MeasureSchema><MeasureValue>pure</MeasureValue><MeasureNamespace>xbrli</MeasureNamespace></StandardMeasure><Scale>0</Scale></UnitProperty></UPS><CurrencyCode>USD</CurrencyCode><OriginalCurrencyCode>USD</OriginalCurrencyCode></MCU><CurrencySymbol>$</CurrencySymbol><Labels><Label Id="1" Label="3 Months Ended" /><Label Id="2" Label="Mar. 31, 2011" /></Labels></Column></Columns><Rows><Row><Id>2</Id><IsAbstractGroupTitle>true</IsAbstractGroupTitle><Level>0</Level><ElementName>aa_CommitmentsAndContingenciesAbstract</ElementName><ElementPrefix>aa</ElementPrefix><IsBaseElement>false</IsBaseElement><BalanceType>na</BalanceType><PeriodType>duration</PeriodType><ShortDefinition>Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]</ShortDefinition><IsReportTitle>false</IsReportTitle><IsSegmentTitle>false</IsSegmentTitle><IsSubReportEnd>false</IsSubReportEnd><IsCalendarTitle>false</IsCalendarTitle><IsTuple>false</IsTuple><IsEquityPrevioslyReportedAsRow>false</IsEquityPrevioslyReportedAsRow><IsEquityAdjustmentRow>false</IsEquityAdjustmentRow><IsBeginningBalance>false</IsBeginningBalance><IsEndingBalance>false</IsEndingBalance><IsReverseSign>false</IsReverseSign><PreferredLabelRole /><FootnoteIndexer /><Cells><Cell><Id>1</Id><IsNumeric>false</IsNumeric><IsRatio>false</IsRatio><DisplayZeroAsNone>false</DisplayZeroAsNone><NumericAmount>0</NumericAmount><RoundedNumericAmount>0</RoundedNumericAmount><NonNumbericText /><NonNumericTextHeader /><FootnoteIndexer /><CurrencyCode /><CurrencySymbol /><IsIndependantCurrency>false</IsIndependantCurrency><ShowCurrencySymbol>false</ShowCurrencySymbol><DisplayDateInUSFormat>false</DisplayDateInUSFormat><hasSegments>false</hasSegments><hasScenarios>false</hasScenarios></Cell></Cells><OriginalInstanceReportColumns /><Unit>Other</Unit><ElementDataType>xbrli:stringItemType</ElementDataType><SimpleDataType>string</SimpleDataType><ElementDefenition>Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]</ElementDefenition><IsTotalLabel>false</IsTotalLabel><IsEPS>false</IsEPS><Label>Commitments and Contingencies</Label></Row><Row><Id>3</Id><IsAbstractGroupTitle>false</IsAbstractGroupTitle><Level>0</Level><ElementName>us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock</ElementName><ElementPrefix>us-gaap</ElementPrefix><IsBaseElement>true</IsBaseElement><BalanceType>na</BalanceType><PeriodType>duration</PeriodType><ShortDefinition>No definition available.</ShortDefinition><IsReportTitle>false</IsReportTitle><IsSegmentTitle>false</IsSegmentTitle><IsSubReportEnd>false</IsSubReportEnd><IsCalendarTitle>false</IsCalendarTitle><IsTuple>false</IsTuple><IsEquityPrevioslyReportedAsRow>false</IsEquityPrevioslyReportedAsRow><IsEquityAdjustmentRow>false</IsEquityAdjustmentRow><IsBeginningBalance>false</IsBeginningBalance><IsEndingBalance>false</IsEndingBalance><IsReverseSign>false</IsReverseSign><PreferredLabelRole>terselabel</PreferredLabelRole><FootnoteIndexer /><Cells><Cell><Id>1</Id><IsNumeric>false</IsNumeric><IsRatio>false</IsRatio><DisplayZeroAsNone>false</DisplayZeroAsNone><NumericAmount>0</NumericAmount><RoundedNumericAmount>0</RoundedNumericAmount><NonNumbericText>&lt;div&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;&lt;b&gt;G. Commitments and Contingencies &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;&lt;u&gt;Litigation &lt;/u&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 6px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;On February&amp;nbsp;27, 2008, Alcoa Inc. received notice that Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba) had filed suit against Alcoa Inc. and Alcoa World Alumina LLC (collectively, "Alcoa"), and others, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Court"), Civil Action number 08-299, styled Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. v. Alcoa Inc., Alcoa World Alumina LLC, William Rice, and Victor Phillip Dahdaleh. The complaint alleges that certain Alcoa entities and their agents, including Victor Phillip Dahdaleh, have engaged in a conspiracy over a period of 15 years to defraud Alba. The complaint further alleges that Alcoa and its employees or agents (1)&amp;nbsp;illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and (or) officers of Alba in order to force Alba to purchase alumina at excessively high prices, (2)&amp;nbsp;illegally bribed officials of the government of Bahrain and (or) officers of Alba and issued threats in order to pressure Alba to enter into an agreement by which Alcoa would purchase an equity interest in Alba, and (3)&amp;nbsp;assigned portions of existing supply contracts between Alcoa and Alba for the sole purpose of facilitating alleged bribes and unlawful commissions. The complaint alleges that Alcoa and the other defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and committed fraud. Alba's complaint seeks compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages, rescission of the 2005 alumina supply contract, and attorneys' fees and costs. Alba seeks treble damages with respect to its RICO claims. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;On February&amp;nbsp;26, 2008, Alcoa Inc. had advised the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it had recently become aware of these claims, had already begun an internal investigation, and intended to cooperate fully in any investigation that the DOJ or the SEC may commence. On March&amp;nbsp;17, 2008, the DOJ notified Alcoa that it had opened a formal investigation and Alcoa has been cooperating with the government. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In response to a motion filed by the DOJ on March&amp;nbsp;27, 2008, the Court ordered the suit filed by Alba to be administratively closed and that all discovery be stayed to allow the DOJ to fully conduct an investigation without the interference and distraction of ongoing civil litigation. The Court further ordered that the case will be reopened at the close of the DOJ's investigation. The Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; font-size: 1px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.&amp;nbsp;3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs representing approximately&amp;nbsp;&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;13,000&lt;/font&gt; retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependants of such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning January&amp;nbsp;1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys' fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of September&amp;nbsp;17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March&amp;nbsp;24, 2009 and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to September&amp;nbsp;22, 2009. In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an advisory jury at trial. Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing September&amp;nbsp;22, 2009 and ending on October&amp;nbsp;1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, TN before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge. At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same. Post trial briefing was submitted on December&amp;nbsp;4, 2009. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;On March&amp;nbsp;9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March&amp;nbsp;23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or amendment of the judgment order, which seeks, among other things, a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to 2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs must pay. Also on March&amp;nbsp;23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses. Alcoa filed its opposition to both motions on April&amp;nbsp;11, 2011. The time for plaintiffs to appeal from the court's March&amp;nbsp;9, 2011 judgment will not begin until the court disposes of these motions. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;On April&amp;nbsp;23, 2004, St. Croix Renaissance Group, L.L.L.P., Brownfield Recovery Corp., and Energy Answers Corporation of Puerto Rico (collectively referred to as "SCRG") filed a suit against St. Croix Alumina L.L.C. and Alcoa World Alumina, L.L.C. (collectively referred to as "SCA") in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix for claims related to the sale of SCA's former St. Croix alumina refinery to plaintiffs. SCA thereafter removed the case to federal court and after a several year period of discovery and motion practice, a jury trial on the matter took place in St. Croix from January&amp;nbsp;11, 2011 to January&amp;nbsp;20, 2011. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and awarded damages as described: on a claim of breaches of warranty, the jury awarded $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;13&lt;/font&gt;; on the same claim, the jury awarded punitive damages in the amount of $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;6&lt;/font&gt;; and on a negligence claim for property damage, the jury awarded $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;10&lt;/font&gt;. SCA believes the verdict is, in whole or in part, not supported by the evidence or otherwise results from errors of law committed during the trial. As a result, on February&amp;nbsp;17, 2011, SCA filed post-trial motions seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. To the extent such post-trial motions are not successful, SCA intends to pursue its rights of appeal. At this time, management is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In addition to the litigation discussed above, various other lawsuits, claims, and proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against Alcoa, including those pertaining to environmental, product liability, and safety and health matters. While the amounts claimed may be substantial, the ultimate liability cannot now be determined because of the considerable uncertainties that exist. Therefore, it is possible that the Company's financial position, liquidity, or results of operations in a particular period could be materially affected by certain contingencies. However, based on facts currently available, management believes that the disposition of matters that are pending or asserted will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the financial position, liquidity, or the results of operations of the Company. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;&lt;u&gt;European Commission Matters &lt;/u&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 6px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In July 2006, the European Commission (EC) announced that it had opened an investigation to establish whether an extension of the regulated electricity tariff granted by Italy to some energy-intensive industries complies with European Union (EU) state aid rules. The Italian power tariff extended the tariff that was in force until December&amp;nbsp;31, 2005 through November&amp;nbsp;19, 2009 (Alcoa has been incurring higher power costs at its smelters in Italy subsequent to the tariff end date). The extension was originally through 2010, but the date was changed by legislation adopted by the Italian Parliament effective on August&amp;nbsp;15, 2009. Prior to expiration of the tariff in 2005, Alcoa had been operating in Italy for more than 10 years under a power supply structure approved by the EC in 1996. That measure provided a competitive power supply to the primary aluminum industry and was not considered state aid from the Italian Government. The EC's announcement expressed concerns about whether Italy's extension of the tariff beyond 2005 was compatible with EU legislation and potentially distorted competition in the European market of primary aluminum, where energy is an important part of the production costs. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt"&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;On November&amp;nbsp;19, 2009, the EC announced a decision in this matter stating that the extension of the tariff by Italy constituted unlawful state aid, in part, and, therefore, the Italian Government is to recover a portion of the benefit Alcoa received since January 2006 (including interest). The amount of this recovery will be based on a calculation that is being prepared by the Italian Government. Pending formal notification from the Italian Government, Alcoa estimates that a payment in the range of $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;300&lt;/font&gt; to $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;500&lt;/font&gt; will be required (the timing of such payment is uncertain). In late 2009, after discussions with legal counsel and reviewing the bases on which the EC decided, including the different considerations cited in the EC decision regarding Alcoa's two smelters in Italy, Alcoa recorded a charge of $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;250&lt;/font&gt;, including $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;20&lt;/font&gt; to write off a receivable from the Italian Government for amounts due under the now expired tariff structure. On April&amp;nbsp;19, 2010, Alcoa filed an appeal of this decision with the General Court of the EU. Alcoa will pursue all substantive and procedural legal steps available to annul the EC's decision. On May&amp;nbsp;22, 2010, Alcoa also filed with the General Court a request for injunctive relief to suspend the effectiveness of the decision, but, on July&amp;nbsp;12, 2010, the General Court denied such request. On September&amp;nbsp;10, 2010, Alcoa appealed the July&amp;nbsp;12, 2010 decision to the European Court of Justice (ECJ); a judgment by that Court is expected in 2011. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;On March&amp;nbsp;23, 2011, the EC announced that it has decided to refer the Italian Government to the ECJ for failure to comply with the EC's November&amp;nbsp;19, 2009 decision. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;As a result of the EC's decision, management had contemplated ceasing operations at its Italian smelters due to uneconomical power costs. In February 2010, management agreed to continue to operate its smelters in Italy for up to six months while a long-term solution to address increased power costs could be negotiated. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Also in February 2010, the Italian Government issued a decree, which was converted into law by the Italian Parliament in March 2010, to provide interruptibility rights to certain industrial customers who were willing to be subject to temporary interruptions in the supply of power (i.e. compensation for power interruptions when grids are overloaded) over a three-year period. Alcoa applied for and was granted such rights (expiring on December&amp;nbsp;31, 2012) related to its Portovesme smelter. In May 2010, the EC stated that, based on their review of the validity of the decree, the interruptibility rights should not be considered state aid. On July&amp;nbsp;29, 2010, Alcoa executed a new power agreement effective September&amp;nbsp;1, 2010 through December&amp;nbsp;31, 2012 for the Portovesme smelter, replacing the short-term, market-based power contract that was in effect since early 2010. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Additionally in May 2010, Alcoa and the Italian Government agreed to a temporary idling of the Fusina smelter. As of June&amp;nbsp;30, 2010, the Fusina smelter was fully curtailed (44 kmt-per-year). &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Separately, on November&amp;nbsp;29, 2006, Alcoa filed an appeal before the General Court (formerly the European Court of First Instance) seeking the annulment of the EC's decision to open an investigation alleging that such decision did not follow the applicable procedural rules. On March&amp;nbsp;25, 2009, the General Court denied Alcoa's appeal. On May&amp;nbsp;29, 2009, Alcoa appealed the March&amp;nbsp;25, 2009 ruling. The hearing of the May&amp;nbsp;29, 2009 appeal was held on June&amp;nbsp;24, 2010 and a decision from the ECJ is expected in 2011. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In January 2007, the EC announced that it had opened an investigation to establish whether the regulated electricity tariffs granted by Spain comply with EU state aid rules. At the time the EC opened its investigation, Alcoa had been operating in Spain for more than nine years under a power supply structure approved by the Spanish Government in 1986, an equivalent tariff having been granted in 1983. The investigation is limited to the year 2005 and is focused both on the energy-intensive consumers and the distribution companies. The investigation provided 30 days to any interested party to submit observations and comments to the EC. With respect to the energy-intensive consumers, the EC opened the investigation on the assumption that prices paid under the tariff in 2005 were lower than a pool price mechanism, therefore being, in principle, artificially below market conditions. Alcoa submitted comments in which the company provided evidence that prices paid by energy-intensive consumers were in line with the market, in addition to various legal arguments defending the legality of the Spanish tariff system. It is Alcoa's understanding that the Spanish tariff system for electricity is in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations, and therefore no state aid is present in the tariff system. While Alcoa does not believe that an unfavorable decision is probable, management has estimated that the total potential impact from an unfavorable decision could be in the range of $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;80&lt;/font&gt; to $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;100&lt;/font&gt; (&amp;euro;&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;60&lt;/font&gt; to &amp;euro;&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;70&lt;/font&gt;) pretax. Also, while Alcoa believes that any additional cost would only be assessed for the year 2005, it is possible that the EC could extend its investigation to later years. A decision by the EC is expected in 2011. If the EC's investigation concludes that the regulated electricity tariffs for industries are unlawful, Alcoa will have an opportunity to challenge the decision in the EU courts. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;&lt;u&gt;Environmental Matters &lt;/u&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 6px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Alcoa continues to participate in environmental assessments and cleanups at a number of locations (more than 100). These include owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, previously owned or operating facilities and adjoining properties, and waste sites, including Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)) sites. A liability is recorded for environmental remediation when a cleanup program becomes probable and the costs or damages can be reasonably estimated. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;As assessments and cleanups proceed, the liability is adjusted based on progress made in determining the extent of remedial actions and related costs and damages. The liability can change substantially due to factors such as the nature and extent of contamination, changes in remedial requirements, and technological changes, among others. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Alcoa's remediation reserve balance was $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;332&lt;/font&gt; and $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;333&lt;/font&gt; at March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011 and December&amp;nbsp;31, 2010 (of which $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;29&lt;/font&gt; and $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;31&lt;/font&gt; was classified as a current liability), respectively, and reflects the most probable costs to remediate identified environmental conditions for which costs can be reasonably estimated. In the 2011 first quarter, the remediation reserve was increased by $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;2&lt;/font&gt; associated with a number of sites. The changes to the remediation reserve were recorded in Cost of goods sold on the accompanying Statement of Consolidated Operations. Payments related to remediation expenses applied against the reserve were $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;5&lt;/font&gt; in the 2011 first quarter. These amounts include expenditures currently mandated, as well as those not required by any regulatory authority or third party. The change in the reserve also reflects an increase of $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;2&lt;/font&gt; due to the effects of foreign currency translation. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Included in annual operating expenses are the recurring costs of managing hazardous substances and environmental programs. These costs are estimated to be approximately &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;2&lt;/font&gt;% of cost of goods sold. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;The following discussion provides details regarding the current status of certain significant reserves related to current or former Alcoa sites. It is possible that Alcoa's financial position, liquidity, or results of operations, in a particular period, could be materially affected by matters relating to these sites. However, based on facts currently available, management believes that adequate reserves have been provided and that the disposition of these matters will not have a materially adverse effect on the financial position, liquidity, or the results of operations of the Company. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;&lt;b&gt;Massena West, NY&amp;#8212;&lt;/b&gt;Alcoa has been conducting investigations and studies of the Grasse River, adjacent to Alcoa's Massena plant site, under a 1989 order from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued under CERCLA. Sediments and fish in the river contain varying levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Alcoa submitted various Analysis of Alternatives Reports to the EPA starting in 1998 through 2002 that reported the results of river and sediment studies, potential alternatives for remedial actions related to the PCB contamination, and additional information requested by the EPA. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In June 2003, the EPA requested that Alcoa gather additional field data to assess the potential for sediment erosion from winter river ice formation and breakup. The results of these additional studies, submitted in a report to the EPA in April 2004, suggest that this phenomenon has the potential to occur approximately every 10 years and may impact sediments in certain portions of the river under all remedial scenarios. The EPA informed Alcoa that a final remedial decision for the river could not be made without substantially more information, including river pilot studies on the effects of ice formation and breakup on each of the remedial techniques. Alcoa submitted to the EPA, and the EPA approved, a Remedial Options Pilot Study (ROPS) to gather this information. The scope of this study included sediment removal and capping, the installation of an ice control structure, and significant monitoring. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;From 2004 through 2008, Alcoa completed the work outlined in the ROPS. In November 2008, Alcoa submitted an update to the EPA incorporating the new information obtained from the ROPS related to the feasibility and costs associated with various capping and dredging alternatives, including options for ice control. As a result, Alcoa increased the reserve associated with the Grasse River by $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;40&lt;/font&gt; for the estimated costs of a proposed ice control remedy and for partial settlement of potential damages of natural resources. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In late 2009, the EPA requested that Alcoa submit a complete revised Analysis of Alternatives Report in March 2010 to address questions and comments from the EPA and various stakeholders. On March&amp;nbsp;24, 2010, Alcoa submitted the revised report, which included an expanded list of proposed remedial alternatives, as directed by the EPA. Alcoa increased the reserve associated with the Grasse River by $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;17&lt;/font&gt; to reflect an increase in the estimated costs of the Company's recommended capping alternative as a result of changes in scope that occurred due to the questions and comments from the EPA and various stakeholders. While the EPA reviews the revised report, Alcoa will continue with its on-going monitoring and field studies activities. In late 2010, Alcoa increased the reserve by $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;2&lt;/font&gt; based on the most recent estimate of costs expected to be incurred for on-going monitoring and field studies activities as the EPA continues its review during 2011. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;The ultimate selection of a remedy may result in additional liability. Alternatives analyzed in the most recent Analysis of Alternatives report that are equally effective as the recommended capping remedy range in additional estimated costs between $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;20&lt;/font&gt; and $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;100&lt;/font&gt;. As such, Alcoa may be required to record a subsequent reserve adjustment at the time the EPA's Record of Decision is issued, which is expected in 2011 or later. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;&lt;b&gt;Sherwin, TX&amp;#8212;&lt;/b&gt;In connection with the sale of the Sherwin alumina refinery, which was required to be divested as part of the Reynolds merger in 2000, Alcoa agreed to retain responsibility for the remediation of the then existing environmental conditions, as well as a pro rata share of the final closure of the active waste disposal areas, which remain in use. Alcoa's share of the closure costs is proportional to the total period of operation of the active waste disposal areas. Alcoa estimated its liability for the active disposal areas by making certain assumptions about the period of operation, the amount of material placed in the area prior to closure, and the appropriate technology, engineering, and regulatory status applicable to final closure. The most probable cost for remediation was reserved. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;&lt;b&gt;East St. Louis, IL&amp;#8212;&lt;/b&gt;In response to questions regarding environmental conditions at the former East St. Louis operations, Alcoa and the City of East St. Louis, the owner of the site, entered into an administrative order with the EPA in December 2002 to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study of an area used for the disposal of bauxite residue from historic alumina refining operations. A draft feasibility study was submitted to the EPA in April 2005. The feasibility study included remedial alternatives that ranged from no further action to significant grading, stabilization, and water management of the bauxite residue disposal areas. As a result, Alcoa increased the environmental reserve for this location by $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;15&lt;/font&gt; in 2005. The EPA's ultimate selection of a remedy could result in additional liability. Alcoa may be required to record a subsequent reserve adjustment at the time the EPA's Record of Decision is issued, which is expected in 2011 or later. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;&lt;b&gt;Fusina and Portovesme, Italy&amp;#8212;&lt;/b&gt;In 1996, Alcoa acquired the Fusina smelter and rolling operations and the Portovesme smelter, both of which are owned by Alcoa's subsidiary Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l., from Alumix, an entity owned by the Italian Government. At the time of the acquisition, Alumix indemnified Alcoa for pre-existing environmental contamination at the sites. In 2004, the Italian Ministry of Environment (MOE) issued orders to Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. and Alumix for the development of a clean-up plan related to soil contamination in excess of allowable limits under legislative decree and to institute emergency actions and pay natural resource damages. Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. appealed the orders and filed suit against Alumix, among others, seeking indemnification for these liabilities under the provisions of the acquisition agreement. In 2009, Ligestra S.r.l., Alumix's successor, and Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. agreed to a stay on the court proceedings while investigations were conducted and negotiations advanced towards a possible settlement. In December 2009, Alcoa Trasformazioni S.r.l. and Ligestra S.r.l. reached an agreement for settlement of the liabilities related to Fusina while negotiations continue related to Portovesme. The agreement outlines an allocation of payments to the MOE for emergency action and natural resource damages and the scope and costs for a proposed soil remediation project, which was formally presented to the MOE in mid-2010. The agreement is contingent upon final acceptance of the remediation project by the MOE. As a result of entering into this agreement, Alcoa increased the reserve by $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;12&lt;/font&gt; for Fusina. Additionally, due to new information derived from the site investigations conducted at Portovesme in 2009, Alcoa increased the reserve by $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;3&lt;/font&gt;. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;&lt;u&gt;Investments &lt;/u&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;p style="margin-top: 6px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Alcoa has an investment in a joint venture for the development, construction, ownership, and operation of an integrated aluminum complex (bauxite mine, alumina refinery, aluminum smelter, and rolling mill) in Saudi Arabia. The joint venture is owned &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;74.9&lt;/font&gt;% by the Saudi Arabian Mining Company (known as "Ma'aden") and &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;25.1&lt;/font&gt;% by Alcoa and consists of three separate companies as follows: one each for the mine and refinery, the smelter, and the rolling mill. Alcoa accounts for its investment in the joint venture under the equity method. Capital investment in the project is expected to total approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;10,800&lt;/font&gt; (SAR&amp;nbsp;&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;40.5&lt;/font&gt; billion). Alcoa's equity investment in the joint venture will be approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;1,100&lt;/font&gt; over a &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;four&lt;/font&gt;-year period, and Alcoa will be responsible for its pro rata share of the joint venture's project financing. Alcoa has contributed $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;238&lt;/font&gt;, including $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;78&lt;/font&gt; in the 2011 first quarter, towards the $1,100 commitment. As of March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011 and December&amp;nbsp;31, 2010, the carrying value of Alcoa's investment in this project was $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;370&lt;/font&gt; and $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;285&lt;/font&gt;, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In late 2010, the smelting and rolling mill companies entered into project financing totaling $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;4,000&lt;/font&gt;. Alcoa issued guarantees on behalf of the smelting and rolling mill companies to the lenders for $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;1,004&lt;/font&gt; (the equivalent of Alcoa's &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;25.1&lt;/font&gt;% interest in the smelting and rolling mill companies) of the financed amount in the event that such companies default on their debt service requirements over a defined period of time (Ma'aden issued similar guarantees for its &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;74.9&lt;/font&gt;% ownership). Alcoa's guarantees for the smelting and rolling mill companies expire in 2017 and 2018, respectively, and will cover total debt service requirements of $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;108&lt;/font&gt; in principal and up to a maximum of approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;50&lt;/font&gt; in interest per year (based on projected interest rates). At March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011 and December&amp;nbsp;31, 2010, the fair value of the guarantees was $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;8&lt;/font&gt; and was included in Other noncurrent liabilities and deferred credits on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. Under the project financing, a downgrade of Alcoa's credit ratings below investment grade by at least two agencies would require Alcoa to provide a letter of credit or fund an escrow account for a portion or all of Alcoa's remaining equity commitment to the joint venture project in Saudi Arabia. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Alcoa Alum&amp;#237;nio (Alum&amp;#237;nio), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alcoa, is a participant in several hydroelectric power construction projects in Brazil for purposes of increasing its energy self-sufficiency and providing a long-term, low-cost source of power for its facilities. Two of these projects, Machadinho and Barra Grande, were completed in 2002 and 2006, respectively&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Alum&amp;#237;nio committed to taking a share of the output of the Machadinho and Barra Grande projects each for 30 years at cost (including cost of financing the project). In the event that other participants in either one of these projects fail to fulfill their financial responsibilities, Alum&amp;#237;nio may be required to fund a portion of the deficiency. In accordance with the respective agreements, if Alum&amp;#237;nio funds any such deficiency, its participation and share of the output from the respective project will increase proportionately. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;With Machadinho and Barra Grande, Alum&amp;#237;nio's current power self-sufficiency is approximately 40% (will be approximately 70% once the hydroelectric power projects described below are completed and operating at full capacity), to meet a total energy demand of approximately 690 megawatts from Brazilian primary plants. Alum&amp;#237;nio accounts for the Machadinho and Barra Grande hydroelectric projects as equity method investments. Alum&amp;#237;nio's investment participation in these projects is &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;30.99&lt;/font&gt;% for Machadinho and &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;42.18&lt;/font&gt;% for Barra Grande. Its total investment in these projects was $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;286&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;468&lt;/font&gt;) and $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;274&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;461&lt;/font&gt;) at March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011 and December&amp;nbsp;31, 2010, respectively. Alcoa's maximum exposure to loss on these completed projects is approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;340&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;560&lt;/font&gt;), which represents Alum&amp;#237;nio's investments in both projects and guarantee of debt for Machadinho only as of March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In early 2006, Alum&amp;#237;nio acquired an additional &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;6.41&lt;/font&gt;% share in the Estreito hydroelectric power project, reaching &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;25.49&lt;/font&gt;% of total participation in the consortium. This additional share entitles Alum&amp;#237;nio to 38 megawatts of assured energy. Alum&amp;#237;nio's share of the project is estimated to have installed capacity of approximately 280 megawatts and assured power of approximately 150 megawatts. In December 2006, the consortium obtained the environmental installation license, after completion of certain socioeconomic and cultural impact studies as required by a governmental agency. Construction began in early 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2012 (start-up of the facility is expected to begin in the first half of 2011 with full capacity reached in 2012). In early 2010, the consortium approved an increase of approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;720&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;1,300&lt;/font&gt;) in estimated costs to complete the Estreito project as a result of currency, inflation, and the price and scope of construction, among other factors. Total estimated project costs are approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;3,000&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;4,900&lt;/font&gt;) and Alum&amp;#237;nio's share is approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;760&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;1,250&lt;/font&gt;). As of March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011, Alum&amp;#237;nio has contributed approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;730&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;1,200&lt;/font&gt;) towards its commitment. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;Construction began on the Serra do Fac&amp;#227;o hydroelectric power project in early 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2011 (this facility is currently operating at full capacity). Alum&amp;#237;nio's share of the Serra do Fac&amp;#227;o project is &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;34.97&lt;/font&gt;% and entitles Alum&amp;#237;nio to approximately 65 megawatts of assured power. Total estimated project costs are approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;610&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;1,000&lt;/font&gt;) and Alum&amp;#237;nio's share is approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;220&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;350&lt;/font&gt;). Through March&amp;nbsp;31, 2009, Alum&amp;#237;nio contributed approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;130&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;210&lt;/font&gt;) towards its commitment. In April 2009, the consortium obtained long-term financing for the remaining costs of construction. At that time, the participants in this project were no longer required to provide capital for their share of the project costs. Instead, the participants were each required to guarantee (expires 2027) a portion of the consortium's debt. In mid-2010, the capacity under the long-term financing arrangement was exhausted; therefore, the participants were once again required to begin providing capital for their share of the remaining costs. Through March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011, Alum&amp;#237;nio has contributed an additional $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;20&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;30&lt;/font&gt;) towards its commitment. Separately, in May 2009, the consortium returned a portion of previous capital contributions to the participants, of which Alum&amp;#237;nio received $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;53&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;110&lt;/font&gt;). Alum&amp;#237;nio accounts for the Serra do Fac&amp;#227;o hydroelectric power project as an equity method investment and its total investment in this project was $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;118&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;192&lt;/font&gt;) and $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;116&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;195&lt;/font&gt;) at March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011 and December&amp;nbsp;31, 2010, respectively. Alcoa's maximum exposure to loss on this project is approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;250&lt;/font&gt; (R$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;400&lt;/font&gt;), which represents Alum&amp;#237;nio's investment and guarantee of debt as of March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; font-size: 1px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p style="margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 32px; margin-bottom: 0px;"&gt;&lt;font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"&gt;In 2004, Alcoa acquired a &lt;font class="_mt"&gt;20&lt;/font&gt;% interest in a consortium, which subsequently purchased the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP) in Western Australia, in exchange for an initial cash investment of $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;17&lt;/font&gt; (A$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;24&lt;/font&gt;). The investment in the DBNGP was made in order to secure a competitively priced long-term supply of natural gas to Alcoa's refineries in Western Australia. This investment was classified as an equity investment. Alcoa has made additional contributions of $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;140&lt;/font&gt; (A$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;175&lt;/font&gt;), including $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;15&lt;/font&gt; (A$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;15&lt;/font&gt;) in the 2011 first quarter, and committed to invest an additional $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;10&lt;/font&gt; (A$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;10&lt;/font&gt;) to be paid as the pipeline expands through 2011. In addition to its equity ownership, Alcoa has an agreement to purchase gas transmission services from the DBNGP. Alcoa's maximum exposure to loss on the investment and the related contract is approximately $&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;490&lt;/font&gt; (A$&lt;font class="_mt"&gt;470&lt;/font&gt;) as of March&amp;nbsp;31, 2011. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/div&gt;</NonNumbericText><NonNumericTextHeader>G. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

On February&amp;nbsp;27, 2008, Alcoa Inc. received notice that Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba) had filed suit</NonNumericTextHeader><FootnoteIndexer /><CurrencyCode /><CurrencySymbol /><IsIndependantCurrency>false</IsIndependantCurrency><ShowCurrencySymbol>false</ShowCurrencySymbol><DisplayDateInUSFormat>false</DisplayDateInUSFormat><hasSegments>false</hasSegments><hasScenarios>false</hasScenarios></Cell></Cells><OriginalInstanceReportColumns /><Unit>Other</Unit><ElementDataType>us-types:textBlockItemType</ElementDataType><SimpleDataType>string</SimpleDataType><ElementDefenition>Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.</ElementDefenition><ElementReferences>Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
 -Publisher FASB
 -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)
 -Number 14
 -Paragraph 3

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
 -Publisher FASB
 -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)
 -Number 5
 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12

</ElementReferences><IsTotalLabel>false</IsTotalLabel><IsEPS>false</IsEPS><Label>Commitments and Contingencies</Label></Row></Rows><Footnotes /><NumberOfCols>1</NumberOfCols><NumberOfRows>2</NumberOfRows><ReportName>Commitments and Contingencies</ReportName><MonetaryRoundingLevel>UnKnown</MonetaryRoundingLevel><SharesRoundingLevel>UnKnown</SharesRoundingLevel><PerShareRoundingLevel>UnKnown</PerShareRoundingLevel><ExchangeRateRoundingLevel>UnKnown</ExchangeRateRoundingLevel><HasCustomUnits>false</HasCustomUnits><SharesShouldBeRounded>true</SharesShouldBeRounded></InstanceReport>
