(I) Commitments and Contingencies

Our operations and properties are subject to extensive and changing federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances governing the protection of the environment, as well as laws relating to worker health and workplace safety. We carefully consider the requirements mandated by such laws and regulations and have procedures in place at all of our operating units to monitor compliance. Any matters which are identified as potential exposures under these laws and regulations are carefully reviewed by management to determine our potential liability. Although management is not aware of any exposures which require an accrual under generally accepted accounting principles, there can be no assurance that prior or future operations will not ultimately result in violations, claims or other liabilities associated with these regulations.

We have certain deductible limits under our workers’ compensation and liability insurance policies for which reserves are established based on the undiscounted estimated costs of known and anticipated claims. We have entered into standby letter of credit agreements relating to workers’ compensation and auto and general liability self-insurance. At March 31, 2017, we had contingent liabilities under these outstanding letters of credit of approximately $8.8 million.

We are currently contingently liable for performance under $20.1 million in performance bonds required by certain states and municipalities, and their related agencies. The bonds are principally for certain reclamation obligations and mining permits. We have indemnified the underwriting insurance company against any exposure under the performance bonds. In our past experience, no material claims have been made against these financial instruments.

EPA Notice of Violation

On October 5, 2010, Region IX of the EPA issued a Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation (“NOV”) alleging violations by our subsidiary, Nevada Cement Company (“NCC”), of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The NOV alleges that NCC made certain physical changes to its facility in the 1990s without first obtaining permits required by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements and Title V permit requirements of the CAA. The EPA also alleges that NCC has failed to submit to the EPA since 2002 certain reports required by the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants General Provisions and the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Standards. On March 12, 2014, the EPA Region IX issued a second NOV to NCC. The second NOV is materially similar to the 2010 NOV except that it alleges violations of the new source performance standards (“NSPS”) for Portland cement plants. The NOVs state that the EPA may seek penalties although it does not propose or assess any specific level of penalties or specify what relief the EPA will seek for the alleged violations. In January 2017, NCC entered into a Consent Decree in which NCC agreed to install at its Fernley, Nevada plant certain emission control equipment (selective non-catalytic reduction) to reduce nitrous oxide emissions and to pay a penalty of $0.6 million. NCC also agreed to replace two existing vehicles with two new vehicles with more efficient Tier 4 engines. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, NCC will complete the installation of the emission control equipment and vehicle replacement in approximately 2 years. It is anticipated that the investment in the new emission control equipment and vehicles will cost approximately $3.0 million. In the Consent Decree NCC denies all allegations set forth in the NOVs and the Complaint which is to be filed simultaneously with the entry of the Consent Decree, and the Consent Decree resolves all such claims by the government. The Consent Decree was signed by the EPA and DOJ and was lodged in US District Court for the District of Nevada in May 2017. The Consent Decree is subject to approval by the Court after a thirty-day comment period.

Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in various United States District Courts, including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the Company’s subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC (“American Gypsum”), alleging that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the elimination of individual “job quote” pricing. In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States Gypsum (together “USG”), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America (“Lafarge”), Temple Inland Inc. (“TIN”) and PABCO Building Products LLC. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferred and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct purchasers’ complaint added the Company as a defendant. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to which they agreed to settle all claims against them. Under the terms of its settlement agreement, USG agreed to pay $48.0 million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class actions. In its settlement agreement, TIN agreed to pay $7.0 million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class actions. On August 20, 2015, the court entered orders finally approving USG and TIN’s settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs. Initial discovery in this litigation is complete. Following completion of the initial discovery, the Company and remaining co-defendants moved for summary judgement. On February 18, 2016, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgement but granted Certainteed’s motion for summary judgement. On June 16, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel for the direct purchaser class under which it agreed to settle all claims against it for $23.0 million. The court entered an order finally approving this settlement on December 7, 2016. On July 28, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel representing the indirect purchaser class under which it agreed to settle all claims against it for $5.2 million. On July 14, 2016, the Company’s motion for permission to appeal the summary judgement decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was denied. Direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification on August 3, 2016 and October 12, 2016, respectively. Class certification proceedings are ongoing. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the direct purchaser plaintiff’s motion for class certification in April 2017 and has scheduled a hearing on indirect purchase plaintiff’s motion for class certification in June 2017. We are unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. We deny the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.

On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints. On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Following the transfer, the homebuilder plaintiffs filed two amended complaints, on December 14, 2015 and March 25, 2016. Discovery in this lawsuit is ongoing. At this stage, we are unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses.

In June 2015, American Gypsum and an employee received grand jury subpoenas from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina seeking information regarding an investigation of the gypsum drywall industry by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. We believe the investigation, although a separate proceeding, is related to the same subject matter at issue in the litigation described above and we intend to fully cooperate with government officials. We are currently unable to determine the ultimate outcome of such investigation.

Other

In the ordinary course of business, we execute contracts involving indemnifications that are standard in the industry and indemnifications specific to a transaction such as the sale of a business. These indemnifications might include claims relating to any of the following: environmental and tax matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier, construction contractor and other commercial contractual relationships; and financial matters. While the maximum amount to which we may be exposed under such agreements cannot be estimated, it is the opinion of management that these indemnifications are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We currently have no outstanding guarantees of third party debt.

We have certain forward purchase contracts, primarily for natural gas, that expire during calendar 2017. The contracts are for approximately 25% of our anticipated natural gas usage.

We have certain operating leases covering manufacturing, transportation and certain other facilities and equipment. Rental expense for fiscal years 2017, 2016 and 2015 totaled $11.3 million, $10.3 million and $5.9 million, respectively. Minimum annual rental commitments as of March 31, 2017, under noncancelable leases are set forth as follows (dollars in thousands):

Fiscal Year	Amount
2018	$	9,786
2019	$	8,947
2020	$	8,418
2021	$	2,904
2022	$	2,004
Thereafter	$	5,694