COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	(O) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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 December 31, 2016, we had contingent liabilities under these outstanding letters of credit of approximately $9.3 million. 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 sale of a business. These indemnifications may include claims relating to any of the following: environmental and tax matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier, and other commercial contractual relationships; construction contracts and financial matters. While the maximum amount to which the Company 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 our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We currently have no outstanding guarantees. We are currently contingently liable for performance under $18.2 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 is expected to be executed by the EPA and the US Department of Justice in February 2017, and is subject to approval of the United States District Court in the District of Nevada after a 30-day public 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. 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. Indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of this settlement in September 2016. 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. 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. Given its preliminary nature, we are currently unable to determine the ultimate outcome of such investigation.

(O) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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 December 31, 2016, we had contingent liabilities under these outstanding letters of credit of approximately $9.3 million.

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 sale of a business. These indemnifications may include claims relating to any of the following: environmental and tax matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier, and other commercial contractual relationships; construction contracts and financial matters. While the maximum amount to which the Company 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 our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We currently have no outstanding guarantees.

We are currently contingently liable for performance under $18.2 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 is expected to be executed by the EPA and the US Department of Justice in February 2017, and is subject to approval of the United States District Court in the District of Nevada after a 30-day public 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. 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. Indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of this settlement in September 2016. 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. 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. Given its preliminary nature, we are currently unable to determine the ultimate outcome of such investigation.