Litigation And Related Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Litigation And Related Matters [Abstract]
Litigation And Related Matters	NOTE 16. LITIGATION AND RELATED MATTERS ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Environmental Compliance Our manufacturing and research facilities are affected by various federal, state and local requirements relating to the discharge of materials and the protection of the environment. We make expenditures necessary for compliance with applicable environmental requirements at each of our operating facilities. These regulatory requirements continually change, therefore we cannot predict with certainty future expenditures associated with compliance with environmental requirements. Environmental Sites Summary We are actively involved in the investigation, closure and/or remediation of existing or potential environmental contamination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), and state or international Superfund and similar type environmental laws at several domestically- and internationally-owned, formerly owned and non-owned locations allegedly resulting from past industrial activity. In a few cases, we are one of several potentially responsible parties and have agreed to jointly fund the required investigation and remediation, while preserving our defenses to the liability. We may also have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. We are currently pursuing coverage and recoveries under those policies with respect to certain of the sites, but we are unable to predict the outcome or costs of these proceedings. Estimates of our future liability at the environmental sites are based on evaluations of currently available facts regarding each individual site. We consider factors such as our activities associated with the site, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations and prior company experience in remediating contaminated sites. Although current law imposes joint and several liability on all parties at Superfund sites, our contribution to the remediation of these sites is expected to be limited by the number of other companies potentially liable for site remediation. As a result, our estimated liability reflects only our expected share. In determining the probability of contribution, we consider the solvency of other parties, the site activities of other parties, whether liability is being disputed, the terms of any existing agreements and experience with similar matters, and the effect of our Chapter 11 reorganization upon the validity of the claim. Specific Material Events St Helens, OR In August 2010, we entered into a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”), along with Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (“Kaiser”), and Owens Corning Sales LLC (“OC”), with respect to our St. Helens, OR Building Products facility, which was previously owned by Kaiser and then OC. The Consent Order, which replaces a previous order of the ODEQ requiring us to investigate and remediate hazardous substances present at the facility, requires that we and Kaiser complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) on the portion of the site owned by us (“Owned Property”), which is comprised of Upland and Lowland areas. The Consent Order further requires us, Kaiser and OC to conduct an RI/FS in the In-Water area of the adjacent Scappoose Bay. We are currently in an investigation phase for both the Owned Property and the Scappoose Bay and are working with ODEQ, Kaiser and OC to finalize the reports to move to the Feasibility Study phase. We have determined that it is probable that remedial action for certain portions of both the Upland and Lowland areas of the Owned Property will be required. The current estimate of our future liability at the site includes any remaining known investigation work required by the Consent Order and the current projected cost of possible remedies for limited portions of the Owned Property. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate any remediation costs that we may ultimately incur with respect to other portions of the Owned Property or the Scappoose Bay or whether the projected costs for the areas we have included in our current estimate will increase. Additional investigative or remedial action may be required by ODEQ and could result in additional costs greater than the amounts currently estimated. We are unable to reasonably estimate any such costs at this time, however, those costs may be material. We believe that our ongoing work with ODEQ and Kaiser may enable us to reasonably estimate such costs in 2016. Costs and responsibilities for investigation, including the current RI/FS for the Owned Property continue to be shared with Kaiser pursuant to a cost sharing agreement with Kaiser. Contemporaneously with the execution of the Consent Order, we, Kaiser and OC also entered into a separate cost sharing agreement for both the investigation and possible remediation of the Scappoose Bay. Kaiser’s shares under the cost sharing agreements are being funded by certain insurance policies, which comprise substantially all of Kaiser’s assets. If Kaiser and OC are unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligations under the cost sharing agreements, or seek to contest or challenge the allocations, or if Kaiser’s insurance policies are unable to fund Kaiser’s shares, it could result in additional cost to us greater than the amounts currently estimated and those costs may be material. The principal contaminants at the St. Helens site are arsenic and dioxin compounds from historic operations by prior owners of the plant. As part of the investigation on the site pursuant to the Consent Order, we conducted an analysis of the raw materials used in our manufacturing processes at the St. Helens facility to identify possible sources of these same contaminants. Our testing found low levels of naturally occurring dioxin in sourced clay, known as ball clay, used in the production of some of our fire-retardant products at our St. Helens manufacturing facility. Based on the data from the soil and sediment samples from our St. Helens property and the data from the ball clay, we do not believe that the presence of dioxin in our raw material will have a material impact on our ultimate liability at the site. In addition, consistent with our health and safety policies, we tested employee exposure levels at two facilities representative of our handling procedures at all plants that use this ball clay and, as a result of such testing, do not believe that the ball clay poses a hazard to our employees based on applicable regulatory standards. Based on the manufacturing process and the amount of raw material utilized, we also believe that the dioxin levels in our finished products do not pose a hazard to installers or consumers. While we have not received any claims related to this raw material or our fire-retardant products, there can be no assurance that the raw material or the finished products will not become the subject of legal claims or regulatory actions or that such claims or actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Macon, GA The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has listed two landfills located on a portion of our Building Products facility in Macon, GA, along with the former Macon Naval Ordnance Plant landfill adjacent to our property, and portions of Rocky Creek (collectively, the “Macon Site”) as a Superfund site on the National Priorities List due to the presence of contaminants, most notably PCBs. In September 2010, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for a Removal Action with the EPA to investigate PCB contamination in one of the landfills on our property, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Landfill (the “WWTP Landfill”). We concluded the investigative phase of the Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill and submitted our final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) to the EPA in 2013. The EPA subsequently approved the EE/CA and issued an Action Memorandum in July 2013 selecting our recommended remedy for the Removal Action. In July 2014, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action with the EPA for the WWTP Landfill. The EPA approved the Removal Action Work Plan on March 30, 2015 and the removal work commenced in the third quarter of 2015. We expect this work to be completed by the end of the year. Our estimate of future liability includes estimated costs for the Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill. It is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with a RI/FS with respect to the remainder of the Superfund site, which includes the other landfill on our property, as well as areas on and adjacent to AWI’s property and Rocky Creek (the “Remaining Site”). On September 25, 2015, AWI and six other Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRPs”) received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA under CERCLA inviting AWI and the PRPs to enter into the negotiation of a Settlement Agreement (formerly known as an Administrative Order on Consent) to conduct an RI/FS of Operable Unit 2, which is the Remaining Site. We have not yet entered into an Order with the EPA for the Remaining Site and have not yet commenced an investigation of this portion of the site. Accordingly, we are able to estimate only a small portion of the costs that may be associated with the RI/FS for the Remaining Site. We anticipate that the EPA may require significant investigative work for the Remaining Site and that we may ultimately incur costs in remediating any contamination discovered during the RI/FS. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the total costs or AWI’s share of the costs associated with the investigation work or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material. We believe that our ongoing work with the EPA and the PRPs may enable us to reasonably estimate our share of initial investigation costs later this year or early in 2016. Elizabeth City, NC This site is a former cabinet manufacturing facility that was operated by Triangle Pacific Corporation, now known as Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. (“Triangle Pacific”), from 1977 until 1996. The site was formerly owned by the U.S. Navy (“Navy”) and Westinghouse, now CBS Corporation (“CBS”). We assumed ownership of the site when we acquired the stock of Triangle Pacific in 1998. Prior to our acquisition, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources listed the site as a hazardous waste site. In 1997, Triangle Pacific entered into a cost sharing agreement with Westinghouse whereby the parties agreed to share equally in costs associated with investigation and potential remediation. In 2000, we and CBS entered into an RI/FS with the EPA for the site. In 2007, we and CBS entered into an agreement with the Navy whereby the Navy agreed to pay one third of defined past and future investigative costs up to a certain amount, which has now been exhausted. Although the parties initially submitted the RI/FS work plan to the EPA in 2004, the EPA did not approve the RI/FS work plan until August 2011. We submitted the draft Remedial Investigative and Risk Assessments in the first quarter of 2014, conducted supplemental investigative work based upon EPA comments to those reports and are awaiting further EPA comment. We are unable to reasonably estimate any additional investigative costs or determine whether remediation will be required. If remediation is required, the related costs may be material, although we expect these costs to be shared with CBS and the Navy. Summary of Financial Position Liabilities of $3.5 million at September 30, 2015 and $4.4 million at December 31, 2014 were recorded for potential environmental liabilities, on a global basis, that we consider probable and for which a reasonable estimate of the probable liability could be made. Where existing data is sufficient to estimate the liability, that estimate has been used; where only a range of probable liabilities is available and no amount within that range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. As assessments and remediation activities progress at each site, these liabilities are reviewed to reflect new information as it becomes available. These liabilities are undiscounted. The estimated liabilities above do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. It is our policy to record probable recoveries that are either available through settlement or anticipated to be recovered through negotiation or litigation as assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. No material amounts were recorded for probable recoveries at September 30, 2015 or December 31, 2014. Actual costs to be incurred at identified sites may vary significantly from our estimates. Based on our knowledge of the identified sites, it is not possible to reasonably estimate future costs in excess of amounts already recognized. ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES In October 2010, a coalition of U.S. producers of multilayered wood flooring (not including AWI and its subsidiaries) filed petitions seeking antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duties (“CVD”) with the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against imports of multilayered hardwood flooring from China. The AD and CVD petitions ultimately resulted in DOC issuing AD and CVD Orders against multilayered wood flooring imported into the U.S. from China. These Orders and the associated additional duties they have imposed have been the subject of extensive litigation, both at DOC and in the U.S. courts. We produce multilayered wood flooring domestically and import multilayered wood flooring from third party suppliers in China. Until October 2014, we also operated a plant in Kunshan, China (“Armstrong Kunshan”) that manufactured multilayered wood flooring for export to the U.S. As a result, we have been directly involved in the multilayered wood flooring-related litigation at DOC and in the U.S. courts. Our consistent view through the course of this matter has been, and remains, that our imports are neither dumped nor subsidized. In 2013, in the sole DOC investigation of AWI and its subsidiaries (as a mandatory respondent in connection with the first annual administrative review), Armstrong Kunshan received a final AD rate of 0.00% and a final CVD rate of 0.98%. Litigation regarding this matter has continued in the U.S. courts. The most recent court decision, on July 6, 2015, upheld certain DOC calculations on remand. Armstrong Kunshan as well as other respondents have appealed the DOC’s original decision to apply an AD rate to us and other “separate rate” respondents in the original investigation (for which we received a final initial AD rate of 3.31%) to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOC also continues to conduct annual administrative reviews of the CVD and AD final duty rates under the Orders. In July 2015, DOC issued its final AD and CVD rates for the second administrative review, which applies to imports of multilayered wood flooring made between December 1, 2012 and November 30, 2013 (AD) and between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012 (CVD). Armstrong Kunshan was not selected as a mandatory respondent for the second AD review and, therefore, was not subject to individual review, but we are subject to the rates applicable to importers that were not individually reviewed (the “separate rate” or “all others” respondents). On July 7, 2015, the DOC issued a final “All Others” CVD rate of 0.99% that also applies to Armstrong Kunshan as part of the second CVD administrative review. On July 9, 2015, DOC issued a final AD determination for the second administrative review. DOC imposed a 13.74% AD rate determined solely on the basis of the AD duty rate assigned to the only mandatory respondent that did not receive a de minimis rate. DOC assigned this rate to all separate rate respondents that were not individually investigated, including Armstrong Kunshan. AWI and its subsidiaries, Armstrong Kunshan, and other respondents have filed complaints against DOC challenging the rate in the U.S. Court of International Trade with a decision expected in 2016. If such rates are ultimately upheld after any court appeals are exhausted, the estimated additional liability to us for the relevant period is approximately $4 million. This estimated additional liability was reflected in our second quarter 2015 results. DOC is currently conducting its third annual administrative review. Armstrong Kunshan was not selected as a mandatory respondent for the third AD review and therefore, is not subject to individual mandatory review. As part of these reviews, Armstrong Kunshan’s individual CVD and AD assessment rates may be changed and the revised rates applicable to participants that were not individually reviewed will apply to all multilayer wood flooring imports between December 1, 2013 and November 30, 2014 (AD) and between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013 (CVD). We expect that DOC will issue preliminary AD and CVD rates for the third administrative review in December 2015 and final AD and CVD rates for the third administrative reviews in mid-2016. We are unable to predict the final AD and CVD rates for the pending reviews at this time, but plan to continue to defend our import practices and pursue our available legal rights and remedies, including litigation at DOC and in the U.S courts. OTHER CLAIMS We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, relationships with suppliers, relationships with distributors, relationships with competitors, employees and other matters. For example, we are currently a party to various litigation matters that involve product liability, tort liability and other claims under a wide range of allegations, including illness due to exposure to certain chemicals used in the workplace; or medical conditions arising from exposure to product ingredients or the presence of trace contaminants. In some cases, these allegations involve multiple defendants and relate to legacy products that we and other defendants purportedly manufactured or sold. We believe these claims and allegations to be without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. For these matters, we also may have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. We are currently pursuing coverage and recoveries under those policies, but are unable to predict the outcome or those demands. While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not believe that any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

NOTE 16. LITIGATION AND RELATED MATTERS

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Environmental Compliance

Our manufacturing and research facilities are affected by various federal, state and local requirements relating to the discharge of materials and the protection of the environment. We make expenditures necessary for compliance with applicable environmental requirements at each of our operating facilities. These regulatory requirements continually change, therefore we cannot predict with certainty future expenditures associated with compliance with environmental requirements.

Environmental Sites

Summary

We are actively involved in the investigation, closure and/or remediation of existing or potential environmental contamination under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), and state or international Superfund and similar type environmental laws at several domestically- and internationally-owned, formerly owned and non-owned locations allegedly resulting from past industrial activity. In a few cases, we are one of several potentially responsible parties and have agreed to jointly fund the required investigation and remediation, while preserving our defenses to the liability. We may also have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. We are currently pursuing coverage and recoveries under those policies with respect to certain of the sites, but we are unable to predict the outcome or costs of these proceedings.

Estimates of our future liability at the environmental sites are based on evaluations of currently available facts regarding each individual site. We consider factors such as our activities associated with the site, existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations and prior company experience in remediating contaminated sites. Although current law imposes joint and several liability on all parties at Superfund sites, our contribution to the remediation of these sites is expected to be limited by the number of other companies potentially liable for site remediation. As a result, our estimated liability reflects only our expected share. In determining the probability of contribution, we consider the solvency of other parties, the site activities of other parties, whether liability is being disputed, the terms of any existing agreements and experience with similar matters, and the effect of our Chapter 11 reorganization upon the validity of the claim.

Specific Material Events

St Helens, OR

In August 2010, we entered into a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (“ODEQ”), along with Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (“Kaiser”), and Owens Corning Sales LLC (“OC”), with respect to our St. Helens, OR Building Products facility, which was previously owned by Kaiser and then OC. The Consent Order, which replaces a previous order of the ODEQ requiring us to investigate and remediate hazardous substances present at the facility, requires that we and Kaiser complete a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) on the portion of the site owned by us (“Owned Property”), which is comprised of Upland and Lowland areas. The Consent Order further requires us, Kaiser and OC to conduct an RI/FS in the In-Water area of the adjacent Scappoose Bay. We are currently in an investigation phase for both the Owned Property and the Scappoose Bay and are working with ODEQ, Kaiser and OC to finalize the reports to move to the Feasibility Study phase. We have determined that it is probable that remedial action for certain portions of both the Upland and Lowland areas of the Owned Property will be required. The current estimate of our future liability at the site includes any remaining known investigation work required by the Consent Order and the current projected cost of possible remedies for limited portions of the Owned Property. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate any remediation costs that we may ultimately incur with respect to other portions of the Owned Property or the Scappoose Bay or whether the projected costs for the areas we have included in our current estimate will increase. Additional investigative or remedial action may be required by ODEQ and could result in additional costs greater than the amounts currently estimated. We are unable to reasonably estimate any such costs at this time, however, those costs may be material. We believe that our ongoing work with ODEQ and Kaiser may enable us to reasonably estimate such costs in 2016.

Costs and responsibilities for investigation, including the current RI/FS for the Owned Property continue to be shared with Kaiser pursuant to a cost sharing agreement with Kaiser. Contemporaneously with the execution of the Consent Order, we, Kaiser and OC also entered into a separate cost sharing agreement for both the investigation and possible remediation of the Scappoose Bay. Kaiser’s shares under the cost sharing agreements are being funded by certain insurance policies, which comprise substantially all of Kaiser’s assets. If Kaiser and OC are unwilling or unable to fulfill their obligations under the cost sharing agreements, or seek to contest or challenge the allocations, or if Kaiser’s insurance policies are unable to fund Kaiser’s shares, it could result in additional cost to us greater than the amounts currently estimated and those costs may be material.

The principal contaminants at the St. Helens site are arsenic and dioxin compounds from historic operations by prior owners of the plant. As part of the investigation on the site pursuant to the Consent Order, we conducted an analysis of the raw materials used in our manufacturing processes at the St. Helens facility to identify possible sources of these same contaminants. Our testing found low levels of naturally occurring dioxin in sourced clay, known as ball clay, used in the production of some of our fire-retardant products at our St. Helens manufacturing facility. Based on the data from the soil and sediment samples from our St. Helens property and the data from the ball clay, we do not believe that the presence of dioxin in our raw material will have a material impact on our ultimate liability at the site. In addition, consistent with our health and safety policies, we tested employee exposure levels at two facilities representative of our handling procedures at all plants that use this ball clay and, as a result of such testing, do not believe that the ball clay poses a hazard to our employees based on applicable regulatory standards. Based on the manufacturing process and the amount of raw material utilized, we also believe that the dioxin levels in our finished products do not pose a hazard to installers or consumers. While we have not received any claims related to this raw material or our fire-retardant products, there can be no assurance that the raw material or the finished products will not become the subject of legal claims or regulatory actions or that such claims or actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Macon, GA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has listed two landfills located on a portion of our Building Products facility in Macon, GA, along with the former Macon Naval Ordnance Plant landfill adjacent to our property, and portions of Rocky Creek (collectively, the “Macon Site”) as a Superfund site on the National Priorities List due to the presence of contaminants, most notably PCBs.

In September 2010, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for a Removal Action with the EPA to investigate PCB contamination in one of the landfills on our property, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Landfill (the “WWTP Landfill”). We concluded the investigative phase of the Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill and submitted our final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) to the EPA in 2013. The EPA subsequently approved the EE/CA and issued an Action Memorandum in July 2013 selecting our recommended remedy for the Removal Action. In July 2014, we entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action with the EPA for the WWTP Landfill. The EPA approved the Removal Action Work Plan on March 30, 2015 and the removal work commenced in the third quarter of 2015. We expect this work to be completed by the end of the year. Our estimate of future liability includes estimated costs for the Removal Action for the WWTP Landfill.

It is probable that we will incur field investigation, engineering and oversight costs associated with a RI/FS with respect to the remainder of the Superfund site, which includes the other landfill on our property, as well as areas on and adjacent to AWI’s property and Rocky Creek (the “Remaining Site”). On September 25, 2015, AWI and six other Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRPs”) received a Special Notice Letter from the EPA under CERCLA inviting AWI and the PRPs to enter into the negotiation of a Settlement Agreement (formerly known as an Administrative Order on Consent) to conduct an RI/FS of Operable Unit 2, which is the Remaining Site. We have not yet entered into an Order with the EPA for the Remaining Site and have not yet commenced an investigation of this portion of the site. Accordingly, we are able to estimate only a small portion of the costs that may be associated with the RI/FS for the Remaining Site. We anticipate that the EPA may require significant investigative work for the Remaining Site and that we may ultimately incur costs in remediating any contamination discovered during the RI/FS. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the total costs or AWI’s share of the costs associated with the investigation work or any resulting remediation therefrom, although such amounts may be material. We believe that our ongoing work with the EPA and the PRPs may enable us to reasonably estimate our share of initial investigation costs later this year or early in 2016.

Elizabeth City, NC

This site is a former cabinet manufacturing facility that was operated by Triangle Pacific Corporation, now known as Armstrong Wood Products, Inc. (“Triangle Pacific”), from 1977 until 1996. The site was formerly owned by the U.S. Navy (“Navy”) and Westinghouse, now CBS Corporation (“CBS”). We assumed ownership of the site when we acquired the stock of Triangle Pacific in 1998. Prior to our acquisition, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources listed the site as a hazardous waste site. In 1997, Triangle Pacific entered into a cost sharing agreement with Westinghouse whereby the parties agreed to share equally in costs associated with investigation and potential remediation. In 2000, we and CBS entered into an RI/FS with the EPA for the site. In 2007, we and CBS entered into an agreement with the Navy whereby the Navy agreed to pay one third of defined past and future investigative costs up to a certain amount, which has now been exhausted. Although the parties initially submitted the RI/FS work plan to the EPA in 2004, the EPA did not approve the RI/FS work plan until August 2011. We submitted the draft Remedial Investigative and Risk Assessments in the first quarter of 2014, conducted supplemental investigative work based upon EPA comments to those reports and are awaiting further EPA comment. We are unable to reasonably estimate any additional investigative costs or determine whether remediation will be required. If remediation is required, the related costs may be material, although we expect these costs to be shared with CBS and the Navy.

Summary of Financial Position

Liabilities of $3.5 million at September 30, 2015 and $4.4 million at December 31, 2014 were recorded for potential environmental liabilities, on a global basis, that we consider probable and for which a reasonable estimate of the probable liability could be made. Where existing data is sufficient to estimate the liability, that estimate has been used; where only a range of probable liabilities is available and no amount within that range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. As assessments and remediation activities progress at each site, these liabilities are reviewed to reflect new information as it becomes available. These liabilities are undiscounted.

The estimated liabilities above do not take into account any claims for recoveries from insurance or third parties. It is our policy to record probable recoveries that are either available through settlement or anticipated to be recovered through negotiation or litigation as assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. No material amounts were recorded for probable recoveries at September 30, 2015 or December 31, 2014.

Actual costs to be incurred at identified sites may vary significantly from our estimates. Based on our knowledge of the identified sites, it is not possible to reasonably estimate future costs in excess of amounts already recognized.

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

In October 2010, a coalition of U.S. producers of multilayered wood flooring (not including AWI and its subsidiaries) filed petitions seeking antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duties (“CVD”) with the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against imports of multilayered hardwood flooring from China. The AD and CVD petitions ultimately resulted in DOC issuing AD and CVD Orders against multilayered wood flooring imported into the U.S. from China. These Orders and the associated additional duties they have imposed have been the subject of extensive litigation, both at DOC and in the U.S. courts.

We produce multilayered wood flooring domestically and import multilayered wood flooring from third party suppliers in China. Until October 2014, we also operated a plant in Kunshan, China (“Armstrong Kunshan”) that manufactured multilayered wood flooring for export to the U.S. As a result, we have been directly involved in the multilayered wood flooring-related litigation at DOC and in the U.S. courts. Our consistent view through the course of this matter has been, and remains, that our imports are neither dumped nor subsidized. In 2013, in the sole DOC investigation of AWI and its subsidiaries (as a mandatory respondent in connection with the first annual administrative review), Armstrong Kunshan received a final AD rate of 0.00% and a final CVD rate of 0.98%.

Litigation regarding this matter has continued in the U.S. courts. The most recent court decision, on July 6, 2015, upheld certain DOC calculations on remand. Armstrong Kunshan as well as other respondents have appealed the DOC’s original decision to apply an AD rate to us and other “separate rate” respondents in the original investigation (for which we received a final initial AD rate of 3.31%) to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

DOC also continues to conduct annual administrative reviews of the CVD and AD final duty rates under the Orders. In July 2015, DOC issued its final AD and CVD rates for the second administrative review, which applies to imports of multilayered wood flooring made between December 1, 2012 and November 30, 2013 (AD) and between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012 (CVD). Armstrong Kunshan was not selected as a mandatory respondent for the second AD review and, therefore, was not subject to individual review, but we are subject to the rates applicable to importers that were not individually reviewed (the “separate rate” or “all others” respondents).

On July 7, 2015, the DOC issued a final “All Others” CVD rate of 0.99% that also applies to Armstrong Kunshan as part of the second CVD administrative review. On July 9, 2015, DOC issued a final AD determination for the second administrative review. DOC imposed a 13.74% AD rate determined solely on the basis of the AD duty rate assigned to the only mandatory respondent that did not receive a de minimis rate. DOC assigned this rate to all separate rate respondents that were not individually investigated, including Armstrong Kunshan. AWI and its subsidiaries, Armstrong Kunshan, and other respondents have filed complaints against DOC challenging the rate in the U.S. Court of International Trade with a decision expected in 2016. If such rates are ultimately upheld after any court appeals are exhausted, the estimated additional liability to us for the relevant period is approximately $4 million. This estimated additional liability was reflected in our second quarter 2015 results.

DOC is currently conducting its third annual administrative review. Armstrong Kunshan was not selected as a mandatory respondent for the third AD review and therefore, is not subject to individual mandatory review. As part of these reviews, Armstrong Kunshan’s individual CVD and AD assessment rates may be changed and the revised rates applicable to participants that were not individually reviewed will apply to all multilayer wood flooring imports between December 1, 2013 and November 30, 2014 (AD) and between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013 (CVD). We expect that DOC will issue preliminary AD and CVD rates for the third administrative review in December 2015 and final AD and CVD rates for the third administrative reviews in mid-2016. We are unable to predict the final AD and CVD rates for the pending reviews at this time, but plan to continue to defend our import practices and pursue our available legal rights and remedies, including litigation at DOC and in the U.S courts.

OTHER CLAIMS

We are involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal matters from time to time that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business, including matters involving our products, intellectual property, relationships with suppliers, relationships with distributors, relationships with competitors, employees and other matters. For example, we are currently a party to various litigation matters that involve product liability, tort liability and other claims under a wide range of allegations, including illness due to exposure to certain chemicals used in the workplace; or medical conditions arising from exposure to product ingredients or the presence of trace contaminants. In some cases, these allegations involve multiple defendants and relate to legacy products that we and other defendants purportedly manufactured or sold. We believe these claims and allegations to be without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. For these matters, we also may have rights of contribution or reimbursement from other parties or coverage under applicable insurance policies. We are currently pursuing coverage and recoveries under those policies, but are unable to predict the outcome or those demands.

While complete assurance cannot be given to the outcome of these proceedings, we do not believe that any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.