Honeywell International Inc.

101 Columbia Road

Morristown, NJ 07962-2245

Phone: (973) 455-6294

Email: steven.bernhardt@honeywell.com

September 6, 2011

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1040

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 6102T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Comments from Honeywell International on the Interim Final Rule “Protection of 

the Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling 

HCFC Production, Import, and Export.” 76 Fed. Reg. 47,451 (August 5, 2011) 

(“Interim Rule”).

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter provides comments from Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) to the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Interim Final Rule “Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone: 

Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production, Import, and Export.” 

76 Fed. Reg. 47,451 (August 5, 2011) (“Interim Rule”) that adjusts the allowance system for 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (“HCFC”) during the calendar year 2011. We appreciate the 

opportunity to provide input into EPA’s process to transition from ozone depleting products to 

more environmentally-beneficial alternatives. 

Honeywell is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving customers 

worldwide through multiple operating businesses. Honeywell’s Fluorine Products business is a 

technology leader and a U.S.-based producer of fluorocarbons and other fluorine-based 

materials. Honeywell has been at the forefront of the industry’s efforts to develop alternatives 

to ozone-depleting products. Our research and development efforts have produced commercially 

viable non-ozone-depleting blowing agents for polyurethane foam applications and for 

refrigerants used in air conditioning and stationary refrigeration applications. More recently, 

Honeywell has led the fluorocarbon industry in discovering and commercially developing new 

low global-warming refrigerants and blowing agents that address the challenges of climate 

change. 

Honeywell produces HCFCs at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana facility, which is a major 

local employer in that area. The Baton Rouge facility’s primary product is HCFC-22, one of the 

HCFCs regulated under this Interim Rule. 
Honeywell would like to take this opportunity to respond to the five issues presented in 

the Interim Rule. First, Honeywell’s due process rights and the Clean Air Act (CAA) would be 

violated by amending Arkema’s and Solvay’s baselines to account for their 2008 inter-pollutant 

transfers, as the Interim Rule does. Second, principles of administrative law require that EPA 

not extend the Interim Rule beyond 2011. Third, based on publicly available consumption data 

showing decreased demand for HCFC-22, we encourage EPA to reduce the number of HCFC-22 

consumption allowances for calendar years 2012-2014. Fourth, EPA has the authority to allocate 

different percentages of baseline for calendar-year production and consumption allowances. 

Fifth, the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Arkema v. EPAdoes not require any further rulemaking to 

address the 2010 allowance allocations. 

As an initial matter, the Arkema v. EPAdecision1 did not address the validity of the 2008 

inter-pollutant transfers by Arkema and Solvay. Instead, the court assumed that these transfers 

were valid in connection with the challenge to the 2009 allocation rule.2 This decision, however, 

does not require EPA to recognize the validity of those transfers. We believe that EPA can and 

should grant the pending petition for reconsideration of these transfers filed jointly by Honeywell 

and DuPont. If EPA determines that the transfers were improper, EPA’s justification for the 

Interim Rule would be moot.

We also believe that EPA should not extend the Interim Rule beyond 2011. The validity 

of EPA’s use of the “good cause” exemption to the CAA and the Administrative Procedure Act 

to promulgate a rule without notice and comment is limited to the 2011 control period. 

Honeywell believes EPA is required to undergo notice and comment rulemaking to promulgate 

an appropriate allocation scheme for 2012 and beyond.

With respect to future consumption allowances, EPA’s data show that only 86% of the 

HCFC-22 consumption allowances were actually used in 2010 and that 2010 reclamation was 

only about 30% of what is projected to be required in 2015. Clearly, the total HCFC-22 

consumption allowances provided for 2010 in the 2009 allocation rule were greater than the 

market demand. We believe EPA should consider larger reductions to encourage a more rapid 

movement toward non-ozone depleting alternatives, to decrease inventory stockpiles, and to 

encourage higher rates of recovery and reclamation of HCFC-22. 

Honeywell also believes that an increase of production allowances would result in more 

U.S. production for both domestic use and for export. Honeywell currently produces for both 

domestic use and for export. To the extent production allowances continue to be held by entities 

that do not produce in the US and/or production allowances are further decreased, U.S. producers 

like Honeywell will be disadvantaged. Without sufficient allowances, Honeywell may not be 

able to compete with other global producers to serve demand for HCFC-22 in Article V 

countries.

 

Finally, on the issue of 2010 allowances, Honeywell does not support any effort to adjust 

allowances in future control periods to address allocations made for the 2010 control period. 

Nothing in the DC Circuit’s decision requires EPA to take such action. Moreover, any 

 1 618 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit 2010). 

2 74 Fed. Reg. 66,412 (December 15, 2009).
arguments by Arkema and Solvay that they suffered financial harm in 2010 is belied by the 

EPA’s data showing that nearly 15% of all consumption allowances were unused. Taking the 

2010 data into account, the notion that Arkema and Solvay suffered financial harm is purely 

speculative. Adjusting future periods by decreasing the allowances of companies like Honeywell 

is far more likely to cause financial harm to companies like Honeywell and will only serve to 

give Arkema and Solvay a significant windfall in those future periods. 

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important regulatory initiative and 

appreciate your consideration of our points. If there are any questions, please contact Steven H. 

Bernhardt at steven.bernhardt@honeywell.com or 1 973 455-6294.

Sincerely,

Steven H. Bernhardt, PhD

Global Director Regulatory Affairs

Honeywell Specialty Materials