We are subject to various federal, state, local and foreign government requirements relating to the protection of the environment. We believe that, as a general matter, our policies, practices and procedures are properly designed to prevent unreasonable risk of environmental damage and personal injury and that our handling, manufacture, use and disposal of hazardous substances are in accordance with environmental and safety laws and regulations. However, mainly because of past operations and operations of predecessor companies, we, like other companies engaged in similar businesses, have incurred remedial response and voluntary cleanup costs for site contamination and are a party to lawsuits and claims associated with environmental and safety matters, including past production of products containing hazardous substances. Additional lawsuits, claims and costs involving environmental matters are likely to continue to arise in the future.

With respect to environmental matters involving site contamination, we continually conduct studies, individually or jointly with other potentially responsible parties, to determine the feasibility of various remedial techniques. It is our policy to record appropriate liabilities for environmental matters when remedial efforts or damage claim payments are probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Such liabilities are based on our best estimate of the undiscounted future costs required to complete the remedial work. The recorded liabilities are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress or as additional technical, regulatory or legal information becomes available. Given the uncertainties regarding the status of laws, regulations, enforcement policies, the impact of other potentially responsible parties, technology and information related to individual sites, we do not believe it is possible to develop an estimate of the range of reasonably possible environmental loss in excess of our recorded liabilities. We expect to fund expenditures for these matters from operating cash flow. The timing of cash expenditures depends on a number of factors, including the timing of remedial investigations and feasibility studies, the timing of litigation and settlements of remediation liability, personal injury and property damage claims, regulatory approval of cleanup projects, remedial techniques to be utilized and agreements with other parties.

The following table summarizes information concerning our recorded liabilities for environmental costs:

Although we do not currently possess sufficient information to reasonably estimate the amounts of liabilities to be recorded upon future completion of studies, litigation or settlements, and neither the timing nor the amount of the ultimate costs associated with environmental matters can be determined, they could be material to our consolidated results of operations or operating cash flows in the periods recognized or paid. However, considering our past experience and existing reserves, we do not expect that these environmental matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position.

New Jersey Chrome Sites—The excavation and offsite disposal of approximately one million tons of chromium residue present at a predecessor Honeywell site located in Jersey City, New Jersey, known as Study Area 7, was completed in January 2010. We are also implementing related groundwater remedial actions, and are conducting related river sediment work. In addition, remedial investigations and related activities are underway at other sites in Hudson County, New Jersey that allegedly have chromium contamination, and for which Honeywell has accepted responsibility in whole or in part. Provisions have been made in our financial statements for the estimated cost of investigations and implementation of these remedies consistent with the accounting policy described above.

Dundalk Marine Terminal, Baltimore, MD—Chrome residue from legacy chrome plant operations in Baltimore was deposited as fill at the Dundalk Marine Terminal (“DMT”), which is owned and operated by the Maryland Port Administration (“MPA”). Honeywell and the MPA have been sharing costs to investigate and mitigate related environmental issues, and have entered into a cost sharing agreement under which Honeywell will bear 77 percent of the costs of developing and implementing permanent remedies for the DMT facility. In January 2011, the MPA and Honeywell submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) a Corrective Measures Alternatives Analysis (“CMAA”) of certain potential remedies for DMT to assist MDE in selection of a final remedy. In July 2012, MDE selected a remedy for DMT that is generally consistent with one of the remedies described in the CMAA. Provision has been made in our financial statements for the remedy selected consistent with the accounting policy described above. We have negotiated a Consent Decree with the MPA and MDE with respect to the investigation and remediation of the DMT facility. The Consent Decree is being challenged in federal court by BUILD, a Baltimore community group, together with a local church and two individuals (collectively “BUILD”). In October 2007, the Court dismissed with prejudice BUILD's state law claims and dismissed without prejudice BUILD's RCRA claims regarding neighborhoods near the DMT facility. In August 2008, the Court held a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss BUILD's remaining claims on the grounds that MDE is diligently prosecuting the investigation and remediation of the DMT. We are awaiting the Court's decision. We do not believe that this matter will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or operating cash flows.

Onondaga Lake, Syracuse, NY—We are implementing a combined dredging/capping remedy of Onondaga Lake pursuant to a consent decree approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in January 2007. We have accrued for our estimated cost of remediating Onondaga Lake based on currently available information and analysis performed by our engineering consultants. Honeywell is also conducting remedial investigations and activities at other sites in Syracuse. We have recorded reserves for these investigations and activities where appropriate consistent with the accounting policy described above.

Honeywell has entered into a cooperative agreement with potential natural resource trustees to assess alleged natural resource damages relating to this site. It is not possible to predict the outcome or duration of this assessment, or the amounts of, or responsibility for, any damages.

Like many other industrial companies, Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to asbestos. We did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did we make or sell insulation products or other construction materials that have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast majority of claimants.

Honeywell's predecessors owned North American Refractories Company (NARCO) from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high temperature applications). We sold the NARCO business in 1986 and agreed to indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other claims. NARCO and/or Honeywell are defendants in asbestos personal injury cases asserting claims based upon alleged exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing products. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing refractory products in an occupational setting. These claims, and the filing of subsequent claims, have been stayed continuously since January 4, 2002, the date on which NARCO sought bankruptcy protection (see discussion below).

Honeywell's Bendix friction materials (Bendix) business manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

The following tables summarize information concerning NARCO and Bendix asbestos related balances:

Asbestos Related Liabilities
		Bendix		NARCO		Total

December 31, 2011	$	613	$	1,123	$	1,736
Accrual for update to estimated liability		163		(1)		162
Asbestos related liability payments		(129)		(1)		(130)

September 30, 2012	$	647	$	1,121	$	1,768

Insurance Recoveries for Asbestos Related Liabilities
		Bendix		NARCO		Total

December 31, 2011	$	162	$	618	$	780
Probable insurance recoveries related to
estimated liability		23		-		23
Insurance receivables settlements		8		8		16
Insurance receipts for asbestos related liabilities		(39)		(55)		(94)

September 30, 2012	$	154	$	571	$	725

NARCO and Bendix asbestos related balances are included in the following balance sheet accounts:

		September 30,		December 31,
		2012		2011

Other current assets	$	71	$	71
Insurance recoveries for asbestos related liabilities		654		709

	$	725	$	780

Accrued liabilities	$	237	$	237
Asbestos related liabilities		1,531		1,499

	$	1,768	$	1,736

NARCO Products – On January 4, 2002, NARCO filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with the filing of NARCO's petition in 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (“the Bankruptcy Court”) issued an injunction staying the prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against the Company, which stay has continuously remained in place. In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed NARCO's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization (NARCO Plan of Reorganization). All challenges to the NARCO Plan of Reorganization were fully resolved in the third quarter of 2010. The NARCO Plan of Reorganization cannot become effective, however, until the Plan of Reorganization of certain NARCO affiliates, which is pending in Bankruptcy Court, is confirmed and then affirmed by the District Court. It is not possible to predict the timing or outcome of the Bankruptcy and District Court proceedings in the affiliates' case. We expect that the stay enjoining litigation against NARCO and Honeywell will remain in effect until the effective date of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, we agreed to certain obligations which will be triggered upon the effective date of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization. Honeywell will provide NARCO with $20 million in financing and simultaneously forgive such indebtedness. We will also pay $40 million to NARCO's former parent company and $16 million to certain asbestos claimants whose claims were resolved during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings. These amounts have been classified as Accrued Liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2012.

When the NARCO Plan of Reorganization becomes effective, in connection with its implementation, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (“NARCO Trust”) will be established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. When the NARCO Trust is established, both Honeywell and NARCO will be entitled to a permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO products to be made against the Trust. The NARCO Trust will review submitted claims and determine award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth all criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount.

Once the NARCO Trust is established and operational, Honeywell will be obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures, subject to annual caps up to $150 million in any year, provided, however, that the first $100 million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the “Initial Claims Amount”) will not count against the first year annual cap and any unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until fully utilized.

Once the NARCO Trust is established and operational, Honeywell will also be responsible for the following funding obligations which are not subject to the annual cap described above: a) previously approved payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings which provide that a portion of these settlements is to be paid by the NARCO Trust, which amounts are estimated at $130 million and are expected to be paid during the first year of trust operations and, b) payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria, which amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid during the first two years of trust operations.

Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for the amounts discussed above, unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection and for the estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections and in connection with the initial operation of a 524(g) trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims since January 2002, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond 2018. In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value, including trust claim handling costs, of asbestos related future liabilities based on Company specific and general asbestos claims filing rates, expected rates of disease and anticipated claim values. Specifically, the valuation methodology included an analysis of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos containing products, epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos related diseases, NARCO asbestos claims filing history, general asbestos claims filing rates in the tort system and in certain operating asbestos trusts, and the claims experience in those forums, the pending inventory of NARCO asbestos claims, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures and an estimated approval rate of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust. This methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims has been commonly accepted by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts and resulted in a range of estimated liability for future claims of $743 to $961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount in the range.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. At September 30, 2012, a significant portion of this coverage is with insurance companies with whom we have agreements to pay full policy limits. We conduct analyses to determine the amount of insurance that we estimate is probable of recovery in relation to payment of current and estimated future claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings with our insurers, our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers and various judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs.

In 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company (“Travelers”) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York against Honeywell and other insurance carriers that provide coverage for NARCO asbestos claims, seeking a declaration regarding coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and the other insurance carriers. The other insurance carriers asserted cross claims against Honeywell seeking declarations regarding their coverage obligations for NARCO asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by them. Since then, the Company has entered into settlement agreements resolving all NARCO-related asbestos coverage issues with almost all of these insurance carriers, including Travelers. Honeywell believes it is entitled to the remaining coverage at issue. While Honeywell expects to prevail in this matter, an adverse outcome is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or operating cash flows.

Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that could cause the NARCO related asbestos liabilities or assets to be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. There is no assurance that the plan of reorganization will become final, that insurance recoveries will be timely or whether there will be any NARCO related asbestos claims beyond 2018. Given the inherent uncertainty in predicting future events, we review our estimates periodically, and update them based on our experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or other developments that may impact insurance recoveries.

Friction Products—The following tables present information regarding Bendix related asbestos claims activity:

	Nine Months Ended		Year Ended
		September 30,	December 31,
Claims Activity		2012	2011	2010

Claims Unresolved at the beginning of period		22,571	22,480	19,940
Claims Filed during the period ^(a)		2,900	3,592	4,302
Claims Resolved during the period^(b)		(2,234)	(3,501)	(1,762)

Claims Unresolved at the end of period		23,237	22,571	22,480

(a) The number of claims filed in 2010 includes approximately 1,541 non-malignant claims (with an accrued liability of approximately $575 thousand in the aggregate), a majority of which had previously been dismissed in Mississippi and re-filed in Arkansas.
(b) The number of claims resolved in 2011 includes approximately 351 claims previously classified as inactive (82% non-malignant and accrued liability of approximately $1.7 million) which were activated during 2011. The number of claims resolved in 2010 includes approximately 1,300 claims previously classified as inactive (95% non-malignant and accrued liability of approximately $2.0 million) which were activated during 2010.


Disease Distribution of Unresolved Claims	September 30,	December 31,
	2012	2011	2010

Mesothelioma and Other Cancer Claims	5,615	4,943	4,856
Nonmalignant Claims	17,622	17,628	17,624

Total Claims	23,237	22,571	22,480

	Honeywell has experienced average resolution values per claim excluding legal costs as follows:

			Year Ended December 31,
			2011		2010		2009		2008		2007

			(in whole dollars)
Malignant claims		$	48,000	$	54,000	$	50,000	$	65,000	$	33,000
Nonmalignant claims		$	1,000	$	1,300	$	200	$	1,500	$	500

It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future.

Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix related asbestos claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each year.

The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated cost of future Bendix related asbestos claims is based on historic claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims is similar to that used to estimate the future NARCO related asbestos claims liability.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, our interpretation of judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers. Insurance receivables are also recorded when structured insurance settlements provide for future fixed payment streams that are not contingent upon future claims or other events. Such amounts are recorded at the net present value of the fixed payment stream.

On a cumulative historical basis, Honeywell has recorded insurance receivables equal to approximately 39 percent of the value of the underlying asbestos claims recorded. However, because there are gaps in our coverage due to insurance company insolvencies, certain uninsured periods, and insurance settlements, this rate is expected to decline for any future Bendix related asbestos liabilities that may be recorded. Future recoverability rates may also be impacted by numerous other factors, such as future insurance settlements, insolvencies and judicial determinations relevant to our coverage program, which are difficult to predict. Assuming continued defense and indemnity spending at current levels, we estimate that the cumulative recoverability rate could decline over the next five years to approximately 33 percent.

Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and reserves to cover all pending Bendix related asbestos claims and Bendix related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of either pending or future Bendix related asbestos claims, we do not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements are paid (collectively, the “Variable Claims Factors”) do not substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year. No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims Factors will not change.

We are subject to a number of other lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial amounts claimed) arising out of the conduct of our business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, government contracts, product liability, prior acquisitions and divestitures, employee benefit plans, intellectual property, and environmental, health and safety matters. We recognize a liability for any contingency that is probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. We continually assess the likelihood of adverse judgments of outcomes in these matters, as well as potential ranges of possible losses (taking into consideration any insurance recoveries), based on a careful analysis of each matter with the assistance of outside legal counsel and, if applicable, other experts. Included in these other matters are the following:

Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan—Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged by plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit were dismissed with prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million (paid from the Company's pension plan) and the maximum aggregate liability for the remaining three claims (alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension benefits of certain employees of a predecessor entity when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at $500 million. In October 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim regarding the calculation of benefits. In May 2011, the parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement in principle to settle the three remaining claims for $23.8 million (also to be paid from the Company's pension plan). The Court approved the settlement on July 20, 2012 and all claims in this matter are now fully resolved.

Quick Lube—On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the defendants. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. In June 2011, plaintiff's principal witness pled guilty to a felony count of having made false statements to federal investigators. On March 8, 2012, Honeywell entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the multi-district litigation class action as to all plaintiffs, subject to approval by the court. The settlement did not and will not have a material impact on our results of operations or operating cash flows in the periods recognized or paid. As previously reported, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice notified Honeywell in January 2010 that it had officially closed its investigation into possible collusion in the replacement auto filters industry.

Honeywell v. United Auto Workers (“UAW”) et. al—In July 2011, Honeywell filed an action in federal court (District of New Jersey) against the UAW and all former employees who retired under a series of Master Collective Bargaining Agreements (“MCBAs”) between Honeywell and the UAW. The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment that certain express limitations on its obligation to contribute toward the healthcare coverage of such retirees (the “CAPS”) set forth in the MCBAs may be implemented, effective January 1, 2012. In September 2011, the UAW and certain retiree defendants filed a motion to dismiss the New Jersey action and filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that the MCBAs do not provide for CAPS on the Company's liability for healthcare coverage. The UAW and retiree plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification and a motion for partial summary judgment in the Michigan action, seeking a ruling that retirees who retired prior to the initial inclusion of the CAPS in the 2003 MCBA are not covered by the CAPS as a matter of law. In December 2011, the New Jersey action was dismissed on forum grounds. Honeywell has appealed the New Jersey court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In the meantime, Honeywell has answered the UAW's complaint in Michigan and has asserted a counterclaim for fraudulent inducement. Honeywell is confident that the CAPS will be upheld and that its liability for healthcare coverage premiums with respect to the putative class will be limited as negotiated and expressly set forth in the applicable MCBAs. In the event of an adverse ruling, however, Honeywell's other postretirement benefits for pre-2003 retirees would increase by approximately $150 million, reflecting the estimated value of these CAPS.

Given the uncertainty inherent in litigation and investigations (including the specific matters referenced above), we do not believe it is possible to develop estimates of reasonably possible loss in excess of current accruals for these matters (other than as specifically set forth above). Considering our past experience and existing accruals, we do not expect the outcome of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position. Because most contingencies are resolved over long periods of time, potential liabilities are subject to change due to new developments, changes in settlement strategy or the impact of evidentiary requirements, which could cause us to pay damage awards or settlements (or become subject to equitable remedies) that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or operating cash flows in the periods recognized or paid.