Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0163-0089
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-12-15T05:00Z

EPA's FRM on importation ban on pre-charged products

	

Lee, Amanda I. 

to:

Thompson, John E \(OES\), Finman, Hodayah H \(OES\), Buffa, Nicole,
Smith, 

Russell, MacNeil, John S., Holman, Keith W., Bromberg, Kevin L., Cohen, 

Daniel

10/14/2009 03:32 PM

	

	

	Cc:

	Cindy Newberg, Julius Banks, "Kymn, Christine J."

	

Hi all,

 

Please find attached EPA’s final rule on ban on importation of
pre-charged 

products.  Please submit your comments by COB October 30, 2009.  As
usual, 

many apologies for a short time frame to review.  

 

Also, please plan on having a conference call on November 4 to discuss 

your major concerns.  You’ll have another opportunity to discuss other

and/or follow-up concerns at a later date.

 

Many thanks!

 

Amanda 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

	Tentative: EPA's ban on importation of pre-charged products FRM

	

	Wed 11/04/2009 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM

	

	

	

	Attendance is  for Julius Banks

	

	

	

	Chair:

	Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov

	

	Location:

	Conference Call

		

This entry has an alarm. The alarm will go off   before the entry
starts.

Required:

Cindy Newberg/DC/USEPA/US, Julius Banks/DC/USEPA/US, 

ThompsonJE2@state.gov, FinmanHH@state.gov, Nicole_Buffa@ceq.eop.gov, 

Russell_Smith@ustr.eop.gov, John_S._MacNeil@omb.eop.gov, 

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov, Keith.Holman@sba.gov, kevin.bromberg@sba.gov

Optional:

Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

	

comments on the pre-charged ban FRM

	

Lee, Amanda I. 

to:

Julius Banks, Cindy Newberg, Ross Brennan

11/02/2009 01:25 PM

	

	Cc:

	"Wolverton, Maryann", "Klemick, Heather E.", "Poster, Dianne L.",
"Smith, 

Russell", "Mancini, Dominic J."

	

Hi all,

 

Please find EOP comments on the pre-charged products rule.  More
comments 

forthcoming.  More detailed suggestions embedded in the attachment.

 

I have not received any other comment.

 

Thanks,

 

Amanda

 

The intent of this rule is unclear when considered in the context of
other 

existing and proposed rules dealing with HCFCs.  EPA has already 

implemented what is, in effect, a cap-and-trade program for HCFCs, under

which producers must submit tradable production and consumption 

allowances. The concurrent HCFC Allocation Rule already establishes a
cap 

on the production and consumption of these HCFCs over 2010-2014. 

Furthermore, a 2006 rule already prohibits the production or import of 

these HCFCs for use in these appliances after Jan. 1, 2010.  Thus, as
far 

as I understand it, this rule is basically duplicative of these efforts.

 

The redundancy of the rule implies that there are no environmental 

benefits associated with banning the sale of these products.  When the 

rule estimates the benefits in terms of reduced emission of HCFC, there
is 

minimal discussion of the fact that if HCFC production is already
capped, 

a rule further restricting their use cannot entail environmental
benefits. 

The HCFCs that would not be used in refrigerators and A/Cs will simply
be 

used elsewhere in the economy, so it is not appropriate to claim that 

emissions will be averted as a result.  If market would respond to the 

HCFC cap by phasing out the use of these products on a similar timeline,

then the costs of the rule are also limited but would include any 

administrative costs to firms and EPA of carrying out the rule (e.g., 

verification, paperwork, etc.).   The $40-50 million cost estimated
could 

thus be an overestimate. The true cost of the rule should reflect the
cost 

to society from switching from HCFCs to lower-ODP substitutes if 

manufacturers would not already do so under the existing HCFC 

cap-and-trade program. The discussion of these issues in the rule is 

inadequate. 

 

In addition, if this rule were nonbinding, there could be environmental 

costs associated with climate change.  HFCs, the main substitute for
HCFCs 

in these products, have an ODP of zero but a higher GWP than HCFCs.  

HFC-containing appliances are generally more energy efficient, however, 

which could offset the higher GWP of direct refrigerant emissions. The 

lifecycle GHG impacts of replacing HCFCs with HFCs should be discussed
in 

the rule. 

 

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

	

Re: comments on the pre-charged ban FRM  

Julius Banks 

to:

Lee, Amanda I.

11/03/2009 05:39 PM

	

	Cc:

	Cindy Newberg, Ross Brennan, "Wolverton, Maryann", "Klemick, Heather
E.", 

"Poster, Dianne L.", "Smith, Russell", "Mancini, Dominic J."

	

Amanda,

 

I believe that you received the the latest PCA memo analyzing the 

additional benefits attributed to the precharged products FRM
(attached).  

It conservatively estimates the additional benefits of prohibiting the 

import and/or sale of HCFC-22 precharged appliances and components.

 

In the absence of the precharged FRM such import and sale of equipment 

would be allowed in the U.S. (the allocation FRM does not address 

import/export or sale of products containing HCFCs), thus skewing 

estimates for the future domestic need of HCFCs allocated for servicing 

existing equipment. Avoided emissions are estimated to include
quantities 

of HCFCs that would be needed to service such equipment and emissions 

during end-of-life of such equipment. 

 

The precharged FRM closes a potential loophole that would exist if 

domestic equipment manufacturers cannot use virgin HCFCs in their new 

equipment (as discussed in your email below).  The aforementioned 

discussion addresses the domestic manufacture of equipment with virgin 

HCFCs, but does not address similar equipment that is charged with 

refrigerant abroad and later imported into the U.S.  The precharged FRM 

levels the playing field by not allowing import/export of such
precharged 

products; it is worth noting that we allow flexibility to manufacturers
to 

continue to build and import/export such equipment as long as it is not 

charged with virgin HCFCs.  If such equipment is manufactured "dry" or 

without refrigerant, we would have greater certainty that this equipment

is being used to service existing appliances and that such equipment
uses 

allocated virgin HCFCs deemed for service or reclaimed HCFCs.

 

 

Julius Banks

Team Lead, Refrigerant Recovery and Recycling Prog.

Stratospheric Protection Division

tel:  202.343.9870

fax:  202.343.2338

www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/608fact.html

-----"Lee, Amanda I." <Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov> wrote: -----

To: Julius Banks/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Cindy Newberg/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ross 

Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Lee, Amanda I." <Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 11/02/2009 01:24PM

cc: "Wolverton, Maryann" <Maryann_Wolverton@cea.eop.gov>, "Klemick, 

Heather E." <Heather_E._Klemick@ceq.eop.gov>, "Poster, Dianne L." 

<Dianne_L._Poster@ceq.eop.gov>, "Smith, Russell" 

<Russell_Smith@ustr.eop.gov>, "Mancini, Dominic J." 

<Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>

Subject: comments on the pre-charged ban FRM

Hi all, 

  

Please find EOP comments on the pre-charged products rule.  More
comments 

forthcoming.  More detailed suggestions embedded in the attachment. 

  

I have not received any other comment. 

  

Thanks, 

  

Amanda 

  

The intent of this rule is unclear when considered in the context of
other 

existing and proposed rules dealing with HCFCs.  EPA has already 

implemented what is, in effect, a cap-and-trade program for HCFCs, under

which producers must submit tradable production and consumption 

allowances. The concurrent HCFC Allocation Rule already establishes a
cap 

on the production and consumption of these HCFCs over 2010-2014. 

Furthermore, a 2006 rule already prohibits the production or import of 

these HCFCs for use in these appliances after Jan. 1, 2010.  Thus, as
far 

as I understand it, this rule is basically duplicative of these efforts.

  

The redundancy of the rule implies that there are no environmental 

benefits associated with banning the sale of these products.  When the 

rule estimates the benefits in terms of reduced emission of HCFC, there
is 

minimal discussion of the fact that if HCFC production is already
capped, 

a rule further restricting their use cannot entail environmental
benefits. 

The HCFCs that would not be used in refrigerators and A/Cs will simply
be 

used elsewhere in the economy, so it is not appropriate to claim that 

emissions will be averted as a result.  If market would respond to the 

HCFC cap by phasing out the use of these products on a similar timeline,

then the costs of the rule are also limited but would include any 

administrative costs to firms and EPA of carrying out the rule (e.g., 

verification, paperwork, etc.).   The $40-50 million cost estimated
could 

thus be an overestimate. The true cost of the rule should reflect the
cost 

to society from switching from HCFCs to lower-ODP substitutes if 

manufacturers would not already do so under the existing HCFC 

cap-and-trade program . The discussion of these issues in the rule is 

inadequate. 

  

In addition, if this rule were nonbinding, there could be environmental 

costs associated with climate change.  HFCs, the main substitute for
HCFCs 

in these products, have an ODP of zero but a higher GWP than HCFCs.  

HFC-containing appliances are generally more energy efficient, however, 

which could offset the higher GWP of direct refrigerant emissions. The 

lifecycle GHG impacts of replacing HCFCs with HFCs should be discussed
in 

the rule. 

  

  

[attachment "2010_PCA-SAN_5052_Final_Rule_11022009.doc" removed by
Julius 

Banks/DC/USEPA/US]----- Forwarded by Julius Banks/DC/USEPA/US on 

12/07/2009 12:48 PM -----

	

Updated version of pre-charged ban FRM  

	

Julius Banks 

to:

Lee, Amanda I.

11/18/2009 02:30 PM

		

	Cc:

	Cindy Newberg, Diane McConkey

	

Amanda,

Welcome back. I have attached an updated version of the pre-charged 

appliance final rule (tracked changes version and a clean version).  I 

believe that we have addressed comments raised by EOP and SBA.  I
believe 

that Kevin Bromberg provided a verbal concurrence on November 17.

 I look forward to continued progress upon your return.    

Regards,

Julius Banks

Team Lead, Refrigerant Recovery and Recycling Prog.

Stratospheric Protection Division

tel:  202.343.9870

fax:  202.343.2338

www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/608fact.html

From:	"Lee, Amanda I." <Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov>

To:	Julius Banks/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date:	11/04/2009 10:51 AM

Subject:	FW: comments on the pre-charged ban FRM

 

 

From: Lee, Amanda I. 

Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 1:24 PM

To: 'Banks.Julius@epamail.epa.gov'; 'Newberg.Cindy@epamail.epa.gov'; 

'Brennan.Ross@epamail.epa.gov'

Cc: Wolverton, Maryann; Klemick, Heather E.; Poster, Dianne L.; Smith, 

Russell; Mancini, Dominic J.

Subject: comments on the pre-charged ban FRM

 

Hi all,

 

Please find EOP comments on the pre-charged products rule.  More
comments 

forthcoming.  More detailed suggestions embedded in the attachment.

 

I have not received any other comment.

 

Thanks,

 

Amanda

 

The intent of this rule is unclear when considered in the context of
other 

existing and proposed rules dealing with HCFCs.  EPA has already 

implemented what is, in effect, a cap-and-trade program for HCFCs, under

which producers must submit tradable production and consumption 

allowances. The concurrent HCFC Allocation Rule already establishes a
cap 

on the production and consumption of these HCFCs over 2010-2014. 

Furthermore, a 2006 rule already prohibits the production or import of 

these HCFCs for use in these appliances after Jan. 1, 2010.  Thus, as
far 

as I understand it, this rule is basically duplicative of these efforts.

 

The redundancy of the rule implies that there are no environmental 

benefits associated with banning the sale of these products.  When the 

rule estimates the benefits in terms of reduced emission of HCFC, there
is 

minimal discussion of the fact that if HCFC production is already
capped, 

a rule further restricting their use cannot entail environmental
benefits. 

The HCFCs that would not be used in refrigerators and A/Cs will simply
be 

used elsewhere in the economy, so it is not appropriate to claim that 

emissions will be averted as a result.  If market would respond to the 

HCFC cap by phasing out the use of these products on a similar timeline,

then the costs of the rule are also limited but would include any 

administrative costs to firms and EPA of carrying out the rule (e.g., 

verification, paperwork, etc.).   The $40-50 million cost estimated
could 

thus be an overestimate. The true cost of the rule should reflect the
cost 

to society from switching from HCFCs to lower-ODP substitutes if 

manufacturers would not already do so under the existing HCFC 

cap-and-trade program. The discussion of these issues in the rule is 

inadequate. 

 

In addition, if this rule were nonbinding, there could be environmental 

costs associated with climate change.  HFCs, the main substitute for
HCFCs 

in these products, have an ODP of zero but a higher GWP than HCFCs.  

HFC-containing appliances are generally more energy efficient, however, 

which could offset the higher GWP of direct refrigerant emissions. The 

lifecycle GHG impacts of replacing HCFCs with HFCs should be discussed
in 

the rule. 

 

 [attachment "2010_PCA-SAN_5052_Final_Rule_11022009.doc" deleted by
Julius 

Banks/DC/USEPA/US] 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

	

Fw: Status check: OMB clearance of HCFC rules

	

Ross Brennan 

to:

Cindy Newberg, JohnB Chamberlin, Jeremy Arling, Staci Gatica, Julius
Banks

11/24/2009 09:16 AM

	

FYI -

_____________________________________________

Ross Brennan, Chief

Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch

Office of Atmospheric Programs

(202) 343-9226

----- Forwarded by Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US on 11/24/2009 09:15 AM -----

From:	Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US

To:	"Lee, Amanda I." <Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov>

Cc:	Drusilla Hufford/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Cindy Newberg/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date:	11/24/2009 09:14 AM

Subject:	Status check:  OMB clearance of HCFC rules

Good morning, Amanda -

I wanted to check on the status of OMB's clearance of the 2010 HCFC 

allocation rule and the precharged appliances rule.  We believe that all

interagency comments have been resolved for several days now, and we are

increasingly eager to move the two packages forward for signature.

My understanding of the status of the two rules is as follows:

FDA:  Cleared on October 30.

DoD:  Cleared November 2.

DOE:  Cleared November 3.

State Department:  Cleared November 3, while attending the Meeting of
the 

Parties in Pt. Ghalib.

SBA:  Cleared November 19.

USTR:  No comments on either of the two interagency drafts of either 

package; assume to have cleared.

CEQ:  Cleared in early November; confirmed during phone call November
19.

CEA:  No formal comments; on November 18 EPA called CEA and answered 

questions about the rules.

OMB:  EPA revised the health effects language per OMB comment; we assume

all OMB issues have been addressed.

We have sent you the final redline version showing all of our changes 

resulting from both rounds of interagency review.

As you can imagine, we are receiving numerous inquires from stakeholders

and our management about the status of the rules and what can be done to

move them forward.

Please let me know what we can do to help you clear the packages.

_____________________________________________

Ross Brennan, Chief

Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch

Office of Atmospheric Programs

(202) 343-9226

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

	

passback on pre-charged products frm

	

Lee, Amanda I. 

to:

Julius Banks

11/30/2009 04:50 PM

	

	

	Cc:

	Cindy Newberg, Ross Brennan, Jeremy Arling

	

Hi Julius,

 

Please find attached suggested edits on the pre-charged products FRM.  

Happy to chat about them.

 

Amanda