Grant CE Makers Their NYC E-Waste Injunction, Trade Groups Urge Court
Six consumer products trade groups from outside the CE industry support the CEA and ITI Council motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the New York City e-waste program from taking effect, they said in an amicus brief filed Monday at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Allowing the e-waste program to take effect “will encourage other jurisdictions to adopt laws that shift disposal costs historically borne by voting local taxpayers who discard consumer products onto non-voting, out-of-state or off-shore manufacturers who make them,” said the groups. They include the American Forest & Paper Association , the American Lighting Association, the Business Council of New York State, the Carpet and Rug Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
The problems with New York City’s e-waste program “largely stem from its attempt to single out manufacturers but spare taxpaying residents from the costs of disposal,” the groups said. “The e-waste law does not allow anyone to charge a fee to New York City residents for the unfunded mandate it imposes on manufacturers -- a mandate defendants have admitted to be “cost prohibitive” for themselves.” Manufacturers “have no control over how consumers dispose of their products after benefiting from their use,” they said. “Consumers, who are the waste generators, are best suited to dispose of such items in environmentally conscious ways, such as special recycling bins for particular types of waste or special curbside pick-up arrangements.”
But there’s no way for manufacturers “to compel consumers to do so,” the groups said. As a result, the e- waste program “penalizes manufacturers for consumer conduct,” they said. “Moreover, its penalties are based on goals that are unattainable and numerical formulas that are not susceptible to reasonable calculation.”
Meanwhile, Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer Kate Sinding declined to comment on the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association amicus brief backing CE makers on the ground that e-waste collections should be the “exclusive province” of the union’s 6,200 members (CED Dec 15 p1). “I have reviewed their brief, and given that it is really primarily targeted at criticizing the regulations - in particular the direct collection requirement - and NRDC intervened in the case to defend the law but not the regulations themselves, I think I will opt not to comment at this time,” Sinding told us in an e-mail. “There is a small chance we will put in a short reply brief, in which case I will let you know and we could provide a comment at that time.”