Ass'n of Home Appliance Mfrs. v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 29 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13 Civ. 07888(LGS).,13 Civ. 07888(LGS). |
| Citation | 36 F.Supp.3d 366 |
| Parties | ASSOCIATION OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Limited on Preemption Grounds
New York City Administrative Code, §§ 16–480, 16–481, 16–482, 16–483, 16–484, 16–485, 16–486 Charles A. Samuels, Dominic Joseph Picca, Kelly Ryan Graf, Kevin N. Ainsworth, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Christopher Gene King, Kathleen C. Schmid, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendant.
In August 2013, the City adopted Local Law 69, which makes manufacturers responsible for recovering refrigerants from their residential appliances that are discarded in New York City. Plaintiff Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) brings this declaratory judgment action against Defendant City of New York (the “City”) to challenge the validity of Local Law 69 under New York and federal law. Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings with respect to its claims that Local Law 69 is ultra vires (i.e., beyond the City's legislative power) and is preempted by the New York Environmental Conservation Law (“NYECL”).
The Court finds that the City's effort to promote the safe disposal within its borders of potentially harmful refrigerants is a reasonable exercise of the City's police powers, at least for purposes of this motion. Those powers entitle the City to enact laws that protect the safety, health and well-being of the community, which Local Law 69 does. However, the NYECL, which is a state law, contains a provision that broadly preempts city laws governing the “sale, use, reuse, reclamation, or disposal of chlorofluorocarbon compounds.” N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 38–0107(3). Absent an amendment of that provision by the New York legislature, Local Law 69 is unenforceable with respect to those chlorofluorocarbon (“CFC”) compounds covered by Article 38 of the N.Y. ECL. Local Law 69 shall continue to be valid and enforceable insofar as it governs refrigerants that do not use the CFC compounds specified in Article 38 of the N.Y. ECL. For these reasons, as further discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The following facts are based on Defendant's Answer to the extent that it admits allegations in the Complaint, uncontested documents attached to or incorporated by reference in the pleadings, and documents of which the Court takes judicial notice.
Certain appliances, including refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners and dehumidifiers, use refrigerants in the CFC, hydrochlorofluorocarbon (“HCFC”) or hydrofluorocarbon (“HFC”) chemical families to perform their cooling functions. Following the discovery that CFCs are ozone-depleting substances, CFCs and HCFCs became subjects of regulation under the Montréal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, ratified by the United States in 1988, and the federal Clean Air Act. Under the Clean Air Act, the production and consumption of CFCs have been banned since 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 7671c(b)-(c), and the production and consumption of HCFCs will be completely phased out by 2030, 42 U.S.C. § 7671d(b)-(c). CFCs and HCFCs commonly have been substituted by HFCs, which do not deplete the ozone layer.
For a period in the 1990s, the City of New York vented refrigerants into the atmosphere when picking up discarded residential appliances as part of its appliance recycling program. In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the City entered into a consent decree providing in relevant part that the “[t]he City shall comply at all times with Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, and the regulations set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 82, Subpart F....” Thereafter, the City instituted a system in which it instructs residents to place appliances to be discarded at the curb before collection day, and sends separate fleets of trucks and employees to recover the refrigerants and the appliances respectively. The City generates revenue from this program through an agreement with a recycling contractor.
In August 2013, Mayor Bloomberg signed the bill that became Local Law 69, amending Title 16 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York by adding §§ 16–480 through 16–486. Local Law 69 (the “Law”) makes manufacturers responsible for recovering refrigerants from their residential appliances that are discarded in New York City. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 16–481(a). Manufacturers may develop their own recovery programs, whether by themselves or in conjunction with one another, or pay the City a fee when the Department of Sanitation (“DSNY”) makes the collection. Id. §§ 16–481(b), –482(c). A manufacturer's own program may not include the curbside pickup of appliances. Id. § 16–482(c).
The Law applies to manufacturers “(1) ... whose brand name appears on an appliance sold, offered for sale or distributed in the city or (2) ... who manufacture[ ] or has manufactured an appliance sold, offered for sale or distributed in the city.” Id. § 16–480. Under the Law, “refrigerants”
means any substances consisting in whole or in part of a class I or class II ozone-depleting substance, which are used for heat transfer purposes and provide a cooling effect, including, but not limited, to chlorofluorocarbons, hydro-chlorofluorocarbons, or any other substitute substance as may be defined by the United States environmental protection agency. A class I or class II ozone-depleting substance shall be those substances as defined by the United States environmental protection agency in section 602 of the United States clean air act. A “substitute substance” shall be any environmental protection agency approved replacement for a class I or II ozone-depleting substance in a refrigeration or air-conditioning end-use.
The Law contains a severability provision in the event that any part of it is determined to be invalid:
If any provision of this local law shall be adjudged to be unconstitutional or invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the provision directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
Section 16–485 authorizes the DSNY to promulgate implementing rules. The Final Rules Governing the Recovery of Refrigerants became effective on June 1, 2014.
Bill No. Int. 894–2012 (“Bill 894”), as Local Law 69 was known prior to its passage, was considered by the City Council Committee on Sanitation and Solid Waste Management (“Committee”) along with three other bills at a hearing on June 29, 2012. The other three bills respectively concerned the theft of manhole covers, the poaching of recyclables and the collection of beverage containers. The Committee's report for the June 29 hearing, as well as statements made at the hearing itself, characterized the four bills as part of the City's effort to combat the increase in the curbside theft and poaching of recyclable materials, which reduced the amount of high-value recyclables collectable by the DSNY.
Specifically with respect to Bill 894, speakers at the hearing expressed concern about the environmental impact of ozone-depleting substances being released into the atmosphere by poachers who steal discarded appliances. A representative of the Natural Resources Defense Council stated that Bill 894 “would reduce the likelihood that stolen bulk metal items like refrigerators and air conditioners are improperly disassembled, with the inevitable result being the release of ... CFCs, which are potent ozone depleting gases, into the atmosphere.” The Committee also heard testimony that Bill 894 would help with the City's finances. Ron Gonen, the DSNY's Deputy Commissioner for Sustainability and Recycling, stated that Bill 894 “would allow for the shift of part of the financial burden for the recovery to manufacturers of refrigerant containing products” and for the DSNY to “recover a portion of its program costs for continuing to operate its CFC removal program....”
Plaintiff AHAM is a not-for-profit business association incorporated in Illinois and having its principal office in Washington, D.C. It represents manufacturers of home appliances, and its members produce 95 percent of the household appliances shipped for sale in the United States. On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment that: (i) Local Law 69 is preempted by N.Y. ECL § 38–0107(3); (ii) § 16–481, regarding manufacturer responsibility for recovery, is ultra vires under the constitution and legislative acts of New York State; (iii) § 16–482(b) and (c), regarding fees chargeable to manufacturers under the City collection program, are ultra vires under the constitution and legislative acts of New York State; (iv) §§ 16–481 and 16–482(c) violate manufacturers' due process rights under the U.S. and New York constitutions; and (v) Local Law 69 violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the first three causes of action, which all arise under state law.
The Court reviews motions for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. Bank of N.Y. v. First Millennium, Inc., 607 F.3d 905, 922 (2d Cir.2010). The Court accepts as true all of the nonmoving party's well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 637 F.3d 112, 115 (2d Cir.2011)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ass'n of Home Appliance Mfrs. v. City of N.Y.
... ... Samuels, Dominic Joseph Picca, Kelly Ryan Graf, Kevin N. Ainsworth, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Christopher Gene King, Kathleen C. Schmid, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendant ... ...