Microsoft Word - Buseman Note Macro FINAL 7.4.doc     101   A  Second-­‐Generation  Solution  to   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York   Approach   Nicole  Buseman*   Introduction  ...........................................................................................................................  102   I.    Background:    State  E-­‐Waste  Legislation  and  EERRA  ......................................  106   A.    Need  for  State  Action  ..............................................................................................  108   1.    Failure  to  Find  a  Federal  Solution  ................................................................  108   2.    Limits  on  the  EPA’s  Ability  to  Address  Domestic  E-­‐Waste  ................  109   B.    Differing  State  Approaches  to  the  Producer  Responsibility     Model  ...............................................................................................................................  111   C.    EERRA:    The  New  York  Approach  .....................................................................  112   1.    Covered  Products:    What  Is  “E-­‐Waste”?   113   2.    Covered  Parties:    Who  Is  Affected,  and  What  Are  Their   Responsibilities?  ....................................................................................................  114   a.    Manufacturers  ..................................................................................................  114   b.    Retailers  ..............................................................................................................  117   c.    Consumers  ..........................................................................................................  118   d.    Recyclers  .............................................................................................................  119   3.    State  Enforcement  Role  .....................................................................................  120   II.    Evolution  from  Early  Laws:    How  EERRA  Differs  from  Previous  State   Approaches  ........................................................................................................................  121   A.    Scope  of  Coverage  ....................................................................................................  121   1.    Moving  Away  from  Device-­‐Specific  Laws  .................................................  121   2.    Limited  Moves  Toward  Interconnected  Solutions  ................................  123   3.    Intermediate  Approaches  ................................................................................  124   B.    Compliance  and  Enforcement  .............................................................................  126   1.    Development  of  Enforceable  Manufacturer  Goals  ................................  127   2.    Consumer  Participation  ....................................................................................  129   3.    State  Enforcement  Powers  ..............................................................................  131   C.    Financing  ......................................................................................................................  132   III.    Future  Application  of  the  EERRA  Blueprint  .....................................................  134   1.    Market  Conditions  ...............................................................................................  135   2.    Political  and  Legal  Conditions  ........................................................................  136   B.    Compliance  and  Enforcement  .............................................................................  137     * J.D.  2012,  Columbia  Law  School.     102   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   1.    Manufacturer  Compliance  Costs  ...................................................................  137   2.    Enforcement  of  Recycling  Credits  ................................................................  138   3.    Enforcement  of  Recycling  Requirements  ..................................................  139   C.    Financing  ......................................................................................................................  140   IV.    Conclusion  ......................................................................................................................  141     INTRODUCTION   Over   four   million   people   purchased   the   new   Apple   iPhone   4S   during   the   first  weekend   that   the  updated  device  was   available   for   sale.1    Most  of  these  newly  purchased  phones  replaced  older  phones,   which   were   likely   discarded.2     While   many   states   have   recycling   programs  that  will   refurbish  old  cell  phones  or  responsibly  dispose   of   their   toxic   components,   these   programs   often   are   not   widely   known  or  advertised.3   As   an   accelerating   cycle   of   innovation   drives   the   consumer   electronics  market   forward,  consumers  are  purchasing  new  devices   and  discarding  their  older  models  at  an  increasing  rate.4    Discarded   electronic   products,   including   cell   phones,   televisions,   and   computers,   account   for   tens   of   millions   of   discarded   items   each     1. Greg   Bensinger,  Would   Be   iPhone   Customers   Still   Facing  Weeks   Long  Waits,  WALL   ST.   J.   BLOG   (Nov.   11,   2011,   2:51   PM),   http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/11/17/would-­‐be-­‐iphone-­‐ customers-­‐still-­‐facing-­‐weeks-­‐long-­‐waits/.   2. See  ENVTL.   PROT.   AGENCY,   FACT   SHEET:    MANAGEMENT   OF   ELECTRONIC  WASTE   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES   1   (2008),   available   at   http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/   docs/fact7-­‐08.pdf  (“For  each  new  product  that  comes  along,  one  or  more  becomes  outdated  or   obsolete.”);  see  also  LINDA  LUTHER,  CONG.  RESEARCH  SERV.,  RL34147,  MANAGING  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:     AN  ANALYSIS  OF  STATE  E-­‐WASTE  LEGISLATION  2–3  (2008)  [hereinafter  LUTHER,  ANALYSIS  OF  STATE  E-­‐ WASTE   LEGISLATION],   available   at   http://www.cnie.org/NLE/   CRSreports/08Mar/RL34147.pdf  (estimating  that  the  percentage  of  e-­‐waste  will  grow  as  new   technology  changes  and  transitions  bring  new  products  into  the  market).   3. See,   e.g.,   U.S.   GOV’T   ACCOUNTABILITY   OFFICE,   GAO-­‐10-­‐626,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS   FOR   PROMOTING   ENVIRONMENTALLY   SOUND   REUSE   AND   RECYCLING   56   (2010)   [hereinafter   GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS],   available   at   http://   www.gao.gov/assets/310/307013.pdf   (attributing   the   Texas   program’s   lack   of   success   to   inconvenience  to  consumers  of  manufacturer-­‐established  mail-­‐back  programs  and  insufficient   consumer  education  about  available  recycling  opportunities).   4. See  ENVTL.  PROT.  AGENCY,  FACT  SHEET,  supra  note  2,  at  1  (stating  that  in  1998  about  twenty   million   computers   became   obsolete,   while   in   2005   between   twenty-­‐six   and   thirty-­‐seven   million  computers  became  obsolete);  Statistics  on  the  Management  of  Used  and  End-­‐of-­‐Product-­‐ Life   Electronics,   ENVTL.   PROT.   AGENCY,   http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/   ecycling/manage.htm   (last   updated   Nov.   2,   2011)   [hereinafter   EPA   Statistics]   (“438   million   electronic  products  were  sold  in  2009,  which  represents  a  doubling  of  sales  from  1997,  driven   by  a  nine-­‐fold  increase  in  mobile  device  sales.”).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   103   year,5  causing  electronic  waste  (“e-­‐waste”)  to  continue  to  grow  as  a   percentage  of  solid  waste.6    Only  a  small  portion  of  these  products  is   recycled,  compounding  their  presence  in  our  nation’s  landfills.7    With   an   increasing   number   of   consumer   devices   in   use   and   continual   innovation  perpetually  driving   future  purchases,8   the   low   incidence   of   recycling   aggravates   the   environmental   harms   of   e-­‐waste   disposal—including   the   prevalence   of   chemicals   that   leak   into   the   environment   due   to   improper   disposal.9     These   harms   can   be   avoided   through   refurbishment   or   recycling   programs,   which     5. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  3.   6. ENVTL.  PROT.  AGENCY,  MUNICIPAL  SOLID  WASTE  GENERATION,  RECYCLING,   AND  DISPOSAL   IN  THE   UNITED   STATES:     DETAILED   TABLES   AND   FIGURES   FOR   2008   tbls.   12,   13  &   14   (2009),  available   at   http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/   msw2008data.pdf  (showing  that  while  other  waste  streams  are  decreasing  or  remaining  stable   in   percentage   terms,   there   is   a   significant   increase   in   the   volume   of   consumer   electronic   products   generated   and   discarded   as   a   share   of   total   solid   waste).     The   vast   majority   of   computers,   televisions,   and   cellular   phones   are   disposed   of   as   solid   waste,   and   account   for   approximately   three   percent   of   municipal   waste.     OFFICE   OF   TECH.   POLICY,   U.S.   DEP’T   OF   COMMERCE,  RECYCLING  TECHNOLOGY  PRODUCTS:    AN  OVERVIEW  OF  E-­‐WASTE  POLICY   ISSUES  1   (2006),   available  at  http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps74917/Beg-­‐Apendix7.pdf.   7. EPA  Statistics,  supra  note  4  (stating  that  twenty-­‐five  percent  of  electronics  were  collected   for   recycling).     Specific   recycling   rates   vary   greatly   by   state,   and   even   those   with   recycling   programs   report   ranges   from   approximately   one   pound   to   six   pounds   collected   per   capita.     ENVTL.  PROT.  AGENCY,  OFFICE  OF  RES.  CONSERVATION  &  RECOVERY,  ELECTRONICS  WASTE  MANAGEMENT   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES   THROUGH   2009   18   (2011),   available   at   http://   www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/fullbaselinereport2011.pdf.     The   same  document,  however,  qualified  the  EPA  e-­‐waste  recycling  estimates  by  stating  that  “[d]ue   to  the  lack  of  robust  data  that  is  currently  available,  there  is  still  a  high  level  of  uncertainty  in   the  actual  quantity  of  electronics  collected  for  recycling.”    Id.   8. See   Industry   Sales   Statistics   Overview,   CONSUMER   ELECS.   ASS’N,   http://www.ce.org/   Research/Products-­‐Services/Industry-­‐Sales-­‐Data.aspx   (last   visited   June   7,   2012)   (showing   a   six  percent  increase  from  2009  to  2010,  and  a  3.5%  projected  increase  from  2010  to  2011).   9. See   U.S.   GOV’T   ACCOUNTABILITY   OFFICE,   GAO-­‐08-­‐1044,   EPA   NEEDS   TO   BETTER   CONTROL   HARMFUL  U.S.  EXPORTS  THROUGH  STRONGER  ENFORCEMENT  AND  MORE  COMPREHENSIVE  REGULATION  1   (2008)   [hereinafter   GAO,   EPA   NEEDS   TO   BETTER   CONTROL   HARMFUL   U.S.   EXPORTS],   available   at   http://www.gao.gov/assets/280/279792.pdf   (“Toxic   substances   contained   in   used   electronics—such  as  lead—are  well  known  to  harm  people’s  health,  and  when  electronics  are   disposed   of   improperly,   they   can   leach   from   discarded   devices   into   the   surrounding   environment.”);   see   also   LINDA   LUTHER,   CONG.   RESEARCH   SERV.,   R40850,   MANAGING   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     ISSUES   WITH   EXPORTING   E-­‐WASTE   4–5   (2010),   available   at   http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40850.pdf  (noting  that,  in  addition  to  Cathode  Ray  Tubes,   discussed   infra   notes   50–52,   “electronic   devices   such   as   personal   and   laptop   computers,   keyboards,   and   computer   mice   may   contain   toxic   constituents   such   as   arsenic,   cadmium,   chromium,   or   mercury.”);  Mark   Dempsey   &   Kirstie   McIntyre,   The   Role   of   Collective   Versus   Individual   Producer   Responsibility   in   E-­‐Waste   Management:     Key   Learnings   from   Around   the   World,  in  ELECTRONIC  WASTE  MANAGEMENT  212  (Ronald  E.  Hester  &  Roy  M.  Harrison  eds.,  2009)   (“Hazardous   substances   are   contained   within   components   such   as   printed-­‐circuit   boards,   cables,  wiring,  plastic  casing  containing  flame  retardants,  display  equipment,  including  cathode   ray  tubes,  batteries  and  accumulators,  capacitors,  resistors  and  relays,  and  connectors.”).     104   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   provide   an   environmentally   friendly   disposal   method   and   save   valuable  landfill  space.10   The   problems   associated   with   e-­‐waste   are   not   insurmountable.     Over   the   past   decade,   state   legislatures   across   the   country   have   passed  legislation  that  regulates  the  disposal  of  electronic  products,   including  computers,   televisions,  and  cellular  phones.11    Today,  half   of   the   states   have   laws   that   regulate   some   aspect   of   e-­‐waste   disposal.12    State  legislation  that  encourages  the  recycling  of  e-­‐waste   addresses   environmental   and   economic   concerns   regarding   unregulated   disposal,   including   community   exposure   to   toxic   chemicals   found   in   discarded  materials   and   scarce   landfill   space.13     However,   the   bulky   nature   of   electronics,14   their   potentially   toxic   components,15  and  the  high  costs  of  proper  disposal  present  unique   challenges,16  and  most  early  e-­‐waste  laws  took  only  limited  steps  to   address  the  growing  problem  of  e-­‐waste  disposal.17    Some  laws  were     10. Reuse   &   Recycle—eCycle,   ENVTL.   PROT.   AGENCY,   http://www.epa.gov/osw/   partnerships/plugin/reuse.htm   (last   updated   Apr.   16,   2012)   (“Reuse   is   the   environmentally   preferable  alternative  and  it  benefits  society.”).   11. See   generally   ELECS.   TAKEBACK   COAL.,   COMPARISONS   OF   STATE   E-­‐WASTE   LAWS   (2009),   available   at   http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-­‐content/uploads/Detailed%20State%   20Law%20Comparison%20ALL  (listing  states  with  electronic  waste  laws).   12. Jason   Linnell,   The   Digital   Divide—The   Differing   E-­‐Waste   Laws,   PUB.   WORKS   (June   6,   2011),   http://www.pwmag.com/industry-­‐news.asp?sectionID=772&articleID=1582743   (indicating   that   Utah’s   2011   law   marked   the   twenty-­‐fifth   state   to   pass   an   electronic   waste   recycling  law).    The  passage  of  EERRA  made  New  York  the  twenty-­‐fourth  state,  in  addition  to   the  District  of  Columbia,  to  adopt  an  e-­‐waste  law.    Id.    For  a  chart  of  current  e-­‐waste  laws,  see   infra  Appendix  A.   13. See  GAO,   ELECTRONIC  WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   3   (noting   that   the   vast   majority   of   electronics   are   sent   to   landfills,   where   some   have   “the   potential   to   leach   toxic   substances  with  known  adverse  health  effects”).   14. OFFICE  OF  TECH.  POLICY,  supra  note  6,  at  1.   15. See   Dempsey   &   McIntyre,   supra   note   9,   at   212;   see   also   GAO,   EPA   NEEDS   TO   BETTER   CONTROL  HARMFUL  U.S.  EXPORTS,  supra  note  9,  at  1.   16. OFFICE  OF  TECH.  POLICY,  supra  note  6,  at  1.   17. See  ELECS.   TAKEBACK   COAL.,   TEN   LESSONS   LEARNED   FROM   STATE   E-­‐WASTE   LAWS   6   (2011),   available   at   http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-­‐content/uploads/Lessons-­‐Learned-­‐ from-­‐State-­‐E-­‐waste-­‐laws.pdf   (“The   first   states   to   pass   e-­‐waste   laws   specified   very   narrow   scopes  of  products,  typically  just  computers,  monitors,  laptops,  and  sometimes  TVs  .  .  .  .    States   passing  bills  more  recently  (like  New  York)  have  been  able  to  establish  much  larger  scopes  of   products,  including  a  wide  range  of  computer  and  television  peripherals,  as  well  as  computer   devices.”).    Compare  Act  of  May  10,  2005,  2005  Md.  Laws  1785  (codified  as  amended  at  MD.   CODE  ANN.,  ENVIR.  §§  9-­‐1701,  9-­‐1702(d),  9-­‐1703,  9-­‐1707(f),  9-­‐1727–9-­‐1730  (LexisNexis  2007))   (including   monitors,   computers,   and   laptops   in   2005   law),   with   415   ILL.   COMP.   STAT.   ANN.   150/1–999  (West  Supp.  2012)  (including  desktop  computers,  notebook  computers,  computer   monitors,  printers,   televisions,  and  a   larger  scope  of  products   that  could  be   included   toward   manufacturer  goals  in  2008  law).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   105   limited   in   scope,   covering   narrow   categories   of   electronics,18  while   others   took  only  minimal   steps   to   encourage   consumer   recycling.19     Only   the   most   recent   laws   create   comprehensive   e-­‐waste   policies   that   address   the   interconnections   between   participants   across   the   waste   disposal   system   and   the   challenges   faced   by   each   of   those   stakeholders.20   New  York’s  recent  adoption  of  the  Electronic  Equipment  Recycling   and  Reuse  Act  (EERRA)  is  exemplary  of  the  evolution  toward  a  new   generation   of   state   e-­‐waste   policies.21     EERRA   provides   the   most   comprehensive  approach  to  e-­‐waste  disposal  of  any  state  to  date  by   addressing   a   wide   variety   of   consumer   electronic   products   and   requiring   compliance   from   both   manufacturers   and   consumers.22     Under   the   statute,   manufacturers   were   required   to   provide   free   recycling   programs   to   consumers   by   April   2011.23     EERRA   also   phases  in  targets  for  the  amount  of  e-­‐waste  each  manufacturer  must   recycle.24     In  2015,  EERRA  will  prohibit  consumers   from  discarding   electronics  in  landfills.25     18. See,  e.g.,  CAL.  HEALTH  &  SAFETY  CODE  §  25214.10.1(a)(1)  (West  2006)  (defining  covered   electronic  devices  as  video  devices  with  a  screen  size  greater  than  four  inches).   19. MD.   CODE   ANN.,   ENVIR.   §§   9-­‐1701–1730   (LexisNexis   2007)   (establishing   recycling   programs   for   computers   and   monitors).     The   Maryland   program   began   as   a   five-­‐year   pilot   program  that  was  later  modified  and  extended.    See  2007  Md.  Laws  1645  (codified  at  MD.  CODE   ANN.,  ENVIR.  §§  9-­‐1701–1730  (LexisNexis  2007)).   20. See,   e.g.,   N.Y.   ENVTL.   CONSERV.   LAW   §§   27-­‐2601–2621   (McKinney   Supp.   2012)   (establishing   regulations   for   consumers,   manufacturers,   retailers,   and   recyclers);   415   ILL.   COMP.   STAT.   ANN.   150/1–999   (West   Supp.   2012);   MINN.   STAT.   ANN.   §   115A.1310   (West   Supp.   2012).   21. See  Linnell,  supra  note  12  (“The  New  York  law  is  the  most  comprehensive  of  any  state   law   in   terms   of   products   covered.     It   also   is   significant   because   it   represented   the   largest   producer  responsibility  program  in  the  country  when  it  took  effect  .  .  .  .”).   22. See  N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §§  27-­‐2601–2621  (McKinney  Supp.  2012);  see  also  Jaymi   Heimbuch,   New   York   Toughens   Up   on   Electronics   Manufacturers   with   New   E-­‐Waste   Law,   TREEHUGGER   (June   9,   2010),   http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/new-­‐york-­‐toughens-­‐ up-­‐on-­‐electronics-­‐manufacturers-­‐with-­‐new-­‐e-­‐waste-­‐law.php.   23. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2603(1)–(2)  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).    As  of  April  1,  2011,   nearly  seventy  manufacturers  had  established  take-­‐back  programs.    Mireya  Navarro,  E-­‐Waste   Law   Urges   Manufacturers   to   Simplify   Disposal,   N.Y.   TIMES,   Apr.   2,   2011,   at   A16,   available   at   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/science/earth/02ewaste.html?emc=eta1.     Nearly   a   year   after   implementation,   eighty   manufacturers   have   registered   with   the   New   York   Department   of   Environmental   Conservation.     See   New   York   State   Electronic   Equipment   Recycling  and  Reuse  Act,  Registered  Covered  Electronic  Equipment  (CEE)  Manfacturers  [sic]  and   Their   Brand(s),   N.Y.   DEP’T   OF   ENVTL.   CONSERVATION,   http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/regceemfrs.pdf   (last   updated   Apr.   25,   2012).   24. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2603(4)  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   25. Id.  §  27-­‐2611.     106   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   As  additional  states  consider  similar   legislation,  an  assessment  of   current  approaches  to  e-­‐waste  policy,  focusing  on  the  innovations  in   EERRA,  will  prove  instructive  to  policymakers  looking  to  pass  new  e-­‐ waste   laws   or   update   current   programs.     With   twenty-­‐five   states   adopting   e-­‐waste   policies   over   the   past   decade,26   there   is   ample   opportunity   to   examine   what   has   worked   thus   far—and   what   has   not.   This  Note  examines  how  New  York’s  approach  to  e-­‐waste  disposal   addresses  prominent  challenges  to  the  adoption  of  e-­‐waste  recycling   programs,   and   argues   that   EERRA   is   the   model   most   likely   to   succeed  in  increasing  e-­‐waste  recycling.    Part  I  reviews  state  e-­‐waste   legislation   and   explains   New   York’s   multifaceted   approach   under   EERRA.     Part   II   examines   the   evolution   from   early   state   laws   to   EERRA,  including  alternative  state  approaches  and  the  challenges  of   coverage,  enforcement,  and  financing.    Part  III  considers  future  state   and   federal   action,   addressing   the   feasibility   of   using   EERRA   as   a   blueprint  for  state  and  federal  e-­‐waste  regulation.   I.    BACKGROUND:    STATE  E-­‐WASTE  LEGISLATION  AND  EERRA   In   the   absence   of   formal   e-­‐waste   regulation,   there   are   few   incentives   to   recycle   consumer   electronic   devices.     In   fact,   both   manufacturers  and  consumers  face  disincentives  to  recycle  e-­‐waste.     Manufacturers   rarely   establish   consumer-­‐friendly   recycling   programs   voluntarily   because   accepting   an   unrestricted   volume   of   discarded  products  burdens  them  with  high  recycling  costs.27    Even   where  manufacturers  have  created  independent  programs  to  recycle   used   products,   retailers   rarely   participate   in   these   programs   and   manufacturers   often   fail   to   provide   convenient   e-­‐waste   disposal   options.28   Consumers   face   similar   disincentives   to   recycle   e-­‐waste.     Many   independent  recycling  facilities  charge  consumers  an  end-­‐use  fee  to   accept   and   recycle   certain   electronics,29   whereas   consumers   may     26. See  infra  Appendix  A  (listing  all  states  with  electronic  waste  laws).   27. See  LUTHER,  ANALYSIS  OF  STATE  E-­‐WASTE  LEGISLATION,  supra  note  2,  at  4–5.   28. See   GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   8   (listing   examples   of   manufacturer-­‐implemented   programs,   including  mail-­‐back   programs,   store-­‐return   programs   with   a   fee   for   non-­‐store-­‐branded   products,   and   partnerships   with   non-­‐profit   collection   centers).    See  generally  Jason  Linnell,  The  E-­‐Waste  Disconnect,  WASTE  360  (May  1,  2010,  12:00   PM),  http://wasteage.com/E-­‐Waste/comparing-­‐state-­‐e-­‐waste-­‐legislation-­‐201005/index1.html   (showing  less  waste  collected  in  states  without  mandatory,  state-­‐run  programs).   29. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  4   (noting   that   recyclers  and     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   107   dispose  of  e-­‐waste  in  a  landfill  for  no  additional  charge.30    Unlike  the   recycling  of  plastics,   glass,   and  aluminum,  where   collection   is  often   integrated   into  municipal  waste   infrastructure,31   the   recycling  of   e-­‐ waste   involves   separate   collection   locations   and   procedures,   requiring   consumers   to   research   disposal   options.32     Many   consumers   lack  knowledge  of  alternatives   to   landfill  disposal,33  and   when   e-­‐waste   recycling   locations   are   established,   their   existence   often   receives   little   public   attention.34     Even   for   motivated   consumers,  recycling  locations  are  frequently  inconvenient  and  may   not  accept  all  forms  of  e-­‐waste.35   The   status   quo   for   e-­‐waste   recycling   consists   largely   of   a  web   of   voluntary  programs,  which  generally  are  not  well-­‐publicized  and  are   difficult   for   consumers   to  navigate.36    Despite   the  growing  problem   of   e-­‐waste   disposal,   the   federal   government   has   so   far   failed   to   develop  a  national  solution.    This  Part  begins  by  examining  why  the   task  of   implementing  e-­‐waste   legislation  has   fallen   to   the   states.     It   continues   by   assessing   the   differing   regulatory   approaches   across   states,   and   concludes   with   a   discussion   of   the   scope   and   responsibilities  that  underlie  New  York’s  approach  in  EERRA.     refurbishers   often   charge   a   fee   for   services   because   costs   outweigh   revenue   gained   from   recycled  commodities).   30. Id.    A  consumer’s  municipal  solid  waste  stream  is  composed  of  items  typically  used  and   thrown  away,  although  some  materials  can  be  recovered  through  recycling.    See  ENVTL.  PROT.   AGENCY,   MUNICIPAL   SOLID   WASTE   GENERATION,   RECYCLING,   AND   DISPOSAL   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES:     FACTS   AND   FIGURES   FOR   2008   2   (2008),   available   at   http://www.epa.gov/   osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf.   31. ENVTL.  PROT.  AGENCY,  supra  note  6,  tbls.  2  &  6.   32. See  LUTHER,  ANALYSIS  OF  STATE  E-­‐WASTE  LEGISLATION,  supra  note  2,  at  3–4.   33. U.S.   GOV’T   ACCOUNTABILITY   OFFICE,   GAO-­‐05-­‐937T,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     OBSERVATIONS   ON   THE  ROLE  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENCOURAGING  RECYCLING  AND  REUSE,  STATEMENT  OF  JOHN  B.   STEPHENSON,   DIRECTOR,   NATURAL   RESOURCES   AND   ENVIRONMENT   5   (2005)   [hereinafter   GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     OBSERVATIONS],   available   at   http://epw.senate.gov/public/109th/GAO_testimony.pdf.   34. See   LUTHER,   ANALYSIS   OF   STATE   E-­‐WASTE   LEGISLATION,   supra   note   2,   at   3–4;   see   also   Elizabeth  Rosenthal,  Responsible  Recycling:    My  E-­‐Waste  Odyssey,  N.Y.  TIMES  GREEN  BLOG   (Oct.   24,   2010,   8:02   AM),   http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/responsible-­‐recycling-­‐my-­‐ e-­‐waste-­‐odyssey/   (describing   efforts   to   find   e-­‐waste   recycling   locations   prior   to   EERRA   implementation  as  taking  “considerable  investigation⎯the  answer  was  not  easy  or  obvious”).   35. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    OBSERVATIONS,  supra  note  33,  at  8  (noting  that  consumers  are   deterred   by   inconvenient   recycling   locations,   many   of   which   charge   consumers   a   fee   for   electronics  disposal).   36. Id.     108   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   A.    Need  for  State  Action   Two   considerations   have   made   the   need   for   state   action   particularly   acute.     First,   the   lack   of   a   nationwide   consensus   on   a   financing  mechanism  for  e-­‐waste  recycling  has  prevented  enactment   of   federal   legislation.     Second,   the   United   States   Environmental   Protection   Agency   (EPA)   lacks   regulatory   authority   to   develop   a   comprehensive   e-­‐waste   recycling   program,   which   severely   constrains  its  ability  to  address  domestic  e-­‐waste  issues.   1.    Failure  to  Find  a  Federal  Solution   Despite  considering  e-­‐waste  for  more  than  a  decade,  Congress  has   failed  to  develop  a  serious  proposal  for  a  federal  e-­‐waste  disposal  or   recycling  program.37    The  most  notable  effort  to  develop  a  federal  e-­‐ waste   framework   was   led   by   the   National   Electronics   Product   Stewardship  Initiative,  beginning  in  December  2000.38    The  Initiative   attempted   to   establish   a   uniform   list   of   covered   products   and   a   federal   financing   system   to   encourage   the   creation   of   a   federal   e-­‐ waste   program.39     The   negotiations,   however,   concluded   in   2004   with  no  agreement  as  to  a  financing  source.40   Congress’s   failure   to   produce   a   solution   in   the   face   of   the   continually   increasing   volume   of   discarded   e-­‐waste   has   created   a   vacuum  of  national  regulation,  leaving  the  states  to  act  separately  in   the   absence   of   a   federal   policy.41     Despite   manufacturers’   strong     37. Federal   Legislation   and   Policy   on   E-­‐Waste,   ELECS.   TAKEBACK   COAL.,   http://   www.electronicstakeback.com/promote-­‐good-­‐laws/federal-­‐legislation/   (last   visited   April   20,   2012)   (listing   current   federal   proposals   to   prevent   international   dumping   of   e-­‐waste,   and   noting  that  “[t]here  is  currently  no  federal   legislation  pending  to  establish  a  federal  takeback   program.”).     Due   to   the   lack   of   consensus   on   a   financing   mechanism,   no   serious   push   for   federal  legislation  has  occurred.    See  infra  text  accompanying  notes  38–46.   38. National  Electronics  Product  Stewardship   Initiative,  PRODUCT  STEWARDSHIP   INST.,  http://   www.productstewardship.us/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=71   (last   visited   Apr.   20,  2012).   39. OFFICE   OF   TECH.   POLICY,   supra  note   6,   at   7–8.     From   2001   through   2004,   the  working   group  attempted  to  agree  on  a  framework  for  a  federal  solution  to  e-­‐waste  recycling.    PRODUCT   STEWARDSHIP  INST.,  supra  note  38.   40. LUTHER,   ANALYSIS   OF   STATE   E-­‐WASTE   LEGISLATION,   supra   note   2,   at   5   (describing   the   impasse   as   “divid[ing]   the   group   into   two   camps—those  who   believed   that   a   collection   and   recycling   program   should   be   financed   through   a   consumer-­‐paid   advance   recycling   fee   (ARF)  .  .  .  and  those  who  advocated  a  ‘producer  pays’  model  wherein  electronics  manufacturers   either  took  back  their  own  e-­‐waste  and  recycled  it  or  paid  for  a  system  that  would.”);  see  also   GAO,   ELECTRONIC  WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   4   (noting   that   a   uniform   recycling   system  for  televisions  also  provided  an  area  of  disagreement  within  the  group).   41. Linnell,  supra  note  12  (discussing  state  coordination  efforts  in  the  absence  of  a  guiding   federal  policy).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   109   preference  for  a  uniform  solution  instead  of  a  patchwork  of  differing   state  policies,42  no  effort  to  implement  a  nationwide  e-­‐waste  disposal   policy   has   been   successful.43     Although   the   problem  of   e-­‐waste   has   received   increasing   Congressional   attention   over   the   past   decade44   and  the  Obama  administration  has  acknowledged  the  urgency  of  the   issue,45   the  ongoing   lack  of   consensus  among  national   stakeholders   regarding  a  financing  mechanism  has  so  far  prevented  the  adoption   of  a  federal  e-­‐waste  recycling  policy.46   2.    Limits  on  the  EPA’s  Ability  to  Address  Domestic  E-­‐Waste   The   EPA   lacks   statutory   authority   to   develop   comprehensive   regulations  for  domestic  e-­‐waste  disposal.47    Therefore,  although  the     42. See   Jennifer   Bemisderfer,   What   Does   the   Public   Think   About   e-­‐Waste   Recycling?,   CONSUMER  ELECS.  ASS’N  (Nov.  23,  2009),  http://blog.ce.org/index.php/2009/11/23/what-­‐does-­‐ the-­‐public-­‐think-­‐about-­‐e-­‐waste-­‐recycling/  (“To  maximize  efficiency  and  ensure  a  level  playing   field   for  businesses,  CEA  and   its  members  believe  a   federal   framework  would  be  superior   to   the   current   patchwork   of   policies.”);   E-­‐Waste,   U.S.   CHAMBER   OF   COMMERCE,   http://   www.uschamber.com/issues/technology/e-­‐waste  (last  visited  Apr.  20,  2012)  (stating  that  the   Chamber’s   objective   is   to   “[d]evelop   an   industry   consensus   on   the   creation   of   a   uniform   national  approach  to  the  management  of  E-­‐waste”).   43. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  4.   44. See  Press  Release,  Office  of  Congressman  Mike  Thompson,  Lawmakers  Form  Bipartisan   Congressional   E-­‐Waste   Working   Group   (May   24,   2005),   available   at   http://mikethompson.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=206315   (“The   working   group   will   explore   possible   solutions   to   the   nation’s   growing   electronic   waste   problem  .  .  .  .”).    However,  recent  proposals  focus  on  addressing  aspects  of  the  e-­‐waste  problem   without  implementing  a  federal  recycling  program.    See  Responsible  Electronics  Recycling  Act,   H.R.   2284,   112th   Cong.   (2011)   (bipartisan   bill   to   prevent   overseas   dumping   of   e-­‐waste);   Electronic   Device   Recycling   Research   and   Development   Act,   H.R.   1580,   111th   Cong.   (2009)   (aiming  to  fund  research  and  development  efforts  to  improve  recycling  of  e-­‐waste  and  move  to   more  environmentally  friendly  product  design).   45. The  Obama  administration   released  a   “National  Strategy   for  Electronics  Stewardship”   in  July  2011,  which  the  administration  described  as  “a  strategy  for  the  responsible  electronic   design,  purchasing,  management  and  recycling  .  .  .  includ[ing]  the  first  voluntary  commitments   made   by   Dell,   Sprint   and   Sony   to   EPA’s   industry   partnership   aimed   at   promoting   environmentally  sound  management  of  used  electronics.”    Press  Release,  Envtl.  Prot.  Agency,   Obama  Administration  Officials  and  Industry  Leaders  Unveil  Federal  Strategy  to  Promote  U.S.-­‐ Based   Electronics   Recycling   Market   and   Jobs   (July   20,   2011),   available   at   http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/030075a ab3c88984852578d300566b3b!OpenDocument.     This   program   focused   on   implementing   voluntary   partnerships   with   manufacturers   to   develop   more   efficient   and   sustainable   electronic   products,   changing   procurement   of   electronic   products   at   federal   agencies,   and   developing  recycling  options  for  consumers.    Id.   46. GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   4   (describing   hurdles   preventing  previous  agreement).   47. Wastes—Resource  Conservation—Common  Wastes  &  Materials—e-­‐Cycling,  ENVTL.  PROT.   AGENCY,   http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/rules.htm   (last   visited   Apr.   20,   2012)   (“At   present,   there   is   no   Federal  mandate   to   recycle   e-­‐waste.”);   see  LUTHER,   supra     110   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   EPA  increasingly  views  e-­‐waste  as  an  important  issue,48  the  agency’s   regulatory   efforts   primarily   address   the   international   aspects   of   hazardous   material   disposal   associated   with   e-­‐waste,   including   establishing  export  controls  and  addressing  the  safe  disposal  of  toxic   e-­‐waste  components  on  the  international  market.49    The  EPA’s  ability   to  regulate  e-­‐waste  is  limited  to  cathode  ray  tubes  (CRTs),50  listed  as   potentially   toxic   devices   under   the   Resource   Conservation   and   Recovery   Act   (RCRA),   and   thus   the   agency’s   primary   focus   in   the   context   of   e-­‐waste   has   been   regulating   the   disposal   and   export   of   CRTs.51     EPA’s   rulemaking   regarding   CRTs   includes   both   domestic   regulations   and   a   requirement   that   recyclers   provide  notice   before   exporting   CRTs.     The   exporting   notice   is   forwarded   to   the   destination   country   and   includes   the   amount   transported   and   the   foreign  recycler.52   EPA’s   general   lack  of   regulatory   authority  over   e-­‐waste   recycling   limits   its   capacity   to   address   domestic   e-­‐waste.53     Over   the   past   decade,   the  EPA  has  established  a   limited  number  of  domestic   trial   programs   to   promote   environmentally   sound   e-­‐waste   disposal,   but   these   programs   have   failed   to   produce   a   measurable   decrease   in   landfill   disposal.54     Starting   in   2003,   one   such   program   began     note  9,  at  6–7  (discussing  exclusion  of  consumer  e-­‐waste  from  EPA  authority  under  RCRA).   48. Lisa   P.   Jackson,   The   U.S.   Environmental   Protection   Agency’s   International   Priorities,   ENVTL.   PROT.,   AGENCY,   http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/08/17/the-­‐us-­‐environmental-­‐ protection-­‐agency%E2%80%99s-­‐international-­‐priorities/   (last   updated   May   14,   2012)   (including  “Cleaning  Up  E-­‐Waste”  on  a  list  of  EPA’s  six  international  priorities).   49. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  8–10.   50. A  cathode  ray  tube  (CRT)  is  the  glass  video  display  component  of  an  electronic  device   (usually  a  computer  or  television  monitor).   51. Hazardous  Waste  Management  System;  Modification  of  the  Hazardous  Waste  Program;   Cathode   Ray   Tubes   and   Mercury-­‐Containing   Equipment,   67   Fed.   Reg.   40,508,   40,510   (proposed   June  12,  2002)   (to  be   codified  at  40  C.F.R.  pts.  260,  261,  264,  268,  270,  273);   see   GAO,   EPA  NEEDS   TO  BETTER  CONTROL  HARMFUL  U.S.   EXPORTS,   supra  note   9,   at   2   (“CRTs   contain   copper—a  commodity   in  high  demand,   in  part  because  its  price  has   increased  threefold  over   the   last   several   years—but   also   4   pounds   of   lead,   a   toxin   that   can   delay   neurological   development.    Accordingly,  used  CRTs  are   the  only  electronic  device   regulated  as  hazardous   waste  and  whose  export  is  specifically  controlled  by  EPA.”).   52. 40  C.F.R.  §  261  (2011);  see  LUTHER,  supra  note  9,  at  8–9.   53. See   ENVTL.   PROT.   AGENCY,   supra   note   47   (“At   present,   there   is   no   Federal  mandate   to   recycle  e-­‐waste.”).    However,  the  Obama  administration  established  an  Interagency  Taskforce   on   Electronics   Stewardship,   which   provided   a   report   on   ways   that   the   federal   government   could  take  voluntary  action  on  e-­‐waste  in  the  absence  of  a  federal  mandate.    INTERAGENCY  TASK   FORCE   ON   ELECS.   STEWARDSHIP,   NATIONAL   STRATEGY   FOR   ELECTRONICS   STEWARDSHIP   7   (2011),   available   at   http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/taskforce/   docs/strategy.pdf.   54. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note  3,   at  11–14   (concluding   that   “the   impact   of   [EPA   partnership   programs]   on   the  management   of   used   electronics   is   limited   or     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   111   working   with   manufacturers,   retailers,   and   service   providers   to   ensure   that   refurbishers   or   recyclers   follow   EPA   guidelines   to   protect   human   health   and   the   environment.55     Another   program,   established  in  2009,  attempts  to  certify  recyclers  who  adhere  to  best   practices   promoted   by   the   EPA,   which   provides   a   public   relations   benefit  for  recyclers  who  go  beyond  legally  required  practices.56   One   area   of   success   for   the   EPA   has   been   the   implementation   of   programs   for   environmentally   responsible   procurement   and   disposal  within  federal  agencies.57    Through  these  programs,  the  EPA   has   focused   on   encouraging   environmentally   sound   recycling   practices  for  electronics.58    Unfortunately,  EPA  programs  have  done   little  to  increase  the  total  volume  of  recycled  e-­‐waste,  as  the  reach  of   these   EPA   programs   does   not   extend   beyond   the   federal   government.59     The   task   of   increasing   domestic   recycling   rates   for   consumer  electronic  products,  therefore,  remains  with  the  states.   B.    Differing  State  Approaches  to  the  Producer  Responsibility  Model   Successful   e-­‐waste   recycling   must   accommodate   and   incentivize   decisions   by   disparate   actors   in   the   life-­‐cycle   of   an   electronic   product.     Manufacturers,   as   the   original   creators,   decide   during   production   whether   to   use   potentially   toxic   materials.60     Retailers   pass   these   products   along   to   consumers,   who   face   the   decision   of   how   to   dispose   of   obsolete   or   unwanted   electronics.61     Effective   recycling  policies  must   address   each  actor,   and   incentivize   them   to   make  environmentally  responsible  choices.62     uncertain.”).   55. Id.   at   11–12;   see   Plug-­‐In   To   e-­‐Cycling   Partners,   ENVTL.   PROT.   AGENCY,   http://epa.gov/   epawaste/partnerships/plugin/partners.htm  (last  visited  Apr.  20,  2012).   56. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  11  (discussing  the  Responsible   Recycling  (R2)  program).   57. Id.  at  12–14  (reporting  that  the  EPA’s  Federal  Electronics  Challenge  program  achieved   eighty-­‐three   percent   reuse   or   recycling   of   obsolete   electronics,   but   also   identifying   opportunities   for   higher   participation);   see   Home,   FED.   ELECS.   CHALLENGE,   http://   www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/  (last  visited  Feb.  29,  2012).   58. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  11–14.   59. Id.   at   8   (noting   that   the   impact   of   these   EPA   programs   on   the   management   of   used   electronics  is  “limited  or  uncertain”).   60. See  LUTHER,  ANALYSIS  OF  STATE  E-­‐WASTE  LEGISLATION,  supra  note  2,  at  9.   61. See  Deepali  Sinha  Khetriwal  et  al.,  Producer  Responsibility  for  E-­‐waste  Management:    Key   Issues   for  Consideration—Learning   from  the  Swiss  Experience,  90   J.  ENVTL.  MGMT.  153,  162–63   (2007).   62. Id.   (noting   the   Swiss   approach—a   collective   system   that   does   not   distinguish   by   manufacturer—enhanced  consumer  convenience  by  allowing  centralized  drop-­‐off  of  different   types  of  electronics,  compared  to  separation  by  manufacturing  brand  or  type  of  waste).     112   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   Two   different   e-­‐waste   systems   have   been   implemented   in   the   United   States,   and   each   addresses   the   divide   between   actors   in   differing  ways—the   Producer   Responsibility   System   (PRS)   and   the   Advanced  Recovery   Fee   System   (ARF).63     The   PRS   approach   places   responsibility   for   recycling   and   disposal   costs   on   manufacturers,   while   the   ARF   approach   charges   consumers   a   recycling   fee   at   the   point  of  sale.64    All  but  one  state  e-­‐waste  program  implements  a  form   of   a   PRS;   California   is   the   only   state   that   has   adopted   an   ARF   system.65    New  York  continued  this  trend  with  the  adoption  of  a  PRS   program   that   requires  manufacturers   to   implement   and   finance   e-­‐ waste  disposal  systems.66   C.    EERRA:    The  New  York  Approach   New  York’s  EERRA  has   received  praise   as   “the  most  progressive,   best   researched   e-­‐waste   bill   in   the   country.”67     Environmental   groups   commend   the   law’s   strong   statewide   recycling   target,   its   shifting   of   recycling   costs   to   producers,   and   its   inclusion   of   incentives   to   reduce   the   use   of   toxic   materials   in   consumer   electronics   product   design.68     Although   EERRA   places   the   primary   financing   burden   on   manufacturers,   criticism   from   the   electronics   industry  has  remained  subdued  because  manufacturers  view  EERRA   as  an  improvement  on  New  York  City’s  previous  effort  to  regulate  e-­‐ waste.69     That   approach   could   have   required   manufacturers   to   provide   door-­‐to-­‐door   pick-­‐up   of   obsolete   electronics70—a   standard     63. Id.   64. Id.  at  159.   65. CAL.   HEALTH   &   SAFETY   CODE   §   42464(a)   (West   2006)   (providing   for   collection   of   consumer  fee);  see  GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  6;  see  also  ELECS.   TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  11  (stating  that  “all  the  states  (except  California)  use  the  producer   responsibility  approach.”).   66. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2605  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   67. Heimbuch,  supra  note  22  (quoting  Kate  Sinding,  Natural  Resources  Defense  Council).   68. See  id.   69. See  Meline  MacCurdy,  Electronics  Manufacturers  Challenge  New  York  City  E-­‐Waste  Law,   MARTEN   LAW   (Aug.   12,   2009),   http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20090812-­‐nyc-­‐e-­‐ waste-­‐law-­‐challenged   (noting   the   CEA   “allege[d]   that   the   program   is   the   most   onerous,   draconian,  and  expensive  e-­‐waste  program  in  the  United  States,  will  cost  manufacturers  over   $200  million  per  year,  and  that,  on  a  per  pound  basis,  the  cost  of  the  direct  collection  alone  will   be   ‘ten   times  more  expensive   than   the   total  cost  of  collection  and  recycling  of  other  E-­‐waste   programs  in  California  and  Maine’”).   70. See  Complaint  ¶  73,  Consumer  Elecs.  Ass’n  v.  City  of  New  York,  No.  9-­‐6583  (S.D.N.Y.  July   24,  2009),  2009  WL  2251862  ¶  73;  Jaymi  Heimbuch,  Electronics  Associations  File  Suit  Against   NYC   Over   Door-­‐to-­‐Door   e-­‐Waste   Collection   Law,   TREEHUGGER   (July   28,   2009),   http://www.treehugger.com/clean-­‐technology/electronics-­‐associations-­‐file-­‐suit-­‐against-­‐nyc-­‐   2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   113   that  had  never  before  been  imposed  on  manufacturers.  71   EERRA   offers   the   most   complete   approach   to   electronic   waste   recycling   to   date,   covering   a   large   range   of   products,   creating   a   uniform   system   for   product   disposal,   and   establishing   stronger   targets   for   enforcement.72     Two   policies   demonstrate   the   comprehensive  nature  of  EERRA.    First,  the  statute’s  broad  definition   of  “e-­‐waste”  creates  a  large  scope  of  materials  subject  to  regulation.     Second,   the   statute   regulates   a  wide   variety   of   parties  by   imposing   responsibilities   on   each   participant   in   the   e-­‐waste   lifecycle.     These   policies  will  be  discussed  in  turn.   1.    Covered  Products:    What  Is  “E-­‐Waste”?   Without   federal   regulations   to   specify   which   products   comprise   the  flow  of  e-­‐waste,  states  have  taken  varied  approaches  to  defining   e-­‐waste.73     EERRA   expands   on   the   definitions   in   prior   statutes   and   brings   a   broad   list   of   consumer   electronic   products   within   the   definition   of   e-­‐waste.     The   legislation   specifically   includes   computers,   televisions,   small   servers,   computer   peripherals   (monitors,   electronic   keyboards,   electronic   mice,   faxes,   scanners,   and  printers),  and  small  electronic  equipment  (VCRs,  DVRs,  portable   digital  music  players,  DVD  players,  digital  converter  boxes,  cable  or   satellite   receivers,   and   video   game   consoles).74     These   products   become   covered   electronic   waste   when   “discarded   or   no   longer   wanted”   by   their   owner,   or   upon   entering   “the   waste   collection,   recovery,  treatment,  processing,  or  recycling  system.”75     EERRA   focuses   on   medium-­‐size   consumer   electronics,   including     over-­‐door-­‐to-­‐door-­‐e-­‐waste-­‐collection-­‐law.html   (“The   reason   New   York   City’s   plan   is   more   controversial,   sparking   litigation   from   CEA   and   ITIC,   is   because   in   addition   to   asking   manufacturers  to  pay  recycling  costs,  the  city  will  require  companies  to  provide  free,  door-­‐to-­‐ door  pickup  of  e-­‐waste.”).   71. While   some   states   do   provide   direct   collection,   these   programs   are   generally   coordinated   by   the   state   as   part   of   the   municipal   waste   infrastructure.     See   NW.   PROD.   STEWARDSHIP  COUNCIL,  PRELIMINARY  ANALYSIS  OF  E-­‐CYCLE  PROGRAMS  IN  WASHINGTON  AND  OREGON  8– 9   (2010),   available   at   http://www.productstewardship.net/PDFs/productsElectronicsEcycleWAORReport.pdf.   72. See  Richard  L.  Santalesa,  New  York’s  Electronic  Equipment  Recycling  and  Reuse  Act,  INFO.   LAW   GRP.   (Sept.   1,   2010),   http://www.infolawgroup.com/2010/09/articles/data-­‐ destruction/new-­‐yorks-­‐electronic-­‐equipment-­‐recycling-­‐and-­‐reuse-­‐act/.   73. LUTHER,   ANALYSIS   OF   STATE   E-­‐WASTE   LEGISLATION,   supra   note   2,   at   1   (“There   is   no   universally   accepted   definition   of   e-­‐waste,   but   it   generally   refers   to   obsolete,   broken,   or   irreparable  electronic  equipment  .  .  .  .”).   74. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2601(3),  (5)  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   75. Id.  §  27-­‐2601(6).     114   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   televisions,   computers,   and   a   wide   range   of   related   devices.76       Business   devices  with   small   electronic   components   fall   outside   the   statute,  so  consumers  need  not  recycle  devices  such  as  calculators  or   typewriters   to   comply.77     To   ensure   that   the   primary   regulatory   focus   remains  on   the   toxic  effects  of  e-­‐waste,  products   that   contain   minor  electronic  components  but  that  are  not  typically  considered  to   be  electronic  devices  are  exempt  from  mandatory  recycling,78  along   with  non-­‐electronic  component  parts  such  as  plastic  casing.79   2.    Covered  Parties:    Who  Is  Affected,  and  What  Are  Their   Responsibilities?   Parties   throughout   the   supply   chain,   including   manufacturers,   retailers,   recyclers,   and   consumers,   are   each   assigned   varying   responsibilities   for   recycling   covered   products.     By   placing   responsibilities   on   many   parties   and   providing   meaningful   mechanisms  for  enforcement,  EERRA  expands  upon  previous  laws.   a.    Manufacturers   Covered   manufacturers   face   many   e-­‐waste   recycling   responsibilities   under  EERRA;   thus,   the  breadth  of   the  definition   is   important.    A  manufacturer  is  defined  as  a  person  or  entity  who:     (a)  assembles  or  substantially  assembles  covered  electronic  equipment   for   sale   in   the   state;   (b)  manufactures   covered   electronic   equipment   under  its  own  brand  name  or  under  any  other  brand  name  for  sale  in   the   state;   (c)   sells,   under   its   own   brand   name,   covered   electronic   equipment  sold  in  the  state;  (d)  owns  a  brand  name  that  it  licenses  to   another   person   for   use   on   covered   electronic   equipment   sold   in   the   state;  (e)  imports  covered  electronic  equipment  for  sale  in  the  state;  or   (f)   manufactures   covered   electronic   equipment   for   sale   in   the   state   without  affixing  a  brand  name.80     Small-­‐scale  producers  that  assemble  fewer  than  one  thousand  units   of  covered  electronic  equipment  are  not  classified  as  manufacturers   for  the  purposes  of  the  statute.81    Thus,  the  statute  focuses  on  large     76. Id.  §  27-­‐2601(5).   77. Id.  §  27-­‐2601(2).   78. Id.  §  27-­‐2601(5).    These  products   include  security  systems,  medical  devices,  and  cash   registers.    Id.   79. Id.  §  27-­‐2601(6).   80. Id.  §  27-­‐2601(11).   81. Id.     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   115   manufacturers   rather   than   small   businesses.     Those   who   sell   equipment   made   primarily   of   rebuilt,   refurbished,   or   used   components   are   also   exempt   from   the   definition,   because   they   further  EERRA’s  aim  to  recycle  and  reuse  component  parts.82   When  multiple   parties   are   involved   in  manufacturing   equipment   covered   by   the   statute,   any   one   of   the   parties   may   assume   the   responsibilities  of  a  manufacturer  under  EERRA.83    As  an  incentive  to   induce  intra-­‐industry  planning  and  cooperation,  when  parties  fail  to   determine  who  assumes  the  duties  of  a  manufacturer,  all  parties  will   be   deemed   jointly   and   severally   responsible.84     Manufacturers   of   products   without   a   brand   name   also   do   not   escape   responsibility;   rather,   these   so-­‐called   “white-­‐box   manufacturers”   receive   manufacturer   classification   and   face   additional   requirements,   including  that  products  for  sale  in  the  New  York  market  come  with  a   label  clearly  identifying  the  manufacturer.85   EERRA   shifts   the   costs   of   e-­‐waste   collection,   handling,   and   environmentally-­‐safe  recycling  to  those  covered  under  the  statutory   definition   of   a   manufacturer.86     The   statute   couples   mandatory   compliance  with  economic  incentives.    Manufacturers  must  establish   collection  systems  and  meet  specified  e-­‐waste  recycling  targets  each   year.87     Manufacturers—or   their   delegated   recycler—may   recoup   some   costs   by   recovering   reusable   component   materials   with   intrinsic   value,   such   as   precious  metals.88     However,   it   is   generally   understood   that   the   recoverable   value   of   these   components   is   not   sufficient   to  offset   the  costs  of  establishing  and  running  a   recycling   program.89   Manufacturers  have   flexibility   to  establish   their  own  methods   for     82. Id.   83. Id.   84. Id.   85. Id.   (including   those  who   “manufacture[]   covered   electronic   equipment   for   sale   in   the   state   without   affixing   a   brand   name”   in   the   manufacturer   definition);   id.   §   27-­‐2609   (establishing  labeling  requirement).   86. Id.   §   27-­‐2605(4)–(5)   (establishing   manufacturer   responsibilities);   id.   §   27-­‐2601(11)   (defining  “manufacturers”).   87. Id.  §  27-­‐2603(1)–(4).   88. See  Khetriwal   et   al.,   supra   note   61,   at   153   (discussing   how   a   study   determined   that   precious  metals  can  be  recovered  from  e-­‐waste  at  a  high  rate).   89. See   id.   (acknowledging   that   the   “intrinsic   recoverable   value”   of   e-­‐waste   may   not   be   enough   to  meet   costs   of   a   recycling  program);  GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    OBSERVATIONS,   supra   note   33,   at   10–11   (listing   reasons   why   electronics   recycling   is   cost-­‐intensive   and   generally   loses  money).     116   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   collecting   e-­‐waste,   subject   to   some   requirements.90     Collection   methods  must  meet   a   “convenience”   requirement   to   ensure   that   e-­‐ waste  collection  remains  accessible  to  consumers.91    Specifically,  the   convenience  standard  requires  manufacturers  to  establish  collection   points   within   each   county   and   each   municipality   with   at   least   ten   thousand  people.92    Manufacturers  can  choose  to  work  with  existing   programs   or   to   join   other   manufacturers   to   create   shared   programs.93    This  approach  provides  flexibility  for  manufacturers  by   encouraging   them   to   streamline   collection   points   and   collaborate   with  other  entities  to  create  more  efficient  programs.   Under  New  York’s  PRS  model,  a  manufacturer  pays  for  the  costs  of   collection,   transportation,   and   recycling   according   to   its   statewide   market   share.94     EERRA   establishes   statewide   recycling   goals   and   assigns   individual   targets   based   on   each   manufacturer’s   market   share.95    Manufacturer   targets  began   in  April  2011  with   the  goal  of   recycling   three   pounds   of   covered   electronics   per   person.96     State   goals  increase  by  one  pound  per  capita  in  2012  and  2013,  eventually   reaching   five  pounds  per   capita   in  2013.97     In  2014  and   thereafter,   statewide  goals  will  be  recalculated  based  on  program  experience,98   using   manufacturer   percentages   based   on   the   weight   of   products   sold   in   previous   years.99     Additionally,   as   of   April   2011,   a   manufacturer   is   required   to   accept   and   recycle   one   obsolete   unit   when  a  consumer  purchases  a  new  unit  of  a  similar  type  and  chooses   to   recycle  an  older  one.100    For  example,   if   a   consumer  purchases  a   new   computer   and   wants   to   recycle   an   older   computer,   the   manufacturer  must  accept  and  recycle  the  old  computer,  regardless     90. N.Y.   ENVTL.   CONSERV.   LAW   §   27-­‐2605(5)   (McKinney   Supp.   2012)   (some   requirements   include:     collecting   e-­‐waste   in   a  manner   convenient   to   consumers,   providing   information   to   consumers  about  destroying  data  stored  in  e-­‐waste,  a  public  education  program,  and  any  other   information  required  by  the  department).   91. Id.   92. Id.   (requiring  manufacturers   to   ensure   that   all   counties   and   all  municipalities  with   a   population  of  ten  thousand  or  greater  “have  at  least  one  method  of  acceptance  that  is  available   within  such  county  or  municipality”).   93. Id.  §  27-­‐2605(7).   94. Id.  §  27-­‐2603(1),  (4)  (establishing  calculations  for  market  share  formula).   95. Id.   96. Id.   §   27-­‐2603(3)(a).     Since   the   targets   went   into   effect   in   April,   the   yearly   goal   calculation  was  multiplied  by  three-­‐quarters  for  2011.   97. Id.  §  27-­‐2603(3)(b)–(c).   98. Id.  §  27-­‐2603(3)(d).   99. Id.   100. Id.  §  27-­‐2603(1)(b).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   117   of   who   manufactured   the   discarded   product.101     This   mandate   creates   a   built-­‐in   stream   for   collecting   used   products   that   might   otherwise   be   discarded.     The   requirement   also   addresses   the   problem  of  orphan  waste—products  from  now-­‐defunct  companies— by  ensuring   that   that   there   is   one  method   for   all   products   to   enter   the  recycling  stream.102   Manufacturer  targets  are  enforced  by  the  New  York  Department  of   Environmental   Conservation   (NYDEC),   which   imposes   scaled   fines   on  manufacturers  who  fail   to  meet  their  assigned  targets.103    Scaled   fines,   as   opposed   to   a   fixed   fine   for   all   violations,   are  based  on   the   percentage  of  the  yearly  target  a  given  manufacturer  meets.104    This   provides  an   incentive   for  manufacturers   to  collect  as  much  e-­‐waste   as   possible.     Manufacturers   can   avoid   fines   through   the   use   of   “recycling   credits,”   which   are   awarded   to   producers   that   exceed   their  yearly  recycling  target.105    The  credits  provide  a  way  to  recoup   some  costs  of  recycling,  because  manufacturers  can  save  credits   for   use   toward   meeting   subsequent   recycling   targets   or   can   sell   the   credits   to   other   manufacturers   that   failed   to   meet   their   own   recycling  goals.106   b.    Retailers   EERRA   defines   regulated   “retailers”   as   parties   who   sell   covered   equipment   to   any   person  within   the   state   by   any  means,   including   online   sales.107     This   definition   includes   manufacturer-­‐refurbished   products  that  are  resold  to  consumers.108    A  retailer  who  sells  fewer     101. Id.   102. See  infra  notes  262–268  and  accompanying  text  for  a  discussion  of  orphan  waste.   103. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2603(5)  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   104. Id.  (establishing  fines  of  thirty  cents  per  each  additional  pound  that  should  have  been   collected  if  a  manufacturer  collects  over  ninety  percent  of  the  established  manufacturer  target,   forty  cents  per  additional  pound  that  should  have  been  collected  if   the  manufacturer  collects   over   fifty   percent   of   the  manufacturer   target,   and   fifty   cents   per   each   additional   pound   that   should   have   been   collected   for   manufacturers   who   collect   less   than   fifty   percent   of   their   manufacturer  target).   105. Id.   §   27-­‐2603(7)   (allowing   up   to   twenty-­‐five   percent   of   a   yearly   target   to   be   met   through  credits  received  in  a  previous  year).   106. Id.  (noting  that  credits  may  only  be  “banked”  for  three  calendar  years  succeeding  the   year  in  which  the  credit  is  earned).   107. Id.   §   27-­‐2601(16)   (defining   a   retailer   as   “a   person   who   sells   covered   electronic   equipment   to   a   person   in   the   state   through   any   means,   including,   but   not   limited   to,   transactions   conducted   through   retail   sales   outlets,   mail,   catalogs,   the   telephone   or   the   internet,  or  any  electronic  means.     ‘Retailer’  does  not  include  a  person  who  sells  or  offers  for   sale  fewer  than  ten  items  of  covered  electronic  equipment  during  a  calendar  year.”).   108. Id.   §   27-­‐2601(16)–(18)   (limiting   “retailer”   to   those   who   “sell[]”   covered   electronic     118   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   than  ten  covered  items  per  year  is  exempt  from  the  statute.109   EERRA,   however,   excludes   certain   transactions   from   the   sale   requirement   that   fall   outside   the   standard   purchase   of   a   new   product,  including  the  purchase  of  used  electronic  equipment110  and   the  leasing  of  equipment.111    Transactions  other  than  those  between   retailers   and   consumers   are   also   excluded,   including   wholesale   transactions   between   two   retailers   and   second-­‐hand   transfers   between  two  consumers.112   After   implementation   of   the   recycling   programs,   additional   regulations   will   apply   to   retailers.113     EERRA   prohibits   New   York   retailers   from   selling   any   covered   electronic   equipment   unless   the   equipment  manufacturer  registers  with  NYDEC.114    This  prohibition   provides  a  check  on  manufacturer  compliance  because  those  that  fail   to   register   and   cooperate   with   recycling   programs   face   expulsion   from   the   state   market.     Additionally,   retailers   must   provide   information   to   consumers   about   end-­‐of-­‐product-­‐life   recycling   options   when   a   covered   product   is   purchased.115     Consumer   education  on  proper  disposal  of  electronic  devices  thus  begins  at  the   point   of   sale,   which   increases   the   information   flow   so   that   consumers   are   aware   of   future   disposal   options   and   can   make   informed  choices  about  disposal.   c.    Consumers   Consumers,   long   left   out   of   PRS   models,   are   also   drawn   into   EERRA’s  regulatory  scheme.    The  statutory  definition  of  “consumer”     equipment  and  defining  “[s]ell”  or  “sale”  to  include  the  “transfer  of  .  .  .  used  products  that  may   have  been  refurbished  by  their  manufacturer  or  retailer”).   109. Id.  §  27-­‐2601(16).   110. Id.  §  27-­‐2601(18)  (defining  “sell”  or  “sale”).   111. Id.   112. Id.     However,   retailers  may   be   considered   both  manufacturers   and   retailers   if   they   meet   both   definitions.     See   GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   17   (including  Best  Buy  as  an  example  of  a  manufacturer  and  retailer);  see  also  N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.   LAW   §   27-­‐2601(11)   (McKinney   Supp.   2012)   (“‘Manufacturer’   does   not   mean   a   person   who   assembles   or   substantially   assembles,   and   sells   less   than   one   thousand   units   of   covered   electronic  equipment  annually  in  this  state,  or  whose  primary  business  is  the  sale  of  covered   electronic   equipment   which   is   comprised   primarily   of   rebuilt,   refurbished   or   used   components.”).     Additionally,   “‘[s]ell’   or   ‘sale’  .  .  .   does   not   include   consumer-­‐to-­‐consumer   second-­‐hand  transfer.”    Id.  §  27-­‐2601(18).   113. Id.  §  27-­‐2607(2).   114. Id.   115. Id.     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   119   covers   all   parties,   except   wholesale   distributors   and   retailers.116     Schools  and  small  businesses  are  also  excluded  from  the  definition  of   consumer.117   The   consumer   approach   couples   an   information   campaign   with   penalties   for   those   who   fail   to   utilize   the   electronics   recycling   programs.    In  2015,  three  years  after  implementation  of  the  required   recycling  programs,  the  consumer  disposal  ban  will  become  effective   and   consumers   may   be   fined   for   improper   disposal   of   covered   electronics.118    Prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  consumer  disposal  ban,   both   retailers   and   manufacturers   will   be   required   to   educate   consumers   on   e-­‐waste   recycling   procedures.119     This   educational   mandate   makes   information   available   to   consumers   at   several   phases   in   the   life   of   electronic   equipment,   from   the   point   of   sale   onward.   d.    Recyclers   The  collection  and  processing  stages  are  each  covered  by  EERRA’s   recycling   mandates.120     Collection   sites   include   public   or   private   facilities  designed  to  collect  electronics  for  recycling.121    Retail  stores   and   other   outlets   that   accept   electronic   waste   for   recycling   also   qualify,  including  not-­‐for-­‐profit  donation  sites  that  accept  electronic   waste.122     EERRA   thus   addresses   each   level   of   the   recycling   supply   chain.123   To   reduce   the   total   amount  of   toxic  e-­‐waste  disposed   in   landfills,   waste  collection  and  recycling  facilities  must  notify  consumers  of  the   prohibition   on   landfill   disposal   and   inform   consumers   of   proper     116. Id.   §   27-­‐2601(4)   (defining   consumer   as   “a   person   located   in   the   state  who   owns   or   uses   covered   electronic   equipment,   including   but   not   limited   to   an   individual,   a   business,   corporation,   limited   partnership,   not-­‐for-­‐profit   corporation,   the   state,   a   public   corporation,   public  school,  school  district,  private  or  parochial  school  or  board  of  cooperative  educational   services   or   governmental   entity,   but   does   not   include   an   entity   involved   in   a   wholesale   transaction  between  a  distributor  and  retailer”).   117. Id.   §   27-­‐2605(8)   (excluding   “large   businesses,”   defined   as   for-­‐profit   organizations   employing   fifty   or  more   employees   or   non-­‐profit   organizations   employing   over   seventy-­‐five   employees,  except  those  designated  as  a  501(c)(3)  by  the  IRS,  thus  allowing  manufacturers  to   charge  business  consumers  for  collection  and  recycling).   118. Id.   §§   27-­‐2611(3),   27-­‐2729(1)(a)   (banning   individual   disposal   and   establishing   consumer  fines  for  illegal  dumping  of  $100  per  incident).   119. Id.  §  27-­‐2607(2)  (retailer  requirement);  id.  §  27-­‐2605(c)  (manufacturer  requirement).   120. See  id.  §  27-­‐2601(7)–(9).   121. Id.  §  27-­‐2601(7).   122. Id.   123. See  id.  §  27-­‐2601.     120   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   disposal   procedures.124     Recovery   and   reuse   of   metals   from   discarded   electronic   products   is   encouraged,   and   the   recycling   method   is   specified   to   ensure   safe   handling   and   disposal   of   non-­‐ reusable  toxic  elements.125   3.    State  Enforcement  Role   NYDEC   regulates   all   parties   governed   under   EERRA,   collecting   data   to   establish   manufacturer   recycling   targets,126   regulating   the   types   of   e-­‐waste   allowed   in   landfills,127   and   enforcing   the   state   prohibition  on  disposal  of  covered  electronic  equipment  as  ordinary   solid  waste   through  the   imposition  of   fines.128    Manufacturers  must   also   disclose   to   NYDEC   any   products   sold   in   New   York   failing   to   comply   with   the   Restriction   of   Hazardous   Substances   (RoHS)   Directive,  an  international  accord  defining  toxic  products.129    All  fees   collected   by   NYDEC   are   appropriated   to   the   New   York   Environmental   Protection   Fund,   including   fees   recovered   from   manufacturers  that  fail  to  meet  recycling  targets,  fees  from  recyclers   for   improper   recycling   practices   at   the   point   of   disposal,   and   fees   from   individual   consumers   for   improper   dumping.130     Through   comprehensive  coverage,  EERRA  creates  interrelated  incentives  and   disincentives   for   each   party   in   the   e-­‐waste   supply   chain,   from   manufacturer   production,   retailer   sales,   consumer   disposal,   and   e-­‐ waste  consolidators  and  recyclers.     124. Id.  §  27-­‐2611(2).   125. Id.   §   27-­‐2613.     See   generally  Khetriwal   et   al.,   supra  note   61,   at   153–54   (noting   that   between   eighty   and   ninety-­‐five   percent   of   metals   contained   in   e-­‐waste   products   can   be   recovered  through  recycling).   126. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2617  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   127. Id.   §   27-­‐2611   (implementing   disposal   ban);  Guidance   for  Municipal   Electronic  Waste   Collection   Sites,   N.Y.   DEP’T   OF   ENVTL.   CONSERVATION,   http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/66879.html  (last  visited  Apr.  20,  2012).   128. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2729(1)(a)  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   129. See   id.   §   27-­‐2605;   N.Y.   DEP’T   OF   ENVTL.   CONSERVATION,   REGISTRATION   FORM   FOR   MANUFACTURERS   OF   COVERED   ELECTRONIC   EQUIPMENT   (2010),   available   at   http://   www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/mfrreg101310.pdf  (requiring  manufacturers  to   certify  their  compliance  with  RoHS  directives).   130. N.Y.   ENVTL.   CONSERV.   LAW   §   27-­‐2621   (McKinney   Supp.   2012)   (establishing   environmental   protection   fund);   see   also   N.Y.   STATE   FIN.   LAW   §   92-­‐s   (McKinney   2010)   (establishing  the  “environmental  protection  fund”).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   121   II.    EVOLUTION  FROM  EARLY  LAWS:    HOW  EERRA  DIFFERS  FROM  PREVIOUS   STATE  APPROACHES   New   York’s   approach   to   e-­‐waste   disposal   marks   the   arrival   of   a   second   generation   in   e-­‐waste   legislation—one   that   is   more   comprehensive   and   effective   than   earlier   state   approaches.     The   move   from   piecemeal   policies   to   increasingly   comprehensive   solutions—those   addressing   interconnected   entities   and   the   challenges   they   face—becomes   apparent   when   e-­‐waste   laws   in   various  states  are  compared.131   While  not  all  recent  state  actions  match  the  scope  of  EERRA,  states   have   increasingly   enacted   legislation   that   builds   upon   earlier   approaches,   proposing   broad   solutions   similar   to   those   adopted   in   New   York.     This   section   examines   three   notable   shifts   in   state   approaches   to   e-­‐waste   disposal   legislation   exemplified   by   EERRA:     (1)   regulating   all   applicable   products   and   actors;   (2)   providing   the   state   with   power   to   enforce   regulations   and   ensure   party   compliance;   and   (3)   adequately   funding   implementation   and   enforcement.     A   chart   of   all   current   state   e-­‐waste   legislation   is   provided  in  Appendix  A.   A.    Scope  of  Coverage   In   the   first   wave   of   state   e-­‐waste   legislation,   many   states   chose   piecemeal   approaches   to   electronics   recycling   that   involved   implementing  plans  to  solve  narrowly  defined  problems.    In  contrast,   EERRA   broadens   the   products   and   parties   regulated.     Two   major   shifts  have  occurred  in  the  movement  toward  legislation  resembling   EERRA.    First,  an  increased  number  of  products  now  come  within  the   scope  of  state  e-­‐waste  legislation.    Second,  states  have  moved  toward   more  interconnected  solutions  that  address  all  parties  in  the  supply   chain,  rather  than  placing  the  responsibility  solely  on  manufacturers   or  consumers.   1.    Moving  Away  from  Device-­‐Specific  Laws   Many   early   state   e-­‐waste   laws,   known   as   device-­‐specific   laws,   covered  only  one  type  of  electronics,  such  as  video  display  devices132     131. See,  e.g.,  415  ILL.  COMP.  STAT.  ANN.  150/1–999  (West  Supp.  2012).   132. See,   e.g.,   CAL.   HEALTH   &   SAFETY   CODE   §   25214.10.1(a)(1)   (West   2006)   (defining   an   “electronic   device”   as   a   “video   display   device  .  .  .   with   a   screen   size   of   greater   than   four   inches.”).     122   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   or   computers.133     Some   states   passed   separate   but   similar   laws,   thereby   establishing  multiple   systems  within   the   same   state   rather   than   creating   one   uniform   system   covering   all   e-­‐waste.134     For   example,   prior   to   EERRA,   New   York   had   implemented   a   narrow,   device-­‐specific  cellular  phone  recycling  law.135    These  device-­‐specific   laws   have   proven   successful   in   the   context   of   cellular   phone   recycling136   because,   unlike   computers   and   televisions,   mail-­‐back   programs  are  easily  tailored  to  smaller  devices,  which  minimizes  the   need   for   direct   collection   points.137     Device-­‐specific   laws   have   also   received   significant   praise   from  manufacturers,   especially   in   cases   where  the  particular  device   is  uniquely  suited  to  the  program.138    A   single,   comprehensive   program,   however,   is   more   appropriate   for   mid-­‐sized   electronics,   including   computers   and   televisions,   where   mail-­‐back  programs  are  not  feasible.139   Limiting  the  scope  of  products  covered  also  limits  the  amount  of  e-­‐ waste   collected   for   recycling,   leaving   categories   of   potentially   recyclable   products   in   the   landfill   waste   stream.     The   majority   of   state  laws  leave  out  important  consumer  products  such  as  scanners,   monitors,  and  other  devices  of  similar  size  and  composition.140    State   programs  defined  for  specific  products  prevent  the  establishment  of   one   comprehensive   system   that   covers   a   larger   swath  of   consumer   products  through  centralized  recycling  efforts.     133. N.C.   GEN   STAT.   §   130A-­‐309.90   (repealed   2010)   (specifically   excluding   televisions   in   original   bill,   but   added   in  2008  amendments);   see  also   2010  N.C.   Sess.   Laws  67,  available  at   http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/HTML/S887v6.html   (amending   prior   computer  recycling  requirements).   134. See   HAW.   REV.   STAT.   §   339D-­‐1   (LexisNexis   Supp.   2011)   (imposing   different   requirements   for  manufactures  of   televisions  versus  manufacturers  of   computers);  MD.  CODE   ANN.,  ENVIR.  §  9-­‐1701  (LexisNexis  2007)  (passing  subsequent   legislation  adding  televisions  to   the  state’s  definition  of  e-­‐waste).   135. N.Y.   ENVTL.   CONSERV.   LAW   §   27-­‐2303   (McKinney   Supp.   2012)   (requiring   wireless   telephone   providers   to   accept   used   cell   phones   for   recycling);   see   GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   33   (noting   that   some   manufacturers   believe   cell   phones   should   receive   different   treatment   from   larger   electronic   devices,   as   the   smaller   size   of   cell   phones  makes  mail-­‐back  programs  a  feasible  option).   136. See  GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  33.   137. See  id.  at  6  n.5.   138. Id.   at   33   (noting   that   “mobile   devices   can   be   easily   collected   through   mail-­‐back   programs”).   139. Texas,  which  allowed  manufacturers  to  use  mail-­‐back  programs  for  all  e-­‐waste,  found   non-­‐cell  phone  products  less  conducive  to  mail-­‐back  programs.    See  TEX.  HEALTH  &  SAFETY  CODE   ANN.   §   361.955   (West   2010);   GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   56   (citing  local  officials  as  saying  allowing  mail-­‐back  programs  for  all  products  was  one  factor  that   contributed  to  the  law’s  lack  of  impact  on  recycling  percentages).   140. See  generally  ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  11  (comparing  state  e-­‐waste  laws).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   123   2.    Limited  Moves  Toward  Interconnected  Solutions   Since  2003,  when  states  began  addressing  the  challenges  posed  by   e-­‐waste  recycling,  states  have  increasingly  moved  away  from  device-­‐ specific   laws.    The  majority  of   these   laws  were  enacted  after  2008,   and  all  except  California  have  used  a  version  of  the  PRS  model.141   California  took  the  first  independent  action  to  regulate  e-­‐waste  in   2003,   when   it   adopted   the   only   state   ARF   system   presently   in   effect.142     The   California   plan   limits   its   coverage   to   televisions,   monitors,   and   other   screened   products,   and   excludes   all   central   processing  units  (CPUs).143    Rather  than  requiring  manufacturers  to   bear  the  majority  of  the  costs,  California  charges  consumers  a  set  fee   when  a  new  device  is  purchased.144    This  funding  is  then  used  by  the   state   to   reimburse   recyclers   that   collect   e-­‐waste   from   state   residents.145    Because  the  program  does  not  refund  the  purchase  fee   to   consumers,   they   have   less   of   an   incentive   to   seek   out   end-­‐use   recycling  options.    However,  while   this  approach  differs   from  other   state  regimes,146  it  has  successfully  provided  a  method  for  increasing   the  availability  of  e-­‐waste  recycling  in  California.147   Some  of  the  other  early  state  e-­‐waste  programs,  including  those  in   Maine   (adopted   in   2004)   and   Maryland   (adopted   in   2005),   also   embraced  narrow  focuses.    Maine’s  program  originally  covered  only   televisions,  monitors,  and  laptops.148    Maryland’s  program  originally   accepted  only  certain  types  of  computers.149    These  models  also  used   different   approaches   for   sharing   funding   responsibilities,   requiring   the   state   government   to   pay   some   of   the   costs   rather   than   manufacturers.150     Maine   divides   operating   costs   between   municipalities,   which   fund   collection,   and   manufacturers,  who   pay     141. Id.   142. See  CAL.  PUB.  RES.  CODE  §  42464(a)  (West  2006).   143. Id.  §  42463.   144. Id.  §  42464.   145. Id.  §  42476.   146. Valerie  Eifert,  Collaboration  Before  Legislation:    The  Current  State  of  E-­‐Waste  Laws  and   a  Guide  to  Developing  Common  Threads  for  the  State  Patchwork  Quilt,  18  PENN  ST.  ENVTL.  L.  REV.   235,  241–45  (2010)  (describing  the  different  PRS  models  used  in  the  states).   147. See   CAL.   DEP’T   OF   RES.   RECYCLING   AND   RECOVERY,   UPDATE   ON   CALIFORNIA’S   COVERED   ELECTRONIC  WASTE  RECYCLING  PROGRAM  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  ELECTRONIC  WASTE  RECYCLING  ACT   OF   2003   2   (2012),   available   at   http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Electronics/   CEW/ProgramStats.pdf  (showing  yearly  recycling  returns).   148. ME.  REV.  STAT.  ANN.  tit.  38,  §  1610  (Supp.  2011).   149. MD.  CODE  ANN.,  ENVIR.  §  9-­‐1701  (LexisNexis  2007).   150. ME.   REV.   STAT.   ANN.   tit.   38,   §   1610   (Supp.   2011);   MD.   CODE   ANN.,   ENVIR.   §   9-­‐1701   (LexisNexis  2007).     124   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   for   handling   and   recycling.151    Maryland   requires  manufacturers   to   pay  a  flat  fee  to  cover  program  costs.152    Additionally,  both  programs   lack   recycling   targets   that   would   incentivize   manufacturers   to   increase  their  collection  efforts.153    However,  each  program  provides   a  baseline  for  addressing  e-­‐waste,  and,  notably,  each  state  amended   its  program  after   implementation   to   increase   the  range  of  products   covered.154     Thus,   although   these   approaches   began  narrowly,   they   provide  examples  of  how  states  have  expanded  coverage  over  time.   Michigan,   Missouri,   and   Texas   implemented   another   limited   approach,   requiring  only   that  manufacturers   implement  a   recycling   program  that  covers  the  e-­‐waste  they  create.155    States  following  this   strategy   have   implemented   laws   with   few  mandates,   preferring   to   leave   major   program   decisions,   aside   from   the   threshold   requirement  that  each  manufacturer  provide  a  recycling  option  at  no   cost   to   consumers,   to   manufacturers.156     The   scope   of   coverage   is   also   limited.     The   Missouri   and   Texas   laws   cover   only   computer   manufacturers,   and   Michigan’s   law   covers   only   general   computer   equipment   and   television  manufacturers.157    While   these   programs   established  a  collection  mechanism  for  some  products,  in  many  cases   they  were  not  well  publicized  or  convenient  for  consumers.158   3.    Intermediate  Approaches   One  example  of  an  intermediate  approach,  showing  a  move  toward   adopting  more   comprehensive  policies,  occurred  when  Washington   and  Oregon  began  to  implement  similar  “E-­‐Cycle”  programs  in  2007     151. ME.  REV.  STAT.  ANN.  tit.  38,  §  1610  (Supp.  2011).   152. MD.  CODE  ANN.,  ENVIR.  §  9-­‐1728(c)  (LexisNexis  2007).   153. ME.  REV.  STAT.  ANN.  tit.  38,  §  1610  (Supp.  2011).   154. Maine   amended   its   program   in   2009   to   add   electronic   picture   frames,   desktop   printers,  and  videogame  consoles  as  additional  covered  devices.    ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra   note  11,   at  11.    Maryland  added   televisions  as   a   covered  product   in  2007,   and  extended   the   program,  which  began  as   a   five-­‐year   test  phase   that  would  have  expired   in  December  2010.     MD.  CODE  ANN.,  ENVIR.  §  9-­‐1701  (LexisNexis  2007)  (including  display  devices  with  screens  over   four  inches  in  width);  ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  11,  at  13.   155. See  MICH.  COMP.  LAWS  ANN.  §  324.17305  (West  2009);  MO.  ANN.  STAT.  §  260.1062  (West   Supp.  2012);  TEX.  HEALTH  &  SAFETY  CODE  ANN.  §  361.955  (West  2010).   156. See  MICH.  COMP.  LAWS  ANN.  §  324.17309  (West  2009);  MO.  ANN.  STAT.  §  260.1062  (West   Supp.  2012);  TEX.  HEALTH  &  SAFETY  CODE  ANN.  §  361.955  (West  2010).   157. See  MICH.  COMP.  LAWS  ANN.  §§  324.17309,  324.17311  (West  2009)  (computer  takeback   program   and   television   takeback   program,   respectively);   MO.   ANN.   STAT.   §   260.1053   (West   Supp.  2012);  TEX.  HEALTH  &  SAFETY  CODE  ANN.  §  361.952(2)  (West  2010).   158. See  MICH.  COMP.  LAWS  ANN.  §  324.17309  (West  2009);  MO.  ANN.  STAT.  §  260.1062  (West   2008);   TEX.   HEALTH   &   SAFETY   CODE   ANN.   §   361.955   (West   2010);   GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  56  (discussing  shortfalls  of  Texas  mail-­‐in  program).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   125   and   2008.159     These   plans   contained   a   hybrid   element,   shifting   responsibility   for   waste   disposal   to   manufacturers,   while   also   implementing   a   “default”   plan   administered   by   a   city   agency.160     Manufacturers   are   required   to   pay   a   share   of   the   default   program   cost   unless   they   opt-­‐out   and   run   their   own   state-­‐approved   program.161     Both   programs   saw   early   increases   in   consumer   recycling   of   electronics.162     Emphasizing   coordination   among   different   producers   to   implement   an   easy-­‐to-­‐use   program   proved   especially  successful.163   As   opposed   to   previous   laws   that   merely   required   that   an   opportunity   be   available   for   consumer   to   recycle   e-­‐waste,   recent   laws   in   Illinois   and   Minnesota   have   also   moved   toward   more   comprehensive   coverage   and   enforcement   of   recycling   targets.164     Illinois   recently   implemented   an   approach   that   combines   free   collection   for   consumers,   a   state   disposal   ban,   and   manufacturer   targets   based   on   the   manufacturer’s   state   market   share.165     The   Illinois   legislation,   passed   in   September   2008,   began   with   a   wide   scope   similar   to   EERRA’s,   covering   computers,   printers,   and   televisions,   while   also   allowing   other   products   to   count   toward   a   manufacturer’s   recycling   goal.166     Additional   amendments   in   2010   increased   the   scope   to   include   portable   digital   music   and   video   devices,   computer   accessories   (such   as   scanners,   keyboards,   small   servers,  and  fax  machines),  and  digital  television  equipment  (such  as   recorders   and   receivers).167     As   part   of   the   movement   toward   implementing   goals   for   each   manufacturer,   Illinois   implemented   a   market  share  goal,  where  targets  are  set  according  to  percentage  of     159. NW.  PROD.  STEWARDSHIP  COUNCIL,  supra  note  71,  at  2–5.    These  two  states  refer  to  their   e-­‐waste  recycling  program  as  “e-­‐cycle”  programs.    Id.   160. Id.  at  8–9.   161. Id.   162. Id.  at  vii.   163. Id.  at  28  (citing  Washington  program  coordination  through  single  entity).   164. See  generally  415  ILL.  COMP.  STAT.  ANN.  150/1–999  (West  Supp.  2012);  MINN.  STAT.  ANN.   §§  115A.1310–1330  (West  Supp.  2012).   165. See   415   ILL.   COMP.   STAT.   ANN.   §§   150/15,   15/30(d),   150/95   (West   Supp.   2012)   (provisions  with  market  share  calculation,  mandating  collection  at  no  net  cost   to  consumers,   and  disposal  ban,  respectively).   166. See  415  ILL.  COMP.  STAT.  ANN.  150/10  (West  Supp.  2012)  (defining  covered  products);   see  also  Amendments  to  the  Illinois  Electronic  Products  Recycling  and  Reuse  Act,  ILL.  ENVTL.  PROT.   AGENCY,   http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/electronic-­‐waste-­‐recycling/   amendments.html  (last  visited  Apr.  21,  2012).   167. 415  ILL.  COMP.  STAT.  ANN.  150/10  (West  Supp.  2012).     126   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   sales   the   manufacturer   makes   for   each   type   of   product.168     The   Illinois   system   is   one   of   the   first   to   levy   fines   for   failing   to   meet   recycling   goals.     Specifically,   the   Illinois   system   charges   manufacturers   for   each   pound   that   they   fall   short   of   their   goals.169     Additionally,   Illinois   includes   incentives   to   refurbish   and   reuse   electronic  equipment.170    Products  that  are  refurbished  and  returned   to  market  or  donated  for  use  by  eligible  non-­‐profits  count  for  two  or   three  times  the  normal  value  of  that  product  in  determining  whether   the  manufacturer  has  met  the  law’s  recycling  goal.171   Minnesota   similarly   established   a   PRS   program  with   enforceable   targets   that   also   uses  market   share   goals.172    Minnesota’s   program   likewise   incentivizes  recycling   in  rural  counties  by  providing  bonus   credits   toward   the   recycling   goal.173     Like   EERRA,   the   Illinois   and   Minnesota   programs   increase   the   scope   of   covered   products   and   implement   recycling   targets   so   that   each   manufacturer   is   held   accountable   for   recycling   a   set   percentage   of   the   e-­‐waste   it   generates.174    States,  such  as  these,   that  have  taken   individual  steps   toward   covering   all   parts   of   the   supply   chain   illustrate   the   move   toward  a  second-­‐generation  approach  to  e-­‐waste.   B.    Compliance  and  Enforcement   State   approaches   to   enforcement   have   evolved   from   optional   programs   with   voluntary   recycling   goals   to   mandatory   programs   with   fixed   recycling   targets.175     States   are   increasingly  emphasizing   consumer  compliance  by  focusing  on  methods  to  increase  consumer   participation.176     However,   even   when   programs   include   recycling   targets,   many   do   not   include   adequate   consequences   for   failing   to   meet   established   recycling   goals.     EERRA   addresses   compliance     168. Id.  §  15;  see  also  infra  pp.  31–33.  MK  -­‐  change  when  we  put  all  the  articles  together..   169. 415   ILL.   COMP.   STAT.  ANN.   150/80   (West   Supp.   2012);   ILL.   ENVTL.   PROT.  AGENCY,   supra   note  166.   170. 415   ILL.   COMP.   STAT.  ANN.   150/30   (West   Supp.   2012);   ILL.   ENVTL.   PROT.  AGENCY,   supra   note  166.   171. 415   ILL.   COMP.   STAT.  ANN.   150/30   (West   Supp.   2012);   ILL.   ENVTL.   PROT.  AGENCY,   supra   note  166.   172. MINN.  STAT.  ANN.  §  115A.1320  (West  Supp.  2012).   173. Id.  §  115A.1314.   174. Id.  §  115A.1318.   175. See,  e.g.,  id.  §  115A.1314  (setting  enforceable  manufacturer  targets).   176. See,   e.g.,  ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  17,  at  2   (indicating   that   states   see  higher   collection  rates  when  implementing  programs  focused  on  consumer  convenience  or  collection   goals).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   127   concerns   by   focusing   on   three   areas:     (1)   manufacturer   recycling   goals   and   fines   for   failing   to  meet   those  goals;177   (2)   assignment  of   responsibility  to  consumers  through  a  disposal  ban  with  meaningful   fines;178   and   (3)   increased   state   power   to   enforce   the   established   mandates.179    Each  of  these  areas  is  discussed  below.   1.    Development  of  Enforceable  Manufacturer  Goals   Several   early   e-­‐waste   programs   did   not   require   mandatory   participation   and   failed   to   set   enforceable   goals.180     Without   consequences   for   failing   to   enact   recycling   programs,   voluntary   benchmarks   failed   to   drive   manufacturer   action.181     While   these   voluntary   efforts   raised   the   level   of   e-­‐waste   recycling,   these   efforts   failed   to   provide   accountability   or   incentives   to   move   toward   sustainable  programs.    For  example,  Maryland  required  counties   to   pay   for   the   collection  of   e-­‐waste   and   then   reimbursed   the   counties   with   fees   from  product  manufacturers,   but   it   also   allowed   counties   to   opt   out   and   not   offer   any   e-­‐waste   recycling   program.182     Additionally,  the  programs  in  Michigan,  Missouri,  and  Texas  required   only   that   companies   implement   a   recycling   program—not   that   the   programs   be   effective   or   consumer-­‐friendly.183     These   approaches   contained   few,   if   any,   recycling   requirements   and   lacked   goals   to   encourage  manufacturer-­‐based  recycling  efforts.184   In  response  to  the  increasing  need  for  electronics  recycling,  some   manufacturers   have   established   voluntary,   nationwide   recycling     177. See  N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2603(4)  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   178. See  id.  §  27-­‐2611(3).   179. See  id.  §  27-­‐2615.   180. See   generally   ELECS.   TAKEBACK   COAL.,   supra   note   11   (noting   which   programs   have   enforceable   goals   versus   voluntary   goals,   and   the   programs   that   did   not   set   specific   return   goals).   181. ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  17,  at  3  (arguing  that  “if  states  don’t  spell  out  clear   convenience  requirements  or  establish  collection  goals,  most  of  the  manufacturers  won’t  make   any  significant  effort  to  collect  used  electronics.”).   182. See   MD.   CODE   ANN.,   ENVIR.   §§   9-­‐1727–1728   (LexisNexis   2007)   (establishing   manufacturer  registration  requirements).   183. See  MICH.  COMP.  LAWS  ANN.  §  324.17309  (West  2009);  MO.  ANN.  STAT.  §  260.1062  (West   Supp.  2012);  TEX.  HEALTH  &  SAFETY  CODE  ANN.  §  361.955  (West  2010).    While  the  Michigan  and   Texas  laws  required  that  collection  be  “convenient,”  no  further  definition  of  “convenience”  was   included.    Id.   184. See   MICH.   COMP.   LAWS   ANN.   §   324.17309   (West   2009)   (setting   a   non-­‐binding   goal   of   recycling  sixty  percent  of  the  weight  sold  in  the  previous  year);  MO.  ANN.  STAT.  §  260.1062(3)   (West  Supp.  2012)  (requiring  only  that  collection  be  “reasonably  convenient”  and  “designed  to   meet   the   collection   needs   of   consumers”);   TEX.   HEALTH   &   SAFETY   CODE   ANN.   §   361.951.55(c)   (using  same  language  as  Missouri  statute).     128   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   programs.185     These   voluntary   programs,   however,   fail   to   collect   a   significant   portion   of   the   millions   of   pounds   of   e-­‐waste   annually   disposed   in   landfills.186     Similarly,   state   systems   that   formally   shift   costs   to  manufacturers  but  set  only  statewide  targets  collect   less  e-­‐ waste   than   systems   that   set   mandatory   goals.187     Voluntary   programs  typically  fail  to  provide  broad  coverage,  as  manufacturers   have   little   incentive   to   develop   programs   that   collect   additional   products  because  adding  new  product  categories  creates  additional   recycling   costs.188     Voluntary   programs,   particularly   when   established   by   manufacturers,   are   often   implemented   with   costs   rather   than   convenience   in   mind,   thereby   failing   to   engage   consumers  as  active  participants  in  e-­‐waste  recycling.189   An   intermediate   approach,   used   in   Washington   and   Oregon,   provides  additional  structure  for  recycling  programs  by  establishing   a   default   state   program   for   collecting   consumer   e-­‐waste.     Under   these   laws,   manufacturers   can   choose   to   join   the   default   program   and  share  the  costs  for  that  program,  or  they  can  choose  to  run  their   own  recycling  program.190    This  approach  ensures  the  existence  of  a   convenient,   centralized  default   for   consumer  disposal.191    However,   enforcement   options   and   incentives   for  manufacturer   participation   and   innovation   remain   limited.192     Thus,   these   programs   provide   access   to   recycling  options,   but   fail   to   incentivize  manufacturers   to   create  more  recycling-­‐friendly  products.193   Manufacturer  recycling  targets  can  be  formulated  as  market  share   targets,  which   are   based   on   sales  within   the   state,   or   return   share   targets,   which   are   based   on   the   amount   of   products   recycled   the     185. See   Manufacturer   Takeback   Programs,   ELECS.   TAKEBACK   COAL.,   http://   www.electronicstakeback.com/how-­‐to-­‐recycle-­‐electronics/manufacturer-­‐takeback-­‐ programs/   (last   visited   Apr.   21,   2012)   (listing   voluntary   electronics   recycling   programs   implemented  by  manufacturers).   186. Jaymi  Heinbuch,  U.S.   Government  Officials   Ask   Electronics   Industry   to   Take  Back  NYC   Lawsuit,   and   Take   Back   Gadgets,   TREEHUGGER   (Nov.   5,   2009),   http://www.treehugger.com/   files/2009/11/us-­‐government-­‐officials-­‐ask-­‐electronics-­‐industry-­‐to-­‐take-­‐back-­‐nyc-­‐lawsuit-­‐ and-­‐take-­‐back-­‐gadgets.php.   187. ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  17,  at  4  (noting  the  most  effective  programs  set  high   minimum  goals  rather  than  maximum  goals).   188. Id.  at  3.    However,  consumers  prefer  single  collection  points  that  recycle  a  wide  variety   of  electronics.    Id.  at  6.   189. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  22.   190. See  NW.  PROD.  STEWARDSHIP  COUNCIL,  supra  note  71,  at  4.   191. See  Khetriwal  et  al.,  supra  note  61,  at  163.   192. See  GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  15–17.   193. Id.     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   129   previous   year.194     These   approaches   allow   states   to   set   realistic   manufacturer   targets   tailored   to   state   priorities.     For   example,   Minnesota   separates   manufacturer   obligations—measured   by   market   share   of   televisions,   monitors,   and   laptops—from   free   collection   of   other   goods.195     This   approach   matches   enforceable   goals   with   consumer   incentives   to   recycle   additional   products.196     Individual   manufacturer   goals   provide   an   easier   mechanism   for   ensuring   compliance   and   establishing   fines   or   other   sanctions   for   failing  to  meet  targets.   More   programs,   like   EERRA,   are   setting   goals   for   each   manufacturer’s   recycling   share   and   mandating   fines   for   failure   to   meet   established   targets.197     Establishing   mandatory   collection   targets  increases  state  authority  and  helps  encourage  collection  and   recycling  of  e-­‐waste  while  decreasing  landfill  disposal.198    By  moving   away   from   the   early   e-­‐waste   programs   that   lacked   statewide   goals   and  implementing  strong  producer  take-­‐back  programs,  states  have   become   more   effective   in   recycling   significant   percentages   of   e-­‐ waste.   2.    Consumer  Participation   A   comprehensive   approach   can   better   target   e-­‐waste   by   addressing   all   parties   in   the   system,   thus   encouraging   reuse   of   a   greater   percentage   of   products.     State   programs   have   increasingly   come  to  recognize  the  consumer’s  important  role  in  effective  e-­‐waste   recycling.     Consumer   participation   requires   accessible   and   inexpensive   methods   of   e-­‐waste   disposal199   because   cost   and   inconvenience   are   two   factors   that   prevent   consumer     194. Id.  at  32.   195. MINN.  STAT.  ANN.  §§  115A.1314,  115A.1318  (West.  Supp.  2011)  (calculation  of  recycling   credits  and  manufacturer  obligations,  respectively).   196. See  id.;  see  also  ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  11,  at  16.   197. See,  e.g.,  HAW.  REV.  STAT.  ANN.  §  339D-­‐8(g)  (LexisNexis  Supp.  2010)  (imposing  a  cost  of   fifty   cents   per   pound   for   TV   companies);   415   ILL.   COMP.   STAT.   ANN.   150/80(c)   (West   Supp.   2012)  (imposing  a  cost  of  seventy  cents  per  pound  multiplied  by  the  difference  between  goal   and   actual   amount   recycled);  MINN.   STAT.   ANN.   §   115A.1314   (West   Supp.   2011)   (varying   the   manufacturer  registration  fee  depending  on  percentage  recycled).   198. ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  17,  at  6  (noting  that  consumers  like  programs  that   ask  them  to  bring  in  all  their  used  electronics  rather  than  limited  types).   199. See  Ramzy  Kahhat  et  al.,  Exploring  E-­‐waste  Management  Systems  in  the  United  States,   52  RESOURCES,  CONSERVATION  &  RECYCLING  955,  960–61  (2008);  see  also  LUTHER,  supra  note  9,  at   11  (“Most  stakeholders  agree  that  if  e-­‐waste  is  to  be  recycled,  it  must  be  as  easy  for  consumers   to  recycle  electronics  as  it  is  to  buy  them.”).     130   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   participation.200     EPA   pilot   programs   found   that   convenient,   free   recycling   services   proved   successful   in   motivating   consumer   compliance.201    While  consumer-­‐recycling  rates  can  fluctuate  due  to   various   community   factors,   including   poor   accessibility   in   rural   areas  and   lack  of   information  about  disposal   locations,202  providing   clear   information   to   consumers   is   essential   to   a   successful   program.203    Because   consumers   choose  where  and  how   to  dispose   of   the   product,   programs   that   actively   engage   consumers   in   the   recycling   process   through   increased   information   about   recycling   options  dramatically  increase  the  amount  of  e-­‐waste  recycled.204   States  have  also  started  to  address  consumer  concerns  about  cost   and  convenience.    Nearly  all  states  with  e-­‐waste  legislation  prohibit   manufacturers   from   charging   consumers   a   fee   for   recycling,   which   removes  cost  from  consumer  end-­‐of-­‐product-­‐life  decisions.205    While   states  generally  require  manufacturers  to  implement  programs  that   are  convenient  for  consumers,  some  states  lack  additional  definition   or  enforcement  of  that  convenience  standard,  and  thus  have  limited   requirements   over   how   accessible   and   well-­‐publicized   programs   should   be   for   consumers.206     However,   more   recent   state   efforts   include  specific  requirements  to   increase  the  ease  of  consumer  use.     States   are   placing   a   new   emphasis   on   consumer   education   and   outreach   programs   to   boost   consumer   participation,   with   most   states   requiring   manufacturers   to   meet   a   consumer   education   requirement.207   Unlike  many  early   approaches,   EERRA   includes   several   efforts   to   motivate   consumer   recycling,   which   in   turn   helps   manufacturers     200. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    OBSERVATIONS,  supra  note  33,  at  8–10.   201. Id.   at   12   (concluding   that   EPA   programs   providing   free   take-­‐back   of   certain   manufacturers’   products   at   retail   stores   “showed   the   extent   to   which   recycling   can   be   encouraged  by  making  it  inexpensive  and  convenient  to  the  consumer.”).   202. See  ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  17,  at  4–5  (discussing  manufacturer  hesitance  to   establish  rural  collection  points  due  to  cost  and  other  concerns).   203. Kahhat  et  al.,  supra  note  199,  at  960.   204. Id.   (advocating   for   the   adoption   of   advanced   consumer   fee   systems   similar   to   state   bottle   deposit   programs,  which   use   economic   incentives   to   encourage   consumers   to   recycle   designated  products).   205. Linnell,  supra  note  28  (noting  that  California’s  advance  recovery  fee  system  makes  it   the  “only  state  with  a  fee  charged  to  the  consumer  at  the  time  of  sale”).   206. See   generally   MO.   ANN.   STAT.   §   260.1062(3)   (West   Supp.   2012)   (mandating   that   collection  be  “reasonably  convenient”  without  mandating  specific  standards).   207. See,   e.g.,   N.C.   GEN.   STAT.   §   130A-­‐294   (2011);   2007   N.C.   Sess.   Laws   550   (adding   a   mandate  to  North  Carolina’s  Solid  Waste  Program  that  manufacturers  create  an  education  plan   that  teaches  the  public  about  laws  governing  recycling  and  reuse  of  e-­‐waste  and  methods  for   compliance).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   131   meet   their   recycling   targets.     By   combining   all   aspects   of   the   recycling  program   in  one   comprehensive  piece  of   legislation,208   the   regulations   for   manufacturers,   retailers,   and   consumers   were   designed  to  complement  each  other,  existing  state  laws,  and  federal   CRT  regulations.209   EERRA’s   convenience   requirement   specifically   mandates   that   manufacturers   establish   convenient   collection   points   across   the   state;  collection  points  must  be  established  in  every  county  and  in  all   municipalities   with   a   population   greater   than   ten   thousand.210     Requiring   retailer   participation   to   inform   consumers   of   recycling   options  at  the  point  of  sale  provides  early  education  about  recycling   options.211     Instituting  a  consumer  disposal  ban  provides  additional   incentives   for   consumer  participation.212    While   fines   for   consumer   non-­‐compliance   are   modest,   with   the   maximum   currently   set   at   $100,   these   fines   still   provide   some   measure   of   deterrence.213     By   placing  some  responsibilities  on  both  consumers  and  manufacturers,   EERRA   represents   an   attempt   to   overcome   the   consumer   participation  concerns  seen  in  manufacturer-­‐driven  programs.   EERRA   takes   important   steps   toward   voluntary   consumer   compliance  by  reducing  common  barriers  to  consumer  participation.     By   requiring   free   and   convenient   disposal,   EERRA   couples   empirically  proven  methods  of  driving  consumer  participation  with   the   powerful   incentive   of   individual   fines.     The   broad   consumer   incentives   and   considerations   in   EERRA   should   provide   additional   consumer  engagement  in  the  e-­‐waste  program.   3.    State  Enforcement  Powers   Early   state   legislation   frequently   established   mandates   without   giving   the   state   strong   enforcement   mechanisms.214     Recent   state   efforts   to   prohibit   sales   of   electronic   products   containing   toxic   chemicals   and   to   regulate   end-­‐of-­‐product-­‐life   disposal—both   of   which   require   increased   state   authority   to   enforce215—reflect   the     208. See  N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §§  27-­‐2601−2621  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   209. Id.  §  27-­‐2601  (regulating  electronics  outside  of   those   in  existing  cell  phone   law);  see   Linnell,  supra  note  28  (discussing  federal  CRT  regulations).   210. See  N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2605  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   211. Id.  §  27-­‐2607.   212. Id.  §  27-­‐2611.   213. Id.  §  71-­‐2729.   214. See   TEX.   HEALTH   &   SAFETY   CODE   ANN.   §§   361.951–966   (West   2010)   (establishing   a   voluntary  program).   215. E.g.,  CAL.  HEALTH  &  SAFETY  CODE  §  25214.10.1  (West  2006);  see  ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,     132   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   growing  need  for  powerful  enforcement  provisions.   State   emphasis   has   shifted   toward   regulating   all   levels   of   the   supply  chain.    Rather  than  simply  regulating  specific  procedures  for   recyclers   or   establishing   programs   for   consumer   collection,   EERRA   implements   separate,   but   complementary,   requirements   for   manufacturers,   retailers,   consumers,   and   recyclers.216     Beyond   simply  increasing  the  amount  of  regulation  applicable  to  each  party,   EERRA   provides   overlapping   regulations   and   incentives.     While   manufacturers  are   fined   for   failing   to  collect   their  share  of  e-­‐waste,   manufacturers  also  receive  potentially  lucrative  credits  for  collecting   e-­‐waste  beyond  their   individual  goals.217    The  dual  role  of   fines  and   incentives  induces  compliance  and  participation  in  e-­‐waste  recycling   programs.218   State   commitment   to   vigorously   enforce   regulations   is   necessary   to   realize   the   goals   of   the   legislation.219     Some   regulations,   such   as   determining   whether   a   retailer   sells   prohibited   products,   are   relatively   easy   to   enforce.     Others,   such   as   the   consumer   disposal   ban,   are   more   difficult   because   tracking   consumer   disposal   and   linking   improper   actions   to   specific   consumers   requires   large   resource   expenditures.     Thus,   a   commitment   by  NYDEC   to  monitor   compliance   efforts   and   make   appropriate   changes   will   aid   in   establishing   a   successful   program.     Through   these   increased   enforcement   powers,   focused   on   all   parties   in   the   system,   EERRA   provides   an   effective   combination   of   incentives   and   enforcement   tools  to  encourage  e-­‐waste  recycling.   C.    Financing   The   costs   incurred   in   collecting,   transporting,   and   recycling   component   parts   of   electronic   products   are   challenges   to   implementing   an   e-­‐waste   recycling   system.     The   PRS   approach   benefits   states   by   shifting   costs   away   from   the   government   and   incentivizes   producers   to   create   new   products   with   the   end-­‐of-­‐ product-­‐life   cycle   in  mind,   thus   reducing  waste   and   increasing   the     supra  note   11   (noting   that   some   states   specifically   forbid  manufacturers   from   selling   RoHS   products).   216. See  N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §§  27-­‐2601–2621  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   217. See   infra   note   256   and   accompanying   text   (discussing   issues   with   manufacturer   credits).   218. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2603  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   219. See  GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  20  (noting  the  perceived   lack  of  enforcement  by  state  environmental  agencies).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   133   use  of   secondary  materials.220     PRS   requires  manufacturers   to  bear   many   costs   of   e-­‐waste   disposal,   under   the   assumption   that   such   costs   will   be   passed   back   to   the   consumer   in   future   purchase   prices.221   Within  state  PRS  programs,  a  spectrum  of  financing  methods  exists   between   the   two   extremes   of   full   government   payment   and   full   manufacturer  payment.222    The  different  state  programs  range  from   complete   administration   of   recycling   programs223   to   a   pure   enforcement   role   that   allows   manufacturers   to   establish   and   run   their   own   programs.224     Some   programs   require   large   degrees   of   government  responsibility,  called  Collective  Producer  Responsibility   (CPR),  whereby  the  state  provides  recycling  services  and  producers   are  reimbursed  based  on  their  share  of  recycled  materials.225    While   state-­‐run   programs   provide   fewer   burdens   on   manufacturers,   the   state   may   end   up   shouldering   more   of   the   costs.226     Additionally,   producers   may   lack   incentives   to   move   toward   more   environmentally-­‐friendly  product  designs,  because  they  face  similar   recycling  costs  for  old  products  regardless.227   EERRA  and  other  recent  programs  shift  financial  responsibility  to   manufacturers.     States   increasingly   look   to   Individual   Producer   Responsibility  Systems,  “designed  to  provide  incentives  to  producers   for   taking   responsibility   for   the   entire   lifecycle   of   his/her   own   products,   including  end  of   life.”228    While  this  does  not  require  each     220. See  Dempsey  &  McIntyre,  supra  note  9,  at  213–14.   221. See  Eifert,  supra  note  146,  at  241–45  (describing  the  different  producer  systems).   222. Id.    Maine  implemented  the  first  PRS  program  in  2004.    See  ME.  DEP’T  OF  ENVTL.  PROT.,   REPORT  ON  MAINE’S  HOUSEHOLD  E-­‐WASTE  RECYCLING  PROGRAM  2–3   (2010)   (noting   the  history  of   Maine’s  PRS  program).    All  subsequent  states  adopted  similar  programs,  but  they  have  varied   dramatically.    See  ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL,  supra  note  11.   223. See  NW.  PROD.  STEWARDSHIP  COUNCIL,  supra  note  71,  at  4–5.    For  example,   the  Oregon   and  Washington  programs   allowed   each   state   to   implement   default   collection   programs,   for   which   the   manufacturers   received   the   bill   for   implementation,   divided   by   manufacturer   market  share.    Id.  at  v,  vii.   224. See,  e.g.,  415  ILL.  COMP.  STAT.  ANN.  150/1–999  (West  Supp.  2012).   225. Dempsey  &  McIntyre,  supra  note  9,  at  215–16.   226. See,  e.g.,  ME.  DEP’T  OF  ENVTL  PROT.,  supra  note  222,  at  7–8.    Maine’s  program  runs  at  a   substantial  cost  to  the  state  even  though  it  splits  the  costs  of  collection  and  recycling  between   producers   (who   pay   for   transportation,   consolidator   handling,   and   recycling)   and   municipalities  (which  cover  collection  costs).    But  see  GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,   supra  note  3,  at  50–51  (noting  that   increased  costs  required  Maine  to  start  charging  a  $3000   annual  fee  from  each  manufacturer  to  cover  state  costs).   227. Dempsey  &  McIntyre,  supra  note  9,  at  225.   228. Id.   at   215.     But   see   GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   17   (detailing  why  manufacturers  claim  e-­‐waste  laws  have  not  impacted  their  product  design).     134   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   producer   to   have   separate   infrastructure   to   collect   its   own   appliances,   because   of   the   strong   link   between   the   waste   product   and   the   producer,   individual   responsibility   creates   incentives   to   design  products  that  are  easier  and  cheaper  to  recycle.229   III.    FUTURE  APPLICATION  OF  THE  EERRA  BLUEPRINT   As  states  and  the  federal  government  continue  to  evaluate  their  e-­‐ waste   laws,   EERRA   serves   as   a   model   for   the   implementation   of   comprehensive,   second-­‐generation   solutions.     There   are,   however,   additional   considerations   that   must   be   taken   into   account.     While   EERRA  provides  an  effective  model  to  follow,  expansion  of  future  e-­‐ waste   programs   must   also   acknowledge   aspects   of   the   program   unique  to  New  York  and  tailor  policies  to  particular  local  conditions.     In   analyzing   the   New   York   approach   for   implementation   in   other   states  or  as  a  nationwide  blueprint,  there  are  three  important  issues   to   consider:     (1)   the   unique   market   conditions   and   economies   of   scale  present  in  New  York;  (2)  the  continued  enforcement  challenges   facing   New   York   and   other   state   programs;   and   (3)   the   financial   challenges   of   implementing   and   expanding   electronic   waste   recycling  programs.     A.    Unique  Considerations  in  Implementing  EERRA     With   any   state   policy,   the   choices   made   necessarily   reflect   local   considerations   and   constraints.     While   this   allows   programs   to   be   more   responsive   to   local   concerns,   it   also   requires   that   any   future   application  of   state   legislation  consider   the  choices   that   shaped   the   legislation,   and   how   those   local   considerations   contrast   with   the   needs   of   another   area.     For   example,   two   local   factors   directly   influenced  EERRA’s  success.    First,  the  unique  market  power  of  sales   in   New   York   incentivized   stakeholder   participation.     Second,   the   unique   political   considerations   behind   the   bill,   including   reactive   concerns   raised   by   New   York   City’s   earlier   attempt   to   regulate   e-­‐ waste,   muted   possible   manufacturer   opposition.     Both   of   these   factors,  idiosyncratic  to  New  York,  are  discussed  below.     229. See   Dempsey   &   McIntyre,   supra   note   9,   at   227   (explaining   how   the   feedback   cycle   between  recycling  plants  and  manufacturers  encourages  design  improvements  on  issues  such   as  material  composition,  ease  of  disassembly,  and  labeling).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   135   1.    Market  Conditions   The  market   conditions   in  New  York  provide   economic   incentives   that  cannot  be  easily  replicated  in  other  markets.    The  ability  to  sell   products   in   the  New  York  market  provides  producers  and   retailers   with  access  to  millions  of  consumers.230    The  threat  of  exclusion  from   this   lucrative   market   provides   unique   leverage   and   gives   manufacturers   an   incentive   to   comply   with   regulations,   while   reducing   the   burden   of   costs   associated   with   implementing   an   e-­‐ waste   recycling   program.231     In   short,   New   York’s   demographics   provide  a  large  carrot  to  spur  manufacturer  compliance  with  EERRA.   A   lack   of   the   same   economies   of   scale   may   lead   to   different   considerations   in   other   state   markets.     The   problem   of   providing   convenient   access   to   recycling   in   rural   markets   will   require   additional   thought   for   states   with   comparatively   larger   rural   populations,232   many   of   which   have   not   implemented   e-­‐waste   programs.233    With  sixty-­‐two  counties  in  New  York,  EERRA’s  county   requirement  does  not  impose  as  great  a  burden  on  manufacturers  as   it   would   in   other   states.234     While   some   states   have   previously   addressed   the   problem   of   convenience   mandates   in   rural   areas,   unique  challenges  remain  where  a  significant  percentage  of  a  state’s   population  lives  in  rural  areas.235    Instead  of  rural  areas  constituting   merely  one  part  of  a  state  program,  as  in  New  York,  policymakers  in   states   with   predominantly   rural   populations   face   different   challenges.    Without  dense  urban  areas,  such  as  New  York  City,  that   can   balance   the   costs   of   providing   collection   opportunities   to   less   populous   areas,   rural   states   will   need   to   examine   how   to   provide   access   to   recycling   for   all   areas   of   the   state   while   keeping   costs   down.     230. The  New  York  tri-­‐state  area  is  the  most-­‐populous  region  of  the  country,  including  over   18  million  people.    U.S.  CENSUS  BUREAU,  POPULATION  DISTRIBUTION  AND  CHANGE:    2000–2010  6  tbl.   3   (2011),   available   at   http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/   c2010br-­‐01.pdf.   231. See  generally  Linnell,  supra  note  12.   232. See,  e.g.,  GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  56  (describing  the   scheme   in   Texas,   where   many   manufacturers   opted   for   a   mail-­‐back   option   to   allow   rural   residents  to  return  e-­‐waste  conveniently).   233. Id.   at   5   fig.   1   (depicting   those   states   that   have   and   have   not   implemented   e-­‐waste   programs).   234. See,  e.g.,  MINN.  STAT.  ANN.  §  115A.1320  (West  2007);  415  ILL.  COMP.  STAT.  ANN.  150/10   (West  Supp.  2012)  (using  incentives  for  less  populous  counties.).   235. MINN.   STAT.  ANN.  §  115A.1310   (West  2007)   (giving  manufacturers   fifty  percent  more   credit   for   electronics   collected   in   rural   areas);   ELECS.   TAKEBACK   COAL.,   supra   note   17,   at   6   (discussing  problems  facing  rural  collection).     136   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   Implementation  of  the  requirements  of  EERRA  in  New  York’s  rural   counties  could  provide  a  model  for  other  rural  areas.236    States  with   smaller   populations   could   also   consider   additional   incentives   to   decrease   the   burden   on   manufacturers   while   ensuring   convenient   recycling  locations.    For  example,  manufacturers  may  prefer  a  target   system   like   those   in   Illinois   and   Minnesota,237   which   provides   a   bonus   for   e-­‐waste   collected   from   rural   areas   in   meeting   manufacturer  target  percentages.238    Additional  government  support   for   start-­‐up   costs   or   other   financing   incentives   for   smaller   manufacturers  could  also  ease  the  burden.239   2.    Political  and  Legal  Conditions   The   political   landscape   surrounding   EERRA   provided   unique   incentives   for   cooperation.    As  discussed  above,  prior   to   the   state’s   adoption   of   EERRA,   New   York   City   had   approved   local   e-­‐waste   legislation  that  was  strongly  criticized  by  manufacturers.240    Industry   groups   sued   to   halt   implementation   of   the   legislation,   claiming   the   requirements  on  manufacturers  were  too  onerous.241    The  inclusion   of  large  household  appliances  in  the  recycling  mandate,  coupled  with   a   requirement   that  manufacturers   provide   for   convenient   disposal,   became  a   focal  point  of   the  criticism.242    Manufacturers  argued  that   this   requirement   might   be   read   to   require   door-­‐to-­‐door   disposal     236. See   generally   N.Y.   ENVTL.   CONSERV.   LAW   §§   27-­‐2603,   2605   (McKinney   Supp.   2012)   (establishing   state-­‐wide   targets   for   e-­‐waste   collection   and   requiring   that   manufacturers   provide   convenient   collection   for   consumers,   with   a   minimum   of   one   collection   point   per   county).   237. See  supra  note  194  and  accompanying  text.   238. GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   54–55   (indicating   manufacturer  support  for  Illinois’s  approach).    Wisconsin  provides  a  similar  program.    Id.   239. See   OFFICE   OF   TECH.   POLICY,   supra   note   6,   at   45–46   (discussing   how   states   have   previously  used  tax  incentives  to  spur  recycling  efforts).   240. See   generally   Complaint,   Consumer   Elecs.   Ass’n   v.   City   of   New   York,   No.   09-­‐6583   (S.D.N.Y.  July  24,  2009),  2009  WL  2251862  (suing  New  York  City  to  enjoin  the  operation  of  its   e-­‐waste   program).    Manufacturer   organizations   criticized   the   legislation,   claiming   it   would   require   manufacturers   to   provide   free   recycling   to   a   broad   group   of   parties   including   businesses.    Id.  at  ¶¶  5,  75.   241. See   id.   ¶   117   (“[T]he   New   York   City   E-­‐waste   Program   constitutes,   by   far,   the  most   onerous   and   expensive   electronics   recycling   mandate   enacted   to   date   in   the   United   States,   imposing  costs  that  are  ten  times  more  expensive  than  the  total  cost  of  collection  and  recycling   of  other  E-­‐waste  programs  in  California  and  Maine.”).   242. Id.   ¶¶   146–208   (outlining   various   complaints   that   the   requirement   for   collection   of   “large”  covered  electronic  equipment  constituted  a  violation  of  due  process,  was  in  breach  of   the  interstate  commerce  clause,  and  would  cause  additional  environmental  harms).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   137   service  for  obsolete  appliances.243   EERRA  made  this  issue  moot  by  preempting  implementation  of  the   controversial   New   York   City   program   and   by   excluding   large   appliances   from   the   scope   of   the   state   legislation.244     This   dynamic   may  have  mitigated  potential   resistance   to   other   aspects   of   EERRA   because   manufacturers   viewed   the   state   legislation   as   the   least   costly   alternative.    However,  manufacturers   rarely   criticize   e-­‐waste   programs   involving   cost   sharing,   and   some   manufacturers   have   explicitly   endorsed   PRS.245     With   the   trend   clearly   moving   toward   producer  responsibility,  manufacturers  have  additional  incentives  to   encourage  the  adoption  of  a  similar  approach  across  states.   While  EERRA  addresses  issues  specific  to  New  York,  it  remains  an   effective   blueprint   for   future   e-­‐waste   legislation.     As   in   New   York,   efforts  to  develop  any  new  e-­‐waste  recycling  system  should  begin  by   identifying  parties  and  concerns  unique   to   that  market  and  making   modifications  to  account  for  such  challenges.   B.    Compliance  and  Enforcement   While   EERRA   improved   upon   past   compliance   and   enforcement   regimes,  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  statute  provides  a  model   that   effectively   tackles   serious   enforcement   challenges.246     Implementation   of   e-­‐waste   legislation   involves   unique   challenges   across   each   level   of   the   supply   chain,   including   ensuring   manufacturer   compliance,   enforcement   of   manufacturer   recycling   credits,   and   ensuring   recyclers   follow   appropriate   disposal   guidelines.    Each  of  these  areas  has  manageable  solutions,  but  states   must   ensure   that   they   apply   their   resources   effectively   toward   achieving  these  objectives.    EERRA  attempts  to  address  concerns  at   each  level.   1.    Manufacturer  Compliance  Costs   There   are   inherent   tensions   between   the   need   for  manufacturer   cooperation   to   ensure   consumer   convenience   and   retaining   transparent,   enforceable   collection   procedures.     States   frequently     243. Id.  ¶  72.   244. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2601  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   245. GAO,   ELECTRONIC   WASTE:     CONSIDERATIONS,   supra   note   3,   at   31   (discussing   television   manufacturers’  support  for  PRS).   246. See  Khetriwal  et  al.,  supra  note  61,  at  9–11  (arguing  that   four  areas  have  empirically   proven   challenging   to   the   implementation   of   other   e-­‐waste   legislation:     (1)   free   riding   manufacturers,  (2)  uncooperative  retailers,  (3)  inactive  consumers,  and  (4)  rogue  recyclers).     138   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   encourage  manufacturers   to  work   together   to   implement  collection   procedures.247     Collection   procedures   often   work   through   existing   networks,   using   a   combination   of   private   businesses,   charitable   organizations,   and   public   locations.248     EERRA   also   allows   manufacturers   to  work   together   to   create   joint  programs.249    Other   states   may   want   to   place   greater   emphasis   on   this   requirement,   particularly   if   cooperation  would   decrease  manufacturer   costs   and   ease  compliance  requirements.    Because  collaboration  helps  ensure   that  consumers  have  knowledge  and  access  to  recycling  programs,250   encouraging   joint   ventures   may   help   create   a   successful   program   without  placing  additional  requirements  on  manufacturers.   2.    Enforcement  of  Recycling  Credits   The   choice   to   award   recycling   credits   presents   a   potential   weakness   to   EERRA   that   may   require   additional   attention   and   necessitate   adjustments.     Under   EERRA,   manufacturers   recycling   quantities  of  waste   greater   than   their  market   share   targets   require   will   receive   credits   that   can   be   saved   for   future   years   or   sold   to   producers   that   do   not   meet   their   goals.251     Some   environmental   groups  view  the  addition  of  recycling  credits  to  EERRA  as  a  loophole   that   could   undermine   the   statute’s   goals   by   discouraging   the   recycling   of   more   products   than   required   by   the   target.252     The   concern   is   that   allowing   sale   or   trade   of   credits   will   create   a   systematic  disincentive  for  manufacturers,  as  a  group,  to  exceed  the   targets.253     Even   if   some   individual   manufacturers   exceed   their   market   share   target,   they   could   sell   the   credits   to   others  with   less   vigorous  (or  even  no)  recycling  program,  thereby  effectively  capping     247. Id.   248. See  NW.  PROD.  STEWARDSHIP  COUNCIL,  supra  note  71,  at  27  (discussing  collaboration  of   manufacturers  and  local  private  and  public  entities).   249. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2605(7)  (McKinney  Supp.  2012);  see  Mireya  Navarro,  In   New   York,   E-­‐Waste   Recycling   Law   Takes   Effect,   N.Y.   TIMES,   Apr.   2,   2011,   at   A16,  available   at   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/science/earth/02ewaste.html   (discussing   a   group   of   twenty-­‐six  companies  who  pooled  resources  under  EERRA  to  establish  joint  collections  in  New   York  City).   250. See  Khetriwal  et  al.,  supra  note  61,  at  52.   251. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2603(7)  (McKinney  Supp.  2012)  (discussing  how  credits   can  be  “sold,  traded,  or  banked”).   252. See  ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  17,  at  4  (discussing  problems  of  credit  banking   and   low   manufacturer   goals);   Heimbuch,   supra   note   22   (calling   credit   provisions   an   “unfortunate  loophole”  because  they  can  be  traded  and  sold).   253. See  Heimbuch,  supra  note  22.     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   139   the  volume  of  recycled  e-­‐waste  at  or  just  above  the  statewide  goal.254   However,   because   recycling   credits   make   the   program   more   manageable   for   producers   by   providing   flexibility   in   meeting   recycling   goals,   credit   programs   should   be   modified   but   not   eliminated.     For   example,   Minnesota   modified   its   recycling   credit   program   to   allow   manufacturers   to   carry   forward   some   recycling   credits   because   the   state   ended   up   shouldering   the   burden   for   recycling   costs   beyond   manufacturer   targets.255     This   approach   successfully   balanced   the   concerns   of   manufacturers   by   retaining   some  cost  savings,  while  limiting  the  effect  on  state  finances.   While   EERRA’s   structure   should   prevent   the   states   from   shouldering  a  large  cost  burden,  states  should  ensure  that  targets  do   not   create   a   ceiling   for   manufacturer   recycling.     Recycling   credit   approaches   should   be   evaluated   to   determine   whether   the   implementation  of  recycling  credits  would  lead  to  a  liquid  market  for   credits   or   cause   producers   to   hoard   credits,   which   would   reduce   future   recycling.256     Striking   a   balance   between   incentivizing   manufacturers   to   recycle   the   products   that   exceed   the   manufacturer’s   yearly   target   and   preventing   the   state   from   shouldering   excess   recycling   costs   requires   attention   in   future   applications.   3.    Enforcement  of  Recycling  Requirements   New   York   and   other   states’   programs   should   monitor   the   implementation   of   recycling   requirements   to   ensure   compliance.     States  must  play  a  role  in  monitoring  recycling  practices  within  their   borders  in  order  to  ensure  that  their  environmental  goals  are  being   met.257    States  must  also  take  action  to  ensure  that  recyclers  do  not   cut   corners  or   illegally   export   toxic   components.258    Export  of   toxic   components,  however,  is  outside  state  jurisdiction;  it  is  controlled  by   EPA,   which   receives   continued   criticism   for   its   export   controls.259       254. See  ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  17,  at  4.   255. GAO,  ELECTRONIC  WASTE:    CONSIDERATIONS,  supra  note  3,  at  52.   256. ELECS.  TAKEBACK  COAL.,  supra  note  17,  at  4  (discussing  problems  of  credit  banking  and   low  manufacturer  goals).   257. Id.   258. See  generally  GAO,  EPA  NEEDS  TO  BETTER  CONTROL  HARMFUL  U.S.  EXPORTS,  supra  note  9   (discussing  problems  with  illegal  recycling).   259. Id.  at  23  (calling  the  CRT  rule  “largely  ineffectual  because  EPA’s  implementation  of  it   apparently  has  not  deterred   companies   from   illegally   exporting   these   items   from   the  United   States”).    GAO  recommends  “voluntary  initiatives,  new  regulations,  or  combinations  of  multiple   approaches”  to  strengthen  federal  enforcement  of  CRT  exports.    Id.  at  31.     140   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   With  responsibility  for  exports  and  international  recycling  standards   outside  the  bounds  of  state  control,  encouraging  recycling  within  the   state  will  provide  better  oversight  opportunities.   C.    Financing   The  success  of  e-­‐waste  programs  relates  directly  to  the  security  of   program   funding.     In   fact,   the   financing   of   recycling   costs   is   the   primary   point   of   contention   that   inhibits   consensus   on   federal   legislation.260     Thus,   how   successfully   EERRA   addresses   funding   concerns  will  be  a  key  issue  in  determining  whether  expansion  of  the   approach  outside  New  York  is   likely.    EERRA  promises  to  provide  a   low-­‐cost   model   in   which   manufacturers   bear   the   original   costs   of   recycling  programs,  limiting  the  situations  in  which  the  state  will  be   forced  to  bear  additional  implementation  costs.261   Management   of   “orphan   waste”   (electronic   waste   with   no   identifiable   manufacturer   or   whose   manufacturer   is   no   longer   in   business)262   presents   a   funding   challenge   for   every   e-­‐waste   program.263    By  one  estimate,  over  1200  orphan  brands  are  likely  to   appear   in   a   given   e-­‐waste   stream.264     In   a   producer-­‐based   model   such  as  EERRA,   it   is   challenging   to   incorporate   these  products   into   the  recycling  stream.    EERRA  provides  a  partial  answer  by  requiring   manufacturers   to   accept   one   product   of   like   kind   for   each   new   product  purchased.265    This  creates  an  entry-­‐point  for  these  products   by   requiring   manufacturers   to   accept   a   portion   of   the   orphan   products.     EERRA   also   attempts   to   limit   the   introduction   of   new   “orphan”  e-­‐waste  in  the  system  through  labeling  requirements  at  the   time   of   sale.266     However,   this   may   prove   to   be   an   incomplete   solution   if,   in   the   absence   of   strict   enforcement,   new   orphan   products   can   get   into   the   system.     New   labeling   requirements   also   fail   to   address   the  orphan  products   already   in   existence,   as  well   as     260. See  supra  text  accompanying  notes  45–46(discussing  the  National  Electronics  Product   Stewardship  Initiative’s  failure  to  reach  an  agreement  on  a  federal  funding  source).   261. See  supra  Part  I.C.2.a  (discussing  EERRA’s  manufacturer  cost  provisions).   262. Jason  Linnell  et  al.,  Understanding  and  Examining  the  Impacts  of  Orphan  Products  and   ‘White   Box’   Products   on   Emerging   Electronics   Recycling   Systems,   in   PROCEEDINGS   OF   THE   2006   IEEE  INTERNATIONAL  SYMPOSIUM  ON  ELECTRONICS  &  THE  ENVIRONMENT  144,  144  (2006).   263. LUTHER,  ANALYSIS  OF  STATE  E-­‐WASTE  LEGISLATION,  supra  note  2,  at  6.   264. Id.  (quoting  results  from  Washington  e-­‐waste  returns).   265. N.Y.  ENVTL.  CONSERV.  LAW  §  27-­‐2603(1)(b)  (McKinney  Supp.  2012).   266. Id.   §   27-­‐2609   (“[A]   manufacturer   may   not   offer   for   sale   in   the   state   or   deliver   to   retailers  for  subsequent  sale  covered  electronic  equipment  unless   it  has  a  visible,  permanent   label  clearly  identifying  the  manufacturer  of  that  equipment.”).     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   141   orphan   products   whose   manufacturer   is   out   of   business.     An   alternative   approach   for   states   where   manufacturers   do   not   implement   their   own   programs   could   be   to   bill   each  manufacturer   for  a  pro  rata  share  of  orphan  devices.267   States   must   address   the   problem   of   existing   orphan   waste   and   limit   future   orphan   waste   in   the   adoption   and   modification   of   e-­‐ waste   programs.268     Likewise,   states   should   monitor   the   financial   burden   on   manufacturers   and   provide   necessary   assistance   in   addressing  this  central  concern.     Just  as   finances  continue  to  be  the   primary  concern  preventing  agreement  on  the  best  approach  at  the   federal   level,  solving  financing  issues  will  continue  to  be  of  primary   importance   for   the   implementation   of   any   successful   e-­‐waste   program  at  the  state  level.   IV.    CONCLUSION   The   implementation   of   successful   e-­‐waste   programs   is   of   increasing   importance   to  parties  at   the   state  and   federal   levels.    As   the   amount   of   discarded   electronic  waste   increases,   the   need   for   a   comprehensive  solution  that  successfully  addresses  all  actors  in  the   system   continues   to   grow.     EERRA   took   several   important   steps   toward   implementing   a   comprehensive   e-­‐waste  program,   including   its   expansive   scope   of   coverage,   the   increasing   attention   given   to   enforcement   concerns,   and   a   dedicated   funding   stream.     These   innovations   all   provide   an   important   foundation   from   which   a   successful   e-­‐waste   system   can   emerge.     Indeed,   EERRA   has   raised   the   bar   for   what   a   comprehensive   e-­‐waste   program   should   accomplish.   While   EERRA   can   serve   as   a   useful   blueprint   for   future   e-­‐waste   programs,   ultimately,   application   of   the   plan   to   other   contexts  will   require  individually  tailored  approaches.    Just  as  EERRA  considered   the   unique   circumstances,   compliance   challenges,   and   financing   concerns  facing  New  York,  so  too  must  other  states  consider  how  the   application   of   specific   e-­‐waste   programs   could   raise   unique   issues   within   their   own  borders.    However,  New  York’s   legislation,   as   the   most  comprehensive  and  forward-­‐looking  solution  to  date,  provides   a   strong  model   for   the   future   implementation   of   e-­‐waste   recycling     267. See  415   ILL.   COMP.   STAT.   ANN.   150/10   (West   Supp.   2012)   (distributing   orphan  waste   costs  proportionally  across  manufacturers).   268. LUTHER,   ANALYSIS   OF   STATE   E-­‐WASTE   LEGISLATION,   supra   note   2,   at   6–8   (discussing   orphan  waste  as  a  concern  in  determining  financing  mechanisms).     142   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   programs  in  other  states.     2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   143     Appendix  A:    Chart  of  Current  State  E-­‐waste  Programs     State   Date  Passed   Statutory   Citation   Information     California   Sept.   25,   2003   CAL.   HEALTH   &   SAFETY   CODE   §§   25214.9– 25214.10.2   (West  2006)   Advanced   Fee   Recovery   system.   Connecticut   July  6,  2007   Conn.  Gen.  Stat.   §§  22a-­‐629–   22a-­‐640   (Supp.   2012)       Hawaii   July  2008   HAW.  REV.  STAT.   ANN.   §   339D   (LexisNexis   Supp.  2011)   Televisions   added  in  2009.     Illinois   Sept.   17,   2008   415   Ill.   Comp.   Stat.   Ann.   150/1– 150/999   (West   Supp.   2012)       Indiana   May   13,   2009   IND.   CODE   §§   13-­‐20.5-­‐1-­‐1– 13-­‐20.5-­‐10-­‐2   (LexisNexis   2011)     Maine   Original   pilot   program   passed   in   2004       ME.   REV.   STAT.   ANN.   tit.   38   §   1610   (Supp.   2011).   Amended   in   2009   (making   program   permanent   and   adding   additional   devices)   and   2011.     Maryland   2005   MD.   CODE   ANN.,   ENVIR.   §§   9-­‐ Amended   in   2007   to   add     144   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   1701–1730   (LexisNexis   2007).   televisions.   Michigan   Dec.  26,  2008   MICH.   COMP.   LAWS   ANN.   §§   324.17301– 17333   (West   2009);   Amended   in   2011   to   add   printers.   Minnesota   May  8,  2007   MINN.   STAT.   ANN.   §§   115A.1310– 1330   (West   Supp.  2012)   Revised   in  2009   and  2011.   Missouri   June   16,   2008   MO.   ANN.   STAT.   §§   260.1050– 1101   (West   Supp.  2012)     New  Jersey   Jan.  15,  2008   N.J.  STAT.  ANN.  §   13:1E-­‐99.94   (West   Supp.   2012)   Revision   signed   in  2009.     New  York   May   29,   2010   N.Y.   ENVTL.   CONSERV.   LAW   §§   27-­‐2601– 27-­‐2621   (McKinney   Supp.  2012)       North  Carolina   Aug.   13,   2007   N.C.   GEN   STAT.   §§   130A-­‐ 309.130– 309.141   (2011)   Televisions   added  in  2008.   Oklahoma   May   13,   2008   OKLA.   STAT.   ANN.   tit.  27A  §§   2-­‐11-­‐601–   2.11.611   (West   2011)     Oregon   June  7,  2007   OR.  REV.  STAT.  §   459A.300   (2011)       2012]   Electronic  Waste:    The  New  York  Approach   145   Pennsylvania   Nov.   23,   2010   35   PA.   CONS.   STAT.   ANN.   §   6031   (West   Supp.  2011)       Rhode  Island   June   27,   2008   R.I.   GEN.   LAWS   §§   23-­‐24.10-­‐1– 23-­‐24.10-­‐17   (2008)     South  Carolina   May   19,   2010   S.C.   CODE   ANN.   §§   48-­‐60-­‐05– 48-­‐60-­‐150   (Supp.  2011)     Texas   June   15,   2007   TEX.   HEALTH   &   SAFETY   CODE   ANN.   §§   361.951–966   (West  2010).       Television   law   passed  in  2011.   Utah   March  2011   UTAH  CODE  ANN.   §§   19-­‐6-­‐1201– 1205   (LexisNexis   Supp.  2011)   Requires   only   manufacturer   education,   not   recycling.   Vermont   April   21,   2010   VT.   STAT.   ANN.   tit.   10,   §§   75511–7564   (2011)     Virginia   March   11,   2008   VA.   CODE   ANN.   §§   10.1-­‐ 1425.27– 1425.38   (Supp.   2011)       Washington     March  2006   WASH.   REV.   CODE   ANN.   §   70.95N   (West   2011)     West  Virginia   January  2009   W.   VA.   CODE   ANN.   §   22-­‐15A-­‐ 25   (LexisNexis       146   COLUMBIA  JOURNAL  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW   [Vol.  37:2   2009)   Wisconsin   Oct.  23,  2009   WIS.   STAT.   ANN.   §   287.17   (West   Supp.  2011)