Case Title: In re Electronic Industries Alliance

Citation: 179 Vt. 539, 2005 VT 111, 889 A.2d 729

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Electronic Industries Alliance (2004-469); 179 Vt. 539; 889 A.2d 729

2005 VT 111

[Filed 06-Oct-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 111

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-469

                               JUNE TERM, 2005

  In re Appeal of Electronic 	       }	APPEALED  FROM:
  Industries Alliance                  }
                                       }
                                       }
       	                               }	Agency of Natural Resources
                                       }	
   	                               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 2004-1


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  The Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA), a national trade
  organization, appeals from a declaratory ruling of the Secretary of Natural
  Resources, made pursuant to 3 V.S.A. § 808, that Vermont's mercury-added
  consumer product labeling law, 10 V.S.A. § 6621d, requires labeling of
  products containing lamps that, in turn, contain mercury.  EIA argues that
  the requirement is inconsistent with the statute and the implementing rules
  adopted by the Department of Environmental Conservation, and, as a result,
  imposes a requirement of general applicability for which DEC was required
  to promulgate a rule.  We hold that the Secretary properly interpreted the
  statute and rules and, as a result, we do not need to reach EIA's second
  argument.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  EIA represents manufacturers of computers with liquid crystal
  display (LCD) computer screens that contain lamps, which, in turn, contain
  mercury.  The dispute here centers around a mandated label that "must
  clearly inform the purchaser or consumer that mercury is present in the
  item and that the item may not be disposed of or placed in a waste stream
  destined for disposal until the mercury is removed and reused, recycled, or
  otherwise managed to ensure that it does not become part of solid waste or
  wastewater."  10 V.S.A. § 6621d(a).  The labeling requirement helps ensure
  that "labeled mercury-added consumer products" are not placed in landfills. 
  Id. § 6621a(a)(7).  EIA argues that only the lamp within the computer
  screen must be labeled.  The Secretary ruled that the label must appear on
  the computer.

       ¶  3.  The issue is primarily one of statutory interpretation.  The
  statute prohibits a manufacturer from selling "any of the following items .
  . . if they contain mercury added during manufacture, unless the item is
  labeled."  Id.  § 6621d(a).  The statute requires the following items to be
  labeled:
   
    (1) A thermostat or thermometer.
    (2) A switch, individually, or as part of another product.
    (3) A medical or scientific instrument.
    (4) An electric relay or other electrical device.
    (5) A lamp.
    (6) A battery, sold to the public, other than a button battery.

  Id.  Primary responsibility for affixing labels lies with the manufacturer. 
  Each manufacturer required to label must certify annually that it has
  developed a labeling plan "that complies with this section and any
  administrative labeling rule adopted by the agency of natural resources." 
  Id.  "The labeling plan shall include detailed descriptions of the products
  involved and the label size, material, content, location, and attachment
  method for each product and for product packaging, where necessary under
  the rules, so a label is clearly visible at time of purchase."  Id.  The
  statute required the Agency to adopt rules to "establish standards for
  affixing of labels, in compliance with federal law, either to the product
  or to the package."  Id. § 6621d(f). 

       ¶  4.  The Agency of Natural Resources adopted rules creating
  labeling standards for mercury-added consumer products listed in 10 V.S.A.
  § 6621d(a).  Among the standards are that

    (2) A label must be clearly visible and legible to consumers prior
    to purchase of the product.  The label must be located on a
    surface of the product that is visible during installation and
    removal.
    (3) For labels affixed to products, the required words or symbols
    must be printed, mounted, molded, or engraved on the surface of
    the product using materials sufficiently durable to remain legible
    for the useful life of the product.
    (4) For products with enclosed mercury-added switches, both the
    enclosed device and the larger product must be labeled.

       Vermont Solid Waste Management 6-803(b)(2)-(4), 8 Code of Vermont
  Rules 12 063 003-58

       ¶  5.  EIA bases its argument, almost exclusively, on the treatment
  of switches in the statute and rules.  Unlike the other items in the
  statute, switches must be labeled "individually, or as part of another
  product."  10 V.S.A. § 6621d(a)(2).  Because the descriptive words are
  absent from the other items in the statute, EIA argues that the other items
  do not have to be labeled "as part of another product."  Further, according
  to EIA, the language of Rule 6-803(b) which requires that "both the
  enclosed device and the larger product . . . be labeled" for switches, but
  omits any such requirement for other items, including lamps, reinforces its
  argument.
        
       ¶  6.  The Secretary rejected EIA's argument because it "would
  render the statute's purpose virtually meaningless."  The Secretary
  reconciled the language in the statute and the rule by specifying that for
  switches, labels must be affixed to both the item and the larger product,
  but for other items a label need only be affixed to the larger product. 
  The Secretary noted that only the manufacturer knows whether or not a
  product contains mercury and "[i]f consumers do not know about the presence
  of mercury in their products, they cannot dispose of the products
  properly."  The Secretary also noted that the sentences of the statute
  requiring a labeling plan and specifying the content of the plan refer to
  "product" or "products," terms that refer to the thing containing the items
  specified in the statute.  Finally, the Secretary noted that the only way a
  label can be "visible at the time of purchase," as the statute requires, is
  if it is placed on the larger product that contains the item that, in turn,
  contains the mercury.

       ¶  7.  We construe the statute under a deferential standard of
  review.  Absent a compelling indication of error, we must sustain the
  construction of a statute by the agency responsible for its execution.  See
  Laumann v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2004 VT 60, ¶ 7, 177 Vt. 52, 857 A.2d 309.  Similarly, we must defer to the agency's interpretation of its rule. 
  In re S.M., 2003 VT 41, ¶ 6, 175 Vt. 524,