ELR Citation: ELR 20128
No(s). 93-CV-659 (N.D.N.Y. Jul 17, 1993)

The court holds that nonprofit automobile dealers associations lack standing to challenge New York State's adoption of new motor vehicle emission regulations for model year 1994 vehicles pursuant to §177 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The court holds that the associations have not suffered economic injury sufficient to constitute an injury-in-fact, because although the standards effectively restrict the market for New York State vehicles to California-certified vehicles, which meet the same strict standards adopted by New York State, both New York State and out-of-state dealers would be equally affected in their ability to satisfy consumer demand. In addition, the alleged harm suffered from having to purchase the more expensive California-certified vehicles is insufficient to support the associations' standing, because the alleged price differential will not disadvantage the New York State dealers in their ability to trade automobiles with out-of-state dealers for the purpose of satisfying consumer demand. Moreover, any injury resulting from a decision by manufacturers not to produce all of their vehicle models to meet the California standards is not fairly traceable to the state's allegedly unlawful conduct, because the harm alleged results from the independent decisions of the manufacturers and not from the state's conduct. Finally, the court holds that the associations fail to meet the prudential limits on federal court jurisdiction, because CAA §§177 and 209 do not entitle the associations' members to the judicial relief they seek. Section 177 was not intended to protect dealers from financial harm caused by a state's adoption of standards. Moreover, although Congress sought to protect automobile dealers' interests in selling federally certified vehicles by enacting CAA §209, a general preemptive provision, Congress effectively sacrificed those interests in favor of the legitimate police powers of states by enacting §177. On reconsideration, the court holds that the associations failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the court overlooked factual matters or controlling precedent. The additional affidavits they submitted do not alter the central conclusion that the harm alleged does not constitute injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Jonathan P. Nye
Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna
One Commerce Plaza, Albany NY 12260
(518) 487-7600

Counsel for Defendants
Joan L. Matthews, Ass't Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
New York State Department of Law
The Capitol, Albany NY 12224
(518) 474-7124