Section 173-900-997 - The standard plan's assessment of charges and apportionment of costs(1) Manufacturers participating in the standard plan must pay the authority to cover all administrative and operational costs associated with the collection, transportation, processing, and recycling of covered electronic products within the state of Washington incurred by the standard program operated by the authority to meet the standard plan's equivalent share obligation.(2) The authority must assess charges on each manufacturer participating in the standard plan and collect funds from each participating manufacturer for the manufacturer's portion of the costs in subsection (1) of this section. (a) For program years 2016 and beyond, such apportionment must be based on market share.(b) The authority's apportionment of costs to manufacturers participating in the standard plan may not include nor be based on electronic products imported through the state and subsequently exported outside the state.(c) Charges assessed under this section must not be formulated in such a way as to create incentives to divert imported electronic products to ports or distribution centers in other states.(d) The authority must adjust the charges to manufacturers participating in the standard plan as necessary in order to ensure that all costs associated with the identified activities are covered.(3) The authority may require financial assurances or performance bonds for manufacturers participating in the standard plan, including but not limited to new entrants and white box manufacturers, when determining equitable methods for apportioning costs to ensure that the long-term costs for collecting, transporting, and recycling of a covered electronic product are borne by the appropriate manufacturer in the event that the manufacturer ceases to participate in the program.(4) Nothing in this section authorizes the authority to assess fees or levy taxes directly on the sale or possession of electronic products.(5) If a manufacturer has not met its financial obligations as determined by the authority, the authority must notify ecology that the manufacturer is not participating in the standard plan (see WAC 173-900-350).(6) The authority must submit its plan for assessing charges and apportioning cost on manufacturers as part of the standard plan (see Part III, WAC 173-900-320).(7)Appeals: Any manufacturer participating in the standard plan may appeal an assessment of charges or apportionment of cost as collected by the authority. (a) The manufacturer must pay their charges or apportionment to the authority and submit a written petition to the director of the department of ecology within fourteen calendar days of receipt of notification of charges or apportionment. The written petition must include proof that:(i) The authority's assessments or apportionment of costs were an arbitrary administrative decision; (ii) An abuse of administrative discretions is proven; or (iii) It is not an equitable assessment of apportionment of costs.(b) Within thirty calendar days of receipt of the written petition, the director or the director's designee will review the appeal.(c) The director will reverse any assessments of charges or apportionment of costs if the appeal is determined to be correct.(d) If the director reverses an assessment of charges, the authority must: (i) Redetermine the assessment or apportionment of costs and submit a plan revision as described in WAC 173-900-335, CEP recycling plan update; and(ii) Once the revision is approved by ecology, send refunds or assess additional charges to standard plan participants per the revision.(8)Arbitration: Disputes regarding the final decision by the director or the director's designee may be challenged through arbitration.(a) The director shall appoint one member to serve on the arbitration panel.(b) The challenging party shall appoint one member to serve on the arbitration panel.(c) These two members shall choose a third person to serve. If the two persons cannot agree on a third person, the presiding judge of the Thurston county superior court shall choose a third person.(d) The decision of the arbitration panel shall be final and binding, subject to review by the superior court solely upon the question of whether the decision of the panel was arbitrary or capricious.Wash. Admin. Code § 173-900-997
Amended by WSR 16-06-107, Filed 3/1/2016, effective 4/1/2016Statutory Authority: Chapters 70.95N, 70.105, and 70.105D RCW. 07-21-013 (Order 07-05), § 173-900-997, filed 10/5/07, effective 11/5/07.