Revised Code of Washington
Chapter 70A.500 - Electronic Product Recycling.
70A.500.290 - Manufacturers to pay their apportioned share of administrative and operational costs—Performance bonds—Dispute arbitration.

RCW 70A.500.290
Manufacturers to pay their apportioned share of administrative and operational costs—Performance bonds—Dispute arbitration.

(1) Manufacturers participating in the standard plan shall pay the authority to cover all administrative and operational costs associated with the collection, transportation, 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 as described in RCW 70A.500.270(5).
(2) The authority shall 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. For program years 2009 through 2015, such apportionment must be based on return share, market share, any combination of return share and market share, or any other equitable method. For the 2016 program year and all subsequent program years, such apportionment must be based on market share. 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. 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. The authority shall 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 under this section, the authority shall notify the department that the manufacturer is no longer participating in the standard plan.
(6) For program years 2009 through 2015, the authority shall submit its plan for assessing charges and apportioning cost on manufacturers participating in the standard plan to the department for review and approval along with the standard plan as provided in RCW 70A.500.060.
(7)(a) Any manufacturer participating in the standard plan may appeal an assessment of charges or apportionment of costs levied by the authority under this section by written petition to the director of the department. The director of the department or the director's designee shall review all appeals within timelines established by the department and shall reverse any assessments of charges or apportionment of costs if the director finds that the authority's assessments or apportionment of costs was an arbitrary administrative decision, an abuse of administrative discretion, or is not an equitable assessment or apportionment of costs. The director shall make a fair and impartial decision based on sound data. If the director of the department reverses an assessment of charges, the authority must redetermine the assessment or apportionment of costs.
(b) Disputes regarding a final decision made by the director or director's designee may be challenged through arbitration. The director shall appoint one member to serve on the arbitration panel and the challenging party shall appoint one other. These two persons 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. 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.

[ 2020 c 20 § 1261; 2013 c 305 § 13; 2006 c 183 § 31. Formerly RCW 70.95N.300.]
NOTES:

Effective date—2013 c 305: See note following RCW 70A.500.020.