WASHINGTON STATE REGISTER

WSR 99-12-095

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

[ Filed June 1, 1999, 4:23 p.m. ]

Governor Locke's Regulatory Improvement Executive Order 97-02 mandates each state agency to review rules that have a significant effect on business, labor, consumers, and the environment and to provide a means of public participation in the review process.

To comply with Executive Order 97-02, the Department of Ecology gives notice of the opportunity to comment¹ on the following rule(s): Chapter 173-216 WAC, State waste discharge permit program, chapter 173-218 WAC, Under ground injection control program, chapter 173-220 WAC, National pollutant discharge elimination system permit program, and chapter 173-270 WAC, Puget Sound highway runoff program.

All comments must be received, in writing, by 5:00 p.m., July 16, 1999. Comments should be addressed to Jerry Thielen, Agency Rules Coordinator, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, fax (360) 407-6989, e-mail jthi461@ecy.wa.gov.

Comments should specifically address the following elements of the rule:

NEED

• Is this rule necessary to comply with statutes that authorize it?
• Is this rule obsolete, duplicative, or ambiguous to degree that warrants repeal or revision?
• Have laws or circumstances changed so that the rule should be amended or repealed?
• Is the rule necessary to protect or safeguard the health, welfare, or safety of Washington's citizens?
EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY

• Is this rule providing results that it was originally designed to achieve in a reasonable manner?
• Are there regulatory alternative or new technologies that could more effectively or efficiently achieve the same objectives?
CLARITY

• Is this rule written and organized in a clear and concise manner so that it can be readily understood by those to whom it applies?
INTENT AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY

• Is this rule consistent with the legislative intent of the statutes that authorize it?
• Is this rule based upon sufficient statutory authority?
• Is there a need to develop a more specific legislative authorization in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Washington's citizens?
COORDINATION

• Could additional consultation and coordination with other governmental jurisdictions and state agencies with similar regulatory authority eliminate or reduce duplication and inconsistency?
COST

• Have qualitative and quantitative benefits of the rule been considered to [in] relation to its costs?
FAIRNESS

• Does this rule result in equitable treatment of those required to comply with it?
• Should it be modified to eliminate or minimize any disproportionate impacts on the regulated community?
• Should it be strengthened to provide additional protection?

¹ Comments received are for the purpose of this rule review and will not be considered a petition under RCW 34.05.330.

•	Is this rule necessary to comply with statutes that authorize it?
•	Is this rule obsolete, duplicative, or ambiguous to degree that warrants repeal or revision?
•	Have laws or circumstances changed so that the rule should be amended or repealed?
•	Is the rule necessary to protect or safeguard the health, welfare, or safety of Washington's citizens?

•	Is this rule providing results that it was originally designed to achieve in a reasonable manner?
•	Are there regulatory alternative or new technologies that could more effectively or efficiently achieve the same objectives?

•	Is this rule consistent with the legislative intent of the statutes that authorize it?
•	Is this rule based upon sufficient statutory authority?
•	Is there a need to develop a more specific legislative authorization in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Washington's citizens?

•	Does this rule result in equitable treatment of those required to comply with it?
•	Should it be modified to eliminate or minimize any disproportionate impacts on the regulated community?
•	Should it be strengthened to provide additional protection?

© Washington State Code Reviser's Office