Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.85.040 (2026)
Small business economic impact statement—Purpose—Contents
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A small business economic impact statement must include a brief description of the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, and the kinds of professional services that a small business is likely to need in order to comply with such requirements. It shall analyze the costs of compliance for businesses required to comply with the proposed rule adopted pursuant to RCW 34.05.320, including costs of equipment, supplies, labor, professional services, and increased administrative costs. It shall consider, based on input received, whether compliance with the rule will cause businesses to lose sales or revenue. To determine whether the proposed rule will have a disproportionate cost impact on small businesses, the impact statement must compare the cost of compliance for small business with the cost of compliance for the ten percent of businesses that are the largest businesses required to comply with the proposed rules using one or more of the following as a basis for comparing costs:
(a) Cost per employee;
(b) Cost per hour of labor; or
(c) Cost per one hundred dollars of sales.
(2) A small business economic impact statement must also include:
(a) A statement of the steps taken by the agency to reduce the costs of the rule on small businesses as required by RCW 19.85.030(2), or reasonable justification for not doing so, addressing the options listed in RCW 19.85.030(2);
(b) A description of how the agency will involve small businesses in the development of the rule;
(c) A list of industries that will be required to comply with the rule. However, this subsection (2)(c) shall not be construed to preclude application of the rule to any business or industry to which it would otherwise apply; and
(d) An estimate of the number of jobs that will be created or lost as the result of compliance with the proposed rule.
(3) To obtain information for purposes of this section, an agency may survey a representative sample of affected businesses or trade associations and should, whenever possible, appoint a committee under RCW 34.05.310(2) to assist in the accurate assessment of the costs of a proposed rule, and the means to reduce the costs imposed on small business.
[ 2007 c 239 s 4; 1995 c 403 s 403; 1994 c 249 s 12. Prior: 1989 c 374 s 3; 1989 c 175 s 73; 1982 c 6 s 4.]
Notes:
Findings—2007 c 239: See note following RCW 19.85.020.
Application—1995 c 403 ss 201, 301-305, 401-405, and 801: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
Severability—Application—1994 c 249: See notes following RCW 34.05.310.
Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Publication in Washington State Register: RCW 34.08.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2014–2014 · leading case: Gerow v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 324 P.3d 800 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Gerow v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 324 P.3d 800 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “ZDI also argues that WAC 230-14-047 and 230-06-003 should be invalidated because the Commission adopted these rules without preparing a Small Business Economic Impact Statement as required by the Regulatory Fairness Act, RCW 19.85.040 or, alternatively, that the Commission acted…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.