Wash. Rev. Code » Title 34 · Chapter 34.05
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.230 (2026)

Interpretive and policy statements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) An agency is encouraged to advise the public of its current opinions, approaches, and likely courses of action by means of interpretive or policy statements. Current interpretive and policy statements are advisory only. To better inform and involve the public, an agency is encouraged to convert long-standing interpretive and policy statements into rules.
(2) A person may petition an agency requesting the conversion of interpretive and policy statements into rules. Upon submission, the agency shall notify the joint administrative rules review committee of the petition. Within sixty days after submission of a petition, the agency shall either deny the petition in writing, stating its reasons for the denial, or initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with this chapter.
(3) Each agency shall maintain a roster of interested persons, consisting of persons who have requested in writing to be notified of all interpretive and policy statements issued by that agency. Each agency shall update the roster periodically and eliminate persons who do not indicate a desire to continue on the roster. Whenever an agency issues an interpretive or policy statement, it shall send a copy of the statement to each person listed on the roster. The agency may charge a nominal fee to the interested person for this service.
(4) Whenever an agency issues an interpretive or policy statement, it shall submit to the code reviser for publication in the Washington State Register a statement describing the subject matter of the interpretive or policy statement, and listing the person at the agency from whom a copy of the interpretive or policy statement may be obtained.
[ 2004 c 31 s 3; 2001 c 25 s 1; 1997 c 409 s 202; 1996 c 206 s 12; 1995 c 403 s 702; 1988 c 288 s 203.]

Notes:

Part headings—Severability—1997 c 409: See notes following RCW 43.22.051.
Findings—1996 c 206: See note following RCW 43.05.030.
Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Ass'n of Washington Bus. v. Dep't of Revenue, 120 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ass'n of Washington Bus. v. Dep't of Revenue, 120 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “Current interpretive and policy statements are advisory only.”
J.E. Dunn Nw., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wash. App. 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” RCW 34.05.230(1); Simpson Inv. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 141 Wn.”
Washington Educ. Ass'n v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 80 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “” RCW 34.05.230(1); RCW 43.05.005 (emphasis added).”
W. Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 998 P.2d 884 (Wash. 2000). “010(8) defines an "interpretive statement" as a written expression of the opinion of an agency, entitled an interpretive statement by the agency head or its designee, as to the meaning of a statute or other provision of law, of a court decision, or of an agency order.”
W. Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma Dep't of Fin., 140 Wash. 2d 599 (Wash. 2000). “010(8) defines an “interpretive statement” as a written expression of the opinion of an agency, entitled an interpretive statement by the agency head or its designee, as to the meaning of a statute or other provision of law, of a court decision, or of an agency order.”
Simpson Inv. Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 3 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2000). “[ [15] ] RCW 34.05.230(8). This is precisely what the Department has done in ETB 571.”
Champagne v. Thurston Cnty., 163 Wash. 2d 69 (Wash. 2008). “An agency may put forth policy statements to inform the public of its “current approach .”
Champagne v. Thurston Cnty., 178 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2008). “St. Reg. XX-XX-XXX. An agency may put forth policy statements to inform the public of its "current approach .”
Raz Yaron, V. Sierra Conley, 488 P.3d 855 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “3d 250 (2007) (quoting RCW 34.05.230(1); Joyce v. Dep’t of Corr.”
Robert Sudar v. Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 347 P.3d 1090 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 77.04.055(1), (2), (5). The APA encourages agencies to adopt policy statements to “advise the public of its current opinions, approaches, and likely courses of action.”
Simpson Inv. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 141 Wash. 2d 139 (Wash. 2000). “[ 15 ] RCW 34.05.230(8). This is precisely what the Department has done in ETB 571.”
Je Dunn Nw., Inc. v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 156 P.3d 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “" RCW 34.05.230(1); Simpson Inv. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 141 Wash.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.230(1) — 19 cases
J.E. Dunn Nw., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wash. App. 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “” RCW 34.05.230(1); Simpson Inv. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 141 Wn.”
Washington Educ. Ass'n v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 80 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2003). “” RCW 34.05.230(1); RCW 43.05.005 (emphasis added).”
Champagne v. Thurston Cnty., 163 Wash. 2d 69 (Wash. 2008). “An agency may put forth policy statements to inform the public of its “current approach .”
Champagne v. Thurston Cnty., 178 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2008). “St. Reg. XX-XX-XXX. An agency may put forth policy statements to inform the public of its "current approach .”
Raz Yaron, V. Sierra Conley, 488 P.3d 855 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “3d 250 (2007) (quoting RCW 34.05.230(1); Joyce v. Dep’t of Corr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.230(2) — 1 case
Ass'n of Washington Bus. v. Dep't of Revenue, 120 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2005). “Current interpretive and policy statements are advisory only.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.230(8) — 2 cases
Simpson Inv. Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 3 P.3d 741 (Wash. 2000). “[ [15] ] RCW 34.05.230(8). This is precisely what the Department has done in ETB 571.”
Simpson Inv. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 141 Wash. 2d 139 (Wash. 2000). “[ 15 ] RCW 34.05.230(8). This is precisely what the Department has done in ETB 571.”
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.