Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.320 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) At least twenty days before the rule-making hearing at which the agency receives public comment regarding adoption of a rule, the agency shall cause notice of the hearing to be published in the state register. The publication constitutes the proposal of a rule. The notice shall include all of the following:

(a) A title, a description of the rule's purpose, and any other information which may be of assistance in identifying the rule or its purpose;

(b) Citations of the statutory authority for adopting the rule and the specific statute the rule is intended to implement;

(c) A short explanation of the rule, its purpose, and anticipated effects, including in the case of a proposal that would modify existing rules, a short description of the changes the proposal would make, and a statement of the reasons supporting the proposed action;

(d) The agency personnel, with their office location and telephone number, who are responsible for the drafting, implementation, and enforcement of the rule;

(e) The name of the person or organization, whether private, public, or governmental, proposing the rule;

(f) Agency comments or recommendations, if any, regarding statutory language, implementation, enforcement, and fiscal matters pertaining to the rule;

(g) Whether the rule is necessary as the result of federal law or federal or state court action, and if so, a citation to such law or court decision;

(h) When, where, and how persons may present their views on the proposed rule;

(i) The date on which the agency intends to adopt the rule;

(j) A copy of the small business economic impact statement prepared under chapter 19.85 RCW, or a copy of the school district fiscal impact statement under RCW 28A.305.135 in the case of the state board of education, or an explanation for why the agency did not prepare the statement;

(k) A statement indicating whether RCW 34.05.328 applies to the rule adoption; and

(l) If RCW 34.05.328 does apply, a statement indicating that a copy of the preliminary cost-benefit analysis described in RCW 34.05.328(1)(c) is available.

(2)(a) Upon filing notice of the proposed rule with the code reviser, the adopting agency shall have copies of the notice on file and available for public inspection. Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, the agency shall forward three copies of the notice to the rules review committee.

(b) A pilot of at least ten agencies, including the departments of labor and industries, fish and wildlife, revenue, ecology, retirement systems, and health, shall file the copies required under this subsection, as well as under RCW 34.05.350 and 34.05.353, with the rules review committee electronically for a period of four years from June 10, 2004. The office of regulatory assistance shall negotiate the details of the pilot among the agencies, the legislature, and the code reviser.

(3) No later than three days after its publication in the state register, the agency shall cause either a copy of the notice of proposed rule adoption, or a summary of the information contained on the notice, to be mailed to each person, city, and county that has made a request to the agency for a mailed copy of such notices. An agency may charge for the actual cost of providing a requesting party mailed copies of these notices.

(4) In addition to the notice required by subsections (1) and (2) of this section, an institution of higher education shall cause the notice to be published in the campus or standard newspaper of the institution at least seven days before the rule-making hearing.

[ 2012 c 210 s 2; 2004 c 31 s 2; 2003 c 165 s 1; 1995 c 403 s 302; 1994 c 249 s 14; 1992 c 197 s 8; 1989 c 175 s 7; 1988 c 288 s 303; 1982 c 221 s 2; 1982 c 6 s 7; 1980 c 186 s 10; 1977 ex.s. c 84 s 1. Formerly RCW 34.04.045.]

Notes:

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.

Severability—1980 c 186: "If any provision of this 1980 act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1980 c 186 s 29.]

Expedited adoption: RCW 34.05.353.

Small business economic impact statement—Purpose—Contents: RCW 19.85.040.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: J.E. Dunn Nw., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wash. App. 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

J.E. Dunn Nw., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wash. App. 35 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Agency rules must be promulgated pursuant to the rulemaking requirements of the APA, which include publishing the proposed rule in the state register, giving notice of a public hearing, providing an explanatory statement, and maintaining a rule-making file.”

Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.320, .325. The purpose of rule-making procedures is to ensure that members of the public can participate meaningfully in the development of agency policies which affect them.”

Hillis v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 932 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1997). “Therefore, when Ecology sets out priorities and establishes prerequisites to those decisions, the agency should engage in rule making so the public has some input into those decisions.”

Washington State Commc'n Access Proj. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 293 P.3d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “WAC 162-08-600; RCW 34.05.320. WAC 30-12-037. WAC 162-08-610.”

Allan v. Univ. of Washington, 140 Wash. 2d 323 (Wash. 2000). “See RCW 34.05.320, .325; Allan, 92 Wn. App. at 35 n.”

Allan v. Univ. of Washington, 997 P.2d 360 (Wash. 2000). “See RCW 34.05.320, .325; Allan, 92 Wash.App. at 35 n.”

Hunter v. Univ. of Washington, 101 Wash. App. 283 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 34.05.320. “The rules it adopts should be justified and reasonable, with the agency having determined, based on common sense criteria established by the legislature, that the obligations imposed are truly in the public interest [.”

Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003). “n sixty days after submission of a petition, the agency shall either (a) deny the petition in writing, stating (i) its reasons for the denial, specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner, and, where appropriate, (ii) the alternative means by which it will…”

Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 149 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2003). “n sixty days after submission of a petition, the agency shall either (a) deny the petition in writing, stating (i) its reasons for the denial, specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner, and, where appropriate, (ii) the alternative means by which it will…”

Univ. of Washington v. Allan, 959 P.2d 1184 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “She asserted that the University’s failure to provide her with notice of the proposed *35 revisions and opportunity to comment before their adoption violated the rule-making requirements of Washington’s APA, RCW 34.05.320(1) and RCW 34.05.325(2), (4), (6).”

Yakima Cnty. v. Yakima Cnty. Law Enf't Officers' Guild, 297 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). ““ ‘Order,’ without further qualification, means a written statement of particular applicability that finally determines the legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities, or other legal interests of a specific person or persons” RCW 34.”

Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Transp. Benefit Area v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 294 P.3d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “The APA defines an “adjudicative proceeding” as one where an opportunity for a hearing is required “before or after the entry of an order by the agency.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.320(1) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.320(1)(a) — 1 case

Harbor Plumbing v. Washington State Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

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.