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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.330 (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) Any person may petition an agency requesting the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any rule. The office of financial management shall prescribe by rule the format for such petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration, and disposition and provide a standard form that may be used to petition any agency. Within 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 address the concerns raised by the petitioner, or (b) initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with RCW 34.05.320.
(2) If an agency denies a petition to repeal or amend a rule submitted under subsection (1) of this section, and the petition alleges that the rule is not within the intent of the legislature or was not adopted in accordance with all applicable provisions of law, the person may petition for review of the rule by the joint administrative rules review committee under RCW 34.05.655.
(3) If an agency denies a petition to repeal or amend a rule submitted under subsection (1) of this section, the petitioner, within thirty days of the denial, may appeal the denial to the governor. The governor shall immediately file notice of the appeal with the code reviser for publication in the Washington state register. Within forty-five days after receiving the appeal, the governor shall either (a) deny the petition in writing, stating (i) his or her reasons for the denial, specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner, and, (ii) where appropriate, the alternative means by which he or she will address the concerns raised by the petitioner; (b) for agencies listed in RCW 43.17.010, direct the agency to initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with this chapter; or (c) for agencies not listed in RCW 43.17.010, recommend that the agency initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with this chapter. The governor's response to the appeal shall be published in the Washington state register and copies shall be submitted to the chief clerk of the house of representatives and the secretary of the senate.
(4) In petitioning for repeal or amendment of a rule under this section, a person is encouraged to address, among other concerns:
(a) Whether the rule is authorized;
(b) Whether the rule is needed;
(c) Whether the rule conflicts with or duplicates other federal, state, or local laws;
(d) Whether alternatives to the rule exist that will serve the same purpose at less cost;
(e) Whether the rule applies differently to public and private entities;
(f) Whether the rule serves the purposes for which it was adopted;
(g) Whether the costs imposed by the rule are unreasonable;
(h) Whether the rule is clearly and simply stated;
(i) Whether the rule is different than a federal law applicable to the same activity or subject matter without adequate justification; and
(j) Whether the rule was adopted according to all applicable provisions of law.
(5) The department of commerce and the office of financial management shall coordinate efforts among agencies to inform the public about the existence of this rules review process.
(6) The office of financial management shall initiate the rule making required by subsection (1) of this section by September 1, 1995.
[ 2023 c 470 s 2013; 1998 c 280 s 5; 1996 c 318 s 1; 1995 c 403 s 703; 1988 c 288 s 305; 1967 c 237 s 5; 1959 c 234 s 6. Formerly RCW 34.04.060.]

Notes:

Explanatory statement—2023 c 470: See note following RCW 10.99.030.
Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 10× “Thus, compliance with RCW 34.05.330 will in general greatly facilitate judicial review, see Brown, 46 F.”
Rios v. Wash. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 39 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 11× “Thus, compliance with RCW 34.05.330 will in general greatly facilitate judicial review, see Brown, 46 F.”
Rios v. L & I, 5 P.3d 19 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 12× “Instead, RCW 34.05.330 allows an interested party to petition for the adoption, repeal, or amendment of a rule.”
Squaxin Island Tribe v. Dep't of Ecology, 312 P.3d 766 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 9× “We disagree and hold that (1) Ecology’s explanation of its refusal to initiate rule making satisfied RCW 34.05.330 and (2) Ecology’s decision not to engage in rule making was reasoned and supported by the record and, thus, it was not arbitrary and capricious.”
Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 103 Wash. App. 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 11× “Instead, RCW 34.05.330 allows an interested party to petition for the adoption, repeal, or amendment of a rule.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 9× “570(4)(b) because the conservation organizations failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of petitioning for rule making under RCW 34.05.330, and (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required dismissal of the conservation organizations' remaining claims.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 149 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 9× “570(4)(b) because the conservation organizations failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of petitioning for rule making under RCW 34.05.330, and (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required dismissal of the conservation organizations’ remaining claims.”
Washington Fed'n of State Employees v. Dep't of Gen. Admin., 152 Wash. App. 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The Federation then sought the governor’s review under RCW 34.05.330(3). The governor rejected the challenge.”
Nw. Ecosystems All. v. Dep't of Ecology, 17 P.3d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that: (1) the failure-to-act claims did not lie under 570(4)(b); (2) the Appellants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, specifically under RCW 34.”
Save Our Summers v. Washington State Dep't of Ecology, 132 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “Wash.Rev.Code § 34.05.330 (1998). If the agency fails to adopt the proposed rule, in derogation of a duty required by law to be performed, the aggrieved petitioner may seek judicial review of the agency’s inaction.”
Nw. Sportfishing Indus. Ass'n v. Dep't of Ecology, 288 P.3d 677 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “’s petition for rulemaking (1) was not arbitrary and capricious, but rather the product of a thorough analysis of all available information, complying with its duty to protect designated uses, including all indigenous fish and non-fish aquatic species of the Columbia and Snake…”
Fed. of Employees v. Dept. of Gen. Admin., 216 P.3d 1061 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The Federation then sought the Governor's review under RCW 34.05.330(3). The Governor rejected the challenge.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.330(1) — 13 cases
Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002). “Thus, compliance with RCW 34.05.330 will in general greatly facilitate judicial review, see Brown, 46 F.”
Rios v. Wash. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 39 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2002). “Thus, compliance with RCW 34.05.330 will in general greatly facilitate judicial review, see Brown, 46 F.”
Squaxin Island Tribe v. Dep't of Ecology, 312 P.3d 766 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “We disagree and hold that (1) Ecology’s explanation of its refusal to initiate rule making satisfied RCW 34.05.330 and (2) Ecology’s decision not to engage in rule making was reasoned and supported by the record and, thus, it was not arbitrary and capricious.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003). “570(4)(b) because the conservation organizations failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of petitioning for rule making under RCW 34.05.330, and (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required dismissal of the conservation organizations' remaining claims.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 149 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2003). “570(4)(b) because the conservation organizations failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of petitioning for rule making under RCW 34.05.330, and (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required dismissal of the conservation organizations’ remaining claims.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.330(1)(a)(i) — 2 cases
John Worthington, App./cross-res. v. Wa State Liquor & Cannabis Bd., Res/cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Nw. Env't Advocates v. Dept. Of Ecology, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.330(1)(a)(ii) — 2 cases
City of Tacoma v. Dep't of Ecology, 555 P.3d 390 (Wash. 2024).
Nw. Env't Advocates v. Dept. Of Ecology, State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.330(2) — 4 cases
Rios v. L & I, 5 P.3d 19 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Instead, RCW 34.05.330 allows an interested party to petition for the adoption, repeal, or amendment of a rule.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003). “570(4)(b) because the conservation organizations failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of petitioning for rule making under RCW 34.05.330, and (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required dismissal of the conservation organizations' remaining claims.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 149 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2003). “570(4)(b) because the conservation organizations failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of petitioning for rule making under RCW 34.05.330, and (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required dismissal of the conservation organizations’ remaining claims.”
Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 103 Wash. App. 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Instead, RCW 34.05.330 allows an interested party to petition for the adoption, repeal, or amendment of a rule.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.330(3) — 5 cases
Washington Fed'n of State Employees v. Dep't of Gen. Admin., 152 Wash. App. 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The Federation then sought the governor’s review under RCW 34.05.330(3). The governor rejected the challenge.”
Squaxin Island Tribe v. Dep't of Ecology, 312 P.3d 766 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “We disagree and hold that (1) Ecology’s explanation of its refusal to initiate rule making satisfied RCW 34.05.330 and (2) Ecology’s decision not to engage in rule making was reasoned and supported by the record and, thus, it was not arbitrary and capricious.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003). “570(4)(b) because the conservation organizations failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of petitioning for rule making under RCW 34.05.330, and (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required dismissal of the conservation organizations' remaining claims.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 149 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2003). “570(4)(b) because the conservation organizations failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of petitioning for rule making under RCW 34.05.330, and (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required dismissal of the conservation organizations’ remaining claims.”
Fed. of Employees v. Dept. of Gen. Admin., 216 P.3d 1061 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The Federation then sought the Governor's review under RCW 34.05.330(3). The Governor rejected the challenge.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.330(330) — 1 case
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Doe, 17 P.3d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
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.