Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee

Request for Review of Administrative Rule


​​​Under RCW 34.05.655, any citizen may submit a petition to the Committee for review of a proposed or existing rule or an agency guideline. Petitions must be submitted to the Chair using one of the following methods: 

E-mail​​ (preferred):​ ​​
Mail:​Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee
c/o Office of Program Research
P.O. Box 40600
​Olympia, WA 98504​​



TO: ________________________________________________, Chair

FROM: _____________________________________________________________


  1. Specify agency, including division if appropriate, whose rules(s) are being questioned.
  2. Cite the statute(s) upon which the agency relies as providing legal authority for adopting the rule.
  3. A. Noncompliance with legislative intent. Describe as fully and succinctly as possible the reasons why it appears the rule(s) do not meet legislative intent. In deciding whether a rule is not within legislative intent, the Committee may only consider such factors as the reasonable meaning of the language in the statute, formal legislative history, and pertinent court decisions on the point. It cannot make a judgment as to whether the policy of the law is "good" or "bad." For that reason, if the key issue deals with policy, it may be referred to the appropriate standing committees; only they can determine whether the law should be changed.

    B. Noncompliance with other statutory requirements for adoption.

    (i) Regulatory Fairness Act (Chap. 19.85 RCW). If the objection concerns the possibility that the agency has not fully complied with the requirements of the Regulatory Fairness Act, describe the problem as fully as possible. JARRC's authorization does not include testing or validation of economic impact methodology. It is a procedural review to determine whether an agency has adequately examined the potential economic impact of a rule, or has followed the requirements for mitigation when necessary.

    (ii) Significant legislative rule making analysis (RCW 34.05.328). If the objection concerns the possibility that the significant legislative rule making analysis was required but was not performed, describe why the rule in question fits the statutory definition of a significant legislative rule.

    (iii) Any other statutory requirements for the adoption of a rule that were not met by the adopting agency. Cite the statute and why it applies to the adoption of the rule in question.

    C. Policy or interpretative statement used in place of a rule.

    If an agency is using a policy statement or interpretive statement which, it appears, should have been promulgated as a rule, provide a copy of the specific statement; the statute which the statement interprets or implements; reasons rule making process is required; and identify known judicial action regarding the policy or interpretive statement.

  4. Judicial Proceedings. Identify known judicial action regarding the rule or statutes cited in the petition.
  5. Petition to Agency. If you contest an adopted rule, you must include a copy of the agency's denial of the petition to amend or repeal the rule. Directions for initiation of this process are found in RCW 34.05.330.
  6. Wherever possible, identify the persons or organizations affected by the rule, and any other facts which might be helpful in understanding the issue.