This bill amends RCW 34.05.610 and adds new sections to chapter 34.05 RCW to change the composition and operating rules for the joint administrative rules review committee and to expand the committee’s review authority. It specifies that the committee will consist of four senators and four representatives (with a partisan balance limit), requires appointing authorities to also name alternate members, sets appointment timing (appointments and successors in odd-numbered years, deadlines by June 30, and vacancy appointments within 30 days), explains term length until a successor is appointed or the member leaves the legislature, sets a schedule for chair and vice-chair appointments, requires the chair to send meeting notices and documents to members and alternates, and requires at least one committee meeting each calendar quarter. The bill creates a new procedural right allowing any person to petition the committee to review an emergency rule adopted under RCW 34.05.350 or a rule that “did not receive adequate public input.” For petition purposes, “did not receive adequate public input” is defined as either (a) adopting a rule without giving every person signed up to testify an opportunity to speak for at least three minutes at the rule-making hearing, or (b) adopting a rule after giving less than 20 days’ notice before the hearing at which public comment was accepted. The committee is required to review any rule petitioned under this new petition process. The bill also adds a separate new section requiring the committee, upon request by a legislator, to review any rule required to be filed under RCW 34.05.380 or any emergency rule under RCW 34.05.350 that was adopted in the five years prior. These are procedural changes expanding review authority and altering committee structure and duties rather than creating new crimes or changing penalties. The text provided does not specify from what date the “five years prior” is measured, how the chair/vice-chair appointment schedule functions after the years cited, any effective date, or detailed timelines, standards, or possible outcomes for petition reviews.

If enacted, this will give any member of the public a clear, enforceable route to force the legislative rules review committee to examine emergency rules and rules adopted with what the bill calls inadequate public input, and it lets individual legislators require the committee to review rules from the prior five years. Practically, agencies that use emergency procedures or fast-tracked rulemaking will likely face more post-adoption scrutiny and may change practice to avoid triggers for review — for example by providing at least 20 days’ notice of hearings and ensuring people signed up to speak get at least three minutes — which could slow some adoptions and increase staff time for outreach and recordkeeping. The committee itself will have steadier workload and clearer appointment, alternate-member, vacancy, leadership, notice, and quarterly meeting duties, which will increase legislative staff support needs and administrative costs. The people most affected are state agencies that adopt emergency or required-file rules, the joint administrative rules review committee and its legislative members and staff, and members of the public and legislators who can start reviews. Agencies may incur added costs and delays to adjust hearing notice and testimony procedures and face greater compliance or political risk if procedures fall short; the committee will likely need more resources to process petitions and perform more reviews. Important implementation details are unclear from the text provided, notably how the “five years prior” window is measured and how the post-2020 chair/vice-chair rotation is meant to operate going forward, so the full practical reach of retrospective reviews and leadership timing is uncertain.