PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER ON PROPOSED RULE
[Full Title of Proposed Rule]
Docket No. [DOCKET NUMBER]
Submitted To:
[AGENCY NAME]
[Office/Division, if any]
[Agency Address]
Submitted By:
[COMMENTER NAME] ("Commenter")
[Affiliation / Organization]
[Address]
[Email] | [Telephone]
Submission Date: [DATE]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Document Header
- Definitions
- Executive Summary
- Commenter Identification & Standing
- Statutory & Regulatory Framework
- General Comments
6.1 APA Compliance
6.2 Policy Considerations - Section-by-Section Comments
- Economic Impact Analysis
- Alternatives & Recommendations
- Procedural Requests
- Reservation of Rights
- Conclusion
- Exhibits & Supporting Materials
- Execution Block
1. DOCUMENT HEADER
This Public Comment Letter ("Comment Letter") is submitted pursuant to the notice of proposed rulemaking published at [STATE REGISTER/AGENCY NOTICE CITATION] (the "Notice") in which the [AGENCY NAME] (the "Agency") requests public comment on the above-captioned proposed rule (the "Proposed Rule").
[// GUIDANCE: Insert concise recitals describing the purpose of the Proposed Rule and the Agency's stated objectives.]
2. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Comment Letter, the following terms have the meanings set forth below. Defined terms appear in bold when first used.
"APA" means the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act and related rulemaking requirements.
"Commenter" has the meaning provided in the preamble above.
"Notice" has the meaning provided in Section 1.
"Proposed Rule" has the meaning provided in Section 1.
"Record" means the administrative record compiled by the Agency in this rulemaking.
[// GUIDANCE: Add or delete definitions to match the subject matter.]
3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The Commenter supports the Agency's overarching goal of [STATE POLICY GOAL], but believes certain provisions of the Proposed Rule exceed statutory authority under the APA and warrant revision.
• Key recommendations include:
1. Clarify scope of [SPECIFIC SECTION] to avoid unintended coverage of [INDUSTRY/ACTIVITY].
2. Align compliance deadlines with practical implementation timeframes (suggested 24 months rather than 12 months).
3. Incorporate a de minimis exemption for entities with annual revenues below [$___].
[// GUIDANCE: Keep summary to one page for optimal readability by agency staff.]
4. COMMENTER IDENTIFICATION & STANDING
4.1 Business Overview. Commenter is a [TYPE OF ENTITY] established under the laws of Arizona and operating in [INDUSTRY SECTOR], with approximately [NUMBER] employees and annual revenues of [$___].
4.2 Interest in Rulemaking. The Proposed Rule directly affects Commenter because [EXPLAIN NEXUS — e.g., "it regulates the importation of X, a core component of Commenter's supply chain"].
4.3 Authority to File. The undersigned is duly authorized to submit this Comment Letter on behalf of Commenter.
5. STATUTORY & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
5.1 Administrative Procedure Act. Under the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act, the Agency must provide (i) adequate notice of the substance of the proposed rule and (ii) a meaningful opportunity for interested persons to comment.
5.2 Delegated Agency Authority. Section [STATUTORY CITATION] of the [ENABLING ACT] authorizes the Agency to promulgate regulations "necessary and appropriate" to [STATUTORY OBJECTIVE]. Commenter respectfully submits that portions of the Proposed Rule exceed, or are inconsistent with, this delegation.
5.3 Additional Statutes & Executive Orders. The Agency must also comply with applicable Arizona requirements for regulatory impact analysis, small-business impacts, and paperwork or reporting burdens, as required by statute or regulation.
6. GENERAL COMMENTS
6.1 APA Compliance
a. Logical Outgrowth. Certain new definitions (e.g., "High-Risk Activity") appear for the first time in the Proposed Rule and therefore may not be a "logical outgrowth" of the Notice, contrary to APA requirements.
b. Reasoned Decision-Making. The preamble lacks substantial evidence supporting the chosen threshold of [$___] for [TRIGGERING EVENT], raising potential arbitrariness concerns.
6.2 Policy Considerations
a. Competitive Impact. The Proposed Rule could disproportionately burden small and mid-sized entities.
b. Technological Feasibility. Required adoption of [TECHNOLOGY] within 12 months is impracticable given current supply-chain constraints.
7. SECTION-BY-SECTION COMMENTS
| Proposed Rule Citation | Comment | Recommended Revision |
|---|---|---|
| § __.1(a) | Ambiguous definition of "X" may capture benign activities. | Replace with: "X means … and excludes activities that …." |
| § __.3(c) | Compliance deadline of 180 days is insufficient. | Extend to 24 months to align with industry standard lead times. |
| § __.5 | Record-keeping requirement lacks burden estimate. | Publish notice and specify annual hour burden. |
[// GUIDANCE: Expand table as needed; ensure each comment ties to a specific citation.]
8. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
8.1 Cost Estimates. Commenter estimates first-year compliance costs of approximately [$___] and ongoing annual costs of [$___]—significantly higher than the Agency's estimate of [$___].
8.2 Cost-Benefit Comparison. When adjusted for realistic market adoption rates, the net present value of projected benefits falls below costs by [__%].
8.3 Disparate Impact on Small Entities. Under applicable Arizona law, the Agency must either (i) prepare a small-business impact analysis or (ii) certify no significant impact. Commenter submits that such certification would be inappropriate given the data above.
9. ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
• Adopt a tiered compliance schedule based on entity size.
• Utilize voluntary pilot programs to gather data before full implementation.
• Coordinate with industry standards to minimize duplicative compliance obligations.
10. PROCEDURAL REQUESTS
10.1 Extension of Comment Period. Should the Agency materially revise the Proposed Rule, Commenter requests a minimum 60-day supplemental comment period.
10.2 Public Hearing. Pursuant to [AGENCY REGULATION CITATION], Commenter requests an oral hearing to address complex technical issues.
10.3 Ex Parte Disclosures. Commenter commits to filing any ex parte communications in the public docket, consistent with Agency practice.
11. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Nothing in this Comment Letter shall be deemed a waiver of any procedural or substantive rights of Commenter or its affiliates, including, without limitation, the right to seek judicial review under the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act or any other applicable law.
12. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Commenter respectfully urges the Agency to (i) revise the Proposed Rule as set forth herein and (ii) adopt the recommended alternatives to ensure the final rule is consistent with statutory authority, cost-effective, and practicable.
Should the Agency have any questions, please contact the undersigned at [CONTACT INFORMATION].
13. EXHIBITS & SUPPORTING MATERIALS
• Exhibit A – Redline of Proposed Rule Text with Commenter's Edits
• Exhibit B – Economic Impact Study (June 2025)
• Exhibit C – Technical Feasibility Analysis by [EXPERT FIRM]
[// GUIDANCE: Attach exhibits as separate PDF or Word files when submitting electronically.]
14. EXECUTION BLOCK
Respectfully submitted,
[COMMENTER NAME]
By: ___________________________
Name: [TYPED NAME]
Title: [OFFICER TITLE]
Date: [DATE]
[// GUIDANCE: Notarization is generally not required for regulatory comments; signature may be electronic.]