Regulatory Comment Letter - Colorado

COMMENTS ON COLORADO PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Filing Gate

This form assumes an ordinary rulemaking governed by C.R.S. § 24-4-103. Section 24-4-103(1) excludes certain nonbinding interpretive rules, general policy statements, and agency-organization rules unless notice or hearing is otherwise required. Temporary and emergency rules use subsection (6). Check the agency's enabling law for additional requirements.

Section 24-4-103(3)(a) requires the noticed public rulemaking proceeding to occur no fewer than 20 days after publication. The notice must state the time, place, and nature of the proceeding, the proposed authority, and the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of its subjects and issues. The notice and agency instructions control the actual filing deadline and method.

Date: [________________________________]

To: [AGENCY RULEMAKING CONTACT]

Agency: [________________________________]

Submission method/address: [________________________________]

Re: Comments on [TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION], 4 C.C.R. [CITATION]

Colorado Register citation: [MONTH/YEAR, PAGE OR NOTICE NUMBER]

Dear [RULEMAKING CONTACT]:

[COMMENTER LEGAL NAME] submits these comments on the proposed rulemaking identified above. These comments are submitted by the deadline and method stated in the official notice.

1. Commenter and Affected Interest

1. Commenter is a [resident / business / nonprofit / association / local government / other] located at [address].

2. Commenter's relevant activities are [describe operations, license, program participation, regulated conduct, or other interest].

3. The proposal would affect Commenter by [identify the cost, duty, benefit, procedure, license, reporting requirement, or other direct effect].

4. [NAME AND TITLE] is authorized to submit these comments for Commenter.

2. Requested Action

Commenter asks the Agency to:

1. [Adopt / revise / withdraw] proposed 4 C.C.R. [citation];
2. Replace [quoted proposed language] with [exact replacement language];
3. Address the evidence in Exhibits [____]; and
4. [Take another action within the Agency's authority].

3. Authority, Notice, and Rulemaking Record

The notice cites [STATUTE AND SECTION] as authority and describes the proposal's subjects and issues as [quote or accurately summarize].

Section 24-4-103(4)(b) bars adoption unless the record demonstrates need and proper statutory authority, the rule is clear and simple to the extent practicable, it does not conflict with other law, and the Agency explains duplication or overlap. Under subsection (4)(a), the adopted rule must be based on the rulemaking record.

Commenter submits that proposed 4 C.C.R. [citation]:

☐ Fits the cited authority because [________________________________].

☐ Should be narrowed because [compare the proposed text with the statutory delegation].

☐ Lacks adequate record support for need, clarity, consistency, or duplication because [identify the exact issue and evidence].

Any study, report, underlying research data, or other documentation used as the basis for the proposal should be identified and requested for inspection under § 24-4-103(4)(a.5), subject to the statutory records exception.

4. Section-by-Section Comments

Comment 1 — [Short descriptive heading]

The proposal states: "[quote the proposed text]".

Commenter recommends: "[provide replacement text]".

The revision is warranted because [authority, factual evidence, technical feasibility, administrative effect, unintended consequence, or other grounded reason]. Supporting material appears at Exhibit [____], page [____].

Comment 2 — [Short descriptive heading]

The proposal states: "[quote the proposed text]".

Commenter recommends: "[provide replacement text]".

The revision is warranted because [________________________________].

5. Cost-Benefit Analysis Request — Optional and Time-Sensitive

Under § 24-4-103(2.5)(a), any person may request within five days after publication of the notice that the Department of Regulatory Agencies require the proposing Agency to prepare a cost-benefit analysis. DORA decides, after consultation with the Agency, whether to require it. If required, the analysis must be completed and publicly posted at least ten days before the hearing.

Register publication date: [________________________________]

Fifth day: [________________________________]

☐ Commenter timely requests that DORA require a cost-benefit analysis.

The requested analysis should address the statutory subjects:

1. The reason for the proposal;
2. Anticipated economic benefits, including growth, jobs, and competitiveness;
3. Government administration costs and direct and indirect compliance costs;
4. Adverse effects on the economy, consumers, private markets, small businesses, jobs, and competitiveness; and
5. At least two identifiable alternatives and each alternative's costs and benefits.

Proposed alternatives: [________________________________]

6. Regulatory Analysis Request — Optional and Time-Sensitive

Under § 24-4-103(4.5)(a), any person may request a regulatory analysis at least 15 days before the hearing. The analysis must be public at least five days before the hearing. The tax-rule exception in subsection (4.5)(f) must be checked before relying on this request.

Hearing date: [________________________________]

Request deadline: [________________________________]

☐ Commenter timely requests a regulatory analysis.

The analysis should identify affected and benefited classes, probable quantitative and qualitative impacts, implementation and enforcement costs and revenue effects, costs and benefits compared with inaction, less costly or intrusive methods, and seriously considered alternatives and reasons for rejection. It should quantify data where practicable and address short- and long-term consequences.

7. Public Hearing and Participation

Section 24-4-103(4)(a) directs the Agency to hold a public hearing at the noticed time and place and afford interested persons an opportunity to submit written data, views, or arguments and present them orally unless the Agency deems oral presentation unnecessary. The Agency must consider the submissions.

☐ Commenter requests an oral presentation of [____] minutes on [issues], consistent with the official notice and any Agency procedures.

Commenter asks the Agency to consider:

1. The factual and technical material in Exhibits [____];
2. The cost and alternatives evidence in Sections 5 and 6;
3. The redline-ready revisions in Section 4; and
4. [Other relevant submission].

The proposed or revised proposed rule, proposed basis-authority-purpose statement, and required regulatory analysis must be available at least five days before the hearing under § 24-4-103(4)(a).

8. Consistency with the Noticed Subject Matter

Section 24-4-103(4)(c) requires the finally adopted rule to be consistent with the subject matter stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking. Commenter submits that the following anticipated or requested revision [is / is not] consistent with that noticed subject matter: [________________________________].

Do not substitute federal “logical outgrowth” terminology or demand an automatic 60-day supplemental period. If a revision falls outside the noticed subject matter, request a new notice and proceeding that satisfy Colorado law.

9. Conclusion

For the reasons above, Commenter asks the Agency to [adopt, revise, or withdraw specified provisions] and use the exact revisions stated in Sections [____].

Please direct questions concerning this submission to [name, title, telephone, and email].

Respectfully submitted,

Signature: ______________________________

[Name]

[Title / organization]

[Address]

[Telephone / email]

Exhibit List

Filing Checklist

☐ Confirmed the action uses the ordinary § 24-4-103 process

☐ Read the complete official notice and proposed text

☐ Verified the agency's enabling statute and any additional procedure

☐ Confirmed the hearing, comment deadline, recipient, and submission methods

☐ If desired, submitted the DORA cost-benefit request within five days after Register publication

☐ If desired and applicable, submitted the regulatory-analysis request at least 15 days before hearing

☐ Obtained the proposed rule, basis-authority-purpose statement, and analysis at least five days before hearing

☐ Supported factual and cost claims with exhibits and reproducible calculations

☐ Applied the consistency-with-noticed-subject rule rather than federal terminology

☐ Removed automatic supplemental-period demands, generic ex parte language, and generic review reservations

☐ Retained proof of timely submission and receipt

Current Colorado Rulemaking Notes

• Section 24-4-103(3)(a) generally requires at least 20 days between Register publication and the public rulemaking proceeding.
• Subsection (2.5) creates a five-day request window for a DORA-required cost-benefit analysis; DORA decides whether to require it.
• Subsection (4.5) creates a separate regulatory-analysis request available at least 15 days before hearing, subject to its tax-rule exception.
• Subsection (4) governs the hearing, record, adoption findings, and consistency with the subject matter stated in the notice.
• Colorado does not use a generic small-business-analysis-or-certification formula for this process.

Official Source

• C.R.S. § 24-4-103, official 2025 Title 24 compilation: https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-24.htm