Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1023 (2026)

Public participation; written statements; oral proceedings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. After providing notice of docket openings, an agency may meet informally with any interested party for the purpose of discussing the proposed rule making action. The agency may solicit comments, suggested language or other input on the proposed rule. The agency may publish notice of these meetings in the register.

B. For at least thirty days after publication of the notice of the proposed rule making, an agency shall afford persons the opportunity to submit in writing statements, arguments, data and views on the proposed rule, with or without the opportunity to present them orally.

C. An agency shall schedule an oral proceeding on a proposed rule if, within thirty days after the published notice of proposed rule making, a written request for an oral proceeding is submitted to the agency personnel listed pursuant to section 41-1021, subsection B.

D. An oral proceeding on a proposed rule may not be held earlier than thirty days after notice of its location and time is published in the register. The agency shall determine a location and time for the oral proceeding which affords a reasonable opportunity to persons to participate. The oral proceeding shall be conducted in a manner that allows for adequate discussion of the substance and the form of the proposed rule, and persons may ask questions regarding the proposed rule and present oral argument, data and views on the proposed rule.

E. The agency, a member of the agency or another presiding officer designated by the agency shall preside at an oral proceeding on a proposed rule. If the agency does not preside, the presiding official shall prepare a memorandum for consideration by the agency summarizing the contents of the presentations made at the oral proceeding. Oral proceedings must be open to the public and recorded by stenographic or other means.

F. Each agency may make rules for the conduct of oral rule making proceedings. Those rules may include provisions calculated to prevent undue repetition in the oral proceedings.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: Arizona State Univ. ex rel. Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 349 P.3d 220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona State Univ. ex rel. Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 349 P.3d 220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Compliance with the APA Would Not Require the System to Breach its Fiduciary Duties ¶ 28 The System also argues that allowing “employer input on unfunded liability calculations” through rulemaking procedure, see A.R.S. § 41-1023 (2013), would require it to breach its fiduciary…”
Repub. Nat'l Comm.; Repub. Party of Arizona v. Adrian Fontes; Voto Latino (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “The relief the RNC sought by filing a declaratory action arose from “an existing state of facts”—it is undisputed that the Secretary made a draft of the EPM available to the public for commentary for a period of fifteen days, which is shorter than that provided under §…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1023(B) — 2 cases
Arizona State Univ. ex rel. Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Arizona State Ret. Sys., 349 P.3d 220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Compliance with the APA Would Not Require the System to Breach its Fiduciary Duties ¶ 28 The System also argues that allowing “employer input on unfunded liability calculations” through rulemaking procedure, see A.R.S. § 41-1023 (2013), would require it to breach its fiduciary…”
Repub. Nat'l Comm.; Repub. Party of Arizona v. Adrian Fontes; Voto Latino (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “The relief the RNC sought by filing a declaratory action arose from “an existing state of facts”—it is undisputed that the Secretary made a draft of the EPM available to the public for commentary for a period of fifteen days, which is shorter than that provided under §…”
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.