Rulemaking Document Drafting, Review, and Publication Procedure

 

Effective Date: 11/13/2025

Version: 1

 

 

1.  Purpose

1.1.  This document lists who must review or approve documents produced during the rulemaking process. This document also describes the process for drafting, reviewing, and publishing documents produced during the rulemaking process. This procedure is most relevant for project managers.

2.  Referenced documents

ORMS Record #

Document Title

DETP/25/860

Rulemaking Flowchart Appendix

DETP/25/858

Rulemaking Roles and Responsibilities

 

 

3.  Acronyms

Acronym

Complete Phrase

EPIC

Environmental Policy Implementation Coordination Team

ORMS

Oregon Record Management System

RAC

Rules Advisory Committee

 

 

4.  Applicability/responsible roles

4.1.  Please see Rulemaking Roles and Responsibilities as to not write duplicative information here.

5.  Document drafting, review, and publication procedure

5.1.  Rulemaking draft document process:

5.1.1.   Project Manager downloads copy of template from Rulemaking webpage.

5.1.2.   Project Manager renames and saves the template in the project folder.

5.1.3.   Project Manager assigns responsible people to complete sections to create first draft.

5.1.4.   When document is ready for first set of reviewers, Project Manager turns on “tracked changes” feature.

5.1.5.   Project Manager notifies first set of reviewers that the draft is ready for review.

5.2.  Rulemaking document review process:

5.2.1.   Reviewer reviews items in “Review Checklist” on first page of the draft document.

5.2.2.   Reviewers can make edits and leave comments as needed.

5.2.3.   Once completed, reviewer will put name and date in the “Review Checklist” table.

5.2.4.   Reviewer will notify Project Manager of completed review.

5.2.5.   For the next group of reviewers, repeat steps 5.4.1 – 5.4.4.

5.3.   Document finalization prior to web page request:

5.3.1.   Project Manager will ensure “Review Checklist” is completed.

5.3.2.   Project Manager will accept changes, resolve comments.

5.3.3.   Project Manager sends the now final draft to Agency Rule Coordinator.

5.3.4.   Agency Rule Coordinator deletes “Review Checklist” and comments to create final document.

5.3.5.   Agency Rule Coordinator submits web request to Web Team, to have document posted.

5.3.6.   Agency Rule Coordinator sends a copy of the final document that was posted, and its preceding document (with final comments and review checklist deleted) to Project Manager.

5.3.7.   Project Manager saves both documents in the project folder.

5.4.   If significant feedback occurs from a reviewer:

5.4.1.   For example, if the Department of Justice advises a change is needed, the Project Manager would determine which reviewers need to re-review the document to incorporate those changes.

5.4.2.   If a reviewer needs to complete any additional reviews, they must sign and date the “Document Review Checklist” for each review.

5.5.  If changes to a document occur after it is published to the public:

5.5.1.   Create an “Archive” folder and move the previous version(s) (Microsoft Word, PDF, etc.) to the archive folder.

5.5.2.   Rename the document to include the version number, for example: “Public Notice_v2”.

5.5.3.   Share the updated version with the team and Agency Rule Coordinator.

 

6.  Document review and approval table

6.1.   Documents that are produced during the rulemaking process need to be reviewed by various roles depending on document type. Table 6.1 outlines the matrix of which roles need to review which document types.

 

 

Table 6.1: Table 6.1 lists the documents, from the Rulemaking Flowchart Appendix, that are generated from a rulemaking and the top row lists the roles, from the Rulemaking Roles and Responsibilities, to show which roles need to review which document types.

Documents

Subject Matter Expert(s)

Agency Rules Coordinator

Comms

Implementation Manager

Program Manager

Web Team

Office of Compliance and Enforcement

Dept of Justice

EPA

Legislative Analyst

Division Admin

Director

Draft rules

X

X

 

X

X

 

X*

X

X*

X

  

Project Charter EPIC Memo

X

X

 

X

X

 

X*

   

X

 

RAC Roster

 

X

  

X

X

   

X

X

 

RAC Member Director Memo

 

X

  

X

    

X

X

 

RAC Appointment Letter

           

X

RAC Charter

 

X

  

X

X

      

RAC GovDelivery Notice

 

X

X

 

X

       

Meeting presentation and agenda

X

X

X

 

X

X

      

Meeting summary

 

X

X

 

X

X

      

Fiscal Impact Statement

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

  

Public Notice

X

X

X

X

X

X

X*

X

 

X

X

 

GovDelivery Notice

 

X

X

 

X

       

Email to Key Legislature

 

X

          

Staff Report

X

X

X

X

X

X

X*

X*

  

X

A

 

X* - as needed (for example, Office of Compliance and Enforcement reviews rules with a compliance component; EPA reviews rules that affect the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality)

A – does not review, does approve

 

Note: RAC Invitation to participate, RAC Member appointment email, and Script for Online Hearing were left out of this table as they do not need to be reviewed.

Note: Budget Analyst reviews Fiscal Impact Statement when fees are involved.

 

6.2.  This section seeks to define which roles can review a document simultaneously. For example, the roles highlighted in the same color will review the draft document in the same review timeframe; this is because the content that they are reviewing is distinct. A variation of Table 6.2 table is included on the first page of each rulemaking document template (the templates that require a review). The roles responsible for performing that review are defined in Table 6.1.

 

Table 6.2: Table 6.2 is an example “Document Review Checklist” table pulled from the Public Notice template. It lists which reviewers must review each document and the items that they are responsible for reviewing.

 

Reviewer

Review Checklist

Name and Date

Subject Matter Expert(s)

•  Review technical details in “Overview”

•  Verify rule statute numbers in “Rules affected, authorities, supporting documents”

•  Review “Rules Summary”

 

Agency Rule Coordinator

•  Review “Procedural Summary”

•  Verify rulemaking webpage link(s)

•  Review “Rules affected, authorities, supporting documents”

•  Review “Public Engagement”

•  Review “Draft Rules – edits highlighted” and “Draft Rules – edits incorporated”

 

Budget Analyst

•  Review “Fee Analysis” and “Fiscal Impact”

 

Communications

•  Document matches DEQ Style Guide

 

Program Manager

•  Table of Contents is accurate

•  Double-check virtual meeting link and date in “Procedural Summary” and in “Public Engagement”

•  Review “Fiscal Impact” section

•  Review “Racial Equity” and “Environmental Justice” sections

•  Review the determination of the “Land Use Considerations”

•  Review “EQC Prior Involvement” and “Advisory Committee” sections

 

Web Team (Informal, review 1 of 2)

•  Meets accessibility and formatting requirements

 

Office of Compliance and Enforcement

•  If Division 12 is being updated, review

 

Legislative Analyst

•  Review “Statement of Need” and “Federal Relationship” sections

•  Review “Rules affected, authorities, supporting documents”

•  Review “Fiscal Impact”

•  Review names of legislators in “Public Engagement”

 

Dept of Justice

•  Review “Statement of Need” and “Federal Relationship” sections

•  Verify rule numbers in statutes listed throughout, in particular “Rules affected, authorities, supporting documents”

•  Review “Rules Summary”

•  Review “Fiscal Impact Statement”

•  Review “Housing Cost”

•  Review “Land Use Considerations”

 

Division Administrator

•  Review “Racial Equity” and “Environmental Justice” sections

 

 

7.  Records Management

7.1.  This procedure document must be retained according to state general retention schedule.

 

8.  Revision History

Revision

Updates

Author & Date

0

•  Document Creation, built upon “Who reviews what when”

M. Duenas

11/13/2025