Читать «Wiki-правительство: Как технологии могут сделать власть лучше, демократию – сильнее, а граждан – влиятельнее» онлайн - страница 181

10. Marissa Martino Golden, “Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (1998): 250–264.

11. Peter L. Strauss, “ABA Ad Law Section’s E-Rulemaking Survey,” Administrative and Regulatory Law News 29, no. 3 (Spring 2004): 8.

12. Environmental Protection Agency, “Controlling Power Plant Emissions: Public Comments” ( [October 2008]).

13. Cameron Scott, “9 Seconds,” SFGate.com, October 23, 2008 ().

14. Federal Advisory Committee Act, P. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770 (1972) (codified at 5 U. S. C. App. 2).

15. Negotiated Rulemaking Act, P. L. 101–648, 104 Stat. 4976 (1990) (codified at 5 U. S. C. secs. 561–570); см. также: Phillip J. Harter, “Assessing the Assessors: The Actual Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 9 (2000): 32–56.

16. «[Затем] агентство принимает решение о формировании комитета по соглашению норм, агентство публикует в Federal Register и при необходимости в торговых или других специализированных изданиях замечания, включающие… список лиц, отстаивающих эти интересы, и лицо (или лиц), представляющее агентство». 5 U. S. C. sec. 564 (a) (4) (1990).

17. National Research Council, “Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making” (Washington: 2008), pp. 3–9.

18. Cary Coglianese, “Assessing the Advocacy of Negotiated Rulemaking: A Response to Philip Harter,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 9 (2001): 386–447.

19. Christopher Mooney, The Republican War on Science (New York: Basic Books, 2006).

20. Thomas McGarity and Wendy Wagner, Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research (Harvard University Press, 2008).

21. J. B. Ruhl and James Salzman, “In Defense of Regulatory Peer Review,” Washington University Law Review 84 (2006): 1–61.

22. Ibid., p. 25.

23. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Rogers Commission), Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Washington: GPO, 1986), appendix F.

24. Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers (Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 61; см. также: Joshua B. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’” Memorandum M-05–03, Office of Management and Budget, December 16, 2004.

25. Government Accountability Office, “Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Service Agencies Vary,” GAO/RCED-99–99 (1999).

26. См., например, следующие публикации: “Peer Review: EPA Needs Implementation Procedures and Additional Controls,” GAO/IRCED-94–98 (1994); “Peer Review: Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection,” GAO/PEMD-94–1 (1994); “Peer Review: Compliance with the Privacy Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act,” GAO/GGD-94–48 (1991); “Federal Advisory Committees: GSA’s Management Oversight and GAO Comments on Proposed Legislative Amendments,” GAO/T-GGD-89–1 (1998); “Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration’s Management of Advisory Committee Activities,” GAO/GGD 89–10 (1988); “University Funding: Information on the Role of Peer Review at NSF and NIH,” GAO/WED-87-87FS (1987). См. также: Lars Noah, “Scientific ‘Republicanism’: Expert Peer Review and the Quest for Regulatory Deliberation,” Emory Law Journal 49 (2000): 1034–1083.