IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/lpadxx/v40y2017i2p138-149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The NPS and Ossification: Does It Still Exist?

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Rinfret
  • Jeffrey Cook

Abstract

The US notice and comment rulemaking process has often been considered ossified or broken, but recent scholarship has questioned this claim. To address this disagreement, we use McGarity’s (1992) ossification argument as a descriptive framework to structure an examination of interview data from three National Park Service rules: (1) Yellowstone National Park Rule, (2) Areas of the National Park System, Grand Canyon National Park Rule, and (3) the Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, Personal Watercraft Use Rule. We offer qualitative insights into what drives the longevity of NPS rulemaking, including analytical, scientific review, and substantive review requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Rinfret & Jeffrey Cook, 2017. "The NPS and Ossification: Does It Still Exist?," International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 138-149, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:lpadxx:v:40:y:2017:i:2:p:138-149
    DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2015.1076841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01900692.2015.1076841
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01900692.2015.1076841?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:lpadxx:v:40:y:2017:i:2:p:138-149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/lpad .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.