WSP06932 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( ( l 0n2955 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 191 / Monday. October 1. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 38905 findings are made. it may not be possible in all cases to furnish a petitioner with specific points of inCormation that might be added to a petition in order for it to provide substantial information. The finding. rests not on any artificial complianc.:e with the general guidance or i 424.14(b)(2)(i)-(v), but upon a reasuned evaluation of the information presented and a judgment of whether or not it is sufficient to warrant B review of a . species' status. As an example. a petilion that failed to adequately establish the existence of a threat to a species recommended for listing could be judged not to have presented substantial information. but it would not necessarily be possible for the Services to detail the p:-ccise kinds of information that would be sufficient to document such threat Because of the speculative. nature of any such explanation. the Services do not consider it advisable to establish it as a requirement. NWF also objected to ~ 424.14(bJ[2)(i)-(v) as proposed. holding tlla! the considera~ions presented would not always be germane or necessary 10 thp. evaluation of a petition. NWF therefore advocated inclusion of an odclitional paragraph stating that. "Items (b)(2)(i-v), while usually necessary Cor petition evaluation. shall not be required to demonstrate substantial information." The Services agree in principle with this comment. but do not believe the rule as proposed is unclear on this point The paragraphs in question are intended only to provide a general guide to the kinds of information the Services believe are necessary to evaluate a petition. Tht:y do not establish strict requirements that must be met in order for a petition to be considered substantial. so that a specific qualification of the sort advocated by NWF would be unnecessary. APe recommended that. in addition to the types oC inConnation to be considered in determining whether B petition presents substantial information under i 424.14(b)(2)(ii). the Secretary consider whether a pelition describes. u. . . the features of economic and biologic importance of any recommended ctHical habitat." The Services nole that the Conference Report on the Amendments expressed the intention that petitioners not be required to provide economic information. other than evidence of trade. if any. in connection with a petition 10 list or delist a species or a pelition to revise critical habitat. Thus. it would be inappropriate to require such information among that 10 be considered under A 424.14(bIl2). Proposed ~ 424.14(b)(2)(iii) was concerned with information bearing on the appropriateness and extent of any critical habitat designation recommended in a pelition primarily concerned with the determination of a species' status. The Services believe that proposed paragraph [iii) adequately outlined the types of information to be considered in evaluating a recommended critical habitat designation on biological grounds. However. to make clear thai such information need not be included in lJ petition in order for it 10 satisfy the requirement to present substantial information. the proposed paragraph has been removed from the lisl of considerations to be examined in determining substantiality" The inFormation regarding the concurrent designation of critical habitat is requested from each petitioner but not required in two new concluding sentences to ~ 424.14(b )(2). The Act's requirement that the Secretary consider economic impacts of such B des:gna tion is interpreted as applying direclly 10 the Services. Bnd is not necessarily to be addressed in 8 petition in order for that petition to be judged substantial. NVv"F commented in reference to ~ 424.H(lo)(3) that.... . . the.proposed regulations do not discuss what happens when the Secretary makes a negative finding on a petition, and they completely ignore the judicial review process' . .... Section 424.14(bIl1) requires that any negative gO-day finding on 8 petition be published in the Federal Register with notification being sent to the petitioner. Such publication and notice will constitute the Services' final action with regard to 8uch a petition. The Services recognize the mechanism established by the Amendments to provide judicial review of findings on petitions. This mechanism is in place and available independently . of the regulaHons adopted in Part 424. which are intended to prescribe the procedures to be Collowed by tbe Services in implementing the Act. It would appear to be inappropriate and superfluous to provide for such review in Ihe present regulations. The statute speaks Cor itselC. NWF requested that provisions be made in I 424.14(c) for notification to a petitioner to explain the reason for rejecting a petition to revise critical habitat. The Services note that notice of any negative finding under ~ 424.14(c) must be published in the Federal Register. As noted above in reference to ~ 424.14(b). the Services intend to notiCy a petitioner of the reasons for any negative finding regarding substantiality. Nevertneless. it would not be possible to detail in every CAse the exacl type of additional information that would be required to make a positive finding. and the Services do not consider it advisable to mandate such explanation by regulation. NWF also requested that a provision be added to A 424.14(c) that would make clear that a petition to revise critical habitat is not required to present . economic infonnation relevant to the revision recommended. The Services consider it to be clear that no such information is solicited in connection with any class of petition. and thus believe it to be unnecessary to expressly stale that such infonnation need not be provided by a petitioner. However. . - although the Services may not require the submission of economic da ta with a petition to revise critical habitat. they. must consider the economic and other impacts of specifying a particular area as critical habBat before issuing a final rule. .. . APe recommended that ~ 424.14(c](2J reCer back to I 424.12(b) in selling out the types of information that must be considered in determining whether a petition to revise critical habitat presents substantial information. rather than establishing Ihe separate standards proposed 10 be placed at ~ 424.14(c)(2) (i) and (ii). The Services believe that the standards applied to petitions are sufficiently different from those governing the overall deSignation .of . critical habBat that it cQuld be contusing to accept APe's recommendation. and could imply that a higher standard would be applied in judging substantiality of such petitions than is intended by the Act. A petition may Call short of supplying all the inCormation that would be necessary to issue a proposed rule, but still be judged to . present substantial information indicating that a revision of critical habitat may be warranted. Inasmuch as the criteria of fi 424.12 are aimed at the information needed by the Services to allow them to propose a rule. such critieria would be unnecessarily burdensome iF applied to petition findings. APC also recommended that A 424.14(d) be altered to include 8 statement that the Secretary designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific duta available and after taking into consideration the economic and other impacts of the designation. The Services do nol believe such a provision would be appropriately placed in i 424.14(d). which deals with petitions 10 designate.critical habitat. The substance .",'. "..' . . .. ~ '/.