C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER IV—JOINT REGULATIONS (UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE); ENDANGERED SPECIES COMMITTEE REGULATIONS › SUBCHAPTER A › PART 424—LISTING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND DESIGNATING CRITICAL HABITAT › Subpart B—Revision of the Lists

50 C.F.R. § 424.13

Sources of information and relevant data

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

When considering any revision of the lists, the Secretary shall consult as appropriate with affected States, interested persons and organizations, other affected Federal agencies, and, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, with the country or countries in which the species concerned are normally found or whose citizens harvest such species from the high seas. Data reviewed by the Secretary may include, but are not limited to scientific or commercial publications, administrative reports, maps or other graphic materials, information received from experts on the subject, and comments from interested parties.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2010 · leading case: Colorado River Cutthroat Trout v. Dirk Kempthorne, 448 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout v. Dirk Kempthorne, 448 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 3× “”) at 12-13 (citing 50 C.F.R. § 424.13 ). Defendants also rely upon a 1996 FWS' policy governing consideration of citizen-initiated petitions, known as the Petition Management Guidance (“PMG”), which they argue allows the FWS to evaluate petitions against the information…”
Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010). “11 (b); 50 C.F.R. § 424.13 . Delisting cannot be based on the constituent interests of economic, recreational or other purposes.”
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Wyo. 2005). “In that scenario, 50 C.F.R. § 424.13 controls, which provides: When considering any revision of the lists, the Secretary shall consult as appropriate with affected States, interested persons and organizations, other affected Federal agencies, and, in cooperation with the…”
Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 945 F. Supp. 1388 (D. Or. 1996). “In contrast, the only provision it has made for other federal agencies is that FWS shall .”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lubchenco, 758 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “11 (b); 50 C.F.R. § 424.13 . Further, if a population segment is discrete and significant, its evaluation for endangered or threatened status will be based on the ESA’s definitions of those terms and a review of the factors enumerated in section 4(a).”
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.