guidelines implementing species s s s n program in the federal register as required by section or each of the endangered species act and the senate clearly does here because the fed its failure has denied center access to information of as a procedural and so if we were to assume that it was a procedural hog how does your claim pass the test in summers the supreme court's decision in summers  website instead of in the federal register yes your honor and to that point the publication of just the s s a framework on the website is a far cry from publication of federal register i mean as we d groups or individuals that might be interested in this information how is that harm particularized to to the center so it's particulars to center because not only does the center currently have missing petitions pending in statements that they made in the original species the representation on species that doesn't seem to know so essentially what we're stuck with right now a game of whack a mole where we find out about these guidelines through one way or another essentially putting out a catch twenty two dollars where we either can't can't plead with specificity what specific document we think we should be published or can get redress because they now made that document available st memory no i mean it was about my question was about friends of animals and the difference between the two statutes yeah actually issuing friends an animal actually required the disclosure of information the statute strong case if you argued this is just you know if you'd said look what we're missing here we would learn a lot if they went through those who comment agencies have to respond to comments that they yet in the notes who comment rulemaking process and the agency's responses to comments would be extremely helpful for us to understand the agency's position and strategy and that's then it seems to me you would have a good case that there's something more here doesn't that's that's not what i said i mean i read that i didn't know what you meant and didn't understand i didn't understand what you meant by that was it we don't have the agency's responses to comments but they're not actually challenging any final decision that relies on that information for example in action on a petition they're just claiming that their desire to know more about species status assessments is a cognizing they don't have a legally protected interest in the house so it's not a sufficient basis to establish standing there is some question if you about what the appropriate way to view the standing question is here whether it's an informational rights case what's going on here is that they get wind of these documents that they believe should have gone through notice and comment making that c h and see if they get the copy and then then there you know they have it but they haven't solved you know of course if this service uses a species status assessment in reaching a decision for example on a section or petition the service references that is part of the records of the sort of the species status assessment it is part of the decision there and continued interest at that time so if they want to bring up issues related to how the service is you know compiling that species status assessment there is an opportunity to bring that institutional review is just not at the sort of early needs where they don't have been hard the nd is that it's of course the burden on the planet to identify a sort of discrete action that they're seeking to challenge or compound and i think an allegation that there might be documents out there doesn't yield any kind of concrete particularize harm to the center that would be enough to stop was it is or controversy i think you know it is their burden to explain to the court what it is that they're actually challenging and it seems the government in its brief says that the primary documents that are guidelines that might be guidelines under for age are available on lie but are there other documents i guess non primary documents that that the service hasn't published even online much less but they're notice and comment while making so i would say as a suspects and that they're developed in reliance on documents that they think have illegally not gone through notice and comment under section four each then they can challenge the decision and fire the the service that relies on a species status assessment that causes them some harm in some way and i think that would be your current way of bringing that to the court's attention rather than just sort of alleging generally that there is a sort chromatics failure to disclose documents because i think other cases like more and again southern utah wilderness alliance the courts have been very clear that that's just not the kind of hard claim that a plaintive can bring in the way they brought this lawsuit in there are there are other suit that before us here about the rio grande and cutthroat trout you think it might be advised of all in that context where there is a specific species determination i think it would obviously depend on a kind of what they're claiming but i has harmed their interests so i think you know they didn't raise as i understand it species status assessment issues in the colorado case but if they had brought it there that would be the place to own it but when they do that what they're challenging is the decision and it's just that the species that assessment plays a role in the decision so they're indirectly getting at the species status assessment by bringing a challenge to the final decision that's in at least in part press kate on the assessment that's the way you perceive perceive it happening  they have to demonstrate in article three injury that flows from that and i just don't think they've done that  what what if there were a decision so where there is a decision that's predicated on the assessment then you can bring a challenge to the decision but is it possible that there if there's a flaw if they perceive a flaw in the assessment but it doesn't but the flaw means that the that the service decides not to engage in a decision then there's no way to challenge the flaw in the assessment that led to the non decision document that they think should have gone through those encounters and again i'm not sure if they'd be able to establish standing to do that if that's just not the issue in most case  but i think you know in appropriate circumstances where the service is seeking to adopt a document that fits within the definition of a guideline it will go through searching for  guess one point i would just like to emphasize is this this question about whether this case is properly viewed as a procedural rights case or an informational rights case we think that ultimately doesn't matter to the outcome of the case but we do think the court should view d it as a procedural rights case because notice and comment statutes are not disclosure statutes and the informational injury times happened about to accommodate the areas of disclosure statutes and particularly interests that congress is seeking to protect when it adopts a disclosure statue whereas a notice in common statute like section for each serves a different purpose as as we from judgment here in the th circuit it really has a popular explanation of why it's important to police this foundry because i think the consequence of applying informational standing tests to a notice and common type procedure like the one at issue here is that it kind of blurs the lines on what constitutes a concrete injury in a way that is not contemplated by summers against revile in situ and the cases that follow that i'm thinking of in particular the international brotherhood of teamsters case from this quarter which basically says you know in you know it's uncommon situation the allegation that an agency is not complying with the procedural requirements that's just a sheer deprivation of procedural right  here which is not enough and as as has been discussed earlier i don't think that the center here has alleged any concrete harm that flows from the legit procedural violation of section or each year with respect to where it's published and i think that's the key issue in differentiating procedural rights cases from informational rights cases is that procedural rights cases are very concerned with generalized grievances being brought to court as article thr cases in controversies and informational rights cases recognize that in some circumstances congress has has identified the harm that might be generalized among the public but it is nonetheless the type of thing that can serve as a concrete injury in support of standing and that's just not the right way to think about those common so we would urge the court to conclude that this is a procedural rights case and that the senator has failed to establish procedural standing if the court reaches informational stanley i think there are allegations of informational standing still for essentially the same reason that this is a procedural rights case there's no entitlement to information or is closure in section four h unlike s section for each could have ordered this service employee to establish these guidelines and could not impose a specific disclosure requirement on and i asked them specifically to publish them in the federal register and take notice and to both counsel will take this case under submission