we set it over seizures it went forth and set its own procedures rather than for example incorporating fark substitute of criterion sensitive procedures but wasn't for the boss criteria substantive procedures for purposes of does ignitions the d o b i'm not sure you add to my question counsel when i will understand your point for standing spring court has said that being denied information can qualify as a concrete injury for article three purposes if congress makes the injury concrete i am acting a disclosure statute giving the public rights to information along the lines of floyd or fox or statutes like that this is not a disclosure statute this is the opposite this is a confidentiality statute it's all about protecting information and you don't point us to anything in the kind of categories of injury one is informational injury is there are points out and the other is to have a a burden on accessing the information that there are through it through a d enter one if it's protecting information certainly and the other is to allow a sharing for that information not white it's allowed to fall in terry sharing and the voluntary relative to the people who have the information and there's another provision in the statute which says very clearly that nothing in the statute requires people to share information who don't sure but you're you're trying to get information i mean you wouldn't be in court the only time you come to court is if you want information that the government doesn't or some other whatever the owner of electric facility doesn't want to give you that information by definition your search you're not seeking voluntary sharing you're seeking to so we're we're in for go down a couple of sub paragraphs to shikse sic says nothing in this section shall require a person or entity in possession of c e to share such information with any let list of people or other person or entity any federal state political subdivision tribal authority or any other person or entity that we have to assume the merits for purposes of standing and then the question is why do you have article freestanding even assuming argue endo your and on i think we're going to come back to is that kind of the increased administrative burden of speaking well it will get to that secondly and there's an interesting question whether it's appropriate even the raise that in a reply brief we have couple of opinions on that but let's assume let's talk about the st issue where you have shown no concrete injury in the case have you that so we're  suing and because of that in terms of in terms of declamation of information even assuming you have a right to the information i think i think that's right around and that's why it was planted and an increased risk i mean it is what we're looking at in this case the u t s regularly seeks the type of information that is is covered by our at least the room making order who just will be just responded to those both of those your honor the a future injury is always you know in some sense you know speculative it's but it's never the last in an injury if there is anticipate speaking in the future and based on its interpretation would be denied access to under deal he's rules that's a future harm but it's sufficient to show kind of an imminent believe that the we have a draft in the reply every which is you know even if there would be a similar harm under a different interpretation you know to meet the requirements for standing we need to show an injury under the rules that that exist under do you use unlawful pay that isn't diminished by the fact that there may be an injury a future injury similar future injury under a discretionary decision absent an illegal asked quickly addressing into my rebottle but quickly addressing your eyes to redress ability in this case that the issue posed is the legality of whether or not deal weaves rules meet the statutory delegation of authority and whether the arbitrary or capricious and that issue is ripe and can be redressed by an order vacating those rules it doesn't require and it's not promised application of them to a particular are you harmed and that seems quite seventeen forms as the i which then means you d f no longer have access to those which they regularly access absent a high showing of national security interest which is not can i ask and not another question on the injury which is very the this statute has a judicial review provision governing  and secret view of a decision and if requires the district court to examine the documents in camera to make a decision so why isn't that information is designated and even if you are right we've often held and when our regulations challenge and there isn't right you have a satisfy your obligation to come to the court to challenge the regulation and we would hold it until you had a concrete injury and it was right you will have occurred to us yes before indeed both the delay and the denial before it can be reviewed under section eleven and that d rules require it will require a longer delay and it will require isthmus knowings in the effort to access the information before the decision that's review under section eleven which is the denial itself carol on behalf of the government do you eat and for its rules are very similar are more similar than different and for that reason petitioner cannot establish article three standing even putting aside the informational interest point the  raised petitioner can't show a substantial risk or a certainly impending threat that it will be tonight information it would have received under the st rule and i think it's important and related to this to clear up a couple of things that my colleagues  if you put the two rules side by side there are a lot of similarities but obviously the department thought necessary she probably gave a separate rule so it wasn't just doing the same thing her counsel is pointed to a couple of things it's brief and this morning and i think you have to address those you yes i agree that there are differences the rules are not sense in the context of if you know your rule but so for example that's national security provision that's indio use rule this is another one of the things that i wanted to clear out because i think this is another area in which petitioner is kind of seeing a difference between the rules that isn't really there it's true that st rule does not d include that language but for ex rule says that in deciding to choose whether to share a c i i for c i i coroner is to balance the request get we mentioned this as you saw in the answer to my question is yes the burden is on the requester to show that releasing the requested information would not harm national security to prove a negative i think cases because here there is a crucial decision was made based on the statute for made a decision that it was a necessary to impose the same criteria or procedures or had ample opportunity to challenge what kirk did but petitioner it's clear that they did not challenge st decision then i think your honor is right that given for decision that it was not necessary to establish regulation  and for that reason as i was saying earlier attrition or can't establish standing to even bring the statutory argument or any of its other claims because it can't show that it's a very small difference in the procedures will actually lead to the denial of information it would have received on her for explain if i can just go back to the point i'm trying to understand here is i understand your view or the department's view is that these two ways of implementing the statute are really very similar aren't they not identical knowledge that i do acknowledge in responding just before a judge so and came back to the necessary party to issue new said you'd be surprised if hurt would release documents requested without making a determination that this need the information how they will protect that how they will use that and that is that requires the requester to establish among other things that it can take care of the information another important point that i want to note at this at the structure is  pastor to show that it's access to this information won't cause harm so i think you make a nice point on the national security argument but i wonder about broaching anything that may come close to national security whether who'll says anything about it or not i mean the whole rule is signed to provide protection so to the extent there are differences your point is i just noted it is even if there are differences for purposes of standing there's no showing here that any request would be to yes i think that's one of probably the major hurdle there are other major hurdles on the i'm glad your honor mentioned the burden point because i wanted to be sure to know that petitioner indeed did not make the in the designation standard statute seems clear as can be burke is has an obligation to promulgated the criteria and processes for designation you know to communicate as much as possible with the other entities that they can to cooperate on these things and so do you did make some small tweaks to it's pretty dangerous to i think in the interest of kind of giving entities submitting very sensitive information a little comfort a little you know perhaps more comfort that it wouldn't be disclosed without at least thoroughly airing issues and making sure that this letter wouldn't pose you know your theory has to be that there's some general tesol grant of rule making authority with india we that they can enlist to supplement the standards that govern c e i i and matches seems very strange when the c i i system is very specific self contained in the statute has a lot of detail and contemplates coordination and some degree of hierarchy as between firk sort of over and directing d o we did agree that the statute contemplates that further will be used in some way and that leads sort of in charge of the cia enterprise and i i don't think we would contend that you know you could structure it c i i program in a way that for didn't want at every critical time talks about criteria process together as things that some things are done by ferk and do you know we can designate under rules they're related your honor in that if we can't meet the burden we don't get the information and that that's the problem that's a clever response nothing for the thank you your honor thank you will take