that they would affirm it because when they're split equally that's what happened this case i think comes down in pretty much the plain language of the stand it talks about a sealing a permanent with mortar on lightweight concrete some impatience wash doesn't reference a promoter's here we all know preambles aren't aren't because it's in an approved plan it's accepted by mc and has been for years well i well to this is a little differently though i guess you're saying you're traditionally accepted not because you're on the left but because you have in the past right yes it's so it's a matter of fact and in essence that the standard was promulgated nine hundred ninety six long prior to nine hundred ninety six we were building stockings this way and it was  we're talking about inspections we're talking about thing as the two of the inspectors who apparently had changed their minds both inspected this mine and mr freeze well i that's all well and good i need to take you back though what are we to do with the fact that what you're arguing is ambiguous ambiguity as you were there or the item was there and now it's gone well it's still in the preamble but what was never gone until the citation was issue it was in the plan and we know that m share was paying attention in the plan because if you look at the evolution of the plan from the rather simple one sentence that mr something does that encompass a period of time at all to you when you're saying that schumi it does because legally what are the traditionally accepted method doesn't that encompass a passage of time i mean what's gone on for ten years even though now all of a sudden the language disappears isn't there still the possibility of being able to show that it is a traditionally deceptive method by the use and the passage of time i think that is in fact what we have here there was a passage of time and that it if you want to look at the preamble the preamble didn't change well then how did you  lose we had one inspector who was making his first underground mine inspection and his supervisor and for whatever reason they decided to cite ship pursued when pursued it run twenty mile challenge that there is nothing in this wrap her that shows what was going on  with all of them but there's not a no discussion of why they decided to do this and what we have after the fact is what i think are attempts to argument i think that they have been doing it over and over and use approved it can can i get you to address the i think the question about the planned well i maybe there are two ways of approaching i can say rely on years of prior determine whether or thing compliance with the law right here were interpreting the term traditionally so that there does seem to be a period of time where the were permitted to do this so h in this particular instance as that proceed your been continued in another mind i got that somewhere in my reading and that it was never and they've never been cited for that i think my stoppings probably with varying degrees of scrutiny depending on the nature of the inspection the conducting but the violation of the case wouldn't be obvious because again it is permitted for the mine to seal the parameters with order and then you fall on top of that and so when inspectors walking around and he sees phones at the edges of the stopping that's not going to instantaneously so are red flags for an inspector and in fact the testimony in this case from a priest and grossly think it's so so is it your argument then that this violation was one that continued from the very inception for over twenty years i don't know when the mind might not question is that your argument that and things that are on that list are not included ok but could you give me as a general definition of what traditionally accepted i what i'm trying to get out obviously does that include kind of actual fact well see and that's why i'm pushing you on it because i'm trying to figure out if you are making the argument that traditionally accepted method can only be abstract methods or is there a factual component and it's just that here it wasn't traditionally accepted because you factually never discovered those and those seem to be two different definitions to me whether you're giving you're saying facts can never play and actually traditionally accepted methods are simply in the abstract they're a b c d or are those that have a factual component traditionally you have traditionally accepted it's just that i realize this may be an unsatisfying answer i think that traditionally accepted methods are the abstract methods that ensure has already identified i think to the extent that that seems unfair testifying under oath at the hearing as representatives of the secretary that this was unacceptable this was not a traditionally accepted method i think that's enough in this year and our brief which may be not that the strongest indication of what sources of meaning and sources of interpretation that i think are not to i hope are not to convince the court but the secretary has again given this some thought has taken a reasonable decision and has acted in the way that he believes comply with the other standard thank you thank you thank you both for your arguments this morning the case