over you know we recognize that there is language and go over that can be read broadly but we think that with ultimately going on and go over it is that the court is is the court decision is falling from the same principle that this court recently case and with the d c circuit set forth in the c r case which is that as the d c circuit explain in many if not most cases the petitioner standing to seek review of administrative action is going to be self evident and no evidence outside the administrative record will be necessary and what's going on and go over and it is equally true here is that where the rules that are being challenged are not esoteric rules that are a fact only a narrow unusual sub population of veterans but rather are broad structural roles that that govern the procedures that are applicable to all veterans who are bringing supplemental or initial plans for the system we think in those circumstances it's self evident that organizations which represent hundreds or thousands of veterans who are pursuing claims or their councils would would have will have members or adversely affected proposition that in many if not most cases standing is going to be self evident and i think what you mean the government acknowledges is that where the where the individual seeking to establish standing is essentially the object of the of the rule at issue in those circumstances don't have standing now but both parties recognize here that at minimum that are and the object of the rules at issue here and because our membership includes hundreds or thousands of veterans that pursuing claims under the a m a looting mr attic and mr gross but our evidence goes further than that we also point for instance to p v a members who have been directly adversely affected by the rules that issue for potentially and i asked him is that client a member of nova that that client is not a member of novas far as i'm aware but we think that under the standard i'm sorry well then you're going back to answer the question of why not think drysdale they indicated that it would be a certainty that if the if the the money at issue was recovered that that the council would get a with therefore benefit but i don't think that the court's opinion turned on that individuals who are indicating their right to appeal to federal court to file supplemental plans during the pendency of their federal court appeals and we think that that's incompatible with the with the with the tax that the a m a which in visions that individuals would have the right to supplemental evidence would be for proceeding with their supplemental plan after completion of their of the notice of disagreement right after the b v a renders a decision or at most after the ca v c renders a decision but we but we think there isn't that right i mean be in federal court inside of one year of the initial denial no that's right that's right that's so that's that's one way to read it one way to read it would be to say that that that that section b sorry that statute permits that on its face right but the regulation would bar such you know if you were at a later point in time just ask one other question can you figure out what's going on here there's obviously this whole problem your client having his rights to vindicate himself through judicial review correct is this tuning a problem or what when you have an agency that is backpedaling away from its regulations while at the same time trying to defend it as a matter of law what  doesn't for the problem in its entirety while it does protect the effective date it doesn't alter the fact that individuals are still being prevented from filing a supplemental plan as soon as possible and so individuals who have to wait the resolution of their federal court is that there is this concept that standing should in the situation with association with standing should be self evident in most cases if that is the situation here why is it when evidence has been submitted by the organizations they're still able to demonstrate that their individual members would have standing to sue on their own this is certainly not a case that standing is self evident if that's even a concept this ide self is sufficient because when the evidence was actually submitted it did not show that standing was available for these particular individuals what about p a what about rupert paragraph seven had paragraph seven talked about a clarence noble who had appealed that claim to federal court and also then received new evidence and wanted to file a supplemental claim during the pendency of federal court review but was denied that ability so that would be an example of somebody that's been harmed that's a member of p v a by this regulation denying the ability to  aeration it's not enough to just allege that there is something they want to do but we want to see some sort of we think the court should see some sort of evidence supporting that this action can be undertaken you know for example you have a situation with missing more and mr schrenker we didn't necessarily agree that they could undertake the actions that they say that they want to undertake now i'm not saying that they're that they're being untruthful in their declarations what i'm saying is that we very much disagree with the p know what i'm saying is that you are asking for a very rigorous standard of personal harm under what i believe is that you're saying friends of the earth know a supporting evidence as well your honor and we would also say that this is consistent with laidlaw which looked not only about whether the individuals had concerns about pollution but were actually looking at the activities regarding the actual pollution itself and the harm from the pollution so it's more about concern less about concern and more about whether there's actual harm or we think that these are the type of evidence would show that actual harm so let me answer your question  directly after filing supplemental claim and within the time frame he files a notice of appeal to the court of appeals for veterans affairs sorries case goes in front of a federal court law but that that law is posited that is that is a real life possibility provided by the statute you're regulations will prohibit the filing of the same  inefficiencies that of this court is well aware of now does the a m a eliminate every possible inefficiency no because what it is is a balancing act it's a balancing act between decreasing inefficienc and balance making sure you know checking on the rights of the individual claimants and sometimes you have to balance those off what congress and the eight has done here is drawn a line in the sand and claims inside of that st year that is to say whenever you've got a board appeal pending but when i look at the other type of supplemental claim in fifty one o four c b when if i don't see any conditions any restrictions any regulations on i've claimants ability to file a supplemental claim after that st year has expired claim and as an unfettered right to file supplemental claim and if it doesn't matter if there's something pending somewhere else in on review whether it's at the veterans court or the federal circuit supreme court where in the statute should i look to where i would see words that would tell me oh i'm misunderstanding fifty one o four c b there actually are some restrictions  couple windows where you can file a supplemental claim and and enjoy the earliest effective date and that's the one year after a b b a decision and one year after the decision and any time outside of that side of one year from the initial denial you will not get and enjoy that same effective date for supplemental claim but nevertheless i'm looking for words in the statute that i should look at that will convince me that there are c and then got an adverse decision from the ca v c were certainly well more than a year after the decision of initial denial and so you're well within your rights to file a supplemental claim but you're also well within your rights to appeal that adverse veterans court decision to the federal circuit and so what in the statute is depriving the claimant from being able to do both of those things in my hypothetical discusses fifty one over four c a right fifty one and i'm talking about fifty one o four c b i think we're seeing i agree with you that there are certain restrictions on what a claimant can do visa vs supplemental claim in that in the context of five or one foresee that is that action if you can take within one year of the initial denial now i'm talking about a different context and in all these and take the situation where a veteran has pending before the ca pending before a federal court for other c b c or some of the supreme court files a supplemental to agree with us that it isn't a reach as the the history that we discussed in our briefing shows that when the v s o is uncommon to commentators on the proposed rules raise this concurrence issue year isn't it possible for the veteran to have that he's no longer restricted by the requirement that they can only have one of the time while you can only follow supplemental claims mike my only that the court concluded that this particular regulation it's it's arbitrary and capricious to treat intent to file for supplemental claims differently and then for intent to file for initial c you in your brief of indicated that the plans to propose a regulation who knows when i'm trying to figure out what to do because we have to write a decision we could very well rescinding that regulations then well maybe that would make my life easier so what i'm asking is is you indicated over half a year ago there was an intention to do something about this regulation and take care of it and it's far as i know it's still sitting there on the books and so therefore as far as i know it's still being applied what is going on can you give me the current status of when you actually plan on rescinding that regulation fortunately i wish i had more to tell you exactly where i was going wrong i think i'm actually agreeing with you here that unlike the other role we don't have a policy letter to show you so i can't definitively state that there's someone not out there and i understand that the position this that the that the statutory language here is clear that congress intended that both within a year and outside of the year timeframe that individuals would have the right to file supplemental claims without regard to whether they were pursuing federal court appeals but if this court thinks that there's any ambiguity in that i think it's important here that the court would employ the pro better and cannon to read any ambiguity in favor of the veteran i mean here i understand it the government now  acknowledge that there are circumstances in which individuals could concurrently be pursuing federal court appeals and and supplemental claims we think the right reading is that that that congress intended that with respect to all veterans but if there's any ambiguity we think it should be read in favor of the veteran and similarly you know it's worth noting that that that it has been settled law for at least twenty years that individuals could pursue essentially the equivalent of a supplemental plan the motion to reopen in the old system while pursuing their federal court appeals congress legislated against the backdrop of that system if it did not speak clearly to to doing away with that we don't think there's any clear indication of that c has basically drawn a line in the sand that says before one year you can switch plans and you can switch it to any other way but after one year no you can't protect your effective date and the only land that you can switch into is the supplemental point plan and we think that that is arbitrary here because the agency really didn't provide just as in the role that i think was discussed in the m b a case the agency provide no reason decisionmaking no reason explanation for supplement switch to the supplemental family and even though that would more expeditiously secure him his benefits and so he's in the very odd situation where if he does nothing and waits for the b v a to to issue  he if he were to switch lands earlier his effective date would not be protected and so what that does is it if it creates significant inefficiency is because it forces individuals to consume agency resources  court's going to go have a five minute recess we'll be back at twelve and one and i ask your body to be back ready to go at that time thank you