please the court i think even the government would agree that boiled down to its essence of this case there's as one issue and the basic issue is was it reasonable for the national review fisheries service and i'll information on state law book forms as opposed to federal law which forms technically in view of the fact that the information on both sets of love book forms is essentially the same and in addition to that that the information from the state of california logbook forms while initially turned into the state of california then went to the same hole y and office the same federal database under an agreement to share data on the north pacific long line fisheries and in those log books of the law books do anything to establish ownership of the vessel the both both types of log  there is a form that person would supply out in the papers with a motion for summary judgment that indicates the various things that are the same in both and just just quickly it's a vessel name and number beginning of the so it would necessarily be the owner that's correct who would be the captain of the vessel be the captain of the bus would be the actual person fishing villages in the city by the time that your client made the request when the information already in the database for the the fish or the name they were going to call it well that's an interesting question that was not actually argued before the district court and that goes to the third or fourth issue that are raised in my opening brief and that is if that's what the district court's decision was based on the answer to that very question then that was not something i mean that's a factual question that was records that don't you know the closest thing to the evidence for you in that regard is the declaration filed by the defendants of russell ito who was the man in hawaii who was in charge of collecting and compiling the data for the long line fisheries use the declaration is i think the only records and concession of my office that document fishing by that is correct you're so if you're young your argument is that that contains the equivalent of federal data so he's saying that it is in the database or not he's saying that it is in the database any saying not only is that i mean not only is he saying it's in the database he's saying that it's in the database pursuant to an agreement we have with the state of california so we can get that information into the database so we can get a complete picture of what's going on in the north pacific one line for sure forms you were actually supposed to be filling out what isn't your argument also that depending on where he landed the fish california required california state logbooks that's correct he was asked how the coast of hawaii views a federal law books california for why they do both he did not vote why did he not because he was not required to not require by california not required by the federal government either not required by the federal government there's a footnote that i can cite you to him in my opening tries not in a legal violation but let's just say they have this program where they have a certain amount of money and they decide who qualifies for it and not everyone's going to qualify for it and they're the agency that you know has the expertise and they decide this is what we want for documentation if you're going to get the money and they say the federal month x and that's how they they interpret that that's what  question one of them is that there has to be a rational connection between the requirement and in there has to be an expressed rational connection between and why you know that they don't have to do it the way that you want them to get with well that's a meme can't argue with that except to say that i think in this case when you're talking about well as a federal vacuum in the equivalent of a state document that's not really a decision where you have to defer to the expertise of the particular agency involved but more importantly let's contrast the requirements for a federal law form with what the same agency did when it decided to differentiate between swordfish fishermen and those fishermen who refuse from for tuna now there is at the time in the federal register notice the rationale underlying that decision there's no such rationale ever expressed underlying the decision to require a federal law clerk and and more importantly than that it was fine and i've admitted we've admitted that it might be very reasonable for them to require a federal  before but if you don't then a while under the review process where there was no requirement for a federal law court form it didn't say federal walk will form if you if you say that for the review process you have to have a federal law reason for calling to your attention the the case that was was handed down recently alaska approach and department partnership case because there the question was somewhat similar in the sense that nationally fisheries service had this whole scheme to determine how many landings the vessel had as to whether it would qualify for a limited entry program and there the court look at it and basically said we're interested in the substance not the form i mean we're interested in the fact that on the form you can see that different landings were me even though it's on a single fish ticket form and the court said you know that information is there the reason that you want that information is basically so you can manage the fishery so what you're really interested in is how many catches how many different sets there were on the particular species that was the subject of that fishery since that was not really a material fact that was not a fact that was argued and the district court i believe however that the requirements under the state or fisherman's claim that any alterations additions minimums to the log books had to be done by june i believe it was two thousand and one which was before this specified federal logbooks to a universe of documentation that already been submitted other words it wasn't prospective it was retrospective so that's investigating who got to qualify you had to have opted instead of following the approved practice of submitting california when you're off loading in california and federal and why you would have had to  enough to know that you better file don't take advantage of the california option which you say is sanctioned by the federal government event or have filed thing self with then with later became the eligibility factor and so you relied on the review process to use the state forms to show that you functionally qualify even though it was under don't explain how the unequivocal language of those regulations didn't require them to file a federal law gook and actually before i get too far away from it just a housekeeping matter want to know for the court that the regulation on that score that we cited in our brief has been all fishing permit including the two types of fishing permits a travel marine has a whole why a long line limited access permit or a federal high seas fishing permit must file a federal law book with the national marine fisheries service within seventy two hours landing and that's why it was completely reasonable for the secretary in this case to say i'm going to condition them to choose as eligibility criteria the logbooks that every fisherman who would be eligible for the program was already required to comply with already required to supply the agency under preexisting federal law good good stuff there ok great that's what you're saying is that the regulation required now is there no evidence that the federal government either explicitly or implicitly sanctioned the state filing only there is no evidence it is oh how is it logbook database that they said they would use in the federal register notice that affirmatively identified hundred eighteen fishing vessels that had fished in the relevant area for the purpose swordfish or tuna the right species  during eligibility period and those were people who offloaded in california and while the federal form i believe most of them all floated in hawaii right but the well how many for how many offloaded and in california i'm not aware of anyone other than trans will marine who did  in the federal database that has to do with something completely unrelated to this program and that is the national marine fisheries service acting on behalf of the united states has an obligation to collect data for international fishing monitoring programs also for scientific purposes good attempt to figure out what kind of fish are being caught where and the california logbook requirement as i understand it applies to some fishing that is not covered by federal regulations and that's because some fisheries are regulated only by state bodies some fisheries are regulated only by federal bodies and some regulate both so the data does end up being in some cases duplicative but that's why the federal secretary in deciding how to apportion essentially federal large debts was not required to look just state data and could look to data that every fisherman who was going to be eligible for this program anyway had to file under preexisting federal law let me ask you this  agency stated in the letter but the reason that the agency stated in the letter was more than adequate which is the express eligibility requirements for choir federal logbooks you didn't file federal law folks now i think it's important to take a step back and realize this isn't a case what the secretary was doing is incrementing a congressional directive team allocate three million dollars and the quote is to provide economic assistance to fishermen and fishing communities affected by closure a dispute that is  qualified in terms of the substance that he in fact was fishing in the area that aside from the fact that he relied on california logbooks what he caught and the time in which he caught it qualified him for what congress intended compensation to go forth each year on r i i don't believe that the numbers would disqualify him but i just with respect so yes so i mean the answer is he there's no you're not disputing that if his flawed books have been specified that he would have been within the universe of beneficiaries of congressional yes and when i say i'm not disputing that it's because we didn't get to that state i know you didn't get it that i haven't seen it in  the government brief some suggesting that this is a faith claim now that's our we're not making any sense so let's assume that the secretary had a legitimate reason to  federal law goes the secretarial through or the put forward a review process yes and the review process says applicants pursuing review must present written vessel log book now why under that process doesn't he qualify because he has submitted state documents to support claims of eligibility and i don't understand that the vin any rejection of it because it wasn't timely you didn't nee seventy two hours and that it was a that that they to was that in the federal database that's right your honor but i think it's important to look at that language it does refer to state and territory documents but as we explained in our brief there was a function for state in purpose of the eligibility was not just ownership it was also the make sure that they had caught the fish and then address those in the review process and read again  pursuing review must present written vessel logbook documentation that was filed in a timely manner or state or territorial documents to support claims of eligibility yes there's no dispute of ownership here how does that regulation say it relates only to claims of ownership when logbooks you may take issue with counsel for the appellant the logbooks don't necessarily evidence ownership  may be the captain of the vessel whose name is on it it's the fisherman if you look at the two samples attached it claims complaint which is in the record the state law of the vacant eyes the fisherman the fisherman is not necessarily the owner of the vessel right in fact  the basis on which one of another applicant for this program's claim was rejected it was that the owner was not the one who had been owning what owned the boat during the relevant you're saying we're supposed to construe this regulation as meaning that it's only were supposed to read out of the plain language that there's a review no wait a minute let me finish i'm a fully aware of the a p a and the standard of review but there's also substance here and there's the regulation addressing people who have engaged in a practice which fundamentally isn't in dispute he's part of the target that congress intended to get some of this money ok so you're carrying out a congressional mandate a purpose to give money to people who have been adversely affected by a court order by the district court in hawaii correctly all right so then you say here's the criterion or criteria for eligibility and if you have if we don't pick it up from our records we're going to give you a review process ok so the person has to go with what he's got yes that's a record spec through a qualifying criteria yes ok you had to be an owner of a that fished in the area and you had to catch the fish within the relevant time period and when you come to us to review your eligibility you have to present either the federal documents or state documents and you want us to say that mandate that direction to review applicants has to be read as river leaving only only to ownership not withstanding there are two criteria for eligibility you know you're only have to defer to that under the reasonable and that's because why wasn't reasonable because this is what it says in the review process is to show if you weren't one of the hundred eighteen people initially identified you have the opportunity to come in and show that you qualified you met requirement requirement one and requirement and and the eligibility section of the regulation makes clear different documentation was to be accepted for each of those two problems so the first thing is that religion is very clear about this in page two of the excerpts of record it says for purposes of ownership of the vessel the secretary said we will accept documentation certificates issued by the united states coast guard thus the reference to us d g or state or territorial documents for ownership and then it says as to vessel harvesting as in whether you caught fish in the relevant time in the relevant place it says vessel harvesting determinations will be documented by and solely based upon logbook submitted to the national marine fisheries so when you then get to the review process and it says you may if you're challenging your the agency's failure to select you submit federal law books or state documents the secretary quite reasonably interpreted that i think to say look you might have been rejected he didn't own it in which case will take state or territorial documents you might also have been rejected because you can fish in the right place and if the eligibility criteria in that section of the rule make absolutely clear to establish harvesting we require federal law gives me yes it's that law books it's a federal law books it says that law books submitted to this database basically that he wasn't getting into the database  logbooks documenting the catch he never submitted if they federal law book though does it well your honor i think there are a few points in the agency then goes on to say if there were any doubt about what law books were in question he just he goes on to say and submit federal catch an effort law books and to document fishing activities with catch and species within seventy two hours of landing so the agency is clearly referring to its own regulations and regulations requiring federal logs no where in here does the agency refer to or even mention state authorities and it is not as though these documents filed by the state and federal authorities w federal agents were agencies were precisely identical if you look at the examples in the attached to plaintiff's complaint the federal form has a box to check from whether there was an observer on board a state form has no such box the federal form requires a signature saying that i swear that the foregoing is true and correct the state form doesn't require such a thing and of course is the entire background regulatory system whereby state false statements to a federal agency are constitute a federal crime under eighteen u s c one thousand one now we're not remotely suggesting that such a thing occurred here but the point is it was reasonable for the secretary to look to federal forms rather than state forms because of the background of that kind of federal regulation because of what the of class and you have several things that knowledge i believe that the california form filed by the ship owner here and submitted in turn to the federal agency they made contains the two relevant data forms that are relevant to this regulation one ownership and two cats and those are what those forms are intended to capture and record if your response are to two points first the federal form excuse me the state form does not indicate ownership it indicates the name of the fisherman that is might require as california evidently did here logbooks but the united states coast guard does not the only function of the united states coast guard in this regime was to document who owns a vessel that there's at least that regulation on  state for which documents the one thing that you have any concern about and that is that i really catch swordfish or your honor again two points with response to in response to that all that review process and i think it's important that that is structurally in the section saying review not eligibility all that that says is the kind of documents that the agency will look at she determine whether an applicant is eligible and of course every one of those documents listed in there i agree so yes but every one of the stocking is listed in there would be eligible to it that would be relevant to a claim of eligibility depending on the basis on which he was rejected we you're not i don't disagree with you so i don't you're trying to say though you can't use  this california logbook to prove what it contains the catch you can only use it if in fact you submit it for purposes of showing ownership and you're saying well california doesn't quire ownership i suppose if submitted within seventy two hours now the argument is that the the agency in and this is again on page two of the excerpts of record says that the owner of the vessel submitted to m f s documents if he did not your hon call it rigid are they but but i understand a p a but underlying all of this is a congressional intent to give money to people like this claim its right if i may the that was the purpose that's what the secretary is trusted with he's got a fund and the fund is to take care of people like this fisherman and the government agency is saying no because you didn't the fund was you didn't you didn't turn in a logbook in the way we read the regulation we're going to screen you out even though in substance you did everything that was permissible or allowed your honor under and you can't change it mr cl law license in law ever since he was using cell for you yes and the fact that the agency may not have taken in forstmann action on that ground doesn't mean that it was on reasonable for the secretary to say that as an elegy as eligibility for this federal grant program we're going to look one out of the purpose of this congressional program was to for vied economic assistance to fishermen that's true but it's as the secretary explained in the notice there's three million dollars here it's not a lot of money and the secretary for of the crowd but the reason but that my point is that the secretary sensibly determined that not everyone who could fall within it who have ever fished in this area who could fall within these terms would be entitled to been arguing about people who fall out so we're talking enjoyable part of this application process than the federal logbook requirement now they fall within a nine month period but they don't fall within the federal logbook requirement and it wasn't unreasonable for the secretary to insist on people who've moved to comply with th here and if in fact and also the federal regulations actually provided for that if you have an outstanding fine were or if you violated one of the national interest free services regulations you had to pay that fine off before you could be before you can receive money under this under this program that's that's one reason the other is that the essence of the whole programs to help the fishermen who were affected and it's it's it's basically a question  under penalty of perjury you can just say whatever but you know that's a very interesting point when you're giving away money first of all that they're you know i mean then you could come back later and say well you weren't entitled to it and you lied on this form and therefore you could do it as opposed to the california doesn't require that your honor i don't have that in mind but i'd be happy to submit for the record the penalties for filling out improperly california walked with forms basic requirement was that the information was in the federal database and the information was in the federal database and i think that's clear from russell he chose that version i mean he acknowledges that he has the state forms that were file that there were forms there were federal forms that were submitted but they were outside the nine month period but that's i mean that's not really relevant what's relevant is whether the vessel and the fisherman was active during that period of time the sector in his discretion decided it made sense to look at in terms of what fishermen more affected by these federal closures that were subsequently going to do i don't like to just  sent out a couple of months after the trips that my claim completed so there was clearly confusion oh and the other reason for the sifting out people who were not and the secretary wanted to be sure that those people were excluded that was basically the requirement for the law book to show the activity of the fishing national fishing activity during this period of time as opposed to someone who had watched a limited