what is it that triggers the obligation to leave something in effect so that the statute also uses other terms uses modify it uses revoke it uses a stablish at least it seems to me tha aggressor can do that on his on his own motion he's doing that every day that he doesn't but he doesn't do one of the other things so at what point does he have it does he have an obligation to review and certify that it is safe that is looking and it's starting something i want to take on a project and decides to file a petition to have something that's something revoked does that trigger an obligation in the administrator to to certify once again that it is and doesn't use raise the question that maybe something totally different is going on if there's no plausible explanation for why this correlation existe so i understand it columbia which is one of the most important studies here has refused to provide the raw data repeatedly finding each and every time then a response to a petition to revoke tolerance sure say that it does and they suggested all the court needs to know is th you for a nd and you repeat that last yes yes as the court held in college she me susan collins shima versus holder it is often the case that a single statutory provision considered in isolation will appear just on the consideration of the surrounding text congress ever come into play you can take a pencil and crossed that out of the statute with absolutely no substantive changes because one you know men straight or will never need to make that unsafe finding every time that a question arises safety and judged by between our construction would require the administrator to revoke based on that question without ever the impression that's what i was are what i meant to say was that in the petition on it would never or in any other context you notice traitor never has to get to the point of making the in effect only applies in the th for a review is that correct that is that your reading of the statute not only in the th for the believe in affected language would also apply to the appears sort of randomly it sometimes shows up on this and as we have established modify and revoke mentioned but leave in effect is left off the list sometimes we mention all four things but if i go over to th to look at fifa review if i think that's right your honor but where the leave in effect language comes into play in to for registration review is that the phrase environmental effects just a little bit so again i think that the department's reading of trying to integrate this trying to read everything is a hall makes some sense the problem i'm having is that i make a whole lot more sense at the  leave in effect being used which i can't find at all it only appears to be used here and it's not of the find is not a term that is not it doesn't appear if you have to find terms i have to i have to infer a so why should i just read it in that in that ordinary sense what we set for the several examples in our brief to which i just spoke about wine because  to be a th process under which at least in some cases he would have to perform a comprehensive review of pesticide talers not limited to claim and it would allow petitioners to do is they did in this case to raise at the very end objections issues that were nowhere to be found there though and it really doesn't standard way and i'm i'm sorry i'm blanking on the name of the case but there was a specific case cited in briefs were e p a had originally had a zero tolerance level and then new evidence showed that the safe level was somewhere between two numbers both of those numbers were higher than c p i said well you know we really like to examine this some more so we're going to leave it at that  zero notwithstanding these two studies and the court said no you can't do that you may be able to say that the safe level was somewhere between those two numbers which you can't just say he's given this new information that shows th lowest level is somewhat higher but my nd point would be that even if even if your honour's analysis is correct that's not the situation in this case and if there were there would still be this situation where under contrition ors construction if there is a conclusion our student a question about safety e p a is always going to have to revoke  never made a finding in this case never the existing tolerances are not say and it is inaccurate to say the e p a has made a series of broken findings that exposure to seven to two thousand and fourteen and it twice convened its scientific advisory panel to discuss these very issues and each and every time e p a concluded and the scientific advisory panel agree the higher than one it calculated in two thousand and six and on which two thousand and six safety finding was based so based on its work from two thousand and seven to twenty four  obligations under the statute and that in fact contrary to e t s position it is required to make a safety finding under b to anyone or revoke the tolerances then the court would should into the agency and it would have to do one of those two things as as the court direct but i would like to point out that shish and hers have failed to cite to the group or even one case having remotely similar facts in which the court held that then agency made a legal statutory construction error and then run mandated with directions as to how to resolve actual issue on which there was co left unless there are any other questions i would like to make one final point and that has to do with e p a s request to review the data from the columbia there's no e p a policy that says you must you that my time is up so if there are no further questions i will go back on  me let me let me just frame it in this way the f f dca presumes that all pesticides are harmful and therefore that no pesticides may be you so we start from that presumption that tolerance is zero for every pesticide default it seems to me is not a tolerance of zero status by the hat but the tolerance established in two thousand and six when when he conducted his regulatory proceedings so if it's leaving in effect because it's in evidence to persuade it to modify or revoke tolerance hasn't in effect found that it is safe in two thousand and six and therefore isn't e p a entitled to leave in fact others my question is stay the evidence is not sufficient to compel us to conclude that it is not safe and therefore the default is now the safety tolerance that we established in two thousand and six and we're going to leave that in effect until we see sufficient e questions we've taken you beyond your time as the here so thank you very much to both sides there are very helpful arguments today the matter submitted and