there is no doubt in the existing record there is one line of harvest information whereas what we're suggesting is the record needed to be corrected to show two lines of harvest information there's not really any dispute about that clients with federal and state commercial fishing regulations in effect the time apart harvest we submitted that definition is not ambiguous and out of place it plainly applies to each one of these lines of harvest information for several reasons of ninety ninety four and after that we got about a november eighth and this is reflected in their log book which is in the record at one of four they picked up they left the area they went over the kids  that they might have been taken from the same place in some scoff at defining a regulatory or stature a term here regulatory term and i'm not sure your definition is the only available or reasonable definition of arms that doesn't necessarily and but but as far as who would qualify if you were to rule in our favor only the alaska trojan partnership would qualify for salaries i mean i wanted that the only party in this case so any relief you grant going to flow to them to it's not clear that that there are other people who are in a similar factual situation the government can speculate but there's there's a bet and not been any showing it and in fact i submit it's probably unlikely but more importantly the deadline for making those claims is one thousand nine hundred ninety and take a pretty hard line when in the record to entertain claims at this like in fact after this court decided in wards code fisheries and apparently from what i can read i may be wrong on this but the they used the three landings as their recommendation apparently in their review and i may be wrong who came up with that but it seems to  into how they're going to listen to those and how they're going to limit the take and so if if if the council review this commission and regulatory body reviewed it we're not going to go back and use our expertise s ground craft and i understand where you're coming from but apparently we're going to make some sort of the terminations for this vote and this particular fish ticket in spite of all the other words and apparently studies  challenging is this and that it's the interpretation that rahm adopted kind of rather casually in june of one thousand nine hundred nine when they came out with that little e mail so we're not challenging what the council said also if you look at the reason that the sell them and therefore get taken mr we don't want that we have we want to make sure that people are going to remain in the fishery this vessel that previous summer had invested three quarters of a million dollars i think that they for example intended to stay in the fishery the fact they've been in this fishery every year compare to figure out how to get where you are is it the fact that you were prevented from bringing into or the fact that the law or regulation interpretation is wrong it's the fact that the interpretation that ram apply and i guess i was one way to try to drive that point home and say it this way the council never had this rule before you know this is something you can ram came up with in that period of time when they were trying to figure out how to start third ten thirty four and then the smorgon we provided an additional supplemental citation of authority to the court and to counsel and this is to the supreme court's recent decision in a case called national cable telecommunications association versus brand x to internet services decided june twenty seventh two thousand and five and the site to that is two thousand and five west law fourteen ninety eight eight sixty fish tickets which mill your land what what the regulation says or what the preamble explanation and the final rule at page thirty three of the excerpts of record for the term document or harvest replaces legal landing throughout the final new term more accurately describes the activity necessary for necessary for eligibility correct that is correct but what is necessary is that there be a documented harvest and this this regulation has defined documented harvest to mean a harvest recorded in compliance with federal or state law now for the crab fishery this is basically a state managed fishery so we look to state watch and see what is required and state law requires that that harv that you might have finished in two different places two different times and done exactly as they've done and in fact as i understand and hearing there was a statement that well if you come in after the first batch of brown  because it didn't it didn't do would really to determine the point of offloading what they wanted to know is where the fish was harvested well i'm not sure that's the only reason for the change the cause and language th species of ground fish or two different species of crab that were harvested even if they were harvested in the same federal indorsement area if there were two different spe system that was adopted and ninety eight called the limited license program which was in essence intended to put a cap a limit on the number of people fishing in the fishery number of both o the number of boats out there to now where they have just put in place a new regulatory scheme involving a fishery quota permit scheme which is an even more restrictive s is different from an agency's interpretation of its own regulations the chevron deference standards are stricter when in statutory interpretation is involved but here we're talking about regulatory interpretation and here the supreme court has recognized deference to an agency interpretation advocated in all kinds of circumstances we started in our brief the our case our case from the process in this case the office made three written submissions two to the agency in those written submissions are excerpts of record one hundred six to one  that testimony explains that what has been referred to in this record as a business rule was based upon an interpretation of the regulations there is the e mail the plain there does not need to be a formal process under the kind of chevron deference that we are asking for there does not need to be a formal process the our case makes that clear the bo whether or not the one taken one harvest was an appropriate implementation of the council didn't i don't i don't think that the change the regulatory change that that you have asked about has the consequence that me that you are implementing precisely the previous rule rather than the other rule because you're not allowing in any evidence that this might be considered to harvest it's conclusive that landing is all you've got to talk about i don't think that means it's intended to change that the plaintiffs are asking for ascribing to that regulatory change or that or that you are when that change was made the preamble language  in the final rule the preamble language says this is to more accurately reflect more accurately describe what information we're interested in what we want done to look at and that's basically the sum administrators sanch to washington headquarters contemporaneous with this final rules seeking approval for the final rule  of the few changes made most were editorial in addition to the editorial changes there was the change in definition from documented harvest was added to the final rule this term more accurately describes behavior necessary for  person that's because no one was proceeding on the assumption that and it's certainly next was not proceeding on the assumption that the change of this regulatory term from legal landing say they don't and they didn't examine the fish take a spade examine the information that was given to them by the state of alaska the state of alaska provided to stay collects all th that's not a question i know but but the way that that how what is the question the question is then that the the harvest and three areas of the world you see the quite the question is should they decided for purposes of your interpretation of the regulations that a fish tank is required to document a harvest when a fish take it is anonymous with a landing the regulation  very last attachment i want to respond to your comment about what the council looked at this rule that we're talking about here this business rule this one this ticket equals one document harvestable that was not a rule but it's not a council it's not something the council generate it's not something that determination then if you're going to record is incorrect you have to correct the record and then you will use it and as we've closed those language and regulations in our brief and what we're saying is that if you look to the record you see to your aware of what's happening when that new program going into a fact it's changed the ability of this vessel to go fishing the fifth season starts on august fifteenth we went to the district court in western injunction pending consequences of that decision are now a little different than what they were the