so withholding it from future dispersants i mean that's that's the position they're there they're taken what's wrong with the assertion that the nine hundred ninety four as a whole letter is a pla and clear statement of policy upheld by the way by earlier this is well if i if i may or are the factors which draw the social security act the statute relations that build on that statute there's nothing here that says so what is your position that they had to go through they had to promulgated rulemaking gas in order to say what i mean the agencies all the time how how could it be the case that they would have to go through regulation rulemaking the scribe what in the streets it's because that would create would need an endless series of regulatory rule making schemes how you know the circumstances of what isn't is an administrative expense could be endless could it could be yes ok below is a realistic to say well that requires something we told them in one nine hundred ninety four not to do well the best that's another issue here is very much that you know this is over a fifty year period of time we have for discovery is part it's whatever in terms of how it was billed it should have been considered a direct medical expense were it was properly billed as overhead and lumped together with other administrative kinds of expenses  whether you did so well what's your legal authority for the position that in the face of their guidance to you don't bill trading it's administrative expense you are entitled to do that and indeed to do it in a way that period is an overhead cost and then be upset when it's uncovered an audit then you're told we we told you not to do that  a health and human services to have an adjudication based on the statute who wrote it just that's not going to happen there is no regulations that were following in this particular no if you are but it doesn't have to be regula deal that you can point at interpretation say hey that ought to be a regulation there's no new duty here you're did the duty was to report these things accurately and to claim administrative expenses correctly as administrative expenses and not point things at the high reimbursement rate that administer expenses allow which ark administrative expenses that's that why does that take rule making and not which said this is what we're saying is it isn't allowable it's an administrative expense there you want to rely on that not that information that just came out of the cuban a right yes ok  if you think that's ok how can you possibly distinguish that from the earlier letter of the s n b a letter for making ninety four it's the same kind of thing right but he says it has same different and there you remember a very similar fact pattern or about what the navy found to be necessary as far as it related to releasing the names of individuals the privacy act and bear in that particular foster scerscen that and be it what what happened in ninety four was in effect legislative room way that was not appropriately undertaken and therefore to get to the point here with they were saying is this was in the nature of a legislative rule this was a substantive rule and therefore requires notice rulemaking why  decides and understands i'm going to be given something here which is in effect making subsequent ross when i have to go through those and make right so the lack of something from congress to say to do it by rule making hasn't prevented the secretary f neither a an employee of the medicaid service provider nor does it me but somebody who has a contract that's one of the bases there are several several reasons why this is not areas so the distinction people distinction that you're remodeling on yes training for how to deal with administrative expenses that's an administrative expense train that has to do with the relying on whether it's necessary or not it's not this is not your argument it is not turning money discretionary germination as to the necessity of providing the history of speed with straight services here i thought it it the secretary is entitle to change his or her mind and that's not what will the guy back in ninety four and all during the period again the there are several  explain terms applicable here right under three b it lists the particular exceptions that allow for modification of at the period set forth under a and again the fact that someone needing records going back farther that allows question you seem to be saying that under supreme court precedent any time any agency creates a document even if it's intended so we're for internal use but that has the effect of giving rights to third parties like the state of pennsylvania you've heard your colleague here has your say repeatedly that's an internal manual it's meant for the auditors it's not meant for anybody else yes it's out in the public but it doesn't give anybody wrongs it's just for guidance for the employees you seem to be picking a position that you know if they wrote it they have to live with it and we have the right to assert it as if it were a statute of limitations do you have any with truth of that position ye colleague has mentioned i want to be very clear that those cases are ninety ninety nine hundred ninety one in the new york decisions and those course create any time that the records would have been kept in the you know in any type of the organized fashion which i point of saying not only did they have this ninety four letter they had access to and were reasonably on notice of this agency's interpretation of what could or could not be called an administrative review so they knew when they to call the stuff overhead that they should be doing and that's that's how that's my understanding of why the u s government sites of those earlier