also in march in may of two thousand and fifteen when the regulations problem gated that stated that yes indeed there was going to be some work for me for industry funding but again with the industry specifically that the fishery management thing muslim unlimited access privilege program which would have come with it had it been and l a p d only would have carried with not have a limited access privilege program in the form of amendment sixteen and that choice came with consequences you are including that  he expressed statutory authority to to charge for as he monitors was not available under eighteen fifty three but you're wrong to say that you should be able to hold off the challenge until the government doesn't provide the funding so that the obligation to pay comes tangible hitting the wall it would seem to but the latest that challenge could have been brought would have been in a twenty fifteen which was thirteen days after the agency part of the sector plan of operations i find it interesting that  fifteen there were several phone calls that were made in the summer of two thousand and fifteen other e mails that worse than to november continually notifying informing the public and industry that funding might run out and even this e mail one of the last e mail that was sent on this issue in fact the agency was able to find that funding and been used all funding had not been expanded at that point and was able to stand funding through february twenty sixth seeing so that the monitors and they want to get back to you know an issue underlying your question is has to do with the equities here the fact is there's nothing inevitable about applying the statute of limitations in this case challenging those other actions that were published in the federal register that that potentially could have gone at the funding requirement again we're not conceding that those lawsuits would have been appropriate but there were multiple other instances where the agency acted sixteen was promulgated and in fact the starter program was expanded in and then once it had been adopted in the thirteen three years before and was expanded an amendment sixteen is a way to provide funds increase flexibility and economic advantage to single vessels who wanted to exemptions from other fishing requirements and fish in a more economical way and you'll have to keep in mind that this fishery is extremely overfished it's it is it was in a disaster status in the mid two thousand and extensive over fish or in many of the stocks i believe eleven of the twenty stocks in this fishery extent that there are you know economic hardships that flow from his increased restrictions on the fishery those are necessary result of the protection measures that you can see how to implement to monitors i don't find anything specific for monitors here's just a general take your fish resists logic to pretty much anything you think is the first thing was the important point to keep in mind when thinking about the pacific fishery and the limited access privilege programs in comparison to this at the monitoring program is that those programs are feed collection programs so the statute specifically authorizes the agency to collect money fees from the vassals and use those fees to pay for services monitoring services that it provides or that it contracts for that is a huge distinction from this pay for the most are easy thing to do would be yes but congress i haven't looked and i have not seen any other statute that actually specifically authorizes the agency to prevented by language in the statute and the answer is no there are other provisions authorizing the agency to do to do with the johnson measures and fishery management plans that are necessary appropriate there are three kinds of things that we publish in the federal register one is notices which are informational only they are not rules they have no legal fact another category is proposed rules proposed regulations that are required to be published for  notice and comment purposes and then the third category are rules with legal fact the agency has discretion as to whether to publish documents in the federal register and this is if you look at the guidance think there's no question that you can see could have published this email as a notice but it earlier that year had made it even see you had already published in the federal register its rule approving the sector operations early in earlier twenty fifteen and then in that in that publication in early two thousand and fifteen the agency in food industry that at some point in twenty fifteen the funding would run out and they committed to industry it had contracts you had fines that were committed to contracts that it was using to pay for ads the monitors and it was simply determining what the number of troops that were being taken that that provision in the congress could have stopped writing but the congress did not the congress specifically and acted several express provisions under certain circumstances limited circumstances that   but it's a pretty good argument and they've adopted it