limited by our board of political so unless other law provides a limit then the administrator does have discretion but here i mean we've identified a bunch of statutes that we think impose limits understand the rationale there said the world people who look to us for grants are going to want to curry favor with us so they shouldn't be on the committee because that would be in direct mechanism of bringing to bear inappropriate influence initiated peer review process is creating a buffer between the agency and the scientist that limits the ability of the agency to exercise let me stop you i think you're making two different arguments a a grant is itself a challenge to the independence of the p a and the e p a has not adequately explained why that is so am i correct that's right and i do wan the fact that we do not have an administrative record in this case and normally you don't answer it a p a questions on the merits and suppose filed three months later the district court decision is more than a year later then it comes out and as we got norah laurie can move more quickly here but a lot of time has passed and a lot of complaints have been made to the committees how many people that are there on these committees and are there presently an you can see on any of these committees so the number of people varies pretty widely i know you say there are twenty two committees you should know the number of people on those never looked at the facts at all and that's what renders cancer which is strange but that's not helpful response so the nd point is it is it you look at for example the hero response that you wouldn't want it to go back to the district chlorate so bad but those sites have the opportunity to present some evidence at what has actually happened it is causing at least arguably a violation of the statutory mandate independence all right so if you look at all of that and you're down to the conclusion that your account falls that this is committed to an agency said there were several and that's your st one but suppose one draws the conclusion that it is not committed to agency discretion may depend on the facts simply give the case nobody's saying the appointment of a particular individual fry away to anything this is instead a facial attack based on the effects of the policy on a hc so let's assume that ron things get put since not committed to agency discretion doesn't follow from that that record that you can point to strew that would show that in deciding before knocking off the say eight thousand people the e p a turned its attention to whether what the effect of that would be on its ability to balance the sending now and we're putting in a new position that says no one who simply anyway associated with any regulated industry can be on any of our committees because if they receive any money from an industry that may be biased i would there would be an argument that would say hey the effect of that can be a huge deal balancing the committee believes you've got to with the least show you look at them before you do it and then unless i'm have received a grant but then it says that that requirement doesn't apply to the tribes or to state or local government agencies apply to state universities i e the ban on apply to state universities is that accurate and if several where and in a record i the source of that interpretation of the directive and right out of their interpretations are right there out there that we don't know about any record where you did this common problem this decision that state universities were to be treated differently than other aspects of state is off the table meanwhile let's keep in mind on the other side the draft allows continued service by scientists affiliated with the regulated industry even on committees that directly affect the bottom line of their employers we submit there statutes are broad and implicate expertise that may be a reason to give some deference to the agency but it's not a reason not to review at all the case on the other side you should look at is webster v dull which shows that when congress or the wants to commit matters to agenc exclusive direction exclusive judgments it knows exactly how to do that though so the statute in that case said that the cia director could terminate any employee that the tractor corking deemed advisable and here congress made a very different