these authorizations acting as the agency designated by the legislative assembly of puerto rico both to implement and to issue binding rules and orders under wear to regal law and issued these authorizations only have to determining that these landfills need all federal and puerto rico requirements including that there be quote no substantial probability of any adverse effect on health or the environment and under these conditions the ordinances we believe are preempted by both federal law and by puerto rico law independent and i'll begin if i might with the federal preemption claim supreme court said in international paper vs will lead that among other grounds local law is preempted if it interferes with the methods that congress must stop list in a statute in order to effectuate its goals and the method that common congress established and rick rock is to regulate through state plans argument i'm supposed e q be had not issued the regulations that it issued when they're still be record preemption in consequence of the we're not we would want to be able to argue in that case your honor there would be preemption even in that instance on a broader and frankly more difficult theory than the one we're arguing for any here so if one is dependent on that he could be having  so can i just ask you then that seems to me just to raise a puzzle which is if the e q the regs are properly understood as a matter of puerto rico law to contemplate as a matter waste shall be construed to prevent or affect any activities carried out under local law unless such activities are inconsistent with a state plan approved by e p a in this case and i don't need to fight is and certainly both our federal preemption and our common law of preemption argument do depend on those e q the resolutions but if i could turn them to the question your honor just civically raised because judge in the decision below specifically said that  the procedure act also says no those orders are effective unless stay by the superior court and that's important because it's one of many indications that there really is no question under rico in which the supreme court made clear that a commonwealth agency exercising delegated authority from the legislative assembly pre amps municipal law this court and judge for ways decision in the liberty cablevision case cited lopez very i mean they just keep coming back to versions of the same question which is why isn't the intention as a matter of puerto rico law that the authorization that you be provided for was meant to certification would be a better outcome and a more appropriate outcome than the dismissal we actually don't think is the best and most natural outcome here because certification would require the courts determine that there is an unsettled question of  law as to whether or not the resolutions carry the full force of law and we just don't think it is terrible to suggest that these resolutions a violation of which is a criminal mr meehan are subject to a range of penalties ministration civil sanctions right and it says if i understand it if you want to have other beneficial uses you should come and ask for us that's right so you might have thought that one way to understand the scheme is that you be made sure that if you're going to use a limb fell it's got to be  it seems to me one could read it that way what's wrong with that because then you have the means allergies prohibiting the specific activity that could be expressed authorized and this is the context in which these wastes are going to exist and they have to be disposed of somewhere so when e q be authorized these landfills wasn't simply saying well if you want to go ahead it was solving a problem that we're sure we could otherwise have which is what to do with these two hundred thousand tons of c c r as a year these are the landfills that have entered into contracts to take other landfills have not nor all the noise if useful to you right now i'm just saying well it terms of what is available in the market within puerto rico to deal with this problem e p a sent a letter this is on page sixty two of the joint appendix to e q be saying a disposal option needs to be made available for these materials orders here issued under the plan someone else wasn't taking it global looking saying what uses will we prohibit and what we permit everything these are these are controversial i assume there were those opposing the granting of the permit arguing  this particular method of disposal has environmental risks other methods of disposal should be considered this is not how a proceeding like this would normally i don't know whether opposition to actually filed but even if they were each you'd be resolved those issues by affirmatively off rising supposal and i don't only part of the way they were told because the other part of the resolution was that this is authorize other beneficial uses that you'd like you to come and ask for that's right but don't so i just what are we supposed to do with that because if there are other beneficial uses of c c o r's that can be can exist in the world now it happens your client doesn't want to use one that which he has authorized in the preemption terms stands as an obstacle to the achievement of the objectives and is therefore preempted but that is that of it is both the objectives of sites and methods to dispose of solid waste and to implement a permit system under rick ross when e q be chooses the sites and methods to dispose of southwest it's not merely granting an optional promise but it a reasonable way of solving this problem and with the courts permission i  sound waste management practices the actual planning and any direct implementation of saudi whites programs on their own so don't be however remains a state and local  complicated about the issue i mean you have the informal equality board issue specifically issuing permits make making rulings a result of his should permits which for the reasons we've discussed seem to have all these really seem to have all the hallmarks of law and then you have who says which directly contravene those rulings by the state poor what what v is not in conflict with an ordinance that prohibits you from putting it in the landfill your honor the  as while board manufacturing in concrete and or uses that may very well be continue to be used without any so if i may i just want to encompass the than your honor i would like our federal thank you and i'd like to address the supreme court of puerto rico decision that my brother counsel just referenced and i'd like to respond to some of the questions the court has asked about the relationship between law with respect to the supreme court decision in the eco systems case that's the decision we supply a twenty page a letter to the court about it supports our position that dealt with a different resolution regarding a different landfill relating to the construction of that landfill and what the supreme court of puerto rico said is that resolution did not authorize the use of a c c r product in the construction to build the road to that landfill and therefore the  enforced as to the construction of that plant but the supreme court would not have needed to parse the language of that e q the resolution to determine that it didn't permit the activity unless it understood as its prior decisions are certainly there are opportunities to see other uses these uses have been authorized and we think this case turns on what the legal significance of that authorization is whether or not there might be future applications in the future for different uses and as to that the puerto rico law is very clear the plan that that e q be submitted to e p a under retro was required by rep among other things to specify what level of government within puerto rico would have  for disposal of solid waste that's the authority they exercised here and they exercised by granting a permit an authorization that is not simply permission that is a legal right to engage in the activity