ashton thirteen aircraft service international inc doing business as man sees every action at all petitioners versus federal energy regulatory commission and united states of america mister field for the  twenty two of its order rejecting the relevance of its own finding of overarching intense earth space that the airlines accomplished their overarching sense of supply their planes at orlando through two distinct movements  st a foreign interstate movement to the temple terminal and an interest rate movement from the terminal to the to the airport by pipeline or truck the question how very good however is not whether this movement occurs in two separate movements it's whether both movements serve the same purpose and the findings by fur on the record undeniably demonstrate that there is no purpose behind either of these movements other  mister field isn't part of the purpose as you said to create an efficient and economical way of moving this so there is some other intent besides just moving a tar lando there is you know an intent to do this in a particular way by storing fuel at tampa before it for some time for a long period of time up to twelve days the fuel moves through tampa continuously it sometimes takes ten to twelve days to move th but council ten to twelve days in the tanks is not continuous movement i here's my question about your overarching intent if that were proper interpretation of the statute wouldn't all the cases such as atlantic be decided differently you know that was what isn't the real question whether there movement or not to the question of continuous movement there's no case that holds that the fact that a product stops during its movement to these the continuity of movement that's the conduct a marketing and distribution business out of that terminal it then delivered probably two hundred and twenty seven different locations and it did that based on needs of customers and might arise and that were not seen before the crowd was brought into terminal but other still with an overarching and tend to get the gasoline to the stations right overarching intent was to run a marketing and product to those other stations isn't that how the said how this works here as well right fuel is sent to the orlando airport as the different era bines needed to i mean isn't that part of what st found yes and it's also ordered based on what the airlines need i mean this is it's all driven by what the airlines need atlanta so big look at what they need how much fuel they need out really doing a month eight order that amount of fuel to come to and then onto a pipeline to orlando then you would have a different case the problem is did you have a sufficient stop in tampa to break  the question that is present throughout all the president here is whether there's intent to move the product through the terminal to the ultimate destination no matter how long it stops at the  here where our case has in common with all the other cases transfer case in jurisdictional is that the product was ordered specifically for use and in destination the product moved through the terminal there is never hear that your question was coming while i was trying to answer your question on the question i thought i was in answering was whether probably those who does nations other than orlando and what's the answer the answer is that it does go to the destinations of it in orlando because it's ordered by those airlines or their consumption that those definitions of process is exactly the same as what goes atlanta and if you look at a delta nomination severed detailed in the initial decision the nomination specifies specific quantities to go to the different airports to move through the terminal definition as i just explained the airlines as nominate specific amounts of jet fuel every month that they know me based on what they plan to move through to but that isn't that only proved to be pretty accurate over time and birth is never before found that you need some sort of that exact one hundred percent match between the order and and what actually comes through in carson petroleum there is a ten percent discount there's numerous cases coming out of the i c c where there is some difference between the amount that was ordered and that will ultimately came through but the there is no question that those are still the civic yes your honor it is and on the nd factor the question is whether there is a marketing distribution business irc found bed there is not a marketing distribution business in the traditional commercial sense going on i now i don't know what other type of marquee distribution business that they're looking at what we know there's not one in the commercial sense and there's no marketers that operate out of tampa there's no you know there's no and where it's consumes each airline has a specific intent to bring jet fuel from other states sources to orlando over the pipeline to fuel its planes at where they know that about a factor service amid the nominations for the pipeline the chilling what's going to come in that month and what will go over the pipeline there is simply no question that the arrangements are made the product is going to come into tampa it's no sense in which something else happens so the so our view is prepared that the arrangements haven't been me simply because ace there was no nominations to the pipeline that say i'm having one hundred barrels coming off a and i wanted to go on the pipeline on thursday that's something that's not practical to do commercially it's not something that's been done and it's not something that happened in in case place to be commission i would like to address the northville factors that were under discussion at the end of the sisters arguments and i would like to point out the commission's findings based on substantial evidence that each of these factors were in fact met in this case to begin with the st factor the st factor is that the time of settlement there is no specific order being filled for a specific quantity to be moved beyond terminal administrative law spam around that three of the airlines put nominations to their marine suppliers only identify tampa as the delivery ones and that's in the initial decision at and ninety one dollars said three of the airlines don't even specify any point of delivery past tampa so there can't speed by definition any specific order for delivery past tampa with those airlines the other two airlines delta which he was just discussing and southwest deem in their nominations specify points beyond the term nomination they know that the fuel will be traveling you know interstate or internationally in that case i mean so they're aware of that when they make that nomination no you your honor to be it needs to be at the time of this feel is going to go to the regional airports or to orlando the question is what does the marine shipper and the marine shift for does not know because the vessels loaded before the nominations are received where any of this fuel is ultimately going to be liber and so that's why there is no satisfaction of the st board factor the nd northfield factor of the character absorber it's the commission purpose of inventory and storage specifically if you look at paragraph one hundred and fifty nine of the commission's order the commission finds in affirms the mystery of law judges finding that there is direct evidence the airlines and c n n to follow the recommended inventory by aircraft service as which was to maintain its when he gave a fuel supply that was split between tampa and orlando and the bat was the purpose for the delay to do that paragraph one pretty six of the order of delay at tampa was attributable to the desire of the airlines to maintain inventory at tampa not for continuous transportation in addition to that the commission also found and affirmed the administrative law judges findings that in addition to the facts of north feel an interstate in which  which is there is distribution to between the regional airports and or lands out what's the fuel is received in tampa furthermore there's distribution of money airlines because symonds from several on are not allocated among airlines until they are delivered in sampa and aircraft services makes that allocation in addition to that the airlines treat the fuel that is received in tampa a council of other airlines if they are running short of fuel supply at the end mot and the commission found that this was actually a common occurrence and if you look at the initial sisson it paragraph rates i mean i guess another way of putting that is is stiction mandatory for interstate shipments or is there any discretion for for to decline jurisdiction to set rates statutes involving the setting of rates and so i i don't know i'm i'm just i'm i guess i couldn't figure out the precise answer to that so i was wondering what the agency's position was on whether they have discretion to decline jurisdiction under that i don't know of a commission answer to that your honor and certainly didn't come up in this case because they found that the pipeline it issues not i i can't tell you what the commission's decision on that would be with feel compelled to exercise jurisdiction or not but because it found that jurisdiction did not exist in this case it didn't come up it but it would bolster the agency's argument right that even if there was sort of a close case you know that they have discretion not to exercise jurisdiction right so if if they have discretion then you know they get a little more leeway maybe in close cases i understand your point your honor i don't believe that the commission made any findings regarding its jurisdiction of discretion in this case they found that the north of factors clearly all pointed towards there being no jurisdiction over this pipeline transportation and and therefore it was not in ca they did not regard it is being at the end of the day and i understand i just think it's a it's a legal question that it seems that the agency should should have an answer to that but i guess if it doesn't that's that's fine the commission talked about this in no two hundred and fifty three of its order what the commission what the commission found in gottman was that the north felt factors which they entirely recognised were commission president did not apply in that case k argument the petitioner raises in this case is the economic realities require our system of use and that should be taken into account is the way they have organized this transportation it leads to an interruption in the continuity and transportation that is not for purposes of onboard transportation which is the difference between cars petroleum instability where the supreme court specifically held that the delay in transportation there was only for purposes of armored transportation in this case on the other hand the commission specifically  batiste has failed to show that they were moving the oil from the pardon me from tampa to orlando as expeditiously as possible they put in a supply  model that comported to say that in the administrative law guns in the commission both rejected that model and found that they had failed to make a showing that it was going his expeditiously is hostile to the contrary it was being held in so in other words the commission's finding was that it did the existence of the insurrection that everybody is planning their deliveries as  holds the oil in storage and so for later to liberate their books stations as opposed to sending it out by media constant unity of transportation and say as the atlantic coast described that it was being officially as possible so efficient organizations results in there being a break in the constitutive transportation and it's the continuous transportation not the efficient organization that is the jur you thank you mister perry i believe next we have on behalf of the interveners i miss all good morning may it please the court my name is amy hough i'm appearing this morning on behalf of the interven in support of ferk your honors i i believe that the fundamental problem with the petitioners argument is relatively simple what the petitioners advocate is a complete departure from supreme court and commission precedents in order to adopt the jurisdictional test that the petitioners advocate for what it had to reject the supreme court's decision in atlanta and the st own decision in the words bill dog as wrongly decided why because the test that the petitioners advocate would require her to focus right as mister field indicated solely on the undisputed fact that jet fuel starts at locations outside of florida and ends up at locations within the state of florida at the in london airport busy and that the airlines want and need this to happen in order to operate their aircraft in other words according to the petitioners these facts alone are sufficient to require a finding that transportation on central florida is an interest a templar is an interest a commers but your honor this is not the test mister field spoke earlier of whether or not there is a fix in persisting intent to move through storage to the ultimate destination but that's that is that's not entirely accurate the test of whether there is a fix and persisting intent to make a single word intent from is the real question is whether there's a continuous movement or not yes there is the question these are objective factors yes  honor that is right if you look back at all of the supreme court president atlantica grade all of the earlier cases as well let them go on to the commission's decision in northville dog right and interstate energy all of those cases look great they do have val a whether or not the shipper has a fixed and persisting intent to make the single continuous movement in interstate commerce but in making that determination the court always looks at the objective factors right all of the details of all of the facts surrounding transportation which the court and the commission have referred to as the in dish or the manifestation of intent so again that the court and the commission they don't just look at where the product start and where it ends up and did the shipper intend for it to get there but they look specifically at how it got there and what happened at any intermediate porter point of storage and then they look at again whether that was a single continuous movement or whether for example there was a break your honor i see our wishes no your honor i was not aware that that it that that was contrary to your wishes and we do apologize for that but in our rules thank you your honor i will say that this was a case in which there was a had there was a heavy use of acronyms from beginning to end and so we apologize and simply intended to add at clarity doesn't add clarity for people who are not specialists in the industry and administrative  there are other additional questions  oil field haulers association says that the whole movement is a convenient intermediate step in the process of getting the goods to the final destination they remain in commerce until the final destination is reached similarly in irian seal articles case which we brought up on our began the exceptions but never justice order while there must be continuity of moving before the river the transportations part of foreign commerce such continuity is not interrupted by temporary  the north right area and the number of cases we read discusses it be just forty eight to fifty one of our brief and the question is always what is the intense behind the movement overall here we