do think it is an extra territorial application that argument but will you also address in your argument what the standards would be if we consider this not to be extra territory if you have a case doing that but not addressing this with the issue of whether you need the involvement of a third party so it did construe that language but not in the context of answering the question whether you need the involvement of a third party or not in contrast the current circuit case that goes the other way and read by any other party or entity as modifying the disposal why that one didn't involve the issue of who the parties are and whether that was a ranger many of those cases including a lot of district court cases don't even the scouts the by any other party are actually language of a popular thing to do is just the put into lip service where that is the one case that probably has the force of discussion of this range or liability issue is really the generously to reach that conclusion than it is to just in sort at the start and or coming in from the sky i mean that's what the first circuit considered and rejected saying vote given a choice between the two it makes a lot more sense to interpret the  the remedy the actual cleanup would be in the united states but that does not change the fact that it's an extra territorial application because the liability is being imposed because of international discord or potential for international discord that flows from it and clearly yes because viewed from the point on the canadian side of the border the only reason think you'd have a disposal there but you'd also have all the conduct you need in canada so it's an extra territorial application the canadians would certainly be without its extraterritorial the disposal of the united states it had its effect in the united states but the actual prove a range of liability it was described as a reason why circle does not apply here why there was next territorial obligation it's loft so it wasn't technically you can't meet the definition that it was offered as disc just can't apply to us now and it going to court of appeals i think the argument has become more focused to be more an argument that you can't prove a raise or liability without regard to the location of operation but i think the trial court concluded that it wasn't presented in their for technical for almost one hundred years has deposited five products of the operations into the columbia river almost hundreds of thousands millions of tons of slides and yet for almost one hundred years did nothing to clean up the by products  someone wants to apply united states law to labor conditions in saudi arabia and the court is rightly said we presume the congress intends to legislate with respect to the mystic problems not labor conditions in saudi arabia or provisions and arctica and so we will presume they did not conferee evidence but in the circumstances in which there are domestic a fast from external asked almost every court that has looked at the question as concluded that united states law applies to the foreign actor because this domestic injury and that's occurred in environmental regulation perspective regulation which stands for example you can't dump you know nobody can dumb stuff i presume you have a much harder problem  conditions many times even though due to fears of a lot of other nations because the court has been concerned that the law and events in other nations have caused harm in the united states it's only in sudan as in the so the films when they there's clear evidence the congress condition does not apply to remedy that simply because there is the domestic condition was caused by  is intended to cover your honor it is very relevant but i think also if you look at hopefully i'll explain this in the domestic analysis that i don't think it matters that your initial arrangement for disposal took place in canada even for this to be a domestic application statute if you look at the cases that analyzed extraterritoriality they involve cases where in most states laws being applied to land in a foreign country or is being applied to regularly contact in another country and it makes sense that those cases raise extraterritor issues because the land in the other country and the regulation of conduct in another country is what that other country also has sovereign authority over has legislative power over so in those cases if you're trying to apply u s law to those items then you do in the united states and circle also isn't being applied to regulate conduct in canada it's a remedial statute it doesn't regulate anything and so that just as in product liability cases or cases based on other media laws like state united states but you don't think it's any different for scarily that the initial fish charge took place in canada then say the source of the defective product was a foreign manufacturers in those product liability cases you don't say that the product liability laws are being applied columbia river in canada ten miles north of the border and that river flows across the border soon as it's united states territory it's viewed as a release of the contaminants in the united states inside the court is no one has allowed any party to avoid liability on the interpretation that tech advocates even the first circuit case they read the case that way too to broaden the category of parties to make sure they didn't inadvertently create a loophole so i think information they're advocating would apply whether they were in the united states or not and really if this were their strongest argument you think that they would lead with that rather than getting into the forty issues that's sure to reality tell you what you are basically have because you could have a situation in which the people who i don't remember any  intruding on a sensitive area and if nothing else it's clear that this is a sensitive area the whole purpose of the ramp up exemption is so that we don't have to be here forcing a court to go through and trying to guess what was in congress mind w case which really doesn't reach the merits and you could conceivably have common law nuisance actions but nonetheless if congress with the authority of the united states wants to put a statutory cause title seven extraterritoriality so congress when the course talk congress gee this is unclear you've got to tell us because otherwise we're presuming that you did not intend extraterritoriality congress knows how to fix it and it has to take  but it's not because it's a kuli domestic application it's because under the so called affects exception that in the absence of any treaties then perhaps that could be an exception to  that investigation so it's not a question of whether things are going to get cleaned up or not it's just whether it's under circle a liability or not if anybody promised clean anything offered tech that's made the  united states doesn't think the offer is adequate caves or is in a circle a case if hypothetically if e p a was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the offer that's exactly the sort of situation where the u s could escalate and begin negotiations with canada or escalate even further and invoke the remedies and dispute resolution available under the boundary waters treaty presumptuously that is the route that congress intends in these cases if they intend to do something differently they have to say still and here they haven't they haven't congress has not indicated any intent to do anything other than the traditional means of resolving transparency environmental assume without evidence that congress intended private individuals to be able to force the field of play if nothing else there's nothing that shows that congress intended to allow the private individuals to essentially step in and fill  vacuum for e p a or the united states government that would be a big leap to assume that congress intended that when in fact there's no evidence to suggest that you know congress intended to seat the field of private individual