is an absolute art to release in such documents is it really departing from its president here the other cases in which they've said there was no bar or somewhat distinguishable from this when they were talking guilty in those cases that's true in the previous cases that usually came up in the unfair labor practice context and this regulation did not come up because i think it's never come up we haven't found a case in which this regulation has been used or applie to bar access to these documents so we actually have no case in which they are he has discussed this particular regulation that's true there's a holder case called airborn in which the o agency cited for you and for your case law and in a single sentence this particular regulation and we responded to those arguments and we furthermore said that no law creates an absolute bar against the release of  law and the statement that the law creates a part of the reason i guess the question then for us is how at what level of generality do we interpret the no objection not previously urged before the say so how would you were just to explain the distinction between objection generally raised and one more specifically raised for purposes of the statute law two responses one are statement that no law creates an arguments and the fact that we made that statement about no bar creating no law created an absolute part of the release of these documents the context here is there were five proposals in dispute for the ellery and multiple agency arguments on the of each one understandably here we are focused just on the one proposal dispute and the one argument that the f l i r addressed of course we are expanding it hopefully adding more detail to our argument below as every  asking for access to these documents although stepping back we're actually just asking for the opportunity to talk with the agency about it we can't even come to the negotiations table so we're going to get access to the documents and we're in the agency to find that it didn't need the safe saying we would only get them if the agency decided there are safeguards built into our proposal that you can or they discuss it with doesn't instead of handing it over so we wouldn't even get them if the agency felt the safeguards needed to be invoked if they felt that was not a concern and handed them over to us then it is true we would look at them slightly broader viewpoint kind of ask another question on the way or point sorry take it back to that imo there's a regulation twenty four twenty to further develop arguments here i agree with that but if the term objection means you have to put forth the arguments and authorities which the regulation says you do that didn't really happen here at least with respect to the court should dismiss the petition for review because the union failed to raise its five c of bars section three hundred point two one c arguments to the authority in the first instance the court may not consider any objection that was not heard before the authority unless extraordinary circumstances excuse of failure to do so here in the union of made no mention of section three hundred point two one see to the authority nor did it raise any of the arguments that stand nine pages of its opening brief to the appeal for three reasons first in raising the union at best raised to a one c implicitly but under the court's precedent in national weather service reason an argument to the authority implicitly is insufficient to preserve it on appeal second to one c e is not obviously on its face a four year regulation as opposed to a general regulation intended to protect the integrity of federal test material including crediting plans the authority only would have known to unseat was a twenty regulation have the union made that argument to the authority or has the authority to look beyond the plain text of the regulation the nineteen eighty five federal register notice that leads into the third reason as judge cavanagh acknowledged the authorities negotiate below the regulations provide that a union must make specific citation to the law ru i guess the counter to that would be you all or three hundred point to a one c is raised and the union response from the general current no wall actually bars this and then explains before regulations which is the substance of its argument so it's not that they're raising something that was never contemplated before it's that something was raised they circumstance to me than the usual no objection not previously urged now well your honor the court has understood seventy one twenty three c required parties to raise their arguments to the authority with specificity your ability to to care well your honor again the union's truancy arguments in its opening brief to the court were not raised to the authority but the gist of them is very much there is you're  basis of their let's face it you're right and they're responding to your honor is correct to muncie is the basis of the agency's argument and the authority found that the union had conceded that argument when it did not respond to it that one c expressively prohibits the release of credit in plans it only has your honor said made that generalized objection that no law creates an absolute bar and if that if that kind of statement were sufficient to preserve an issue then there would be no need union in response could say that no law creates an absolute bar against the release of crediting plans in this instance there would be no purpose for a response but there is much more here they've said for implication before you regulation doesn't bar because it gives you a more nuanced choice whether to disclose in light of what agency hiring interests m my disclosure and that is true both of for in general and of this regulations of the notion has somehow been seen by some and i just don't even follow how that could be and it also seems like this is an argument that's been made in the context of six different arguments at the authority level each of them with you know maybe even some parts and so we're we would be applying a very demanding standard of preservation in that context with  you know a forest of arguments every single one every branch has to be articulated in our reserved first your honor i would know that the union did not make the argument to the authority that not only of the four yo but also for your employees have a duty to protect the confidentiality of test material broadly not merely created or controlled test material and to assure the release of that material including crediting plans only in conjunction found in the particularly need context that an agency was not required to release credit in plans regarding on the president of this court in national treasury employees union forces u s customs service and the seventh circuit in the the below without the waiver concern the agency sites in essence attacks the regulation your response is no the tax the regulation doesn't control reading your response i think generously information to the public so we think it's clear just intense without going back to the implementing statute that it means to apply to releasing documents to the public when it's well but it says each employee entrusted with test material has a positive duty to protect the confidentiality of that material and to assure release only as required to conduct an examination authorized by the office that's that's not that's beyond and that's why we don't have them you're raising it now that's why we don't have a good explanation from them on  ok thank you thank you