restoration act passed in one nine hundred ninety three this is one of the bad acts that i can remember that actually has i think the panel is pretty cheap well aware of that super statute and it's the entire section pace assert  the jurisdiction and what it can do under the natural gas act is controlled by the natural gas act so you know your argument is is that the commission for me is what is it that you could not bring before for if you believe me you are tested to or could bring before the district court because my understanding is creation now that we have been pinched upon from the very moment that some activity was undertaken by the pipeline company to begin a process concerns to transcribe they did not show up and become a party to the for administrative person is that it's not disputed you can focus on the fact that you have this rule for crane and somehow it didn't come to not getting it what argument could we not deal with here if you really follow the processes work i think there's a couple of things that this group would be able to do first of all i don't think i think that this is a third party not the applicant whose rights are being affected so the word if there's no certificate there's no pipeline right that's correct so how and i might add i'm sure you're aware if the record is it it would be for for this court has the authority under seven seventeen to send it back and suggestion that there is the right to such that they can make factual determinations upon which a repercussion might sound right might be frame visited might be considered by an appellate they can i mean they have what they call paper hearings which is a public meeting where people just come in they stand up and say these are our concerns and that fair hearing but certainly they can consider any objection that comes with them but choice because it even see consider it i do not think it controls this case it's a type of case and the legislative history that it relied upon i think there is a lot of extraction out of context and so the short answer to your question is i'm not sure this court has to overturn it but it's limited to title seven contacts at best even if we don't have to over time isn't it strongly suggested for this panel the district court of jurisdiction so that wasn't the case in frances but it is the case here that district courts are digested jurisdiction over any claims involving the citing of a natural gas pipeline history a claimant before there was even a federal court review available could you address those those two circumstances and do they in fact present problems in  an ability to exercise their rights under which rise well as a constitution sure your honor i don't think either of those issues are presented here because there was an opportunity pretty dora's to present the issue appellate review of the decision so i think that that issue would be addressed more and more to the point as a procedural due process going would that be available in any event at the district court level that's a different but that that's the only thing that would resolve the religious objection and on the other hand the licensing for that project objected that the commission should not impose the additional requirement that to accommodate the would take the normal year and possession and title would not transfer until after the determination of compensation especially given that circumstance and i realize this is not something that's raised  either way and owners were involved in that hearing it was an army bust motion for possession against five men donors four of them have asserted defenses and appealed and those appeals are pending here in the third circuit  dissent justice out of my were and the majority agreed that in fact the river can be waived and cited decisions in other circuits where that have occurred i see about a time thank you thank you very