it was one of saying that because of the energy character of the transportation it was interstate in character however again that is decided under the fair labor standards act which has a specific exemption in the language and the case is interpreted which indicate that it does not preempt state and local overtime l at the outset was that the shocker in fact was america pride shipping to its warehouse for later distribution there were a few single uniforms and those cases they simply state that it was the intent of the fair labor standards act to provide additional remedies not to displace overtime provisions that exist in state and  we're operating to the extent that the behavior of mr watkins employer with respect to the job he was doing are controlled by the fair labor standards act in the sta addition to that you can still have the additional remedies that state local governments provide but there is an exclusion of california for matters that are regulated by the secretary of transportation is that right there's a distinction there i don't it's a distinction that it's a new controlling factor i just simply think that it's basically we have a situation where the  erroneous california wage orders pacifically provides that the state of california is deferring to the federal statute and that's contained specifically in california wage order that applies to this watkins and that was cited in our brief the particular provision that was discussed includes also addressed the issue of whether the whether the secretary of the department of transportation had actually exercised authority and the courts specifically held there that the secretary does not need to exercise that authority it's really within the secretary's discretion whether the secretary wants to govern in those particular position whether the employer clyde with department of transportation regulations is really we can see in the wage world refers to a particular statute and what it says is that the particular employee is regulated by that particular statute right doesn't discuss whether that particular employee is actually whether the secretary of transportation has specifically decided to i don't think there is a distinction i think what what is happening there is that the california agency is deferring its already to the federal government you that the question is not whether there is regulation but whether there is the authority to regulate something that for the purposes of this question i don't think the test is whether or not there is authority in the federal government customers who prior whose prior orders or contracts are being filmed that is to say we're talking about interstate transportation any more or less continuous interstate transportation to come within the statute and to come within the supreme court's construction of that continuity of movement from the manufacturers or suppliers without the state through warehouse and on to customers whose prior orders were contractor being phil i gather the three percent of this man's work was selling new goods and out of that three percent only a tiny percentage in the percentage we don't know except we know that was very tiny it was actual orders not for people who have odd sizes i believe he did testify that it was about three percent and that also was the court's finding was that what was three percent three percent was sale of the uniforms that's correct now that's three percent largely as i understand the testimony and the allegation of them and the declaration that three percent was largely almost overwhelmingly uniforms previously bought by his employer palin stock by the employer and then when the customer says i want something they take it off interested in and i'm trying to understand kletzky i'm trying to gather wally yes when they're sitting in the warehouse do they when they arrive and when they sit there do they have a customer's name on and i gather in this case they don't when the customer i think it does it does matter and i think that's what we have here is that you have a customer who's ordered a new uniform company doesn't want to those uniforms until it's needed it doesn't keep  n warehouse primarily the business is the only used uniforms but the percentage that we're speaking about here is the percentage of new uniforms are being shipped from out of state and the company doesn't worry those until a customer within california has a need for one there's no purpose in buying the you know the form unless there is a need for feel beautiful or the one time started out as new uniforms right that's correct and they came from elsewhere described as a matter that they've somehow come to rest in california it does to the extent that that would be in the flow of interstate co let me read to you from this is mr washington's declaration and on page three of that declaration he says all uniforms arrive without specific identification by customers should your customer wants special identification he would order by general description order what identification should appear on the uniform the uniform or other material would be taken from inventory at end of occasional work would be done a warehouse by person specially designated to do that work when i i didn't quite catch the case authority are you relying upon to support that argument i don't have the cases in front of me but i think that the cases are are clearly laid out in the