have down when air quality problems on an assessment of whether in the year two thousand and twenty three there would be issues but in wisconsin this court squarely held that two thousand and twenty three or or or similar years was the wrong that was the wrong year to relied upon was to say that the state here failed to meet their burden to get relief under twelve thousand and sixty in part because they did not establish that there were necessary additional for specific level admission on top of what was  me well the language allows sort of a range of options here and what's the group the group here is three hundred and fifty from nine states you think the language supports that sort of it gets to the burden of proof point because then the argument as i understand saying is then the burden is on you to come up with showing the problems and that the shorter time frame supports that reading what we are seeking here is not a global transport rule making and therefore we would be subject to the standard baffle couple that we're seeking is to curve in mission from up with sources that our analysis has demonstrated you know  interference with our maintenance of the twenty million eighty two thousand and fifteen standards and it is perfectly compatible with that argument for e p a to provide as we argued both in the petition and in our briefs short term and short specific controls even if that is controls decide the actual level of controls across all of the sources with what we are asking or what the statute envisions within the sixty days which is just a finding of significant contribution and therefore sort of placing the sources in the regulatory and now there's many things that the nile but one way of understanding what they think is missing and what the states have to establish is we have to come in with something that e p a has never done which is a complete regional transport rule making but i think more fundamentally e p a s complaint about the number of sources here is in a way a red herring because one of the grounds for finding this petition inadequate is that we don't identify more sources we don't analyze more than one of the the relevant burden here is not just petition established but instead the state having to come in with a ready made solution for regional towns and e p a is claiming the entitlement to deny a petition on the basis of our failure to do again what responsibility really should be here and and and one reason that that's an improper burden to impose upon the states it's because of what this court recognized in appalachian power which is that one  something wrong with the order because it inappropriately relies on previous constant conceptions of the role that that is correct that is correct these are and that's the way that we understand them relating to sources in our petition could you verify that they continue to operate because the kentucky some of the least there's don't i mean i think part of the answer to that is that there was a understand where how much you're supposed to do on your end and how much to do on their end because everyone sort of just complaining about the other but not helping me figure out where the fine is what about roman to well i do think the rest of them are difficulty of states the painting information for up with sources that are located outside of our jurisdiction and where has the ability to obtain that information but if i could also answer your question in a slightly different way and is just repeatedly sort of talk about information that he wishes it could have had to conduct what it deems to be a regional transport rule making and i do think our global answer to a lot of the that is unreasonable to impose that burden on the states or other reasonable to deny that petition on that ground one because much of this information including the romanesque you're talking about are not easily available to the state too because for men much of this information goes to a standard  impossible for the state to obtain a sort of identification of some public sources is not the equivalent of the type of analysis that they think is necessary under their under their improper improper stand regard i don't know that we have a position on the minimum level of information that's required although what i can say is we think the evidence provided in this petition is enough and the reason that it's enough is for the initial sources that are the major contributors to that problem and our petition conducts an analysis which is similar to sort of the air and wind of knowledge that's from prior rules that sort of traces the problem to individual name shown that state that source is upwind from us great a race the new york sources are required to do and could substantially curb their emissions if they were to either adopt control technologies at the cost level that we have here or to reduce their emission authority over sources under its direct regulatory ambit and we think what that entails is that e p a number one has some duty not not a complete duty but some duty to conduct a further analysis and it's particularly appropriate for it to do so using information that is uniquely within its control and to put some of that to shift some of that burden back on to the states to them on reasonable grounds for denying a petition that otherwise provide substantial information about the reasons that we have to  good neighbor problems but what if a petition of this magnitude came in early on before you would have been in the position of collecting this type of information he wouldn't have that argument which is the case specific analysis that a petition of this magnitude requires and the hearings and everything in a month it monotonous different in a different case and and so it might be that there is either a pollutant specific get there and they still just can't get the information they need they haven't been able to get it all they just haven't had enough time so he say that they can then deny it because they didn't have enough time to that again in a different context and a different pollutant you know how the standard in that case may depend upon sort of what the delta is between what is presented in the petition and what he has to do and what i'm not come in and say when those on contacts we need much more time to do this i think a perfectly valid response is you don't you don't have the time and more importantly we can't wait for that time i mean these are not the delay that results in increasing harms for the downland  does something like the global solution or does absolutely nothing and that's not what one twenty six pm vision there's no reason that e p a could not adopt sort of more limited solutions here we propose for short term daily emission limits on certain identified sources as opposed to a global solution and there is not an explanation for why and then your hypothetical may not be an explanation for why more targeted relief could not be available even within the sixty days or a month period that w address the problems that the downtown areas are facing and and that kind of up what i'm calling a partial solution fifths fits within the purpose of one twenty six pm the reason that statute is phrased as one that can be about even single source or group of sources and the reason that there are some deadlines is because it recognizes and congress recognized that downtown areas have urgent need to control pollution twelve thousand and sixty dollars gives them a mechanism to obtain that even if that is not a complete solution and perhaps would be appropriate to have a partial solution especially in areas where d p a has great difficulty coming up with a comprehensive solution to it to a larger problem thank you very  suggest that new york needed to submit an entire transport rule and identify not just the cost effective emission reductions available from the sources that identified but identify how those compare in cost efficacy and control to sources not identified in the petition so that kind of gets passed this question of three hundred and fifty sources but his problem here is that if you fail to short of that to identify what an actual a reasonable burden that a petitioning jurisdiction could in theory need that would be that would satisfy the agency the says different things one hundred pages the list that judge millette identified is can joined by in or is not entirely clear even what that list is supposed to mean and the fact that the agency says different things in different places i think highlights the arbitrariness of the case and i know i'm having to pick up on that but i was you agree you agree that there is some burden on the one funny fifteen petition there right no doubt and i think with what is qui through position resources contribute significantly to the attainment of interferes with maintenance what new york has done here i think is clearly sufficient again though i don't know that we need to go as far as to say this is the exact burden because i think truly has the burden to identify what the threshold show needs to be and e p a has not done that update rule has been found deficient and deficient cap and trade scheme cannot preclude for the relief from underperforming units this court recently invalidated the update rule precisely because it failed to require a point status to eliminate their significant contribution control strategies have been fully implemented and this is an important point the rule does not cover all sources of electric generation it only covers coal units and missions from coal units can decline simply because the units are running less a phenomenon that's discussed by industry interven everything here and cleaner generation sources are running more not because the unit cipactli implemented new or improved controls the record shows that many units continue to fail to fully implement basic control strategies there's no barrier to e p a granting the ork requirements and all of the data are then published on e p a s clean air markets database so in your petition it used then current data through the date of its petition to show exactly what was happening during the s n c f and had hold of the electric generating units for  thank you counsel thank you denial is because the state didn't you know burden under step three we heard from new york council this morning that the petition was actually based on information to a lot of the building blocks for step three analysis is publicly available what they would need to do with that information is to do the analysis put it together and come up with you know some kind of what happens so if a petition state submit a petition like this and then says we've obtained as much information as we can get our hands on it's true that for us to be increasingly completely rounded out we need the following additional information but we just don't have a means of obtaining that you do our petition rests on the idea that once you look at that we think you'll find that there's a were to come forward and say here's the information i have we think this supports the conception of cost effectiveness yes e p a would look at that you know one of the things that we heard from petitioner interveners is that well e p a hasn't told us how we have to do also has a remedy for that petition was provided here just to say ok well it looks like there are certain units that are running those controls and that that was true in but you know what it's not working but it's exactly the targeted not will make you know not looking for general transport role but they're saying is the system is out there is not working because they are remedy i wonder well we don't know that just because it's fleet wide average that can be achieved we don't know that these the fixed sources can actually achieve the rates that new york that mean i don't understand it and means it's not a task it's just the categories of the information that i walked that sounds like a test or list of requirements and the commission said here's a problem with a petition it should do the what is that what is that supposed to meet in the list of things at the beginning of the  just have to do that and then you say i'm fifty two source comparison necessarily involves so can you just answer me this question is it the position of the e p a in this order that th e states must do comparisons to other un maims sources and when they do that comparison they necessarily have to do the things listed on page fifty two in the dishing state would have to do a comparative analysis but i think e p a means by this less that when they say or if the last item on the list is basically it would be a cost effective requirement so they don't have to do either so your position is just to be clear that the terms and their partition to show a significant contribution they do not have to compare a name sources is that how you read this well they do not have to compare and i don't remember three is not comparative to be clear it is describing downwind air quality impacts of so relative what is relative to other sources mean there in rome and you don't i think all that was is if you do a model that says well the only thing that i've changed is what the sources are doing what my general and impact i think that's what that means you think that's what it means but a often does and is often entitled to do but when you say something like good enough you're supposed to say what you needed to do and so if you don't think they had to do these things that are listed here  sort of global conclusion about what catalytic converters can do how would it not be cost effective at any given at a specific plant has stop pollution you've got to turn it on i'm very sorry i'm like i'm but i'm very than me but i mean i don't i don't think for a minute that york would be so silly as to say we just want you to install them but not turn them on example apportioning responsibility for mission productions across many sources and many states is part of the four state framework and then later in that paragraph that is the problem with the petition with with our position is that the absence of back comparative information e p a cannot determine whether the sources we have identified have cost effective emissions compared to other unnamed sources so if i think this highlights the difficulty that we have had in pinpointing what it is that for four revamp here separately under cost effectiveness i think e p a has also acknowledged here that at least for nanita sources there is not readily available information maybe not even for e p a on what my colleagues make sure my colleagues don't have any further questions if not will thank you for your argument this morning all council will take the