definitive legal interpretation that authorizes coming authorities to grant permits that otherwise they could not read and so it allows facilities to be dealt with otherwise we need to reduce their emissions were just i believe use the swimming pool analogy and every for this and the fact is these these impacts are additive b p is variability approach looks at the weather patterns and other natural phenomena that make air pollution go up and down in regions thought or maybe it's a consequence of the briefs i thought that they were saying they couldn't tell whether the design value has been actually changed or just the randomness of measurement no your honor didn't it that these sources clearly that there is in fact a contribution that that may well you can be the cause of the violation there's no question here a modeling with very accurate and shows a real impact on the sources on this nd point your honor is that fault the violation is if modeling shows a new source through its nocs emissions or whatever is going to contribute in some way to a violation exacerbating that problem here at the statute would require them to reduce take a certain action because if you had said this is lawful and we want you to do this and it was it's different than any situation where for instance just forecasting a future interpretation of it will take its own decision making here they're telling somebody else you have authority to do this and we want to stop you know that that is legal in fact our our members are my clients numbers you're on there are going to rethink pollution in that violates these standards because it permits granted under this authority  five they their evidence that comes in in the cases should be lower as we point one that means they have to go through in another entire ruling so that really makes absolutely no sense whatsoever impact hypothetically your honor that you could get if you consider the necessary information so if you look at a region that you knew was you know ten parts per one million away from a standard if you knew there was nothing else process and judge randolph referred to that accurately as one in which it would await the development of war information assuming that some permanent authorities would apply this guidance it would be able to have a better understanding of whether the values it was recommendations it does not command as did the guidance in the appalachian power kids for example it does not give two options with no discretion to do something else as did the guidance of the r t c as the council just talked about here everything is written in the form of suggestion and encouragement but the v a makes it very clear that states can choose their own approach they could ignore this guidance and there's no sanction for that they could come up they could use silver come up with a different lower value and there's no here is an approach that would assume any impact any projected emissions whatsoever from a source automatically are deemed to cause an interview e p a has never in forty years interpreted the statute that way in any in this guidance they've made clear that while they recommended encourage that these pills should be sufficient in most circumstances that there may be cases where more analysis is needed and it's up to the permanent or see  i'm going to try to keep this is simple as possible but let's suppose that the guidance is up held in a state permeating authority takes a look at it and says well i get the idea a lot of studies that we're going to use their s circuit or a county court and then go up to the maryland court of special peals and and ultimately the court of appeals of maryland is that the way it goes it's it is in most circumstances and to be clear in you cannot know with confidence that there's any actual difference or any actual so how's that possible design values and her magic mean and you don't dispute that have got missions are actually occurring this is all in the situation i think well you affect here one way that that's perhaps easier to understand is ok so sills the sill can be used both in the initial single source of analysis which is larger than the focus of our model the impact of the stores using a worst case estimate of what the allowable emissions will be and then you compare that to the value and if it's less than the value you're concluding it's not significant as you said but let's say question because when you do cumulative analysis you are then looking at nearby sources you're looking at background and you're examining whether the proposed impact is going to coincide with the point in time in the place where violations going to occur and this is important and we talk about the variability and missions there are multiple model locations throughout this area whatever the area of concern yes there is obviously there is obviously a time element the design done is measured over a period of years not just one day and so yes if the source construction operates it's going to add something to the atmosphere no one can deny that but that doesn't impact but if there are fifteen permit applications pending simultaneously and each one is below the s r l just start grabbing them the st come st serve that eventually you're going to get to a point where together they have a significant well i mean he's guidance does not prevent a permanent or in fact notes and makes clear to permanent doors that they still have the obligation on a case by case relevant information in the record just because they're going to be written and certainly it's clear that one thing that may be relevant is are there other sources that are proposed as well or that are adjacent i guess i'm not that it was understanding the guidance analysis but it didn't say what what that meant it was impressive wasn't prescriptive you know not only was it prescriptive it wasn't descriptive it didn't say anything like what you just said that it just you have should still have to do a case by case  else well no it didn't say that i think you didn't attempt to draw out what each inclusion is going to be under each scenario that you might encounter but it certainly did and i this is after consideration of a permanent record if there is evidence in the record for ticket application that there are other sources that may also have add to the missions committing authorities may choose to use the recommended still values and a cumulative impact on else was the main there there historically for many years anything so you know and that conclusion may hold whether the background air quality concentrations are lower or higher because the question you're trying to answer isn't what the quality of the think will you know what does that mean it means you're not telling us what the standard is and of course we decided case by case by case but the question is not what are the the inclination is the question is what standards applied what standard what when the situation is achieved such garland just described what are the standards how do you determine whether the use of solar or not well and again i think you can the question isn't only you can use a silver and you can still also consider other information and record it and if it's and if it's in the record you have to consider that it's relevant so it's i don't know that it's an either or permitting authority may use these tools but when there are common applications in which there is evidence of the type you're talking about such as a large number of other proxy geographically proximate source they may be looking at that as well are they perfect i don't think i could ever say that he said i don't i don't think i could ever say that any one of the perfect so there's always going to be some degree of the some are better than others right and this is that and of course one of the things the b s d statutory provisions do is the the source still has the obligate the proposed source still has to collect the on air quality monitoring day so that and that doesn't change based on this guidance so in that sense there is you are looking at  levels here conditions as well but the modeling doesn't have to be done using the source at the site because i agree that's not what you're doing using a national cell like the still value is determined using contribute to a violation which gets referred to my next point which is that when you create says that still suffice in most cases i read that as a concession that they don't actually show there won't be a cause or a contribution from the source this really isn't an issue of statistical significance what they've done is they've imported the variability approach from that that body of statistics but we know from the modeling that these sources isn't the answer to the states what are you complaining about you're not required to follow us so this new case or controversy here well actually you're out of that's not quite ready because a lot of this pollution travels and so that is the crux of it is that they can now under this culpability analysis grant a permit even though a source causes a violation is the but for cause of the violation and whether or not they have some discretion