i launch into the clean air act with all of its acronyms and deadlines them and details i thought it was important to kind of step back and look at the bigger picture here when we talk about particulate matter pollution we're not simply talking about the brown cloud that mars the scenic views in phoenix and keeps us from seeing the beautiful mountains pm tan or particulate matter pollution kills people the arizona department of environmental quality estimates that more than five hundred people in maricopa county were killed each year are killed prematurely each year ice sheets die prematurely each year because our party can't matter pollution and the elderly national standards for particularly airborne particulate pollution and rather than address this problem aggressively unfortunately the state of arizona has consistently resisted  implementing the clean air and or clean air act requirements so as you look at the history of phoenix when the state has acted in this largely been in response to lawsuits or under the threat of sanctions implemented by june two thousand now both of those deadlines have been missed in things and in fact phoenix continues to violate the twenty four hour and annual standards in two thousand and two under section one hundred eight now in order to close to qualify for that extension of time the clean air act and congress was very clear they said that you must demonstrate that your plan includes the most stringent measures that are implemented in any state even through sale or just implemented in any other state and can feasibly be implemented in the your area now that you create a sense well they have they have interpretation of the statute the statute on him thank you honestly requires that the area plan require include the most stringent measures that feasibility can be implemented in the area now justification for why they say this and this and this party is all that necessary they say well it doesn't advance the attainment that may be a legitimate reason but that is not the reason that congress has authorized an extension deadline and all three courts in those cases said you can't do this congress has very very specifically set out those circumstances when e p a is authorized to going it's an extension of the an increase stringency is what we're focusing more measures is what we're focused on and if you get to attain it sooner rather than later that's great but that's the goal that's even more true under m s m analysis and that's  talking about is yeah when you're talking of an angle standard you're looking at it you know the annual average so while the air meeting naturally cleaner at the beginning of the year you're not going to really reach quote attainment until you get to the end of the year so that was the rationale the e p a offered with respect to well this is why we're we're looking at whether it's it would increase attainment by one year our position is the whole goal of the clean air act is that we extension we have to assure ourselves that arizona hasn't done everything that at least every other state that's that's doing something has done correctly for we can give them an extension if the if the deadline if they're a team and won't extension you have to show you have to demonstrate that you have the most stringent measures exactly as your honor said that you have done everything every other state has done that's feasible there is a recognition that if it's burden is on the states to either demonstrate that they are that they can't be implemented to come up with a reason just case for why they can't be implemented and that the presumption is in favor of  is about when you're in on attainment like phoenix there's you know these controls are justified unless you can show that there's a reason justification want it why they should not be implemented or that they're infeasible you don't have the option to just say well this could be economically unfeasible which is precisely what the state did with respect to agricultural controls they just didn't even try to make it didn't make any again stations that we don't know whether they actually met the standard in their response says no you are incorrect that's just with respect and the sound that we offered that rather what we found was that when you look at the source categories and we evaluate back and  category by source category when you look at the source categories for on road and off road emissions the state has back on because they have this very stringent program but what you can is doing here is incorrect for two reasons one they launch petitioner started by saying that we should step back and take a look at the bigger picture and i agree with that but there's another bigger picture to be considered here and that's that although all of this discussion and argument is focused on a couple of very narrow measures the overall s standards and honored standards that e p a has characterized as some of the most comprehensive in the nation there's an agricultural dust control program that is only the second in the country aimed specifically at kowtowing fugitive task for agricultural sources and there are a number of other controls that are even at issue here controls on unpaved roads on paved roads on construction sites on vacant lots so there was a lot that was done in this plan and i think it's important to keep that in mind and not lose sight in the focus on these emissions are a significant source that is considered independent of the other sources that are found in the source of the larger source category i didn't see any place in your brief that you disputed that contention i fact i said i read your brief you  but there are controls even if you were to consider diesel emissions as this as sort of a separate category there are controls on that category that can be best control measure in case i suggests that there are some measures out there that aren't best that there's some discretion to look at all the measures that are available and choose only those that are the best controls and that's what was done here for the first categories that are actually used in the now analysis for the on road and on road required for that plant to reach back on rivals so the question is given assuming that there is a requirement that a state provide a reason justification what's the consequence if the state provides such justification an e or not something less would also eventually cleaner air and if you're if opposing counsel is correct about the construct then your explanation as you've just described it doesn't fit question it only in the sense that it looked at the redactions that were expected to be achieved from kark easel but did it conduct an independent evaluation of that particular measure i'm not aware that it looked at reason i'm asking th also was required to reject to ignore reality in looking at whether the state was required to include this measure this is a measure that would have gotten the state about point metric tons per day by two thousand and six it would take five times that amount for metric tons per day for adopt the requirement for a greater number of control measures to be taken in order to reduce our cultural particulates in looking at the agricultural dust problem the state is really starting from ground zero this was a problem it was only identified in one thousand nine hundred seven and so the state went out and looked at possible measures of controlling that problem including looking at the south coast well for zero three and handbook which is the alternat what kind of farming practices were in arizona as opposed to california what the needs of those farmers were and they ultimately concluded that because farming is so varied because each farm may have unique needs unique practices isn't possible to impose a single set of controls on every single farm and what they adopted therefore was a structure that's very very common structure for the control of future to dust which is to create a menu of choices and let the individual operator  et the individual farmer decide which of those choices are best suited to best control on their particular land now some of the it's not the case that you could necessary you could simply say well why don't the farmers have to do everything in a category instead of only doing some of them some of those provisions are going to be mutually exclusive for instance there may be several different ways of creating a windbreak a farmer wouldn't have to do all of those some farmers may not have all the particular kinds of land issue so you're dealing with a highly variable situation and against that background what the state concluded was that requiring each farmer to adopt one practice per category of land that was enough for well part of the problem is that the petitioners are trying to compare it to simply compare across the board programs that are applicable to sort of two different areas a number of the concerns having to do with their different weather conditions different types of agriculture a number of things between the south l a and arizona that doesn't necessarily translate into a point by point comparison such that if you require a certain number here you can require a certain number there it's also not clear that in fact the south coast requires quite as many practices as petitioners say they do again there are some very ability but what arizona was faced with there was a real lack of knowledge as to not only the burdens that would be imposed on farmers but also the incremental benefits that they would get from acquiring additional practices so instead of imposing you know requiring us farmers to adopt additional practices what they did this i said well if each farmer does one per category of land that's going to be don't really know what the cost would be or what the incremental benefits of those measures will be what the state didn't start was to commit to monitor on an ongoing basis and make sure that they really are getting of adoptions they think they're going to get from this program and if they don't that that is really sort of the what is ultimately confining e p a s discretion under that statute is the requirement that any extension be as short as possible now the particular phrase that applies to understand what it what it specifically state has to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the administrator that the plan for that area includes the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or even practice in any state and can feasibly employee be implemented in the area generous interpretation would seem to read that to the satisfaction of the administrator to read that right out of the state statute because even if that weren't there e p a would always have the ability to look at a state's demonstration and say well no you don't have some m s n in here therefore you haven't met the standards what that is designed to do is to give e p a the discretion to look at a demonstration overall to conclude you know to determine whether or not it includes all feasible  also look at that with an eye towards the ultimate goal which is a team as quickly as possible and that's ultimately the question is does this plan have everything in it that it can have so that this area is going to attain as quickly as it possibly can that's a fairly narrow window of interpretation i don't think the discretion only see that's that's a concern but i don't think that that discretion extends only to saying well are these  well i think it's important to keep in mind that what was really driving the length of the extension here were matters that aren't even an issue in this case what was really driving it was that there are certain improvements the state is making whatever reason it's disagrees with the state of the record on that the appropriate remedy here is not to simply overturn the approval of the plan and eliminate the extension it would be to remain free to e p a for a further explanation to the relationship between the e p a and the stink at that point where are they supposed to that's supposed to get i don't know that the state would be required to do anything that would be something that you know  new plans and approvals and you know how exactly it would come out if the state were originally granted an extension and the entire extension were overturned to be honest you know off the top of my head i don't know legally exactly where that would leave the state but i think that's another reason that if the court is dissatisfied with a couple of narrow issues here it's more appropriate to ask for further explanation than to simply throw the entire approval and the entire extension  and in a matter of months and i'm sorry i don't know off the top of my head that the monetary that they are limitations on federal highway funds are is the principal sanction and there are more sanctions that i'm sorry i clearly a more stringent measure it's the south coast role for zero three this state has not adequately demonstrated why that control measure is infeasible in the state of arizona declined to do so aspects of four or three that they choose not to implement they have to demonstrate they can't simply search without substance that they're infeasible they have to demonstrate that they're either economically or technologically infeasible for arizona that's our