a may not arbitrarily deny to the petition states a remedy the congress tell it to this set of circumstances give us decision not to expand yours and transport region despite the undisputed satisfaction of the statutory trigger  because b p is justifications are unsupported by the record refuted by context and history and generally fail to display a reasoned decision in if years or the other statutory tools were sufficient to effectively you failed to provide a reason that's the nation for why those trends were likely to continue if you ever lived without analysis on it unchain defied expectations about the effects of various rules but at the same time if you fail to explain how those rules were likely to continue to have those the same expectations given the agency's contemporaneous regulatory rollbacks and to give one concrete example here simultaneously with his decision to deny this petition get proposed a glider war this is projected to increase in oxon missions by three hundred thousand tonnes that's in contrast to the sixty thousand time production of the entire transport rule at issue swamping it with five times the amount of increase as you get is central ultimately we have this is the caspar update rule which itself is only a partial remedy that again only solves one of those twenty two states obligations of the good neighbor provision though we have attainment divines being mess in the meantime by down case unless he's got the evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed but nevertheless has discretion not to bring the case of this we're dealing here with force with the voices we want twenty six titian good neighbor still judge randolph's point has a lot of force that at least to the extent of suggesting that any review would have to be very highly discretion well there is some level of deference here that there's no side under provision which the a p a did not apply or i would say that there is consensus between the parties here that the agency needs to rationally articulate the facts and policies underlying its decision that needs to display a reason decision making and that it needs to act consistently with the statute that point is read but not on your view this is an a p a petition for a ruling one up and argued this standard for you should actually be tighter here because rather than some generalize interested person seeking some random relief the statute here gives the states a specific procedural right but this is a petition on your view this is a petition for rule making under the  under the specific is that provision of the and that is yet another context in which our review is especially deferential i don't contest that there is that there is deference that's appropriate but the agency still has an obligation to engage in recent decision making consisting of the statute if you go through it point by point what the agency has provided here for its reasoning for example the existence of these other statutory tools that by themselves have been proven not to be sufficiently effective at resolving the problem that if you look at it is an explanation for why expects trends to continue that conspicuously omits at simultaneous actions that are nearly certain to undermine those very trends and which i realize that the agenc well of course we want to address this problem but we have resource constraints but unlike other situations in which resource constraints really can be a legitimate reason like these while the guardians are defenders of wire the cases where courts were agencies ticketed with specificity have resource concerns would prevent them from engaging this part of a problem and it was better to focus on the whole solution here we have a solution that actually inquiry requires very few agency resources if any of the button place it this idea that that the state needed to submit more information to prove its case that there were some sort of and other gaps and not only were the states not fairly a notice of that but that the states didn't demonstrate that there were significant i'm going violations downwind because of of windows on transport and having having made that show and e p a believe that some additional sort of cost benefit analysis was necessary to determine what the best way to approach it with the ozone transport tools or some discretion who are saying that he had to grapple with the technical merits of the petition in a way that it didn't and then it had to provide reasoned rational decision making for why some choice of other tools or why a reliance on other continuing point of denial it's undisputed that both new york and philadelphia these are regions involving six states about twenty five million people were measuring violations more recent u p a there are more recent validated air quality  indefinitely and one last point before reserve the remainder of time for a bubble is that one other major factor that you failed to consider here was the import of the two thousand and fifteen x having opened its inquiry up to a variety of non statutory factors one critical factor is that u k has already determined that seventy five parts per billion is an insufficient level to protect public health and that even more and greater regulatory solutions are necessary  transport commission weighed in on the issue that you've raised here i don't believe the transport commission has directly weighed in but i will say that the transport commission is also one other entity that gives this a unique flexibility that unlike the other solutions it does allow the states to work collaboratively to promote further approaches to reduce the ozone problem reserve the right time for a bottle thank you or standard was to the reasoned decision making here the state farm standard it was i believe in the context of our rule making whereas here a talks about the fact that we don't need to expand this o t r because we have good neighbors who visions that are being implemented and this is this is their comments or say but there's lots of problems with inaction on lay and failure of the e t a to actually implement steps in the good neighbor provisions there as in the e p a s response is well we appreciate the time and resources needed for the agency of states to take action to address interstate transport obligations when they say they disagree that that expansion of the o t r would be faster a more efficient way to deal with this problem because addressing the good predicated on the fact that on the assumption that steps would be approved or disapproved within twelve months which is what the statute requires  but the e p a doesn't mention any of that i don't see one word of that anywhere in this in this rule can you show me anywhere were e p a discusses those delays anywhere approve or disapprove the sit in to problem gately fill in the e p a is relying upon that process and those deadlines that are part of that process to deny been working with the good neighbor provision for over twenty years two steps disapprovals time in case you want to dispute that and i think that's probably accurate can you tell me as a practical matter what the difference is between having the states who are true to the strains who are reaching and simply actively reduce pollution in the areas where those reductions are needed so it has consistently found through its good neighbor rule making provisions that oxides of nitrogen are the most effective for reducing i was on transport on a regional scale and the good neighbor vision allows for e p a to use that targeted method of addressing those emissions and sources of those emissions that can most cost effectively reduce their emissions for example process of how e p a does this is a bit complex for each individual source in the states have some leeway in determining the budgets for each state but technically yes you can focus on the cases but now what's the difference if if a state if ohio was put into the transport them transport so in that case the state let's say ohio would be subject to all section seventy five eleven c's mandatory controls which are primarily targeted are going to compounds and as he has showing through it's rule makings over for successful rule making said it's had these sources of those getting compounds in the state as well as the implementation of the enhanced vehicle inspection maintenance programs throughout the entire state area where those programs are  they do have an inspection i mean it's a program but not in all of the counties that the expansion would require for them to include and so i believe in their comments they mentioned that it would cost  so so in essence it would be a large expansion of controls primarily for both card and a compound which may not be necessary to actually reduce the emissions in the region or may not have a compounds can achieve productions but are more more so at the local level than the oxides of nitrogen which really are more on the regional scale and are the most active on the regional scale for controlling  me ask you a question about how section one twenty six petitions were sure what is the interaction between a one twenty six nation and  makings through reducing the ozone levels and through the improvements in air quality through other goals it's expectation that that trend was likely to continue is based on actual modeling the e p a conducted out to the not necessarily be as quick to implement as a good neighbor provision and that u p a was looking at that in the context of the issues that petitioners had raised and it was not an independent basis to say if we will for sur that is working but what i think you can say does acknowledge the delays but ultimately the process is working in the sense that it is creating an active reduction and emissions isolated and in light of the dramatic improvement in air quality and other available mechanisms of address and the few remaining problems if he expressed concern that granting the petition and imposing section seventy five eleven sees controls throughout expansion is that within nine months newly added states are added and have to include in their steps all of these provisions and this is unlike the good neighbor provision where it takes nine years for the e p a to develop modeling and can't emissions budgets unlike then we need it leave to the states and that's a factor that he basically failed to give enough consideration to the idea of one twenty six petitions are they more tailored in theory they're more tailored but in  practice as we've seen neither one twenty six petitions or the good neighbor provision actions are sufficient to redress the ongoing harms that petitioning states have suffered in the two thousand and eight next or ten years plus as we look forward to two thousand and fifteen standards i will say that the one thing that that the that implementation of the transport provision tools would do was it would impose on all major stationary sources in up when states down wind states have already implemented a host of regulations for thirty years down in states of live with these controls they're not unduly onerous or burdensome and also because we keep missing attainment deadlines we give that in to oppose even stricter even more