adequate notice and by itself was not enough impractical or at the demonstrate that it's one who is going to be adequate forever to mean teams to hundreds but that really depends on how e p a decides to implement this ongoing obligation  missions from the county have change and if so does it mean that a district has to do anything more in their plan so if the district put a commitment to do that into their plan then their plan the plan can definitely be reviewed but if the agency hasn't committed to a particular statutory interpretation then for example your argument that the final rule was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed all i don't know if we really can review that because i think that argument has to do with the agency adopting a statutory interpretation but if we don't really think they did optus asked for interviews and i don't i don't understand what we're supposed to do with air act was that they could just regard the emissions from so why did they need to take that into account because they have to show that the attainment of meanness is for those emissions so  comments we would have made in order to assess whether you know they would know that scenario is more likely and so their technical judgment on this is actually due to the new laws women that have been sufficient to maintain standards and not a lot of technical but now so in the end you know the the notice issue one of the important functions of public visits there in regard to the air they breathe now one more point on those notices issue i think the proof is in the pudding here because the district is very interested in the statutory interpretation issue and they did not as example wrestling coach who tells her wrestler to attain and maintain their weight class by the end of year me and so two things about that  example i think would be if a doctor said i want you got a plan to attain and maintain a cholesterol level one hundred by the end of the year if i came back to that doctor and said here's my plan i'm there is that later that requirements right so how can you explain what the status of that is and whether it affects what is going on in the county well it may affect the down the road but the and then after that states may have obligations of their reclassified to the higher level and so on but again states are given time to meet those obligations as well so we're talking  also will continue to decline in the future is not seriously contested in this court and those on contested facts in the record as judge freeland suggested in an earlier questions with  are more than sufficient in them in themselves to sustain the e p a s approval here mainly raise speculative concerns about what might happen in the in the future some some other hypothetical scenario that's not at issue here and with regard to the data in this administrate of record they posit that there might be a spike in and so that's the speculation about what might happen or what might be a right decision and some of the record should not be entertained by the court there's a strong rationale based on this record with respect to two thousand and eight i was on an imperial county to find as reasonable rational not arbitrary how do you respond to the argument about agricultur and in the decision here so the alleged altered undercounting is any occurred is front and center based on the proposal that he issued saying here's what we think the emissions  this is our counting them in terms of the modeling the different analyses that are being used so it's not as a human and maintenance is is not a star per issue those were both being addressed by e p a in the proposal and in th you don't raise those points in your objections you waved them for like ten more studies of agricultural areas that show it's not even thirty percent wrong and two hundred per cent rot or something and this issue in the future shows that there are actually much worse emissions in the county that were anticipated at the time of the rule making or sorry i have the approval of the plan reports if there is any question about it if e p a saw there was a problem with emissions inventory in california that problem would pervade entire air regulation  whether or not this is an issue before us whether any of these are final agency actions where we have is as to whether any of these are final actions and which you believe or and help me with that i would like to know that before i spend a lot of my m and a long time on the approval of the plan revisions submissions itself is a final agency action so be as part of that you know while preamble statements are not normally considered finally agency action and we agree with the analysis of the word employed and safer chemicals so there's no question about that but here in this particular matter the agency there is jurisdiction to review the approval and the way we conceive of the course question is not so much in terms of finality in jurisdiction but as a matter of prudential or you know w digital economy or judicial decision making ability we don't realize we don't work around setting aside our jurisdiction because it might be convenient for the parties to get an answer we don't have the power to raise our voice so we have jurisdiction and i wondered why something like an argument to maintain and maintenance is the final agency action jurisdiction but it is important we have to cover it and i just wanted it is i understand there has to be a final agency action before we are going to worry about it and i went to the get evolution of the eight on all of these issues and whether or not they are final agency actions yes your honor i don't i don't believe that there is any question that the e p a is approval of these plans is final agency action therefore the court has jurisdiction to consider the basis for that including the legal rationale which was alternative interpretations of an ambiguous statue we don't have any issue the notice the questions are are different in my mind then than the substantive outcome which was approving the plan but as a matter of what we've suggested in our brains is that the court doesn't need to spend a lot of time and energy on figuring out whether one or the other interpretation is acceptable because as as the attainment date is acceptable and that that leaves that leaves to the to the question being whether e p a s application of that as discussed in the final rule preamble of the the final action is arbitrary and capricious and for the reasons i've noted there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever not a shred of evidence to suggest that domestic emissions their act but it really i think that's what distinguishes it from the fact that there is a concrete decision is what distinguishes safer chemicals where what the court had before it was implementation domestic sources for good reason certainly rational to view it that way so your honor is that that's the the core rationale for e p a s action you know stands on its own there's no question that mexico has a substantial impact on imperial county in terms of ozone levels just to put a finer point on that and we would be and we would event and the sense that we know what a great area of farming area there is down there and where you can have the best farming area in the your honor i would i would say that the as i mentioned earlier the agricultural sources are built into the emissions inventories that the state  together both the current and the projected future inventories so you know our culture is already you know very you know common in that area there is no there were no comments or basis to believe that all of a sudden agriculture in imperial county is going to increase exponentially that's just not there wasn't any suggestion or anything on the analyze the statute that they should have raised if it's a complicated question how our culture might factor in given the whole mix of the sources that are included in inventories and on this record your hon we submit that it's it's just pure speculation to say that there'd be some major change that would impact imperial county's ability to remain below the standard i think was the answer is there was no  yes absolutely your honor that's correct and would you have you would have us saying nothing about whether a standard could just be obtained without maintenance and be satisfactory  and we certainly would prefer that if that's what it comes down to the agency makes up determination in the st instance if there has to be one interpretation and only one with which we don't think anybody has argued that should be a call for the agency but certainly based on the presentation here and how you believe is appropriate ok thank you for your it is that the center of this case is one of the small number of state agencies that is responsible for addressing impacts across border emissions is just or has been involved in its fair share of these demonstrations under section one hundred and seventy nine   suggesting that the grassroots one hundred and ninety demonstrations were somehow adequate because they failed to show maintenance of the next pass for these international emissions given they are doing we just heard i'll keep this to focus on t demonstration that met that has measures in the ship that are intended to obtain and maintain the two thousand and eight standards by the intimidator july two thousand and eighteen but these measures don't expire you certainly don't healthy families case you don't have to reach that i think that's correct is agriculture increasing in the county so well are you asking agriculture that our culture tracks whether the overall acreage under agricultural use is increasing decreasing or staying steady that i'm not aware of them doing what they do do however is regularly monitor emissions in the county and they create interest based on that monitoring and based on modeling it based on calculations that take into account all of the sources and they also can you know they have rules in place to control emissions from agricultural sources in the county and so it's you know the answer is that the planning that is done for sip purposes takes into account the monitoring and the modeling tended to capture the predictions as it and that what they do is track how that resists how that how their efforts to control emissions in the county are reflected in the monitoring that they're doing on a regular basis know it's as if the doctor's plan included an implantable stat that couldn't be removed as a day to day decided plan was going to go into place you know much like that doctor imperial county that if they were to try and do any of it they would be subject to anti backsliding requirements of the act and e p a bravura and and the other reality is that as we've already heard the pay revised its air and offset rules d that are intended to make sure that the domestic sources of precursors are continuing to decline and i also just want to very quickly mention that just it does take steps outside it steps to pursue continue tracking device regarding those mission so and then i says i this is the same thing that i don't understand this so it is but for mexico you don't need to figure out mexico you just need to figure out what's coming from the county  the emissions your honor if the emissions being preached from the county and the emissions decrease from mexico then mexico may no longer be the butt or cause a violation but you can figure that out just by