we have two matters on our docket this afternoon the first was the state of texas versus the united states environmental protection agency the venue motion us or the d c circuit was just twenty one twelve apply so he pays position your honor is that the judicial review proceed provision of the clean air act takes precedence over twenty one twelve and so the first how is that when you got motions or venue issues that's correct we did not address twenty one twelve in our motion we have looked at it and as your honor noted sierra club was the first to file and under twenty one twelve the application would require this court to transfer to the d c circuit but then twenty one twelve of course provides that there can be further proceedings and further transfer if necessary but e p a s position which we've taken held in before and there's a six circuit case that i'm afraid i don't have the citation to but i can provide if i subsequently that has indicated that twenty one twelve comes into play if there are multiple potential venue under the clean air act so for example if this were a decision on a state implementation plan for multiple state who decides the venue issue because it's potentially correct in the b c it's one or the other and they decide that's correct your honor again i we didn't brief this issue we'd be happy to provide supplemental briefing if the court would desire on this question  again as we read twenty one twelve because of the order in which the petitions were filed under twenty one twelve departments this court would need to transfer to the d c circuit but again we didn't put forward that position our briefs because our position is the exclusive venue under the clean air act another question related to what judge jones asking for let's say we deny your motion and say this word in the first circuit but the d c circuit in the sierra club case challenging the supplemental rule of the other cases they have understand texas might dismiss its own challenge but let's say some of those stay in the d c circuit in the d c circuit looks at and says no we think we have the new over this that you have the situation with the same rule being reviewed and in two circuits different service because they disagree about venue i mean how does that's not supposed to be what ha review of the four air quality designations issued in the supplemental rule the other eight areas in texas that were designated in july are soley before the d c circuit so if there were inconsistent rulings there could be inconsistent standards even within the texas but does would not be rule being on texas those would be ruling on the other two filings that would be ruling in the supplemental the the only way the supplemental would have been consistent is if the sierra club then yes there is a possibility of conflicting opinions if this court also but why would it do that if in the other case where this came up they did not do so well the d c circuit could elect not to but as judge casa said the d c circuit  conclude that it is the proper venue and the d c circuit has already consolidated all three petitions for review of the supplemental rule and the d c circuit with all of the petitions for review filed of the july rule making so isn't that a problem that could happen in any case where you find a local and regional in that in that there's a discrepant difference between the circuits on that you know your honor there is certainly the possibility in the context of sip decisions which are presumptively locally or regionally applicable but congress made that judgment when it set up the section seventy six zero seven review will it lead to the judgment of what venue is it did not make the judgment on who is to decide the venue issue that's what i'm asking that is not express do we do agree with that and i just decide and the court decided in a texas v e p a case that just as we have jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction we ha we have we get to determine our venue that was this court's holding last year that's chris and that's we're bound by that we are not taking a position contrary to this court's decision and last year so i mean so it's not your position that the d c circuit should be deciding this issue well our position is that these petitions four of you make the statute says may only be filed in the d c circuit if it's national right likable or based on a terminations rights go for effect we assert statute that we've consistently put forward but sir not arguing that there's something wrong with the texas fee e p a case that says we have the right to determine our bid to terminate venue that is this court's precedent and we respect that  just to make one other point on the national uniformity issue that judge cost or raise and the possibility of conflicting or overlapping review this circuit and texas e p a the two thousand and eleven decision recognize quote that congress intended the d c circuit to review matters on which national uniformity is desirable for the seventh circuit with respect to the same or quality designations made the same observations just a couple of weeks ago and there is a very practical concern here for why e p a takes a national approach to promulgating and initial air quality designations and why a national uniformity and a judicial review of initial air quality designations is important and that is because a not attainment designation triggers a series of other requirements under the clean air act and those requirements have consequences so if it were easier in certain regions or certain parts of the country to be designated non attainment or for or harder to be designated non attainment in certain countries that would lead to an equitable outcomes and it would lead to an inconsistent application of the act across the country the way he says it seems to me their challenge on the merits which you know we don't know fully in front of us but it seems to be challenging the model that was used to determine the  quality and they say it was unique because in the four texas instances the sierra club modeling was used is that different than the modeling that was used in the two prior rules that issue i want to answer that question carefully so as there's no misconception the modeling that is done is for each particular area so someone will submit for county x and say here's the modeling for that area the fact that modeling was used that third party party modeling w used is not unique to these four days in texas third party modeling was used for the other eight areas in texas it was not the original the modeling was used in the second rule that issue not in the very first rules i know it was used in both your honor so there were numerous areas i would say possibly even in a majority of the areas what do you mean when you say third party moderately is or you talk about specific just the fact that some other party proposes it or that the technical way that was modeled know that it just refers to the origin of the modeling so that gets into the question your honor of e p a s technical assessment of the modeling data that was submitted again because modeling is to model a particular air quality area it's not going to be literally the same data but what e p a did at the outset so if we go back to the beginning when a sets forth how it's going to proceed nationally to do air quality designations under this particular air quality standard because e p a is approach reflects the particular air quality standard issues that we're talking about twenty minutes of two standard  said we believe we have the authority and that it is appropriate to consider modeling and making determinations of whether an area is in attainment and on attainment or on cost file e p a issued extensive guidance and regulations pertaining to how modeling should be can you if someone were to challenge your conclusions about air quality modeling and they also were to challenge the same issues in the supplemental or that we have in front of us could say because they didn't both are they can find a the areas we're going to designate around to here is our guidance simitis data they consulted with the states and then they proposed all the designations at one time and they made six they finally sixty one of them in july and then they finalize these in texas later in december but it's all based on the same implementation of a nationwide approach so i see that i'm out of time unless the court has for the questions i do have another question yes your honor you side to the seven circuits decision in southern illinois and also the tenth circuit in eighty k launch but isn't it true that both of those cases involve review of the single rule and that the rule that is she was applicable to numerous areas across the country don't those cases actually support the state's arguments because they show what would happen in the on the opposite situation to that that we face here so my answer in two parts is yes and no so yes in eighty k and in southern illinois power there was a single e p a action so far federal register notice that was at issue like both of those cases and the reason that we argue that they provide support here for the conclusions regarding the supplemental bill is if the if the four areas in texas finalized in the supplemental rule had been finalized as the same making in july there'd be no credible dispute that that's a national football rule in the d c circuit is doing so that you in the sierra club chose to do it this way so why don't you have to live with the decision that isolated texas and allows texas to stand alone texas does not stand alone your honor there are four areas in texas that were finalized in december it's important to recall that there are eight other areas of texas that were open also not at issue it's these use the same approach to modeling and how it evaluates modeling how it characterizes modeling what it looks at what it except weather information is reliable representative for all sixty five areas that were designated as part of the around t designations so the only distinction between that's i think the southern illinois and eighty k and what we have here is that four areas were published in a separate federal register notice so we think and what we have argued is that there are a number of factors considered by courts when looking at the apply camilla whether it's national or local so that the courts can consider let me ask you question will let's assume first of all in the final rule making the original proceeding what is the biggest issue in that do you anticipate the biggest issue in that case to be well the parties not all parties have filed statements of issues in the d c circuit and even those are binding so at this point it would only be speculating as to what issues are going to be raised in the d c circuit based on comments emitted by different parties it is possible that the propriety whether e p a has the authority to use modeling ok let me that i've got it now make sure that's the case let's give you a hypothetical here let's assume that your party or state did model or is it your position that they can do that or that they had filed a petition for review in the final rule making to get at the modeling issue without you know if there are various things such as ministry of waiver et putting all of those aside generally speaking yes we believe those issues could be raised in a challenge to their desire not more close because it's the same because the rules same stem from the same proposal and same as down share the same administrate of records so while we describe the round two right designations as one overall rule making effort we also recognize they were published in two distinct federal register notices each of those actions is subject separately subject to judicial review but what those rules share in common and i just ask you w analytic rubric from her standing on attainment is at the core of both final actions so it's at the core of the overall rule making but it's also at the core of the july action and the december action so it could be reasonably challenge to in a petition brought of the december action which we argue ten primary sulfur dioxide standard that's at the core of the overall rule making and in both final actions that were published so that that is the basis for e p a s action which it then applies to local data and making an air quality designation decision for an individual area thank you good afternoon your arms made please the court my name is joshua smith on behalf of syracuse i wanted to follow up on a couple of questions on the national uniformity issue before you do can you respond to that point that was just made if you're if you're able to do so it may times we're going to treat them as two standalone actions why are we treating them as one for purposes of this proceeding today well as the court recognized in the two thousand and eleven texas fee e p a decision the congress is clear concerned with national uniformity about matters with which national uniform reason is important is clearly a factor in deciding these issues and in this case raises the potential for conflict in more than one way and in fact there are four different ways that it does raise that conflict not only did it did sierra club file it it wouldn't raise the conflict if in challenging the supplemental rule you're only limited to challenging the application of this methodology that was created in the prior rules right and if it were so limited in this third challenge of this third rule you want to have the conflict the the methodology is inextricably bound up and based on methodology that was applied to all of the other sixty five sixty one areas that that e p a designated including the other eight areas in texas which the petitioners chose not to be about that methodology was used nationwide there is a five factor test that  a applied for their return in the area for determining the area and they need at each step the first step for example e p a considered air quality modeling or monitoring that might be available in the area it considered emissions from the sources from the relatives from the different sources and other factors so applying these methodology and the sixty five page technical assistance document that e p a developed for making these designations across the country all of these issues are interrelated and there is a serious risk that there would be different standards that apply not only across the country but within texas itself and as i mentioned at the as we discussed at the outset and i think it was judge overawed you mention that your club has filed a separate petition challenging these designations as insufficiently protective the texas petitioners chose not to intervene and have not moved to dismiss that case and that's why this motion to dismiss is pending here that's well understand i thought the sierra club the petition for the supplemental order and that texas and women i also filed petitions for the saying determination sierra club's affirmative claims are going to go forward in the d c circuit platted we have ok if that's true then why shouldn't there be some statutory meccas an ism and isn't there some statutory mechanism for having one court either the hypothetically said that we have then you couldn't you are assuming that they're going to decide that they are the ones that if they look at the supplemental rule separately also on the supplemental rule appeal by the sierra club they could come to the conclusion that there's not proper  designated as attainment and in and implicated whether e p a properly applied the sixty five page technical assistance document to to making those determinations again in our view e p a s determination should have included other sources and could have included a broader geographic area than that then the final determination so i know of you they can't be separated but if the court says supplemental means supplemental and that's the action it is to and therefore that challenge that challenge the fact that the other eight areas of texas are properly before the d c circuit so our claims relating to those areas would remain and those could continue and be d can be consolidated but the two are inextricably linked again because they're based on modeling specific modeling that applies to all twelve areas we're not all twelve there's all four areas at issue here you brief talks about whether it's reasonable or not on the e p a s finding about it it's that they're nationally applicable but that's not the test is it the test is whether the e p a can show that an exception applies and that's reviewed to know isn't that the test so generally speaking in a sips situation there is a presumption that the sip is locally regionally of political unless an approved an exception applies and in this case even if this was regionally and locally a political which it's not an exception does apply because the rule is based on the same mythological approach the same record that all of the other sixty one areas were were based on and i do want to come back to one other point that you may just to clarify the seven circuits decision involved two separate petitions relating to two separate final agency actions a petition challenging the area designations and a separate petition challenging e p a s denial of the motion of a petition to reconsider those are separate agency actions and under the texas petitioners view should be broken apart and reviewed separately because the latter involves only issues involving illinois i'd also point out that the d c circuit opinion in missing mississippi commission of environmental quality and this court's decision in the two thousand eleven texas v e p a case also involved a separate final agency action so that the national character of the rule can't turn on simply breaking it apart and that kind of formalistic approach but the court wouldn't be breaking it apart it would have been the agency's choice the agency can make the choice to issue two separate determinations but under the texas petitioners logic the two thousand and eleven case the mississippi commission case and even the seventh circuit case should have it least part remained before those circuits and they'd they rejected they didn't consider that as an option and transferred to the d c circuit or held the case in in the instance of mississippi call it commission and i said i see that my time is up but if you have additional questions i'm happy to answer them thank you good afternoon and please the court my name is steven chu there and i represent luminance generation company the owner of the power plants for local texas areas that are subject to the rules at issue here with me at counsel table my colleague j a difficult section to figure out but as i recall there's nothing in that section there requires this court to defer to the d c circuit on the venue issue and the policy underlying that section is fully met here there is no risk of conflicting results here the d c circuit has not set a deadline yet there is a deadline out in the future that's been extended for motions to govern those motions to govern should this court retain then you will include a motion from us to sever sierra club's petition and transferred back to this court so everything will be done in an orderly fashion and there is no risk of conflicting results and it is to him normally when first filed when it seems odd that the second filed court would be the one that gets the case if there's something counter intuitive to that well the way that these cases have gone down the way the procedural posture this court has the motion to transfer in front of it the government's position is a twenty one twelve does not apply clean air act cases so they didn't move on their grounds and they and they will not move on those grounds so this court doesn't have a motion in that regard before it i'm not saying this court couldn't invoke twenty one twelve if it wanted to but what i'm saying is it doesn't have to in the policy considerations in this particular case are fully met even aside from the statute the first to follow rule gets applied by courts even when there's not a particular statute just as a rule of judicial economy city do you think we're precluded from applying a first to file rule in deciding who gets to decide venue under the clean air act provision that the says in you is proper and one of these two places yes i do think you would not just apply that common law principle but that's always the case it's always the case that there is a specific rule of jurisdiction of venue but the question is who gets to decide the issue and that you lose your argument the venue's here it's a question of who gets to decide what you are discussing the first of our rule in the sense of saying a district court can or the first to file rule in who gets to decide the venue  in the first place it was to file not that not that filing creates that been sure why i don't think there's anything to prohibits this court from deciding the motion this move by the government on the grounds of the government fall that you understand the problem and i'm just asking  to what was going on but those judges understand exactly what's going on that deferred moving forward with that d c circuit case while at a comedy it's just it's well that was when times federal courts have to work that way limit let's explore your statement there's no can you appeal in the supplemental order a one challenge the methodology that was set forth in the final rule making here's i will answer your question here's the problem with that question there is no methodology there is no national methodology you cannot find it you cannot find it in that july rule and you cannot find it in this rule what about reliance on third party modeling or isn't that going to be part of the challenge uber and well what they did is sometimes they relied on third party modeling sometimes they didn't this so called common analytical approach when you look at what they say what it is it is not a bright line rule they disavowed any bright line rule in this and they said we're going back to the conflict question if this stays in our court in our court a year or two from now however long this thing plays out says ok e p a cannot rely on third party modeling whether it's the sierra club or industry or local government modeling because the phase two rule relied on third party modeling women are saying that was improper and if the c circuit says it's proper in the face to challenge you have that modeling be permitted in some suit instances around the country and not in others a couple of points it's the nature of the action the controls it's not our challenges  way at the evidence for each area including available air policy monitoring data and modeling that is what e p a is going to defend its decision are you going to challenge on the area designations the five factor test that to me pretty clearly seems to be applied throughout these different rules just circle back to test we don't have an issue with the boundaries or the fifty one think our comments even raised issues let me raise one in one broader issue with which this discussion i'm having trouble it's difficult to figure out in a vacuum take the third type of venue of regional rule but that's based on a determination of national scope were fact it's hard to really figure out whether the determination is based on a national scope or effect in this vacuum where the case hasn't been briefed the state at think is your consolidated response with the state at the end you say one option is to carry this with the case which is what was done in last year's texas versus e p a decision the judge or author related to that if we were let's say we were denied them the motion that wasn't here with america i think it was but if it was well the opinion talk about the merits and the venue anyway the state's pray or ask for that if the if we deny the motion now and keep the case in the circuit and then the briefing happens a year from now america's panel says well you know what this really is challenging these national methodology is that really is what it is at the core of the determination could that court  the venue determination was final so we would assume that this panel the side of venue that the merits panel would not also decide that and let me let me also just continue to address this issue of nationwide sort of in effect what this court looks at not what it and to suppose that the government anticipates that we're going to argue we get that what i'm trying  assessment document the mr smith was referring to it's index two three let me just cut through this so we can have some concrete examples just what are you going to write in the in your petition for review of the final rule mike we're going to say the modeling simply a few other states this rule making this what they call this big rulemaking has been chopped up to get series of small final actions and it's final actions as published in the federal reserve this court is to look at to determine current conditions around our plant that emissions are much lower than this or you said a part of the wrong standard i'm saying that the way they analyze the data came up with the wrong result these areas are not in non ataman which is what all the definition models in and accurately capture the air quality in that area for the inputs of the way the way that result that this is this is the challenge it's not illegal there's not a legal legal memo with the point that you're talking about says it's not reviewable final agency action is the government's position that technical support documents and all those things are under a viewable by this court by the d c circuit or by any other court the d c circuit is going to be looking at different charts for different places for different data sometimes e p a use monitoring sometimes they use modeling sometimes as you both each has to be decided on its own merits and that's the nature of the challenge with this court says about those four designations is not going to conflict with anything that the d c circuit says about all those other designations sierra club's lawyer just said that it interferes in certain counties bill over a fact and that is that do you agree or disagree with that well we disagree with their position on that and if they have concerns about these those sierra club may have a problem with those they can litigate those to their heart's content in the d c circuit along with all the others why did you fellowship transfer in the d c circuit why did we not see your clubs got a petition up there what happens to that we simply responded to the government's motion here with motions to govern or do in that court which they're not do yet they have a straight they have deadlines for a motion to govern a motion to and consolidate our petitions were consolidated so is pontiac nobody there was and it was saying it was a court decided it's to a spot where you don't know i don't exactly remember we did not have a say in that consolidation there's a procedure for us asking them to be consolidated and transferred back or we might just dismiss our petitions fall there is a protective matter it's a look at all these challenges there's a combination of rather some overarching national issues like what is the statute mean what are the levels going to be what modeling is appropriate what's the area going to be and then you're pretty much always going to apply that to fa specific situations involving particular areas and so i guess that comes down to in that third category which predominates well give me an example can you pick which is can you give me an example of something that's a local or regional can say this is a local or regional rule that would nonetheless be based on a determination of national scope yes so one example might be if you had a rule found a rule that adjusted emission allowances ok nationwide training program for only one state ok so the rule of plot had legal effect only on the emission allowances for that one state but the practical effect because it was a national program meant that allowances and other states might  and it's only it's our position that no way should be given to e p a s argument that there is some special significance to the fact that the large twenty sixteen rule and this december twenty sixth rule that deals with the texas  designations comes from what you calls its second round designation and therefore it's somehow part of the same rule the designation process and schedule the e p a followed here is wholly outside of the clean air act and they cooperated federal m that animated the clean air act when it was first promulgated the clean air act has very clear enough for size process for next area designations with the roles for the states which make the initial the initial designation recommendation to e and for e p a and their firm deadlines in the act for the states in for e p a to act and if there is not enough information for e p a to make a designation the act explicitly states that they have the areas to be designated unclassif so texas made its deadlines e p a did it and when e p a did not make its deadline texas along with several other states north dakota louisiana kentucky and nevada in arizona in north dakota district court but sierra club suit e p a for not making its deadline first and they sued in the northern district of california and then asked the north dakota suit be abated so the states then intervened in the california district court case but that case never argued argued it was argued in march in the thrust of our argument there was that the consent decree improperly amended the clean air act in our position has been it is today that this afternoon e p a can make all the designations they would simply say these four designations were made as part of that all the fees to rule that this goes right around a second round second i did this seven circuit consider this texas concede that that is a national rule  well even even that second if the let's say july you know they've even they've cut up the second round into different checks because they had the big designation july then they pushed texas by the stipulations against texas was involved  a and they still haven't made a designation for oklahoma so that's been chopped up but even if texas had been in the july twenty sixth rule that still would not it didn't cover all national areas maybe there would be an argument that given i'm trying to get a sense of where texas thinks the dividing line is between regional local versus well you know even even the july twenty sixth which you know we did not we didn't follow suit there and our positions we couldn't have because we w but you know even there you know to be lumped in with all these other states when these are very intensely factual determinations for each area i think it puts every state at a disadvantage but you know in our case what we're looking at here is a final action that just applies to texas it doesn't impose a duty on any other state just texas and it seems plain to us that it is a rule it is only likely a political thank you i try to quickly go through a number of points that have been discussed so briefly back to the twenty one twelve question our position is not that twenty one twelve is never a political in clean air act cases when there are multiple appropriate circuits under the statute then our position would be that twenty one twelve would be the answer we didn't move on twenty one twelve because our position is that the d c circuit is the exclusive in you but in terms of judge on looking for an answer in the statute all i can point to today is that the clean air act specifies where petitions may be filed only in the d c circuit or the regional circuit as appropriate and then otherwise i'm not sure aware of another purpose answer beyond twenty one twelve otherwise it would seem that just whichever court takes up a motion to dismiss or transfer first would be making a decision that's not necessarily kind of a principled basis set forth by the statute so again we can provide supplemental briefing if the court would like it but under the dates and how twenty one twelve works our position is that it was first filed by sierra club there were no other petitions in the first ten days so it doesn't trigger the lottery so this court would need to transfer to the d c circuit which could then make whatever decision and further proceedings on to this question judge casi raise of what is applied nationally and counsel for them is contention that there is no uniform methodology that simply incorrect i would point the court to the tenth circuit's decision in eighty k launch systems which said that e p a s analytic rubric is a single interpretation of the key statutory term and so to explain that a little bit the statute simply says a non attainment area for example there are other kinds of areas but not to my area does not meet their quality standards or contributes to an area that does not meet their quality standard doesn't say how do you determine that what information is acceptable or reliable to make that determination e p a plays all of that out in a legal interpretation and how it approaches evaluating data that is submitted to it and what it can be considered reliable representative what the best and i mean a little rubric is not being challenged today instead the answer for each area within four places in texas is what's being challenged why should we not take the e p a this word in the supplemental that the supplemental rule is based on area specific determinations not determinations of nationwide scope and if that but that's not a ph position your honor i would no just deny that it was based upon areas specific determinations in the supplement rule so this goes to the weight of the evidence statement that the particular evidence putting isolating in a vacuum and ignoring everything that comes before you get to that statement everything i can find these national analytical framework what occurred before and so that i can't speculate beyond what counsel has said here today but we certainly agree i think everybody is in agreement that is the nature of e p a s action that is on which venue decisions are made so the what they are going to argue on the merits can be relevant in two ways we would argue one is it can potentially be a wash or to have of the nature of e p a s action for example since the court takes a do novo review of whether rules based on  a had the authority period to consider third party modeling data or any modeling data for whether that is a reliable basis or permissible basis under the act to max not an issue here in fact that isn't it submitted its own modeling data said in the supplemental rule on page four five zero four four to determine model based violations the e p a believes that dispersion modeling is an appropriate tool as discussed in the modeling technical systems document that technical assistance document e p a technical support documents in this record lay out all the things that he has said is required for modeling data to be submitted and how e p a will evaluate it now we strenuously disagree with counsel for luminance suggestion that we take the position that that methodology is not review if somebody filed a petition for review of a guidance document we would then argue that that is not federally so final agency action but the application of that guidance the application of that methodology and the air quality designation rulemaking context is absolutely subject to review someone could bring an argument about whether e p a can rely on modeling at all whether it's the way you create relied on modeling is acceptable whether the criteria the e p a considered in determining whether modeling data is sufficiently reliable is a wonderful question yes you're right what specifically overcomes the default presumption in this case there is no default presumption argue indo that our case law provides a default pres presumption in this context when to apply one doesn't apply to applies but three may apply and are we have said if there is a default presumption there were two applies three has to be you have to overcome a default presumption so assume there is a default presumption can you win if there's a default presumption and if so what is your best evidence i don't concede or agree that there which this court has said needs to be at the core question was can you overcome a default presumption if there is a default presumption yes or no the clean air act does not put a presumption for air quality designations in type one you have an argument that it doesn't apply and i understand that argument but if it does apply can you overcome the presumption in today's case yes or no yes and we have now and can you please articulate now which i think conclude that the supplemental rules based on a determination of nationwide scope are a fact and therefore venue is exclusively in the d c circuit in you please articulate what is your best evidence to support that you overcome the deploy all standard e p a s articulation and as the tenth circuit observed e p a is analytic rubric for how you make a decision on whether an area is attaining or not or if there's insufficient information that is e p a s interpretation of those statutory terms for a terms so the explanation there is some discussion of it in the preambles and then in a technical support documents where it lays out these are the modeling factors that are required for example e p a says modeling isn't so one thing to note modeling is unique to sulphur dioxide standard e p a doesn't rely on modeling for making determinations of violations for example of the other air quality standards so modeling is unique to the sulfur dioxide world so e p a is guidance documents in e p a technical support documents in this record which articulate these are the requirements for modeling data this is how we're going to consider modeling data and evaluate it that is e p a s analytic rubric for in the specific context of how you make a non attainment designation for example couple of other brief points if i may just cost that we certainly agree that national rules always have local effects and if they were only if you only looked at the local implication then you would never have a national rule in which the d c circuit is exclusive venue and finally no case has been brought to this court's attention by either side and we are not aware of any worry regional circuit other and not the d c circuit has it to decay to initial air quality designations in the last twenty seven in the two thousand and eight as own air quality standards e p a finalized it does of nations and to federal register actions both of those actions were considered together and adjudicated in a single decision by the d c circuit and mississippi commission venue was not contested the petition of the second action was filed in the d c circuit so there's no judicial decision answering this question of the circumstance that there's no case where it was adjudicated whether it's within a state was was regional or not for in the air quotes and initial air quality designations not that i'm aware of in the last twenty seven years there's nothing either way nobody's ever tried to do this but there's never been a specific one like this says i disagree on i just identified an example where for the ozone standard circa two thousand and ten this precise situation happened that second federal register action designated twelve counties solely within the seventh circuit consistently taken a national approach to making its air quality designation so that there are not inconsistent applications in this important context in different parts of the country so unless the court has any further questions we would ask that if his motion