excellent thank you your honor may i please the court my name is for a new all i am here for the association of irritated residents after decades of interpretive the clean air act to require contingency measures that provide one time so that's two tons of contingency measure the reductions but are says that already implemented measures with continuing adoptions cannot count so we're left with one time each that then has to force and activities program is implemented before the attainment year so if there is a finding a failure to attain it means that that commitment and those reductions did not get the job done same thing with that one of surplus it didn't get the job done we are left with one ton from that nominal contingency measure e p a also bases its findings that the enhancement force and activities program supports its approval day cannot quantify any reductions whatsoever from that program because it is so vague and so discretionary that it cannot be approved as a measure and a cleaner act basically congress that is untethered from the statutory from the statute and has no connection to the statutory scheme and here are the statutory scheme is the congress wanted a plan b congress wanted measures that would kick in and if the area fails to change or meet resettle further progress if you raise interpretation goes back to almost three bar standards which is they also inconsistent with the linkage to resettle further progress see reasonable for the progress is defined in the statute to equal three percent or one years worth of reductions that's why i interpretation was one year worth of r f p there's that connection between the two requirements e p a s new interpretation has broken that tether as as separate itself from this idea that if the district fails to hit those milestone years for decay meant that there would be enough reductions to provide progress and they tammany or they're supposed to be reductions to keep the progress going but here there's only one  going from eleven dollars to one dollar that's unreasonable by any measure and becomes totally detached from the scheme e p a could do something else but it has to be consistent with the s has and explain why this new one ton per day if this air base and fails to meet the standards is more consistent then the plan b that existed before and before  ton it has been explained why this is a better plan b after bar and given what congress wants as as a backup if this airbase and fails to  especially in the context that this air base and has failed so it's taking all five ambient air quality standards by the deadline for different standards and there's been five failures to attain this this action an explanation that b p has provided has not explained the basis for finding that there is a valid plan b or why this is more consistent  moving on to the to the point about the enhancement force in activities program this relates back to my explanation of the attainment you're finding because you pierre relied on this enhanced enforcement activities program as a basis t california air resources board to adopt at least one vague undefined unquantifiable reduction strategies such as do more inspections do some  yes it's committed itself to adopt a report it's committed itself to adopt one probably for one of those things on the menu but when you get down to brass tacks the state has been adopted to anything a could not quantify any reductions e p a had to concede after its proposed role and for some of the heiress comments that it couldn't accept that program as a contentious or measure because it had no specificity and it and committee for better or even challenge those commitments to say these are not forcible but the th circuit said they are and forcible because there's that specificity of rejections and dates and here are this enhanced and force an activity program lacks that activities program because it is part of the set because it's been offered as part of the state's the trial strategy it has to be enforceable so that as an independent and separate ground that we are challenging so they overlap a little bit but if there aren't any more questions i'd like to reserve the balance of my time for  projected surplus level let's say that there are far less than the e p a thinks they are going to be what would happen under the or etc as it's now been the contingency measures are required and the state of california asked to submit a new revised plan with additional d emission control measures in order d to attain the  projected surplus plan b is to go back to the drawing board there is no plan b as to there are no contingency that say if the projected surplus  way less than we think a b c d and e are going to kick in it would be if the projected surplus was way less than we think we've got to go back to the drawing board and come up with a b c d and as i surplus emission reductions the plan states the mid has measures that on their own should lead to attainment and should meet the reasonable further reasonable further progress because how can it almost seems like instead of an incremental reduction you're expecting a net reduction and the net reduction includes the surplus plus whatever is cheap back to contingency meenie really have no way of measuring whether the contingency meet the mark in the plan well to address the purpose that congress identified and establishing the contingency measure provision and that is contingency measures art anticipated to nuff when considered together to allow the area to continue its progress towards reducing those on emissions while at the same time it is developing a new set of programs d that will cars trucks off road vehicles that there is a surplus of admission is in other words more a mission reductions than are needed to satisfy the attainments plan so they've got more than they need milestone as the reasonable further progress milestones those occur probably every three years from today through two thousand and thirty one and you have a reasonable further progress milestone is not case that the one time for day and the significant surplus of missions and together concluded that those were adequate and this is tether your honor to the statute the purpose of the contingency measure is to as i mentioned to provide time for the stay and the san joaquin valley to come up with new additional measures i would like to return to the fundamental quiet here which is that there is no requirement for a specific amount of emission reductions associated with it the contingency measure the explanation or making a reasonable determination factually on the existence of these surface emissions is also based and are addressing this cour indicated that already implemented measures are appropriate for contingency in the earth misses with lee our decision of this court those center just stick policies and guidance became valley has provided and the surface to missions which provide the additional basis to our whole the approval of the contingency measure we each day does not believe that a engaged in any new interpretation the prior guidance indicated that in particular facts and circumstances the one year a reasonable further progress is not necessarily mandated the aspirational guidance of one year's worth of our need not be achieved soley by the bar type contingency measure these are not just surplus emissions reductions but our emissions reductions that are growing over time through the thirty one attainment year that represents a sixty two percent reduction is achievement is largely driven by the california air resources board twenty seven dollars mobile source measures which are fully adopted and in forcible but not yet fully implemented these are cutting edge transformative measures that are achieving that want to find emissions reductions for passenger vehicles on road heavy duty trucks offered equipment and much more as a let me let me ask you the same something else well these measures are certainly adopted and so on and they're fully enforceable so there's every reason to believe that we can rely on these emissions reductions that these control measures have already happened they're just being implemented over time as the fleet turnover occurs in cleaner vehicles make it to the road having said that i agree with mr greenberg that if there are turns out to be a failure the proper mechanisms provided by the clean air act would be that he would implement your contingency measures and you would be required to read the revise your state implementation plan quality benefits should the region experienced and its payment failure while the region revise its it is measures also provide the air quality benefits our regions need under the more stringent two thousand and fifteen ozone standard which is not addressed in the plan at issue contingency measures because it's speculative d as to whether they'll even come into play at all or is it something more specific to this point to us that is the gist of it your honor it is worth remembering that continued c measures are stand by emissions reductions that might never be implemented and they are only implemented in the event of a future failure to reach detainment to provide the additional air quality benefits while this it is revised percent of the clean air act so could be that these measures are never needed contingency measures that  happens if there are less reductions and planned basically what happens if we get the attainment here and there aren't enough of these surplus reductions and there's a failure to attain wall a what happens and both surplus reductions don't exist anymore they failed to get the job done there's been a failure to attain you only have a one time tape roll a small paint can roll that is supposed to help get continued reductions until that new plan is adopted that's how unreasonable this interpretation is because congress wanted a plan b congress wanted reductions to kick in and work during that time period between failure to attain and the new plan so that is exactly why this interpretation is so i'm reasonable under the statute why it's untethered from what congress wanted as a plan b and why it should be p progress or the attainment here and yes it is untethered from the scheme it's absolutely untethered from the scheme because these are projections these are this is the hope and the plan force an aureole that air quality planners do when they draft the plan and the point of these contingency measures is if those reductions do not materialize they're not surplus if they don't exist when those milestone years happen or when year comes around as there's been some discussion about our through several questions the bar court looked at contingency measures from already him clementon measures and said that those continuing reductions don't count a agrees and e p a has advanced and and actually conceded in the rule that it could not rely on already implemented reductions this pharaoh's point about this sort of continuously reduction some how are different and are satisfied by far that's not the case because because measures in order to be consistent with the contingency measure aren't in the clean air act they're supposed to be new and they're supposed to be undertaken if there is a failure to meet one of these trigger virus the surplus reductions which are projections don't meet that standard and  you know mr greenberg is is arguing that this is an analysis the court undertakes only pursuant to the arbitrary capricious standard of review that is wholly unsupported by any case that that statute supports it or if that speaks directly to the issue the court also decides whether it's a reasonable interpretation so mr greenberg's argument that we don't review this that we are only reviewing  any briefly in my final minutes a standing i would like to point out that the air districts did not respond at all to the point that we raised in our brief that where there's a failure to implement the remedial scheme there is always causation the th circuit has expressed challenges to state implementation plan approvals and several cases at least a dozen many of them the court is proceed it's at the merits without even entertain a standard because  obvious that there is injury and that if that agency is not implementing the radial scheme then that is causation and in order to remain and from the court where this agency is going to implement