 We saw that happen with some prior rules, and I think that's in the background of this decision as well. The plan was established to ensure that states complied with a 2015 air quality law, and the states that filed suit say the EPA failed to adequately consider the legal and practical implications of substituting its plan for the state's plans. Is this a familiar states' rights argument that we've heard in many other contexts, or are they getting at something more specific to air pollution here?