Circuit Judge Daniel Bress dissented, saying the majority wrongly found that any consideration of feasibility when meeting air quality goals is forbidden. The Committee for a Better Arvin argued the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by adopting subjective exemptions for the San Joaquin Valley. The Clean Air Act requires state plans have contingencies for nonattainment areas, like the San Joaquin Valley. Congress gave the EPA feasibility in other parts of the Clean Air Act, but not in that particular section. Bress wrote that the majority mistakenly decided that the Clean Air Act requires states to have infeasible contingency measures to meet air quality benchmarks.