. -- any naaqs pollutant. there's another position that says it is really any regulated pollutant other than greenhouse gases. those are four different interpretations. i guess i am asking you which one you are arguing for. >> i am here on behalf of the private party petitioners. we have two arguments. the principal one of is the one i would like to focus on. and that is because -- and that is where i would choose an option -- the pst program is focused on omissions that have specific impacts. and not globally undifferentiated phenomena. >> i take it that the sort of ozone pollutants are not area specific. would your interpretation at who does? trucks if the epa could not make an -- >> if the epa could not make a regulatory finding -- >> can i ask a follow-up? that to me is the quintessential ambiguity and a statute where we give deference to the agency. if your side cannot even come to one interpretation, why shouldn't we defer to the agency? >> the deference is always subject to reasonable interpretations. >

. -- any naaqs pollutant. there's another position that says it is really any regulated pollutant other than greenhouse gases. those are four different interpretations. i am asking you which one you are arguing for. >> i am here on behalf of the private party petitioners. we have two arguments. the principal one of is the one i would like to focus on. and that is because -- and that is where i would choose an the pst program is focused on omissions that have specific impacts. and not globally undifferentiated phenomena. ofi take it that the sort ozone pollutants are not area specific. would your interpretation at who does? trucks if the epa could not make an -- >> if the epa could not make a regulatory finding -- >> can i ask a follow-up? that to me is the quintessential ambiguity and a statute where we give deference to the agency. even come tocannot one interpretation, why shouldn't we defer to the agency? the deference is always subject to reasonable interpretations. >> all it says as i understand -- other

and the problem with that way of thinking about it is that there are many other pollutants, not naaqs pollutants that e.p.a. has regulated for years and used as a trigger for years to require psd permits which would put you at risking excluding from the program if you were to adopt the judge cavanaugh -- >> i have to say in breading dunk reading the brief for the state and reading your brief i couldn't find a single precedent that strongly supports your position. brown and williamson is distinguishable i think for the reasons set forth in the reply brief. what are the sources you want to cite to support your position? >> sustaining the argument that the trigger applies here, there are not a lot of cases, you are right. not a lot of situations aeyes. i think morgue -- morten comes closest >> that's not cited in your brief, was it? >> no. it's cited in the rule-making proceedings and rule-making opinions. so if i could, justices, just sum up here, the e.p.a. did what it did because the problem it's confronting is a problem that e.p.a. considers to be urgent. >> i don't want to interrupt

. -- any naaqs pollutant.there's another position that says it is really any regulated pollutant other than greenhouse gases. and there is still another position that says it is any pollutant other than greenhouse gases. those are four different interpretations. i guess i am asking you which one you are arguing for. >> i am here on behalf of the private party petitioners. we have two arguments. the principal one of is the one i would like to focus on. it is that is where i would choose an option -- the pst program is focused on omissions that have specific impacts. and not globally undifferentiated phenomena. >> when you say area specific i , take it that the sort of ozone pollutants are not area specific. would your interpretation at who does? trucks if the epa could not make an -- >> if the epa could not make a regulatory finding -- >> can i ask a follow-up? that is a fifth interpretation by your side. that to me is the quintessential ambiguity and a statute where we -- in a statute where we give deference t