authorities, the 90 plus authorities, are supposed to regulate plant by plant under this particular psd program. i mentioned the nsp is program -- the nsps program. nsps does not have the thresholds. it lets the epa decide what categories of sources are most contributing. it doesn't require the analysis of subsection e, which the epa has told authorities not to conduct because it cannot be done for greenhouse. -- greenhouse gases. it permits the epa to do this, a national uniform emission standard. rather than asking 90 state and local permitting authorities to decide plant by plant what they think each plant in their jurisdiction should do about -- >> in your opinion, is it 7411? you are saying they could use 7411 to get to the same place they are today. >> they are doing it, your honor. >> that i don't know what this case is about. can they do the same thing under one provision or the other. >> it is not exactly the same thing. it is the difference tween having the epa -- between letting the epa have national omissions standards -- and then the plants can -- versus this command-and-control ps

that explains what psd refers to. program says the consists of emissions limitations as may be necessary to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region. resident --in each regionally defined effects on the air people breathe. >> there are many statutes and the wrigley tory area where congress passes a statute -- in the regulatory area where congress passes a statute. it turns out there are so many -- often, i would think courts read in an exception. example, if there were a statute that said you have to throw out all bubblegum that has been around for more than a gum usedhat about bubble mo in a display case that nobody intends to eat? we can say, it doesn't mean to apply to that. why can't the epa do that as well? make sense here, so we read in exception into it, unwritten. >> i don't know that there actually is a president that says the agency can do precisely what it did here. that says the agency can do precisely what it did here. >> i am a little confused. pollutantsto be where it doesn't and that jus

. -- psd program.they can trigger its applicable of the and it would not be subject to the determine knowledge book -- available. >> that is the clause that they are not local. >> yes. >> what you make of the endangerment finding that they have severe effects at the local level? the endangerment finding is not before us today. but the endangerment finding is that they exacerbate ground-level ozone and smog. >> every effect that any environmental phenomena has will be felt in some local area. our point is that is not the kind of measurable regionally defined air quality that the psd statute refers to. >> it certainly not measurable. >> before you do that, we have an outstanding question. >> the problem is not that the agency rewrote the threshold and said we would eventually try. as it did say, to get down to the level of statutory thresholds. when epa says they want to get down to the apartment buildings and high schools, it is contravening congressional intent. >> i read them as saying they will try t

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 your summation but this quick question, on the issue of what happens to a facility that is subject to the p.s.d. program because of the emission of other pollu

. - psd program. they would not be subject to the best available control technology. >> that is the clause that they are not local. >> yes. >> what you make of the endangerment finding that they have severe effects at the local level? they exacerbate ground-level ozone and smog. >> every effect that any environmental phenomena has will be felt in some local area. our point is that is not the kind of measurable regionally affect that the psd statute refers to. >> it certainly not measurable. >> before you do that, we have an outstanding question. >> the problem is not that the agency rewrote the threshold and said we would eventually try. when they say they want to get down to the apartment buildings and high schools, it is contravening congressional ntent. the reason the congress wrote those thresholds, is they wanted to exempt small businesses from -- regulating he problems. >> i read them as saying they will try to do it, but make whatever it dungeons -- make whatever exemptions are necessary. >> an