that puerto rico was in advanced sixty days after the regulation was passed and our case law is quite clear and i went back through all these provisions in all four cases and your case law is quite clear that in this kind of a situation with all your essentially doing is sending the regulation as problem did you say not consistent with what the statute requires you to wait you rather rely on the long standing doctrine of this court dating back at least nine hundred eighty two in the baltimore garrison watcher case where the court recognize the petitioners after the sixty day period has last may bring challenges to regulations which become right all the outer that sixty day period it was more recently applied in coalition for responsible of the nations recently applied in new york and in medical ways which is just the opposite of what you and you can come in and say well but now we're really concerned because the challenge is exactly the same it is exactly the same that could have been raised sixty days within sixty days this concern that you raise it which is very clear but it was very clear when this regulation was promulgated many many years ago and that's the reason we have the rule that it's really kind of absurd to hear a case where yes he used to look back at the agency's reasons in his rule making so many years ago it all seems so out of context and solis makes no sense you're supposed to raise those challenges at the time when the regulation was promulgated that's why we have no supposed rule a game we have opportunity for people to challenge you have sixty day rule you can come in and say what they did doesn't passion or water too yes sir that is the general rule within sixty days you have to bring your challenge but if that was  when a regulation becomes right the policy underlying that case was to prevent speculative claims claims support not right to avoid having to put the court through a lot of litigation about claims that may or may not happen in the that created the rightness for our case brightness depends on the particular context but i guess they just assume i i can take your human tool point but when i went back in and looked at coalition for responsible regulation the court there pointed out that the challenge was made within sixty days of the  regulation the regulation didn't apply to to us and therefore we didn't have the challenge but once it can apply to then it seems that under coalition you have sixty days from that moment to to follow your petition but you didn't fall within sixty days of the moment that the regulation began to apply to you filed it sixty days after a permit was fin brief from the second circuit pilar chatham force products case that was a case where residents sued against the operators who proposed to build up a plant to bill basically part of the in that case a second circuit said that that suit against the the operator could be used at leas we've kind of shore shoulders like what can we do about that so rule thirty years from now fifty years from now someone can come in soon but i wasn't here fifty years ago and i really don't like that role and i think it's inconsistent with the statute on challenging it do  administrative exemption very similar to this where e p a limit to the upper could go to the best available control technology to only the pollutants for which there were missions in major amounts that are cases very close to ours we believe i late under any conceivable construction of the clean your acts judicial review provision that's the thrust of our pending motion to dismiss and that's quite rightly the focus of this oral argument what is your view of when someone can bring in after can can rightfully clear after rising grounds to challenge regulations that are writing grounds have to be a new  seen the challenge the regulation when there wasn't this aspect of the regulation when there wasn't even a non attainment finding someone in puerto rico maybe not but as judge as words alluded to congress regulation will too far and others that thought it didn't go far enough so as judge edward snowden you're always going to have cases where people say i wasn't around then i didn't have standing then but it is long as they were proxies and interest then it's quite rightly applied just as judge edward has articulated in the coalition case what the court there said was that he thousand and eleven decision by the e p a that puerto rico is in monitoring them for lead and at that time this source that is the subject of permit had already filed this application so they were proposing to so that really answers the case right there i mean there are two late under any conceivable construction of this act provision your honor had cited the second circuit case the petitioners rely on that for purposes of redress ability and standing analysis i don't think the court needs to reach the standing question here but if it does i want to bring to the court's attention that there is a circuit split on that question i don't believe this court has addressed the to argue against a source you're not getting your not attainment new source review permit that you need and you are prohibited from constructing until you get that the question is what how do you read that citizen suit do you read it different things in different contexts and so that would is i think a principle linchpin for the courts analysis was interesting about this statute is that major emitting facility in the major stationary source appears the same provision there has been i'm counting correctly six different places within the statute been given other definitions where it says well in this context major stationary source means this or that the other thing so congress clearly knew how to give that phrase a different meaning when  says that's not the case with the major emitting facility so it seems to me it's difficult for me to understand how the agency even if we get shivaraj to can can justify saying that you know major stationary source doesn't really mean what the statute says that means in that provision well it's not of course the reading of the definition of major stationary source alone you have to see the context in which it is used here and back in one nine hundred eighty the state of the clean air act then was there was a construction work for it and in the construction moratorium drastic measures had to be taken to stop these bigger sources from coming into non ataman areas until the issue could be fixed and so there was a link interpret what facilities are going to fire this type of a permit for ever in the future is not the mere fact that congress did it is what they wrote and what they wrote was no major stationary story this is on page forty five of barbary shall be constructed or modified in any known ataman area if the emissions from such facility will cause or contribute to a concentration of congress caught a fine at that very well said ruling it was law for at least two period two years time it was it was a statutory law for two years time in congress built on it with other provisions but that's clearly congressional indorsement s linkage of pollutants for the major stationary source and not attaining areas with non attainment aloof you also have other indications in the in the in the statute beginning on a forty eight forty nine of our brief linking pollutants and not attained in areas with the reason why they are a is designated non attainment i just don't think that the the construction makes sense in the overall context of the statute the reason that you have these special rules of non attainment here is is that it says we're going to take an inventory we want to see how much of this this pollutant that is that you're out of compliance with here and lead is being emitted from all the sources within that area and in our goal is to reduce that because we want to get attainment we want you to  the atmosphere then the facility that cause you to get out of attainment in the first place how does it make any sense you can do it if you do it three ways one of the major sources are required to get a permit a major source permit but don't forget there are as the statutory obligation for the states and territories to make reasonable further progress and to regulate my or sources to come into a team that so there are three different books to get to the fast sweeping measures but we can't get to everybody right away so we're going to deal with the majors through the permit program require the states to make reasonable further progress and issue meyer stores permits for the nonwhite or for the non major sources  was explicit and gave a resource explanation for its construction of applying the major source permit requirement only to non attainment is there by a siri implication and the standard is whether the agency's path can reasonably be discerned and we submit that that's met your grid you have to tie a few federal registers together to get there but the standard is is that is that a huge agency explanation is reasonably capable of being certain we believe this case the court has no other further questions or i think you prevention of significant here issued permit issued by u p a i'm just going to call that the permit i've only got three minutes to the environmental people the court decision upholding that and then three the rule which has been the exclusive focus of the substantive that issue and to ensure that the court recognizes that there is absolutely no information given a reason given to citation the record to a law that was just this court should do anything other than deny the petition for review with respect to the permit and with respect to the environmental peers with decision holding her views you say in your brief in a footnote that if they're challenging the puerto rico per man which for all intents and purposes of the state permit they would have to go through the state kind of e p a administrator review process and then up through the puerto rico supreme court that scriptura what would happen after that after that even the supreme court rules i believe that that would be the final authority on the issue of whether or not the puerto rico permit complies with the arms of puerto rico law and this is a case classically that this is a challenge to rule on its face for reasons that were not only could have been raised but in fact who are raised in the comment process of the time as e p a s articulated i will also say that the court should not be concerned that petitioners in people in the fisher situation here and elsewhere are just flat out of luck because there are procedures by which interested parties can in fact seek we consideration of rules even thirty are available on those would be different avenues it as a business energy answers has to come to the war as it is this project began really long before against permit applications in two thousand and eleven assess the law it decided what was permissible it made its investments and so forth and did that for it see it's inconceivable that thirty six years later and it has been undisturbed for all my entire time practice would be flipped over and require different things and that demonstrates the wisdom of both congress's decision in requiring timely heals and of this course jurisprudence and make sure making sure that the window for after rising grounds is very very is sufficient to trigger the required to permit under this program number three the language in the petition for a view related to the environmental appeals order that picked up any