EPA the authority to promulgate regulations and grant air permits for activities on the OCS. The EPA exercised that authority through a formal process that included multiple rounds of public notice and comment, various petitions for administrative review, and two reasoned EAB decisions upholding the air permits at issue. We join our sister circuits in concluding that the EAB proceeding is a formal adjudication that warrants Chevron deference. See In re Lyon Cnty. Landfill, 406 F.3d 981, 984 (8th Cir.2005) (“EAB decisions ... are formal adjudications consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act ..., and due Chevron deference.”) (citing United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 228, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001)); Sultan Chemists, Inc. v. EPA, 281 F.3d 73, 79 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. Cnty. Com’rs of
recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect holding that indiana courts will only engage in statutory interpretation if the language of the statute is ambiguous holding that rules of contract construction are to be applied where the language used is ambiguous holding that an eab proceeding is a formal adjudication to which courts should defer under mead if the statutory language is ambiguous holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits