Opinion ID: 184965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Continuous or Intermittent Compliance

Text: 31 Despite CAM's validity, we hold that EPA's certification regulations are inconsistent in one particular with § 114(a)(3)(D)'s statutory mandate. While § 114(a)(3) clearly states that a major source's compliance certification shall include ... whether compliance is continuous or intermittent[,] EPA only requires that a major source's compliance certification include [t]he identification of the method(s) ... used by the owner ... for determining the compliance status ... and whether such methods ... provide continuous or intermittent data. 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(B), 71.6(c)(5)(iii)(B). The statute requires that certification include whether compliance--not just data--is continuous or intermittent. 32 Although EPA may permit owners to certify compliance within the degree of certainty that CAM provides, it may not eliminate the check off requirement altogether. We do not reach the second step of the Chevron analysis on this question. Where Congress has expressed its unmistakable intent in the plain words of the statute, our review ends with step one. See Nuclear Information Resource Service v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 969 F.2d 1169, 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (en banc). It will not save EPA's failure to meet the statutory requirement that there is ambiguity in other sections of the statute. It is only where the statute ... is 'silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue' before us that we 'defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute.'  Id. (quoting Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 919 F.2d 158, 162-63 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). Here, Congress expressly and unambiguously required that the certification include whether compliance is continuous or intermittent.EPA's regulations do not effectuate that expressed mandate of the statute and must be remanded.