context: ACE argues that the categorical exclusion, by its own terms, does not apply to this case because helicopter permits are beyond the intended scope of the exclusion. When reviewing an agency's application of its own regulation, the agency's interpretation of its regulation must be given controlling weight unless it is plainly ' erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 142 F.3d 1170, 1173
citation_a.parenthetical: Fish and Wildlife Service's interpretation of its own regulations entitled to deference
citation_a.sentence: Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 510-12, 114 S.Ct. 2381, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (1994); United States v. McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir.1998) (Fish and Wildlife Service’s interpretation of its own regulations entitled to deference). Although this Circuit has not applied this standard specifically to categorical exclusions under NEPA, several other circuits have.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 784 F.2d 702, 705
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that deference is owed to an agency's interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations, so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation
citation_b.sentence: See West Houston Air Comm. v. FAA, 784 F.2d 702, 705 (5th Cir.1986) (holding that deference is owed to an agency’s interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations, so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation); City of Alexandria v. Federal Highway Admin., 756 F.2d 1014, 1020 (4th Cir.985).