the regula tion provides that electronic devices and components are not waste so long as they can be “resold,” “donated,” “repaired,” “refurbished,” or “reuse[d].” Part 273.2(f)(3). The defendants have offered one permissible reading of the regulation. They argue that Part 273.2(f)(3) does not expressly include an original intended purpose requirement, and that the words “resold,” “donated,” “refurbished,” and “reused” likewise do not mandate such a requirement. Thus, they interpret Part 273.2(f)(3) to mean that an electronic device or component that can be resold, donated, repaired, refurbished, or reused for any purpose is not waste. Although the defendants’ reading of the regulation may be permissible, the regulation can also be reasonably interpreted to include 42 (Colo.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we apply Colorado’s normal tools
holding that a secretarys interpretation of a departments regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation holding that deference is owed to an agencys interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation