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. 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. See West Houston Air Comm. v. FAA, 784 F.2d 702, 705 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); City of Alexandria v. Federal Highway Admin.,
holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation citation and quotation marks excluded holding that courts should defer to agencys interpretation of its own regulations if not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference 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