at face value, the Trust’s theory would render the entire Area B of the Presidio subject to unspecified development under the Trust Act, so long as square footage from somewhere (or multiple somewheres) was replaced with square footage anywhere else in the Presidio. That the banking interpretation would permit unlimited authority puts it at odds with a major purpose of the Trust Act— i.e., to implement “sound principles of land use planning” and “protect[ ] the Presidio from development and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty and historic and natural character of the area and cultural and recreational resources[.]” PTA § 101(5). That is reason enough to conclude that the banking interpretation is impermissible. See Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. E.P.A., 217 F.3d 861, 867 (D.C.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, any reasoned interpretation of
holding exclusion was not ambiguous holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation holding that indiana courts will only engage in statutory interpretation if the language of the statute is ambiguous holding that the interpretation of statutory language should be consistent with the legislatures purpose and intent holding epas interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision unreasonable where it was inconsistent with the clean air acts purpose