provisions, so that no part will be inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ ” (quoting Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101, 124 S.Ct. 2276, 159 L.Ed.2d 172 (2004)). 2, Is VA’s Regulatory Definition of “Southwest Asia theater of operations" Arbitrary and Capricious? Having found section 1117 silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue of the definition of “Southwest Asia theater of operations” and that deference to VA’s interpretation is required, the question for the Court becomes whether the agency’s interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute or is instead arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. See Mayo Foundation for Medical Educ. and Research v. United States, 562 U.S. 44, 53, 131 S.Ct. 704, 178 L.Ed.2d 588 (2011) (<HOLDING>); see also Taylor v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 158,
holding that regulations promulgated pursuant to an express congressional grant of rulemaking authority will be upheld unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute holding the court will not disturb the decision of the abcmr unless it was arbitrary capricious contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence holding that legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute holding that under chevron step two courts may not disturb an agency rule unless it is arbitrary or capricious in substance or manifestly contrary to the statute internal quotations omitted holding that under chevron usa inc v natural res def council inc 467 us 837 104 sct 2778 81 led2d 694 1984 courts may not disturb an agency rule unless it is arbitrary or capricious in substance or manifestly contrary to the statute 