§ 4000(a), while driving on Edwards Air Force Base. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo questions of law, United States v. Yacoubian, 24 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm. Morgan contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his motor vehicle offense because 32 C.F.R. § 210.3, which made Cal. Veh.Code § 4000(a) applicable on the military base, represents an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ rule-making authority. The district court properly affirmed Morgan’s conviction and fine because 32 C.F.R. § 210.3, when coupled with 32 C.F.R. § 634.25, is an appropriate exercise of Congress’ delegation of rule-making authority as granted by 40 U.S.C. § 318. See Bicycle Trails Council of Mann v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1451 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural
holding that legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute 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 that a moiety award will be upheld unless it is arbitrary or capricious 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 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