Opinion ID: 2827395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: OPM’s Regulation Governs

Text: Mr. Vassallo raises a series of statistics-based arguments about the alleged universe of civil and military employees in federal service. 1 Mr. Vassallo argues that these statistics demonstrate that 5 C.F.R. § 315.611(b) unreasonably expands the pool of potential workers from which the DOD may hire and, as a consequence, limits the benefits that Congress intended for the VEOA to provide to veterans. 1 Mr. Vassallo offered virtually none of the statistics that he discusses in his brief to the Board. Because the court disposes of his appeal on other grounds, we need not address the appropriateness vel non of judicial notice. 8 VASSALLO v. DEP’T OF DEF. Statistics alone, however, do not govern this court’s analysis of OPM’s regulation; rather, we must discern whether the regulation “[is] arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. As previously stated, OPM’s regulation defines “agency” as “an executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. [§] 105.” 5 C.F.R. § 315.611(b). As explained above, “executive agency” encompasses “executive departments,” which include the DOD but not its subcomponents, such as DCMA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 101, 105. The Board observed that “[t]here can be no doubt that interpreting the word ‘agency’ in 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) to mean ‘Executive agency’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105 is a permissible construction of the statute.” Resp’t’s App. 54–55. The court agrees, particularly given that Congress expressly directed OPM to “elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation” and that those regulations warrant “controlling weight.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843–44; see 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(5) (“[OPM] shall prescribe regulations necessary for the administration of this subsection”). An agency regulation that adopts as its own a relevant definition from the governing statutory scheme does not “manifestly contra[dict]” the statute. Cf. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844.