Database Search Results

The statute specifically instructs the Commission to establish flammability standards and regulations for fabrics, related materials, and products to protect the public from unreasonable fire risks. It even details factors that the Commission should consider when setting standards (“is reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate”).

The statute directly mandates the Commission to institute proceedings for the determination of appropriate flammability standards or other regulations when it finds that such standards or regulations are needed to protect the public against unreasonable risk of fire. This indicates a direct link and command from the statute to agency action.

The statute provides specific instructions on the regulatory task: establishing flammability standards for fabrics, related materials, or products. It also provides specific conditions that trigger the regulatory action (“unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or significant property damage”) and details on the findings required for the standard, regulation, or amendment to be valid (protect the public against unreasonable risk, is reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate). While terms like “appropriate” and “reasonable” are used, they are within a defined context and tied to a specific regulatory task.

15 U.S. Code § 1193(a) states that the Commission “shall institute proceedings for the determination of an appropriate flammability standard” when certain findings are made. This clearly mandates the creation of flammability standards through regulation.

The statute provides specific direction to the commission on the creation of flammability standards, providing parameters on what the commission should be focusing on. For example, the statute mentions flammability standards including conditions and manner of testing. It also notes that each standard must be necessary to adequately protect the public against risk of fire that could lead to death, injury, or property damage. These instructions classify the statute as a specific authority delegation.

15 U.S. Code § 1193(a) states that the Commission “shall institute proceedings for the determination of an appropriate flammability standard…or other regulation…”. This explicitly mandates the creation of regulations related to flammability standards under certain conditions, thereby establishing a directly mandated relationship. 16 CFR Part 1616, which is a standard for the flammability of children’s sleepwear, fits the description of implementing the statutory mandate.

The statute provides a specific regulatory task, which is setting flammability standards and regulations to protect the public from unreasonable risk of fire. While terms like “appropriate” and “unreasonable risk” are open-ended, they still guide the agency in achieving a specific objective defined by Congress, which puts it within the realm of specific authority delegations according to Hickman’s framework.

15 U.S. Code § 1193(a) states that the Commission “shall institute proceedings for the determination of an appropriate flammability standard… or other regulation” if it finds that such a standard or regulation “may be needed to protect the public against unreasonable risk.” This directly mandates rulemaking under certain conditions, making the statute-regulation relationship directly mandated. The regulation provided implements the mandate by providing specific flammability standards for carpets and rugs.

15 U.S.C. § 1191 provides definitions for terms used in the Flammable Fabrics Act. While this is essential for understanding the scope of the Act, it doesn’t specifically instruct the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on a specific regulatory task concerning civil penalties. Instead, the broad rulemaking authority provided elsewhere in the Flammable Fabrics Act and referenced in the CFR, in conjunction with these definitions, grants the CPSC general authority to create regulations regarding enforcement of the act and the determination of civil penalties.

The regulation, 16 CFR Part 1119, explicitly lists 15 U.S.C. 1191 as one of its authorities. This means the regulation is directly mandated by the statute, as the statute authorizes the agency to take action related to civil penalties.

While Section 1192 itself doesn’t delegate authority, it references section 1193. Regulations under section 1193 directly inform the prohibitions in section 1192. The statute identifies the specific regulatory task of setting standards for fabrics and related materials (per section 1193), and section 1192 builds its prohibitions on those regulations.

15 U.S.C. § 1192 prohibits certain transactions involving nonconforming products, fabrics, or related materials “which fails to conform to an applicable standard or regulation issued or amended under the provisions of section 1193 of this title.” Section 1193 authorizes the agency (now the Consumer Product Safety Commission, formerly FTC, etc.) to issue these standards. Thus, the regulations are authorized by the statute. However, the statute does not mandate that the agency issue regulations, only that if regulations are issued, then certain actions are prohibited.

The statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1192, directly addresses specific conduct (prohibited transactions). While it doesn’t mandate specific civil penalties, it empowers the agency to enforce the prohibitions, and the regulations (16 CFR Part 1119) help provide clarity on the agency’s enforcement actions in assessing penalties when the statue is violated. Therefore it directs agency action in the regulatory task of enforcement.

15 U.S.C. § 1192 prohibits specific transactions involving non-conforming products, fabrics, or related materials. 16 CFR Part 1119, titled “Civil Penalty Factors,” provides the factors considered when determining civil penalties for violations under various statutes, including 15 U.S.C. § 1192. The statute does not explicitly mandate the regulation but authorizes the agency (Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, through transfer of functions) to establish civil penalty guidelines for violations of the statute. The authority section of the regulation lists 15 U.S.C. § 1192, indicating the regulation is authorized by the statute.

The statute, specifically 15 U.S. Code § 1193, instructs the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on how to create regulations for flammability standards, or other regulation, including labeling, for a fabric, related material, or product. It provides specific direction regarding factors the CPSC must consider when creating these regulations, including protecting the public against unreasonable risk, ensuring the regulation is reasonable, and limits the regulation to those products determined to present unreasonable risks.

15 U.S. Code § 1193(c) states “The Commission may obtain from any person by regulation or subpena issued pursuant thereto such information in the form of testimony, books, records, or other writings as is pertinent to the findings or determinations which it is required or authorized to make pursuant to this chapter.” This is a direct mandate as the statute requires the CPSC to issue regulations pertaining to the disclosure or production of information.

This statute instructs the agency to institute proceedings for determining flammability standards and other regulations, including conditions and manners of testing. While it uses terms like “appropriate”, which might seem broad, it provides specific directions related to fabrics, related materials, and products, and focuses on the regulatory task of managing flammability risks, which explicitly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

15 U.S.C. § 1193(d) is explicitly cited as the authority for 16 CFR Part 1052. This indicates a direct mandate relationship, where the statute specifically requires or enables the agency to create regulations on a particular subject.

While the statute instructs the Director to make rules, it does not specify particular regulatory tasks or gaps to address. The phrase “conduct of proceedings” is broad and doesn’t provide specific guidance, fitting the definition of a general authority delegation.

The statute explicitly directs the Director to “make rules and regulations… for the conduct of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office under this chapter.” This represents a direct mandate.

The statute identifies a specific regulatory task: defining “such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe” to record names, residences, locality of goods manufactured, and certificates of registration of trademarks to aid customs officers in enforcing the import prohibition.

The statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1124, explicitly authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations to aid customs officers in enforcing the prohibition of importing merchandise with infringing marks or names. Therefore, the statute directly mandates the regulation.

The statute specifically addresses false designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution, providing clear instructions regarding prohibited actions and remedies. This aligns with “clearly instructs an agency on a specific regulatory task” within Hickman’s Specific Authority Delegation.

15 U.S.C. 1125 is explicitly listed as an authority for 19 CFR Part 133. This signifies a direct mandate.

While 15 U.S.C. § 1127 is a definition section, the CBP regulation references to 15 U.S.C. 1124, 1125 which gives explicit instructions to Customs and Border Protection to create regulations around trademark and copyright infringement, making it a Specific Authority Delegation

15 U.S.C. 1127 is explicitly listed in the “Authority” section of 19 CFR Part 133, indicating a direct mandate.

While 15 U.S.C. 1191 itself is a definitional section, the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1191-1204), as a whole, provides a broader basis of rulemaking authority related to flammable fabrics. Because 16 CFR Part 1015 governs procedures for the disclosure of information, it is related to a general function of government agencies and does not fall under any specific requirement of the Flammable Fabrics Act. Therefore it is best characterized as a General Authority delegation.

The regulation (16 CFR Part 1015) explicitly cites 15 U.S.C. 1191-1204 as one of its authorities. This indicates that the statute authorizes the regulation, but does not explicitly mandate the creation of regulations specifically related to freedom of information.

The statute specifically instructs the Director to establish fees for particular services and materials furnished by the Patent and Trademark Office. Although the terms are open-ended, like “all other services,” the overall delegation centers around a defined regulatory task of establishing fees, and adjusting them according to CPI.

The statute explicitly mandates that the Director shall establish fees for specific services related to trademarks, making the regulation directly mandated.

The statute delegates broad rulemaking authority to the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to create rules and regulations for the conduct of proceedings. While it specifies the area of rulemaking (proceedings), it does not identify specific regulatory tasks or gaps that the agency must address. It provides a general authority over the conduct of proceedings.

The statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1123, explicitly states “The Director shall make rules and regulations…for the conduct of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office under this chapter.” This is a direct mandate to create rules and regulations.

The statute provides broad rulemaking authority to the Director for the conduct of proceedings within the PTO, without identifying specific regulatory tasks or gaps to be addressed beyond not being inconsistent with the law.

The statute states “The Director shall make rules and regulations…”. This is a direct mandate.

The statute provides broad rulemaking authority for the Director to manage the conduct of proceedings. While it relates to a specific area (proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office), it doesn’t identify specific regulatory tasks or gaps that need to be addressed. The scope is broadly defined as “conduct of proceedings,” making it a general grant of authority.

The statute explicitly states “The Director shall make rules and regulations… for the conduct of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office under this chapter,” directly mandating rulemaking.

While the statute identifies the general area for rulemaking (“conduct of proceedings”), it doesn’t specify any particular regulatory tasks or gaps that the Director must address. It grants broad authority to make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the law, to govern the proceedings. This aligns with the definition of General Authority.

The statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1123, explicitly directs the Director to “make rules and regulations… for the conduct of proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office under this chapter.” This is a direct mandate.

While the statute lays out the grounds for cancellation, the proviso explicitly instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may apply to cancel marks on specific grounds laid out in the statute, making it a specific authority delegation as it directs an agency on a regulatory task.

15 U.S. Code § 1064 explicitly grants the Federal Trade Commission the authority to apply to cancel marks under specific paragraphs of the section. This direct authorization indicates that regulations regarding the cancellation process are directly mandated by the statute. Further, several rules (2.111-2.115) in 37 CFR Part 2 explicitly cite 15 U.S.C. 1064 as authority.

The statute specifically grants the Director the authority to declare an interference in trademark registration, outlining the specific circumstances under which this action is permissible. The statute does not just grant broad rulemaking power but identifies a particular regulatory task.

15 U.S. Code § 1066 specifically authorizes the Director to declare an interference under certain conditions. Therefore, the statute directly mandates the regulation.

The statute clearly instructs the Director on the specific regulatory task of giving notice and directing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to determine and decide the respective rights of registration in particular trademark-related cases. This aligns with the “Specific Authority” delegation category as it instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

15 U.S. Code § 1067(a) directly mandates the Director to give notice and direct the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to determine respective registration rights in cases of interference, opposition, concurrent use application, or cancellation application.

The statute provides clear instructions to the Director regarding the process for handling petitions for cancellation and requires referral to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The statute mandates specific actions related to supplemental register marks.

15 U.S.C. § 1092 explicitly assigns responsibilities to the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, regarding the publication, examination, and potential cancellation of marks on the supplemental register. These procedures are implemented and detailed in 37 CFR Part 2.

The statute explicitly identifies a specific regulatory task: establishing a classification of goods and services for trademark registration and also permitting by regulation the filing of applications for goods/services falling within multiple classes. Even though the term “may establish” grants discretion, the task is clearly defined, indicating a specific delegation.

The statute (15 U.S.C. § 1112) explicitly states that the Director “may establish a classification of goods and services” and provides a contingency for regulations regarding applications covering multiple classes. This directly mandates and authorizes the creation of regulations pertaining to the classification of goods and services for trademark registration.

The statute provides clear instructions on the specific regulatory task: prescribing the form and requirements for trademark applications, specifying what information must be included, and setting guidelines for ‘good cause’ to extend deadlines. While terms like “such form as may be prescribed by the Director” and “as may be required by the Director” are open-ended, they fall within the acceptable usage as identified by Kristin Hickman.

The statute directly mandates the Director to prescribe the form of the application and the rules and regulations for trademark registration. This creates a directly mandated relationship.