Database Search Results

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to conduct surveys on particular issues (gender-based assault, harassment, etc.) and even identifies specific elements to be included in the survey. While there’s some flexibility granted with the phrase “any other issues”¦ the Secretary considers appropriate,” the core task is clearly defined, making it a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute mandates surveys on gender issues within the DoD, and 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. While the survey might eventually lead to acquisitions (e.g., for training or resources to address identified issues), the regulation does not directly implement or authorize the survey itself, nor does the statute directly mandate the regulation. The relationship is therefore related, but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

While the statute mandates reporting, it also allows the Secretary of Defense to determine “other information as determined necessary or appropriate.” This clause grants some discretion, fitting the “appropriate,” “reasonable,” or “necessary” language characteristic of Specific Authority Delegations, tied to the explicit task of what needs to be reported to congress

The statute concerns readiness reports and briefings. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. While readiness may be related to acquisition (e.g., acquiring necessary equipment and personnel), the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize acquisition planning.

While not directly tied to rulemaking, 10 U.S.C. § 483 specifically instructs the Secretary concerned on a specific regulatory task: notification and reporting requirements related to military basing decisions. It outlines the “who, what, when, and how” of the notification process. While there is leeway in how the Secretary analyzes certain factors (like community support), the statute provides a detailed framework of what must be done. Even using open-ended terms like “appropriate,” these are tied to very specific requirements.

10 U.S.C. § 483 relates to notifications and reporting on military installation basing decisions. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning generally. While the location/relocation of military units may lead to acquisitions governed by 48 CFR Part 7, the statute neither directly mandates nor explicitly authorizes the regulation. The acquisition planning regulation exists independently but would likely be relevant if a basing decision involves procurement.

The statute specifically instructs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Commander of United States Cyber Command, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide quarterly briefings on specific aspects of cyber operations to the congressional defense committees. It details the elements to be included in those briefings. This fits Hickman’s definition of specific authority delegation.

10 U.S. Code § 484 mandates briefings on cyber operations. While 48 CFR Part 7, which concerns acquisition planning, is related to Department of Defense operations and activities, including potentially cybersecurity, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The authority cited in the regulation (40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 U.S.C. 20113) provides general rulemaking authority for acquisition but not specific direction related to these briefings.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to provide briefings and outlines the elements that the briefings should include. This is a specific regulatory task assigned to the agency by Congress.

The statute mandates briefings on counterterrorism operations, while the regulation concerns acquisition planning. Although both relate to the Department of Defense, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the acquisition regulations. They are related in that they are both part of the functioning of the Department of Defense.

While 10 U.S.C. § 4655 does not directly mandate the loan or sale of property, it does relate to the management and potential disposal of property resulting from contracts. This provides a connection, albeit a loose one, sufficient to categorize this as a Specific Authority Delegation. The phrase ‘appropriate’ could be interpreted as providing the agency some flexibility, but within a specific scope of managing restrictions related to subcontracting and sales, which is a component of property management.

10 U.S.C. § 4655 is cited as authority for 32 CFR Part 621. However, 10 U.S.C. § 4655 concerns restrictions on subcontractor sales to the US government, while 32 CFR Part 621 concerns the loan and sale of property and donations for scouting. While tangentially related because both concern DoD property, the regulation isn’t directly mandated or explicitly authorized by the statute.

10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Chapter 137 (legacy provisions cited in the CFR’s authority section) broadly concern the organization, powers, and functions of the armed forces and defense acquisition. These chapters, particularly the legacy provisions relating to acquisition (now found in 10 U.S.C. 3016), give the Department of Defense broad authority to manage its procurement activities. This authority is not tied to a specific regulatory task identified in the provided statute (10 U.S.C. 467) but rather to the overall function of military acquisition.

10 U.S.C. § 467 defines terms related to geospatial intelligence and imagery. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. While acquisition planning may involve the procurement of geospatial intelligence or imagery-related services or technologies, the definitional statute itself does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the acquisition regulations. It simply provides definitions that might be relevant to acquisitions.

While the statute itself doesn’t explicitly delegate authority for rulemaking regarding acquisition planning in general, it does give clear instructions to the Secretary of Defense, with the instruction to submit reports electronically.

The statute concerns the format of reports to Congress, and the regulation concerns acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. There is no direct connection between acquisition planning and the format of reports to Congress.

10 U.S.C. § 4801 provides definitions. While the Secretary of Commerce is given authority to “determine” whether a company is an “eligible firm” based on certain criteria, this is a definitional task related to eligibility for programs or policies under Title 10. It doesn’t delineate a specific regulatory task or gap requiring rulemaking in the way a “Specific Authority Delegation” would. The Secretary of Commerce’s role here is more about applying the statutory definition in particular cases, not issuing regulations related to eligible firms.

10 U.S.C. § 4801 defines terms, including “national technology and industrial base,” “dual-use,” and “eligible firm.” While 32 CFR Part 536, “Claims Against the United States,” cites 10 U.S.C. § 4801 in its authority section, the statute defines terms, and the regulation concerns the processing of claims against the United States Army. The statute provides definitions used in other sections of Title 10, which may trigger claims, but the definition statute is not directly mandating the regulation, nor does it explicitly authorize it. Therefore, the relationship is related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense on a specific regulatory task: to carry out four specific surveys to identify and assess racial, ethnic, and gender issues. While the Secretary has some discretion in the how of conducting the surveys, the what and why are very specifically laid out.

While 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 (referenced in the CFR’s authority) broadly concern the organization and functions of the Department of Defense, including procurement, the connection to surveys on racial/ethnic and gender issues is not a direct mandate or explicitly authorized. The CFR part deals with general acquisition planning, and the statute mandates specific surveys; while related to DoD’s general functions, there isn’t a clear line of direct authorization.

The statute provides specific instructions on what the regulations must address: the conditions under which geomatics products, authorized to be withheld under subsection (b), would be appropriate for release to allies and qualified U.S. contractors. This level of specificity, outlining the precise scope and purpose of the regulations, qualifies it as a specific authority delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 455(c)(1) directly mandates the publication of regulations in the Federal Register to implement the section. Furthermore, 10 U.S.C. § 455(c)(2) mandates that the regulations shall address the conditions under which release of geomatics products authorized under subsection (b) to be withheld from public disclosure would be appropriate in the case of allies of the United States and in the case of qualified United States contractors.

The statute directly addresses a specific issue””liability for geospatial information””and it specifically directs an agency (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) to be free from civil suits related to this information. This is a direction to the agency regarding its role and freedom from liability concerning its disseminated information. It fits the description of a specific regulatory task even if using open-ended terms such as “appropriate,” “reasonable,” or “necessary.”

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 456) provides immunity from civil actions based on the content of geospatial information. The regulation (48 CFR Part 7) concerns acquisition planning. While both relate to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency insofar as the agency may acquire geospatial information or plan its acquisition, the statute does not directly mandate the regulation, nor is the regulation explicitly authorized by the statute. The connection is tangential.

The statute, 10 U.S. Code § 457, specifically grants the Secretary of Defense the authority to withhold certain operational files from public disclosure. This is a clear instruction on a specific regulatory task – deciding what information will be publicly available. Even though the statute uses “may,” which can be construed as open-ended, it still defines a particular regulatory action (withholding information) and provides the criteria for exercising that action (operational files described in subsection (b) to the same extent as section 701 of the National Security Act).

The statute grants the Secretary of Defense the authority to withhold certain operational files from public disclosure. While it relates to information management and potentially affects acquisition planning by influencing what data is accessible for planning purposes, it doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize 48 CFR Part 7, which concerns acquisition planning. The statute addresses information disclosure, whereas the regulation addresses how the government plans its procurement activities.

10 U.S. Code § 461 specifically instructs the Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency on how to manage labor relations. It sets specific limits on consultation/negotiation with labor unions, recognition of bargaining units, and termination of bargaining unit coverage for positions affecting national security. It directly addresses a specific area of management rights and provides clear, albeit sometimes open-ended, instructions (“directly affects the national security”).

10 U.S. Code § 461 concerns the management rights of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, specifically concerning labor organization consultation and bargaining units. While 48 CFR Part 7, titled “Acquisition Planning,” regulates the acquisition process, it does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the content of 10 U.S. Code § 461. However, the regulation does refer to 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137. These chapters relate to defense procurement and acquisition. Given that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency likely contracts for goods and services, there is a related, though not direct, connection between the statute and the regulation.

The statute gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to establish a specific type of program (undergraduate training) for a specific purpose (financial assistance in critical skill acquisition) and provides guidance, referencing a similar program at the NSA. While there’s some discretion in the details, it is NOT a broad, open-ended grant of authority.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 462) grants the Secretary of Defense the discretionary authority (“may establish”) to establish an undergraduate training program. It does not mandate the establishment of such a program. The regulation (48 CFR Part 7) concerns acquisition planning, which could relate to the implementation of such a training program if the Secretary chooses to establish one and if that program requires the acquisition of goods or services. However, the statute doesn’t explicitly require acquisition planning through regulation; it merely authorizes the program. Therefore, the relationship is authorized but not mandated.

The statute contains specific instructions concerning what the regulations must address, including minimizing contracts based on hours provided, establishing evaluation criteria, and ensuring emphasis on technical factors. It outlines the areas in which the Secretary must regulate.

10 U.S.C. § 4507 explicitly directs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations regarding the procurement of professional and technical services, dictating both the general aim (acquisition based on task rather than hours) and specific requirements for the content of those regulations. This constitutes a direct mandate. 32 CFR Part 621, however, deals with the loan and sale of property and has no direct relationship to 10 U.S.C. § 4507 which concerns the procurement of services.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense regarding the creation, publishing, and furnishing of nautical and aeronautical charts, topographic and geomatics maps, books, models, and datasets required in navigation. It also provides specific instructions regarding the acquisition of rights necessary to do so. This level of detail indicates a specific authority delegation.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to have the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency prepare and furnish materials, and to acquire necessary rights. It does not mandate these actions, using “may” instead of “shall.” This aligns with the “authorized but not mandated” classification. The regulation covers acquisition planning which could be used to implement the statute.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Commerce to furnish meteorological information and enables the NGA, under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, to prepare pilot charts. This is a clear instruction on a specific regulatory task, making it a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute authorizes the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to prepare pilot charts under the authority of the Secretary of Defense and mandates the Secretary of Commerce to provide meteorological information to NGA for that purpose. The regulation pertains to acquisition planning generally. While the statute does not explicitly mandate specific regulations about acquisition planning for pilot charts, it authorizes the creation of these charts and involves inter-agency collaboration. Thus, regulations regarding acquisition planning are authorized (since the NGA requires resources to create the pilot charts), but not directly mandated by this specific statute.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to create regulations regarding the pricing of publications offered for sale by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. While the terms “prices” and “regulations” are somewhat open-ended, the statute clearly identifies a specific regulatory task, which falls under Kristin Hickman’s definition of Specific Authority Delegations.

10 U.S. Code § 453(a) directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations related to the prices of maps, charts, and other publications sold by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Therefore, the statute directly mandates the regulation.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to authorize the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to perform the specific task of exchanging or furnishing mapping, charting, and geomatics data, supplies, and services under specific circumstances (with foreign entities, NGOs, and academic institutions under agreements). Although the statute uses the word “may,” it’s still outlining a defined regulatory task.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to authorize the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to exchange data. It does not mandate the Secretary to do so, but permits it.

The statute provides clear direction to the NGA regarding its mission, including providing geospatial intelligence, navigation information, and maps. While it doesn’t explicitly mention “acquisition planning,” the statute implies that the agency needs to acquire the resources and develop plans to fulfill these specific, mandated tasks. Therefore, the authorization for acquisition planning falls under Specific Authority, especially considering the references to chapters 4 and 137 of Title 10, which are specific to the armed forces and its acquisition activities.

The statute authorizes the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to perform certain missions and activities, but doesn’t mandate the specifics of acquisition planning. While the statute outlines the agency’s responsibilities, it does not explicitly mandate the development or content of acquisition plans for carrying out those responsibilities. The regulation fills this need.

The statute specifically instructs the agency (the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) on a very precise regulatory task: providing imagery intelligence and geospatial information support to foreign countries, regional organizations, and security alliances. It also outlines the conditions under which the agency can use appropriated and other funds for this purpose.

10 U.S.C. § 443 authorizes the Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to use appropriated and other funds to provide imagery intelligence and geospatial information support to foreign countries, regional organizations, and security alliances. While it grants the Director this authority, it does not mandate the Director to exercise it.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 444, specifically instructs the Director of the CIA regarding the regulatory task of providing support to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. This includes detailing the types of support (administrative, contract, personnel), the method of funding (reimbursable/non-reimbursable, transfer of funds), and even linking the security police services to the CIA Act of 1949. Although open-ended terms are not explicitly used, the statute carefully delimits the authorized activities.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 444) authorizes the CIA Director to provide support to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, including administrative, contract, and personnel services. It also allows for the transfer of funds between the agencies. While the regulation (48 CFR Part 7) concerns acquisition planning, which could indirectly involve contract services, it does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the type of inter-agency support detailed in the statute. The statute provides the authority to transfer the funds and to complete the task, while the regulation provides guidance on how to manage acquisitions more generally. Thus, they are related in the sense of government operations and contracting, but not directly mandated or explicitly authorized by each other.

While the regulation cites 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137 as authority, these are broad chapters covering defense acquisition. They provide a general framework for procurement but don’t delineate specific regulatory tasks related to acquisition planning as defined in 48 CFR Part 7. Therefore the link is to General Authority.

10 U.S.C. § 445, related to the protection of agency identifications and organizational information, and 48 CFR Part 7, concerning acquisition planning, are related in the sense that both concern government operations. However, § 445 does not explicitly mandate or directly authorize the specific regulations found in Part 7. The regulations for acquisition planning are broader than the specific topic of protecting agency identifications.

The statute provides broad directives, such as ensuring “appropriate and sufficiently detailed data are collected and analyzed” and “requirements for services contracts are evaluated appropriately and in a timely manner.” These directives, while specific to service contracts, grant the Secretary of Defense considerable latitude in determining how to achieve these goals, going beyond a specific regulatory task. Therefore, despite some specific elements, it is a more general delegation of authority.

10 U.S.C. § 4506 is explicitly listed as an authority for 32 CFR Part 621. However, the statute addresses procurement of services, while the regulation concerns the loan and sale of property, indicating the regulation is authorized by, but not directly mandated by, the statute. The statute’s focus on improving the DoD’s processes for acquiring services can be interpreted to extend, in an authorized way, to the efficient management of government property.