Database Search Results

The statute clearly instructs the agencies (Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, and Administrator of General Services) on specific regulatory tasks. This includes conducting annual briefings, explaining procedures for obtaining information and equipment, describing available resources, creating lists of equipment, establishing offices, and providing toll-free communication. These are specific regulatory activities that agencies must do, and the statute also uses terms like “appropriate” to determine which offices will maintain equipment lists.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Administrator of General Services to undertake specific actions, such as conducting briefings and establishing offices. While the statute mandates these actions, the specific details of how these actions are to be carried out are not fully prescribed, suggesting the possibility of regulations to implement the statute’s goals. Therefore, it is “authorized but not mandated,” as regulations would provide specifics within the broad framework created by the statute.

The statute specifically identifies child care services as an authorized purpose of contract (subsection b(1)). This aligns with Specific Authority Delegations, where the statute clearly instructs the agency (Secretary concerned) on a specific regulatory task, in this case, contracts relating to child care facilities.

10 U.S. Code § 2809 explicitly authorizes the Secretary concerned to enter into contracts for specific activities and services, including child care services. 32 CFR Part 79 establishes regulations for Child Development Programs (CDPs), indicating an authorized, but not mandated, relationship, as the statute permits contracting for these services, and the regulation details how those child care services must then be structured.

The statute directs the agency to establish a specific program for the procurement of equipment by state and local governments, detailing the procedures to be followed, including the establishment of a catalog, reimbursement of administrative costs, and definitions of key terms. The statute clearly instructs on a specific regulatory task.

10 U.S.C. § 281 directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for state and local governments to purchase equipment through the Department of Defense. The statute explicitly states “The Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures…” This clear directive signifies a direct mandate.

The statute specifically lists “Child care centers” as one of the types of facilities that the Secretary concerned may lease-purchase. This provides a specific regulatory task and a defined subject matter for regulation related to those child care centers, even if the statute does not detail the exact nature of the CDP regulations. It directs the agency toward a specific, defined area of regulation.

10 U.S.C. § 2812 authorizes the Secretary concerned to enter into lease agreements for specific types of facilities, including child care centers. 32 CFR Part 79 regulates Child Development Programs (CDPs), and the authority citation for this regulation explicitly includes 10 U.S.C. § 2812. This indicates that the regulation of CDPs is authorized by the statute, as the statute allows leasing of facilities for child care centers, but the statute does not mandate the specific regulations contained in 32 CFR Part 79.

The statute provides clear instructions on a specific regulatory task: defining the types of assistance and actions permissible for the Department of Defense when assisting the Department of Justice in emergency situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the statute includes explicit restrictions on the agency’s regulatory authority such as prohibiting regulations that authorize arrests or direct involvement in search/seizure of evidence.

Subsection (d)(1) of 10 U.S. Code § 282 directly mandates that “The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General shall jointly prescribe regulations concerning the types of assistance that may be provided under this section. Such regulations shall also describe the actions that Department of Defense personnel may take in circumstances incident to the provision of assistance under this section.”

The statute directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations regarding the designation of beneficiaries and changes to those designations, specifically addressing a regulatory task related to final settlement of accounts. The instruction is quite specific, focusing on how beneficiaries are designated.

10 U.S. Code § 2771(a)(1) and (b) explicitly direct the Secretary concerned to prescribe regulations regarding beneficiary designations and changes. This is a direct mandate to create regulations.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary concerned on a specific regulatory task, which is to prescribe regulations regarding designations and changes of designation of beneficiaries.

10 U.S.C. § 2771(b) explicitly directs the Secretary concerned to prescribe regulations regarding beneficiary designations and changes, making the statute-regulation relationship directly mandated.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary concerned to prescribe regulations regarding the designation and changes of designation of beneficiaries. It is a specific regulatory task identified by the statute.

10 U.S.C. § 2771(b) states that designations and changes of designation of beneficiaries “are subject to regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned.” This is a direct mandate.

While 48 CFR Part 7 cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 as authorities, these are broad references. 10 U.S. Code § 278 does not specifically instruct any agency on a regulatory task, instead focusing on the preservation of pre-existing executive authority. Therefore, the delegation is considered a General Authority delegation.

10 U.S. Code § 278 addresses the use of military personnel and equipment for civilian law enforcement and states that the chapter it is contained within does not limit executive branch authority beyond what existed before December 1, 1981. While 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning, including equipment acquisition, the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate or authorize the regulation. The relationship is related because both concern the use of military equipment, but there is no direct mandate or explicit authorization present in the statute for acquisition planning regulations.

10 U.S.C. § 279 specifically instructs the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to provide for the assignment of Coast Guard personnel to naval vessels in drug-interdiction areas. It mandates a minimum number of personnel and outlines the law enforcement functions they are to perform, indicating a specific regulatory task.

10 U.S.C. § 279 mandates the assignment of Coast Guard personnel to naval vessels for drug interdiction, a law enforcement purpose. 48 CFR Part 7, while concerning acquisition planning, does not specifically address the assignment of Coast Guard personnel or drug interdiction. However, the acquisition of equipment, supplies, or services needed to support the Coast Guard’s presence on naval vessels, or to support drug interdiction efforts generally, could fall under the scope of 48 CFR Part 7. Thus, they are related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

The statute uses the term “may,” indicating permissive authority. It empowers the Secretary of Defense to make personnel available. The statute doesn’t offer explicit instructions on how to manage the acquisition process, therefore it grants broad authority without outlining specific regulatory tasks.

The statute allows the Secretary of Defense to make personnel available for maintenance and operation of equipment for law enforcement. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, generally covers acquisition planning. While the statute concerns making personnel available, which could tangentially relate to equipment acquisition, it neither directly mandates nor explicitly authorizes the specific requirements and procedures outlined in the regulation regarding acquisition planning. 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 137 mentioned in the regulation broadly pertain to defense organization and acquisition, respectively, but don’t specifically authorize regulations about making DOD personnel available.

The statute provides a specific regulatory task, namely, to ensure that activities under the chapter do not include or permit direct participation by military personnel in law enforcement activities unless otherwise authorized by law. The phrase “as may be necessary” falls into the category of “appropriate” and “necessary,” open-ended terms that Hickman states are acceptable under Specific Authority Delegations.

The statute explicitly directs (“shall prescribe such regulations”) the Secretary of Defense to create regulations addressing the direct participation of military personnel in certain activities.

The statute provides a clear regulatory task: ensuring support to civilian law enforcement doesn’t harm military preparedness. While the statute uses the phrase “as may be necessary,” this still falls under the Specific Authority category because it directly relates to a specific problem.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 276, explicitly directs the Secretary of Defense to “prescribe such regulations as may be necessary” to ensure military preparedness is not adversely affected by support provided to civilian law enforcement. This is a direct mandate to issue regulations.

The statute explicitly directs the Secretary of Defense to either require reimbursement or waive it under specific conditions (normal course of military training/operations or equivalent benefit to DoD). Although it doesn’t prescribe the exact details of the regulations, it provides specific parameters and directs the agency on the regulatory task.

10 U.S. Code § 277(a) mandates the Secretary of Defense to require reimbursement, but subsection (c) allows the Secretary to waive this requirement under certain conditions. The statute explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations regarding reimbursement conditions and waivers. This means the regulations in 48 CFR Part 7 related to acquisition planning which encompasses the purchase of supplies, equipment etc. are authorized by the statute, but not directly mandated in detail.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary to create regulations concerning the designations and changes of beneficiary designations. This falls under Specific Authority because it directs the agency on a particular regulatory task, regarding beneficiary designations.

10 U.S.C. § 2771(b) explicitly states that designations and changes of designation of beneficiaries are “subject to regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned,” directly mandating the creation of regulations. 32 CFR Part 281 is published as a final rule which also references 10 U.S.C. 2771 in its authority section.

The statute explicitly instructs the Secretary of Defense on a specific regulatory task: settling claims related to activities of foreign armed forces within the U.S. This qualifies as a specific delegation of authority.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to settle claims arising from international agreements concerning the activities of foreign armed forces in the US. While it grants the authority, it doesn’t explicitly mandate the creation of regulations. The existence of the regulation suggests the authority has been exercised, but the statute doesn’t require it.

While the statute relates to the finality and conclusiveness of settlements, which could inform claim processing procedures, it does not specifically instruct the agency on any specific regulatory tasks. It is part of the broader scheme authorizing the claims process.

10 U.S.C. § 2735 is listed in the authority section of 32 CFR Part 536, indicating that the regulation is authorized by the statute. The statute states that settlements are final and conclusive, but it does not directly mandate the creation of regulations for claim processing procedures or other aspects covered in 32 CFR Part 536.

The statute clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task: establishing regulations for advance payments for injury, death, or property loss claims. It is a “specific authority” delegation because the statue language instructs the agency to prescribe regulations for payments under the circumstance in the statue.

10 U.S. Code § 2736(a)(4) states “Payments under this subsection shall be made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned.” This directly mandates the creation of regulations.

The statute “clearly instructs” the Secretary of Defense (and other relevant Secretaries) on a “specific regulatory task” – the settlement and payment of claims under certain conditions. This falls under a “specific regulatory task or gap” even with open-ended phrasing like “under such regulations.”

The statute explicitly states “Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe…” providing a direct mandate for regulation.

The statute provides specific guidelines and limitations regarding the types of claims that can be settled (damage/loss of property, personal injury/death), the circumstances under which a claim may be allowed/disallowed (negligence, recoverable under other laws), the maximum amount payable ($1,000), and procedural requirements (written claim, time limit). These details indicate a specific regulatory task or gap that the regulations are intended to fill. While using “Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe”, the statute still instructs on a specific regulatory task, consistent with the definition of a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute explicitly states, “Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, he or his designee may settle and pay…” This directly mandates the creation of regulations.

The statute specifically instructs the agency (Secretary concerned/Secretary of Defense) to issue regulations governing the settlement and payment of claims for property loss, personal injury, or death incident to noncombat activities. It identifies a specific regulatory task and scope.

The statute states “Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe…”. This directly mandates the creation of regulations.

While subsection (g)(1) contains broad language regarding implementation, subsection (g)(2) lists specific areas that the regulations must address, including policies and procedures for claim processing, uniform standards consistent with the Federal Tort Claims Act for evaluating claims, and other matters the Secretary considers appropriate. This level of detail, along with the “shall prescribe” language, indicates a specific authority delegation. Also, the statute specifies considerations for the agency to take into account when prescribing uniform standards such as no regard to place of medical malpractice, military department or service, and foreign law. The explicit requirement for the agency to prescribe interim and final rules also supports this categorization.

10 U.S.C. § 2733a(g)(1) states, “The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to implement this section.” This language directly mandates the creation of regulations. 32 CFR Part 45 is directly implementing this statutory mandate.

The statute specifically instructs the agency (Secretary concerned) on a very specific regulatory task: establishing claims commissions to settle certain claims. The authority is well-defined and focused.

10 U.S.C. 2734(a) explicitly authorizes the Secretary to appoint claims commissions “under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe.” This directly mandates the existence of regulations.

The statute specifically identifies a regulatory task, which is the establishment of regulations governing the appointment and operation of claims commissions for settling certain types of claims. The statute defines the scope of the claims, limitations on amounts, and other criteria.

10 U.S.C. § 2734(a) states that “the Secretary concerned, or an officer or employee designated by the Secretary, may appoint, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, one or more claims commissions…”. This authorizes the creation of regulations by the Secretary, but does not mandate it.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security on a specific regulatory task – reimbursing/paying claims related to international agreements concerning non-combat activities of armed forces in foreign countries. It outlines the conditions under which they are authorized to act.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security to reimburse or pay claims under international agreements, but it does not mandate that they do so in every instance. The use of “may” indicates discretion.