Database Search Results

While the statute identifies a specific area (vouchers for R&D contracts), the authorization to “prescribe by regulation the extent of itemization, substantiation, or certification” is broad. It does not instruct the agency on specific rules or requirements, only allows them to set the level of detail required in vouchers. Therefore, it is best classified as a general authority delegation.

The statute (10 U.S. Code § 2355) authorized the Secretary of each military department to prescribe regulations regarding itemization, substantiation, or certification of vouchers for research and development contracts. The regulation (48 CFR Part 4) provides administrative and information matters related to government contracting, and while it does not specifically deal with research and development contracts, it broadly governs administrative aspects of contracts, meaning it falls under authorized but not mandated.

The cited statutes (10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137, 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 51 U.S.C. 20113) grant broad authority related to procurement and contracting without explicitly defining specific regulatory tasks for each subpart within 48 CFR Part 4. The regulation covers various administrative and information matters related to contracting, indicative of general authority.

10 U.S.C. § 2356 related to delegations of authority under sections 1584, 2353, 2354, and 2355 of Title 10, but it was repealed. 48 CFR Part 4 cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 (legacy provisions, see 10 U.S.C. 3016) as authority. While the specific section 2356 is no longer valid, the chapters provide authorization for regulations concerning administrative and information matters in contracting. This implies authorization but not a direct mandate linked to the specific repealed section.

The statute, as cited in the regulation’s authority, grants broad rulemaking authority related to government procurement, but it doesn’t provide specific regulatory tasks. Chapters 4 and 137 of Title 10 encompass a wide array of procurement-related matters, suggesting a general delegation of authority rather than a specific one.

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 (legacy provisions, see 10 U.S.C. 3016) are listed in the regulation’s authority. The regulation is therefore authorized by the statute, but the statute does not directly mandate the specific content of the regulation.

While 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137 likely contain provisions related to procurement, the citation of broad chapters indicates a general delegation of rulemaking authority across the entire field of administrative and information matters related to government contracts, as reflected in the scope of 48 CFR Part 4. The reference to “legacy provisions” even further reinforces this by noting that the agency is able to implement and create rules in relation to these legacy provisions.

10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Chapter 137 are listed as authorities for 48 CFR Part 4. While the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate every single regulation within Part 4, it authorizes the agency (likely the Department of Defense and potentially others related to federal acquisition) to create regulations pertaining to acquisition.

While 10 U.S.C. Chapters 4 and 137 (legacy provisions) relate to general procurement authority within the Department of Defense, and 10 U.S.C. 3016 pertains to the authority of the Secretary of Defense, they do not specify particular regulatory tasks the agency must undertake. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 4, covers a broad range of administrative and informational matters related to government contracts. This suggests a general grant of authority to make regulations regarding the conduct of procurement and contract administration, rather than specific regulatory mandates.

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016) are listed as authorities for 48 CFR Part 4. This indicates that the statute authorizes the regulation but does not explicitly mandate it. The regulation implements and supplements the statutory framework for defense procurement, suggesting an authorized relationship.

The statute provides the Secretary of Defense specific authority to enter into agreements for reciprocal patient movement, define partner countries (within constraints), certify standards of care, and report to Congress. It is very specific as to the actions the Secretary can take, the standards they must follow, and the reporting they are required to undertake. Although terms such as “agreed-upon standards” and “level of care comparable to, or better than” invite some discretion, these are not broad-ranging authorizations. These fall under specific authority, not general authority because the regulatory task is identified in the statute.

10 U.S. Code § 2350p authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into agreements regarding patient movement. While it authorizes this action, it does not mandate any specific regulations. The regulations in 48 CFR Part 4 concern general administrative matters related to contracting. While section 2350p involves potential agreements with foreign countries that could fall under contracting activities, it doesn’t specifically mandate or directly relate to the creation of any of the specific administrative matters covered in 48 CFR Part 4.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense on the specific regulatory task of executing projects under the NATO Security Investment Program when the US is designated as the host nation. It dictates how projects may be funded, how contributions may be accepted, and addresses situations with insufficient contributions.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to execute projects under the NATO Security Investment Program, but it does not mandate that they do so. The use of “may” indicates permissive, not obligatory, authority.

The statute provides a clear directive to the Secretary of Defense: to provide funds for the NATO Special Operations Headquarters for very specific purposes. Even though terms like “improve,” “facilitate,” and “promote” are used, the statute is telling the agency to complete a specific regulatory task.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to use funds for specific purposes related to NATO special operations, but it doesn’t mandate the creation of regulations. The authorization implies the potential for regulatory implementation to manage and distribute these funds, but the statute itself does not require it.

The statute (specifically 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137) provides broad rulemaking authority related to the Department of Defense and acquisition without identifying specific regulatory tasks.

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016) are listed as authority for 48 CFR Part 4. While the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate the specific regulations, it authorizes the agency to create regulations related to the subject matter of those chapters.

While the statute (prior to repeal) related to a specific agency’s strategic plan, the broader chapters cited in the regulation’s authority section grant general rulemaking authority related to defense procurement and research. Therefore, it falls under the “General Authority” delegation.

10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 137 provide broad authority for the Department of Defense to manage procurement and research activities. While 10 U.S.C. § 2352 (prior to repeal) specifically addressed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s strategic plan, its presence authorized regulation, the repeal does not negate the broader authority. It is authorized, but not directly mandated.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to accept contributions for relocation expenses and identifies permissible uses for the contributions and acceptable forms of contribution. This constitutes a clear instruction on a specific regulatory task.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to accept and use contributions, but doesn’t mandate specific regulations. While it does lay out parameters, the “may” language is permissive.

The statute provides specific instructions regarding the reciprocal agreements for testing defense equipment, including details on cost determination and delegation of authority for indirect costs. It gives the agency a specific task to accomplish.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into agreements regarding the reciprocal use of test facilities. It doesn’t directly mandate that they do so, but provides the authority to do so.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense on the regulatory task of participating in the Surface Exchange of Services program. It delineates the scope of participation, agreement requirements, implementation, crediting of receipts, and annual reporting.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to participate in the SEOS program. It doesn’t mandate participation, but permits it. The statute directly addresses this authority to the agency, establishing a clear relationship.

The statute provides a clear directive to the Secretary of Defense: “shall authorize the establishment of, and the participation by members of the armed forces in, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Joint Force Command.” This is a specific regulatory task assigned to the Secretary, thus a Specific Authority Delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 2350n authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish and support the NATO Joint Force Command. While it doesn’t directly mandate any specific regulation in 48 CFR Part 4, and doesn’t explicitly authorize it, the statute’s authorization for DoD to use facilities, equipment, and funds may relate to the administrative and informational matters covered in 48 CFR Part 4, particularly regarding contract execution, distribution, and reporting, as the establishment and support of the command will likely involve contracts and administrative processes.

The statute specifically identifies the regulatory task – participation in air refueling and air transportation services programs, even mentioning the “ATARES program.” It outlines the scope of participation, allowable activities (reciprocal exchange, in-kind replacement, exchange of equal value) and sets clear limitations on the total executed flight hours.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2350o, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to participate in air refueling and air transportation services programs, but it doesn’t mandate that they do so. The use of “may authorize” indicates permissive authority.

The statute specifically allows the Secretary of Defense to enter into arrangements with allied countries and international organizations for the procurement of communications support and related services. The statute outlines specific requirements for such arrangements, including approval from the Secretary of State, liquidation of credits/liabilities, and definitions of key terms. While it grants discretion in choosing which countries or organizations to partner with beyond the specified NATO, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Republic of Korea members, it does so under a clear framework and objective.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2350f, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into arrangements for communications support, but does not mandate specific regulations. 48 CFR Part 4 includes regulations related to administrative and information matters in contracting, which are necessary to implement the authority granted in 10 U.S.C. § 2350f, but it’s not directly mandated.

The statute provides the Secretary of Defense with the authority to accept resources from foreign countries under specific conditions (mutual defense agreements or occupational arrangements) for the support of armed forces in that country. This is a defined regulatory task related to international cooperation and support of military elements and a clearly identified regulatory gap. The authorization to use the accepted property, services, and supplies without further authorization (unless in violation of another program/project limitation), shows specific instructions. Even with terms like “mutual defense agreement” and “occupational arrangement”, the statute defines a specific gap and provides the Secretary the ability to use discretion in accepting items, with provided limitations, under such arrangements.

10 U.S.C. § 2350g authorizes the Secretary of Defense to accept property, services, and supplies from foreign countries. While the statute provides the authority to accept these resources, it does not mandate the creation of specific regulations regarding how the Secretary must do so beyond stating the property can be used without specific authorization unless it violates another prohibition. The regulations under 48 CFR Part 4 broadly cover administrative and information matters related to government contracts. Although they touch upon contract execution, reporting, and other administrative aspects, these regulations are authorized under general authorities related to procurement and management and aren’t directly mandated by 10 U.S.C. § 2350g. The statute does not necessitate specific regulation to operationalize the acceptance authority.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to designate an ombudsman, defining the role and the beneficiaries of that role (foreign governments). Although it doesn’t dictate how the ombudsman should be chosen or how they should operate in detail, the statute identifies a precise regulatory task/gap: providing assistance to foreign governments in understanding DoD procedures. This is more than general rulemaking authority; it’s a clear directive with a defined purpose.

The statute directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to designate an official as an ombudsman. The regulation in 48 CFR Part 4, while covering administrative and information matters relating to contracting, including those that potentially involve foreign governments, is directly mandated by the broader authority provided in 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 137. While 2350h specifically concerns the designation and role of an ombudsman, the regulations provide the framework for acquisition matters to which the ombudsman will assist foreign governments.

The statute specifically directs the Secretary of Defense regarding the crediting and use of foreign contributions for cooperative projects, outlining the types of payments for which the credited amounts are available. While the Secretary has discretion in determining the “appropriate military department,” this discretion is within the context of the specifically defined cooperative project and use of funds.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to credit contributions from foreign countries or NATO for cooperative projects, but it doesn’t mandate that the Secretary create specific regulations on HOW to credit them. The statute provides the authority to manage funds in a certain way.

While the statute provides broad authority to the Secretary of Defense to accept and expend contributions, it outlines specific regulatory tasks. These include designating countries/organizations, establishing accounts, defining permissible uses for the funds, providing notice to Congress regarding construction projects, and reporting on contributions received. The statute goes beyond simply granting general rulemaking authority; it details particular regulatory actions expected of the agency.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to accept contributions, but it does not mandate that the agency create or follow 48 CFR Part 4. The regulation, specifically the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), contains administrative rules for government contracting. While the statute enables the Secretary of Defense to engage in activities that would involve contracts, it does not explicitly require the agency to adhere to this specific regulation.

The statute specifically directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct cooperative research and development projects on defense equipment and munitions with certain countries and organizations. It also outlines specific criteria, limitations, and reporting requirements related to these projects. The statute’s use of terms like “equitable basis” provides the agency discretion, but in the context of a clear and specific task.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into agreements for cooperative R&D projects, but it doesn’t mandate that they do so. The statute grants the authority to create regulations, but not the mandate.

The statute specifically delegates authority to the Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts, require subcontracts to be awarded to particular subcontractors, waive certain provisions of law, agree to contracts made by project participants, and agree to the disposal of jointly acquired property, all within the defined context of cooperative projects under the Arms Export Control Act. Even though there are open-ended terms like “necessary” to standardization, this falls under the Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to utilize their existing authority under Title 10 when carrying out cooperative projects under the Arms Export Control Act, but it doesn’t directly mandate specific regulations.

The statute provides specific instructions regarding the regulatory task of creating military airlift agreements. It stipulates specific terms that shall be included in the agreements (rate of reimbursement, liquidation of credits/liabilities, limitations on peacetime capacity, and rules on transporting defense articles). Furthermore, Subsection (d)(1)(C) empowers the Secretary of Defense to designate countries as “allied countries” with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into agreements, but it doesn’t mandate the creation of these agreements. The statute states “the Secretary of Defense may enter into cooperative military airlift agreements”.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense on the regulatory task of entering into agreements with NATO countries for cooperative acquisition and logistics support. While it uses permissive language like “may,” it still provides clear direction on the specific area of regulation and even mentions terms like “appropriate” procedures within those agreements.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into agreements with NATO countries for cooperative acquisition and logistics support but does not mandate it. The Secretary “may” enter into such agreements.

The statute explicitly instructs the Secretary of Defense regarding specific actions, such as waiving reimbursements and assuming contingent liabilities related to the AWACS program. It identifies a specific regulatory task and uses language like “may do the following,” giving the Secretary the power to perform the actions listed.

10 U.S.C. § 2350e authorizes the Secretary of Defense to take specific actions related to the AWACS program, but it does not mandate that the Secretary issue regulations to that effect. The statute provides the authority to waive reimbursements, surcharges, and assume liabilities but doesn’t require regulatory implementation.