Database Search Results

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 and 10 U.S.C. 3016 authorize rulemaking related to supplies for elements of the armed forces. While 10 U.S. Code § 2348 places a restriction and doesn’t explicitly command rulemaking, rulemaking related to it falls under the broad umbrella of implementing Title 10. Therefore, 10 U.S.C. chapter 4, 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 and 10 U.S.C. 3016 are considered specific authority delegations, because it focuses on a specific area.

10 U.S. Code § 2348 places a restriction on increasing inventories for certain purposes. 48 CFR Part 4 deals with administrative and information matters related to government contracting. While the statute touches upon inventories which could be related to government contracts, it doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific regulations found in 48 CFR Part 4. The relationship is therefore related, but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

While 10 U.S.C. § 2349 provides specific instructions regarding eligibility for bidding on maintenance contracts under the Overseas Workload Program and exception for geographic restrictions, it also leaves room for interpretation by the Secretary of a military department based on factors like military preparedness or international agreements. This “could affect the military preparedness of the armed forces; or would violate the terms of an international agreement to which the United States is a party.”

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 are listed under the authority section of 48 CFR Part 4. This suggests that the regulation is authorized by the statute, but the statute does not explicitly mandate the regulation.

The statute itself, 10 U.S.C. § 2349a, doesn’t exist, however 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 provide broad rulemaking authority concerning defense acquisitions. Chapter 4 broadly addresses organization of the Department of Defense, and Chapter 137 concerns acquisition policy. The authorities cited for 48 CFR Part 4, particularly 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137, are quite broad and provide a general framework for the FAR regulations.

10 U.S.C. § 2349a required an annual report regarding non-NATO cross-servicing and acquisition actions. While this statute itself is repealed, the broad authority to manage government contracts under 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137, cited as authority for 48 CFR Part 4, provides authorization for related regulations concerning administrative and information matters related to defense contracts. It is authorized but not directly mandated since the reporting requirement no longer exists.

10 U.S.C chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C chapter 137 provides a broad authority for acquisition and procurement within the Department of Defense. While 48 CFR Part 7 relates to acquisition, the underlying statutes referenced in the authority section of the regulation are broad grants of authority to manage defense-related procurement and contracting. The regulation implements policies within that general framework. The statute, 10 U.S. Code § 235, does not directly delegate authority for the regulation because it concerns budget details and was repealed.

10 U.S. Code § 235 concerned the specification of amounts requested in the Department of Defense budget related to contract services. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning generally. While both relate to government contracting and procurement, the statute does not directly mandate the regulation, nor is the regulation explicitly authorized by that specific statute. The statute is focused on budget specifics, and the regulation is focused on overall acquisition planning. They are related to DOD procurements, but not directly linked for statutory authority.

While the statute itself (10 U.S.C. § 2350) only provides definitions, the regulation cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 which gives broad rulemaking authority for the DoD.

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016) are listed in the authority section of 48 CFR Part 4. Thus, it is authorized but not mandated.

10 U.S.C. § 2343 explicitly identifies which laws are waived under specific acquisition authorities (sections 2341 and 2342). This provides a clearly defined situation where an agency has the authority to disregard existing regulatory requirements, which fulfills the definition of a specific delegation.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2343, waives the applicability of certain laws regarding acquisitions made under specific authorities (sections 2341 and 2342). This means it authorizes, but does not mandate, the agency to act in a certain way, specifically to disregard certain laws when making acquisitions under sections 2341 and 2342. It sets a condition where certain regulations don’t apply. The FAR part is the implementation of laws relating to contracting generally, and here, specifically, implementation in a way that relates to the waiver.

The statute provides specific instructions regarding pricing principles, waiver authority, and prohibitions related to the acquisition and transfer of logistics support. It instructs the Secretary of Defense on specific tasks like negotiating pricing principles and waiving indirect costs.

10 U.S.C. § 2344 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to acquire and transfer logistics support, supplies, and services, and to negotiate pricing principles. While the statute provides a framework, it does not directly mandate specific regulations, instead authorizing the Secretary to implement the provisions.

While 10 U.S.C. § 2345 provides specific instructions regarding the liquidation and offsetting of credits and liabilities, it does not explicitly instruct an agency to promulgate regulations related to these tasks. The authority granted to the agency to create regulations related to contracting derives from the more general authority provided in 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137 and 40 U.S.C. 121(c), dealing broadly with procurement and contract management. The relationship between 10 U.S.C. § 2345 and 48 CFR Part 4 is more about the agency establishing rules related to the specific subject matter of the statute using its broader authority to regulate government contracts, rather than being directly instructed to create the regulation due to a gap in the statute.

10 U.S.C. § 2345 concerns the liquidation of accrued credits and liabilities for logistic support. 48 CFR Part 4 covers administrative and information matters related to government contracts, including execution, reporting, and records retention. The “Authority” section of 48 CFR Part 4 cites 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137, and while 10 U.S.C. 2345 isn’t explicitly mentioned, it falls within the general subject matter of these chapters related to acquisitions and transfers of logistic support, supplies, and services. Therefore, the relationship is authorized but not mandated.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense on how to handle receipts under agreements made within a particular subchapter. It specifies that receipts “shall be credited, at the option of the Secretary of Defense” to particular funds or accounts. While the statute gives the Secretary discretion (“at the option of”), the statute clearly directs the agency regarding a specific regulatory task (crediting receipts).

10 U.S.C. § 2346 grants the Secretary of Defense the “option” to credit receipts in a certain way. This means the statute authorizes the Secretary to take certain actions, but does not mandate them. Regulations would provide the details for how that option is to be exercised, which is authorized but not mandated by the statute.

While 10 U.S.C. § 2347 doesn’t explicitly mention rulemaking, it pertains to limitations on accruing reimbursable liabilities, which falls under the broader umbrella of acquisition and contracting dealt with in 10 U.S.C chapters 4 and 137. These chapters, cited as authority for 48 CFR Part 4, provide specific authority for agencies to create regulations governing defense procurement. This can be seen as a specific directive related to contracting.

10 U.S.C. § 2347 concerns limitations on accruing reimbursable liabilities and credits with international organizations and countries related to defense acquisitions. 48 CFR Part 4 provides regulations on administrative and informational matters related to federal contracting. The statute and regulation are related in the general sense that both pertain to government functions and international cooperation and defense procurement. The statute doesn’t directly mandate regulations for its implementation, nor explicitly authorize this specific regulation.

While 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 137, and 10 U.S.C. 3016 touch on defense acquisition and related policies, these references provide broad authority concerning contracting but lack specific instructions on regulatory implementation. These cited statutory sections related to Title 10 do not clearly instruct the agency on a specific regulatory task tied to micro-purchase thresholds; therefore, it is not a specific authority delegation.

10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137, and specifically 10 U.S.C. 3016 (mentioned as a “legacy provision” within the authority section of the regulation), authorize the regulations in 48 CFR Part 19 related to small business programs within the Department of Defense. However, the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate the agency to create these regulations; it provides the authority for them to do so.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 233a, is a specific authority delegation because it clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense on a specific regulatory task: the creation and submission of a report detailing proposed divestments, re-prioritizations, or retirements of major weapon systems. It even includes specific requirements for what the report must contain.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 233a, mandates a report on force structure changes for the defense budget. While the regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, generally deals with acquisition planning, there isn’t a direct mandate or explicit authorization for the regulation stemming from this specific statute. However, there’s a relatedness as both concern defense acquisitions and planning, but one does not directly create the other.

The statute explicitly instructs the Secretary of Defense on the specific regulatory task of submitting a consolidated budget justification display with very specific information laid out in (b)(1)-(5). This fits the definition of a specific authority delegation, as it clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

The statute mandates specific budget reporting requirements from the Secretary of Defense to Congress regarding POW/MIA activities. While the regulation addresses general acquisition planning, it doesn’t specifically reference or implement the requirements outlined in 10 U.S.C. § 234. The regulation”™s authority cites 10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 137, but not 234, so this relationship is related, but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

The statute explicitly instructs the Secretary of Defense on a specific regulatory task: acquiring logistics support, supplies and services from particular entities (NATO countries, UN, or countries with defense alliances or specific agreements with the US). The statute also lays out the conditions under which the Secretary may acquire such support (e.g., availability of appropriations, existence of defense alliance). The directive is specific, making it a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute, 10 U.S. Code § 2341, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to acquire logistic support, supplies, and services from specific entities and governments. While the statute grants this authority, it does not mandate the Secretary to do so. The use of “may” indicates authorized but not mandated action.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to “prescribe regulations to ensure” certain outcomes (contracts are free from self-dealing, adequate accounting processes exist, and personnel are trained). This directs the agency to address specific regulatory gaps, even using terms like “adequate,” which Hickman acknowledges as consistent with specific authority delegations.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into cross-servicing agreements, but it does not mandate them in all cases. The statute uses the word “may,” indicating permissive authority rather than a requirement.

The cited statutes 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 (legacy provisions, see 10 U.S.C. 3016) provide broad authority to the Department of Defense concerning procurement and contracting, including potentially the implementation of small business programs. However, they do not explicitly direct the agency to address a specific regulatory gap, program or task related to small businesses.

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137, legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016), are cited in the authority section of 48 CFR Part 19. While these chapters and sections generally relate to defense acquisition and contracting, they provide the authorization for the DoD to create regulations regarding small business programs. The existence of an authorization means that the relationship is authorized but not necessarily mandated.

10 U.S. Code § 233 specifically instructs the Department of Defense on how to present budget information. While it doesn’t directly mandate specific regulations, it creates a specific regulatory task regarding the content and format of budget justifications.

10 U.S. Code § 233 mandates how the Department of Defense presents its operation and maintenance budget to Congress. While 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning within the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the statute’s focus on budget presentation and the regulation’s focus on acquisition planning makes them related, but the statute neither directly mandates nor explicitly authorizes the regulation. The regulation establishes broad rules around acquisition planning to assure the government uses resources wisely. The statute is about transparency in budgeting.

The statute provides broad authority to create regulations regarding defense procurement. This falls under a general delegation as the broad rulemaking authority is provided without specific regulatory tasks identified.

The regulation cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 as authority. While the statute does not explicitly mandate the regulations, it authorizes them. The statute concerns military contracting and acquisition, therefore, the regulation concerning small businesses is authorized but not mandated.

The cited chapters (4 and 137) of Title 10, U.S. Code, provide broad authority related to military procurement and contracting. They do not specifically instruct the agency on the specific regulatory tasks or gaps related to small business programs, making the authorization a more general grant of power. The reference to “legacy provisions” and 10 U.S.C. 3016 reinforces that the statute is authorizing the general administration of the mentioned topics.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 2331, renumbered § 4507), without further context, does not directly mandate the regulation (48 CFR Part 19). However, 48 CFR Part 19 cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 (legacy provisions, see 10 U.S.C. 3016) as authority. These chapters relate to the organization and powers/functions of the armed forces, including procurement and contracting, suggesting authorization, but not direct mandate, for regulations concerning small business programs within defense contracting.

Although the specific statute (10 U.S.C. § 2332) has been repealed, it originally granted a specific authority to agency heads – the ability to enter into share-in-savings contracts for IT. This falls under the definition of specific authority, as it clearly instructs an agency on a specific regulatory task, even using open-ended terms which it does not.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2332 (now repealed), authorized agency heads to enter into share-in-savings contracts for information technology. While it granted this authority, it did not mandate any specific regulations regarding such contracts. 48 CFR Part 19, while generally related to contracting, doesn’t explicitly focus on or implement the share-in-savings aspect of IT contracts authorized by the now-repealed statute. Rather, it deals with small business programs generally, which could be indirectly related to the contracts enabled by the statute. The regulation is authorized by other statutes but not mandated by the repealed statute.

Although 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 are listed as authorities for the CFR, these are broad delegations. The statute does not specifically instruct the agency on a particular regulatory task.

10 U.S. Code § 2324, before its repeal, concerned allowable costs under defense contracts. While 48 CFR Part 19 covers small business programs, and small businesses are frequently defense contractors, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize regulations concerning small business programs specifically. The relationship is related because both concern defense contracting and its administration but aren’t explicitly linked.

The statute directs the Secretary of Defense to take specific action regarding how the Department of Defense states its requirements for procurement of supplies. It focuses on the content of requirements, relating to function, performance, and characteristics. Although the regulation is about small business programs (which can be related to procurement), the statute’s delegation falls under specific authority because it directly instructs the agency to ensure that DOD requirements are stated in certain terms. While repealed later, the content of the delegation itself when active was specific.

The statute directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure certain requirements regarding procurement are met. While it authorizes the agency to take action related to procurement practices, it doesn’t mandate specific regulations, but provides discretion on how to implement the general directive. Since the given regulation deals with small business programs, and the statute concerns procurement requirements, the relationship is authorized but not mandated.

The regulation cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 as authority, which are broad grants of authority related to defense procurement. Without the specific text of these chapters, it’s difficult to determine if they contain a clearly defined regulatory task related to small business programs. Given this ambiguity and the broad nature of “chapters” of the U.S. Code, the delegation appears to be a general grant of authority. Also 40 U.S.C. 121(c) is a general grant of authority to prescribe policies and regulations, and 51 U.S.C. 20113 relates to NASA contracting.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2326, is related to government contracts (specifically, restrictions for undefinitized contractual actions) and therefore procurement regulations generally. 48 CFR Part 19 concerns small business programs. While both concern government contracting, the statute has been repealed, and the regulation’s authority is derived from other sections of the US code, not specifically 10 U.S.C. § 2326. Thus, the relationship is related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

While the regulation cites specific U.S.C. sections (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), these are very broad in scope (such as entire chapters). The regulation establishes a comprehensive system for small business programs related to government contracts, which suggests a delegation of broad rulemaking authority to implement those programs, but without the specifics that would categorize this a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute provided (10 U.S.C. § 2327) was renumbered and no longer exists. However, the regulation’s authority section cites multiple statutes, including 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137. This implies that the regulation is authorized by these statutes, specifically related to defense procurement. I do not have access to the actual text of these authorizing statutes, so I cannot ascertain if it is directly mandated. Thus, classification b is the most appropriate choice.

While the regulation cites specific 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), it does so in a broad manner without linking the regulation to a specific regulatory task or gap defined by any particular section within those chapters or statutes other than 10 U.S.C. 3016. This suggests a broad delegation of authority to create rules related to small business programs based on general statutory frameworks concerning government contracting.

The statute 10 U.S. Code § 2328 was renumbered. The regulation 48 CFR Part 19 cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 as authorities (along with other statutes). Therefore the regulation is authorized by statute but not necessarily mandated. There is no clear mandate in the provided statute.