Database Search Results

40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 10 U.S.C. 3016 are cited as authority for 48 CFR Part 19. These statutes, along with 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137 legacy provisions, provide broad authority relating to the procurement and contracting process. While the regulations regarding small business programs are within that broader framework, the statutes don’t specifically instruct the agency on specific regulatory tasks related to small business programs. Rather, they establish general procurement policies, making this a general delegation.

10 U.S. Code § 2313, before being repealed, pertained to the examination of contractor records. 48 CFR Part 19 deals with small business programs. While both relate to government contracting, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific regulations in 48 CFR Part 19 regarding small business programs. They are related in the broader context of government procurement, but neither directly mandates nor explicitly authorizes the other.

The regulations cite 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 as sources of authority, among others. Chapter 4 is too broad to evaluate without pinpointing a specific section, though it covers organization generally. Chapter 137 gives broad authority to prescribe regulations concerning procurement of property and services. Given that the regulations concern small business programs related to federal procurement, the cited statutory authority provides a general framework for agencies to develop and implement these programs, but lacks instructions on a specific regulatory task or gap. Therefore, these delegations are classified as “General Authority.”

10 U.S.C. § 2317, which related to encouraging competition and cost savings, has been repealed. 48 CFR Part 19, concerning small business programs, is still active. While the repealed statute aimed to promote cost savings, a goal that could indirectly benefit small businesses through increased opportunities, it doesn’t directly mandate or authorize the specific regulations outlined in 48 CFR Part 19. Instead, the regulation’s authority stems from other statutes like 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137. Therefore, the relationship is related in that both generally concern government contracting and efficient spending, but the repealed statute doesn’t explicitly authorize or mandate the small business programs regulations.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense on the specific regulatory task of submitting an annual aircraft procurement plan and certification. It details the content of the plan and the process for its development, reflecting a clear legislative intent on a specific regulatory task. The statute uses terms like “shall” and provides very specific instructions on what to include in the plan and report such as a detailed program for procurement for aircrafts in the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force for the next 15 years.

10 U.S.C. § 231a directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual aircraft procurement plan and certification to congressional defense committees. 48 CFR Part 7 covers acquisition planning generally and subpart 7.4 specifically mentions equipment acquisition. Equipment acquisition includes the process by which the Department of Defense procures Aircraft through acquisition plans.

48 CFR Part 7’s authority is derived from 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137, and 51 U.S.C. 20113. These statutes are listed as providing the authority to enact acquisition planning regulations in general, rather than being specifically instructed to enact a regulation in order to close a gap or address a specific deficiency in the law.

10 U.S. Code § 232 relates to the internal budgeting of research, development, test, and evaluation funds for the United States Joint Forces Command. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning in general, spanning a variety of areas including inherently governmental functions and equipment acquisitions. While both relate to Department of Defense activities, the statute and regulation are related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized because they cover different topics (budgeting and procurement).

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2323, existed for a time then was repealed. The CFR cites to 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016), along with 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 51 U.S.C. 20113. These appear to be general grants of authority to prescribe regulations related to defense contracts, procurement policies, and space programs, respectively. They are related but not specific.

10 U.S.C. § 2323 concerns contract goals for small disadvantaged businesses and certain institutions of higher education. 48 CFR Part 19 provides regulations for small business programs. While both relate to small businesses and government contracting, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The CFR cites to 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions, which are related to the statute’s subject matter, but does not explicitly refer to 10 U.S.C. § 2323.

The cited statutory authority (10 U.S.C. Chapters 4 & 137) grant broad authority related to defense acquisition. While the regulation’s subparts address specific topics, the authorizing statutes do not explicitly mandate each of those specific topics to be regulated. They provide general authority to make rules relating to defense contracting.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2304a, has been renumbered. However, the regulation, 48 CFR Part 4, cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 as authority. These chapters generally pertain to procurement and acquisition. While not directly mandating specific rules, the chapters provide broad authority for regulations related to administrative and information matters in government contracting. Therefore, the relationship is authorized but not mandated.

The statutes cited as authority for 48 CFR Part 4, particularly 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137, establish broad frameworks for defense acquisition and procurement. They empower the agency to create regulations concerning contract administration, reporting, and contractor requirements. These statutes provide a general authority to manage procurement processes rather than specific instructions on particular regulatory tasks.

10 U.S.C. § 2305a was renumbered and repealed. However, the regulations in 48 CFR Part 4 are authorized by 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 statutes provide the authority for the administrative matters covered in the regulations. Although 10 U.S.C. § 2305a is not directly related, the regulations are authorized but not mandated by the specified authority statutes.

10 U.S.C. 3016 (referenced as a legacy provision for Chapters 4 and 137) grants broad authority concerning defense procurement. While the regulation focuses on Small Business Programs within that context, the statutory language doesn’t identify any specific regulatory tasks or gaps that the agency is required to address. The statute lays the ground for procurement procedures, but doesn’t specifically instruct on how to implement small business programs. The agency has significant discretion in how they develop those programs.

The regulation 48 CFR Part 19 relates to small business programs, and 10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 137, (specifically 10 U.S.C. 3016) authorizes regulations related to defense procurement. While the statute doesn’t directly mandate the specific content of 48 CFR Part 19, it provides the authority for regulations concerning defense procurement, which includes small business programs. Thus, the relationship is authorized but not mandated.

The statute provides detailed and specific instructions to the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense regarding the content, format, and submission of the naval vessel construction, maintenance, and modernization plans. The statute identifies a specific regulatory task (budgeting and planning for naval vessels) and instructs the agency (Department of Defense) to fulfill it. Even though the terms may use phrases like ‘necessary’, the context is very narrow.

10 U.S.C. § 231 directly mandates the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense to include specific plans and certifications related to naval vessel construction, maintenance, and modernization within the defense budget materials submitted to Congress. The statute explicitly states what these plans must contain. 48 CFR Part 7 relates directly as it provides regulation on acquisition planning.

Although the statute has been repealed, its former purpose was directly related to the implementation of electronic commerce capabilities. This falls under Kristin Hickman’s “Specific Authority” category because it instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task””implementing electronic commerce””even though it uses relatively open-ended terms (implementation).

10 U.S.C. § 2302c, before its repeal, “related to implementation of electronic commerce capability.” 48 CFR Part 4, Subpart 4.5 is titled “Electronic Commerce in Contracting.” While the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate regulations, it clearly authorizes the agency to create them to implement electronic commerce capabilities.

Although the now repealed 10 U.S.C. § 2302d related to a specific topic (definitional threshold amounts), the regulations cited in the “Authority” section of 48 CFR Part 4 (specifically, 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137) represent broad delegations of authority regarding defense procurement. The agency is empowered to create regulations on a wide array of issues.

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 provide general authority for regulations related to defense procurement. The statute in question, 10 U.S.C. § 2302d, relates to definitional threshold amounts. While the regulation isn’t directly mandated by that specific section (which has been repealed), the broader chapters authorize the FAR Council to create regulations for procurement of the DOD, including defining key terms and procedures. Therefore the statute authorized the regulatory actions, but did not mandate them.

The regulation cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016). These are broad delegations that cover a large swath of military procurement, which arguably covers small business programs. This fits the definition of General Authority.

10 U.S.C. § 2303, now repealed, related to the applicability of a chapter on procurement. 48 CFR Part 19 pertains to small business programs in federal contracting. While both concern government procurement, the statute’s focus on applicability is related to, but neither directly mandates nor explicitly authorizes, the regulations concerning small business preferences and programs. The regulations are authorized by the authorities listed in the regulation: 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 legacy provisions, and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

The statute, while repealed, concerned the publication of proposed regulations. The regulation itself refers to 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 citations demonstrate a specific regulatory task, namely procurement policy, with corresponding rulemaking authority.

The statute 10 U.S. Code § 2303a related to the publication of proposed regulations. Although it was repealed, it still shows a directly mandated relationship because it outlined a specific regulatory action (publication of proposed regulations) that the agency was initially required to undertake. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 4, covers administrative and information matters related to federal acquisitions, which is directly related to procurement regulations.

The statute, even before repeal, broadly addressed competition requirements for contracts. While it provided a framework, it did not explicitly mandate specific regulations related to small business programs. The regulation relies upon 10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Chapter 137 “legacy provisions” relating to defense acquisition which is a broad grant of rulemaking authority without specific regulatory tasks. This places it within the General Authority delegation.

Although 10 U.S. Code § 2304 has been repealed, it previously related to competition requirements for contracts. 48 CFR Part 19 concerns small business programs, which can be viewed as an exception to full and open competition. As 10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Chapter 137 legacy provisions (referenced in the regulation’s authority) relate to defense acquisitions, there’s authorization in the U.S. Code for setting aside contracts for small businesses, but not a direct mandate to implement this specific regulation.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense on the precise information to include in the budget justification display, the frequency of the submission, and to whom it should be submitted (Congress). Even though the statute uses terms like “programs and activities,” it provides explicit instructions on how to display specific budget information, fitting the criteria for a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute mandates the Secretary of Defense to submit budget information related to combating terrorism programs. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning, which could be related to the “programs and activities of the Department of Defense combating terrorism program,” but it is neither directly mandated by the statute nor explicitly authorized within it.

While 10 U.S.C. § 230 itself has been repealed, making a direct delegation impossible, the initial statute still offers insights. The requirement to include specific details about declassification costs in budget materials represents a ‘specific regulatory task’ even if it is indirectly connected to acquisition. The statute specifically directs agency action on how to present budget materials to Congress.

10 U.S.C. § 230, although repealed, concerned the identification of declassification costs in budget justifications. While this statute doesn’t directly mandate the creation of acquisition planning regulations in 48 CFR Part 7, it is authorized through the broader authority provided in 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137, as cited in the regulation’s authority section. These chapters generally cover procurement and acquisition within the Department of Defense, suggesting the regulations are related to ensuring transparency and planning in defense acquisitions.

While the statutes listed in the “Authority” section of the regulation (10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137) address defense procurement, they provide broad authority concerning government contracting, particularly small business programs, without identifying specific regulatory tasks. The listed statutes generally enable the agency to create regulations related to these programs.

10 U.S.C. § 2301, though repealed, “related to Congressional defense procurement policy.” Regulations at 48 CFR Part 19, governing small business programs in government contracting, are authorized by, among other statutes, 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 (legacy provisions, see 10 U.S.C. 3016). The regulation implements policies related to defense procurement, but it isn’t directly mandated. Congress chose to authorize the agency to develop regulations in this area, but the regulation is not explicitly mandated by the listed statutes in the “Authority” section of the CFR.

10 U.S.C. § 2302, even before it was repealed, dealt with definitions and did not delegate regulatory authority to any agency to create rules regarding trademarks, trade names, or copyrights. It is about defining terms for defense acquisitions, not directly enabling CBP’s regulations on intellectual property. While definitions can inform rulemaking, they do not represent a delegation of authority in Hickman’s framework.

10 U.S.C. § 2302 defines terms related to defense procurement. 19 CFR Part 133 concerns trademarks, trade names, and copyrights enforced by Customs and Border Protection. There may be an indirect relationship due to government procurement needing to comply with intellectual property law, but the relationship is not directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

10 U.S.C. § 2302 provides definitions but does not instruct the agency on specific regulatory tasks. Therefore, it is considered a General Authority delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 2302 defines terms related to defense procurement. While 48 CFR Part 19 implements small business programs in government contracting, including defense contracts, the statute only provides definitions and was repealed in 2021. Therefore, the relationship is related as the definition provided, informs the context of contracting. It is not directly mandated because the statute is only related to definitions, nor explicitly authorized because Part 19’s authority arises from different statutes (40 U.S.C. 121(c), 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 137, 51 U.S.C. 20113).

The statute provides very specific instructions to the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, defining what must be included in the acquisition baseline (schedule, technical description, cost estimate, test baseline) and the annual reports, therefore this is a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute directly mandates the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to establish and maintain acquisition baselines and submit annual reports to Congress, as well as outlining specific elements to be included. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning generally, and the statute concerns acquisition plans for the Ballistic Missile Defence System specifically. There is a direct relationship of mandate and execution.

10 U.S.C. § 226 specifically directs the Secretary of Defense and Secretaries of military departments to include certain budget materials to Congress, detailing specific information about service-common and enabling capabilities for special operations forces. Although the statute allows the Secretaries to consider “any other matters…are relevant”, this does not take away from the core of the statute, which is a specific regulatory task. The delegation does not only provide broad rulemaking authority.

10 U.S.C. § 226 mandates specific budget justification displays. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns general acquisition planning, which could relate to budgeting insofar as it involves planning for resource procurement. However, §226 does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize 48 CFR Part 7, nor does 48 CFR Part 7 mandate or explicitly authorize this section of the U.S. Code. Thus, the relationship is related but not directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

10 U.S.C. § 2264 specifically addresses a particular regulatory task: reimbursement for expenses related to assisting entertainment media producers. It instructs the agency on how to handle funds received as reimbursement, directly linking the funds to the applicable appropriations account. This constitutes a specific regulatory task, even if the agency has discretion in setting the exact amount or process for reimbursement. The agency has created implementing procedures which falls under the umbrella of specificity since the statute creates the purpose for such action.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2264, allows the Department of Defense to be reimbursed for expenses incurred when assisting nongovernmental entertainment-oriented media producers. While it establishes the mechanism for reimbursement, it doesn’t explicitly mandate regulations to be created. It authorizes the agency to seek reimbursement and provides a framework, but the existence and content of 32 CFR Part 238 are not directly mandated by this statute; rather, it’s authorized by it.

While the statute itself is repealed, examining it provides insight into delegation patterns. The repealed statute directed the Secretary of Defense to include specific information (recruiting costs) in a specific document (budget justification to Congress). This constitutes a specific instruction on what to include, which aligns with Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 227), now repealed, directed the Secretary of Defense to include recruiting costs in budget justification documents submitted to Congress. The regulation (48 CFR Part 7) concerns acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense and its operations, the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate or authorize the specific acquisition planning regulations in 48 CFR Part 7. The statute concerns reporting to Congress, while the regulation deals with internal acquisition processes.

The statute cited in the regulation’s authority section, 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016), covers a broad range of acquisition topics. The authority citation includes these broad sections without specifying particular regulatory gaps. This aligns with the characteristics of a General Authority delegation.

10 U.S. Code § 228 concerned biannual reports on the allocation of funds within operation and maintenance budget subactivities. 48 CFR Part 7 relates to acquisition planning. While both pertain to government operations within the Department of Defense, they do not directly mandate or explicitly authorize each other. Reporting on fund allocation can inform acquisition planning, but acquisition planning does not directly derive from the mandate to report on fund allocations.

The statute provides a detailed list of elements that must be included in the report. This indicates a specific task assigned by Congress to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, relating to the analysis and reporting on industrial base constraints. While the agency has some discretion in fulfilling the requirements of the statute, the specific elements required in the report indicate a ‘specific authority’ delegation. Specifically, the definition of “munition” being delegated to the Under Secretary, while not explicitly defining a regulatory output, dictates the scope of reporting, furthering the ‘specific authority’ delegation classification.

10 U.S. Code § 222d directly mandates the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to submit a report to congressional defense committees detailing industrial base constraints for munitions. The statute specifies the content and timing of the report, making the relationship directly mandated. Furthermore, subsection (c) grants authority to the Under Secretary of Defense to define “munition”, which further bolsters the directly mandated classification.