Database Search Results

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense on the regulatory task of submitting annual reports, detailing the required elements and format of those reports. It clearly lays out what needs to be reported (changes to budget, unfunded priorities), who needs to report it (Secretary of Defense), to whom (congressional defense committees), when (specific timelines related to the President’s budget submission), and how (elements to include, machine-readable format). This is a clear instruction on a specific regulatory task.

The statute (10 U.S. Code § 222e) directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to submit specific reports to congressional defense committees. While 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning, it does not implement or operationalize 10 U.S. Code § 222e. There’s no direct mandate for the regulation based on the statute, but the statute does mandate the specific reports.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense and the President on a specific regulatory task””defining and assigning program elements for ballistic missile defense programs, thus directly influencing acquisition planning for these programs. While the President has broad discretion to specify program elements, the statute directly instructs the agency.

10 U.S. Code § 223 authorizes the Secretary of Defense and the President to specify program elements and ensure dedicated program elements for ballistic missile defense programs, which directly relates to acquisition planning. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, concerns acquisition planning generally, and the statute gives specific authority within that domain, but doesn’t mandate the specific regulations.

10 U.S.C. § 223a specifically directs the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide particular information related to ballistic missile defense programs in their budget justification materials, future-years defense programs, and performance criteria. It instructs the agencies on specific regulatory tasks and requirements.

10 U.S.C. § 223a mandates the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to specify certain information related to ballistic missile defense programs. 48 CFR Part 7 provides regulations on acquisition planning. While 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 are listed as authorities for the regulation, the regulation broadly defines acquisition planning, and the statute requires specific actions from the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency related to this planning. Therefore, the relationship is authorized but not directly mandated, as the statute falls within the broader area that the regulation covers.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to “establish criteria” and outlines minimum requirements that must be included in those criteria. This is more than just providing general authority; it’s a direct instruction for a specific regulatory task.

10 U.S. Code § 224(b)(1) directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to establish criteria for the transfer of responsibility for a ballistic missile defense program. 48 CFR Part 7 addresses acquisition planning which includes considerations for equipment acquisition. The statute mandates the Secretary of Defense to establish criteria that would heavily influence acquisition planning related to Ballistic Missile Defense programs.

While 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 are listed as authorities for the regulation 48 CFR Part 7, they are broad authorities. However, 10 U.S.C. 3016 is listed as a legacy provision of 10 U.S.C. chapter 137. That is a specific delegation to plan for acquisition. Thus, the statute provides specific authority to the agency to engage in acquisition planning.

The statute 10 U.S. Code § 222 mandates the Secretary of Defense to submit a future-years mission budget to Congress. While 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning and broadly falls within the Department of Defense’s responsibilities, the statute does not directly mandate the regulation, nor does the regulation explicitly flow from the statute. The statute is related to the broader goal of defense acquisition but doesn’t specifically authorize or mandate the CFR part’s content.

The statute gives the Secretary of Defense specific instructions regarding the Defense Information Assurance Program, outlining its objectives, strategies, and required elements such as vulnerability assessments, technology development, and coordination with other agencies. While some terms like “appropriate” are present, the overall delegation is focused on a specific regulatory task, making it a Specific Authority delegation.

The statute explicitly directs the Secretary of Defense to “carry out a program,” indicating a direct mandate for regulatory action. Furthermore, the statute outlines specific objectives and strategies for the program, reinforcing the direct mandating of regulatory activity.

The statute clearly instructs specific officers to perform a specific regulatory task: to submit an annual report on unfunded priorities. While the scope of unfunded priorities is broad, the agency is instructed on what to report, to whom, and when. The statute outlines precisely what the report should entail using specific parameters.

The statute mandates reports on unfunded priorities. While the regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, concerns acquisition planning, which could indirectly relate to identifying and addressing unfunded priorities, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The regulation’s scope is broader than just addressing unfunded priorities reports and focuses on the general planning for acquisitions.

10 U.S. Code § 222b provides a very clear and specific regulatory task: the Director of the Missile Defense Agency shall submit a report on unfunded priorities. It dictates the recipient of the report, the timing of the report (relative to the President’s budget submission), and the elements to be included in the report. The statute leaves no doubt about what is to be done, by whom, and when.

10 U.S. Code § 222b mandates reporting on unfunded priorities of the Missile Defense Agency. While 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning generally, including equipment acquisition, it doesn’t specifically address or mandate the content, format, or timing of the reports required by 10 U.S. Code § 222b. The link exists as the MDA unfunded priorities may relate to future acquisitions, but the regulation isn’t required by the statute or directly related.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 222c, outlines a specific regulatory task: the reporting of munitions requirements. While it doesn’t explicitly tell the agency how to acquire those munitions or the details of acquisition planning, it creates a clear, specific gap in the agency’s function (ensuring adequate munitions) that allows the agency to use its expertise to make those acquisitions through planning as mentioned in CFR 48 part 7. The statute uses “implementation guidance” which allows the agency discretion, but it doesn’t turn this into a broad delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 222c mandates the submission of annual reports related to munitions requirements. 48 CFR Part 7 addresses acquisition planning, which is related to the procurement of supplies, including munitions. While the statute doesn’t directly mandate the specific acquisition planning regulations, the statute’s requirements for reporting munitions needs and inventory information authorizes regulations covering the acquisition of those munitions. Chapter 137 of Title 10 is cited as authority for the regulation.

While 10 U.S.C. § 2201 does not use explicit rulemaking language, it does instruct the Secretary of Defense to provide cost coverage under specific circumstances and requires immediate notification to Congress, which implicitly calls for specific processes and guidelines. It provides specific authority to manage resources under particular conditions (airborne alerts, increased active duty personnel), fitting under the “Specific Authority” categorization. The agency must make decisions and implement procedures relating to these specific scenarios.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 2201) relates to the apportionment of funds and specific authorities regarding national defense spending. The regulation (48 CFR Part 7) concerns acquisition planning generally. While both deal with aspects of Department of Defense operations and spending, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific acquisition planning regulations in 48 CFR Part 7.

The statute directs the Secretary of Defense to regulate “production, warehousing, and supply distribution functions, and related functions.” This is a specific regulatory task given to the agency, making it a specific authority delegation.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2202, states that the Secretary of Defense “shall prescribe regulations” regarding specific functions within the Department of Defense. This indicates a direct mandate to create regulations for those functions.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense to regulate “production, warehousing, and supply distribution functions, and related functions.” This defines a specific regulatory task, fitting the definition of Specific Authority.

The statute explicitly states that the Secretary of Defense “shall prescribe regulations” governing specific functions. This directly mandates the creation of regulations.

While 10 U.S.C. § 2208 provides specific guidance on the establishment and use of working capital funds, the grant of authority to the Secretary of Defense to “prescribe regulations governing the operation of activities and use of inventories authorized by this section” is broad and does not specify particular regulatory tasks to be undertaken, fitting the General Authority delegation category.

32 CFR Part 273 lists 10 U.S.C. § 2208 in its authority citation. This indicates that the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

While it grants authority to the Secretary of Defense, it’s specific in its instruction. The statute explicitly outlines what must be included in the submission (estimated expenditures, proposed appropriations), the timeline for submission (in conjunction with the President’s budget), the years to be covered, and the requirement for consistency in financial reporting. Even though terms like “estimated” are used, the specific task is clearly identified: creating and submitting a budget-related document to Congress.

The statute directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to submit a future-years defense program to Congress, reflecting estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations. This is a clear and direct command.

10 U.S.C. § 2200 clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense to carry out programs to provide financial support for education in cybersecurity disciplines, which is a specific regulatory task, thus falling under Specific Authority. Even though the Secretary “may” carry out the programs, the intent is clear and task-oriented.

32 CFR Part 240 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. § 2200 as its authority, indicating the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

The statute grants specific authority to the President and Secretary of Defense regarding the apportionment of funds, costs related to airborne alerts, and costs associated with increasing active duty personnel levels. These are well-defined areas where Congress has allowed the executive branch to take particular actions, albeit conditioned on specific determinations of necessity.

10 U.S.C. § 2201 authorizes the President and Secretary of Defense to take specific actions (exempting funds from apportionment, providing for airborne alerts and additional active duty members) under specific circumstances. While the statute authorizes these actions, it does not mandate them.

While 10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Chapter 137, cited as authority for the regulation, concern organization and functions of the armed forces and acquisition policy, respectively, the statute itself provides no direct instruction on specific regulatory tasks relating to emergency acquisitions. The cited sections in the regulation’s authority section are broad grants of power concerning acquisition policy and are therefore categorized as general authority.

The statute relates to apportionment of funds and emergency exceptions, while the regulation concerns emergency acquisitions. While both pertain to government spending and Department of Defense activities, the statute doesn’t directly mandate the specific emergency acquisition regulations, nor does it explicitly authorize them. The statute provides a mechanism to bypass certain fund restrictions under specific conditions and the regulation provides acquisition flexibilities in emergency situations.

The regulation cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137, among other statutes, as authority. Chapters 4 and 137 are broad grants of power related to the organization and acquisition authority of the Department of Defense. The regulation relates to bonds and insurance for government contracts, and these chapters give the Department broad authority to procure materials. The link between the cited chapters and the regulation is indirect, thus the statute is best classified as a General Authority delegation.

While 10 U.S.C. § 2201 concerns the Department of Defense and its funding, as does 48 CFR Part 28, the statute does not directly mandate the regulation. The statute deals with exceptions to apportionment requirements and allows for certain expenses, while the regulation concerns bonds and insurance related to contracting. The regulation is authorized via Title 10 but not directly mandated.

While 10 U.S.C. § 2201 does not directly delegate rulemaking authority related to subcontracting, the authorities listed in the regulation do. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 44, cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 as authority. Chapters 4 and 137 contain statutory text that delegates to the Secretary of Defense specific authority to prescribe regulations regarding procurement and defense contracts. These delegations would fall under the “Specific Authority Delegations” category because they empower the agency to create rules in a defined area.

While 10 U.S.C. § 2201 pertains to the Department of Defense and its funding, and 48 CFR Part 44 covers subcontracting policies and procedures relevant to government contracts, including those with the DoD, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The statute deals with apportionment of funds and exceptional expenses under specific presidential determinations, while the regulation addresses general subcontracting practices. The statute could, in theory, influence the context in which subcontracting occurs, but it doesn’t necessitate any particular regulatory action on subcontracting practices.

The statute specifically identifies the regulatory task, which is determining when an institution has increased enrollment solely to accept program members, and prescribes the entity (Secretary of Health and Human Services) responsible for establishing those regulations. The statute lays out the conditions under which the Secretary of Defense may provide additional payments, thereby instructing the agency on a specific regulatory task.

10 U.S. Code § 2127 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide for the payment of educational expenses and contract with institutions for tuition and other educational expenses. While it authorizes these actions, it does not mandate that the Secretary do so, thus falling under “authorized but not mandated.” Furthermore, subsection (d) explicitly mentions that the Secretary of Defense makes determinations “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,” indicating that regulations are anticipated and authorized to facilitate this function.

The statute clearly instructs the agency (Secretary of Defense) to provide educational programs under specific conditions (when local educational agencies cannot), defines factors to consider when making that determination, and prescribes regulations for virtual education programs. Although the statute uses terms like “appropriate,” “necessary,” and “discretion,” the overall context directs the agency to a specific regulatory goal.

32 CFR Part 57 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 2164 as its legal authority, indicating a directly mandated relationship.

The statute outlines specific tasks such as establishing school boards (subsection d), setting procedures for elections and the board’s role in policy development, and prescribing regulations for a virtual secondary education program (subsection l). While some discretion exists, the statute clearly instructs the agency on specific regulatory tasks.

32 CFR Part 69 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 2164 in its authority section. This indicates that the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

The statute clearly instructs the agency (Secretary of Defense) on the specific regulatory task to provide elementary and secondary education to dependents of military members and civilian employees under certain conditions. It also provides open-ended terms “appropriate educational programs are not available through a local educational agency”

32 CFR Part 89 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 2164 as its legal authority. This indicates a direct mandate, as the regulation is implementing the statute.

While 10 U.S.C. § 2194 outlines broad goals like encouraging study in scientific disciplines, it also provides very specific details regarding what assistance the defense laboratories may provide to educational institutions, including loaning equipment, transferring surplus equipment, providing personnel, and offering opportunities for students and faculty. The repeated use of terms like “appropriate” grants the agency discretion, but within a defined task of establishing and maintaining education partnerships.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to allow defense laboratories to enter into education partnership agreements. While the statute mandates that the Secretary authorize the directors to enter into such agreements (subsection a), and ensure priorities are given (subsections c and d), it does not directly mandate specific regulations regarding the disposition of materiel to fulfill these agreements. The cited regulation, 32 CFR Part 273, does regulate the disposal of materiel, which subsection b(2) touches upon (“transferring to the institution any computer equipment, or other scientific equipment”). This relates, but doesn’t directly mandate, that this activity have regulations.

While 10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Chapter 137 (referenced in the regulation’s authority section) may provide general authority regarding the Department of Defense, the regulation itself also cites 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 51 U.S.C. 20113. These statutory provisions are more specific regarding the agency’s tasks related to acquisition, suggesting this falls under a specific authority delegation. Specifically, it appears the Chapters provide regulatory tasks or gaps to fill.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 201, concerns consultations, concurrences, and performance evaluations related to specific intelligence official appointments. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, concerns acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense in a broad sense, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation, nor does the regulation focus on appointments or performance reviews. The relationship is therefore related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.