Database Search Results

The regulation (48 CFR Part 7) cites “10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016)” as part of its authority. These chapters likely contain broad provisions related to defense acquisition. This reference to a chapter, rather than a specific section outlining a clear, regulatory task, indicates a broad delegation of rulemaking authority to the agency. Therefore, the delegation should be categorized as General Authority.

The statute 10 U.S.C. § 202, per the provided text, relates to the unauthorized use of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s name, initials, or seal. While 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning, there’s no direct mandate for the regulation stemming from the statute, nor is it explicitly authorized by it. However, prohibiting unauthorized use could indirectly impact procurement practices by preventing deceptive marketing related to DIA recognition, creating a loose relationship.

The regulation 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 are broad delegations concerning the organization and functioning of the armed forces and procurement procedures, not specific directives for rulemaking.

10 U.S.C. § 203 related to the appointment of the Director of the Missile Defense Agency. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense, the appointment of a director and acquisition planning are distinct topics. The statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation.

While seemingly broad, the delegation in 10 U.S.C. § 2036 does provide specific instructions to the agency regarding the grant program for STEM education within the Junior Reserve Officers”™ Training Corps. It details eligible entities, covered subjects, preferred recipients, and required evaluations. Though the Secretary has discretion in the implementation, the statute outlines the precise area that is to be regulated. The reference to 10 U.S.C. 2036 in the authority section of the regulation shows that it is specific to the statute’s authorization.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2036, explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Defense to carry out a grant program, but does not mandate the creation or specific details of the regulation found in 32 CFR Part 516. The statute provides permissive authority (“may carry out a program”) and 32 CFR Part 516, which addresses litigation, includes 10 U.S.C. 2036 in its authority section. The connection is therefore authorized, but not required.

Subsection (c) of 10 U.S. Code § 205 provides very specific instructions regarding changes to the Missile Defense Agency’s acquisition processes. The statute delineates specific actions the Secretary of Defense must take before changes can be implemented, including consultations, certifications, and reporting requirements. This level of detail indicates a specific authority delegation, as it directly addresses a particular regulatory task (modifying acquisition processes) and dictates the steps required.

The statute 10 U.S. Code § 205 outlines the structure and responsibilities within the Missile Defense Agency, including acquisition processes. While the statute doesn’t directly mandate specific acquisition regulations outlined in 48 CFR Part 7, it authorizes the agency to engage in acquisition activities. Specifically, subsection (c) discusses the acquisition processes and responsibilities of the Missile Defense Agency and requires certain notifications and consultations before changes are made. 48 CFR Part 7 provides a framework for acquisition planning which agencies like the Missile Defense Agency may then utilize, but it is not explicitly required.

The statute provides specific authority to the Secretary of Defense to charge fees for providing information in the Federal Logistics Information System. It specifies the service, the recipients, and the method for determining the amount of the fee (“appropriate for recovering the costs”). While the term “appropriate” is open-ended, it still directs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

While 10 U.S.C. § 197 concerns fees for logistics information and 48 CFR Part 7 relates to acquisition planning, there is no direct mandate or explicit authorization linking the two. Acquisition planning might involve using logistics information, but the statute does not directly instruct the regulation, nor does the regulation explicitly state that it implements the statute.

The statute explicitly details the structure, responsibilities, and reporting requirements of the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation. It specifies the duties of the office in providing assistance to various communities and coordinating with other organizations, which provide specific tasks and responsibilities to the agency.

10 U.S. Code § 198 establishes an office and outlines its duties. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning within the federal government. While both relate to the Department of Defense, the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate or authorize the specific acquisition planning regulations. They are related in that the office created by the statute might utilize the acquisition planning procedures outlined in the CFR, but there is no direct mandate or authorization.

10 U.S.C. § 2005 gives the Secretary specific authority to establish terms and conditions within the advanced education assistance agreements to protect the interest of the U.S., including the authority to create regulations directly connected to education programs. The regulation fleshes out the procedural aspects of these agreements, and the statute explicitly directs this type of action.

32 CFR Part 68 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 2005 as its authority. The statute directly mandates/authorizes the Secretary to prescribe terms and conditions to protect the interests of the United States, and the regulation outlines policies and procedures related to voluntary education programs, which falls under those prescribed terms and conditions.

The statute in subsection (b) provides the Secretary of Defense the authority to “authorize the use of educational assistance…by regulation” for programs not explicitly described in subsection (a) so long as certain conditions are met. This provides a specific regulatory task: to create regulations outlining the waiver process and the conditions under which educational assistance can be used for programs outside the specified categories, even with broad guidelines for those conditions.

32 CFR Part 68 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. § 2006a in its “Authority” section, indicating that the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

While not incredibly detailed, the statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense (and Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard) to administer the tuition assistance program under regulations they prescribe. This directs the agency to a specific regulatory task: administering the program described in the statute.

The regulation 32 CFR Part 68 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. § 2007 in its authority section, indicating a direct mandate from the statute to create regulations pertaining to voluntary education programs.

The statute grants broad authority to the Secretary of Defense to determine when actions would be more effective, economical, or efficient and to provide for the performance of supply and service activities. It does not specify particular regulations to be created; instead, it delegates authority to act when the Secretary deems it appropriate to consolidate services.

10 U.S.C. § 191 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide for common performance of supply or service activities. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning within the federal government. While Part 7 uses Title 10 as a source of authority, the statute does not directly mandate the acquisition planning regulations, but authorizes regulations related to the provision of supply and service activities.

10 U.S.C. § 192 tasks the Secretary of Defense with overall supervision, program/budget review, and periodic efficiency/effectiveness reviews of defense agencies and field activities. This broad mandate provides the general authority for establishing regulations such as 48 CFR Part 7, which aims to ensure sound acquisition planning. While some aspects of the statute (e.g., the reporting requirement) are quite specific, the overall delegation is broad. It doesn’t specify how the Secretary is to achieve these goals, only that they must be achieved and certain procedures must be in place.

10 U.S.C. § 192 mandates certain actions by the Secretary of Defense regarding the supervision and review of Defense Agencies and DoD Field Activities. While it does not directly mandate the specific acquisition planning regulations outlined in 48 CFR Part 7, it authorizes the Secretary to establish procedures (subsection b), develop internal guidance (subsection c(1)(C)), and address efficient and effective operation (subsection c(1)(A)). These directives provide the statutory basis for creating regulations concerning acquisition planning to support these functions.

The statute explicitly instructs the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to perform specific regulatory tasks like submitting reports on combat support agencies’ readiness (subsection a), ensuring participation in joint training exercises (subsection b), developing a uniform readiness reporting system (subsection c), establishing policies and procedures for NSA and NGA (subsection d), and developing policies to correct deficiencies (subsection e). It outlines specific regulatory objectives and means for achieving them. Although terms like “appropriate” and “necessary” are used, the statute provides clear direction on a specific regulatory issue.

10 U.S.C. § 193 mandates certain actions related to combat support agencies and their oversight, specifically focusing on readiness, training, and reporting. 48 CFR Part 7 covers acquisition planning for the federal government, including the Department of Defense. While ensuring combat support agencies are ready might involve acquisition planning (e.g., acquiring necessary equipment or services), the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The relationship is related because both concern the functioning and resourcing of the Department of Defense, but one is about readiness oversight and the other is about procurement processes broadly applicable across the government.

The statutes listed as authority for 48 CFR Part 7, namely 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137, and 51 U.S.C. 20113, provide broad acquisition authority. The statute allows the DoD to create regulations pertaining to acquisition planning. These chapters and sections of US Code give broad rulemaking powers, and there is no specific regulatory task identified. Therefore the delegation type is a General Authority.

10 U.S.C. § 194 places a limit on the number of personnel in specified Department of Defense activities. While the agency has general acquisition authority, the statute does not directly mandate acquisition regulations or explicitly authorize them. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, generally concerns acquisition planning, but it is not directly tied to the personnel limitations outlined in the statute. The regulation might relate to how the DoD manages acquisitions given the personnel limitations, but the relationship is not a direct mandate or explicit authorization.

10 U.S.C. § 195 specifically instructs the Defense Automated Printing Service to comply with 44 U.S.C. § 501. This is a clear and specific regulatory task assigned by Congress to an agency. While not explicitly granting rulemaking power, it requires adherence to existing rules, indicating a specific task.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 195, explicitly states that the Defense Automated Printing Service “shall comply fully with the requirements of section 501 of title 44.” This is a direct mandate to adhere to the provisions outlined in the specified section of Title 44, making it a directly mandated relationship.

The statutory authority listed for 48 CFR Part 7 (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) provides broad rulemaking authority related to procurement and management within the federal government and the Department of Defense. It does not single out specific regulatory tasks for acquisition planning, making it a general delegation.

10 U.S. Code § 186, related to the Defense Business System Management Committee, while repealed, is related to the general topic of defense management and business operations, which could indirectly relate to acquisition planning. However, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific acquisition planning regulations outlined in 48 CFR Part 7. Acquisition planning covers a broad range of procurement processes, while the statute focused on a specific committee.

The authority cited for 48 CFR Part 7 includes broad provisions regarding federal property management (40 U.S.C. 121(c)), general authority for the Department of Defense (10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 legacy provisions, see 10 U.S.C. 3016) and national space programs (51 U.S.C. 20113). These are not specific directives to create regulations regarding acquisition planning, but rather broad grants of authority for federal agencies to manage their operations, acquisitions, and relevant programs. This makes it a General Authority delegation.

10 U.S. Code § 187, which pertained to the Strategic Materials Protection Board, has been repealed. While it was active, and considering 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning, there’s no direct mandate for the regulation from the statute, nor is it explicitly authorized. However, acquisition planning could be related to strategic materials protection insofar as the Department of Defense might need to acquire strategic materials, but the connection is not direct.

While 48 CFR Part 7, on its own, might seem authorized by general acquisition statutes (40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions; and 51 U.S.C. 20113), 10 U.S.C. § 188(e) gives specific instruction that each participating agency to “establish processes to streamline the consideration and approval of procuring the services of the national laboratories on appropriate matters; and ensure that such processes are used in accordance with the criteria established under subsection (d)(4).” This directs the agencies to create specific streamlined acquisitions processes related to national laboratories.

10 U.S.C. § 188 establishes an interagency council to leverage national laboratories for national security missions and streamline procurement processes. 48 CFR Part 7 covers general acquisition planning. While 10 U.S.C. § 188(e) mentions streamlining procurement involving national laboratories, it doesn’t specifically mandate or explicitly authorize 48 CFR Part 7 or similar acquisition regulations. The relationship is related as both deal with government acquisitions.

10 U.S.C. § 189 specifically instructs the Department of Defense to establish a board and defines its responsibilities regarding communications security, cryptographic modernization, and related key management activities. While it grants some discretion in determining the number of members, it clearly outlines the board’s functions, indicating a focused and specific delegation of authority related to communications security.

While 10 U.S.C. § 189 concerns communications security within the Department of Defense, and 48 CFR Part 7 addresses acquisition planning, they are related in that acquisition planning would encompass the acquisition of communications security equipment and services. However, the statute doesn’t directly mandate the specific acquisition planning regulations, nor does it explicitly authorize them. It simply sets up a board to advise on communications security, which could influence acquisition decisions covered by the general acquisition planning framework.

The statute adding 10 U.S.C. § 190, Pub. L. 114-328, div. A, title VIII, § 820(b)(1), Dec. 23, 2016, created a specific regulatory task: establishing the Defense Cost Accounting Standards Board. This falls under “Specific Authority Delegations” because it directs the agency to address a particular issue (defense cost accounting standards) even if the precise methods were left to agency discretion.

10 U.S.C. § 190 (now repealed) related to the Defense Cost Accounting Standards Board. While 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning, and the statute concerned a board related to defense cost accounting, the connection is not a direct mandate or explicit authorization, but rather a related subject area.

The statute grants the Secretary of Defense broad authority to operate the Center for Excellence in Environmental Security and to specify its missions beyond those listed in the statute. While the statute does identify specific areas of focus for the Center’s missions (environmental insecurity, reserve component roles, information sharing), it also includes a provision in subsection (b)(3) allowing the Secretary to assign “such other missions as the Secretary of Defense may specify.” This open-ended delegation of authority to define additional missions places the delegation within the General Authority category because the statute sets up a broad framework for the Secretary to regulate, including the flexibility to determine specific activities to be performed.

The statute, 10 U.S. Code § 182a, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to operate a Center for Excellence in Environmental Security and prescribes its missions, but it does not mandate the Secretary to do so. The statute uses the word “may,” indicating permissive, not mandatory, authority. While the regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, generally concerns acquisition planning, including contractor versus government performance, it’s tangentially related to the statute because the Center could potentially involve acquisition planning for resources or services. However, the statute does not explicitly mandate any specific regulation regarding acquisition planning in relation to the Center; the Secretary of Defense can determine how to operate the center within the broad framework provided by the statute.

While 10 U.S.C. § 183 is primarily focused on creating a board and outlining its duties, rather than directly delegating regulatory authority for acquisition planning, there are specific regulatory tasks implied. The Board of Actuaries makes recommendations regarding the funding and amortization of specific funds, and these recommendations could influence acquisition planning related to those funds. Though indirect, the statute guides specific agency actions (funding and amortization decisions) which subsequently impact regulatory tasks such as acquisition planning.

While 10 U.S.C. § 183 concerns the Department of Defense and the creation of a Board of Actuaries, and 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning within the federal government, specifically including the Department of Defense as indicated by the citation of 10 U.S.C. chapters 4 and 137, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The link is that both concern the Department of Defense.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to establish a clearinghouse with clearly defined functions, including coordinating reviews, developing planning tools, and developing procedures for notification and consideration of specific projects, that directly impact military operations and readiness. While there may be open-ended terms like “appropriate” or “necessary,” the statute provides a detailed regulatory task with identified goals and responsibilities.

The regulation relates to acquisition planning and the statute addresses a clearinghouse for reviewing mission obstructions related to energy and antenna projects. While both relate to the Department of Defense and potentially involve acquisitions, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific acquisition planning regulations found in 48 CFR Part 7.

The statute provides specific regulatory tasks to be addressed by the Secretary of Defense. The language outlines specific functions of the Center, such as developing standardized reporting processes, recommending guidance, developing training, creating a repository of information, and coordinating with other agencies. Although the statute uses some broad terms, the context provides a clear indication of Congress’s intended regulatory objective, and the term, “perform such other functions as the Secretary of Defense may specify” provides broad, yet connected, latitude.

10 U.S.C. § 184 mandates the Secretary of Defense to operate the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. While 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning, which could potentially involve contracting out some functions related to the Center, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize regulations about acquisition planning for the Center’s operation. The relationship is that acquisitions could occur when operating the center; thus, it is a related topic.

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016) provide the DOD with specific authority to regulate military acquisitions.

While 10 U.S.C. § 185 concerns safety within the Department of Defense and authorizes regulations related to joint safety, and 48 CFR Part 7 relates to acquisition planning, the regulation does not directly implement the statute’s safety mandates. Furthermore, the statute does not explicitly authorize acquisition planning regulations, but the regulations are related to the statute because they both pertain to the Department of Defense and its operations.

While broad in some senses, the statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense on a particular regulatory task: authorizing participation in childcare programs for a specific group (non-dependents), limited by space, services, and objectives defined in the statute. The statute provides objectives that the Secretary of Defense must determine if allowing particular participation meets those goals.

The statute grants the Secretary of Defense the authority to authorize participation in child care and youth programs by otherwise ineligible children, but does not mandate it. The Secretary may authorize, indicating discretion, which fits the “authorized but not mandated” relationship.