Database Search Results

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to appoint a board, defines the composition of the board, and outlines the specific duties of the board regarding reviewing and determining ways to improve athletics programs at the academies. This represents a clearly defined task assigned to the agency (Secretary of Defense) to review these programs.

The statute establishes an independent review board to assess the athletic programs of service academies. The regulation concerns acquisition planning, which appears to be a general procurement regulation. While both relate to the Department of Defense generally, the specific focus of the statute on athletics programs and the regulation on procurement means that the relationship is related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized. The regulation does concern how the agency acquires goods and services, and it’s plausible some acquisitions could relate to athletics programs. But the Statute does not require any acquisitions or procurement activities.

While 10 U.S.C. 1800 itself only provides definitions, its inclusion in the citation for 32 CFR Part 79 implies that the regulation operationalizes the concepts defined within the statute regarding military child development programs. Other sections cited such as 1791-1800 discuss funding, standards and other aspects of military development centers. The agency is thus tasked with implementing the regulatory regime which is more than just a general grant of authority.

The regulation, 32 CFR Part 79, explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1800 as authority. Therefore, the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

While the statute provides detailed instructions regarding the JROC’s structure, mission, and composition, it does not specifically delegate authority to issue acquisition planning regulations. The statute provides broad guidelines for assessing and prioritizing military requirements, which indirectly impacts acquisition, but doesn’t specify how those requirements should be implemented through the acquisition process. The regulation is authorized through Title 40 and Chapters within Title 10 that broadly define the relationship between the executive branch, the DOD, and the federal acquisition process.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 181, establishes the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and outlines its responsibilities related to assessing military capabilities, identifying gaps, and setting performance requirements. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, pertains to acquisition planning. While the JROC’s activities influence acquisition decisions (as they define requirements), the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize this particular regulation. Acquisition planning is a logical consequence of JROC’s activities and DOD’s broader mission but is not directly tied by mandate or explicit authorization.

While the language uses the word “may,” it provides specific directives on how the Center should operate including (but not limited to): providing education, training, research, facilitating interagency coordination, developing disaster risk indicators, and the acceptance of donations. While it does provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to designate additional missions, these are still required to fall within the general area of disaster management and humanitarian assistance.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to operate the Center and lays out missions. Regulations relating to acquisition planning would fall under the authorized activities, but are not directly mandated.

The statute provides clear instructions regarding specific regulatory tasks, such as prescribing safety regulations (subsection d), requiring inspections (subsection e), establishing procedures for a national hotline (subsection b), and requiring assistance from local authorities in child abuse cases (subsection c). While the statute uses terms like “appropriate” it is still instructing a specific regulatory task.

Subsection (d) of the statute explicitly states “The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations on safety and operating procedures at military child development centers.” This directly mandates rulemaking. Other subsections also use “shall” in relation to Secretary of Defense.

The statute provides clear instructions to the Secretary of Defense, requiring the establishment of parent boards and parent participation programs at military child development centers. It even provides specifics, such as lower fees for participating parents. While “appropriate,” “reasonable,” or “necessary” are not explicitly used, the level of direction in the statute fits with this category.

The statute mandates the Secretary of Defense to establish parent boards and parent participation programs at each military child development center. The regulation, 32 CFR Part 79, governs Child Development Programs and lists 10 U.S.C. 1791 through 1800 as authority for the regulation, demonstrating the regulation flows directly from statutory mandate. While 10 U.S.C. 1795 isn’t explicitly listed, it falls within that range of statutes, and Part 79 is plainly intended to implement the statutory mandates concerning child development programs generally.

The statute instructs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations specifically for the “provision of such assistance” (subsidies for family home day care). This falls under Specific Authority because it identifies a particular regulatory task, even if the details are left to the Secretary’s discretion.

The statute explicitly states, “The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for the provision of such assistance,” directly mandating the creation of regulations.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to implement a regulatory program – mandating accreditation of military child development centers and even refers to standards of operation necessary for accreditation. The statute also provides the general topic and target of the rule, and instructs the agency to make certain rules within those areas.

10 U.S. Code § 1797 directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to require military child development centers to meet specific standards of operation necessary for accreditation.

While the statute outlines criteria for eligibility and permissible uses of funds, it grants the Secretary of Defense broad discretion in determining the “best interest of the Department of Defense” and identifying “another category of child care services or youth services” that are appropriate. This grants broad rulemaking authority without specifically identifying a precise regulatory task.

The statute explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide financial assistance for child care services, but does not mandate that the Secretary do so. The word “may” indicates discretionary authority.

While the statute does provide a direction about funding and responsibility for allocations, it lacks specific regulatory tasks for the agency. It provides a broad mandate to manage military child care but doesn’t detail how the agency should go about regulating the programs.

10 U.S.C. § 1791 is explicitly listed in the “Authority” section for 32 CFR Part 79. While the statute establishes policy and responsibilities, it doesn’t mandate specific regulations, but authorizes them to implement the statute’s provisions effectively.

The statute provides specific direction to the Secretary of Defense to implement a training program and further specifies the minimum topics the training program should cover (early childhood development, age-appropriate activities, child abuse prevention, and emergency medical procedures). While open-ended terms may be used within the regulations (e.g., defining what constitutes “appropriate” disciplinary techniques), the statute itself is specific in the task it delegates.

10 U.S.C. § 1792(a)(1) states “The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations implementing a training program for child care employees.” This is a direct mandate to issue regulations.

While the statute uses the term “regulations,” it provides quite specific instructions. It directs the agency to establish fees, mandates uniformity across military departments, and requires fees to be based on family income. It even specifies potential waivers and discounts. This level of detail moves it beyond a general grant of rulemaking authority and into the realm of specific instructions, even if using terms like “may” and requiring fees that are “competitive”.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 1793) explicitly mandates that the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations establishing fees for military child development centers. This direct command from Congress makes the statute-regulation relationship directly mandated.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations related to child abuse prevention and safety at military child development centers. This includes regulations on safety and operating procedures (subsection d) and procedures for following up on complaints (subsection b). While the statute uses terms like “appropriate” and does not detail the specifics of the regulations, the statute provides instructions on specific regulatory tasks, which makes it fall under Specific Authority Delegation.

The regulation, 32 CFR Part 60, explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. § 1794 as its authority. This indicates a direct mandate as the statute authorizes regulations concerning child abuse prevention and safety at military facilities, and the regulation pertains to the Family Advocacy Command Assistance Team (FACAT), which falls under child abuse prevention.

While the regulation addresses the “Family Advocacy Program (FAP)” broadly, the Statute 10 U.S. Code § 1794, in particular, addresses child abuse prevention and safety at facilities. It then specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations on safety and operating procedures at military child development centers in paragraph (d), therefore meeting the “Specific Authority” definition.

While 10 U.S. Code § 1794 mandates certain actions, specifically subsection (c) “Assistance From Local Authorities” and (d) “Safety Regulations,” the regulation 32 CFR Part 61 appears to broadly implement a Family Advocacy Program (FAP). The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations, but the specific content and scope of 32 CFR Part 61, which covers a range of family advocacy issues, suggests the regulation is authorized but not directly mandated in its entirety by this specific statute. Other authorities may contribute to the overall regulatory scheme.

The statute provides a highly detailed framework for the Office of Special Needs to operate, including specific directives on policy development (such as assignment considerations and support procedures detailed in subsection (d)), program establishment (subsection (e)), and reporting requirements (subsection (g)). These detailed instructions, while using terms like “appropriate,” are directly tied to specific regulatory tasks, indicating a specific authority delegation.

The regulation explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1781c as its authority. The statute mandates the development and implementation of policies and programs related to military families with special needs; therefore, the regulation directly implements the statute.

Although 10 U.S. Code § 1783 does not explicitly direct the Department of Defense to create the Family Advocacy Program in 32 CFR Part 61, it does provide direction on the composition requirements for the advisory committees that would be informing any Family Advocacy Program created in the Department of Defense. Because the statute speaks to a specific regulation task, the delegation is for Specific Authority.

The statute addresses the composition of advisory committees within the Department of Defense related to military families, exempting them from certain requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act solely due to the presence of family members. The regulation concerns the Family Advocacy Program (FAP) and standards for clinical intervention regarding domestic abuse. While both pertain to military families and the Department of Defense, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation, nor does the regulation directly implement the statute. They are related in their broader subject matter.

While 10 U.S.C. § 1783 relates to advisory committees, which could indirectly influence child development programs, it doesn’t provide specific instructions for regulating child development programs. The statute primarily clarifies the status of advisory committees with family members, rather than directly delegating rulemaking authority related to the substance of CDPs. The statute, along with 1791-1800, 2809 and 2812 grants broad authority.

The regulation, 32 CFR Part 79, explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. § 1783 as authority. This means the regulation is authorized by the statute. However, the statute itself doesn’t mandate the creation of specific child development programs or related regulations; it simply allows the Department of Defense to structure advisory committees in a certain way without them being classified as advisory committees under the definition of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The regulation goes further by establishing and detailing the Child Development Programs, which is authorized but not mandated by the statute.

The statute directs the Secretary of Defense to take specific action, i.e., request certain reporting from states regarding child abuse and neglect, providing a specific regulatory task. Although the language used to task the agency uses language that allows some discretion, this is still considered a specific authority delegation.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to request states to provide reporting of child abuse and neglect cases involving military families. It does not mandate that the Secretary create a regulation; it authorizes him to make a request. Therefore, the relationship is authorized but not mandated.

The statute contains instructions to the DOD and DOE. For example, it provides specific details regarding the responsibilities of the council, such as “Preparing the annual Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum” and “Coordinating and approving programming and budget matters pertaining to nuclear weapons programs.” Even if open-ended terms are used for certain activites, the tasks are clearly listed.

The statute establishes the Nuclear Weapons Council and outlines its responsibilities, including some related to contracting. 48 CFR Part 7 provides guidance on acquisition planning, which could be relevant to some of the Council’s responsibilities (e.g., identifying cost-effective schedules for nuclear weapons production). However, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the FAR regulation.

The statute uses broad language, such as “as are necessary,” which provides the Secretary with significant discretion in establishing advisory committees and employing advisors. This lack of specificity in the statute places it in the General Authority category. It gives the Secretary the power to create these committees and employ advisors without dictating specific regulatory tasks or gaps to be addressed through rulemaking.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 174) concerns the establishment of advisory committees and employment of advisers for research and development activities within the military departments. The regulation (48 CFR Part 7) pertains to acquisition planning. While both relate to the functioning of the Department of Defense, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific acquisition planning regulations detailed in Part 7. It is related because good acquisition planning may involve the use of outside advisors, but this connection is not direct enough to call it mandated or explicitly authorized.

Chapter 4 of Title 10 outlines the authority and responsibilities of the Department of Defense. Chapter 137 outlines procurement policies and procedures. Since 48 CFR Part 7 operates under the authority of these chapters, it falls under the “specific authority” category as the statute directly instructs agencies on regulatory tasks.

10 U.S.C. § 175 establishes the Reserve Forces Policy Board and outlines its function, membership, and organization by referencing section 10301. While 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning, it does not seem to be explicitly mandated or authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 175. However, acquisition planning could be related to the Reserve Forces Policy Board’s activities as they may require procurement of supplies or equipment, so the relationship is indirect and not explicitly authorized.

10 U.S.C. § 176(d) specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to “promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to prescribe the organization, functions, and responsibilities of the Institute.” This is a clear directive outlining a specific regulatory task.

10 U.S.C. § 176(b)(1) and (d) directly authorize the Secretary of Defense to contract with the American Registry of Pathology and to promulgate regulations concerning the organization, functions, and responsibilities of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. 48 CFR Part 7 is a component of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), which implements and supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for the Department of Defense. It is directly mandated because the statute authorizes contracting and specifies organizational structure, which necessitates acquisition planning and further regulation.

The statute authorizes the American Registry of Pathology to enter into contracts, accept gifts and grants, and engage in cooperative agreements. While these are specific activities the Registry is permitted to undertake, the statute does not specify how the Registry should conduct acquisition planning, such as the specific regulations found in 48 CFR Part 7. Instead, it provides broad authority to enter into contracts “as the Board deems appropriate,” implying general authority regarding the means by which it carries out its authorized functions.

10 U.S.C. § 177 authorizes the establishment of the American Registry of Pathology. While the statute provides the authorization, it doesn’t mandate the specific details related to acquisition planning as outlined in 48 CFR Part 7. The statute provides the legal basis for the agency’s actions, however, the agency has discretion in implementing rules related to acquisition.

While 10 U.S.C. § 178 authorizes the Foundation to enter into contracts (which would necessitate acquisition planning), it does not directly instruct a separate agency on a specific regulatory task related to acquisitions. The statute primarily concerns the establishment and operation of the foundation itself, not directly controlling other agencies’ acquisition planning responsibilities. Thus, the references in 48 CFR Part 7 to “10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016)” are interpreted as a general delegation to the DoD for broad acquisition planning purposes that is further implemented by the DoD through the FAR, rather than a specific delegation targeted for this particular statute.

10 U.S.C. § 178 authorizes the establishment of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation. The foundation is authorized to enter into contracts and agreements to carry out its purposes, thus, acquisition planning is authorized but not directly mandated by this specific statute.

The regulation cites 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137, and 51 U.S.C. 20113 as its authorities. These are broader grants of authority related to federal property, armed forces, and space programs, respectively. The regulation focuses on acquisition planning, which falls under the general auspices of these authorities. There is no direct and specific instruction about acquisition planning laid out by Congress, but there are general mandates to acquire goods and services under Title 10.

10 U.S.C. § 169 related to the United States Space Command. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning. While the Space Command could potentially procure items or services, leading to an acquisition planning process, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The connection is therefore related but not directly mandated nor explicitly authorized. The regulation’s authority also does not mention 10 U.S.C. § 169.