Database Search Results

While the statute doesn’t specifically instruct on a particular regulatory task, 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 137 provide broad rulemaking authority over the Department of Defense.

10 U.S.C. § 171 establishes the Armed Forces Policy Council and tasks it with advising the Secretary of Defense. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. The creation of the Policy Council is related to the broad area of the armed forces and potentially relevant to policy decisions that could impact procurement, but it doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize acquisition planning.

The statute gives specific instructions on the creation of a council, membership, responsibilities, reporting requirements, and other tasks. It lays out what the council must do and when. While broad in scope of subject matter, there is a specific task and gap the statute is addressing. The Secretary of Defense is allowed to specify other responsibilities for the council.

The statute and regulation are related in that they both concern the Department of Defense and acquisition matters. 10 U.S. Code § 171a establishes a council to oversee the command, control, and communications system, including acquisition programs. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning within the federal government. However, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize this specific regulation.

10 U.S.C. § 172 gives the Secretary of Defense explicit responsibilities regarding explosive safety, storage, and transportation of ammunition. It directs the Secretary to act through a joint board and defines the chair’s responsibilities in detail, including recommending safety regulations and procedures. These instructions, even with terms like “appropriate” in subsection (c)(14), are specific enough to guide regulatory actions within the framework of acquisition planning.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 172, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide oversight on ammunition storage and transportation and establishes the Explosive Safety Board, outlining specific responsibilities and functions. While the statute authorizes these actions, it doesn’t explicitly mandate specific regulations detailed within 48 CFR Part 7. 48 CFR Part 7 broadly covers acquisition planning, including aspects like equipment acquisition and distinguishing between contractor and government performance, which aligns with the statute’s goal of ensuring safe and efficient management of ammunition supplies, but the specific regulations and planning processes are not directly mandated by the statute itself.

The statute delegates broad authority to the Secretary of Defense to establish advisory committees and employ part-time advisers as “he considers necessary” for the performance of his functions. It provides no specific regulatory task or gap, aligning it with a general authority delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 173 allows the Secretary of Defense to establish advisory committees, while 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense, the statute does not directly mandate acquisition planning regulations, nor does it explicitly authorize regulations specifically about acquisition planning. They are related to the Department of Defense’s functioning but not directly linked in terms of mandate or specific authorization.

The statute specifically outlines authorized activities that the funds can be used for. This falls under the specific authority delegation because it gives the Department of Defense a specific task: funding initiatives to combat terrorism readiness. Though the authorized activities listed in subsection (b) do provide room for interpretation, they are still confined to the overall goal of combating terrorism readiness, such as procuring and maintaining physical security equipment and supporting security forces.

10 U.S.C. § 166b authorizes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide funds for combating terrorism readiness initiatives. While it authorizes this activity, it does not mandate that regulations be created to implement it. The statute provides a framework, but the specifics of how that framework is implemented through acquisition planning are left to the discretion of the Department of Defense. 48 CFR Part 7 is authorized to procure equipment under 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions, and § 166b describes the authorized activities for which funding can be provided, including procurement, maintenance, and improvement of physical security equipment, therefore, the relationship is authorized but not mandated.

The statute directs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations for the activities of the special operations command, including operational security. This provides a specific regulatory task to the Secretary of Defense.

10 U.S.C. § 167(i) states “The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations for the activities of the special operations command.” This directly mandates the regulation. 48 CFR Part 7 is acquisition planning, and 10 U.S.C. § 167 (e)(4)(A) gives the commander authority for development and acquisition of equipment. Thus, acquisition planning is an activity of the special operations command for which regulations are directly mandated.

The statute specifically directs the delegation of limited acquisition authority for joint warfighting experimentation to the commander of the unified combatant command. Although “limited acquisition authority” may be considered open-ended, the delegation is for a specific purpose, and to a specific entity, therefore fitting the “Specific Authority” category.

10 U.S.C. § 167a provided for delegation of limited acquisition authority. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning. Therefore, the regulation is authorized but not mandated by the statute.

While the statute grants broad authority to establish a Cyber Command, it also explicitly details functions, responsibilities, and specific tasks. These detailed instructions, even while using terms such as “appropriate” elsewhere in the US Code sections referenced, constitute specific authority delegations as described by Hickman. The statute clearly assigns roles in strategy development, budgeting, training, and personnel management.

The statute authorizes the Department of Defense (specifically, the Secretary of Defense and subordinate actors) to take certain actions, such as establishing a unified combatant command for cyber operations and assigning forces to it. The statute uses the word “shall” in regards to the establishment of the command, but it also gives a high degree of discretion in how this mandate is fulfilled. Because the statute lays the groundwork for regulatory and administrative action but doesn’t dictate every minute aspect, I have classified the statute-regulation relationship as authorized, but not mandated.

While the regulation cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137, these are broad references to entire chapters of the U.S. Code. This is best characterized as a “General Authority” delegation because it provides broad rulemaking authority without identifying specific regulatory tasks.

10 U.S.C. § 168, now repealed, concerned military-to-military contacts and comparable activities. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. While international agreements and military activities may involve acquisitions, the relationship is not direct enough to be (a) or (b), nor unrelated enough to be (d). Therefore, (c) “related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized” is the best fit.

Although 10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 137 are cited as authority for the regulation and there is no direct mention of acquisition planning within 10 U.S.C. § 163, the statute creates duties for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Chapter 4 and 137 deal with acquisition. Because the Chairman would use acquistion planning to enact the duties assigned, it constitutes as speicific authority.

10 U.S.C. § 163 outlines the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While related to the Department of Defense, it neither directly mandates the acquisition planning regulations in 48 CFR Part 7, nor explicitly authorizes them. The regulation addresses acquisition planning generally, and the statute concerns the specific responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. There isn’t a clear mandate or authorization link between the two.

The statute explicitly directs the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures related to several areas. Specifically, 10 U.S.C. § 164(e)(1)(B), (f)(2)(B), and (g) explicitly instruct the Secretary of Defense to establish “procedures” relating to: the selection of subordinate commanders, the selection of combatant command staff, and the authority to suspend subordinates, respectively. Although the term “procedures” is open-ended, the statute identifies specific gaps where the agency needs to set up regulatory tasks. Moreover, 10 U.S.C. § 164(c)(2) states that the “Secretary of Defense shall ensure” that commanders have sufficient authority. Similarly, it calls for the Secretary to “periodically review” authority and assign it for support. This also calls for specific action from the Secretary.

The statute concerns the assignment, responsibilities, and authority of combatant commanders. While 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning, including equipment acquisition and inherently governmental functions, the connection to 10 U.S.C. § 164 is indirect. While combatant commands may require acquisitions and the CFR provides guidance, the statute doesn’t mandate or explicitly authorize this specific regulation. Instead, 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 are listed as authority for the regulation, and 10 U.S.C. 3016 is referenced to explain this authority, suggesting a deliberate, but not necessarily mandated, relationship.

10 U.S.C. § 165 grants broad authority to the Secretary of Defense to provide administration and support. It doesn’t prescribe specific regulatory tasks to be undertaken. While the statute identifies a particular goal (administration and support), it doesn’t delineate specific aspects of acquisition planning that must be regulated. The regulation addresses a variety of issues under the umbrella of “acquisition planning.” The statute enables but does not delineate or mandate what regulatory steps are necessary.

10 U.S.C. § 165 mandates the Secretary of Defense to provide administration and support to combatant commands. While it does not explicitly mandate the issuance of regulations to achieve this, it authorizes the Secretary to determine how best to administer and support these commands. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, which governs acquisition planning, including equipment acquisition and contractor/government performance considerations, falls within the realm of “administration and support.” Therefore, the statute authorizes the regulation, but does not directly mandate it. The regulation implements the broader mandate in the statute.

10 U.S. Code § 166 instructs the Secretary of Defense on the specific regulatory task of creating budget proposals for combatant commands. While “appropriate” introduces some open-endedness, the statute identifies the areas where funding may be requested (joint exercises, force training, etc.). This is more than a general delegation because it describes a specific process and set of considerations.

10 U.S. Code § 166 mandates the Secretary of Defense to include budget proposals for combatant commands in the annual budget submitted to Congress. Subsection (b) authorizes the Secretary of Defense (after consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to determine the specific content of these budget proposals, including funding for activities like joint exercises, force training, contingencies, and selected operations. This constitutes authorization but not a mandate for specific regulations regarding the planning and acquisition of resources related to those activities. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, is related to acquisition planning, which would be necessary to ensure funds requested are appropriately spent; however, section 166 doesn’t mandate that these particular regulations be implemented.

The statute specifically authorizes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide funds for a defined set of activities. While the activities are listed in broad terms (“force training”, “contingencies”), the statute clearly tasks the Chairman with the duty to distribute funds according to the guidelines set in the law, falling into the first category of specific authority delegations.

The statute concerns funding for combatant commands and authorized activities. While 48 CFR Part 7 addresses acquisition planning within the Department of Defense, it is related to the general mission of DoD but neither directly mandated by the statute nor explicitly authorized within it. 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 are listed as authorities, they are general authorities for acquisition regulations and are not a direct mandate for this specific statute.

The statute specifically tasks the Secretary of Defense to prescribe a process for expediting background investigations and requires certain features such as quantification, categorization, and prioritization. This falls under the definition of “Clearly instructs an agency on a specific regulatory task or gap, even using open-ended terms like ‘appropriate,’ ‘reasonable,’ or ‘necessary.'”

32 CFR Part 156 specifically cites 10 U.S.C. 1564 as authority, thus the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

While not exhaustive, the statute provides clear instructions on specific regulatory tasks, such as the collection, analysis, and expungement of DNA samples. Subsection (f) explicitly delegates authority to the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations for carrying out the section.

The statute explicitly states in subsection (f) that “This section shall be carried out under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense…” This directly mandates regulation to implement the statute. The regulation 28 CFR Part 28 cites 10 U.S.C. 1565 in its authority section.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to administer the specific requirements outlined in 10 U.S.C. § 1566a, such as designating voter assistance offices, providing information, and assisting uniformed service voters. This is not a broad grant of rulemaking authority but is tied directly to the implementation of the specific voter assistance program detailed in the statute. The statute provides considerable detail about what the agency should do.

10 U.S.C. § 1566a, subsection (f), explicitly states, “The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations relating to the administration of the requirements of this section.” This directly mandates the regulatory action by the Secretary of Defense. 32 CFR Part 233 lists 10 U.S.C. 1566a in its authority section, directly linking the CFR to the US Code.

While 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 are cited, they provide broad authority for defense acquisition generally. They do not instruct the agency on a specific regulatory task related to acquisition planning.

10 U.S.C. § 161 concerns the establishment and structure of combatant commands. 48 CFR Part 7, which is the Federal Acquisition Regulation, concerns acquisition planning. Although combatant commands will inevitably procure services, supplies, and equipment, the statute-regulation relationship is only loosely related, as 10 U.S.C. § 161 does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize acquisition planning.

The statute provides broad authority to the Secretary of Defense to direct force assignments and prescribe transfer procedures. While it specifies certain aspects (e.g., presidential approval for transfers), it doesn’t delineate specific regulatory tasks with sufficient granularity to qualify as a Specific Authority Delegation. The language “as directed by the Secretary of Defense” grants considerable discretion, aligning with the characteristics of a General Authority Delegation.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to direct the Secretaries of the military departments to assign forces to combatant commands and to establish procedures for transferring forces between commands. It uses permissive language (“as directed by the Secretary of Defense”), indicating authorization but not a direct mandate to create regulations regarding every aspect of force assignment or transfer.

10 U.S.C. § 1553 specifically instructs the Secretary concerned to establish a board of review to review discharges and dismissals. The statute provides a defined regulatory task, setting up a board, the criteria for review, and certain specifications for its composition (especially in cases involving PTSD, TBI, or mental health disorders). This level of specificity aligns with Specific Authority delegation.

The regulation (33 CFR Part 51) explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1553 as its basis of authority. This indicates a direct mandate relationship as the regulation implements the statute’s provisions regarding discharge review boards.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary concerned to establish boards of review for a defined purpose (reviewing findings and decisions related to physical disability retirements/separations). The statute outlines the composition of the boards and the scope of their review.

10 U.S.C. § 1554(a) states that “The Secretary concerned shall from time to time establish boards of review…”, this directly mandates the creation of boards of review, therefore it is directly mandated.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary concerned to establish boards of review for a specific purpose: to review findings and decisions related to retirement or separation without pay for physical disability. This falls under Hickman’s “Specific Authority” delegation because it identifies a specific regulatory task.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 1554) explicitly states that “The Secretary concerned shall from time to time establish boards of review”. This directly mandates the establishment of the boards of review, which is what the regulation (33 CFR Part 50) addresses, making the relationship directly mandated.

The statutes cited in the “Authority” section of the regulation (specifically 10 U.S.C. chapter 4, chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016)), grant broad rulemaking authority related to defense acquisition, without prescribing any specific regulatory tasks. 40 U.S.C. 121(c) grants broad authority regarding procurement.

10 U.S. Code § 155a relates to the organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, specifically the assistants for National Guard and Reserve matters. 48 CFR Part 7 addresses acquisition planning generally, with references to statutes providing authority for the FAR. Although both relate to the Department of Defense and its operations, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation, nor vice versa. The regulation cites Title 10, chapter 4 and chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016), as part of its authority.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to create regulations governing the selection process for the Legal Counsel, indicating a precise regulatory task and not a broad grant of rulemaking power. It even ties the selection board procedures “insofar as practicable” to chapter 36 of title 10, further solidifying it as a specific, guided delegation.

10 U.S. Code § 156(b) directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations regarding the selection of the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

While the statute grants broad authority to correct military records, it specifically instructs the Secretary to establish procedures for corrections, act through boards of civilians, and address specific types of claims, and provide training to board members, demonstrating specific regulatory tasks even if using open-ended terms like “necessary” and “in the interest of justice.”

The regulation 33 CFR Part 52 is directly mandated by the statute 10 U.S.C. § 1552, as the regulation’s authority citation explicitly includes 10 U.S.C. 1552. This signifies that the regulation is implementing and elaborating on the provisions outlined in the statute.