Database Search Results

The statute itself doesn’t delegate specific rulemaking authority or identify specific gaps to be addressed through regulation. However, the existence of the General Counsel provides a key actor that may create a relationship to regulations such as 48 CFR Part 7. This is consistent with General Authority.

10 U.S.C. § 140 establishes the position of General Counsel of the Department of Defense and defines the officer’s general role. While it doesn’t directly mandate acquisition planning regulations, nor explicitly authorize them, the existence of a chief legal officer within the DOD is related to the department’s overall operations, including contracting and acquisition. The General Counsel would provide legal advice regarding acquisition, so the role is indirectly related to any regulations promulgated regarding acquisition planning, but not explicitly authorized by the statute creating the position.

While not a typical delegation about what actions are permissible, the statute tells the Secretaries to promulgate regulations to administer the statute. The statute includes guardrails like “uniform” to guide the regulation.

Subsection (j) of 10 U.S. Code § 1408 directly mandates that “The Secretaries concerned shall prescribe uniform regulations for the administration of this section.” This creates a direct statute-regulation relationship.

While the statute is quite detailed and complex, subsection (j) specifically instructs the “Secretaries concerned” to prescribe uniform regulations for the administration of this section. This falls within the realm of a specific authority delegation as the agency (Secretaries concerned) is clearly instructed on a specific regulatory task (administration of the section) and is instructed to follow specific procedures.

Subsection (j), titled “Regulations,” states: “The Secretaries concerned shall prescribe uniform regulations for the administration of this section.” This language directly mandates the creation of regulations to carry out the provisions outlined in the statute.

While the statute identifies specific duties for some Assistant Secretaries, it primarily gives the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to assign duties and powers. This aligns with the “General Authority” delegation type, where specific regulatory tasks are not identified by the statute itself. The reference to resources, policy, program planning, and execution are broad mandates.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to prescribe duties and exercise powers for the Assistant Secretaries, as stated in subsection (b)(1), but it doesn’t mandate specific regulations. 48 CFR Part 7 implements acquisition planning, which aligns with the duties and powers exercised by the Secretary of Defense and, subsequently, the Assistant Secretaries related to resource allocation, program planning, and execution, as outlined in 10 U.S.C. § 138(b).

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 are cited as authority for the regulation. These are broad chapters relating to the organization and authority within the Department of Defense. There is no specific task delegated, only a general grant of authority to create acquisition regulations.

10 U.S. Code § 138c concerns the establishment and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. While reducing energy consumption might be a component of some acquisitions and programs, the statute doesn’t mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation, making it a related but not directly mandated or authorized relationship. The connection is tangential – acquisition planning could consider operational energy, but isn’t required to by the statute.

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, listed as authorities, provide broad authorities related to procurement and organization of defense activities rather than specifically directing acquisition planning.

10 U.S. Code § 138d concerns the now-repealed position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs. 48 CFR Part 7 relates to acquisition planning across the federal government. While both relate to the Department of Defense, the statute about the Assistant Secretary does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the acquisition regulations. They are related in that both concern the Department of Defense.

10 U.S.C. § 139 provides specific instructions to the agency. It details specific responsibilities and tasks for the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. For instance, it instructs the Director to “prescribe, by authority of the Secretary of Defense, policies and procedures for the conduct of operational test and evaluation in the Department of Defense.” This constitutes a specific regulatory task assigned by Congress to the agency, fulfilling the criteria of a Specific Authority Delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 139 concerns operational test and evaluation within the Department of Defense and defines the role, responsibilities, and authority of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. While testing and evaluation may inform acquisition plans, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize acquisition planning. There is some indirect overlap as acquisition programs need to be tested and evaluated, but the regulation does not flow directly from the statute.

The statute specifically tasks the Director with cost estimation and analysis for acquisition programs and other related responsibilities like advising on the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution system, as well as formulating study guidance for analyses of alternatives for major defense acquisition programs, and reporting on strategic and operational analyses. The statute provides specific regulatory tasks relating to analysis of alternatives, and other tasks related to defense programs, in effect, creating specific regulatory roles. While terms like “as directed by the Secretary of Defense” introduce some discretion, the overall delegation is focused on a specific regulatory task or gap.

10 U.S.C. § 139a outlines the responsibilities of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, which include cost estimation and analysis for acquisition programs. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning. While both deal with the acquisition programs of the Department of Defense, 10 U.S.C. § 139a doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific acquisition planning regulations detailed in 48 CFR Part 7. The statute outlines the responsibilities of an office involved in acquisition oversight and advice, while the regulation provides details regarding acquisition planning required of other offices involved in the acquisition process (and these planning requirements pre-date this statute).

The statute grants broad authority to the Secretary of Defense to prescribe the duties and powers of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness. While subsection (d) mentions specific responsibilities like monitoring operations tempo and personnel tempo and establishing uniform standards for deployment, the underlying grant of authority in subsection (b) is quite broad, encompassing numerous areas. Therefore, this constitutes a general authority delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 136 establishes the position of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Subsection (b) outlines the duties and powers the Secretary of Defense may prescribe to the Under Secretary, including areas like military readiness, personnel, and family matters. While the statute doesn’t mandate specific regulations regarding the Stars and Stripes newspaper, it authorizes the Secretary of Defense to prescribe duties and powers related to personnel and readiness, which could reasonably extend to overseeing the operations of a military newspaper. Thus, regulation of Stars and Stripes is authorized but not mandated.

While the statute does define areas of responsibility for the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, it grants the Secretary of Defense broad power to prescribe duties and exercise powers within those areas. This allows for rulemaking authority to be quite broad and discretionary, fitting the description of General Authority. Subsection (d) gives more specific instruction, but still requires the Secretary of Defense’s authority, direction, and control.

10 U.S. Code § 136(b) and (d) authorize the Secretary of Defense, and by extension the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to perform duties related to military readiness, personnel management, and deployment standards. This provides the basis for acquisition planning regulations, even though it doesn’t directly mandate them. The regulation implements these broad authorizations by specifying acquisition planning procedures.

The statute itself only establishes a position (Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness). While the position could indirectly relate to acquisition, it does not provide specific instructions related to rulemaking in the realm of acquisition planning as done in the regulation, and the regulation authority section cites multiple laws, not just this one. Therefore, the statute grants broad authority relevant to the general subject matter rather than tasking the agency with a specific regulatory goal.

While 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137, mentioned in the regulation’s authority section, generally relate to organization and acquisition within the Department of Defense, and 10 U.S.C. 136a established a specific position related to personnel, the regulation’s focus on acquisition planning is related to the general subject matter, but not directly mandated nor explicitly authorized by the now repealed 10 U.S.C. 136a. The regulation also references 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 51 U.S.C. 20113, and these are not directly mandated or explicitly authorized by 10 U.S.C. 136a.

While 10 U.S.C. § 137 specifies responsibilities for the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, it broadly delegates “overall direction and supervision for policy, program planning and execution, and use of resources” for various activities. It doesn’t give clear instructions for specific regulatory tasks of Acquisition Planning but provides broad authority from which regulations like 48 CFR Part 7 can be derived.

10 U.S.C. § 137 does not directly mandate the regulation (48 CFR Part 7), but it does authorize activities related to intelligence and security that would necessitate acquisition planning. The regulation cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 as authority, indicating authorization.

While 10 U.S.C. Chapter 137 (legacy provisions, see 10 U.S.C. 3016) is cited in the regulation’s authority, 10 U.S.C. § 137a does not directly instruct the agency on a specific regulatory task related to acquisition planning. The statute lays out who the Deputy Under Secretaries are and their relative position in the Department of Defense, whereas 48 CFR Part 7 establishes the scope and plans to fulfill acquistions. The statute doesn’t use terms like “appropriate,” “reasonable,” or “necessary” regarding specific regulatory tasks. Therefore the ability of the regulation to be based on the statue can only be regarded as under general authority.

The statute concerns the appointment and responsibilities of Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense. While related to the overall functioning and organization of the Department of Defense, including acquisition (as indicated by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment), it does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize acquisition planning regulations like 48 CFR Part 7. The statute focuses on personnel and their roles, whereas the regulation addresses acquisition planning processes.

The regulation cites 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 as its authority. These statutes provide the agency with broad rulemaking authority to prescribe policies and procedures relating to acquisition, but do not identify a specific regulatory task related to the position established in 10 U.S.C. § 134a. It’s a general grant of authority related to defense acquisition.

10 U.S.C. § 134a established the position of Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. Acquisition planning might be related to the functions of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, but the connection is indirect.

The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, derives its authority from broader statutes such as 40 U.S.C. 121(c), and chapters of Title 10. These provisions broadly relate to acquisition and contracting, rather than a specific, defined task for the agency. This aligns more with a broad grant of rulemaking authority rather than a narrowly tailored directive.

10 U.S.C. § 134b, related to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Technology Security Policy, has been repealed. While 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning for the Department of Defense (DoD), there is no direct mandate or explicit authorization connecting the repealed 10 U.S.C. § 134b and this specific regulation. The regulation’s authority cites other sections of Title 10, which suggests some relatedness, but not a direct or explicit connection to the repealed section.

While 10 U.S.C. § 135 provides a framework for the Under Secretary’s role in budgetary and fiscal matters, it doesn’t specifically instruct the agency to create acquisition planning regulations. The statute grants broad authority to the Secretary of Defense to prescribe duties, and by extension to the Under Secretary (Comptroller), which allows for the creation of regulations like 48 CFR Part 7. The link to 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 in the regulation’s authority section suggests related general powers for acquisition.

10 U.S.C. § 135 outlines the responsibilities and duties of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) but does not explicitly mandate the creation of acquisition regulations found in 48 CFR Part 7. However, it authorizes the Secretary of Defense to prescribe additional duties and powers to the Under Secretary, and the Under Secretary is responsible for budgetary and fiscal matters, which are directly related to acquisition planning. Therefore, the relationship is authorized, but not mandated.

The statute provides broad rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Defense, and by extension the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in the areas of military readiness, personnel management, and related areas. It doesn’t specifically instruct the agency to regulate financial institutions on military bases; it simply empowers them to act within these broad areas. Although the regulation of financial institutions on DOD installations is tied to the broader remit of personnel readiness, the delegation is not specific.

The regulation at 32 CFR Part 230 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. § 136 as its authority. While the statute creates the position of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and assigns broad duties relating to personnel and readiness, it doesn’t mandate the specific regulation of financial institutions on DOD installations. Rather, it authorizes the Secretary of Defense (and by extension, the Under Secretary subject to the Secretary’s direction) to prescribe duties and exercise powers in areas that could conceivably relate to financial institutions serving military personnel.

The statute grants broad rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Defense, who then delegates certain powers to the Under Secretary. The authority is defined within broad categories such as “military readiness,” “total force management,” and “military and civilian family matters,” but does not specifically identify the regulatory task of governing financial institutions on DOD installations. While the statute lists specific areas of concern, these areas are themselves broadly defined. Thus, applying Hickman’s framework, this is a general authority delegation.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to prescribe duties and powers to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness in several specified areas. This authority allows the Secretary to create regulations regarding financial institutions on DOD installations, but it does not directly mandate such regulations. The statute’s focus on personnel and readiness broadly covers areas relevant to the well-being and support of military personnel, which could logically extend to financial services.

Although the statute itself is not provided, the regulation cites it as an authority for governing DoD newspapers, magazines, and civilian enterprise publications. This suggests a broad rulemaking authority rather than specific instructions on a narrow regulatory task. Therefore, I categorize it as a General Authority delegation.

The regulation cites 10 U.S.C. § 133 as authority. This indicates that the statute authorized the regulation, but there’s no indication it was directly mandated.

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 are broad delegations of rulemaking authority to the Department of Defense. The citation to 10 U.S.C. 3016 does not make this a specific authority delegation. The regulation on Acquisition Planning is a general regulation about how the agency will implement acquisitions, not a specific regulatory task.

The regulation cites “10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016)” in its authority section. While 10 U.S.C. § 133 is now repealed, it falls under these chapters and sections of Title 10. The link is therefore authorized, as the regulation points to these statutory sources as its grounding. It’s not directly mandated since the specific section is not identified as source authority; rather, it is authorized under these broad authorizing statutes.

While 10 U.S.C. § 133a(b)(2) includes some specific regulatory tasks (e.g., “establishing policies”), the grant of authority is primarily broad in scope (e.g., “supervising all defense research and engineering”). Thus, the delegation is best classified as General Authority, including the “hybrid” type mentioned in the prompt.

10 U.S.C. § 133a(b)(2) tasks the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering with “establishing policies on, and supervising, all defense research and engineering, technology development, technology transition, appropriate prototyping activities, experimentation, and developmental testing activities and programs and unifying defense research and engineering efforts across the Department”. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning which is a reasonable policy domain for the Under Secretary to be engaged in.

10 U.S.C. § 133b(b)(2) specifically instructs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to establish policies on elements of the Department relating to acquisition. This falls under the “Specific Authority” delegation because the statute clearly directs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

10 U.S.C. § 133b(b)(2) authorizes the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to establish policies on all elements of the Department relating to acquisition and sustainment. 48 CFR Part 7 relates to acquisition planning. Therefore, the relationship is authorized but not mandated.

Subsection (b)(1) of the statute states “The Under Secretary shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.” This is a broad delegation of authority, giving the Secretary of Defense wide latitude to assign duties and powers to the Under Secretary. Subsections (b)(2)-(5) while more specific in identifying strategic and operational functions also operate to broadly define areas of responsibility, rather than identifying specific regulations to create. Since the statue does not prescribe specific regulations to create, this falls more into general authority.

While 10 U.S. Code § 134 outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and these responsibilities could lead to regulations, the statute doesn’t mandate specific regulations. The Secretary of Defense has the discretion to prescribe duties to the Under Secretary, and the Under Secretary’s responsibilities themselves are broadly defined. Therefore, regulations relating to acquisition planning would be authorized but not directly mandated.

The language “and to carry out such other duties as may be prescribed by law” and allowing the Secretary of Defense to create offices and officials establishes a general framework. This is further supported by the plain language of Section (b)(9): “Such other offices and officials as may be established by law or the Secretary of Defense may establish or designate in the Office.” This allows broad rulemaking authority without specific regulatory tasks identified related to acquisition planning, making it a General Authority delegation.

10 U.S. Code § 131(a) states that the Office of the Secretary of Defense assists the Secretary in carrying out duties and responsibilities, and carries out other duties “as may be prescribed by law.” Subsection (b)(9) states that the Secretary may establish or designate other offices and officials in the Office. While the statute authorizes the establishment of such offices, including those related to acquisition planning, it does not mandate any specific regulations. The presence of 48 CFR Part 7 could be seen as an exercise of the authority granted.

Subsection (b) states “The Deputy Secretary shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.” This is a broad delegation of authority, lacking any specific regulatory tasks identified by Congress. It falls under the category of general authority because while the Secretary of Defense can assign any duties, the law itself doesn’t mention or even allude to any specific rulemaking.

The statute outlines the role and responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary of Defense. While acquisition planning (covered by 48 CFR Part 7) could fall under the purview of the Deputy Secretary’s duties as prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, it is not directly mandated nor explicitly authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 132. The relationship is that acquisition planning is related to the overall functioning of the Department of Defense which the Deputy Secretary is involved in, but is not a direct or explicitly authorized task of the Deputy Secretary.