Database Search Results

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 137, even though mentioned in the authority section of the regulation, are very broad in nature. The statute provides broad rulemaking authority without specific regulatory tasks identified.

10 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Chapter 137 (legacy provisions) are explicitly cited as authorities for the regulation. While these chapters authorize acquisition-related activities, they do not explicitly mandate this specific regulation.

Because the text of 10 U.S.C. § 133 is not provided, it is impossible to determine the specific instructions given to the agency. Given that the regulation concerns copyrighted sound and video recordings, it’s more likely that the statute provided broad rulemaking authority related to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics without specifically identifying regulations for copyrighted material.

The regulation cites 10 U.S.C. 133 as its authority. This indicates that the statute authorized the regulation, but without knowing the specifics of the statute’s text when it was active, it’s difficult to determine if it directly mandated the regulation. Therefore, “authorized but not mandated” is the most accurate classification.

The statute related to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Absent the full text of the statute, based on the title and description, it is unlikely the statute provided a specific regulatory task regarding cooperation with the Merit Systems Protection Board. Therefore, it likely provided a broad rulemaking authority contributing to “General Authority” delegation for the regulation. It is difficult to ascertain with certainty due to the repeal and lack of full text.

The regulation cites 10 U.S.C. § 133 as an authority. The statute relates to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. While the regulation concerns cooperation with the Office of Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the connection isn’t explicitly defined in the provided text, the citation suggests the statute authorizes the regulation, but does not directly mandate it. The statute has since been repealed.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for complying with the notification requirements. This falls under the “Clearly instructs an agency on a specific regulatory task or gap” definition, despite the presence of terms like “consistent with the national security of the United States and the protection of operational integrity.”

The statute requires notification and procedures related to sensitive military operations. While 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning, including equipment acquisition, there’s no direct mandate or explicit authorization connecting the notification procedures of the statute to the details of acquisition planning. There is an indirect relationship since sensitive military operations likely involve acquisition.

The statute provides explicit instructions regarding the use of funds for specific activities – providing missile defense information and integrating missile defense systems with certain countries. This falls under specific authority as it instructs an agency on specific regulatory tasks.

The statute restricts the use of appropriated funds, impacting acquisition planning by the Department of Defense. While it doesn’t directly mandate specific regulations, it authorizes the Department to develop acquisition plans that comply with the restrictions. The regulation provided (48 CFR Part 7) is therefore authorized but not directly mandated by the statute.

The statute provides detailed instructions and specific actions that the Secretary of Defense may take, including detecting, identifying, monitoring, tracking, warning, disrupting, seizing, confiscating, and using reasonable force against unmanned aircraft systems. It also provides direction regarding privacy protection measures and requires coordination with the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator. The statute uses terms such as “necessary” to mitigate the threat, which aligns with “appropriate, reasonable, or necessary” as listed under “Specific Authority Delegations” in Kristin Hickman’s delegation framework.

The statute authorizes, but does not mandate, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations and issue guidance to carry out the section. Subsection (d)(1) uses the word “may,” indicating permissive authority.

The statute grants the Secretary of Defense the authority to carry out “such other duties as may be prescribed by law.” This is a broad grant of authority, not tied to any specific regulatory task or gap. While other laws might prescribe specific environmental duties, 10 U.S. Code § 131 itself offers only a general directive. Therefore, it falls under the category of “General Authority.”

10 U.S. Code § 131 establishes the Office of the Secretary of Defense and defines its functions as assisting the Secretary of Defense and carrying out duties “as may be prescribed by law.” While this statute establishes the office, the regulation (32 CFR Part 187) concerns environmental effects abroad, which isn’t directly mandated but is related to the Secretary of Defense’s broader duties and responsibilities, especially given the complex relationships the DOD has with foreign nations based on the statute.. There is no explicit authorization within 10 U.S. Code § 131 to issue environmental regulations.

While 10 U.S.C. 131(a) assigns function to the office to assist the Secretary in carrying out the Secretary’s duties and responsibilities and to carry out such other duties as may be prescribed by law, it does not define the specific duties in detail, nor does it set out specific regulatory tasks or gaps to be filled. It gives broad rulemaking authority to the agency.

32 CFR Part 234 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 131 as authority for the regulation, making it directly mandated.

The statute provides the Secretary of Defense the authority to provide support for funerals and memorial events for Members and former Members of Congress, including transportation, which could encompass certain acquisition activities to fulfill the objective. Although the language is open-ended (“as the Secretary considers appropriate”), the statute clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task, therefore meeting the requirement for Specific Authority.

10 U.S.C. § 130a concerns the Secretary of Defense providing support for funerals and memorial events for Members and former Members of Congress. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. While the statute authorizes the use of funds, including for transportation, which could involve acquisition planning, the connection is indirect. The statute doesn’t mandate or explicitly authorize specific regulations regarding acquisition planning in relation to this specific support.

10 U.S.C. § 130b specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security on a specific regulatory task: to authorize the withholding of personally identifying information regarding members of the armed forces and Department of Defense or Coast Guard employees assigned to overseas, sensitive, or routinely deployable units. This falls under the Specific Authority delegation category as it clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task, even using open-ended terms like “may.”

10 U.S.C. § 130b concerns the nondisclosure of personally identifying information of military personnel, and 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense, one concerns information disclosure and the other, acquisition practices. Thus, they are related but neither directly mandates nor explicitly authorizes the other.

The statute doesn’t just grant broad rulemaking authority. It instructs the agencies (specifically the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Energy) on what to include in the regulations: “criteria for making the determinations required under subsection (b)” and specifies the type of provisions that the regulations “may provide for controls on access to and use of, and special markings and specific safeguards for, a category or categories of information subject to this section” as well as a second mandate in (g)(2) that “The regulations shall include procedures for notifying and consulting with each foreign government or international organization concerned about requests for disclosure of information to which this section applies.” Thus, it is a specific authority delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 130c, subsection (g)(1), explicitly states “The national security officials referred to in subsection (h)(1) shall each prescribe regulations to carry out this section.” This is a direct mandate to create regulations.

The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 as authorities. These chapters deal with general organization and functions of the Department of Defense, and acquisition authorities, respectively. They are specific enough to direct the agency to plan for acquisition, including supplies, equipment, and contractor/government performance, which all fall under the umbrella of acquisition planning. Additionally, it cites 40 U.S.C. 121(c) which deals with the administrator of general services responsibility to prescribe regulations on procurement practices, which again is specific in nature.

10 U.S. Code § 130d does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation 48 CFR Part 7. The statute concerns the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the treatment of confidential information shared with state and local personnel, providing an exemption from disclosure. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning by the Department of Defense. While both relate to the Department of Defense, they cover distinct subject matters, thus making them related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

The statute gives the Secretary of Defense specific authority to exempt certain information from disclosure under FOIA and to designate information as critical infrastructure security information. It instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task and sets criteria for the agency’s decision-making (public interest vs. preventing disclosure).

The statute concerns the treatment of DoD critical infrastructure security information under FOIA. While the regulation (48 CFR Part 7) addresses acquisition planning generally, it doesn’t specifically mention or directly implement the information security or FOIA aspects addressed in 10 U.S. Code § 130e. There is a relationship because securing critical infrastructure could involve acquisition, but it is not directly mandated or explicitly authorized by the regulation.

The statute specifically directs the Secretary of Defense to establish policies and procedures for determining the most appropriate and cost-efficient mix of personnel (military, civilian, and contractor) to perform the DoD’s mission. While the terms “appropriate” and “cost efficient” are open-ended, the delegation clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task””managing the workforce mix, which directly relates to acquisition.

10 U.S.C. § 129a mandates the Secretary of Defense to establish policies and procedures related to the workforce mix, which directly relates to acquisition planning because the workforce mix (military, civilian, contractor) directly impacts what the agency buys. 48 CFR Part 7 addresses acquisition planning. Therefore, the statute authorizes the regulation but doesn’t directly mandate it.

The statute specifically directs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations governing the procurement of expert and consultant services. While the statute grants the authority to procure these services, subsection (c) provides a direct command to issue regulations to implement the procurement authority. This fits Hickman’s “Specific Authority Delegations” category, even if it uses relatively open terms.

10 U.S.C. § 129b(c) explicitly states that “Procurement of the services of experts and consultants (or organizations thereof) under subsection (a) shall be carried out under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.” This is a direct mandate for the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations governing the procurement of expert and consultant services. 48 CFR Part 7 governs acquistion planning for the Department of Defense.

10 U.S. Code § 129c specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to limit reductions in medical personnel and outlines the conditions under which such reductions can occur (certification). This constitutes a specific regulatory task identified by Congress.

10 U.S. Code § 129c places limitations on the reduction of medical personnel by the Secretary of Defense and requires certifications to Congress. While 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning, a separate domain from personnel management, the statute and the regulation could be related in the sense that personnel numbers could influence acquisition strategies. It is therefore neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

The statute specifically directs the Department of Defense regarding the disclosure of sensitive information to litigation support contractors. It provides clear conditions that must be met for such disclosures to occur, like the contractor’s agreement to specific terms and the purpose of the disclosure being limited to litigation support. This is a specific regulatory task outlined by the statute.

The statute authorizes the Department of Defense to disclose sensitive information to litigation support contractors under specific conditions. While it outlines these conditions, it doesn’t mandate that the Department must disclose this information. It allows them to do so if the specified criteria are met. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, concerns acquisition planning generally, which may overlap with the subject of the statute (disclosure to litigation support contractors), but the relationship is not directly mandated. The statute authorizes the activity and sets conditions, while the regulation addresses planning for acquisitions, creating an authorized, but not mandated, relationship.

The statute provides specific guidance on the content and purpose of the regulations, including the process for public comment and factors to be considered (e.g., releases to allies and qualified U.S. contractors). While it uses terms like “where appropriate,” it clearly instructs the agency on specific regulatory tasks related to withholding technical data with military or space application.

The statute (10 U.S. Code § 130) directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations regarding the withholding of technical data, as stated in subsection (b): “Regulations under this section shall be published in the Federal Register…” This establishes a direct mandate for rulemaking.

While the statute grants broad authority to support foreign forces in combating terrorism, it also includes fairly specific instructions on how this authority should be exercised (e.g. concurrence of the Chief of Mission, monetary limits, congressional notification, reporting requirements, what is not authorized, such as covert actions, etc.). Subsections (c) and (d) specifically instruct the Secretary to establish “procedures” and mandates elements to be included in those procedures. The statute clearly instructs the agency on specific tasks and constraints on how it must act.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense to expend funds to support foreign forces engaged in combating terrorism, implying that the Secretary must acquire resources or services to carry out this function. 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning, which would be a necessary step in executing the authority granted by the statute. However, the statute does not directly mandate any specific acquisition procedures. It’s authorized, but not mandated.

While broad discretion is granted to the Secretary of Defense, 10 U.S.C. § 127f specifies the regulatory task – to expend funds on operational preparation of the environment and unconventional assisted recovery. Though the Secretary has leeway in how to achieve this, the statute identifies a clear regulatory gap and instructs the agency to address it. The provision also defines “operational preparation of the environment”. The legislation is specific in its aims, constraints, and reporting requirements.

10 U.S.C. § 127f authorizes the Secretary of Defense to expend funds for specific purposes related to operational preparation of the environment and non-conventional assisted recovery. While it authorizes these activities, it doesn’t directly mandate them. The Secretary has discretion in determining whether and how to use these funds. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, concerns acquisition planning, which could be used to purchase supplies, equipment, and services necessary for carrying out the activities authorized in 10 U.S.C. § 127f. Therefore, the relationship is authorized but not mandated.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense on a specific regulatory task: prohibiting the unauthorized dissemination of unclassified information relating to security measures for special nuclear materials. While terms like “necessary” are used, the statute provides enough context to qualify as a specific authority delegation, directing the agency to address a particular issue.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 128) explicitly directs the Secretary of Defense to “prescribe such regulations, after notice and opportunity for public comment thereon, or issue such orders as may be necessary to prohibit the unauthorized dissemination of unclassified information pertaining to security measures…”. The regulation (32 CFR Part 223) appears to be a direct response to this statutory mandate.

10 U.S.C. § 128 specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations or issue orders to prohibit the unauthorized dissemination of unclassified information related to security measures for special nuclear material. This is a clearly defined regulatory task. The criteria for determining when to prohibit dissemination are outlined, using terms such as “necessary,” “significant adverse effect,” and applying “minimum restrictions.”

The statute 10 U.S.C. § 128 concerns the dissemination of unclassified information pertaining to security measures for special nuclear materials. The regulation 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense, acquisition planning does not directly implement the restrictions on information dissemination as described in the statute, nor is it explicitly authorized by it. The general authorities cited for the regulation are generic acquisition related authorities.

The statute provides broad authority to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments regarding civilian personnel management. It sets forth broad goals and requires reports, but it doesn’t mandate specific regulations. Instead, it establishes general requirements for the management of civilian personnel.

10 U.S. Code § 129 concerns civilian personnel management within the Department of Defense, setting guidelines for how these personnel should be managed and reported on. 48 CFR Part 7, “Acquisition Planning,” outlines the procedures for planning the acquisition of goods and services by the federal government. While both relate to the Department of Defense, 48 CFR Part 7 is not directly mandated by or explicitly authorized by 10 U.S. Code § 129. There’s an indirect relationship because civilian personnel are involved in the acquisition process, but one doesn’t dictate or explicitly enable the other.

The statute provides broad authority to the Secretary of Defense, Inspector General, and Secretaries of military departments to provide for emergency and extraordinary expenses, including making determinations on what expenses are proper. The statute does place limits on these authorities.

10 U.S. Code § 127 concerns emergency expenses and extraordinary expenses. 48 CFR Part 7 concerns acquisition planning, which is a separate element, although related through procurement by the DoD. The statute does not directly mandate regulations concerning acquisition planning in relation to emergency/extraordinary expense funds, nor does it explicitly authorize such regulations.

The statute provides broad authority to the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds and directs the “procedures prescribed by this section” shall be used but does not mention acquisition plans in 48 CFR Part 7 explicitly. While it identifies specific actions (fund transfers, waiver of reimbursement), it doesn’t specifically delegate rulemaking authority related to acquisition planning connected with these actions, therefore it is a general authority.

The statute 10 U.S.C. § 127a relates to funding mechanisms for operations not funded in advance, including humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and support for law enforcement. While 48 CFR Part 7 addresses acquisition planning, there is no direct mandate or explicit authorization in 10 U.S.C. § 127a that necessitates the creation of acquisition plans as laid out in 48 CFR Part 7. However, to ensure that the acquisition plans are properly developed there should be some type of regulation or guidance for those plans.