Database Search Results

The authority section of the regulation (48 CFR Part 7) cites broad statutes such as 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016), and 40 U.S.C. 121(c). These statutes provide broad authority related to defense and procurement, not a specific delegation to create the acquisition planning guidelines found in 48 CFR Part 7. This falls under the Hickman “General Authority” category. The acquisition planning guidelines apply to a wide range of acquisitions, not just those related to readiness metrics for weapon systems, which means that it is not specific to 10 U.S.C. 118.

10 U.S.C. § 118 concerns materiel readiness metrics and reporting for major weapon systems. 48 CFR Part 7, which covers acquisition planning, could be related to ensuring proper acquisition of weapon systems to support materiel readiness. However, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize acquisition planning regulations in Part 7. The statute focuses on measuring readiness, while the regulation pertains to planning for acquisition. Thus, they are related but not directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

The statute directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the quality of life, which inherently includes assessing and potentially modifying programs, projects, and activities of the Department of Defense. This falls under the category of specific authority because it instructs the agency (Secretary of Defense) on a specific regulatory task or gap in DoD practices. While the scope is broad, the objectives of identifying necessary actions to encourage successful execution of military missions and improving quality of life constitute regulatory tasks within that specific area.

While 10 U.S.C. § 118a mandates a review of programs and activities within the Department of Defense which could lead to adjustments in acquisition planning indirectly, it does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific regulations outlined in 48 CFR Part 7. The statute focuses on a broad review process, whereas the regulation deals with the specifics of acquisition planning. Therefore, the relationship is related, but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review and report to Congress on numerous very specific elements of sustainment and logistics requirements related to national defense. While section (b)(1)(M) provides for “such other matters the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate,” the level of detailed instructions and requirements of the statute indicates that it is a specific authority delegation.

The statute mandates a review and report related to sustainment and logistics. While the regulation concerns acquisition planning, which could be related to sustainment and logistics, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The regulation is a broader implementation of acquisition policies, and this statute focuses specifically on reviewing the logistics and sustainment aspects, and then reporting to congress.

10 U.S.C. § 113a specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to perform a definite task (transmitting the annual defense authorization request) and also defines the elements to be included in the request. Although the statute delegates the proposal for “any other matter” to the Secretary of Defense, the scope remains within the context of the annual defense authorization bill. The statute identifies a specific regulatory task for the agency.

10 U.S.C. § 113a mandates the Secretary of Defense to transmit the annual defense authorization request to Congress within a specific timeframe. While 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning, which could relate to the matters included in the defense authorization request (as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 113a(b)), the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The regulation concerns the general process of acquisition planning, and the statute deals with the specific requirement of transmitting a legislative proposal to Congress.

While 10 U.S.C. § 114 lists specific areas requiring authorization (e.g., procurement of aircraft), it grants broad authority over defense spending rather than providing a specific regulatory task. It outlines general areas where funds cannot be obligated or expended without specific authorization by law. This gives DoD broad authority to implement acquisition strategies but doesn’t give specific directions. Therefore, it fits the General Authority delegation.

The statute authorizes the Department of Defense to engage in certain procurement and activities, but it does not mandate that the Department of Defense issue specific regulations. It does require authorization by law for funds to be used for these activities. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, addresses acquisition planning which is authorized by the statute for the procurement of goods.

10 U.S.C. § 115, subsection (b)(1)(A) states that the Secretary of Defense is to “issue regulations” prescribing operational support. This is a clear instruction on a specific regulatory task, relating to what constitutes “operational support.” While the statute delegates authority to issue regulations, it defines the area of regulation fairly narrowly (operational support for reservists).

The statute directly mandates the authorization of personnel strength levels by Congress. The very first sentence in subsection (a) states “Congress shall authorize personnel strength levels for each fiscal year”.

Although the statute itself doesn’t dictate specific contract terms to be used, it directs the Secretary of Defense to provide data related to manpower, contractor personnel, medical personnel, and other DOD personnel areas. This data informs the acquisition strategies ultimately chosen and implemented under 48 CFR Part 7.

10 U.S.C. § 115a mandates the Secretary of Defense to submit various manpower reports to Congress. These reports inform acquisition planning, which is the subject of 48 CFR Part 7. However, § 115a doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific acquisition regulations found in 48 CFR Part 7. Rather, the data from the reports would logically inform acquisition strategies determined under the regulation.

Although the statute itself (10 U.S. Code § 115b) doesn’t directly authorize rulemaking, the regulations under 48 CFR Part 7 cite authorities like 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137. These cited chapters likely provide specific authority for the Department of Defense to create regulations concerning acquisition planning. Even though 115b itself is repealed and deals with workforce planning, the regulatory authority cited in the CFR falls under the Specific Authority category. The acquisition regulations are specifically authorized within the legal framework of the Department of Defense’s duties related to procurement.

10 U.S. Code § 115b required the Secretary of Defense to submit a biennial strategic workforce plan. 48 CFR Part 7 pertains to acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense, one focuses on workforce planning and the other on procurement. There is no explicit authorization nor direct mandate from the statute to the regulation. They are related in that they both concern the Department of Defense’s operations, but not directly linked in terms of mandate or explicit authority.

While the statute provides some discretion to the Secretary of Defense, it specifically instructs the Secretary to “prescribe regulations for the administration of this subsection” regarding third-party collections. It also lays out particular methods for computation that the Secretary may use, pointing towards a specific regulatory task.

Subsection (b)(2) of 10 U.S. Code § 1097b explicitly states that “The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations for the administration of this subsection.” This direct mandate indicates a direct statutory requirement for regulation.

The statute provides clear instructions for the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management to conduct a specific demonstration project. It specifies the eligible beneficiaries, the areas where the project should be conducted, the duration of the project, and other details. Even though some terms may be open-ended, the overall direction is focused and detailed.

The statute explicitly instructs the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with other administering secretaries, to enter into an agreement with the Office of Personnel Management to conduct a demonstration project. This directly mandates a specific action by the agency.

This statute lays out the basic structure of the Department of Defense and assigns broad authority without identifying specific regulatory tasks. It defines the components of the department and enables the President to create new offices, agencies, activities, and commands within the department. It does not direct the agency to fill any regulatory gaps, but enables the agency to create its own regulations within these components, implying general authority.

While 10 U.S. Code § 111 establishes the Department of Defense and defines its composition, it doesn’t directly mandate specific regulations. However, it authorizes the department’s existence and, by extension, the creation of regulations necessary for its operation. The relationship is therefore authorized, but not directly mandated.

While the statute itself doesn’t delegate authority to create regulations specifically, it does mandate a specific action (creation of a seal) to the Secretary of Defense and gives the President authority to approve the design. This falls under the “Specific Authority Delegations” category because it clearly instructs the agency on a specific task.

10 U.S.C. § 112 mandates the Secretary of Defense shall have a seal and that the design is subject to presidential approval. 48 CFR Part 7 relates to acquisition planning within the Department of Defense. There is no direct or apparent relationship between the requirement for a departmental seal and the regulations governing acquisition planning. The regulation does not implement or relate to the creation or use of the seal.

The statute provides specific instructions to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries concerned, focusing on discrete tasks like issuing the medal, determining appropriate design, establishing order of precedence, and replacing lost medals. Although it uses terms like “appropriate design” and “uniform regulations so far as practicable”, these terms fall within the scope of open-ended terms like “appropriate,” “reasonable,” or “necessary” and instruct the agency on a specific regulatory task.

The statute authorizes the Secretary concerned and the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations regarding the issuance and design of the prisoner-of-war medal, but does not mandate specific regulations. While the statute outlines certain aspects that must be addressed in the regulations (e.g., order of precedence), it leaves considerable discretion to the agencies.

10 U.S.C. § 1089(f)(2) provides the Secretary of Defense (as the “head of the agency concerned”) specific authority to provide reasonable attorney’s fees for persons described in subsection (a), “as determined necessary pursuant to regulations prescribed by the head of the agency concerned.” This is specific authority because it identifies a specific regulatory task (providing for reasonable attorney’s fees) and directs the agency to prescribe regulations to determine when such fees are necessary.

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1089, authorizes the head of the agency concerned to hold harmless or provide liability insurance and prescribe regulations for reasonable attorney’s fees. While the statute provides the authority, it doesn’t mandate that the agency must do these things. This aligns with “authorized but not mandated.”

The statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1091, outlines a specific regulatory task: “The Secretary shall establish by regulation procedures for entering into personal services contracts with individuals under subsection (a). At a minimum, such procedures shall assure””(A) the provision of adequate notice of contract opportunities to individuals residing in the area of the medical treatment facility involved; and (B) consideration of interested individuals solely on the basis of the qualifications established for the contract and the proposed contract price.” The statute gives the agency guidance on this task.

10 U.S. Code § 1091(c)(1) states “The Secretary shall establish by regulation procedures for entering into personal services contracts with individuals under subsection (a).” This explicitly mandates the Secretary to establish procedures by regulation. The regulation 32 CFR Part 107 is explicitly authorized by 10 U.S.C. 1091 and is directly mandated by the statute.

Subsection (k) of 10 U.S.C. § 1095 specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations “providing for the collection of information regarding insurance, medical service, or health plans of third-party payers held by covered beneficiaries” to improve the administration of the section. Although the scope is broad, the task is a clear, specific regulatory task regarding information collection.

The regulation, 32 CFR Part 161, explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1095(k)(2) as an authority, indicating a directly mandated relationship, at least regarding the collection of information related to third-party payers.

Subsection (f) of the statute clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense (in consultation with other secretaries) to prescribe regulations for the administration of the section and specifically requires the computation of the reasonable cost of healthcare services. The statute provides methods of computation of reasonable cost using terms like appropriate which are open ended. This falls under specific authority as defined by the Kristin Hickman framework.

32 CFR Part 220 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1095(f) as its authority, indicating a direct mandate to prescribe regulations for the administration of the statute.

Subsection (f) of 10 U.S.C. § 1095 specifically directs the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations for the administration of this section, including computation of the reasonable cost of health care services and suggesting specific methods for computation. This constitutes a clear instruction on a specific regulatory task.

The regulation at 32 CFR Part 537 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1095 as statutory authority. This indicates a direct mandate.

While the statute grants broad authority to establish dental plans and prescribe regulations (subsection (a) and (b)), it also includes specific details and parameters about the types of plans, eligibility, premiums, and cost-sharing. The regulatory details regarding identification cards facilitate access to the specific dental plans created under the statute, which demonstrates the use of specific authority delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 1076a is listed in the authority section of 32 CFR Part 161, indicating that the regulation is authorized by the statute. The statute grants the Secretary of Defense authority to establish dental plans and to prescribe regulations for their administration, but it does not mandate specific regulatory actions for the identification cards discussed in 32 CFR Part 161.

While 10 U.S.C. § 1077 contains many detailed provisions, it also explicitly delegates authority to the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the administering Secretaries, to prescribe standards in regulations. For example, subsection (a)(16) specifically requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe standards in regulations for determining profound hearing loss for dependents to be eligible for hearing aids. This is a specific regulatory task, not a broad grant of general authority. The power to define profound hearing loss through regulations fits within the “specific regulatory task” as the agency is specifically tasked with fleshing out the meaning of the term profound hearing loss.

32 CFR Part 161 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1077 in its authority section, indicating a direct mandate for the regulation related to identification cards and benefits for dependents.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Defense Health Agency on how to implement procedures for charging fees, waiving fees, and modifying payment plans. It does not provide broad rulemaking authority unrelated to these specific tasks. The statute lays out specific actions and considerations, leaving some discretion within defined parameters.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 1079b) directly mandates the Secretary of Defense to implement procedures for charging fees for care provided to civilians. 32 CFR Part 220 is listed in the authority section as implementing 10 U.S.C. 1079b.

Subsection (b) of 10 U.S.C. § 1089 specifies that the Attorney General shall defend certain civil actions. It also describes the process of those being sued delivering documentation to their superiors. Subsection (c) directs the Attorney General to remove civil actions from state courts to federal courts under certain conditions. Because it clearly instructs the Attorney General on specific actions related to medical malpractice suits against certain individuals, this qualifies as Specific Authority. Also, Subsection (f)(2) grants authority to the Secretary of Defense and the Armed Forces Retirement Home Board to provide reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to regulations prescribed by the head of the agency concerned.

10 U.S.C. § 1089 is cited as an authority for 28 CFR Part 15. This means that at least some portion of 28 CFR Part 15 is directly mandated by this statute.

10 U.S. Code § 1089 contains specific instructions about the defense of medical malpractice suits and the authority of the agency head regarding liability insurance and attorney’s fees related to those suits. 32 CFR Part 516 helps to execute this authority.

10 U.S. Code § 1089 is listed in the “Authority” section of 32 CFR Part 516. Therefore, the relationship is directly mandated.

The statute (10 U.S.C. § 1059) specifically instructs the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to pay monthly transitional compensation to dependents of members separated due to dependent abuse, outlining the conditions and parameters of this compensation. The delegation is specific, even using terms like “in accordance with this section”.

32 CFR Part 111 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1059 as its legal authority. Therefore, the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

The statute provides explicit instructions to the Secretaries to define specific criminal offenses that constitute dependent abuse for the purposes of the statute, and to establish a program to pay transitional compensation. While the term “appropriate” is not used, the instructions are very specific and target a clear regulatory task.

The statute directly mandates the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 1059, as stated in subsection (m).