Database Search Results

The statute directs the agency to promulgate regulations, explicitly for non-insured community development financial institutions. Furthermore, it specifies the content of those regulations to include rules on conflict of interest and loan standards related to directors, officers, and employees. While the statute uses terms like “appropriate,” it nevertheless instructs the agency on specific regulatory areas, making it a Specific Authority Delegation under Hickman’s framework.

12 U.S.C. § 4717(a)(1) states that the Fund “shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subchapter,” directly mandating the creation of regulations.

The statute provides specific instructions to the Director to require regulated entities to submit timely reports on fraudulent loans and financial instruments and to establish procedures to discover such transactions. This falls under the “Specific Authority” category as it clearly directs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 4642) explicitly states that “The Director shall require” certain actions, directly mandating the regulatory action of requiring reports from regulated entities regarding fraudulent loans. The regulation (12 CFR Part 1233) implements this statutory mandate.

While the statute grants the Board of Governors the ability to allow banks in dependencies or insular possessions to become member banks, it also dictates that, in that event, the banks shall “take stock, maintain reserves, and be subject to all the other provisions of this chapter”. The regulation clarifies the amount of stock, payments, cancellation, dividends, and share register. This is a specific regulatory task related to membership and capital stock.

12 U.S.C. § 466 is explicitly listed in the “Authority” section of 12 CFR Part 209. This means the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

While the statute establishes the fund and defines its broad purpose, subsection (c)(3) grants the Administrator the power to “adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations governing the manner in which business of the Fund may be conducted and such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to implement this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter.” This provides broad rulemaking authority to implement the general purposes outlined in the statute without specifying particular regulatory tasks.

12 U.S.C. 4703 directly mandates the establishment of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund and outlines its duties and responsibilities. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 1805, implements the Community Development Financial Institutions Program, established and governed by the aforementioned statute. The “Authority” section of the regulation explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 4703, indicating a direct mandate.

The statute delegates broad rulemaking authority to the Administrator to adopt rules and regulations that are “necessary or appropriate to implement” the subchapter. This falls under the General Authority delegation because it does not identify specific regulatory tasks, but rather grants broad discretion to create rules for implementing the purposes of the fund.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 4703, establishes the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund and outlines its general powers. While the statute provides the authority for the Administrator to adopt rules and regulations (subsection c(3): “may adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations governing the manner in which business of the Fund may be conducted and such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to implement this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter”), it does not mandate that the Administrator issue regulations specifically relating to the Bank Enterprise Award Program. The reference to 12 U.S.C. 4703 in the authority section of 12 CFR Part 1806 demonstrates authorization, but not a direct mandate.

The statute grants broad rulemaking authority to the Administrator in subsection (c)(3), stating they “may adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations…as may be necessary or appropriate to implement this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter.” This is a general directive without identifying particular regulatory tasks but allowing implementing rules and regulations needed to function in its purpose. This falls under the “General Authority” category. The statute does not specifically say “you must make a rule for environmental concerns”.

The statute, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 4703, establishes the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund and outlines its powers. While it doesn’t directly mandate every specific regulation, it authorizes the Administrator to adopt rules and regulations “as may be necessary or appropriate to implement this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter” (subsection (c)(3)). 12 CFR Part 1815, focusing on environmental quality, falls under this authorized, but not directly mandated, rulemaking power as it is reasonably related to the implementation of the Fund’s activities, requiring the fund to follow NEPA. The authority section explicitly references 12 USC 4703.

The statute specifically instructs the Director on the regulatory task of public disclosure of final orders and agreements. It details what shall be made available, exceptions to this mandate using the “public interest” standard and provides processes such as the delay of public disclosure. Even with the discretionary language, the statute provides a clear regulatory task regarding disclosure.

The statute 12 U.S.C. § 4639 explicitly authorizes the Director to make certain information publicly available and outlines specific scenarios where the Director has discretion. While it mandates certain disclosures, the statute also provides leeway based on the “public interest,” suggesting the regulations are authorized but not strictly mandated in every detail.

The statute provides a specific regulatory task: public disclosure of final orders and agreements, specifying the types of documents that should be made public, with limited discretion given to the director to withhold information only when it is contrary to public interest. This fits the definition of specific authority, despite the inclusion of discretionary terms like “public interest.”

12 U.S.C. 4639 falls within the range of statutes cited as authority for 24 CFR Part 81 (12 U.S.C. 4501-4641). Therefore, it is authorized, but the statute does not directly mandate the regulation.

The statute specifically instructs the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to create regulations governing how member banks can access their reserve balances and to prescribe penalties for non-compliance. While the terms are open-ended, (“regulations” and “penalties”) the statute identifies a specific regulatory task.

The statute explicitly states that the required balance “may, under the regulations and subject to such penalties as may be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, be checked against and withdrawn.” This directly mandates the Board to issue regulations concerning the checking and withdrawal of reserve balances and the associated penalties.

The statute specifically addresses the topic of “service” and instructs the Director on how it may be achieved. While it uses the term “may,” implying discretion, it’s within the context of fulfilling the overall purpose of the subchapter. This directive is much more targeted than a general rulemaking authority. It uses an open-ended term “reasonably calculated,” but also provides a base-line “registered mail.”

The statute “authorizes” the Director to make service by regulation. It does not mandate that the Director create a regulation, but provides the option of doing so in addition to other methods.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 4641, specifically grants the Director subpoena authority in connection with proceedings, examinations, or investigations. This is a clear instruction on a specific regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. § 4641 is explicitly listed in the “Authority” section of 24 CFR Part 81, directly mandating/authorizing the regulation.

While the statute grants broad authority for the Director to remove or prohibit individuals, it also provides specific details regarding the circumstances under which such actions can be taken, the process for hearings, and the criteria the Director must consider. This specificity places it within the realm of Specific Authority Delegations.

The statute authorizes the Director to issue orders related to removal and prohibition. The regulation outlines procedures for actions and reviews, which is authorized, but not directly mandated by the statute itself.

While § 4636b itself does not delegate authority to create new rules, it functions in conjunction with § 4636a. That section empowers the director to issue orders to regulated entities. Section 4636b is then a penalty for the violation of those orders. It falls into Specific Authority because it clearly specifies a regulatory task or gap – providing a criminal penalty if someone violates the specific orders issued.

12 U.S.C. § 4636b establishes a criminal penalty for violating orders issued under section 4636a. Section 4636a likely authorizes the Director to issue orders concerning regulated entities. This statute doesn’t directly mandate the regulation in 12 CFR Part 1240, but it does authorize the agency to take actions that can trigger this criminal penalty. The regulations in 12 CFR Part 1240 deal with capital adequacy, which is related to orders that might be issued under 4636a, thus the relation is authorized, but not mandated.

The statute specifically defines the prohibited conduct and the consequences (fines and imprisonment) for violating an order issued under a related statute. It clearly instructs the Director of the relevant agency regarding the enforcement mechanism (criminal penalty).

The statute 12 U.S.C. § 4636b directly mandates a criminal penalty for specific actions taken in violation of an order issued under section 4636a of the same title. Section 4636b is only triggered by a violation of 4636a.

This statute specifically addresses the Director’s authority to issue notices even after an entity-affiliated party separates from service, and defines a clear timeline for such actions. It is therefore considered a specific instruction to the agency concerning a regulatory task, fitting Hickman’s definition of Specific Authority Delegations.

12 U.S.C. 4637 falls within the range of 12 U.S.C. 4501-4641 cited as authority for 24 CFR Part 81. Therefore, while the regulation is authorized, it is not directly mandated by 12 U.S.C. 4637 alone.

The regulation cites 12 U.S.C. 4501-4641 as one of its authorities. However, the regulation implements a broad regulatory scheme over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spanning from “Housing Goals” to “Book-Entry Procedures”, whereas the provided statute only touches upon private rights of action. Therefore, the statute is a general authority because it grants broad power without directing the agency to enact rules about a specific gap or task.

12 U.S.C. § 4638 addresses private rights of action against regulated entities, directors, or executive officers. 24 CFR Part 81 regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While both relate to financial institutions and regulation, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific regulations in 24 CFR Part 81. However, they are related because the statute generally concerns regulated entities, and the regulation specifically governs certain regulated entities.

While 12 U.S.C. § 4635 itself doesn’t delegate rulemaking authority, it refers to notices and orders issued under other subchapters, which do delegate regulatory tasks to the Director and, by extension, HUD. This enforcement provision bolsters the regulations created under those specific authorities, giving them teeth. Since section 4635 is specifically referring to previously defined regulatory tasks and enforcement of these tasks, it’s a more specific delegation (although not a delegation of rulemaking per se but rather an amplification of existing rulemaking authority through enforcement mechanisms). The statute gives the director discretion for applying to district court, but the overall intent is to enforce specific regulations.

12 U.S.C. § 4635 concerns enforcement and jurisdiction related to notices and orders issued under subchapters of Title 12. 24 CFR Part 81, while not directly mandated by this specific section, is authorized under 12 U.S.C. 4501-4641, which is cited as authority for the regulation. Section 4635 aids in the enforcement of regulations promulgated under the broader authority granted by the 4501-4641 statutes.

Subsection (c)(1) explicitly instructs the Director to establish “standards and procedures governing the imposition of civil money penalties under subsections (a) and (b).” Furthermore, subsection (c)(2) provides factors the Director “shall give consideration to,” and also states that the director consider “any other factors the Director may determine by regulation to be appropriate.”

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 4636, permits the Director to impose civil money penalties. While the statute sets forth the framework for penalties, it doesn’t mandate specific regulations implementing executive compensation restrictions. The statute authorizes regulations.

The statute provides the Director with a specific regulatory task: establishing standards and procedures for imposing civil money penalties. While subsection (c)(2) provides the Director discretion regarding factors, it still instructs the agency on specific regulatory tasks.

12 U.S.C. § 4636 directly mandates the Director to establish standards and procedures for imposing civil money penalties. This is explicitly stated in subsection (c)(1): “The Director shall establish standards and procedures governing the imposition of civil money penalties under subsections (a) and (b).”

Subsection (c)(2) directs the Director to consider specific factors when determining the amount of a penalty and also allows for consideration of “any other factors the Director may determine by regulation to be appropriate.” This falls under “clearly instructs an agency on a specific regulatory task or gap, even using open-ended terms like ‘appropriate’.”

12 U.S.C. 4636 authorizes the Director to impose civil money penalties and establish standards and procedures, but doesn’t mandate specific regulations. The statute grants discretionary authority.

The statute provides detailed instructions regarding the conditions under which the Director can take action (e.g., specific violations, the requirement of demonstrating financial loss or willful disregard). While the language uses terms like “necessary” and “appropriate” giving the Director some discretion, the statute clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task by specifying the grounds, processes, and limitations for removing or suspending individuals. Subsection (h)(5) explicitly grants the Director authority to prescribe rules necessary to carry out subsection (h).

12 U.S.C. § 4636a authorizes the Director to issue orders regarding removal and prohibition. While the statute establishes the authority to issue these orders, it doesn’t mandate that the Director issue specific regulations detailing every possible scenario. Regulations would operationalize and clarify the procedures and criteria laid out in the statute, but the statute functions independently of specific regulations, though clearly regulations would assist.

The statute provides specific instructions on the conduct of hearings, including venue, timing, procedure, and consequences for failure to appear, providing structure for the agency to follow.

12 U.S.C. 4633 details hearing requirements. The listed authority for 24 CFR Part 81 includes 12 U.S.C. 4501-4641 which include the hearing requirements. Thus, the regulation is authorized by the statute, but the statute does not mandate the specific regulation.

The relevant statute, 12 U.S.C. § 4634, does not delegate authority to the agency to promulgate regulations; rather, it sets up the procedures for judicial review. Therefore, analyzing the statute according to Hickman’s delegation framework is impossible, as it does not include any delegation of rulemaking power. Regulations in 12 CFR Part 1240 are specifically authorized by other statutes, as listed in its authority section: “12 U.S.C. 4511, 4513, 4513b, 4514, 4515, 4517, 4526, 4611-4612, 4631-36.” These would need to be examined to assess their level of specificity in delegation.

12 U.S.C. § 4634 governs judicial review of agency orders. While it does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the capital adequacy regulations (12 CFR Part 1240), it is related because it establishes the process for challenging those regulations in court. The statute enables oversight of the agency’s actions in creating and enforcing the regulations found in 12 CFR 1240 but does not instruct the creation of the regulation directly.

The statute specifically instructs the agency (the Director overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) on how to handle judicial review of its orders. It outlines the process, venue, and standards for that review. This goes beyond simply providing broad rulemaking authority and falls into the Specific Authority delegation category as the statute directs how the agency should be reviewed by the courts.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 4634, outlines the process for judicial review of final orders issued by the Director under the chapter related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While the statute itself doesn’t mandate specific regulations, it authorizes the Director to issue orders that are subject to judicial review. The regulations found in 24 CFR Part 81 are in place to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would be actions taken by the Director under the authority of the statute. Therefore, the statute authorizes (but does not mandate) regulations, as actions by the agency can be reviewed under the statute.

While §4635 pertains to enforcement and jurisdiction, giving the Director discretion in applying to district courts, it does so with respect to pre-existing or future “notice or order issued under this subchapter or subchapter II.” These subchapters and related sections presumably contain the regulatory tasks. Since the statute refers back to specific sections which would involve a more detailed mandate for regulatory actions, it is more specific than general. It enables the Director to enforce those rules, and even gives the Director discretion in how they’re enforced.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 4635) outlines the Director’s authority regarding enforcement and jurisdiction related to notices and orders. While it empowers the Director to take specific actions (applying to district court), it doesn’t mandate the creation of specific regulations. Rather, it authorizes enforcement actions based on existing or future regulations established under other statutes (subchapters I and II). The statute does not directly mandate the capital adequacy regulations outlined in 12 CFR Part 1240, but provides authority to enforce relevant orders or notices.