Database Search Results

While the statute does not delegate rulemaking authority to the agency, it does direct actions related to agency employee conduct. The statute places a specific limitation on the subsequent employment of certain agency employees.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 4523) restricts future employment for certain agency employees, while the regulation (24 CFR Part 81) governs HUD’s oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The statute could impact the pool of people who might work with these entities. Therefore, there is a relationship, but the regulation isn’t directly mandated or explicitly authorized by the statute.

While 12 U.S.C. § 4518a does not delegate rulemaking authority, it does create a specific prohibition on bonuses. This would fall under a Specific Authority Delegation as it is very clearly instructing on a specific regulatory task.

The statute directly limits bonuses for executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While 24 CFR Part 81 regulates these entities, the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate or authorize the specific content of the regulation, but addresses similar concerns about the governance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, 24 CFR Part 81 does grant HUD authority to implement regulation regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The statute provides broad discretion to the Director regarding “terms and conditions” for contracting reviews. While the statute identifies a specific task (review of regulated entities), the open-ended nature of the “terms and conditions as the Director deems appropriate” grants substantial rulemaking discretion. Even though the statute addresses a specific task (contracting for reviews of regulated entities), the lack of constraints on how the Director can implement this authority pushes it into the “General Authority” category, as defined by Hickman’s framework.

The statute authorizes the Director to contract for reviews but does not mandate that they do so. The use of “may” signifies permissive, not mandatory, action.

The statute specifically instructs the Director to establish “standards and requirements” related to diversity in management, employment, and business activities. This is a clear delegation of authority to create specific regulations addressing this precise regulatory gap. While “standards and requirements” are somewhat open-ended, they still provide clear instructions on a specific regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. § 4520(a) explicitly directs each regulated entity to establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion in accordance with standards and requirements established by the Director. 12 CFR Part 1207 falls under FHFA’s responsibility, overseeing regulated entities and their compliance with diversity and inclusion standards. Therefore, the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

Subsection (a) directs the Director to establish “such standards and requirements”. This directs the agency to fill a specific gap and provides some guidance, thus fitting the definition of Specific Authority.

12 U.S.C. § 4520(a) explicitly directs the Director to establish “such standards and requirements” regarding diversity in management, employment, and business activities, directly mandating the issuance of regulations. The regulation at 12 CFR Part 1223 implements these mandates.

The statute specifically directs the Director to establish standards and requirements for the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, providing a specific regulatory task. While the phrasing allows for discretion (“such standards and requirements as the Director shall establish”), it’s still tied to the very defined purpose of implementing diversity within regulated entities. This falls under Specific Authority.

12 U.S.C. § 4520(a) states that each regulated entity shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion in accordance with standards and requirements as the Director shall establish. Therefore, it is authorized but not mandated, as the Director has to establish the actual standards and requirements.

The statute provides specific instructions to the Director regarding executive compensation, including prohibiting unreasonable compensation (subsection a), considering specific factors (subsection b), withholding compensation (subsection c), not setting specific compensation levels (subsection d), and regulating golden parachutes and indemnification payments (subsection e). While the Director has some discretion, the statute clearly defines the regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. § 4518 is explicitly listed in the authority section of 12 CFR Part 1230. This means the statute directly mandates the regulation.

The statute provides specific direction regarding golden parachute and indemnification payments, outlining factors the Director shall prescribe by regulation (subsection (e)(2)). While the Director has discretion, it’s within the explicitly defined area of executive compensation and benefits, particularly golden parachutes and indemnification payments.

12 U.S.C. § 4518(e)(2) explicitly states “The Director shall prescribe, by regulation, the factors to be considered by the Director in taking any action pursuant to paragraph (1),” which directly mandates regulation. Also the authority section for 12 CFR Part 1231 lists 12 U.S.C. § 4518.

While the statute gives the Director some discretion (“may take into consideration any factors the Director considers relevant”), it also provides specific instructions, especially in subsection (e), requiring the Director to prescribe regulations for factors to consider when regulating golden parachutes and indemnification payments, thus qualifying as a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute authorizes the Director to regulate executive compensation (particularly golden parachutes and indemnification payments) but does not mandate it in all circumstances.

12 U.S.C. § 4518a specifically prohibits bonuses to senior executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during conservatorship. While the statute itself directly imposes the prohibition, the regulation elaborates on its implementation and scope within the broader context of executive compensation. This demonstrates a specific regulatory task identified by Congress.

The regulation at 12 CFR Part 1230 directly cites 12 U.S.C. § 4518a as one of its authorities. This indicates that the regulation is directly mandated, or at least directly authorized and implemented, by the statute.

The statute directly addresses a specific aspect of executive compensation (bonuses) at specific entities (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) during a specific period (conservatorship). While the statute doesn’t instruct the agency to take action, it provides a clear regulatory task: ensuring that these bonuses are not paid. 12 CFR Part 1231 provides the regulations to implement the requirements of 4518a.

The statute prohibits bonuses to executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during conservatorship. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 1231, addresses golden parachute and indemnification payments, and the statute 12 U.S.C. § 4518a is listed in the “Authority” section of the regulation. This suggests the agency authorized the regulation to implement or interpret the statute. The statute is a direct command but Part 1231 contains more granular rules.

While the statute primarily focuses on examinations, it’s being used alongside other statutes to support regulations concerning “golden parachute” payments and indemnification. These regulations can be seen as implementing the agency’s duty to ensure financial safety and soundness through its examination authority, falling under a specific regulatory task with open-ended terms such as ensuring financial safety and soundness.

12 U.S.C. § 4517 is listed as statutory authority for 12 CFR Part 1231. The statute doesn’t directly mandate the golden parachute rule, but authorizes examinations of regulated entities, and this authority is used as a basis for the regulation. The regulation pertains to payments and agreements, related to financial soundness and management.

Although 12 U.S.C. § 4517 provides for examinations, not capital adequacy regulations directly, the connection between examination and ensuring “financial safety and soundness” of regulated entities permits the agency to develop regulations concerning capital adequacy. The statute gives the agency a specific task (ensuring financial safety and soundness) which justifies implementing rules related to capital adequacy, making it a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 4517) is cited as authority for the regulation (12 CFR Part 1240). While the statute mandates annual examinations, it also allows for additional examinations “whenever the Director determines that an examination is necessary or appropriate,” authorizing but not mandating further regulatory action concerning capital adequacy.

The statute, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 4517, provides specific authority related to the examination and supervision of regulated entities. While it doesn’t explicitly command the agency to create resolution plans, it empowers the Director to conduct examinations and take actions “necessary or appropriate” to ensure financial safety and soundness. This overarching goal of safety and soundness, coupled with the explicit examination authority, provides a clear linkage to the resolution planning requirements outlined in the regulation. Resolution planning can be seen as an appropriate measure to ensure financial safety and soundness of regulated entities, fitting within the delegation even with the use of the term “appropriate”.

12 U.S.C. § 4517 is explicitly listed as one of the authorities for 12 CFR Part 1242. While the statute mandates certain examinations and personnel actions, it authorizes, but does not mandate, the resolution planning requirements detailed in the regulation.

The statute, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 4517, provides a clear directive related to the examination of regulated entities. While the regulation interprets and implements the examination requirement within the broader context of prompt corrective action, the foundational authority stems from the specific directive to conduct examinations. The statute itself does not specify the “prompt corrective action”, but it sets the stage for the agency to step in.

12 U.S.C. § 4517 is listed in the authority section of the regulation. While the statute mandates examinations, the regulation uses the authority granted by the statute to implement “prompt corrective action,” suggesting authorization rather than direct mandate.

While not every subsection of 12 U.S. Code § 4517 explicitly directs regulations, subsection (i) mandates the creation of an Ombudsman’s office “by regulation” and dictates the subject matter of those regulations (“authority and duties”). This is a specific directive using the term “regulation,” aligning with the “Specific Authority” category, even if using open-ended terms to instruct the agency. This outweighs the more general examination authorities described in other subsections.

12 U.S.C. § 4517 explicitly authorizes the Director to conduct examinations and issue regulations regarding the Office of the Ombudsman (subsection i). While it mandates some actions (annual examinations), the regulation itself is authorized but not explicitly mandated beyond the Ombudsman provision.

The statute clearly instructs the agency (the Director) to establish and collect annual assessments from regulated entities to cover the costs and expenses of the agency. It also lays out a formula for how to allocate these assessments. This falls under the “Specific Authority” delegation category because it defines a regulatory task of collecting assessments and gives specific instructions on how to carry out the task, including allowable cost categories and allocation formulas. The use of terms like “reasonable costs” and “necessary” doesn’t negate the specificity, as Hickman notes their inclusion in specific authority delegations.

The regulation 12 CFR Part 1206 is explicitly based on the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4516, directly mandating the establishment and collection of annual assessments.

The statute specifically instructs the Director to establish and collect assessments and provides a framework for calculating and allocating these assessments. It also details how the funds are to be used, managed, and audited. Although there is discretion given, it is within a defined scope.

12 U.S.C. 4516 directly mandates the Director to establish and collect annual assessments from regulated entities.

The statute specifically empowers the Director to conduct examinations (both annual and other types) and appoint/contract for examiners. Further, the statute notes the laws applicable to examiners and references to obtaining technical experts. This statute provides specific directions related to the overall regulatory task related to the agency conducting on-site examinations for financial safety and soundness.

While the statute outlines the Director’s responsibilities and authorities regarding examinations and personnel, the regulation, 12 CFR Part 1212, specifically addresses post-employment restrictions for senior examiners. Although related to the broader scope of examinations (as detailed in the statute through references such as 12 U.S.C. 4517(e)), it is neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized by the statute.

Subsection (i) specifically instructs the Director to create an Office of the Ombudsman, and further requires that the regulation “shall specify the authority and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman.” The statute clearly identifies a specific regulatory task (establishing the office and defining its responsibilities) for the agency.

Subsection (i) of the statute explicitly states: “The Director shall establish, by regulation, an Office of the Ombudsman within the Agency…The regulation issued by the Director under this subsection shall specify the authority and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman.” This directly mandates the creation of a regulation.

Although not explicitly on executive compensation per se, 12 U.S.C. § 4517(i) does state that “The Director shall establish, by regulation, an Office of the Ombudsman within the Agency…” and “The regulation issued by the Director under this subsection shall specify the authority and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman.” This explicit instruction, though focusing on the Ombudsman’s office, illustrates a specific regulatory task assigned by Congress, indicating a narrower, more defined delegation of authority than a general grant of rulemaking power. The presence of the statute 12 U.S.C. § 4517 included as an authority further strengthens the argument.

While 12 U.S.C. § 4517 does not explicitly mandate the regulation of executive compensation, it authorizes the Director to regulate and supervise regulated entities. The regulation of executive compensation falls under this broad authority to supervise and regulate.

While 12 U.S.C. § 4514 grants the Director broad discretion to request reports, it does so for a specific purpose – to oversee the condition, management, activities, or operations of regulated entities. The inclusion of “as the Director considers appropriate” does not shift it to general authority as this is within the specified range, fitting Kristin Hickman’s description of specific authority delegation.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 4514, authorizes the Director to require reports from regulated entities. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 1777, cites § 4514 as authority. However, §4514 does not mandate the Director create the “Prompt Corrective Action” regulations specified in Part 1777. The Director has the discretion to implement the reporting requirements.

The statute specifically grants authority to the Director to require regular and special reports from regulated entities concerning their condition, management, activities, or operations. This falls under Specific Authority because the statute clearly instructs the agency (via the Director) on a specific regulatory task (requiring reports) regarding specific topics (financial condition, management, etc.). The statute also provides limitations and instructions regarding the content and process for these reports.

12 U.S.C. § 4514 authorizes the Director to require reports from regulated entities. While the statute authorizes this, it does not explicitly mandate the creation of specific regulations detailed in 24 CFR Part 81, such as those concerning housing goals or fair housing. The regulation expands on the reporting authority granted in the statute.

The statute specifies a very particular task for the agency: collecting data on guarantee fees charged by enterprises and reporting this data to Congress. While the agency has discretion on how to collect the data (“by regulation or order, establish procedures”), the task itself is clearly defined.

12 U.S.C. § 4514a(b) directly mandates the Director to establish procedures (by regulation or order) for the collection of data from enterprises. This falls squarely within the “directly mandated” category.

The statute grants the Director broad authority to appoint personnel and fix compensation as deemed “necessary to carry out the functions of the Director and the Agency.” This is a broad delegation without specifying particular regulatory tasks.

The statute authorizes the Director to appoint and fix compensation, but does not mandate specific regulations. The regulation cites the statute as authority, indicating authorization.