Database Search Results

The statute provides jurisdiction for enforcement but does not specify any particular regulatory tasks for the agency to undertake. The statutes listed as authority in 12 CFR Part 21, include 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422, which is the Right to Financial Privacy Act and includes authority to create regulations to enforce its provisions. This is a more general grant of rulemaking power related to the subject matter.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 3416, concerns jurisdiction in cases of violations. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 21, covers security procedures, suspicious activity reports, and Bank Secrecy Act compliance. While the statute doesn’t directly mandate the specific regulations outlined in Part 21, the broad authority provided in 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422 (cited in the regulation’s authority section) related to the Right to Financial Privacy Act authorizes the agency to create regulations to enforce the provisions of the chapter, which includes measures related to security and reporting. Thus, while not directly mandated, the regulations are authorized.

The statute clearly instructs agencies on the specific regulatory task of authorizing formal written requests for financial records. It outlines the conditions under which such requests can be made and even provides specific instructions regarding customer notification. While the agencies have some discretion in crafting the regulations, the delegation is tied to a specific regulatory gap identified by Congress.

12 U.S. Code § 3408(2) explicitly states that a government authority may request financial records only if “the request is authorized by regulations promulgated by the head of the agency or department.” This directly mandates the existence of regulations.

12 U.S.C. § 3409 specifically instructs the government authority and the court on when and how to delay customer notification regarding financial record access. It provides specific conditions for delaying notice, duration of the delay, and the content of the notice that must be provided when the delay expires. This is a specific regulatory task identified by Congress, and the statute provides detailed instructions, thus fitting into the “Specific Authority” category.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 3409, is part of the Right to Financial Privacy Act. While the statute itself doesn’t mandate specific regulations, it authorizes the government authority to delay customer notice under certain conditions and outlines procedures for doing so. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 21, addresses Bank Secrecy Act compliance and incorporates the statutory authority of 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422, which includes 3409, indicating that the regulation is authorized by the statute, but the statute does not directly mandate the regulation.

The statute provides broad authority related to financial record privacy but does not specify particular regulatory tasks for agencies to address. It creates a framework and grants authority for agencies to elaborate on the framework.

12 U.S.C. § 3401-3422, cited as authority for 12 CFR Part 21, outlines various aspects of financial record privacy. While the statute doesn’t mandate every specific procedure in the regulation, it authorizes agencies to implement measures concerning financial record privacy.

The statute specifically instructs financial institutions to assemble and prepare to deliver records when requested under sections 3405 or 3407, upon receipt of a certificate under section 3403(b). It directly focuses on a specific regulatory task of implementing the process of gathering and providing financial records to government authorities, using the standard of unless “otherwise provided by law,” and filling procedural gaps.

The statute outlines the duties of financial institutions when a government authority requests financial records under specific sections of the U.S. Code (3405 or 3407). While the statute itself mandates certain actions upon receiving a request, regulations can flesh out the “how” of compliance, such as specific procedures, timelines, and acceptable methods for assembling and delivering records. The statute authorizes the agency to make rules concerning the process implied by the statute, even if the statute doesn’t explicitly order rulemaking.

The statute provides clear guidelines and instructions regarding the transfer and use of financial records, including specific requirements for certification, notification, and limitations on use. While the agencies have the responsibility to create regulations that facilitate compliance with these instructions, the act is specific in its delegation regarding its intended purpose.

12 U.S.C. 3401-3422 is listed under the “Authority” section of 12 CFR Part 21. This indicates that the regulation is authorized by the statute, but not directly mandated. The agency has chosen to create regulations in areas that the statute addresses, but the statute itself does not explicitly require these specific regulations.

While 12 U.S.C. 3404 primarily outlines customer rights and responsibilities regarding financial record disclosures, it also implicitly directs agencies to establish procedures related to customer authorizations and access to records of disclosures. The regulation builds on this specific topic by providing banks guidance on how to comply with the requirements laid out by the statute.

The regulation, 12 CFR Part 21, explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422, which includes 12 U.S.C. 3404, in its authority section. This indicates the regulation is authorized by the statute but the nature of the guidance provided in the statute does not imply any regulatory mandates.

The statute provides specific instructions regarding the process of obtaining financial records through administrative subpoenas, including requirements for notice to customers and their rights to challenge the subpoena. This fits within the “Specific Authority Delegations” category as it clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. 3401-3422 is listed in the authority section of 12 CFR Part 21, meaning that the statute authorizes the regulation, but the statute does not explicitly mandate the regulation.

While the statute does not use language that directly instructs the agency to create a specific rule about security devices, suspicious activities, or BSA compliance, it relates to financial privacy and government access to financial records. Because the regulation focuses on security and reporting within financial institutions, to ensure the integrity of financial records, this would be considered a specific delegation using open-ended terms like “appropriate,” “reasonable,” or “necessary.”

12 CFR Part 21 explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422 as authority, which includes 12 U.S.C. § 3406. This means the regulation is authorized by the statute, but the statute does not mandate the specific regulation. The agency chose to create a regulation under the authority provided by the statute.

The statute outlines a specific process for government authorities to obtain financial records via judicial subpoena. While it doesn’t explicitly require agency rulemaking, the statute contains many specific instructions about customer notification, challenges to subpoenas, etc., creating a specific regulatory task of implementing and overseeing these procedures. This corresponds with Hickman’s definition of Specific Authority Delegations where the agency is clearly instructed on a specific regulatory task.

12 CFR Part 21’s authority includes 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422, the chapter containing the statute. This means the regulation is authorized by the statute. It is not directly mandated, as there isn’t a specific requirement in the statute for the agency to create these particular regulations.

The statute specifically directs the agency head to authorize requests for financial records via regulations. It outlines specific circumstances under which such requests are permissible, providing a clear regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. § 3408(2) states that a formal written request for financial records is permissible “if the request is authorized by regulations promulgated by the head of the agency or department.” This authorizes, but does not mandate, the creation of regulations.

The statute directs the Board to limit a State member bank”™s investment in any one project and its aggregate investments, and provides specific guidelines related to these limits (e.g., percentages of capital stock). This is a specific regulatory task, and the statute provides parameters within which the Board must act.

The statute authorizes the Board to limit a State member bank’s investment in any one project and its aggregate investments. While the statute establishes certain limitations, it explicitly grants the Board discretion to further limit these investments. It is not directly mandated since the Board is not required to make any regulations, but it is explicitly authorized.

The statute provides the Board with specific tasks: limit a State member bank”™s investment in any 1 project and a State member bank”™s aggregate investments. It also allows the Board to determine, by order, if a higher investment amount poses no significant risk to the deposit insurance fund. Though open-ended, these provide specific instructions regarding limits.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 338a, is listed as an authority for 12 CFR Part 252. This indicates that the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

12 U.S.C. § 3401 defines terms; it doesn’t instruct any agency to perform a specific regulatory task related to those definitions. The statute provides definitions that are used in other sections that might delegate more specific authorities, but this particular definitional section itself provides broad authority to regulate in accordance with the statute’s goals.

12 U.S.C. § 3401 defines terms used in the Right to Financial Privacy Act. While it doesn’t explicitly mandate specific regulations, 12 CFR Part 21, which includes regulations concerning minimum security devices, suspicious activity reports, and Bank Secrecy Act compliance, cites 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3422 as authority. This indicates that the regulation is authorized by the statute but not directly mandated. The definitions provided are necessary for implementing the broader provisions regarding financial privacy and reporting requirements.

While 12 U.S.C. § 3402 sets parameters for access to financial records, it does not prescribe specific regulatory tasks. The broad language allows the agency discretion to create regulations to implement the underlying principles of the statute, falling under General Authority.

12 U.S.C. § 3402 is included in the authority citation for 12 CFR Part 21, alongside a range of other statutes. This indicates the regulation is authorized by the statute, which is about access to financial records, but the statute doesn’t directly mandate the specific regulations in Part 21 covering security devices, suspicious activity reports, and BSA compliance procedures.

The statute provides specific instructions regarding the confidentiality of financial records and the conditions under which they can be accessed or released by financial institutions to government authorities. While the language allows for some agency discretion in implementing these restrictions, it clearly addresses a specific regulatory task: protecting customer financial records from unwarranted government access.

The statute 12 U.S.C. § 3403 is explicitly listed as an authority for 12 CFR Part 21. This indicates that the regulation is authorized by the statute. However, the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate the creation of the regulation (Part 21), but rather authorizes the agency to create regulations related to the confidentiality of financial records, among other things.

The statute specifically instructs the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to examine the affairs of affiliates to disclose the relations between banks and their affiliates and the effect of those relations on the banks’ affairs. It also details the consequences of non-compliance, which further specifies the regulatory task. Although discretion is granted to the Board, the primary task is explicitly defined in the statute.

The statute authorizes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to examine affiliates of state member banks and assess expenses against them. It also outlines consequences for refusal to comply. While the statute mandates certain actions (like examiners making examinations), the Board’s discretion in assessing expenses and requiring banks to surrender stock suggests authorization rather than direct mandate for all regulatory actions. The Board’s discretion on whether to impose certain penalties indicates the statute is authorized but not mandated.

While the statute doesn’t dictate the specific rules of retail foreign exchange transactions, it does specifically instruct the Board to examine affiliates and take corrective action if necessary to ensure sound banking practices. This falls under the “Specific Authority” delegation because it instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task related to examining bank affiliates, and gives them discretionary power related to the forfeitures of membership as a result of not following through on the examination.

12 U.S.C. § 338 is explicitly listed as an authority for 12 CFR Part 240. The statute authorizes the Board of Governors to examine affiliates of state member banks, assess expenses, and take action against member banks if affiliates refuse to cooperate. The regulation, which deals with retail foreign exchange transactions, can be seen as implementing and further defining the Board’s supervisory and regulatory authority over banking activities, although not explicitly mandated by the provided statute.

The statute specifically instructs the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on the regulatory task of examining affiliates of state member banks. It outlines the circumstances under which the Board can take certain actions (“in the discretion of the Board”) such as assessing expenses or requiring banks to surrender stock. Though discretion is involved, the statute clearly delineates a specific regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. § 338 directly mandates the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to examine the affairs of affiliates of state member banks. The statute also provides the Board with discretion to assess expenses against the bank and to require the surrender of stock and forfeiture of membership in the Federal Reserve System under specific conditions. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 252, lists 12 U.S.C. 321-338a as authority, meaning this statute is directly mandated.

The statute instructs the Board on a specific regulatory task: to limit a state member bank’s investment in any one project and its aggregate investments. This is a clear directive, even though open-ended terms (like “limit”) are used.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 338a, explicitly states that “The Board shall limit a State member bank”™s investment in any 1 project and a State member bank”™s aggregate investments under this paragraph.” This directly mandates the Board to issue regulations. Furthermore, 12 CFR Part 208 lists 12 U.S.C. 338a in its authority section, confirming that regulations within this part are issued pursuant to the statute.

While the statute allows banks to make certain investments, it specifically instructs the Board to “limit” those investments and to make a determination regarding the risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund before allowing for higher investments. This represents a specific regulatory task, even if couched in open-ended terms like “significant risk”.

The statute explicitly authorizes the Board to limit a State member bank”™s investment in any one project and a State member bank’s aggregate investments and also to determine that a higher amount than the initially prescribed 5% threshold “will pose no significant risk to the affected deposit insurance fund,” granting the Board significant discretion, but not mandating specific actions.

Although the statute specifies the content of the agreements between state member banks and their holding company affiliates, and also mandates forfeiture of membership, its grant of authority would still be considered general as interpreted under the Hickman delegation framework. This is because the framework considers any delegation lacking explicit regulatory task to be of general authority. As such, 12 CFR 208, covering membership in the Federal Reserve System, is authorized via a general delegation since it entails a broader mandate encompassing the subject matter of 12 U.S.C 337.

12 U.S.C. § 337 concerns agreements of State member banks with holding company affiliates regarding voting restrictions and forfeiture of membership. 12 CFR Part 208 governs membership of state banking institutions in the Federal Reserve System. While § 337 focuses specifically on agreements with holding company affiliates and has been repealed, the broader regulation of state member banks within the Federal Reserve System is authorized by 12 U.S.C. 321-338a, which includes sections addressing requirements of state member banks. Therefore, the relationship is authorized but not directly mandated since the repeal of § 337 eliminates a direct mandate and the remaining sections provide general authorization for the regulation of state member banks.

Although the regulation lists a range of U.S.C. sections as authority, it does not point to one specific directive compelling the creation of specific capital adequacy rules. Instead, the numerous cited sections, including 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 1818, 1828, 1831n, et al., provide a broad grant of authority to regulate banking activities. This qualifies as a General Authority delegation.

12 U.S.C. § 337, which regulated agreements of state member banks with holding company affiliates, has been repealed. 12 CFR Part 217, concerning the capital adequacy of bank holding companies, cites 12 U.S.C. 321-338a as authority. While the repealed 337 falls within the broader 321-338a range now referenced as an authority for 12 CFR 217, it does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the current regulation, as the specific requirements are now absent. The connection is thus related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

12 U.S.C. 321-338 provides the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with broad authority to regulate state member banks of the Federal Reserve System. The specifics of 12 CFR Part 240 go far beyond the specific task/gap that 12 U.S.C. 337 covers.

12 U.S.C. § 337, while repealed, falls within the range of citations provided as authority for 12 CFR Part 240 (specifically, the range 12 U.S.C. 321-338). Although repealed, it was authorized at the time of implementation. However, the regulation does not directly mandate that the agency create regulations related to the specific subject matter of 12 U.S.C. § 337. The agency is given authority under the range of statutes but has discretion over whether or not to use this authority.

The “Authority” section of 12 CFR Part 252 cites a range of statutes including 12 U.S.C. 321-338a, 481-486, and others. While some of these statutes might provide specific instructions for certain regulatory tasks, the comprehensive nature of Part 252, encompassing stress tests, risk committees, debt-to-equity limits, and other enhanced prudential standards, suggests the agency is operating under broader authority to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions rather than acting under any one specifically defined mandate related to voting restrictions with holding companies, especially in the context of a repealed statute.

12 U.S.C. § 337, now repealed, required agreements of state member banks with holding company affiliates to be subject to voting restrictions and provide for forfeiture of membership on failure to file an agreement. 12 CFR Part 252, on the other hand, deals with enhanced prudential standards, stress tests, and risk management requirements for large banking organizations. While both pertain to the regulation of banks and financial institutions, the repealed statute’s specific focus on voting restrictions and agreements with holding company affiliates isn’t directly mandated or explicitly authorized in the current regulation. However, it is related to the broader goal of financial stability and regulation of banking entities.