Database Search Results

The statute grants the Board broad authority to prescribe rules and regulations for membership in the Federal Reserve System. While specific aspects of membership are mentioned (e.g., stock subscription amounts), the rulemaking authority itself is not tied to a specific regulatory task but rather to the general process of membership. The wording like “under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe” is indicative of general authority.

The statute authorizes the Board of Governors to prescribe rules and regulations related to membership applications, but it does not explicitly mandate that they do so. The Board “may” prescribe such rules.

The statute provides a clear directive to the enumerated agencies. It tasks them with creating regulations to implement the chapter in question, including the specific issue of management officials’ service that might otherwise be prohibited. This level of direction, especially the explicit mention of regulations related to management officials, points to a specific authority delegation.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 3207, explicitly authorizes specific agencies (Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Board of Directors of the FDIC, and the National Credit Union Administration) to prescribe regulations to carry out the chapter, including regulations pertaining to management officials. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 354, falls under the authority of these agencies, as evidenced by the citation of 12 U.S.C. § 3207 in the “Authority” section. Therefore, the regulations are directly mandated to carry out the statute.

The statute instructs specific agencies (Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, etc.) to prescribe regulations to carry out the chapter, and even specifies an area for regulation (management official interlocks). The phrase “to carry out this chapter” acts as the explicit instruction, even if broad in scope, for the agencies to implement the goals of the statute.

The statute explicitly states that regulations “to carry out this chapter… may be prescribed by” specific agencies. This directly mandates the creation of regulations to implement the chapter’s provisions.

The statute provides the Attorney General specific powers for enforcing a specific statute (Section 3206) by granting the Attorney General the powers of the Clayton Act. This is a specific regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. 3208 provides the Attorney General with powers to enforce Section 3206, part of the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act. 12 CFR Part 212 implements this Act, so the regulations are authorized by the statute. The statute doesn’t explicitly mandate specific regulations, but it authorizes actions for enforcement.

The statute specifically instructs the Attorney General to utilize powers available under the Clayton Act for enforcement related to violations under section 3206(6). It delineates a specific regulatory task (enforcement) and clarifies the tools (Clayton Act powers) to be employed, making it a Specific Authority delegation.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 3208, provides the Attorney General with powers available under the Clayton Act for enforcement functions related to 12 U.S.C. § 3206. While the statute authorizes the use of Clayton Act powers, it does not mandate specific regulations but rather provides tools for enforcement. The agency, in this case, the Department of Justice, is authorized to take enforcement actions using powers from the Clayton Act in dealing with violations under Section 3206.

While 12 U.S.C. § 3208 primarily focuses on granting the Attorney General enforcement powers analogous to those under the Clayton Act, this grant is specifically tied to the enforcement of regulations stemming from section 3206(6) which deals with management interlocks. This reference to a specific regulatory task makes it a Specific Authority Delegation under Hickman’s framework.

The regulation, 12 CFR Part 711, explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208 as its authority. While the statute doesn’t mandate specific regulations, it authorizes the agency to create rules related to management official interlocks. Section 3208 specifically outlines the powers available to the Attorney General for enforcement of regulations related to interlocking management. Thus, the regulation is authorized by the statute but not directly mandated.

The statute clearly delegates authority to specific agencies to administer and enforce the provisions of the relevant chapter of the U.S. Code. While it doesn’t outline the specific regulatory tasks to be undertaken, the delegation includes the power to enforce compliance which necessitates the creation of rules and regulations. Therefore, it falls under Specific Authority because it delineates specific agencies and empowers them to administer and enforce the statute, even if using terms that permit agency discretion in how they perform those tasks.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 3206, assigns administrative and enforcement responsibilities for “this chapter” to various agencies, including the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Board of Directors of the FDIC, and the National Credit Union Administration, with the Attorney General having enforcement authority upon referral. 12 CFR Part 711, which governs Management Official Interlocks, cites 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208 (which includes 3206) as authority. While the statute mandates administration and enforcement, it doesn’t specifically mandate the creation of regulations concerning management official interlocks. The agency is authorized to make regulations to effectively administer and enforce the chapter.

The statute directs specific agencies to issue regulations to carry out the chapter, and even specifies that the regulations can permit certain activities (management official service) that would otherwise be prohibited, provided it doesn’t result in anticompetitive effects. This level of detail moves it beyond a general grant of authority.

The statute explicitly states that regulations “to carry out this chapter… may be prescribed by” specific agencies. This indicates a direct mandate for rulemaking.

The statute instructs specific agencies to prescribe regulations to carry out the chapter, including regulations that permit service by a management official that would otherwise be prohibited under specific sections, if such service would not result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition. The statute identifies a specific area of regulation (management official interlocks) and provides a condition (“not result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition”) that guides agency action, even using open-ended terms, indicating Specific Authority delegation.

12 U.S.C. § 3207 explicitly authorizes specific agencies (Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration) to prescribe regulations to carry out the chapter to which it belongs. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 26, directly addresses management official interlocks, which is part of the subject matter contemplated in the statute’s authorization.

The statute specifically instructs the agencies on a regulatory task: creating regulations to implement the chapter, including the possibility of regulations permitting specific management official services otherwise prohibited, explicitly naming sections 3202 and 3203 of the title. The statute offers a specific, albeit broad, regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. § 3207 explicitly authorizes the listed agencies to prescribe regulations to carry out the chapter to which it belongs. The regulation 12 CFR Part 303 is explicitly listed in the authority section.

The statute directs the agencies to create regulations to “carry out this chapter,” which includes allowing certain management official interlocks under specific conditions related to competition. While “to carry out this chapter” is a broad mandate, the inclusion of specific items provides direction, thereby qualifying it as specific authority. It uses “appropriate” by stating “if such service would not result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of competition”.

The statute explicitly states that regulations “to carry out this chapter…may be prescribed by” specific agencies. This directly mandates regulatory action to implement the chapter’s provisions.

While the statute provides an exception to prohibitions on management interlocks, it also includes the term “appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agency may provide a reasonable period of time for compliance.” Even using terms like “appropriate,” and “reasonable,” this language assigns the agency a specific task””determining a reasonable compliance period, up to 15 months, following a change in circumstances. It is not simply a broad grant of rulemaking authority; rather, it is tied to the specific issue of compliance periods related to management interlocks.

The statute directly addresses management official interlocks and explicitly authorizes the “appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agency” to provide a reasonable period of time for compliance. This is a clear mandate to address specific situations arising under the statute.

The statute explicitly instructs the agency regarding a specific regulatory task: providing a reasonable period of time for compliance, not exceeding fifteen months, after certain changes in circumstances. While “reasonable” provides some discretion, the statute clearly defines the scope and purpose of the delegation.

12 U.S.C. § 3205(a) explicitly authorizes the “appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agency” to provide a reasonable period of time for compliance with the chapter, which Part 26 of 12 CFR implements. The statute directly mandates the agency to consider and potentially grant extensions for compliance.

The statute provides a clear regulatory task by directing the agency to manage the compliance period for management official interlocks, including the permissible length of that period (up to 15 months). The statute specifically uses the term “appropriate,” giving the agency latitude while clearly defining the regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. § 3205(a) states the “appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agency may provide a reasonable period of time for compliance with this chapter, not exceeding fifteen months, after any change in circumstances.” The statute authorizes the agency to act, but does not mandate specific regulations or actions.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 3206, specifically instructs designated agencies (Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, etc.) to “administer and enforce this chapter.” Although the manner of administration and enforcement isn’t precisely defined, the task is clearly identified, and the responsible agencies are named, thus falling under Specific Authority.

12 U.S.C. § 3206 mandates the administration and enforcement of “this chapter” by specific agencies. While it doesn’t directly mandate specific regulations, it authorizes these agencies to administer and enforce the chapter, which necessitates the creation and implementation of regulations to define the scope, procedures, and limitations of that administration and enforcement. 12 CFR Part 212 is based upon the authority granted in 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208, within the same chapter.

The statute specifically assigns the administration and enforcement of the chapter to particular agencies, delineating their responsibilities with respect to specific types of financial institutions. Although the precise manner of administration and enforcement is left to agency discretion, the who and what are clearly defined, indicating a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 3206, explicitly mandates the administration and enforcement of the chapter by specific agencies (Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and, upon referral, the Attorney General) with respect to defined entities. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 26, is authorized under 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208 which is related to management official interlocks, so the statute directly mandates the regulatory scheme.

The statute specifically instructs the agency to adjust the asset thresholds “as necessary” to allow for inflation or market changes. This constitutes a specific regulatory task, even though the phrase “as necessary” provides some discretion.

The statute explicitly authorizes the appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agencies to adjust the asset thresholds by regulation to account for inflation or market changes. This is a direct mandate to consider regulatory adjustments.

The statute provides a specific regulatory task: adjusting asset thresholds for depository institutions and holding companies, in response to inflation or market changes. The use of the phrase “as necessary” does not make this a general authority delegation; rather, it clarifies the circumstances under which the agency should exercise its regulatory power.

The statute explicitly states that the appropriate federal depository institutions regulatory agencies may, by regulation, adjust, as necessary, the amount of total assets required for depository institutions or depository holding companies. This is a direct mandate as the agencies are specifically authorized to adjust the asset thresholds through regulation.

While the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act in general may provide broad authority, 12 U.S.C. § 3204(7)(A) explicitly instructs the “appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agency” to prescribe regulations regarding determinations of when a depository institution is “closed or in danger of closing.” This is a specific regulatory task, fitting within Hickman’s definition of a specific authority delegation. Also the notice requirements outlined in paragraph (8) are quite specific.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 3204) explicitly references and provides exceptions to the prohibitions detailed in 12 U.S.C. § 3202 and § 3203. The regulation (12 CFR Part 212) also references 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208 under its authority section, indicating it is directly implementing the statute. Furthermore, subsection (7)(A) requires that agencies prescribe regulations, which constitutes a direct mandate.

12 U.S.C. § 3204(7)(A) empowers the “appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agency” to determine when a depository institution is “closed or is in danger of closing, as determined by the appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agency in accordance with regulations prescribed by such agency.” This constitutes a specific instruction to define “in danger of closing” through regulation, relating it directly to the scope and application of the management interlock prohibitions. Subparagraph (8) and (9) similarly delegate authority to the appropriate agencies and OTS director respectively.

The regulation at 12 CFR Part 26 cites 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208 in its authority section, and 12 U.S.C. 3204 directly references the appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agency prescribing regulations within the context of exceptions to management interlocks. This indicates a direct mandate for regulation regarding these exceptions.

While the statute doesn’t provide hyper-specific rules, it tasks agencies with making a determination based on criteria defined through regulations. The phrase, “in accordance with regulations prescribed by such agency”, instructs the agency to fill a specific gap in the statute (how to determine ‘in danger of closing’) using regulatory authority. The statute also sets parameters such as requiring notice (section 8) or a period before dual service is allowed (section 8), and describes what actions or findings permit an agency to disapprove or require termination of dual service.

12 U.S.C. § 3204 provides exceptions to the prohibitions outlined in 12 U.S.C. § 3202 and § 3203. Section 3204(7)(A) explicitly states that the determination of whether a depository institution is “closed or in danger of closing” is made by the “appropriate Federal depository institutions regulatory agency in accordance with regulations prescribed by such agency.” This directly mandates rulemaking to define the criteria for determining when an institution is “in danger of closing.” 12 CFR Part 711 implements the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act, which includes these exceptions.

Although 12 U.S.C. § 3201 primarily defines terms, its function is vital for executing the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act. Therefore it is more Specific Authority because it provides instruction to the agency on a specific regulatory task by defining the scope of the act.

12 U.S.C. 3201 defines terms used within the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act. Regulations are directly mandated to implement and enforce statutes. Part 711, as cited in the regulation, specifically lists 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208 as authority.

While the statute itself provides the rule against management official interlocks, it also creates exceptions based on factors like asset size and location. The corresponding regulation (12 CFR 212) then goes on to provide exemptions and definitions, which clarifies and implements the details necessary to carry out the aims of the statute. Therefore, it provides specific instructions regarding regulatory task/gap.

The regulation, 12 CFR Part 212, explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208 as its authority. This indicates that the statute (12 U.S.C. § 3202 being part of that range) directly mandates the regulation.

The statute clearly defines the specific regulatory task of prohibiting dual service of management officials within defined geographic areas and provides criteria for exemptions based on asset size. It instructs the agency to enforce these prohibitions.

The regulation, 12 CFR Part 26, explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208 as its authority. 12 U.S.C. § 3202 falls within this range, meaning the regulation is directly mandated by the statute.

While the statute itself establishes a prohibition, it includes terms that allow for agency interpretation and implementation, such as the definition of “management official” and the application of the prohibition based on geographic areas. The reference to the Office of Management and Budget further suggests that the agency has the authority to interpret and adapt the statute based on changing circumstances, falling under specific authority.

The regulation 12 CFR Part 711 explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 3201-3208 as its authority, and 12 U.S.C. § 3202 falls within this range. The statute directly prohibits certain management official interlocks, and the regulation implements and expands upon this prohibition.