Database Search Results

While the statute grants broad corporate powers to Farm Credit Banks, it also specifically identifies certain areas for regulation by the Farm Credit Administration. For example, paragraph (15) authorizes the banks to “buy and sell obligations of, or insured by, the United States…and make other investments as may be authorized under regulations issued by the Farm Credit Administration.” Similar specific authorizations can be found in paragraphs (16) and (22). These are specific regulatory tasks identified within the broader scope of the statute.

The statute 12 U.S.C. § 2013 explicitly states that each Farm Credit Bank “shall be…subject to regulation by the Farm Credit Administration”. This directly mandates a statute-regulation relationship.

While the statute identifies specific powers for Farm Credit Banks, the delegation to the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) for regulation of these powers is broad. The statute does not identify specific regulatory tasks or gaps for the FCA to address; it simply grants the FCA oversight authority over the bank’s corporate powers. While individual subsections (e.g., 15, 16, 22) provide for regulation, the overarching authority granted is general.

The statute explicitly states that “Each Farm Credit Bank shall be a body corporate and, subject to regulation by the Farm Credit Administration, shall have power to”””. This is a clear and direct mandate for the FCA to regulate the corporate powers of Farm Credit Banks.

While 12 U.S.C. § 2013 outlines the general corporate powers of Farm Credit Banks, several provisions implicitly or explicitly delegate specific regulatory tasks to the Farm Credit Administration. Examples include the power to (15) “buy and sell obligations…and make other investments as may be authorized under regulations issued by the Farm Credit Administration”; (16) “sell to lenders…interests in loans and buy from and sell to Farm Credit System institutions interests in loans…as may be authorized under regulations issued by the Farm Credit Administration”; (22) “accept contributions to the capital of the bank…except as may be authorized by the Farm Credit Administration”. These indicate a clear intention for the agency to create specific rules regarding the banks’ powers, even if the terminology is open-ended.

The statute 12 U.S.C. § 2013 explicitly states that each Farm Credit Bank shall be “subject to regulation by the Farm Credit Administration”. This indicates a direct mandate for the Farm Credit Administration to regulate these banks. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 613, falls squarely within that mandate, governing the “Eligibility and Scope of Financing” – a critical aspect of these banks’ operations.

While the opening clause of the statute provides a general mandate of regulation, subsequent subsections, such as 12 U.S.C. § 2013 (15), (16) and (22), offer specific direction, authorizing the Farm Credit Administration to issue regulations regarding specific activities such as buying/selling obligations and securities, selling loan interests and nonvoting stock, and accepting contributions to capital. The authority for these regulations is cited in 12 CFR Part 614.

The statute, specifically the introductory clause “Each Farm Credit Bank shall be a body corporate and, subject to regulation by the Farm Credit Administration,” directly mandates the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) to regulate the powers of Farm Credit Banks. The entire 12 CFR Part 614 concerns regulations pertaining to loan policies and operations of Farm Credit Banks.

The statute lists specific corporate powers of the Farm Credit Banks and in several instances (e.g., 12 USC 2013 (15), (16), (22)) authorizes the Farm Credit Administration to issue regulations governing certain activities. This demonstrates a clearly instructed agency role within defined regulatory tasks, aligning with the definition of Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute explicitly states that each Farm Credit Bank shall be subject to regulation by the Farm Credit Administration. This indicates a direct mandate for the agency to regulate the banks’ powers.

The statute provides a broad outline of the powers of Farm Credit Banks, and then grants the Farm Credit Administration the authority to regulate those powers. This is broad rulemaking authority and does not identify a specific regulatory task or gap.

The statute, 12 U.S. Code § 2013, empowers Farm Credit Banks and states that they are “subject to regulation by the Farm Credit Administration.” This authorizes the Farm Credit Administration to issue regulations concerning the powers granted to Farm Credit Banks, but it doesn’t mandate any specific regulation. The regulation itself, 12 CFR Part 616 – LEASING, covers leasing activities, which falls under the general powers granted to the Farm Credit Banks in the statute, specifically related to their business activities and financial transactions. The statute authorizes the agency to regulate but does not mandate it.

The statute clearly instructs the Farm Credit Administration on the specific regulatory task of issuing and approving amendments to charters for Farm Credit Banks. It uses the directive word “shall” and explicitly links the action to consistency with “this chapter,” providing a standard.

Subsection (b) directly mandates that “The Farm Credit Administration shall, consistent with this chapter, issue charters for, and approve amendments to charters of, the Farm Credit Banks.” This is a clear and unambiguous command.

The statute gives explicit direction about the chartering and amendment of charters for Farm Credit Banks. While the terms “consistent with this chapter” and “appropriate for the effective operation of its business” include some discretion, the statute still gives a specific task (issuing and amending charters) with some instructions on how to carry out that task (consistent with the chapter).

Subsection (b) of the statute explicitly mandates the Farm Credit Administration to issue charters and approve amendments to charters of the Farm Credit Banks, making the statute-regulation relationship directly mandated.

The statute instructs the agency (presumably the Farm Credit Administration) on a specific regulatory task – the election and composition of the board of directors – even using broad terms like “such number, for such term, in such manner, and with such qualifications, as may be required in its bylaws”.

12 U.S.C. § 2012 directly mandates the election of a board of directors for each Farm Credit Bank and specifies certain requirements regarding its composition. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 611, specifically Subpart B and C elaborates on these requirements for the board of directors and election procedures.

While the statute grants broad discretion to the Farm Credit Banks regarding bylaws, it also mandates a specific requirement: at least one board member must be elected by the other directors and cannot be affiliated with the System. This blend of flexibility and a distinct requirement qualifies as a Specific Authority Delegation because it instructs the agency on a particular area, even with open-ended terms.

The regulation’s authority section specifically cites 12 U.S.C. § 2012, indicating a direct mandate.

While 12 U.S.C. § 2013 outlines the general corporate powers of Farm Credit Banks, the statute includes a clause at the beginning stating powers are “subject to regulation by the Farm Credit Administration.” Furthermore, specific paragraphs, such as (15), (16), and (22) contain language such as “as may be authorized under regulations issued by the Farm Credit Administration.” This indicates a specific directive to the agency to implement regulations within the scope of the powers listed, indicating a Specific Authority delegation.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 2013) states that each Farm Credit Bank “shall be a body corporate and, subject to regulation by the Farm Credit Administration shall have power to”””. This indicates that the Farm Credit Administration is authorized to issue regulations pertaining to the powers of the Farm Credit Banks, but not explicitly mandated to do so for every power listed. This aligns with authorized, but not mandated.

The statute instructs the Board on a specific regulatory task. It instructs the board to create regulations to carry out the already specified regulations in the statute. The language, “as are necessary to carry out this section,” clearly instructs the agency to fill a specific gap. This falls under the category of a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 1972(1), explicitly grants the Board the authority to issue regulations necessary to carry out the section. This is a direct mandate as it empowers the Board to create rules to implement the statute’s provisions.

The statute instructs the Board on the specific regulatory task of carrying out the section and permitting exceptions, even using the open-ended term “necessary”. It tasks the agencies with prescribing regulations to carry out the civil money penalty framework.

The statute explicitly states, “The Board may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section”¦”, directly mandating the possibility of regulations to implement the anti-tying provisions and outlining procedures for civil money penalties.

The statute provides a specific regulatory task: to issue regulations necessary to carry out the anti-tying provisions of the section. While the term “necessary” is open-ended, it falls within the range of terms like “appropriate” or “reasonable” that Hickman categorizes under Specific Authority Delegations. Additionally, the statute authorizes the Board to permit exceptions, suggesting further fine-tuning within the specific context of anti-tying arrangements.

The statute explicitly states, “The Board may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section…” indicating a direct mandate to regulate.

The statute provides broad rulemaking authority to the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) to regulate the Farm Credit System. While it mentions specific areas like chartering institutions, adjusting district boundaries, and determining feasibility for services in the Virgin Islands, it does not prescribe specific regulatory tasks or gaps that the agency must address via regulation. The core delegation is to “regulate” the system, which is a broad directive falling under General Authority. The feasibility determination of services in the Virgin Islands is arguably a “specific” delegation, but given the general nature of authority provided, it is not clear cut. The agency has broad discretion to define and implement this regulatory framework.

Subsection (a) explicitly states that Farm Credit System institutions “shall be chartered by and subject to regulation by the Farm Credit Administration”, directly mandating the regulatory relationship. Subsection (b) provides that extension of credit and services in the Virgin Islands is undertaken only if determined feasible “under regulations of the Farm Credit Administration,” directly mandating regulation contingent on a feasibility determination.

The statute specifically directs the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) to issue charters for, and approve amendments to charters of, Farm Credit Banks, consistent with the chapter. This is a clearly defined task, directing the FCA to fulfill a specific regulatory function rather than granting broad, open-ended rulemaking powers.

Subsection (b) of the statute explicitly states that the Farm Credit Administration “shall, consistent with this chapter, issue charters for, and approve amendments to charters of, the Farm Credit Banks.” This directly mandates regulatory action.

While 12 U.S.C. § 1959 itself only mandates application of administrative procedure and judicial review, it is cited along with other sections like 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959 as authority for 31 CFR Part 1025. These other sections, particularly 12 U.S.C. 1829b (related to recordkeeping and reporting requirements), are more substantive and, while not explicitly directing specific regulations, they provide broad authorization for agency rulemaking to combat money laundering. Thus, in combination, it serves as a general authority delegation, not specifically instructing on a particular regulatory task but broadly authorizing rulemaking to meet general statutory goals.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1959, mandates the application of administrative procedure and judicial review provisions of 5 U.S.C. Subchapter II, Chapter 5, and Chapter 7 to proceedings under the chapter in which it resides (related to Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act), 12 U.S.C. § 1829b, and former 12 U.S.C. § 1730d. It doesn’t directly mandate the specific regulations in 31 CFR Part 1025, but authorizes regulatory action by reference to the broader statutory scheme (12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 and 1829b) as cited in the authority section of the regulation. The statute provides a framework within which regulations can be created and it explicitly discusses “administrative procedure”, therefore, the connection is authorized but not mandated.

While 12 U.S.C. § 1959 references other sections that potentially grant specific regulatory authority, it primarily serves to make the Administrative Procedure Act applicable. It grants authority to the agency by establishing the procedures under which they must operate but does not define a specific regulatory task. Since it refers to the entire chapter, the statute offers broad applicability, fitting the definition of General Authority.

12 U.S.C. § 1959 specifies that the APA applies to proceedings under chapter 12 of the U.S. Code, including sections 1951-1959. The regulation (31 CFR Part 1028) is authorized as 12 U.S.C. sections 1951-1959 are listed in the regulation’s Authority section. The statute makes the APA applicable, but does not specifically instruct the creation of the rules under 31 CFR Part 1028, meaning it’s authorized, but not mandated.

12 U.S.C. § 1959 specifically instructs agencies to use the procedures laid out in 5 U.S.C. Subchapter II, Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 to the proceedings of other sections of the U.S. Code.

12 U.S. Code § 1959 explicitly mandates the application of the administrative procedure and judicial review provisions of 5 U.S.C. Subchapter II, Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 to proceedings under 12 U.S.C. Chapter, 12 U.S.C. § 1829b, and (formerly) 12 U.S.C. § 1730d. This directly connects the statute to the administrative procedures it requires. The regulation in turn cites 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 as its authority which includes 12 U.S.C. 1959.

While the statute applies administrative procedure and judicial review provisions, it doesn’t directly instruct the agency on a specific regulatory task concerning Housing Government Sponsored Enterprises. This represents a broad grant of rulemaking authority pertaining to administrative procedure related to the broader regulatory scheme.

12 U.S.C. § 1959 is cited in the Authority section of 31 CFR Part 1030. While the statute applies the APA to proceedings under the chapter it is a part of, and regulations are certainly part of proceedings, the statute does not explicitly mandate that regulations be created. It authorizes them in the context of defining when the provisions of this statute go into effect, specifically.

The statute clearly instructs the Board on a specific regulatory task: to issue regulations as necessary to carry out the section prohibiting certain tying arrangements and to permit exceptions to these prohibitions under specific conditions. The statute provides a framework and purpose for the regulations.

The statute states “The Board may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section”¦”. This clearly and directly mandates the possibility of regulation.

The statute specifically directs that administrative procedure rules apply. Although open ended, the specific regulatory gap to be filled is very clear.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 1959) directly mandates the application of specific administrative procedure provisions (subchapter II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 of title 5) to proceedings under the referenced chapter and sections, which implies regulation to implement them.

The statute provides broad authority to create regulations for casinos and card clubs without providing specific regulatory tasks or filling specific gaps. Even though some duties could be construed as “specific,” the broad scope of what agency can do classifies this as a General Authority Delegation.

The statute 12 U.S.C. § 1959 states that administrative procedures apply to proceedings under this chapter (which includes sections 1951-1959), section 1829b and section 1730d. The regulation 31 CFR Part 1021 is authorized by 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959, which gives the agency the authority to create rules for casinos and card clubs. Thus, the statute authorizes the regulation, but does not explicitly mandate it.

12 U.S.C. § 1959, while referencing broad sections of the APA, specifically instructs the agency on the procedures it must use for proceedings under the statute and related sections. This qualifies as a Specific Authority Delegation because it mandates the application of the APA’s procedures. This provides the agency with rulemaking authority on how to administer the APA, not whether to administer the APA.

12 U.S.C. § 1959 directly mandates the application of the administrative procedure and judicial review provisions of 5 U.S.C. Subchapter II, Chapter 5, and Chapter 7 to all proceedings under 12 U.S.C. Chapter 21, section 1829b of Title 12, and section 1730d of Title 12 (though 1730d was repealed). The statute clearly requires the use of specific administrative procedures. While the effect on 31 CFR Part 1022 is indirect, because the regulation is promulgated under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, it means that 31 CFR Part 1022 must adhere to the administrative procedures set out in Title 5.

The statute provides broad rulemaking authority related to brokers and dealers, and anti-money laundering compliance but doesn’t instruct the agency on a specific regulatory task. While some might argue that specific aspects of related statutes might create a narrow focus, 12 USC 1959 specifically applies broad administrative procedures to the authorities under consideration. Given the statute’s directive to apply APA to proceedings, the authority should be considered broad.

12 U.S.C. § 1959 mandates that the administrative procedure and judicial review provisions of 5 U.S.C. subchapter II of chapter 5 and chapter 7 apply to proceedings under 12 U.S.C. § 1951-1959, and section 1829b of this title. Since 31 CFR Part 1023″™s authority explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, the regulation is authorized by statute. However, Section 1959 applies the Administrative Procedure Act to proceedings under 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, it doesn’t mandate the creation of a regulation under Part 1023. The agency has the authority to create regulations regarding brokers or dealers in securities based on the statutory framework provided in 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, as further detailed in the statute 31 USC 5311 et seq. 31 CFR Part 1023 is consistent with this framework.