Database Search Results

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary regarding a particular regulatory task: requiring reports on ownership, control, and management of uninsured banks and institutions, where such reporting is determined to be useful for criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings. It is limited to specific entities (uninsured banks/institutions) and specified subject matter (ownership, control, management). The term “appropriate reports” provides further clarification and guides the Secretary’s discretion.

The statute authorizes the Secretary to require reports from uninsured banks or institutions but does not mandate it. The Secretary’s action is contingent on a determination of “high degree of usefulness” in investigations or proceedings.

While 12 U.S.C. § 1951 doesn’t explicitly detail how the records should be maintained or what specific reports are needed, it clearly identifies a specific regulatory gap – ensuring the maintenance and reporting of records useful for investigations. It uses terms like “appropriate types of records” and “appropriate reports,” which, under Hickman’s framework, still indicate a specific regulatory task even with open-ended language.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1951, establishes the purpose of requiring record maintenance and reports by businesses when such records are useful in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations. The regulation, 31 CFR Part 1030, implements these requirements for Housing Government Sponsored Enterprises, mandating specific programs, reports, record-keeping, and diligence standards. The statute is directly referenced as authority for the regulation, indicating a direct mandate.

The statute identifies a specific regulatory task or gap: reporting on the ownership, control, and management of uninsured banks and institutions. It instructs the Secretary to make regulations related to this.

The statute explicitly authorizes the Secretary to require reports from uninsured banks and institutions if the Secretary determines that such reports have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings. The regulation is not directly mandated by the statute because the Secretary has discretion on whether to require such reports.

While the statute uses open-ended terms like “appropriate reports” and “high degree of usefulness,” it clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task (requiring reports on ownership, control, and management of uninsured banks) when a specific condition is met (the Secretary’s determination). Therefore, this falls under Specific Authority.

The statute explicitly states that the Secretary “may by regulation require such banks or institutions to make such reports as he determines” under specific conditions. This directly mandates regulation if the Secretary makes the specified determination.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary to require reports on ownership, control, and management of uninsured banks and institutions, if the Secretary deems it useful for criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations. While the Secretary has discretion in determining the usefulness of such reports, the regulatory task itself (requiring these specific reports) is clearly identified. The statute does not provide unfettered discretion to regulate banking generally.

The statute states that the Secretary “may by regulation require such banks or institutions to make such reports as he determines.” This indicates authorization, but not a direct mandate. The Secretary has discretion based on their determination of the usefulness of the reports.

The statute provides a clear regulatory task: to require uninsured banks and institutions to report on ownership, control, and management if the Secretary determines it useful for criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings. The statute provides sufficient guidance to the agency.

The statute states the Secretary “may by regulation require such banks or institutions to make such reports,” making the regulatory action authorized, but not mandated.

12 U.S.C. § 1951(b) states the purpose of the chapter is to require the maintenance of appropriate types of records and the making of appropriate reports. Although this is somewhat broad, it does instruct an agency on a specific regulatory task — record keeping and reporting — and identifies the gap to be filled: the need for records and reports useful in criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations. The regulation then requires brokers and dealers in securities to keep these records and make reports. This is a clearly identified task in the authorizing statute.

The regulation 31 CFR Part 1023 explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. § 1951 as part of its authority. This indicates a direct mandate or connection between the statute and the regulation because the agency claims the statute gives the agency the power to regulate in this area.

The statute identifies a specific regulatory task–requiring records and reports with a high degree of usefulness in investigations–and the regulation clearly responds to this task through mandated reports, record-keeping and due diligence. Although the statute uses terms like “appropriate types of records and the making of appropriate reports” these are open ended terms instructing the agency on a specific regulatory gap.

The statute explicitly states the purpose of requiring the maintenance of records and reports by businesses for use in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations, and the regulation implements this mandate by establishing rules for mutual funds regarding programs, reporting, record-keeping, information sharing, and standards of diligence. The Authority section of the regulation lists 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 as authority for the regulation.

While the statute is broad in its purpose, it directly instructs the agency to require the “maintenance of appropriate types of records and the making of appropriate reports.” This is a specific regulatory task even though “appropriate” leaves room for agency discretion.

The regulation explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 as authority. Section 1951 expresses the need for record keeping and reporting related to financial institutions for regulatory investigations. This directly mandates regulation to fulfill the statute’s purpose.

While the statute addresses specific concerns (usefulness of records/reports for investigations), it grants broad authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to define “appropriate types of records” and “appropriate reports”. This doesn’t provide a specific regulatory task but rather delegates broad rulemaking power relating to businesses which could have records or reports of interest.

The statute authorizes the agency (Treasury) to require maintenance of records and reports by businesses where those records or reports are useful in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations. This gives the agency authority to act, but doesn’t mandate specific actions regarding credit card systems. It’s within the scope of the statute’s purpose but not explicitly required.

While §1951 is a purpose statement, it identifies a specific regulatory gap related to record-keeping and reporting requirements for businesses, which is further defined in subsequent sections of the statute. The statute specifies that the purpose is to ensure the maintenance of appropriate records and reporting to aid criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations. This is more than a broad, general directive; it clearly directs the agency to establish rules concerning the maintenance of specific types of records and reports by covered businesses.

The regulation cites 12 U.S.C. § 1951-1959 as authority. 12 U.S.C. § 1951 establishes the purpose of the chapter as requiring the maintenance of appropriate records and the making of reports by businesses where such records and reports are useful in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings. The regulation governs rules for loan and finance companies which directly relates to the purpose articulated in the statute.

While the statute is broad in its purpose, it specifically identifies a need for record-keeping and reporting by financial institutions, and the regulation (17 CFR 42) further fleshes out and specifies how to accomplish this. This meets the requirements of specific authority delegation.

12 U.S. Code § 1951 is explicitly cited as an authority for 17 CFR Part 42. The statute outlines the need for record maintenance and reporting by financial institutions, which directly relates to the anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regulations in 17 CFR Part 42.

While the statute uses broad language like “appropriate types of records” and “appropriate reports,” it explicitly directs the agency to require record maintenance and reporting for businesses whose records are useful in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations. This qualifies as a specific regulatory task, even if it uses open-ended terms. The statute identifies a specific gap (lack of required records and reports) and directs the agency to fill it.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 1951) expresses the purpose of requiring the maintenance of records and reports, and the regulation (31 CFR Part 1010) implements this requirement by establishing the specific rules and procedures for record-keeping and reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. The “Authority” section of the regulation specifically cites 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 as its basis, indicating a direct mandate.

The statute provides a clear objective – to ensure the maintenance and reporting of records useful for criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations – and implies an agency’s role in defining and implementing those requirements, which is a specific regulatory task with authority outlined in the statutory text.

The statute explicitly states the purpose of requiring the maintenance of appropriate types of records and the making of appropriate reports by businesses in the United States, directly leading to regulations that enforce these requirements.

12 U.S.C. § 1951(b) states the purpose of the chapter is to “require the maintenance of appropriate types of rec­ords and the making of appropriate reports by such businesses.” This provides a clear instruction to the agency regarding a specific regulatory task: requiring record maintenance and report making for businesses involved in certain financial functions, thus constituting a specific authority delegation.

The regulation, 31 CFR Part 1021, explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 as authority, indicating a direct mandate to create regulations concerning record-keeping and reporting by financial institutions.

12 U.S.C. § 1951 states the purpose of the chapter is to require certain records and reports. This outlines Congress’s goals. It does not give explicit instructions or directions on how the agency should create those regulatory tasks or gaps. Because the statute’s language provides broad rulemaking authority, it is considered a General Authority delegation.

12 U.S.C. 1951 is explicitly listed in the Authority section of 31 CFR Part 1022. This indicates that the statute directly mandates or at least specifically authorizes the regulation.

The statute specifically addresses the consequences of violating a rule promulgated pursuant to this chapter, which implies that the agency has the authority to create rules for the chapter and sets a specific penalty for breaking those rules. The statute doesn’t grant a broad authority to regulate banking generally but creates a specific structure of incentives related to rules made under the authorities of the statute that the chapter encompasses. This framework aligns with “specific authority” as the statute instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task (rule promulgation) and sets a penalty.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1884, explicitly authorizes the promulgation of rules (“A bank or savings association which violates a rule promulgated pursuant to this chapter…”). The statute does not mandate that the agency issue rules, but it clearly contemplates and authorizes their existence. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 21, lists 12 U.S.C. § 1884 as an authority. This means that the relationship is authorized but not mandated because while the regulation is allowed by the statute, the statute does not force or require this particular regulation.

While the statute doesn’t directly instruct the agency to create a rule, it clearly contemplates that rules will be promulgated within the chapter and provides a penalty for violating those rules. This establishes a framework for enforcement. Because the rules are contemplated and violations trigger specific penalties, it’s more aligned with specific authority in that a regulatory task is clearly identified and linked to a consequence.

The statute (12 U.S. Code § 1884) explicitly states that a bank or savings association that violates “a rule promulgated pursuant to this chapter” shall be subject to a civil penalty. This means the statute directly mandates regulations, as it ties the penalty directly to the violation of a rule established under the same chapter.

While 12 U.S.C. § 1884 specifically addresses the penalty for violating a rule, the statute delegating the authority to create the underlying rules is in “this chapter,” which is much broader. Thus, the power to create the rules that can be penalized is granted under a general delegation within the chapter that encompasses § 1884. Even though § 1884 uses the term “rule promulgated pursuant to this chapter” which can be construed as referring to specific regulatory tasks, the nature of the enabling legislation is broad enough that the grant of authority is considered a general one.

The statute authorizes the agency to promulgate rules, and it provides penalties for violating those rules. This suggests that the agency is authorized to make regulations, but it is not directly mandated by this specific section to do so. The chapter as a whole may provide the mandate, but this specific section focuses on the consequences of violating those rules.

While 12 U.S. Code § 1884 doesn’t explicitly detail the specific content of rules, it does clearly instruct the agency (likely the FDIC, given 12 CFR Part 308) on a specific regulatory task: to create rules, and then specifies the penalty for violations. This implies an authorization and delegation of power to create rules.

The statute explicitly refers to “a rule promulgated pursuant to this chapter” and specifies the penalty for violating such a rule. This demonstrates a direct mandate- the statute directly references and relies on regulations created under the same chapter.

While the statute sets penalties, the “chapter” language suggests that other sections within the chapter must delegate the rulemaking authority. It doesn’t identify any specific regulatory tasks or gaps but provides the enforcement mechanism for rules established under the authority of the larger chapter. Thus, it is a grant of general authority coupled with an enforcement provision.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1884, establishes penalties for violating rules “promulgated pursuant to this chapter.” This indicates the statute authorizes the agency to create rules, but does not explicitly mandate specific rules.

While the statute only requires consultation and reporting, it identifies a specific regulatory task (assessing feasibility and desirability of premium rate differentials related to security devices) and instructs the agency on that task. Although the directive does not mandate rulemaking, it is a delegation of authority to investigate and report on a specific area, using open-ended terms related to “feasibility” and “desirability.”

12 U.S.C. § 1883 directly mandates the Federal supervisory agencies to consult with insurers and state agencies and to report to Congress on the feasibility and desirability of premium rate differentials based on security devices and procedures. This is a direct instruction.

The statute provides a specific regulatory task: to consult regarding premium rate differentials and report to Congress. This is a well-defined task, fitting the “Specific Authority” category even with open-ended terms implicitly involved in feasibility and desirability.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 1883) is directly mandated because it explicitly instructs the Federal supervisory agencies to consult with insurers and state agencies regarding premium rate differentials related to security devices and procedures, and to report their findings to Congress. The regulation (12 CFR Part 326) directly cites 12 U.S.C. 1881-1883 as authority.

The statute specifically instructs agencies to consult and report on the feasibility and desirability of premium rate differentials related to security devices. Although it doesn’t command specific regulations, the instruction is quite specific about the topic to be addressed and the outcome (a report to Congress detailing feasibility and desirability of certain actions), thus fitting into the Specific Authority delegation category.

While 12 U.S.C. § 1883 mandates that federal supervisory agencies consult with insurers and state agencies and then report to Congress, it does not directly mandate the promulgation of regulations. It does authorize (or perhaps more accurately, contemplates) that the information gathered from this process could inform future regulation regarding insurance premium rate differentials based on security devices. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 41, does cite 12 U.S.C. 1881-1884 as authority; this statutory section refers to federal bank robbery protection which this statute is a part of. Therefore it seems to be authorized but not mandated, although very loosely.

While the statute imposes penalties for violations of regulations “promulgated pursuant to this chapter”, it doesn’t specify any particular regulatory tasks or gaps the agency must address. The statute allows the agency to establish rules generally, making it a broad grant of rulemaking authority and therefore a General Authority Delegation.

The statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1884, outlines penalties for violating rules “promulgated pursuant to this chapter.” This suggests the agency is authorized to create rules within the scope of the chapter, but the statute itself doesn’t mandate any specific regulation. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 168, explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 1881-1884 as authority.