Database Search Results
While the broader “chapter” might grant general authority, 12 U.S.C. § 1884 specifically concerns the enforcement of rules promulgated under that chapter by establishing penalties for violations. The statute focuses on a specific consequence for violating rules, indicating a specific delegation of authority related to enforcement.
The statute specifically instructs the agencies to promulgate rules regarding the “installation, maintenance, and operation of security devices and procedures,” setting minimum standards and even providing guidelines such as the rule having to be “reasonable in cost” and designed to “discourage robberies, burglaries, and larcenies and to assist in the identification and apprehension of persons who commit such acts.” This level of specific instruction indicates a specific authority delegation.
The statute provides a clear directive to the agencies to establish rules regarding security devices and procedures. It even specifies what aspects the rules must cover (“installation, maintenance, and operation”) and sets a timeframe for the initial rulemaking (within six months). The use of terms like “reasonable in cost” provides further guidance, making it a specific authority delegation, even though it also uses somewhat open-ended terms.
12 U.S.C. § 1882(a) specifically instructs federal supervisory agencies to promulgate rules establishing minimum standards for security devices and procedures at banks and savings associations to deter robberies and assist in apprehension of offenders. The language provides specific direction on the area to be regulated (security devices), the entities subject to the regulation (banks and savings associations), and the purpose of the regulation (discourage crimes and assist in apprehension). While the terms “minimum standards” and “reasonable in cost” allow for agency discretion, the statute clearly tasks the agency with a specific regulatory task.
Although 12 U.S.C. § 1883 does not explicitly direct the agencies to create regulations related to security devices and procedures, it instructs the agencies to consult and report on the feasibility and desirability of premium rate differentials based on the installation, maintenance, and operation of security devices and procedures. This falls into the Specific Authority category because the agencies must consider certain specific parameters and report to Congress on their potential efficacy, allowing for a strong potential tie into eventual regulatory action if deemed desirable.
12 U.S.C. § 1883 directs the agencies to consult specifically on the feasibility and desirability of premium rate differentials related to security devices and procedures. This constitutes a defined regulatory task, albeit one involving consultation and reporting rather than direct rulemaking on rates themselves. However, the connection between the subject of the consultation (security devices) and the topic of the regulation (minimum security devices and procedures) is sufficiently direct to classify this as a specific authority delegation.
While 12 U.S.C. § 1881 defines a term, the authorities referenced in 12 CFR Part 326, particularly 12 U.S.C. 1813, 1815, 1817, 1818, 1819(Tenth), 1882, 1883, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332, provide broad rulemaking authority related to bank security and compliance, rather than specific instructions on particular regulatory tasks. This falls under the ‘General Authority’ delegation.
While 12 U.S.C. § 1881 itself only defines the term “Federal supervisory agency,” the “et seq.” in the authority section of 12 CFR 41 indicates the agency is relying on the broader authority granted throughout Title 12. Furthermore, the inclusion of 15 U.S.C. 1681m, 1681s, 1681t, and 1681w (Fair Credit Reporting Act sections) points towards specific regulatory tasks related to consumer information and identity theft. Thus, while §1881 is definitional, the agency is clearly relying on a suite of authorities to tackle the issues of Fair Credit Reporting. Therefore, I classify it as a Specific Authority Delegation.
The statute specifically instructs the agency to promulgate rules establishing “minimum standards” for security devices and procedures. It also outlines the goal of those standards, which is to discourage robberies, burglaries, and larcenies, and to assist in the identification and apprehension of persons who commit such acts. The statute also includes the directive that the rules are to determine “time limits within which banks and savings associations shall comply with the standards”. This constitutes a specific regulatory task.
The statute clearly instructs the agencies to promulgate rules establishing minimum standards for security devices and procedures in banks and savings associations. The statute also specifies the purpose of the rules (to discourage robberies, burglaries, and larcenies) and uses terms like “reasonable in cost,” indicating a specific regulatory task, falling into the Specific Authority Delegation category.
The statute clearly instructs the agencies to create rules establishing minimum security standards for banks and savings associations. The statute sets forth the specific regulatory task and goals like deterring robberies, burglaries, and larcenies, and assisting in identifying and apprehending offenders.
Subsection (d) of the statute grants the Board and federal banking agencies broad authority to issue regulations and orders “as may be necessary to enable them to administer and to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to prevent evasions thereof.” This is a classic general authority delegation because it empowers the agency to regulate as needed to fulfill the broader goals of the legislation, without specifying particular regulatory tasks or gaps to address related to receiverships.
While the statute addresses bank service companies, examinations, and regulations, the authority to issue regulations “as may be necessary to enable them to administer and to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to prevent evasions thereof” is broad and does not specify particular regulatory actions such as setting fees. It fits the definition of General Authority delegation as it gives rulemaking power without specifying the regulatory tasks.
While 12 U.S.C. 1881 specifically defines the term “Federal supervisory agency,” The Bank Protection Act of 1968 as a whole (Pub. L. 90-389), which enacted 12 U.S.C. 1881, implies an agency is to act on this definition in the creation and enforcement of security procedures. The regulation clearly instructs an agency on a specific regulatory task with appropriate security implementation and reporting. The use of broad phrases in the act as a whole, that are not included in this specific statute, such as “appropriate security measures,” still falls within the realm of specific authority given the limited nature of the agency.
While 12 U.S.C. § 1881 defines a term used in the regulation, it doesn’t specifically instruct the agency to create the security devices, procedures, or reporting requirements outlined in 12 CFR Part 21. The statute provides the “agency,” as defined, the authority for Part 21, but there is no regulatory task that Congress instructed them to fulfill.
The statute defines “Federal supervisory agency” which is a component of the Bank Protection Act of 1968. This is a clear instruction and definition for a term to be used in the law, related to safety and soundness.
The statute specifically empowers the Board and appropriate Federal banking agencies to assess the financial and managerial aspects of banks and bank service companies, and to consider possible adverse effects. This requires agencies to gather information via reports and forms. While the statute doesn’t detail the exact forms to use, it outlines the specific task of evaluation and approval, using terms like “financial and managerial resources” and “unsafe or unsound banking practices” which provide a framework guiding regulatory action.
While 12 U.S.C. § 1866 addresses a specific issue (unreasonable discrimination by bank service companies), it does not provide the agency with explicit instructions on how to regulate the forms, instructions, and reports required to prevent such discrimination. The statute’s broad grant of authority for regulating bank service companies coupled with its lack of direction on the particulars of implementation via reporting requirements makes it a general authority delegation under Hickman’s framework. The agency likely points to the statute, in conjunction with other statutes, as supporting their general authority to oversee banking practices.
The delegation provided in 12 U.S.C. § 1867(d) provides broad rulemaking authority (“as may be necessary to enable them to administer and to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to prevent evasions thereof”) without identifying specific regulatory tasks or gaps to be addressed. This falls under the definition of a General Authority Delegation.
Subsection (d) of the statute authorizes the Board and appropriate Federal banking agencies to issue regulations and orders as “may be necessary” to administer and carry out the purposes of the chapter and prevent evasions. This is a broad delegation of rulemaking authority without specific regulatory tasks identified.
While the statute clearly authorizes the issuance of regulations, the delegation is broad. It tasks the agencies with issuing regulations “as may be necessary to enable them to administer and to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to prevent evasions thereof.” This language grants considerable discretion to the agencies without specifying the precise regulatory actions required. It directs the ends but not the specific means.
The statute instructs the Board on the specific regulatory task of implementing the concentration limit, including defining terms and establishing rules for consistent treatment of companies. It directs the Board to issue regulations in accordance with the recommendations of the Council.
The statute provides broad authority to oversee and regulate bank service companies, but does not specify the reporting requirements. The regulatory authority stems from the broader authorization to implement the Bank Service Company Act (as evidenced by the citation of 12 U.S.C. 1861-1867) and manage the entities operating under its auspices. It does not delineate or narrowly prescribe what forms, instructions, or reports are needed.
The statute provides a defined limit on investment amounts, which is a specific regulatory parameter. However, the statute does not itself instruct the agency on particular reporting requirements or forms. The regulation (12 CFR Part 304) concerns forms, instructions and reporting requirements, that are implied by the general authority to implement and oversee the investment limitations set forth by the statute but are not dictated by the statue. Thus, the agency is using a broad rulemaking authority to set reporting requirements necessary to implement this mandate
Section 1863 specifies permissible activities of bank service companies but does not directly instruct the agency to create forms, instructions, or reports related to these activities. The regulation, 12 CFR Part 304, involves reporting requirements and is supported by a range of statutes related to banking oversight, granting broad authority to regulate and gather information. Therefore, this regulation stems from general authority rather than a specific instruction in 1863.