Database Search Results

While some sections of the statute direct the Board to make specific determinations (e.g., whether activities are closely related to banking), the statute as a whole provides the Board with broad rulemaking authority to implement the Bank Holding Company Act and regulate the activities of bank holding companies. It does not prescribe specific regulatory tasks or gaps to fill, but rather provides general parameters for regulation.

The statute authorizes the Board to issue regulations and orders regarding bank holding companies’ activities and nonbanking interests, but it doesn’t mandate a specific regulation. It outlines permitted activities and provides exemptions, leaving the specifics to the Board’s discretion.

The statute directs the agency to prescribe regulations prohibiting out-of-state banks from using interstate branching authority primarily for deposit production. This is a specific regulatory task.

The statute (12 U.S.C. § 1835a(a)) states that the appropriate Federal banking agencies “shall prescribe uniform regulations,” making the relationship directly mandated.

The statute provides a very specific regulatory task: to prohibit out-of-state banks from engaging in interstate branching primarily for deposit production. The statute also provides specific limitations and factors for consideration in subsections (b) and (c).

12 U.S.C. § 1835a(a) states “The appropriate Federal banking agencies shall prescribe uniform regulations effective June 1, 1997, which prohibit any out-of-State bank from using any authority to engage in interstate branching pursuant to this title… primarily for the purpose of deposit production.” This clearly and directly mandates the agencies to create regulations. The CFR lists this statute in its authority section, confirming the relationship.

The statute directs the agency to promulgate regulations that address a very specific issue: preventing out-of-state banks from using interstate branching primarily for deposit production. While the terms “primarily” and “deposit production” require some agency interpretation, the regulatory task is explicitly identified by Congress.

12 U.S.C. § 1835a(a) explicitly states that the “appropriate Federal banking agencies shall prescribe uniform regulations effective June 1, 1997, which prohibit any out-of-State bank from using any authority to engage in interstate branching… primarily for the purpose of deposit production.” This is a direct mandate.

The statute provides specific instruction on what the regulations must achieve: “prohibit any out-of-State bank from using any authority to engage in interstate branching…primarily for the purpose of deposit production.” It also gives direction on guidelines and limitations related to credit needs and lending, including factors for consideration by the agencies.

The statute explicitly mandates that “the appropriate Federal banking agencies shall prescribe uniform regulations” to prohibit deposit production offices.

The statute specifically instructs the agency to prescribe regulations that prohibit out-of-state banks from using interstate branching authority primarily for deposit production. It also dictates the inclusion of guidelines for meeting credit needs and includes a limitation on out-of-state loans. While it uses terms like “reasonably” and “appropriate”, the statute provides specific regulatory tasks.

The statute explicitly states that “The appropriate Federal banking agencies shall prescribe uniform regulations”, thus directly mandating the creation of regulations.

The statute specifically instructs the agency on the regulatory task: implementing regulations regarding insured depository institution capital requirements for transfers of small business obligations, including setting reserve requirements (b)(1), determining the aggregate amount of recourse (d)(2), and permitting an alternative system (h)(1). It directs action toward a specific goal, even while using somewhat open-ended terms like “reasonable estimated liability” and grants discretion for adequately capitalized determinations via regulation.

12 U.S.C. § 1835(g) explicitly states “Regulations required: Not later than 180 days after September 23, 1994, each appropriate Federal banking agency shall promulgate final regulations implementing this section.” This directly mandates the creation of regulations. The presence of 12 U.S.C. § 1835 in the “Authority” section of 12 CFR Part 217 further supports the direct mandate relationship.

The statute instructs agencies to implement specific regulations regarding the capital requirements for transfers of small business obligations. While there is some discretion provided in certain subsections, the statute clearly instructs the agencies on specific regulatory tasks, such as setting the aggregate amount of recourse allowed (section d), and provides a mandatory timeframe for regulatory action (section g).

12 U.S.C. § 1835(g) states “Regulations required. Not later than 180 days after September 23, 1994, each appropriate Federal banking agency shall promulgate final regulations implementing this section.” This language directly mandates the creation of regulations.

The statute provides specific guidance on the regulatory task. While it uses terms like “reasonable estimated liability” and allows for some discretion (e.g., increasing the 15% limit under subsection (d)), it clearly instructs the agencies on how to regulate the transfer of small business loans and leases with recourse, including setting capital reserve requirements and aggregate limits. Subsection (h) allows an alternative system, but this is a specific deviation granted by the statute and doesn’t change the overall specific nature of the delegation. The statute defines key terms, further narrowing the agency’s discretion.

Subsection (g) of the statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1835, explicitly states “Regulations required. Not later than 180 days after September 23, 1994, each appropriate Federal banking agency shall promulgate final regulations implementing this section.” This directly mandates the creation of regulations. Additionally, 12 CFR Part 3 cites 12 U.S.C. § 1835 in its authority section, solidifying the direct connection.

The statute provides specific guidelines on how to treat small business loans and leases with recourse concerning capital and reserve requirements. While it grants some discretion to the appropriate Federal banking agency in areas like determining the “adequately capitalized” status and establishing a “greater amount” of recourse beyond the 15% limit, it does so within a clearly defined regulatory task related to capital requirements for small business obligations. Furthermore, the statute even specifies a timeline for the promulgation of final regulations.

Subsection (g) “Regulations required” directly mandates that the appropriate federal banking agencies shall promulgate final regulations implementing this section.

12 U.S.C. § 1835 provides a specific regulatory task, i.e., implementing the section via regulations. While the agencies have some discretion (for instance, in subsection (d)(2) to establish a greater amount of recourse than 15 percent), the overall regulatory objective is clearly defined: to regulate the capital and reserve requirements for transfers of small business loans and leases of personal property with recourse. The “appropriate Federal banking agency” is given the task of implementing the specific provisions of the statute, including those concerning accounting principles, capital standards, and recourse limits, all related to small business loans and leases. The existence of discretion is explicitly contemplated as a subsidiary element of the mandated regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. § 1835(g) explicitly states “Regulations required: Not later than 180 days after September 23, 1994, each appropriate Federal banking agency shall promulgate final regulations implementing this section.” The regulation 12 CFR Part 47 lists 12 U.S.C. § 1835 as an authority. Therefore, the relationship is directly mandated.

The statute (12 U.S. Code § 1833e(c)) specifically directs the agencies to prescribe regulations for a minority outreach program, outlining the program’s purpose (inclusion of minorities and women in contracts) and scope (financial institutions, investment banking firms, etc.). This provides clear instruction on a specific regulatory task.

Subsection (c) of the statute explicitly directs the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to “prescribe regulations to establish and oversee a minority outreach program.” This constitutes a direct mandate.

The statute directs specific agencies to prescribe regulations for a minority outreach program within each agency, ensuring inclusion of minorities and women in contracts. Although the statute uses phrases like “to the maximum extent possible,” it is still instructing the agency on a specific regulatory task, which falls under the Specific Authority delegation.

Subsection (c) of 12 U.S.C. § 1833e explicitly mandates that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency “shall each prescribe regulations” to establish and oversee a minority outreach program. The regulation 12 CFR Part 1223 is directly implementing this mandate.

The statute directs the agency to prescribe regulations to establish and oversee a specific type of program (minority outreach) and outlines the goal of that program (inclusion of minorities and women in contracts). Even though the language provides some flexibility (e.g., “to the maximum extent possible”), it clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

12 U.S.C. § 1833e(c) explicitly states that the FDIC, among other agencies, “shall each prescribe regulations to establish and oversee a minority outreach program.” The regulation, 12 CFR Part 361, directly implements this mandate by establishing the specific requirements and procedures for that outreach program.

While the statute uses the phrase “shall prescribe regulations”, it does so in the context of specifying the precise regulatory task: establishing and overseeing a minority outreach program related to agency contracts. This aligns with the definition of Specific Authority Delegation under Hickman’s framework.

Subsection (c) of the statute directly mandates that the Comptroller of the Currency (among other agencies) “shall each prescribe regulations to establish and oversee a minority outreach program.” 12 CFR Part 4 is, in part, the OCC’s implementation of this mandate.

The statute specifically instructs the Community Enterprise Assessment Credit Board to issue guidelines designating eligibility requirements and determining assessment credits for insured depository institutions. It uses open-ended terms like “determines are qualified to be taken into account” which falls within the “Specific Authority” designation as per Kristin Hickman’s framework.

The regulation, 12 CFR Part 1806, explicitly cites 12 U.S.C. 1834a as its authority, indicating a direct mandate to implement the provisions outlined in the statute.

The statute specifically instructs the FDIC to conduct a bi-annual survey and produce a report on the “unbanked.” This is a clear and specific regulatory task identified by Congress. Although “such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Chairperson may determine to be appropriate” is a more discretionary element, the core requirement of the bi-annual report is clear.

The statute mandates the FDIC to conduct a bi-annual survey and report, but it doesn’t explicitly mandate any specific regulation. The statute includes “such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Chairperson may determine to be appropriate,” authorizing, but not mandating, potential rulemaking. 12 CFR Part 303 contains general procedural rules regarding FDIC filings. While the report might inform future filings, there is no direct mandate or explicit requirement for any regulation, only the possibility for one.

The statute explicitly authorizes depository institutions to permit certain types of withdrawals. Although it uses the word “authorize,” it provides a specific regulatory task. It dictates that IF an institution permits these withdrawals, it must be subject to the requirements in paragraph 2.

12 U.S.C. § 1832 authorizes depository institutions to permit withdrawals by negotiable or transferable instruments, but does not mandate any specific regulation to be created. The statute grants permission, it does not instruct an agency to act.

The statute specifically delegates authority to implement and enforce the restrictions and penalties outlined in the statute, particularly regarding violations, even though it is through implementing rules of practice and procedure.

12 U.S.C. § 1832(c) is explicitly listed as an authority for 12 CFR Part 263.

While the statute does not explicitly direct the FDIC to create specific regulations beyond assessing fines, it does provide specific instructions regarding the types of accounts and organizations that can be subject to withdrawals by negotiable or transferable instruments, as well as the penalties for violation. This falls under the “Specific Authority” category, as the agency is given precise criteria even though not in explicit delegation.

The statute authorizes depository institutions to permit certain withdrawals, but it does not mandate any agency to create regulations about it except regarding the fine. The relationship between the statute authorizing the withdrawals and 12 CFR Part 308 is indirect since the regulation mainly concerns the FDIC’s rules of practice and procedure, some of which may relate to enforcing the statute, but the link is not a direct mandate.

While 12 U.S.C. § 1833(j) is listed in the authority section for 12 CFR Part 208, 12 U.S.C. § 1833 is about reports detailing civil and criminal actions and investigations undertaken. Given that the entirety of Part 208 covers topics far beyond this, it is a general authority delegation as it provides broad rulemaking authority without specific regulatory tasks identified, which is the case for much of Regulation H.

12 U.S.C. § 1833(j) is listed in the authority section of 12 CFR Part 208. Therefore, the regulation is authorized by the statute. However, as the statute mandated reporting to congress, but the regulation does not, the relationship is authorized but not mandated. Furthermore, the statute is repealed.

The statute provides detailed instructions regarding what the regulations must include, such as antitying and anticoercion rules, specific disclosures, segregation of banking and nonbanking activities, and a consumer grievance process. While some discretion exists using terms like “appropriate”, the statute clearly delineates specific regulatory tasks and gaps that the agency must address, falling under the “Specific Authority” delegation.

12 U.S.C. § 1831x(a)(1) states “The Federal banking agencies shall prescribe and publish in final form… customer protection regulations…”. This clearly mandates the creation of regulations. The presence of 12 U.S.C. § 1831x in the Authority section of 12 CFR Part 208 further supports the direct mandate relationship.

While 12 U.S.C. § 1831x(a)(1) uses the term “appropriate,” it also provides specific direction by requiring regulations to apply to retail sales practices, solicitations, advertising, or offers of any insurance product by any depository institution, along with antitying/anticoercion rules, disclosure requirements and separation of banking and nonbanking activities. This level of specificity surpasses a general grant of authority, even with open-ended terms.

The statute 12 U.S.C. § 1831x(a)(1) explicitly states “The Federal banking agencies shall prescribe and publish in final form…customer protection regulations,” making the regulation directly mandated.

While the statute uses broad terms, it specifically directs agencies to prescribe regulations requiring procedures to ensure and monitor compliance. It also defines certain aspects such as “agreement” and “fulfillment of CRA,” which narrows the scope of the agency’s authority. The statute provides specific instructions on what the regulations should achieve (compliance monitoring), falling under the “Specific Authority Delegations” category even though open-ended terms like “reasonably designed” are used.

Subsection (h)(1) explicitly states that each appropriate Federal banking agency “shall prescribe regulations…requiring procedures reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with the requirements of this section.” The regulation, 12 CFR Part 207, implements this exact mandate of ensuring and monitoring compliance.

The statute directs the agency to prescribe regulations reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance, and gives specific guidance on what areas these regulations should cover, for example, protection of parties and single consolidated filings. It identifies the specific regulatory task of ensuring compliance with the disclosure and reporting requirements established in the statute. The phrase “reasonably designed” falls within the Hickman’s “Specific Authority Delegation” framework.

The statute, specifically subsection (h)(1), explicitly mandates that each “appropriate Federal banking agency shall prescribe regulations…requiring procedures reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with the requirements of this section.” This constitutes a direct mandate.