Database Search Results
The statute specifically addresses the examination and enforcement actions relating to non-depository institution subsidiaries of depository institution holding companies. This directly impacts the operational framework and potential receivership of uninsured national banks, giving the agency specific guidance in this niche area. While the statute’s scope isn’t all-encompassing, it pinpoints a particular regulatory task, even using open-ended terms to give flexibility in carrying out the Congressional intent.
The statute provides a specific regulatory task: prescribing regulations for the maintenance of appropriate types of records by insured depository institutions. While “appropriate types of records” and “high degree of usefulness” are open-ended, the statute directly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task, and thus is a specific authority delegation.
The statute not only grants authority to prescribe regulations regarding record keeping, but also clearly instructs on the purpose and scope of such regulations – focusing on their usefulness in criminal, tax, regulatory, and intelligence/counterintelligence investigations. This is more than simply broad rulemaking authority; it identifies a specific regulatory gap that regulations are intended to fill and provide a framework with the modifier “appropriate types of records.”
While the language includes terms like “appropriate types of records” and “high degree of usefulness,” the statute specifically directs the agency (the Secretary of the Treasury, and jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) to prescribe regulations regarding specific areas of recordkeeping such as domestic and international funds transfers. The factors to be considered in prescribing regulations for international funds transfers are also provided, indicating that this delegation is specific authority.
While Section 1830 does not specifically instruct the agency on how to prevent discrimination in access to information, by including it as an authority, the agency can create regulations to further the statute’s aims, such as preventing the discriminatory withholding of information. Therefore, the agency can implement regulations that clarify how nondiscrimination principles outlined in 1830 should be implemented to ensure compliance with FOIA or similar disclosure laws, regarding banks.
12 U.S.C. § 1831 does not directly instruct the agency to engage in a specific regulatory task or gap. Instead, the regulation is authorized via more general authorities also listed.
The statute explicitly instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations regarding the maintenance of records by insured depository institutions, specifically concerning their usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations. While the phrasing allows for some discretion, the overall intent of a specific regulatory task is clear. Subsections b, c, d, e, and f provide different specific examples of requirements.
While the statute uses terms like “appropriate types of records,” it clearly instructs the agency (Secretary of Treasury and Federal Reserve Board) on a specific regulatory task, namely, the maintenance of records by insured depository institutions. The statute identifies specific types of records to be considered (payment orders for domestic and international transfers). The statute does not only offer broad authority, but also identifies a specific regulatory task.
While §1829b grants the Secretary broad authority to prescribe regulations regarding recordkeeping, it does so with specific objectives and factors in mind: usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations. Moreover, subsections (b)(2), (b)(3), (c), (d), (e), (f) detail exactly what recordkeeping the agency should mandate. This level of guidance and specificity indicates Congress intended the agency to tackle particular issues of financial record keeping with clear, if open-ended, direction and objectives. The statute uses phrases like “appropriate types of records” and specifies factors the Secretary and Board must consider, which falls under the “specific authority” category.
The statute provides clear instruction regarding the regulatory task, namely requiring the maintenance of appropriate types of records by insured depository institutions. While the statute uses terms like “appropriate,” it provides a specific goal: usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings.
While 12 U.S.C. 1829b provides authority for record keeping regulations, its implementation through 31 CFR Part 1027 applies to dealers in precious metals, precious stones or jewels, and details specifics of the regulations such as the reporting requirements, special diligence, record maintenance, and information sharing for a specific sector. It can be reasonably determined to include a specific regulatory task within the statutory purpose.
The statute 12 U.S.C. § 1829b clearly instructs the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to prescribe regulations regarding the maintenance of appropriate records by insured depository institutions, focusing on usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations. It also mentions the types of records and transactions to be considered. This level of detail is considered specific authority.
While the phrase “appropriate types of records” grants some discretion, the statute specifically ties the rulemaking to records having a “high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings.” This guidance, along with the later subsections that add specificity about recordkeeping requirements, places the delegation in the Specific Authority category under Hickman’s framework, as it instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.
The statute provides a specific regulatory task related to what types of records and what transfers of funds require maintenance and are for criminal, tax, regulatory, and intelligence investigations.
While subsection (b)(1) grants the Secretary discretion based on a determination of “high degree of usefulness,” the subsequent sections (b)(2), (b)(3), and subsections (c),(d),(e),(f),(g) outline specific instances and types of recordkeeping that the agency shall regulate. This includes items related to international and domestic fund transfers, identity verification, and retention periods. The legislation identifies distinct regulatory gaps and instructs the agency on how to address them. Therefore, despite open-ended language, this falls under a specific authority delegation.
The statute provides specific direction by identifying the types of records to be maintained (identity of account holders, reproductions of checks, records of transactions, etc.) and the purpose for which they are to be maintained (criminal, tax, regulatory, intelligence, and counterintelligence activities). The statute mandates the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board to prescribe regulations to carry out the purpose of the section. The statute also provides factors for consideration, such as usefulness of records in investigations and effect on the cost and efficiency of the payment system. Even using open-ended terms like “appropriate,” the statute still clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task/gap.
While the statute addresses multiple issues related to depository institutions, subsection (a) specifically instructs the Corporation (FDIC) on a specific regulatory task: prescribing regulations for the display of deposit insurance signs. The language employs terms like “in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Corporation” and “including regulations governing the substance of signs…and the manner of display or use of such signs.” This constitutes specific authority even though “substance” and “manner” might be considered open-ended.
While the term “regulations” is used, the statute outlines precise areas for regulation. The statute also uses terms such as “in accordance with” and “to carry out this subsection” which specify a regulatory task. “Clear instructions” indicates specific rather than general delegation.
The statute provides authority to specific agencies (Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to impose restrictions or requirements on specific relationships and transactions (e.g., between a national bank and its subsidiary), based on specific findings related to safety, soundness, and other adverse effects. It also uses the term “appropriate,” thus meeting the standard for Specific Authority.
While certain aspects of the statute like allowing the Corporation to determine “de minimis offenses” via rule appears broad, there are specific instructions given, such as the confinement and bad check criteria listed in section (c)(3). Furthermore, there are instructions on consent applications laid out in section (f). As such, it is more fitting to place the statute under Specific Authority, as Hickman uses “appropriate,” “reasonable,” or “necessary” as indicators of specific delegations.
While subsection (b)(1) of 12 U.S.C. § 1829b could be interpreted as a General Authority delegation, subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) provide Specific Authority delegations. Subsection (b)(3), regarding international funds transfers, gives a clear instruction that the Secretary and the Board “shall jointly prescribe… final regulations” on particular kinds of transactions. The presence of any Specific Authority delegation in the statute is enough to classify the statute as containing Specific Authority delegations.
While the statute grants authority related to a broad topic (“Regulations governing insured depository institutions”), the specific part analyzed clearly instructs the FDIC on a particular regulatory task: creating and enforcing rules about how deposit insurance is represented in signs and advertisements. It also specifies what the sign needs to include (“a statement that insured deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.”) and includes terms like “in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Corporation” for carrying out this subsection.
While 12 U.S. Code § 1828 is extensive, subsection (a)(2), and similar grants of regulatory authority like subsection (k)(1), explicitly instruct the agency (FDIC) on particular regulatory tasks. The language uses mandatory terms, such as “shall prescribe regulations to carry out this subsection,” pinpointing a specific regulatory gap to be filled by the agency.
Subsection (a) of the statute specifically instructs the Corporation (FDIC) to prescribe regulations to govern the substance of signs relating to deposit insurance and their manner of display. This is a clear and specific regulatory task, even though terms like “manner” and “substance” may provide some flexibility. Other parts of the statute also involve specific instructions. For example 1828(k)(1) grants the authority to regulate or prohibit golden parachutes and indemnification payments, stating that the Corporation may prohibit or limit, by regulation or order, any
The statute explicitly instructs the Corporation to prescribe regulations governing the substance of signs relating to deposit insurance and the manner of their display. This is a specific regulatory task, fitting Hickman’s description of Specific Authority Delegations.