PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 684.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Dec 12, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 to require a federal financial institutions regulatory agency to make a final examination report to a financial institution within 60 days after the later of: (1) the exit interview for an examination of the institution, or (2) the provision of additional information by the institution relating to the examination.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill sets a deadline for the exit interview if a financial institution is not subject to a resident examiner program.
(Sec. 3) Examination standards are prescribed for financial institutions that:
prescribe requirements and prohibitions for the treatment of certain commercial loans,
prohibit a federal financial institution regulatory agency from requiring a well-capitalized financial institution to raise additional capital in lieu of certain actions prohibited with respect to such commercial loans, and
require federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to develop and apply identical definitions and reporting requirements for non-accrual loans.
(Sec. 4) The bill establishes in the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) the Office of Independent Examination Review, headed by a director appointed by the FFIEC, but independent from any member agency of the FFIEC.
(Sec. 5) Financial institutions may appeal a material supervisory determination contained in a final report of examination.
The director must determine the merits of the appeal on the record, or, at the election of the financial institution, refer the appeal to an administrative law judge.
The director's decision on an appeal shall: (1) be the final agency action, and (2) bind the agency whose supervisory determination was the subject of the appeal and the financial institution making the appeal.
Financial institutions may also petition for judicial review of the director's decision.
The bill prohibits a federal financial institutions regulatory agency from:
retaliating against a financial institution, including service providers, or any institution-affiliated party, for exercising appellate rights under this bill; or
delaying or denying any agency action that would benefit a financial institution or any institution-affiliated party on the basis that an appeal under this bill is pending. (Sec. 6) The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 is amended to require:
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to establish an independent intra-agency appellate process in connection with the regulatory appeals process, and
safeguards to protect an insured depository institution or insured credit union from retaliation by any federal banking agency for exercising its rights.
People & committees
Rep. Westmoreland, Lynn A. [R-GA-3] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 684.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-874.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-874.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 45 - 13.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Prior to Referral.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1941 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1941 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1941 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1941 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.