PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.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.)
Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2015 or the TAILOR Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (federal financial institutions regulatory agencies) to:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
take into consideration the risk profile and business models of institutions subject to regulatory action;
determine the necessity, appropriateness, and impact of applying that action to such institutions; and
tailor regulatory action so as to limit the burden of regulatory compliance as befits the risk profile and business model involved.
The federal financial institutions regulatory agencies shall also consider:
the impact that such regulatory action has upon the ability of the institution to flexibly serve evolving and diverse customer needs,
the potential unintended impact of examination manuals or other regulatory directives that work in conflict with the tailoring of such regulatory action, and
the underlying policy objectives of the regulatory action and statutory scheme involved.
In addition, a federal financial institutions regulatory agency must disclose in every notice of a proposed and final rulemaking for a regulatory action how it has applied this bill.
The Financial Institutions Examination Council shall report to Congress on the extent to which regulatory actions tailored pursuant to this bill result in differential regulation of similarly-situated institutions of diverse charter types with respect to comparable regulations.
The agencies must also apply the requirements of this bill to all regulations adopted five years before the introduction of this bill and ending on the date of its enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Tipton, Scott R. [R-CO-3] · R–CO
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. 680.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-870.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 114-870.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 34 - 22.
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.2896 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.2896 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.2896 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.2896 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.