FAIR Exams Act
Click any stage to learn more about the legislative process.
Would establish binding deadlines for federal regulators to complete bank examinations and deliver final reports, and would create an independent, presidentially appointed review board inside the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council where financial institutions could appeal disputed examination findings — with a de novo standard of review and the option for a formal hearing.
The bill would give banks, credit unions, and other federally examined institutions a structured path to challenge examination conclusions that they believe are incorrect, replacing deference to the original examiner with independent judgment and allowing ultimate appeal to a federal circuit court.
What this bill would do
What it would do
The bill would amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 to impose new procedural requirements on federal bank regulators. Examiners would have 270 days to complete an examination, must conduct an exit interview within 30 days of finishing, and must deliver a final written report within 90 days of that exit interview. Upon request, agencies would have to provide a list of all examination materials relied upon in support of any material supervisory determination — a formal finding about a bank's condition or practices. A separate process would let institutions seek written guidance from regulators on planned activities, with agencies required to acknowledge requests within 30 days and issue written determinations within 60 days.
Most substantively, the bill would establish an Office of Independent Examination Review headed by a three-member Board (presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed) tasked with adjudicating appeals of material supervisory determinations. Institutions could appeal within 60 days of a final report, elect a formal hearing, and obtain documents and sworn testimony. The Board would apply de novo review — without deference to the original examiner — and issue binding written decisions. Those decisions would be subject to judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Agencies could not retaliate against institutions for exercising these appeal rights.
Key provisions
- 1Would require federal examiners to complete examinations within 270 days, conduct exit interviews within 30 days of completion, and deliver final reports within 90 days of the exit interview.
- 2Would require agencies, upon request, to list all examination materials relied upon in support of a material supervisory determination in an appendix to the final report.
- 3Would allow financial institutions to request written agency guidance on planned activities, with agencies required to acknowledge within 30 days and issue a written determination within 60 days.
- 4Would establish an Office of Independent Examination Review within the FFIEC, headed by a three-member presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed Board with staggered three-year terms and political-balance requirements.
- 5Would give financial institutions the right to appeal any material supervisory determination to the Board within 60 days of a final report, with an option for a formal hearing and de novo review.
- 6Would make Board decisions binding on both the agency and the institution, and would permit the institution to seek judicial review in the D.C. Circuit or the circuit where it is located.
- 7Would prohibit federal regulatory agencies from retaliating against or delaying approvals for institutions that exercise their appeal rights under the new process.
Who would be affected
Banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions subject to federal examination by the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, NCUA, and CFPB would gain new procedural rights and appeal mechanisms. Senior management at those institutions would participate in newly required exit interviews. The five federal financial regulatory agencies would collectively fund the new Office of Independent Examination Review through annual FFIEC-levied assessments.
Why it matters
Financial institutions disputing examination conclusions — which can drive capital requirements, restrict activities, or affect regulatory standing — would gain an independent forum with a de novo standard that does not defer to the original examiner. Binding deadlines on agencies would reduce prolonged examination uncertainty. Regulated institutions would also gain a formal, time-limited channel for seeking regulatory guidance before undertaking new activities.
What would change
Changes to existing law
Amends Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 (Sec. 2–5)
Adds four new sections (1012–1015) establishing examination timeliness requirements, a guidance-request process, the Office of Independent Examination Review, and the right to independent appeal of supervisory determinations.
Amends Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Section 309 (Sec. 6(a))
Strikes existing regulatory appeals process subsections (a), (b), and (c); retitles the section; and adds new anti-retaliation language and expanded alternative dispute resolution coverage.
Amends Federal Credit Union Act, Section 205(j) (Sec. 6(b))
Inserts the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection into coordination provisions alongside the NCUA Administration.
Agencies directed to act
Effective dates
- Initial quorum rule — one Board member suffices until full Board is seated
Funding and costs
Congressional Budget Office estimate
CBO estimates the FAIR Exams Act would increase the federal deficit by $99 million over the 2026–2036 period, due to $47 million in higher direct spending and $52 million in reduced revenues.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 940 would increase net direct spending by $47 million and reduce revenues by $52 million over the 2026–2036 period, for a combined net increase in the deficit of $99 million. The main cost driver is increased administrative workload at federal financial regulators — particularly the costs of establishing a new Office of Independent Examination Review within the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, developing a formal process for institution-specific guidance on proposed actions, and repealing existing intra-agency appeals processes. The bill contains a private-sector mandate (potential fee increases on regulated financial institutions), but CBO estimates its cost would fall below UMRA's annual threshold of $214 million; there are no intergovernmental mandates.
How implementation would work
The five federal financial regulatory agencies would collectively fund the new Office of Independent Examination Review through annual assessments levied by the FFIEC Council — one-fifth per agency — with additional mid-year levies permitted. The three-member Board would issue rules establishing formal hearing procedures, hold quarterly meetings around the country to gather input from institutions, and conduct ongoing examination quality assurance. When an institution files an appeal, the Board would review the record or conduct a hearing within 60 days, close the record, and issue a binding written decision within 60 more days. The Board would report annually to the House Financial Services and Senate Banking committees.
Legislative status & sources
Latest action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 176.
Official CRS summary
Show the CRS summaryHide the CRS summary
This bill establishes new procedures related to the federal examination of financial intuitions. Specifically, the bill establishes the Office of Independent Examination Review within the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council to adjudicate appeals and investigate complaints from financial institutions concerning examination reports. Under the bill, financial institutions have the right to obtain an independent review of a material supervisory determination contained in a final report of examination. The bill sets forth provisions regarding hearings and final decisions.
The bill also sets deadlines for federal financial regulatory agencies to provide final examination reports and to perform exit interviews of a financial institution. In addition, the agency must list all materials relied upon in support of a material supervisory determination upon the request of the financial institution.
Legislative subjects
Administrative remedies; Advisory bodies; Banking and financial institutions regulation; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Finance and Financial Sector; Government information and archives; Judicial review and appeals
Committee report
H. Rept. 119-216