H.J. Res. 48 (119th)Bill Overview

Disapprove Federal Reserve Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Mo…

CRA DisapprovalFinance and Financial Sector|Finance and Financial Sector
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Feb 12, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System rule titled “Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models” (89 Fed. Reg. 64538, Aug. 7, 2024).

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti‑bias oversight

Watch point

Procedurally simple, narrow deregulatory measure likely to attract supporters, but still politically contested.

This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System rule titled “Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models” (89 Fed.

Reg. 64538, Aug. 7, 2024).

If enacted, the rule would be void and have no force or effect.

Passage35/100

Narrow procedural vehicle increases feasibility, but substantive pushback from regulators and consumer/financial stability concerns reduce odds.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention70/100

Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti‑bias oversight

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesBorrowers · Federal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitReduces immediate compliance costs for banks and fintechs that would implement new AVM standards.
  • Federal agenciesPreserves flexibility for lenders and vendors to use diverse AVM methods without prescriptive federal rules.
  • Potential benefitMay lower short‑term administrative staffing needs for institutions adjusting to the rule.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenRemoves standardized quality controls that proponents argued would improve AVM accuracy and reliability.
  • BorrowersCould increase operational and credit risk for banks and borrowers if valuations are less consistent.
  • Federal agenciesMay leave potential sources of bias or disparate impacts in AVMs without federal mitigation standards.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti‑bias oversight
Progressive20%

Likely to oppose the resolution because it removes supervision intended to ensure accuracy and fairness in automated valuation models (AVMs).

Concern centers on consumer protection, anti‑discrimination, and preserving regulatory guardrails for credit markets.

They would emphasize the potential for biased or inaccurate valuations if the Fed’s standards are removed.

Likely resistant
Centrist55%

A pragmatic view: the resolution raises valid questions about regulatory cost and scope, but also risks removing useful standards.

Likely to seek a middle path requiring clearer economic impact analysis and targeted exemptions for smaller firms.

Would favor adjustments rather than wholesale nullification if harms to consumers might follow.

Split reaction
Conservative85%

Likely to support the resolution as a check on federal regulatory overreach and costly compliance mandates.

Emphasis on limiting the Fed’s ability to impose prescriptive model governance and protecting community banks and market innovation.

Views the nullification as restoring flexibility and lowering regulatory burdens.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood35/100

Narrow procedural vehicle increases feasibility, but substantive pushback from regulators and consumer/financial stability concerns reduce odds.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Stakeholder responses from banks, servicers, and consumer advocates
  • Absent official cost or regulatory impact statement in bill text
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti‑bias oversight

Narrow procedural vehicle increases feasibility, but substantive pushback from regulators and consumer/financial stability concerns reduce…

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Disapprove Federal Reserve Quality Control Standards for Autom…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis