H.J. Res. 49 is a one-clause joint resolution that disapproves, under chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation rule published at 89 Fed.
Reg. 64538 (Aug. 7, 2024) titled “Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models.” The resolution states that the rule "shall have no force or effect."
That is the entirety of the change: if the resolution becomes law, the FDIC’s regulatory text would be nullified and, under the CRA’s reissuance bar, the agency would face statutory limits on reissuing a substantially similar rule absent new legislation. The move removes a binding, agency-level standard for AVMs without substituting alternative requirements, creating immediate regulatory and compliance implications for supervised institutions, vendors, and examiners.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and void the FDIC rule titled “Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models” (89 Fed. Reg. 64538). It declares that the rule "shall have no force or effect."
Who It Affects
Primary targets are FDIC‑supervised insured depository institutions that use automated valuation models, third‑party AVM vendors, mortgage originators relying on AVMs, and FDIC examiners who would have enforced the rule. Secondary actors include investors and counterparties that rely on AVM outputs for credit decisions.
Why It Matters
This disapproval removes a uniform, agency‑level standard for AVM governance and validation and uses the CRA’s blunt authority to block reissuance of substantially similar rules without new statutory authority — shifting how model risk management will be supervised and increasing regulatory uncertainty for affected parties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.J. Res. 49 contains a single substantive sentence: Congress disapproves the FDIC’s final rule titled “Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models,” and the resolution directs that the rule have no force or effect.
The resolution is framed under chapter 8 of title 5, the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which is the procedural vehicle Congress uses to overturn recent agency rules. The bill does not amend any statutes, propose alternative standards, or address implementation details.
Because the resolution is a CRA disapproval, its immediate legal consequence — if enacted into law — is to nullify the FDIC’s published regulatory text so that the rule cannot be applied as a binding regulation. Separately, the CRA contains a prohibition that, in practice, prevents the issuing agency from reissuing a rule in "substantially the same" form unless Congress later authorizes that change by statute; that means the FDIC could not re-adopt the same regulatory requirements without new legislative authority.
Practically, nullifying the FDIC rule removes a regulatory standard that, by its title, aimed to set minimum quality‑control and governance expectations for automated valuation models used in real‑estate and lending activities supervised by the FDIC. The resolution does not address supervisory guidance, examination expectations, or private‑sector best practices; those tools remain available to the FDIC and other regulators.
The net effect is a regulatory gap: the binding FDIC rule would be removed, but the underlying operational issues—model validation, documentation, vendor oversight, and governance—would persist as compliance and safety‑and‑soundness concerns for institutions and examiners.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution disapproves the FDIC rule published at 89 Fed. Reg. 64538 (Aug. 7, 2024) titled “Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models” and states the rule "shall have no force or effect.", The bill is filed under chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code — the Congressional Review Act — the statutory mechanism for Congress to nullify recent agency rules.
If enacted, the CRA’s reissuance prohibition will generally bar the FDIC from issuing a substantially identical rule unless Congress first passes a statute authorizing it.
The resolution contains no substitute regulatory text or transitional provisions; it removes the FDIC’s rule without creating an alternate federal standard for AVMs.
The practical consequences fall on regulated institutions, third‑party AVM vendors, and FDIC exam practices: the binding rule would be gone, but supervisory concerns about AVM governance and model risk would remain unresolved.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Caption identifying the rule and statutory vehicle
The header identifies the resolution as a Congressional Review Act disapproval of the FDIC rule on AVM quality controls and cites the Federal Register notice (89 Fed. Reg. 64538). This labeling matters because CRA resolutions must reference the specific rule being disapproved; that reference determines exactly which regulatory text is affected.
Single-clause disapproval and nullification
The operative sentence declares that Congress disapproves the FDIC rule and that ‘‘such rule shall have no force or effect.’’ Practically, that language directs that the regulatory text identified in the preamble is voided as a matter of federal law. There are no savings clauses, compliance deadlines, or phased transitions included.
Invocation of chapter 8 of title 5 (the CRA)
By grounding the resolution in chapter 8 of title 5, the text invokes the CRA’s special procedures and consequences: expedited consideration in Congress, the ability to void agency rules, and the statutory bar on reissuing substantially similar rules without subsequent legislative approval. The resolution itself does not restate those CRA mechanics, but referencing chapter 8 triggers them once the resolution becomes law.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- FDIC‑supervised banks and savings associations that use AVMs: They avoid a new, binding set of regulatory standards and the immediate compliance, documentation, and validation costs that the FDIC rule would likely have imposed.
- Third‑party AVM vendors and model developers: Vendors escape direct regulatory obligations tied to the FDIC rule (such as mandated testing, disclosure, or vendor‑management requirements) that could have increased development and compliance costs.
- Smaller mortgage originators and community banks: Institutions with limited compliance budgets are relieved from implementing a new, agency‑level rule and associated vendor oversight programs on a short timeline.
- Entities seeking regulatory certainty through legislation: Stakeholders preferring statutory solutions over agency rules gain leverage — the resolution forces any durable, binding change to go through Congress rather than an agency rulemaking.
Who Bears the Cost
- FDIC and other bank regulators: Losing a rule reduces an enforceable supervisory tool, shifting the burden to exam guidance, supervisory letters, or informal expectations that are harder to standardize and litigate.
- Investors and secondary‑market participants who rely on consistent valuation practices: Removing a uniform standard could increase valuation variance and make due diligence more complex, raising informational friction in transactions.
- Consumers and borrowers in edge cases: Without a binding federal standard, protections that might have flowed from stricter AVM validation (accuracy, error controls) could be weaker or uneven across institutions.
- Compliance and risk teams that planned implementation: Institutions that invested resources to prepare for the FDIC rule face stranded costs and shifting timelines as regulators and markets adjust to the absence of the rule.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between reducing immediate regulatory burdens on banks and vendors versus preserving a uniform, enforceable framework to manage model risk in valuations: the CRA disapproval relieves industry of an agency‑imposed rule but leaves regulators and markets with harder, messier choices about how to secure accuracy, comparability, and consumer protection without a formal regulation.
The bill uses the CRA’s blunt instrument to remove an agency rule without tailoring or a transition. That creates a regulatory gap: the FDIC loses a codified standard it could enforce, but the operational vulnerabilities that motivated the rule—model bias, drift, data quality, and vendor risk—remain.
Agencies can respond with guidance, supervisory expectations, or interagency coordination, but those alternatives lack the permanence and procedural safeguards of a notice‑and‑comment rule, raising questions about predictability and legal defensibility.
Another unresolved implementation question concerns actions already taken under the rule’s short effective window (if any). The resolution declares the rule void, but it does not address whether agency actions or enforcement steps taken while the rule was nominally in effect are retroactively impacted.
Separately, the CRA’s bar on reissuing a ‘‘substantially similar’’ rule invites legal disputes about what counts as ‘‘substantially the same’’ if the FDIC tries to achieve similar ends using guidance, examiner manuals, or a redrafted rule with minor textual changes. Finally, nullifying the rule shifts political choices into Congress: durable, nationwide standards for AVMs would require affirmative statute rather than agency rulemaking, which is a higher bar and a slower process.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.