Home > State Appraiser Regulatory Programs > State Compliance Reviews

State Compliance Reviews


The ASC monitors each State’s appraiser licensing and certification regulatory program to ensure the State:

(1) recognizes and enforces the standards, requirements and procedures pre­scribed by Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, (Title XI);

(2) has adequate authority to permit it to carry out its Title XI-related functions; and

(3) makes decisions concerning appraisal stan­dards, appraiser qualifications and supervision of appraiser practices consistent with Title XI. The ASC, in general, satisfies these responsibilities by performing on-site Compliance Reviews of State agency programs and maintaining close communications with appraisers, State and Federal agencies, and users of appraisal services. Written communica­tions are available on our website under the FOIA Reading Room, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).


Each Compliance Review assesses every facet of a State’s appraiser regulatory program. Particular emphasis is placed on the State agency’s enforcement program. Reviews usually are scheduled to coincide with a meeting of the State agency’s decision-making body and are conducted over two to four days. ASC staff presents its Preliminary Findings and recommendations to the State. The State is allowed 60 days to respond to the Preliminary Findings.


After receiving the State’s response, or once the 60-day response period has passed, whichever occurs first, all correspondence and staff recommendations are forwarded to the ASC for final consideration. The ASC issues a final ASC Compliance Review Report with the ASC’s findings and required actions.  You will find copies of a past State Compliance Review Reports in our Public Documents Library under “State Compliance Review correspondence”.



Current ASC State Compliance Review Summary

 

 State                    Date of Review  ASC Finding                                Review Cycle 
Alabama

January 2012

Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year with Follow-up
Alaska May 2013 Not In Substantial Compliance One-Year
Arizona April 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Arkansas March 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
California November 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year 
Colorado September 2012 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Connecticut April 2012 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Delaware January 2013 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year with Follow-up
District of Columbia  March 2013 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Florida January 2013 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Georgia February 2012 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Guam November 2013 Needs Improvement Two-Year
Hawaii August 2013 Good Two-Year
Idaho February 2013 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Illinois September 2013 Needs Improvement Two-Year with Follow-up
Indiana March 2013 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Iowa July 2013 Excellent Two-Year
Kansas November 2013 Excellent Two-Year
Kentucky March 2013 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Louisiana March 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year with Follow-up
Maine June 2013 Excellent Two-Year
Mariana Islands November 2013 Needs Improvement Two-Year
Maryland February 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year with Follow-up
Massachusetts June 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Michigan June 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Minnesota July 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Mississippi April 2013 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Missouri  August 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year with Follow-up
Montana September 2013 Needs Improvement Two-Year with Follow-up
Nebraska July 2013 Good Two-Year
Nevada June 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
New Hampshire July 2013 Good Two-Year
New Jersey March 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year with Follow-up
New Mexico October 2013 Good Two-Year
New York October 2013 Needs Improvement Two-Year
North Carolina September 2012 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
North Dakota July 2012 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Ohio November 2013 Good Two-Year
Oklahoma October 2013 Excellent Two-Year
Oregon July 2012 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Pennsylvania May 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year with Follow-up
Puerto Rico December 2013 Good Two-Year
Rhode Island October 2013 Good Two-Year
South Carolina May 2013 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
South Dakota August 2012 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year

Tennessee

January 2013 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Texas May 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Yer
Utah February 2013 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Vermont November 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Virgin Islands December 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year with Follow-up
Virginia May 2013 In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Washington May 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
West Virginia December 2012 Not In Substantial Compliance Two-Year
Wisconsin August 2013 Needs Improvement Two-Year with Follow-up
Wyoming September 2013 Good Two-Year