Wells Fargo Bank, NA wellsfargo.com

November 28, 2012 Appraisal Subcommittee 1401 H Street NW, Suite 760 Washington, DC 20005 webmaster@asc.gou RE: Docket No. AS12-16 Honorable Members ofthe Appraisal Subcommittee, Thank you for the opportunityto comment on proposed changes to theASC statementpublished in the Federal RegistryAugust 30, 2012. Wells Fargo has reviewed the changes suggested and respectfully request that Statement 5 be retained except as it must be changed to meet the requirements ofDodd Frank. Specifically we request the following actions:

1. The term "technical review" be replace with the term appraisal review, and 2.The following statement be retained:

"TheASC, however, has concludedthat for federally related transactions the review appraiser neednot registerfor temporary practice or otherwisebe subjectedto the regulatoryjurisdiction ofthe State agency inwhich the appraisal was performed, so long as the reviewappraiser does not performthetechnical reviewin the State withinwhich the propertyis located."
We understandthe word "technical review" has different meaning and has resulted in misunderstanding the function being performed. This term is not defined in USPAP. Rather than removing the entire language, we recommend replacing "technical review" with "appraisal review" which is defined in USP AP as "the act or process ofdeveloping and communicating an opinion about the quality ofanother appraiser's work that was performed as part ofan appraisal, appraisal review, orappraisal consulting assignment." Doing so will eliminate confusion as to the scope ofwork being discussed. 

### The second area ofconcern is the proposed elimination ofthe following: "The ASC, however, has concludedthat for federally relatedtransactions the review appraiser neednot register for temporarypractice or otherwise be subjected to the regulatoryjurisdiction ofthe State agency inwhich the appraisal was performed, so long as the review appraiser does not perform the technical review in the State within which the propertyis located." We were informed some ofthe rational for deletion ofStatement 5, in addition to Dodd Frank compliance, is FIRREA does not specifically state orgrant the authorityfor the statement referenced above. A review of FIRREA, the Federal Registry publication ofFIRREA, and subsequent clarifications are clearthe requirements for certification/licensing are silent as to the certification/license being specific to the property's state. FIRREA requires individual states establish license/certification programs and it is these state programs that limit activity ofappraisers to individuals licensed/certified by that state. Additionally, at least one ofthe original drafters ofFIRREA has publically stated FIRREA's silence as to an appraiser having to be licensed/certified by the state in which a property is located was deliberate on the part ofthe drafters. We believe the removal ofthis section of Statement 5 potentially will result in states requiring a reviewer be certified/licensed in the property's domicile state even when that reviewer is physically located elsewhere and has not entered the property's state as part ofthe review process.Such a requirement potentially will materially extend the time to complete a review as reciprocity is sought and willbe detrim.ental to commerce by causing undue delay orby providing a competitive advantage to institutions located in the property's state. This in turn may result infinancial institutions using noncertified/licensed individuals to perform reviews and/or conductthose reviews only for compliance matters not including value. Alternatively this will potentially force the use ofoutside [fee] reviewers in states where 

### an institution doesn't have local staff; thus adversely affecting the quality ofreviews as 

### they will be accomplished by individuals lacking specific understanding ofthe 

### rUik concerns and parpmeters ofthe institution. While a federally regulated institution may not be subject to these state requirements based "preemption", state licenses or certifications are held by individuals who are not covered by preemption; and thus, the institution would not have the desire or capabilityto proceed, At the risk ofbeingredundant we have bullet pointed our concerns below!

• Removal ofStatement 5 expands the opportunity for states to require certification/license for review of properties located within a state by individual not in state. • Such a. provision ifenforceable would slow processing ofloan transactions while temporary certification/license is sought, • Sincelicense/ce'ctification is an individual's property, not 

### acorporate qualification, even if "federal preemption" was relevant itwould not protect the licensee from potential disciplinary action. This would putthe staffappraisel' in an untenable position. • Limit a financial institutions use ofin-house staffin favor offee reviewers located 'within a specific state. This could lead to a lessening ofquality ofreviews as individuals not affiliated with an institution are not necessarily cognizant ofthe institutions risk considerations, 

### may be hesitant to criticize a vendorthey know personally, and likely aren't experienced in appraisal review for lending purposes. • For highly complex/specialized real estate, particularly inless urbanized states, the change could limit the financial institutions access to a reviewer with property' type expertise

(I Strictlyfrom the appraisal perspective, the rationale for reqUiring local certification/licensing is geographic expertise. Ifthe financial institution hires 

### acompetent fee 

### appraiser, the docmnent provided 

### and other sources ofinformation available through pay and open interne are more than sufficient 

### to provide the reviewerwith needed geogtaphic expertise, while maintaining the institutions ability to require risk analyses and property type expertise a11ailable through using internal staff,

(I Requiring 

### a reviewer to be locallycertified 

### or obtain temporaIY practice permits will increase the cost to 

### the borrower and the. timefor 

### closing alending transaction. • For transactions with national 01' regional botl'owing potential, i. e. theborrower has the ability 

### to solicit multiple lenders outside the immediate property's location; itwill provide a competitive advantage to local institutions without regard to timing, pricing or capability. This will restrict the competitive environment for securing and pricing ofloans. Net effect will be to reduce competition and restrict interstate 

### commerce. • Many ofthe original drafters ofFlRREA also developed the ASC statements. They have opined FIRREA was specificjn its not requiring certification ofthe appraiser in the property's state for purposes ofa Federally Related Transaction and satisfying FIRREA. And relative to the review ofappraisals specifically clarified that in the ABC Statements. 

### Thankyou for your consideration ofthese comments in makingyour final decision. Sincerely,

Fmfton 

### H, Cross, MAl, 

### MRlCS Group Head, 

### RETECHS Group Head, Residential Valuation Services ChiefAppraiser ChiefAppraiser