[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7199-7204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03074]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 602
[Docket ID: ED-2026-OPE-0067]
Clarification of the Appropriate Use of Terms ``National'' and
``Regional'' by Recognized Accrediting Agencies
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed interpretive rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Education (Department) proposes to
issue this interpretive rule to revise and clarify its prior
interpretation of its position on the use of descriptive terms by
Department-recognized accrediting agencies, specifically, the use of
``regional'' and ``national.'' The Department proposes this
interpretive rule to interpret Section 496 of the Higher Education Act
of 1965, as amended (HEA), and the general duty of accrediting agencies
to not make false statements and misrepresentations. Institutions of
higher education also are required to ensure that they do not
misrepresent their accreditation status to students and the public.
DATES: We must receive your comments by March 19, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at www.regulations.gov. The Department will not accept comments
submitted by fax or email or comments submitted after the comment
period closes. To ensure that the Department does not receive duplicate
copies, please submit your comment only once. Additionally, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for
submitting comments, is available on the site under ``FAQ''. If you
require an accommodation or cannot otherwise submit your comments via
Regulations.gov, please contact [email protected] or by phone
at 1-866-498-2945. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please
dial 7-1-1.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Daggett, Director of the
Accreditation Group. Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Email:
[email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department seeks to clarify the
appropriate use of the terms ``regional'' and ``national'' by an
accrediting agency recognized by the Department when describing an
accrediting agency's area of operation or recognition scope. This
interpretive rule seeks to update and clarify the Department's position
on the use of such nomenclature by accrediting agencies when describing
their area of operation or recognition, as well as by higher education
institutions, State licensure boards, and other stakeholders, when
referencing accrediting agencies, as stated in the Student Assistance
General Provisions, The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting
Agencies, and The Secretary's Recognition Procedures for State Agencies
Final Rule (``Final Rule'') published on November 1, 2019. 84 FR 58834.
The Final Rule took effect on July 1, 2020, ending the Department's
recognition of accrediting agencies as ``regional.'' Nevertheless, many
accrediting agencies and institutions of higher education continue to
use the term ``regional'' in their standards, marketing materials, and
other representative texts.\1\ As a result, the Department has a
general interest in ensuring that accrediting agencies recognized by
the Secretary, and institutions of higher education, do not make false
statements and misrepresentations. The Department does not recognize
accrediting agencies as ``regional'' accreditors, and the Department
believes that these representations mislead the public, institutions of
higher education, and students. Continued assertions that an
institution is ``regionally'' accredited may send false signals to
students and the public that an institution's accreditation is of a
higher quality than institutions that are accredited by accrediting
agencies that are nationally recognized. Indeed, when institutions
properly refer to their accreditation as being from a nationally
recognized accredited agency, while other institutions continue to use
the ``regional'' nomenclature, it may send false signals to students or
the public that the institution lost its accreditation from a
``regional accreditor'' or that it now has a lesser accreditation
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department is concerned about transfer of credit
policies maintained by institutions that have maintained the
improper use of the term ``regional'' and only accept credit
transfer from ``regionally'' accredited institutions to the
detriment of their students. See Transfer Credit Policies,
University of Washington, https://admit.washington.edu/apply/transfer/policies. (Last accessed January 25, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7200]]
Accrediting agencies decide where to conduct their activities and
may decide to conduct activities in a State, a region or group of
States, or the United States. But limiting the representation of the
scope of their recognition to less than the United States does not mean
that the Department recognizes the accrediting agency as a ``regional''
accrediting agency. The Department believes that, under the HEA, the
terms ``national,'' ``institutional,'' or ``programmatic'' are the only
appropriate terms an accrediting agency should use to describe their
scope of recognition under the authorizing statute.
I. Background and Purpose
On November 1, 2019, the Department published a Final Rule on
Student Assistance General Provisions, The Secretary's Recognition of
Accrediting Agencies, and The Secretary's Recognition Procedures for
State Agencies. 84 FR 58834. This Final Rule sought, among other
things, to amend the Department's recognition process for accrediting
agencies, including providing an accurate recognition of the geographic
area within which an agency conducts its activities. The Final Rule
also recognized that the term ``regional'' often inaccurately described
an accrediting agency's geographic scope and was frequently used to
perpetuate the misconception that regionally accredited institutions
are of higher academic quality than nationally accredited institutions.
In the preamble to the Final Rule, the Department responded to several
comments seeking clarification of the use of the terms ``national'' and
``regional'' with respect to accrediting agencies.
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Proposed Rule,'') the
Department proposed to eliminate the use of ``regional'' in reference
to accrediting agencies and instead refer to non-programmatic agencies
or associations exclusively as ``institutional'' or ``nationally''
recognized, outlining several reasons to substantiate the Department's
belief that this regulatory change was necessary. Secretary's
Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, 84 FR 27404 (proposed June 12,
2019). The Department explained, in response to comments, that the
clarification was made to correct pervasive and consequential
misunderstandings in regard to the quality of education and to attempt
to provide students and families accurate information on both the
educational quality and integrity of programs that require State
licensure. First, the Department stated that the lack of clarity with
regard to--and sometimes conflation of--``national'' versus
``regional'' leads to a misguided understanding of the quality of
education that an institution recognized by a ``national'' accrediting
agency offers in comparison to the education provided by an institution
recognized by a ``regional'' accrediting agency.
Specifically, in response to a commenter's objection to the change
in nomenclature, the Department stated that ``the change in
nomenclature is intended specifically to counter this prevalent
misconception.'' 84 FR 58850. The Department noted that although
agencies may term themselves differently, a ``national'' or
``regional'' accrediting agency does not, in fact, impact the standards
or quality of education at an institution, as accrediting agencies do
not evaluate education at an institution differently based on the
geographic region in which an institution is located. The Department
has not, and does not, hold these accrediting agencies to different
recognition criteria standards. See generally 34 CFR part 602. The
Department stated that, although accrediting agencies have their own
standards that vary by type of institution, location, or other factors,
``standards do not differ based on the agency's geographic scope or
prior classification as a national or regional accrediting agency.'' 84
FR 58850.
Further, as the Department elaborated, the change laid out in the
Final Rule was intended to ``counter a detrimental myth that
institutions that are regionally accredited are of higher academic
quality than institutions that are nationally accredited.'' 84 FR
58851. The Department indicated that students understood their
education to be fundamentally better at a regionally accredited
institution versus a nationally accredited institution, which, based on
the Department's observations, was in fact, not the case. In the Final
Rule, the Department speculated that a borrower could have attended an
inferior school based solely on a presumption of quality based on an
accrediting agency's representation regarding their geographic scope or
through a presumption based on the agency terming itself as
``regional.'' 84 FR 58851.
The Department also expressed concerns, in response to comments,
regarding the rise in distance education and how distinctions between
``regional'' and ``national'' accrediting agencies could impact student
choice and options. Specifically, the Department stated this change was
``critically important'' based on increases in distance education,
leading ``students to attend an institution accredited by an agency
whose geographic scope does not include the student's home State.'' 84
FR 58851. The Department made clear that States should ``ensure the
laws pertaining to an academic institution's required accreditation to
qualify graduates for licensure and the procedures used to implement
those laws do not disadvantage students who enroll in and complete
programs at institutionally accredited institutions.'' 84 FR 58850.
Further, in response to comments, the Department acknowledged that
concerns and confusion regarding accrediting agencies' geographic scope
and practices were justified, given that former regional accrediting
agencies had expanded their activities beyond the initial geographic
region(s) defined in their scope. They acknowledged that ``accrediting
agencies previously described as regional are, in fact, conducting
business across much of the country.'' 84. FR 58851.
Although the Department sought to eliminate the use of the term
``regional'' as a defining characteristic, it continued to require
accrediting agencies to clarify the geographic area in which they
perform their work, including all branch campuses and additional
locations. However, the Department would no longer consider the
accrediting agency's historical geographic footprint to be a part of
its scope. 84 FR 58852. Instead, the geographic area (i.e., list of
States) in which the accrediting agency performs its work must be
reported to the Department and made available to the public. 84 FR
58852.
Although the regulatory text in the Final Rule addressed the use of
``regional'' nomenclature, the preamble did not address whether such
references could be contrary to the law. In the Proposed Rule, the
Department noted its intent to simplify labeling accrediting agencies
to better reflect their focus and combine them under the umbrella term
of ``institutional.'' The Department also noted that while the use of
the terms ``regionally accredited'' and ``nationally accredited'' were
no longer relevant to the recognition process ``agencies would not be
prohibited from identifying themselves as they deem appropriate.''
Proposed Rule, at 27445.
Though the Department may have intended to provide an
interpretation of the language contained within their proposed
regulations, there was no explanation or statement like this in the
preamble to the Final Rule. Courts have held that statements made in
the preamble to a final rule are considered nonbinding interpretative
rules. See Wilgar Land Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Lab., 85 F.4th 828, 837
(6th Cir. 2023) (holding
[[Page 7201]]
that ``[w]hile a preamble's interpretation of regulations may help
clarify any ambiguity in them, an agency cannot use preambles to add
substantive duties that the regulations themselves do not contain.'')
However, the statements made here were in the proposed rule and
therefore should not have been reasonably relied upon by third-parties
as those statements are, at best, proposed interpretive rules.
Accrediting agencies may have, nonetheless, incorrectly relied upon
this isolated statement within the proposed rule to inform the means by
which they identify themselves. And likewise, institutions may have
relied upon the statement to inform how they refer to the status of
their accreditation when communicating with students and the public.
Therefore, even though formal recission may not be necessary, the
Department finds that it is possible that accrediting agencies and
institutions may have relied upon those statements in the proposed
rule. As such, this proposed interpretative rule would formally rescind
the statement in the proposed rule to the preamble that stated that
accrediting ``agencies would not be prohibited from identifying
themselves as they deem appropriate,'' including as ``regional''
accreditors. Id. at 27445.
Accordingly, even though it may not be strictly necessary, out of
an abundance of caution, the Department will abide by the change-in-
position doctrine factors that dictate how agencies may change their
guidance. Food & Drug Admin. v. Wages & White Lion Invs., L.L.C., 604
U.S. 542, 568 (2025) (Holding that agencies must ``provide a reasoned
explanation for the change, display awareness that they are changing
position, and consider serious reliance interests.'')
Furthermore, the Department proposes to reinforce, reemphasize, and
strengthen the Final Rule through this interpretative rule to clarify
that ``regional'' is no longer a proper definitional term for
accrediting agencies and that use of ``national'' or ``institutional''
(for non-programmatic accrediting agencies) are the sole descriptors
allowed under the HEA. Accordingly, accrediting agencies have an
obligation to ensure that their member institutions do not
mischaracterize the scope of a non-programmatic accrediting agency as
anything other than ``national'' or ``institutional,'' including with
respect to institutional transfer of credit policies.
Formal institutional policies should not rely on the way the
Department formerly recognized accrediting agencies. Doing so would
also attach legal or policy significance to past Department actions
that have no bearing on the recognition of accrediting agencies today.
Allowing institutions to base their policies on the former
accreditation recognition structure exacerbates the concerns the
Department raised as its reason for promulgating the Final Rule, as it
perpetuates the false belief that institutions that are ``regionally''
accredited are of a higher quality than those that are ``nationally''
accredited. For example, establishing a criterion for the acceptance of
transfer credit that requires the credit to have been earned at an
institution that is accredited by an accrediting agency that was
formerly recognized as a ``regional'' accrediting agency would
contravene how the Department recognizes accrediting agencies.
As the Department explained in the Final Rule, although it lacks
authority to compel State action, the Department eliminated from its
regulations the distinction between regional and institutional
accreditation. States could continue to have policies or laws that
attach significance to accreditation from an agency that was formerly
recognized as ``regional,'' but any State policy that hinges upon
current recognition of an accrediting agency as ``regional'' is
obsolete. Indeed, there are no institutions that are or could be
accredited by a regional accrediting agency recognized by the
Secretary, so it would be impossible for an institution to comply with
a State law or policy that requires regional accreditation.
In this proposed interpretive rule, the Department further
clarifies that recognized accrediting agencies and associations, and
their member institutions, should no longer refer to a recognized
accrediting agency as ``regional.'' Accordingly, the Department
strongly encourages States, including State licensure boards, to revise
their laws or regulations, as necessary, to remove this distinction.
II. Analysis
For the reasons outlined above, in 2019, the Department sought to
align its nomenclature more closely with the HEA by referring to all of
the accrediting agencies it recognizes as ``nationally recognized,''
consistent with the definition of institution of higher education under
Section 101 and Section 102 of the HEA.
To be eligible as an institution for purposes of participation in
title IV, HEA programs, institutions must meet the definition of
``institution of higher education.'' Sections 101 and 102 of the HEA.
This includes the requirement that an institution of higher education
``is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or
association.'' 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5) (emphasis added). The definition in
Section 101, which covers nonprofit and public institutions, refers to
a ``nationally recognized accrediting agency.'' As such, the Final Rule
updated 34 CFR 602.11 to conform to this requirement, and all
accrediting agencies that are recognized by the Secretary are
designated as ``nationally recognized accrediting agencies.''
The HEA also provides for circumstances in which a school may
qualify as a ``proprietary institution of higher education'' in order
to gain eligibility for the purposes of participation in the title IV
programs. Section 102(b)(1)(A) of the HEA creates a special requirement
for such institutions, which states that a proprietary institution must
provide training programs to prepare students for gainful employment in
a recognized occupation unless the institution ``(I) provides a program
leading to a baccalaureate degree in liberal arts, and has provided
such a program since January 1, 2009, and (II) is accredited by a
recognized regional accrediting agency or association, and has
continuously held such accreditation since October 1, 2007, or
earlier.'' 20 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1)(A). The broader context of this
provision makes it clear that Congress was attempting to prohibit
proprietary institutions from offering liberal arts programs but sought
to grandfather programs that were established prior to a certain date
and were recognized by accrediting agencies that the Department
recognized, at the time, as being regional accrediting agencies.
Although this provision may imply that Congress wanted to, and the
Department should, recognize ``regional'' as an appropriate term for
institutional accrediting agencies, as discussed further, it represents
a specific moment in time for which Congress provided a specific and
limited exception related only to gainful employment programs. Had
Congress intended for this exception to subvert the broader structure
of the HEA in its narrow amendment in 2008, it surely would have
amended those parts under Section 101 and Section 496, but it made no
such changes to those sections. As such, this provision is best
understood as a narrow, time-limited exception that reflected the
Department's former practice of categorizing accrediting agencies
between national and regional when it was passed, not a reintroduction
of a
[[Page 7202]]
``regional'' class of accrediting agencies for all time going forward.
Further, in the Final Rule, the Department rejected the need for
continued recognition of ``regional'' accrediting agencies and
eliminated the previous regulatory distinction between ``regional'' and
``national'' accrediting agencies. Instead, proprietary institutions
may continue to offer liberal arts programs so long as they meet the
following criteria established in Section 102(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the HEA
such as: if the program was offered prior to January 1, 2009, has
continuously held accreditation by a recognized regional accrediting
agency since October 1, 2007, and that accrediting agency was
recognized as a regional accrediting agency by the Department as of
October 1, 2007, and is also accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency recognized by the Department.
Indeed, whatever tension may exist between Section 101(a) (which
provides for recognition by a nationally recognized accrediting agency)
and the grandfather provision under Section 102(b)(1)(A) is clarified
when viewed through interpretive principles of statutory
interpretation.
The Whole-Text Canon provides that, when interpreting statutes, the
entire text of a statute ``in view of its structure and of the physical
and local relation of its many parts'' must be examined. A. Scalia & B.
Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, 167 (2012). The
broader statute provides context, which is a primary determinant of
meaning as a statute ``typically contains many interrelated parts that
make up the whole.'' Scalia & Garner, supra, at 167; see also United
Sav. Ass'n of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365,
371 (1988) (explaining that statutory interpretation is a ``holistic
endeavor'' and that ``[a] provision that may seem ambiguous in
isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme''
when ``the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes
its meaning clear.'')
Here, Congress has created a general rule in Section 101 of the HEA
for institutions, requiring all institutions to be accredited by a
nationally recognized accrediting agency that is recognized by the
Secretary. The exception in the definition in Section 102(b)(1)(A) is
narrow in scope and temporally limited. It does not seek to displace or
to alter the broader rule that institutions be nationally accredited
but instead seeks to incorporate how the Department formerly recognized
accrediting agencies. As the Final Rule demonstrates, this narrow
grandfather provision does not resurrect the Department's former
approach to recognition of accrediting agencies. Because the broader
context of the statute requires institutions to be nationally
recognized, the more appropriate reading is that Congress did not
intend to displace that requirement in the narrow way it grandfathered
in certain liberal arts programs in Section 102(b)(1)(A) of the HEA. As
such, the Whole-Text Canon provides key contextual support for the
finding that the HEA does not require the Department to continue to
recognize accrediting agencies as ``regional.'' To the contrary, an
institution must be recognized by a nationally recognized accrediting
agency to meet the definition of ``institution of higher education'' in
the HEA.
Some comments, in response to the Proposed Rule, argued that
Section 496(a)(1) of the HEA requires the Department to recognize
accrediting agencies as being ``regional.'' 84 FR 2704. Specifically,
Section 496(a)(1) provides that ``the accrediting agency or association
shall be a State, regional, or national agency or association and shall
demonstrate the ability and the experience to operate as an accrediting
agency or association within the State, region, or nationally, as
appropriate.'' 20 U.S.C. 1099b(a)(1) (emphasis added). Latching on to
those words, some commenters claimed that the explicit references to
``region'' in this provision meant that Congress intended for
accrediting agencies to be recognized in different ways, as
``national'' or ``regional.''
That is incorrect. Section 496(a)(1) means that a ``regional. . .
agency'' can be designated as a ``nationally recognized accrediting
agency.'' It does not mean--and in the statutory scheme cannot mean--
that there is a whole new category of ``regionally recognized
accrediting agencies.'' As the Final Rule explains, Section 101(a)(5)
of the HEA provides that an institution must be accredited by a
``nationally recognized accrediting agency'' to be an institution of
higher education. 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(5). Furthermore, Section 101(c)
requires the Department to publish, for the purposes of Sections 101
and 102 of the HEA, ``a list of nationally recognized accrediting
agencies or associations that the Secretary determines, pursuant to
subpart 2 of part H of subchapter IV, to be reliable authority as to
the quality of the education or training offered.'' 20 U.S.C. 1001(c)
(emphasis added). Under Section 101(a)(5), accreditation by a
``nationally recognized accrediting agency'' is what matters.
Section 496(a)(1) does not purport to insert an additional category
of accrediting agencies into that plain text. The correct understanding
of Section 496(a)(1) is that it authorizes the Secretary to recognize
accrediting agencies with potentially narrow geographic scopes. But
even where the accrediting agency has a narrower scope, it is a
``nationally recognized accrediting agency'' because the HEA requires
it to be nationally recognized in order to perform title IV gatekeeping
functions under Section 101 and Section 496(m) of the HEA. As such,
Section 496(a)(1) is best read to clarify that an accrediting agency is
not required to accredit institutions in all 50 States in order to be a
``nationally recognized accrediting agency.'' It does not require the
Department to recognize accrediting agencies as ``regional'' or provide
license for accrediting agencies and associations (and their member
institutions) to continue to refer to themselves as such.
III. Institutional Practice
Based on the Department's interpretation, the Department strongly
discourages an accrediting agency--regardless of whether its scope
falls within a specific region or spans across the Nation--from
referring to itself as ``regional.'' As discussed above, the label
``regional accrediting agency'' has no statutory or regulatory
significance and has engendered confusion among students, institutions,
and the public. To the extent an accrediting agency merely wants to
convey that it operates in a particular region or group of States,
there are other, less misleading ways to do so. For instance, it may
describe the area where it performs specific accreditation activities
as a ``region.'' An example of this as written could state that
``[accrediting agency] is a nationally recognized accrediting agency
with the vast majority of the institutions it recognizes located in the
Southeast.'' The agency could also explicitly claim that the Department
has recognized it as a ``nationally recognized accrediting agency''
coupled with an affirmative statement that makes clear that the
Department does not recognize ``regional accrediting agencies.''
The Department is aware that some agencies do not offer
accreditation in certain parts of the country or certain groups of
States. The Department does not seek to recognize this as a
distinguishing factor nor prohibit an accrediting agency from operating
in the States it so chooses. The Department wishes to clarify that
accrediting agencies should, in conjunction with defining their
operating area, note that
[[Page 7203]]
they are recognized solely by the Department as a ``nationally
recognized accrediting agency.''
The Department's desire to provide this clarification is a result
of observed instances in which accrediting agencies and institutions
continue to use non-recognized and confusing nomenclature that provide
false signals of institutional quality.\2\ The Department continues to
be concerned that the use of outdated terminology is a false flag that
signals that there is a significant difference in quality between
institutions accredited by agencies considered to be a regional versus
national. This distinction is inaccurate because the Department does
not hold institutional accrediting agencies to different (or higher)
standards. Indeed, as explained above, continued assertions that an
institution is ``regionally'' accredited may send false signals to
students and the public that an institution's accreditation is of a
higher quality than institutions that are accredited by ``national''
accrediting agencies. Making matters worse, when institutions properly
refer to their accreditation from as being from a nationally recognized
accredited agency, while other institutions continue to use the
``regional'' nomenclature, it may send confusing signals to students or
the public that the institution lost its accreditation from a
``regional'' accreditor or that it now has a lesser accreditation
status. This leads to a situation where institutions may feel
pressured, due to incorrect use of their nomenclature by peer
institutions, to also use the improper nomenclature to avoid a
situation where students incorrectly assume the institution is of
lesser quality. This result runs counter to the intent and purpose of
the Final Rule, which was to increase competition in the accreditation
market. As such, the Department believes that this proposed
interpretive rule will make the higher education market more
competitive because institutions would have clarity that they should
not try to gain a competitive advantage by perpetuating false quality
distinctions relating to their accreditation in communications and
marketing materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ There may be false signals of quality that result from when
councils or associations term their member accrediting agencies as
``regional.'' For example, see the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation which references regional accrediting commissions as
``among the oldest accrediting organizations in the country'':
https://www.chea.org/regional-accrediting-organizations-accreditor-type). The Department does not regulate or oversee the activities of
trade associations and nothing in this interpretive rule should be
interpreted as the Department claiming jurisdiction over such
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The continued reference to a ``region'' may also confuse or mislead
students to believe that an institution outside of what they may define
as a region--but accredited by a ``regional'' accreditor--is outside
the accrediting agency's ``region'' and therefore is not eligible for
title IV, HEA programs. This belief would be to the detriment of both
students and institutions, limiting the institution from enrolling the
student or limiting the scope of the student's decision to enroll at a
particular institution. Additionally, educational institutions should
have a general duty to not mislead students. If the Secretary
determines that an eligible institution has engaged in substantial
representation under 668.71(c), she may take a number of actions,
including revoking the institution's program participation agreement,
or denying participation applications made on behalf of the
institution. 34 CFR 668.71(a).
They run the risk of doing just that when they tell current or
prospective students that they are accredited by a ``regional''
accrediting agency. For the purposes of eligibility for the title IV
programs, institutions must be accredited by an agency recognized by
the Secretary as a nationally recognized accrediting agency. When
institutions use incorrect nomenclature when describing their
accreditation status, such as by a statement that they are ``regionally
accredited,'' it may mislead current and prospective students to
believe that the Department has recognized the accrediting agency in
such manner. To avoid risk of misrepresenting their accreditation
status to students, institutions should consider only referring to
their accreditation status as being with a ``nationally recognized
accrediting agency.''
IV. Reliance
The Department is aware that accrediting agencies, associations,
and the institutions and programs they accredit sometimes refer to
accrediting agencies as ``regional accrediting agencies.'' The
Department acknowledges that this interpretation may cause some
institutions, programs, and accrediting agencies to change the way they
refer to accreditation, and that such change may take time.
Specifically, the Department is aware of some institutional credit
transfer policies that improperly rely upon ``regional'' accreditation.
But those policies should have been updated following the effective
date of the final rule that formally ended such distinctions. The
Department also acknowledges that some State laws still refer to
``regional'' accreditation, but as explained earlier, those State laws
are obsolete to the degree that they refer to a regional accrediting
agency recognized by the Secretary. The Department invites comments
from the public specifically on what reliance interests it should
consider when determining whether to finalize this interpretative rule.
Although this proposed interpretative rule is nonbinding on the
Department and the public, the Department may refer to this
interpretive rule when taking enforcement action.
V. Conclusion
This interpretation represents the Department's current position on
these issues and may be referenced when reviewing the recognition of
accrediting agencies, which may be relevant in reviewing the compliance
of accrediting agencies during a period of recognition under 34 CFR
602.33(a). In addition, this interpretation represents the Department's
current thinking regarding the application of the misrepresentation
regulations under 34 CFR 668.71 to institutions with respect to how
such institutions describe their accreditation. Through this notice,
the Department advises institutions that it will assess compliance with
this interpretation via program reviews, investigations, and other
reviews authorized by applicable law.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit
[[Page 7204]]
your search to documents published by the Department.
David Barker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2026-03074 Filed 2-13-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P