[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 160 (Thursday, August 20, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53940-54021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17001]
[[Page 53939]]
Vol. 91
Thursday,
No. 160
August 20, 2026
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 600, 602, and 668
Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization: The Secretary's
Recognition of Accrediting Agencies: Institutional Eligibility Under
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended, Student Assistance
General Provisions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 53940]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 600, 602, and 668
[Docket ID ED-2025-OPE-1042]
RIN 1840-AD82
Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization: The Secretary's
Recognition of Accrediting Agencies: Institutional Eligibility Under
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended, Student Assistance
General Provisions
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department proposes to revise the existing accrediting
agency recognition regulations at 34 CFR part 602 to implement the
directives set forth in Executive Order 14279, Reforming Accreditation
to Strengthen Higher Education, and other Administration priorities,
align the regulations more closely with statute, and reduce regulatory
burden.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before September 21, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at regulations.gov. The Department will not accept comments submitted
by fax or by 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. Pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a plain language
summary of the rule is available at regulations.gov.
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.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking website at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should include in their
comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.
Additionally, commenters should not include in their comments any
personally identifiable information (PII) about other individuals. For
example, if your comment describes an experience of someone other than
yourself, please do not identify that individual or include any
personal information that identifies that individual. The Department
reserves the right to redact a portion of a comment or the entire
comment at any time if PII about other individuals is included.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Washington, Office of
Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: 202-987-0911. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
The Secretary of Education recognizes accrediting agencies
currently under existing regulations at 34 CFR part 602. Accrediting
agencies serve as key gatekeepers in determining which institutions may
participate in the Federal student aid programs, which currently
provide more than $100 billion in Pell Grants and Federal student loans
annually. Unfortunately, while the existing regulations are intended to
ensure that the accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary are
``reliable authorities regarding the quality of education or training
offered by the institutions or programs they accredit,'' many are
failing to do so and recognize institutions and programs that fail some
of the most important indicia of quality and returns on investment,
hurting students and taxpayers. Amidst this decline in student
outcomes, some accrediting agencies have neglected their positions of
public trust, improperly shifting their focus away from student
achievement to compelling institutions to adopt illegal and
discriminatory ideology and practices, and intruding on State and local
authority over public institutions. All of this has been done under the
guise of establishing and applying accreditation standards on
institutions and programs.
As a result, Americans' trust and confidence in the U.S. higher
education system has declined significantly over the last decade.
Americans deserve and demand better. To that end, and to ensure that
accrediting agencies are taking their responsibilities as quality
indicators seriously, the Department is therefore proposing a
comprehensive modernization of the regulations for recognition of
accrediting agencies, one that focuses on student achievement and
providing a high-quality education.
The proposed regulations would break down barriers that have long
held back institutions from adopting innovative and cost-effective
educational models. The proposed regulations would eliminate
requirements not required by statute, including the ``two-year rule''
for initial recognition of new agencies, prescriptive site visit
mandates, unnecessary documentation requirements, and rigid and overly
long processing timelines. These commonsense reforms would also remove
existing regulatory barriers impeding institutions' ability to change
or work with multiple accrediting agencies, while agencies would have
more flexibility to apply certain standards that meet the needs of
their accredited institutions and programs. The Department also
proposes a new review framework for better oversight of recognized
accrediting agencies that serve as the primary gatekeepers for the
Federal student aid programs, and whose potential failures pose the
greatest risk to taxpayers.
Additionally, in order to reduce administrative costs that are
negatively impacting college affordability, the Department is proposing
to require recognized accrediting agencies to apply their standards in
ways that minimize institutional administrative burden, avoid
duplicative reporting, and support the implementation of lower-cost
educational models. These changes would also shift institutions' and
programs' focus towards cost-effective practices for staffing,
facilities, student services, and program design.
The proposed regulations promote greater integrity in decision
making by recognized accrediting agencies and eliminate previous
regulatory exceptions for resource-sharing and other areas of potential
conflicts of interest. The proposed regulations would also take the
final step to eliminating geographic-scope distinctions and make other
anticompetitive behavior a negative factor in consideration of agency
recognition.
The Department proposes to reinforce the existing legal,
constitutional, civil rights, and consumer protection obligations
already required of recognized accrediting agencies and the
institutions and programs that they accredit. Accrediting agencies
recognized by the Secretary would be required to confirm that
institutions and programs they accredit comply with all Federal and
State laws and would prevent recognized accrediting agencies from
applying standards that direct accredited institutions and programs to
[[Page 53941]]
violate those laws. New student outcome and program-level performance
expectations would focus accrediting agencies on important objective
measures of student and institution performance such as completion,
licensure pass rates, and economic returns.
Further, the proposed regulations also address persistent issues
with transfer of credit policies, ensuring that students are not
required to undertake duplicative coursework when not necessary. While
institutions and programs would have the latitude to deny a transfer of
credit based on the credit failing to meet the institutions' standards,
schools would have to provide written reasoning for the denial. These
regulations also propose to require more transparency before a student
enrolls, so he or she can have a full understanding of the scope, and
cost, of the education.
Taken together, these proposed regulations aim to improve
educational quality, protect students and taxpayers, and promote a
higher education accreditation system that supports innovation,
accountability, and legal compliance.
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action
The proposed regulations would:
Part 600--Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of
1965, as Amended
Subpart A--General
Amend Sec. 600.11 to make it less burdensome for
institutions that are changing accrediting agencies or wish to utilize
more than one accrediting agency.
Amend Sec. 602.2 to require the Department provide public
notice on its accreditation website if the Secretary denies continued
recognition to a previously recognized agency, or if the Secretary
limits, suspends, or terminates the agency's recognition before the end
of its recognition period.
Amend Sec. 602.3 to define and use the term
``institution'' in these regulations instead of ``institution of higher
education'' which is defined in the HEA, and elsewhere in the
Department's regulations, and refers to a narrower subset of
institutions, and to add a definition for ``related, associated, or
affiliated trade association.''
Subpart B--The Criteria for Recognition
Amend Sec. 602.10 to clarify the Secretary's recognition
extends only to those accrediting agencies whose institutions or
programs actively participate in a Federal program.
Amend Sec. 602.11 to require accrediting agencies to
clearly describe the scope of their accrediting activities and remove
geographic restrictions that restrict institutions and programs from
choosing an accrediting agency.
Amend Sec. 602.12 to remove references to geographic
areas and geographic constraints and require review of contractions of
scope. Additionally, amends the regulations to clarify the policies and
capacity an accrediting agency must have to seek initial recognition,
and eliminates the ``two-year rule'' for initial recognition due to
lack of statutory requirement.
Unreserve and amend Sec. 602.13 to specify that an
accrediting agency's recognition by the Department does not provide any
immunity from antitrust laws.
Amend Sec. 602.14 to strengthen the fiscal and
administrative criteria an accrediting agency must meet to prove it is
fully separate and independent from any related, associated, or
affiliated trade or membership organization.
Amend Sec. 602.15 to require accrediting agencies to
administer their standards, policies, and procedures in a manner that
minimizes unnecessary compliance costs and administrative burdens on
accredited institutions, as well as requires agencies to maintain
appropriate conflict of interest controls and policies.
Amend Sec. 602.16 to codify that an agency may establish
additional lawful accreditation standards that are consistent with
ensuring institutional or programmatic quality and integrity as it
deems appropriate.
Amend Sec. 602.17 to clarify expectations for reviewing
student achievement and faculty related policies, including academic
freedom and intellectual diversity. There are also new requirements for
cost-benefit analysis, institutional flexibility and mission, program
length review, and safeguards against misrepresentation.
Amend Sec. 602.18 to require accrediting agency decisions
to be neutral with respect to viewpoint and ideology, except for those
with a religious mission.
Amend Sec. 602.20 to provide guidance to accrediting
agencies on how to structure their arbitration procedures and remove
overly prescriptive requirements.
Amend Sec. 602.21 to remove overly prescriptive
requirements.
Amend Sec. 602.22 to refine the list of changes requiring
accreditor approval, add prison education programs as a defined
substantive change, and remove outdated and overly prescriptive
requirements.
Amend Sec. 602.23 to require accrediting agencies to
ensure institutions comply with all applicable Federal and State laws
and remove overly prescriptive requirements.
Amend Sec. 602.24 to strengthen accrediting agencies'
oversight of institutional changes, expand requirements for teach-out
planning, including transcript access, and increase transparency and
support for students when institutions face disruptions. These
regulations would also establish clearer, fairer rules by defining
consistent criteria, prohibiting discriminatory denials, requiring
acceptance of comparable credits, and providing students with an
appeals process.
Amend Sec. 602.25 to remove overly prescriptive
requirements.
Amend Sec. 602.26 to update and modernize the required
content of agency notices and better align these requirements with
contemporary methods of disclosure and allow temporary continuation of
eligibility for title IV, HEA funds after erroneous decisions on the
part of the accrediting agency.
Amend Sec. 602.27 to require the Department's website to
be updated on a regular, timely basis to display the current
accreditation status of all institutions and programs.
Amend Sec. 602.28 to broaden the circumstances under
which an accrediting agency must re-evaluate an institution or program
following negative actions by other authorities.
Amend Sec. 602.30 to modernize how accrediting agencies
submit applications and reports to the Department.
Subpart C--The Recognition Process
Amend Sec. 602.32 and split it into two sections: Sec.
602.31 and Sec. 602.32.
Amend Sec. 602.31 to modernize and streamline the
procedures accrediting agencies must follow when submitting
applications for initial or renewed recognition.
Amend Sec. 602.32 to modernize and clarify the processes
used to review an accrediting agency's expansions or contractions of
scope, compliance reports, and increases in headcount enrollment.
Amend Sec. 602.33 to modernize and streamline the
procedures for review of agencies during the period of recognition,
including the review of monitoring reports.
Amend Sec. 602.34 to require the National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) to review
applications for
[[Page 53942]]
contractions of scope, and for accrediting agencies to post public
notice of upcoming NACIQI reviews.
Amend Sec. Sec. 602.35, 602.36, and 602.37 to update
cross references.
Part 668--Student Assistance General Provisions
Subpart D--Institutional and Financial Assistance Information for
Students
Amend Sec. 668.43 to require transfer of credit
disclosures and direct written notice to students.
Cost and Benefits
As further detailed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), the
proposed regulations include numerous provisions that may impact
students, institutions of higher education, accrediting agencies, and
the Federal government. The proposed regulations include provisions
related to transfer-of-credit policies, which may benefit students by
making it easier for students to transfer credits to continue their
postsecondary enrollment at a new institution. Students will benefit
from these proposed changes because they will likely spend less time
and money retaking courses that failed to transfer, whereas
institutions may experience costs from these provisions due to the
lower levels of tuition revenue they may receive from transfer
students. The proposed regulation also encourages accrediting agencies
to include new criteria that evaluates program and institutional
outcomes. This may impose new costs on accreditors, who may need to
develop such criteria, and on institutions, who may need to implement
changes to meet such criteria. Furthermore, the proposed regulations
will remove several barriers for new accrediting agencies to emerge and
obtain Department recognition, which may ultimately benefit accrediting
agencies through the reduction in administrative burden to gain initial
recognition and maintain recognition. Additionally, the proposed rule
would also require accrediting agencies to adopt several new policies
and procedures that aim to increase college affordability and
innovation, while also putting downward pressure on credential
inflation. Students may benefit from these provisions if the changes
result in more affordable and flexible educational opportunities.
As noted in the RIA, the Department does not estimate a significant
net budget impact on the title IV, HEA federal student aid programs
from the proposed regulations. In prior regulations \1\ the Department
estimated the accreditation reform would result in volume increases
from easier recognition of new accreditors or agencies with an expanded
scope to new credential levels, and the option for alternative
standards to allow for faster introduction of innovative programs. In
2019, we did not estimate a significant change in repayment performance
as institutions with less favorable program outcomes could find more
lenient accrediting agencies or institutions with strong programs could
take advantage of the flexibility allowed by the substantive change
policy revisions to expand their program offerings. At the time we
noted the uncertainty of the extent to which increasing accreditation
options and encouraging program innovation would shift loan and grant
volume among more options for students versus generating new volume and
that uncertainty remains. Additionally, greater acceptance of transfer
credits may increase volumes by encouraging some students to complete
degrees but also may reduce volumes by credits being recognized by the
institutions receiving transfers. In retrospect, we know the number of
institutions that changed accreditors was fairly low and it is
difficult to attribute particular changes in volume to accreditation
reforms given other economic, demographic, and programmatic
developments during the same period. The Department seeks feedback on
the reasonability of the estimate that the proposed regulations will
not have a significant net budget impact and sources of data or
analysis for further consideration of this question as we prepare the
final regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 84 CFR 58834.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Directed Questions
Sec. 602.15--Administrative and Fiscal Responsibilities
Under Sec. 602.15(e), the Department proposes to require an
accrediting agency have clear and effective controls to: (1) prevent
conflicts of interest, (2) ensure that members of the standards-setting
body are prevented from voting as members of the decision-making body,
(3) determine its dues without review from a related, associated, or
affiliated trade association or professional organization, (4) disallow
shared resources, (5) ensure that the accrediting agency does not share
or solicit feedback from an associated or affiliated trade association
or professional association, (6) disclose on its website any
relationship with related, associated, or affiliated trade associations
or professional organizations and, (7) not act to restrict access to
employment in a profession, occupation or vocation.
The Department seeks feedback about the extent to which the
``conflict of interest'' requirements impact accrediting agencies in
relation to 401K, health insurance, and other areas. We understand that
there may be some agencies who utilize the same resources in these
certain areas, and that there may be some consideration to the amount
of time and resources it would take to unwind the sharing of resources
in such instances. We welcome comments from agencies that have current
relationships exist between themselves and the related, associated, or
affiliated trade association or professional association that would be
affected by the amendments to the regulations proposed here.
Specifically, the Department requests information that considers the
length of time it would take to unwind these benefits from a related,
associated, or affiliated association.
Regulatory Impact Analysis--Data Constraints
The Department recognizes that there is limited data available to
estimate the proposed regulation's potential impact on accrediting
agencies, institutions of higher education, and students. Due to the
scarcity of existing information, the Department invites public
feedback on possible methods and data sources that could strengthen the
analysis presented in the RIA. Additionally, the Department welcomes
input regarding prior research on accreditation reform, especially
insights on how findings from such research might further inform and
support the analysis included in the RIA. The Department is
particularly interested in research findings on the way that
accreditation reform is associated with accreditor innovation,
competition, and quality, along with any associations that reform has
on student behavior and outcomes. Additionally, the Department is also
interested in receiving comments regarding possible impacts not
identified by the Department, along with supporting data and analysis.
IV. Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed
regulations. For your comments to have maximum effect in developing the
final regulations, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section
or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments
address and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed
regulations. The Department
[[Page 53943]]
will not accept comments submitted after the comment period closes.
The following tips are meant to help you prepare your comments:
Be concise but support your claims.
Explain your views as clearly as possible and avoid using
profanity.
Refer to specific sections and subsections of the proposed
regulations throughout your comments, particularly in any headings that
are used to organize your submission.
Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposed
regulatory text and support these reasons with data-driven evidence,
including the depth and breadth of your personal or professional
experiences.
Where you disagree with the proposed regulatory text,
suggest alternatives, including regulatory language, and your rationale
for the alternative suggestion.
Submit your public comment only.
Do not include personally identifiable information (PII)
such as Social Security numbers or loan account numbers for yourself or
for others in your submission.
Do not include any information that directly identifies or
could identify other individuals or that permits readers to identify
other individuals.
Mass Writing Campaigns: In instances where individual submissions
appear to be duplicates or near duplicates of comments prepared as part
of a writing campaign, the Department will post one representative
sample comment along with the total comment count for that campaign to
Regulations.gov. The Department will consider these comments along with
all other comments received.
In instances where individual submissions are bundled together
(submitted as a single document or packaged together), the Department
will post all of the substantive comments included in the submissions
along with the total comment count for that document or package to
Regulations.gov. A well-supported comment is often more informative to
the agency than multiple form letters.
Public Comments: The Department invites you to submit comments on
all aspects of the proposed regulatory language specified in this NPRM,
and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis and Paperwork Reduction Act
sections.
The Department may, at its discretion, decide not to post or to
withdraw certain comments and other materials that contain promotion of
commercial services or products, and spam.
We may not address comments outside of the scope of these proposed
regulations in the final rule. Comments that are outside of the scope
of these proposed regulations are comments that do not discuss the
content or impact of the proposed regulations or the Department's
evidence or reasons for the proposed regulations.
Comments that are submitted after the comment period closes will
not be posted to Regulations.gov or addressed in the final rule.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the requirements of
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
regulations. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce
potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and
activities. During and after the comment period, you may inspect public
comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary
aid, please contact the Information Technology Accessibility Program
Help Desk at [email protected] to help facilitate this request.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments
on how to make the regulation easier to understand, including answers
to questions such as the following:
Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) aid or reduce its
clarity?
Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example,
Sec. 668.2 General definitions.)
Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
What else could we do to make the proposed regulation
easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section.
V. Background
Section 496 of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended, requires
the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to establish criteria for
determining whether an accrediting agency is a reliable authority, for
purposes of participation in programs authorized under the HEA and
other Federal programs, on the quality of education or training offered
by the institutions and programs that they accredit. Such criteria are
required to include appropriate measures of student achievement.
Consistent with the statute, the Secretary has established
regulations for recognition of accrediting agencies at 34 CFR part 602
and has revised these regulations periodically.
Executive Order (E.O.) 14279, titled ``Reforming Accreditation to
Strengthen Higher Education,'' issued on April 23, 2025, by President
Trump, directs the Secretary to take several actions related to the
recognition of accrediting agencies or associations by the Department.
Some of these actions require changes to existing regulations.
The goal of these regulatory changes is to realign the Secretary's
criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies to promote high-
quality, high value, and affordable education for students that--
Promotes such academic programs and activities at higher
education institutions that are focused on student outcomes and are
free from unlawful discrimination and other violations of Federal law;
Reduces barriers that limit competition, innovation, and
new education models that advance credential and degree completion;
Holds institutions accountable for discrimination and
other unlawful acts; and
Advances academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and
student learning by ensuring that accreditation requires that
institutions support and prioritize intellectual diversity among
faculty.
Specifically, the Executive Order directs the Secretary to--
[[Page 53944]]
Resume recognition of new accrediting agencies to foster
competition and expand institutional options; and
Mandate that accrediting agencies require member
institutions to use data on program-level student outcomes to improve
such outcomes, without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.
The Department undertook this rulemaking in part to address the
goals contained within the Executive Order, but also to propose
substantive changes that would reform the static and outdated higher
education accountability system. These regulations are intended to
increase competition among accrediting agencies by reducing barriers to
entry, facilitating institutional mobility among recognized agencies,
and reducing regulatory requirements that may unnecessarily discourage
the formation of innovative accrediting organizations. Increased
competition is expected to improve institutional responsiveness, reduce
accreditation costs over time, and encourage greater innovation in the
market for quality assurance validation.
The Department believes that increasing competition among
recognized accrediting agencies is likely to improve the quality,
responsiveness, and effectiveness of accreditation. Accreditation has
historically seen very little competition because it evolved from
voluntary membership peer review groups to set uniform academic
standards within those groups. Institutional accreditors (including
former ``regional'' accreditors) rarely engage in head-to-head
competition, institutions face difficulty in changing accrediting
agencies due to high switching costs and potential risks in maintaining
eligibility for Federal student aid for their students, and there are
regulatory barriers to the recognition of new agencies. During
negotiated rulemaking, the Department explained that competition among
accreditors is expected to generally improve quality and expand choices
for institutions.
Competition creates incentives for agencies to innovate, respond to
workforce changes, expand choices for institutions among agencies
engaged in various types of innovative activities and to develop new
measures for assessing student success by institutions.
As explained by a Department economist during negotiated
rulemaking, there is a high concentration of institutions that are
accredited by a handful of institutional accrediting agencies. The
Department recognizes that empirical evidence measuring the causal
effect of institutions changing accreditors is limited. Because
institutions rarely switch accreditors, and those that do may differ
systematically from those that do not, it is difficult to isolate the
independent effect of changing accreditors on institutional outcomes.
Moreover, previous regulatory barriers have resulted in too few
accreditor switches to permit rigorous statistical analysis. The
absence of such evidence, however, does not undermine the broader
economic evidence concerning the benefits of competition in quality
assurance markets.
Economic research has consistently found that competition
encourages innovation and improved performance. Joseph Schumpeter
argued that competition produces ``creative destruction'' that drives
innovation by creating new markets that render older ones obsolete,
while more recent empirical work has found that introducing competition
into concentrated markets substantially increases innovation. The
Department believes these findings are relevant because higher
education accreditation has historically exhibited many characteristics
of an uncompetitive market.
Competition is also expected to improve the informational value of
accreditation. During negotiated rulemaking, the Department explained
that institutions seek credible signals of educational quality, and
that in a competitive accreditation market, agencies would compete to
provide those signals. Rather than offering only a binary ``approved/
not approved'' determination, competing accreditors may distinguish
themselves by offering scaled ratings for institutional quality. On
April 14, 2026, during opening remarks for negotiated rulemaking, the
Department stated:
``Competition will include competition for relevance and
universities will signal their quality level through accreditation . .
. Current accreditors give universities and colleges pass-fail grades
which provide very little useful information.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Opening Remarks--David Barker--Assistant Secretary for the
Office of Postsecondary Education--https://www.ed.gov/media/document/2026-negotiated-rulemaking-aim-transcripts-day-2-am-113991.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This reasoning is consistent with the economic literature on
certification intermediaries. In ``Information Revelation and
Certification Intermediaries'', Alessandro Lizzeri \3\ demonstrates
that monopolistic certifiers have incentives to reveal only limited
information, whereas competition among certifiers results in more
informative quality signals. Similarly, in ``The Effect of Information
on Product Quality: Evidence from Restaurant Hygiene Grade Cards''
Giner Zhe Jin and Phillip Leslie \4\ found that more detailed quality
information improves quality outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Information Revelation and Certification Intermediaries.''
The RAND Journal of Economics 30, no. 2 (1999): 214-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/2556078.
\4\ Ginger Zhe Jin, Phillip Leslie, ``The Effect of Information
on Product Quality: Evidence from Restaurant Hygiene Grade Cards.''
The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, no. 2, (2003): 409-451.
https://doi.org/10.1162/003355303321675428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also believes that competition can strengthen,
rather than weaken, Federal oversight. During negotiated rulemaking,
the Department explained that where only one recognized accreditor
effectively serves a sector, withdrawal of recognition may
significantly disrupt institutions and students making it more
difficult to impose such a penalty. By contrast, when multiple
recognized accreditors are available, institutions have viable
alternatives, reducing barriers to enforcement. As the Department
stated during negotiated rulemaking:
``With regional and programmatic monopolies, withdrawal of
recognition can throw industries into chaos . . . . If alternatives are
available, if competition exists, any hesitation to derecognize
agencies disappears.'' The Department believes competition will
increase accountability both for institutions and for accrediting
agencies themselves.
Finally, the Department believes that competition will encourage
innovation in accreditation. Accrediting agencies that face meaningful
competition will have stronger incentives to develop new approaches to
quality assurance, reduce unnecessary costs, respond to institutional
diversity, and improve services to institutions and students. As
explained in the Department's written responses during negotiated
rulemaking, barriers to switching generally reduce competition and
increase market power through a lock-in effect. Eliminating or reducing
those barriers promotes innovation and responsiveness.
For these reasons, the Department finds that reducing unnecessary
barriers to competition among qualified accrediting agencies is likely
to improve accreditation over time while preserving the Department's
responsibility to establish minimum standards for Federal recognition.
The Department does not believe competition will cause a ``race to the
bottom.'' Rather, quite the opposite will likely occur. Recognized
accrediting agencies must continue to satisfy all statutory and
regulatory
[[Page 53945]]
recognition requirements, while competing to provide higher quality,
more informative, and more innovative quality assurance services. As
stated during negotiated rulemaking, ``We shouldn't fear healthy
competition. It is the basis of a free market economy, and we need more
of it in the coddled, protected business of higher education.''
VI. Authority for This Regulatory Action
The authority for this rulemaking is Section 496 of the HEA.
Section 496(a) of the HEA provides criteria that an accrediting agency
must meet for the Secretary to recognize it as a reliable authority as
to the quality of education or training offered. The same section
states that the Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for a
hearing, establish criteria for such determinations.
Section 496(o) of the HEA directs the Secretary to establish,
through regulation, procedures governing the recognition of accrediting
agencies and the appeal of recognition decisions. At the same time,
Congress provided that the Secretary shall not promulgate regulations
with respect to the standards of an accrediting agency described in
Section 496(a)(5). The Department interprets these provisions together
to mean that the Secretary may establish recognition criteria governing
whether an accrediting agency functions as a reliable authority under
Section 496, while leaving to accrediting agencies the responsibility
for developing and applying their own substantive accreditation
standards. Accordingly, these proposed regulations establish the
criteria the Secretary will use in determining whether an accrediting
agency qualifies for Federal recognition. Except where expressly
required by statute, the proposed regulations do not prescribe the
substantive content of institutional accreditation standards, but
instead establish minimum expectations regarding the processes,
consistency, transparency, and lawful administration of those
standards.
The Department has also reviewed existing regulations in light of
section 496(o). Where current regulations prescribe requirements that
extend beyond recognition procedures and instead direct the content or
administration of accrediting standards without a clear statutory
basis, the Department proposes to remove or simplify those requirements
to better align the regulations with congressional direction.
VII. Public Participation
Section 492 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1098a, requires the Secretary to
obtain public involvement in the development of proposed regulations
affecting programs authorized by the title IV, HEA programs. Prior to
developing this NPRM, the Department obtained advice and
recommendations from individuals and representatives of groups involved
in the title IV, HEA programs. This outreach included a 30-day public
comment period, one day of public hearings, and five days of in-person
negotiated rulemaking on these proposed regulations at the Department's
headquarters in Washington, DC. Further details regarding these efforts
are provided below.
On April 4, 2025, the Department published in the Federal Register
(90 FR 14741) a notice of our intent to hold public hearings and to
establish negotiated rulemaking committees to consider regulatory
changes to the title IV, HEA programs, with one committee addressing
topics that would streamline current federal student financial
assistance program regulations while maintaining or improving program
integrity and institutional quality. The engagement included a 30-day
written public comment period, two public hearings on April 29 and May
1, 2025, and nine days of negotiated rulemaking specific to this NPRM.
Public Comments and Hearings
We received written comments in response to the Federal Register
notice. Additionally, we held two public hearings on April 29 and May
1, 2025.
You may view the written comments submitted in response to the
April 4, 2025 ``Intent to Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committees;
Correction'' correction notice (90 FR 14741), by visiting the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov, within docket ID ED-2025-OPE-
0016. Instructions for finding comments are also available on the site
under ``FAQ.''
Transcripts of the public hearings can be accessed at https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/higher-education-policy/negotiated-rulemaking-for-higher-education-2025-2026.
Negotiated Rulemaking
After obtaining extensive advice and recommendations from the
public, the Secretary, as required by Section 492 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C.
1098a, prepared draft regulations and submitted them to a negotiated
rulemaking process.
On January 27, 2026, we published a notice in the Federal Register
(91 FR 3403).\5\ That notice set forth a schedule for committee
meetings and requested nominations for individual negotiators to serve
on the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Intent To Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (91 FR
3403)--https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/27/2026-01620/intent-to-establish-negotiated-rulemaking-committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We chose members of the negotiated rulemaking committee from
individuals nominated by groups involved in the title IV, HEA programs.
We selected individuals with demonstrated expertise or experience with
the proposed topics. The negotiated rulemaking committee included the
following members, representing their respective constituencies:
Students, student loan borrowers, or groups representing
them: Magnus Noble, University of Illinois Springfield, and Ryan Hofer
(alternate), Independent Advocate for Student Borrowers.
Veterans and U.S. military service members, or groups
representing them: Julie Howell, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and
Colonel Stuart B. Helgeson (alternate), Valley Forge Military College.
Organizations representing workforce development needs,
professional associations or employers: Dr. Siri Terjesen, Florida
Atlantic University.
Legal assistance organizations, consumer advocates, and
civil rights organizations that represent students or borrowers: Rabbi
A.D. Motzen, Agudath Israel of America.
Public Institutions of Higher Education, including
community colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities: Monty Sullivan,
Louisiana Community and Technical College System (Ret.), and Luciano
DeCastro (alternate), University of Iowa.
Private Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education,
including institutions with a religious mission, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, and Tribally Controlled Colleges and
Universities: David Eubanks, Furman University, William L. Hathaway
(alternate), Regent University.
Proprietary Institutions of Higher Education, as defined
in 34 CFR 600.5: Jeffrey Bodimer, Post University, and David Cohen
(alternate), Five Towns College.
State officials, including Governors, State higher
education executive officers, State authorizing agencies and State
attorneys general: Raymond Rodrigues, State University System of
[[Page 53946]]
Florida, and Michael Duffey (alternate), Ohio Department of Higher
Education.
Institutional accrediting agencies recognized by the
Secretary under 34 CFR part 602: Michale S. McComis, Accrediting
Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, and Heather F. Perfetti
(alternate), Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
Programmatic accrediting agencies recognized by the
Secretary under 34 CFR part 602: Rebecca A. Busacca, National
Accreditation Commission, and Brian Kessler (alternate), Meritus School
of Osteopathic Medicine.
Organizations representing taxpayers and the public
interest Primary: Michael Shires, America First Policy Institute, and
Jim Blew (alternate), Defense of Freedom Institute.
Nascent accreditation organizations not currently
recognized by the Secretary under 34 CFR part 602, and third-party
organizations that measure outcome-based quality assurance standards
for postsecondary education that are aligned with established industry
standards: Mark Becker, Commission for Public Higher Education
Alternate, and Jade Foster (alternate), National Council for AI
Workforce Program Accreditation.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and
Integrity: Jennifer Blum, Blum Higher Education Advising, PLLC.
After obtaining extensive advice and recommendations from the
public, the Secretary, as required by Section 492 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C.
1098a, prepared draft regulations and submitted them to a negotiated
rulemaking process. The Committee for these proposed regulations
convened April 13-17, 2026, and May 18-21, 2026. The Committee reviewed
and discussed draft regulations prepared by the Department, as well as
alternative regulatory language and suggestions proposed by Committee
members. Additionally, during each negotiated rulemaking meeting, some
non-Federal negotiators shared feedback that they had received from
stakeholders in their respective constituencies. This approach
facilitated the inclusion of a wide array of ideas and perspectives,
which contributed to the development of the consensus language.
Under the organizational protocols for negotiated rulemaking agreed
to by all members of the Committee, if the Committee reaches consensus
on the proposed regulations, the Department agrees to publish, without
substantive alteration, a defined group of regulations on which the
Committee reached consensus--unless the Secretary reopens the process
or provides a written explanation to the participants stating why she
has decided to depart from the agreement reached during negotiations.
In this instance, consensus is considered to be the absence of dissent
by any member of the negotiated rulemaking Committee (abstaining
members are not considered to be dissenting from the proposal). The
Committee reached consensus on the entirety of the draft regulations on
May 21, 2026. As a result, this NPRM reflects the consensus language
with minor technical and non-substantive corrections which are noted in
subsequent sections of this NPRM.
VII. Significant Proposed Regulations
The Department discusses substantive issues under the sections of
the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not
address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise
minor in effect. The Department may to release subregulatory guidance
as a compliment to the regulations because E.O. 14279 requires that the
Department ``update the Accreditation Handbook to ensure that the
accreditor recognition and reauthorization process is transparent,
efficient, and not unduly burdensome.'' The Department may provide
subregulatory guidance in the Accreditation Handbook on areas like
student engagement, site visits, complaint processes, faculty structure
and evaluation. We also intend to clarify terminology such as peer
review and evaluation teams in the Accreditation Handbook as well.
Sec. 600.11 Special Rules Regarding Institutional Accreditation or
Preaccreditation
Statute: Section 496(h) of the HEA states that the Secretary shall
not recognize the accreditation of any otherwise eligible institution
of higher education if the institution of higher education is in the
process of changing its accrediting agency or association, unless the
eligible institution submits to the Secretary all materials relating to
the prior accreditation, including materials demonstrating reasonable
cause for changing the accrediting agency or association.
Section 496(i) of the HEA states the Secretary shall not recognize
the accreditation of any otherwise eligible institution of higher
education if the institution of higher education is accredited, as an
institution, by more than one accrediting agency or association, unless
the institution submits to each such agency and association and to the
Secretary the reasons for accreditation by more than one such agency or
association and demonstrates to the Secretary reasonable cause for its
accreditation by more than one agency or association. If the
institution is accredited, as an institution, by more than one
accrediting agency or association, the institution shall designate
which agency's accreditation shall be utilized in determining the
institution's eligibility for programs under the HEA.
Current Regulations: Current regulations under Sec. 600.11(a)
state that the Secretary does not recognize the accreditation or
preaccreditation of an otherwise eligible institution if that
institution is in the process of changing its accrediting agency,
unless the institution provides materials described in regulation to
the Secretary and receives approval, or if the institution was not
provided its due process.
Current regulations under Sec. 600.11(b) provide exceptions to the
Secretary recognizing the accreditation or preaccreditation of an
otherwise eligible institution if that institution is accredited or
preaccredited as an institution by more than one accrediting agency.
Proposed Regulations: We proposed to amend paragraph Sec.
600.11(a) to read that for purposes of Sec. Sec. 600.4(a)(5)(i),
600.5(a)(6), and 600.6(a)(5)(i), the Secretary does not recognize the
accreditation or preaccreditation of an otherwise eligible institution
if that institution is in the process of changing its accrediting
agency, unless the institution provides the following to the Secretary:
(1) all materials related to its prior accreditation or
preaccreditation and (2) materials demonstrating reasonable cause for
changing its accrediting agency. The Secretary will determine such
cause to be reasonable unless the Secretary determines that the
institution is seeking the change in order to--(A) evade or circumvent
a requirement of Federal law or regulation; (B) avoid or delay
enforcement or oversight by the Department or an accrediting agency;
(C) obtain eligibility for title IV, HEA programs through
misrepresentation or other unlawful means; or (D) otherwise undermine
the integrity of the title IV, HEA programs.
We propose to require an institution to publicly disclose the
change of accrediting agency within 10 business days on its website and
make reasonable efforts to notify all current students and recent
graduates for whom they have active contact information.
Under Sec. 600.11(b), we propose that an institution may obtain
accreditation or preaccreditation from more than one
[[Page 53947]]
accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary if the institution
provides the following to the Secretary: materials related to its prior
accreditation or preaccreditation and a written explanation showing
reasonable cause for having multiple accreditors. Under the proposed
regulations, the Secretary would determine such cause to be reasonable
unless the Secretary determines that the institution is seeking to be
accredited by more than one accrediting agency in order to: evade or
circumvent a requirement of Federal law or regulation; avoid or delay
enforcement or oversight by the Department or an accrediting agency;
obtain eligibility for title IV, HEA programs through misrepresentation
or other unlawful means; or otherwise undermine the integrity of the
title IV, HEA programs. Additionally, the Secretary would not determine
the cause of having multiple accrediting agencies to be unreasonable
due to a withdrawal, revocation, other termination of accreditation,
probation or equivalent, show cause order, or suspension order.
Reasons: We propose the changes under Sec. 600.11(a) to ease
restrictions on institutions wishing to change accrediting agencies and
the changes under Sec. 600.11(b) to ease restrictions on institutions
wishing to hold accreditation from multiple agencies.
The proposed changes also incorporate the policies and practices in
the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) that the Department issued on May 1,
2025, titled ``Changes to the Approval Process for Changing Accrediting
Agencies''. This guidance noted that the Department's lone interest in
the matter of institutions changing accrediting agencies relates to
``ensuring the institution is not switching accrediting agencies as a
means of avoiding adherence to the Department's laws and regulations.''
The proposed regulations affirm institutions' ability to freely develop
unique partnerships with accrediting agencies or to hold multiple
recognitions from accrediting agencies, which the statute neither
prohibits nor disincentivizes.
These changes promote flexibility and innovation while maintaining
necessary and robust guardrails that prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of
taxpayer funds. Taxpayer funds would be protected through the
stipulations that an institution subject to an adverse action cannot
switch its recognition to simply avoid consequences, thereby ensuring
Federal financial aid dollars do not flow to institutions with
malintent. These changes also encourage competition; by removing
regulations not directly based in the statute that prohibited an
institution from freely changing accrediting agencies based solely on
geographic or other factors, institutions will now have the freedom to
seek out accreditors that better fit their needs. By eliminating
regulations that restrict movement among agencies, accrediting bodies
will be incentivized to adapt and innovate in order to recognize
additional institutions or retain their current institutions. The
changes also assist in accomplishing the streamlining of the process to
switch accrediting agencies so that institutions may find an agency
that better aligns with their mission and values, a goal of E.O. 14279.
Sec. 602.2 How do I know which agencies the Secretary recognizes?
Statute: Section 101(c) of the HEA states that the Secretary shall
publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or
associations that the Secretary determines to be reliable authority as
to the quality of the education or training offered.
Current Regulations: Current regulations require that the Secretary
periodically publish a list of recognized agencies in the Federal
Register, together with each agency's scope of recognition. The public
may obtain a copy of the list from the Department at any time, and the
list is also available on the Department's website.
The regulations also require that if the Secretary denies continued
recognition to a previously recognized agency, or if the Secretary
limits, suspends, or terminates the agency's recognition before the end
of its recognition period, the Secretary must publish a notice of that
action in the Federal Register. The Secretary also must make the
reasons for the action available to the public, on request.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations change a reference
from ``web site'' to ``website.'' The regulations would also change the
publication type from a ``notice'' to an ``announcement'' on the
Department's website. The proposed regulations would also specify that
the Secretary publishes an announcement of each action limiting,
terminating, or suspending an agency's recognition on the Department's
website, along with the reasons for the action and the date it was
taken, in addition to publishing such information in the Federal
Register.
Reasons: The changes are proposed to update and simplify
regulations while implementing the Department's current practices in
regulation. The updated reference to ``website'' is a solely a
technical change to conform to standard grammatical practices.
Transitioning to the use of the word ``announcement'' rather than
``notice'' allows the Department to more quickly notify the public
about certain accreditation actions taken and in a different medium.
The Department will relay this information in a Federal Register
notice, as is standard practice for most agency publications; however,
modifying the regulations to allow for publication on the Department's
website allows information to be disseminated to the public more
quickly, as a posting to the Federal Register can often take multiple
days to process. Additionally, we propose adding the requirement that
the Secretary publish the date when the action was taken to provide
specific, transparent information about how long the agency has been
subject to said action.
Sec. 602.3 What definitions apply to this part?
Statute: Section 496 of the HEA provides criteria that an
accrediting agency must meet for the Secretary to recognize it as a
reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered.
Current Regulations: The regulations under Sec. 602.3 define
frequently used terms throughout Sec. 602 and cross references to
definitions in 34 CFR part 600, including the definition of
``institution of higher education.'' The regulations also prescribe
definitions of terms, including but not limited to, accreditation,
accrediting agency or agency, institutional accrediting agency,
program, and representative of the public.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations remove the cross
reference to the definition of an institution of higher education under
34 CFR part 600. The proposed regulations add a definition of
``institution,'' which would mean an educational institution that meets
the requirements of paragraph (1) of the definition of eligible
institution found in 34 CFR 600.2. The Department would eliminate all
references to ``institution of higher education'' throughout Sec. 602
and replace them with ``institution.''
The proposed regulations amend the definition of an ``accrediting
agency or agency'' to remove the stipulation that accrediting
activities must be conducted through peer review. The proposed
definition of an accrediting agency or agency is a legal entity, or
that part of a legal entity, that conducts accrediting activities
through voluntary, non-Federal review, that may include peer review,
and makes decisions concerning
[[Page 53948]]
the accreditation or preaccreditation status of institutions, programs,
or both.
The Department proposes to add a definition of ``related,
associated, or affiliated trade association'' to mean an organization
that is generally a membership organization, that is organized to
promote a line of commerce, business, industry, or profession, does not
engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for
profit, and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit
of any member, and is related to a particular accrediting agency in
that the agency accredits institutions or programs that prepare
students to enter the workforce of the same or substantially the same
line of commerce, business, industry, or profession that organization
promotes.
Finally, the Department proposes to reverse the order of affiliated
with and associated in the definition of ``representative of the
public''. We propose that part (2) of the definition means a person who
is not a member of any trade association or membership organization
related to, associated with, or affiliated with the agency.
Reasons: The addition of the definition of ``institution'' is
technical and non-substantive. There is not a singular definition of
institution of higher education in 34 CFR part 600. There is, however,
a singular definition of an ``eligible institution'' which includes
public, nonprofit, proprietary and vocational institutions of higher
education. Therefore, to clarify the definition and reduce the
instances in which the Department would need to repeat ``institutions
of higher education'' throughout Sec. 602, we added the definition of
``institution'' to Sec. 602.3 to cross reference the definition of
``eligible institution'' in 34 CFR part 600.
The Department proposes to remove the requirement for peer review
from the definition of an ``accrediting agency or agency'' based on a
recommendation from several negotiators. During negotiated rulemaking,
non-Federal negotiators argued that accrediting agencies may wish to
include professionals and experts on site visit teams who do not
directly fit within the strictest meanings implied by the word ``peer''
or ``peer reviewers.'' The negotiators requested, in order to ensure
flexibility for agencies and facilitate quality site reviews, for the
Department to eliminate the reference to peer reviews. The Department
ultimately agreed with these negotiators in an effort to enhance
flexibility for accrediting bodies; however, we note that the exclusion
of the word ``peer'' does not preclude an agency from using peer review
where it sees fit. The Department proposes to make use of peer review
optional, not mandatory. We concur with the negotiators in their
arguments that subject matter expertise does exist outside of the peer
review process; other individuals or groups may have similar, if not
more, subject matter expertise that allows them to be an effective
evaluator of the quality of an institution or program. This flexibility
would permit innovation in accreditation to allow agencies to create a
unique review process for institutions and programs. This change would
also reduce the regulatory burden of having to comply with outdated
regulations not required under statute.
The Department proposes to add a definition of ``related,
associated, or affiliated trade association,'' as the phrase appears
both in statute and in our current and proposed regulations. In
previous iterations of regulations under 34 Part 602, this term has not
been defined, therefore, the Department believes that there is a need
for a standardized definition so that all accrediting agencies can
comply with the regulatory requirements in good faith. We find it
critical to define this phrase in order to successfully apply the
`separate and independent' requirements contained in Section 496(b) of
the HEA in the same manner across all agencies, and so that agencies
have clarity on the organizations that the Department expects it to
maintain clear firewalls with. For example, the HEA requires that an
accrediting agency be separate and independent from a related,
associated, or affiliated trade association to ensure there is no undue
influence over the decision-making body that makes accreditation or
preaccreditation decisions of institutions or programs, the accrediting
agency's dues, or the accrediting agency's own budget. This separation
is critical to ensuring the independence of accrediting bodies,
ensuring that the priorities of such organizations focus primarily on
students and educational outcomes, rather than the interests of a
relevant trade association. For more discussion on proposed regulations
to address reducing conflicts of interest please see the discussion
under Sec. 602.15. This provision also more clearly defines the
affiliates that an agency may not engage in antitrust activities with,
as further described in the ``Reasons'' section of Sec. 602.13.
Finally, the Department amends the definition of ``representative
of the public'' by reversing the order of ``affiliated with'' and
``associated with'' to match the order of the definition of ``Related,
associated, or affiliated trade association''. This is a non-
substantive technical change that aligns the language of regulations
across Part 602.
Sec. 602.10 Link to Federal Programs
Statute: Section 496(m) of the HEA states that the Secretary may
only recognize accrediting agencies or associations which accredit
institutions of higher education for the purpose of enabling such
institutions to establish eligibility to participate in the programs
under this Act or which accredit institutions of higher education or
higher education programs for the purpose of enabling them to establish
eligibility to participate in other programs administered by the
Department of Education or other Federal agencies.
Current Regulations: The current regulations state that an
accrediting agency must demonstrate that its accreditation is a
required element in enabling at least one institution of higher
education to establish eligibility to participate in HEA programs, or
that its accreditation is a required element in enabling at least one
institution of higher education or program to establish eligibility to
participate in non-HEA Federal programs. This concept is referred to as
the ``Federal link,'' meaning the Department can only recognize
accreditors if they have a nexus through the HEA or another federal
government program.
Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to amend the
regulations under Sec. 602.10(a) to state that if an accrediting
agency is seeking renewal of recognition, it must demonstrate that its
accreditation is a required element in enabling at least one
institution to establish eligibility to participate in the title IV,
HEA programs. The proposed regulations state that if an agency
accredits one or more institutions that participate in the title IV,
HEA programs, the agency satisfies the Federal link requirement, even
if the institution currently designates another institutional
accrediting agency as its Federal link.
Under Sec. 602.10(b), if the accrediting agency is seeking renewal
of recognition and the agency accredits institutions, programs, or
both, it must demonstrate that its accreditation is a required element
to enable an entity to participate in a non-HEA Federal program, as
stated in a Federal statute, regulation, grant or funding announcement,
or other official Federal agency notice establishing eligibility
requirements for participation. The proposed regulations also establish
that the agency must provide documentation
[[Page 53949]]
that an institution or program is currently relying on the agency's
accreditation as a condition of eligibility to participate in such
programs.
Finally, we propose under Sec. 602.10(c), if the accrediting
agency is seeking initial recognition, it must demonstrate that an
institution or program it accredits is likely to rely on the agency's
accreditation to establish or continue eligibility to participate in an
HEA or non-HEA Federal program upon recognition of the agency within
two years. In the event the agency does not have an institution or
program that is relying upon the agency's accreditation to establish or
continue eligibility to participate in an HEA or non-HEA Federal
program when the agency is recognized by the Department, it must report
to the Secretary when the first institution or program it accredits
begins relying upon its accreditation for such purposes. If, after two
years after initial recognition, there are no institutions or programs
that rely on the agency's accreditation to establish or continue
eligibility to participate in an HEA or non-HEA Federal program upon
recognition of the agency, then the agency ceases to be recognized by
the Department.
Reasons: Under Sec. 602.10(a) we propose several minor technical,
non-substantive edits. For example, we have updated ``institutions of
higher education'' to ``institutions'' to conform with the updated
definition in Sec. 600.6. We also propose to add ``title IV'' before
``HEA programs'' to specify the section of the HEA that affects these
regulations. Because the current regulations cover Federal link
requirements for accrediting agencies that are seeking recognition and
renewal of recognition, we propose to break out Sec. 602.10(a) to only
cover accrediting agencies seeking renewal of recognition.
Proposed regulations under Sec. 602.10(b) would cover Federal link
requirements for accrediting agencies that are seeking renewal of
recognition. Combined, the proposed regulations under Sec. 602.10(a)
and (b) clarify that accrediting agencies will only be recognized if
the agency's recognition is a material condition of eligibility for an
institution or program to participate in a certain Federal programs.
These edits strengthen the Federal link requirements for accrediting
agencies that do not accredit institutions participating in the title
IV, HEA programs and limit the Department's recognition reviews to
accrediting agencies whose accredited institutions or programs actually
utilize Federal funding programs. By increasing the strength of the
Federal link requirement, the Department proposes to ensure that
government resources are expended solely on accrediting agencies that
utilize Federal funding. This preserves Department Accreditation Group
staff resources, who must review the agencies for recognition, as well
as resources utilized to host meetings of the NACIQI, who must further
review the agencies up for initial or renewal of recognition.
Department recognition should extend, upon proper evaluation, only to
those agencies that benefit from its use. An agency without any ties to
the Federal government through title IV, HEA programs, or non-HEA
federal programs, should consider the use of government resources when
evaluating whether to continue to seek Department recognition when it
is not necessary for its purposes.
The proposed changes to Sec. 602.10(c) provide the expectation
that institutions or programs accredited by accrediting agencies that
are granted initial recognition would be expected to utilize a Federal
funding program for an agency to maintain recognition. A single
demonstration of use would not be sufficient to continue to claim a
Federal link.
Sec. 602.11 Extent of Accrediting Activities
Statute: Section 496(a)(1) authorizes the Secretary to recognize
nationally recognized accrediting agencies that can seek to operate as
an agency or association within a State, region, or nationally, as
appropriate. Every recognized accrediting agency 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.
Current Regulations: The current regulations require an accrediting
agency to demonstrate that it conducts accrediting activities within a
State, a region or group of States, or the United States.
Proposed Regulations: Under Sec. 602.11(a), the Department
proposes to remove the reference to a State, if the agency is a part of
a State government, and replace the language with a requirement that
the agency must identify the extent of its accrediting activities and
demonstrate that it has the capacity, policies, and procedures
necessary to conduct accrediting activities within the identified
extent.
Under Sec. 602.11(b), we propose that an agency may seek
recognition to operate in a group of States, or in all States, but the
Secretary does not assign, prefer, or limit geographic scope, except as
necessary to ensure that the agency has the capacity to carry out its
intended accrediting activities. Any geographical limitations are
imposed at the sole discretion of the agency itself. We also propose
that the Secretary may not assign institutions or programs to
accrediting agencies, restrict institutions or programs from seeking
accreditation from any agency recognized by the Secretary, directly or
indirectly discourage institutions or programs from seeking
accreditation from another recognized agency through policy, guidance,
communications, other actions, or otherwise favor one recognized
accrediting agency over another.
Finally, we propose that the Secretary may not delay, condition, or
otherwise adversely affect an institution's participation in title IV,
HEA programs solely because the institution seeks accreditation from,
or changes accreditation to, another agency recognized by the
Secretary.
Reasons: These regulations codify guidance in the ``Clarification
of the Appropriate Use of Terms `National' and `Regional' by Recognized
Accrediting Agencies'' (91 FR 7199) and discourage the identification
of accrediting agencies as having a regional scope.
The guidance in 91 FR 7199 clarifies 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. The guidance was intended to further
clarify the changes to the regulations in 34 Part 602 made by the
Department's final rule published on November 1, 2019 (84 FR 58834).
Though these regulations ended the Department's recognition of
accrediting agencies as ``regional,'' some accrediting agencies and
institutions of higher education continue to rely on such term in their
representative texts and to the public. As noted in the Department's
2019 final rule, and in the guidance at 91 FR 7199, the Department does
not recognize accrediting agencies as ``regional.''
The Department proposes in this final rule to adopt the principles
in the guidance to clarify further the intent of the 2019 Final Rule,
the Department seeks to ensure that the use of `regional' nomenclature
is eliminated to avoid sending 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. These
changes are intended to eliminate any preconceived notion that one
accrediting agency or
[[Page 53950]]
association may be fundamentally `better' than another, simply due to
longstanding opinions, length of existence of the agency, or the
institutions that the agency accredits. There is significant variety in
institutions each formerly regional accrediting agency recognizes, and
the elimination of the geographic border in 2019 allowed institutions
to find an agency that better aligned with their mission or values. By
proposing to fully eradicate the terminology here, the Department
continues to break down barriers to competition and choice.
These proposed regulations make it clear that an agency may limit
where it chooses to accredit, whether that be via State or group of
States by geographic extent, but it is not a requirement for
recognition by the Department, nor can an agency so term itself
``regional'' because of a self-imposed limitation on scope of
recognition. Further, the Department proposes that it cannot intervene
in or retaliate against an institution or program for its own decision
to seek accreditation from any nationally recognized accrediting
agency. This ultimately would ensure choice and flexibility in choosing
an accrediting body is present for institutions, and allows consistency
in perception of the quality of an accrediting agency.
Note that the title in the consensus language for this section was
``Sec. 602.11 Geographic area Extent of accrediting activities.'' The
Department made a technical, non-substantive edit to amend the title to
be ``Sec. 602.11 Extent of accrediting activities.''
Sec. 602.12 Accrediting Experience
Statute: Section 496(a)(1) of the HEA requires that an accrediting
agency demonstrate the ability and the experience to operate as an
accrediting agency or association within the State, region, or
nationally, as appropriate.
Current Regulations: Current regulations under Sec. 602.12(a)
require that an accrediting agency seeking initial recognition
demonstrate that it has granted accreditation or preaccreditation prior
to applying to the Department for recognition. Additionally, current
regulations require that the agency has conducted accrediting
activities for at least two years prior to seeking recognition, unless
the agency is affiliated with or a division of another recognized
agency.
Under Sec. 602.12(b), a recognized accrediting agency seeking an
expansion of scope must follow specific steps outlined in the
regulations and demonstrate that it has policies in place that meet all
criteria for recognition. An agency that cannot demonstrate experience
making an accreditation or a preaccreditation decision under an
expanded scope may be limited in the number of institutions or programs
to which it may grant accreditation under the expanded scope. The
accrediting agency may also be required to submit a monitoring report
regarding decisions made under the expanded scope.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 602.12(a) to
require that an agency seeking initial recognition demonstrate that it
has sufficient accreditation experience prior to submitting an
application for recognition. An agency would be eligible to submit an
application for recognition when it can show the following: (1) the
agency is legally established to operate in the relevant jurisdiction;
(2) the agency has adopted accreditation standards consistent with
Sec. 602.16; (3) the agency has adopted operating procedures
consistent with Sec. 602.23; and (4) the agency has established a
process to accept applications for accreditation consistent with 34 CFR
602.17 and has at least one institution or program which has submitted
an application for accreditation.
We propose to redesignate Sec. 602.12(b) to Sec. 602.12(d). The
new paragraph Sec. 602.12(b) would require that an agency seeking
initial recognition must undergo the Secretary's recognition process,
defined in Sec. 602.31, and an evaluation of the agency's compliance
with the Secretary's recognition criteria, defined in 34 CFR part 602,
for the purpose of determining if the agency is a reliable authority as
to the quality of education or training provided by the institutions or
programs it accredits before its application for recognition may be
considered by the Advisory Committee.
We propose to add new Sec. 602.12(c), which would require that an
accrediting agency must have granted accreditation to one or more
institutions if it is requesting recognition as an institutional
accrediting agency, and to one or more programs if it is requesting
recognition as a programmatic accrediting agency before the agency may
be granted recognition.
Under the redesignated Sec. 602.12(d)(1), we propose to amend the
current requirements to add that a ``contraction'' of scope must also
follow specific requirements. The amendments would require an
accrediting agency seeking an expansion or contraction of its scope of
recognition to follow the requirements in Sec. 602.32, as well as
demonstrate that it has accreditation or preaccreditation policies in
place that meet all the criteria for recognition covering the range of
the specific degrees, certificates, institutions, and programs it seeks
in its proposed scope. A change to an agency's geographic area of
accrediting activities does not constitute an expansion or contraction
of the agency's scope of recognition, but the agency must notify the
Department of, and publicly disclose on the agency's website, any such
change. Paragraph (d)(2) of this section would remain the same as
current (b)(2).
Finally, the Department proposes to add a new Sec. 602.12(e),
noting that experience qualifying under this section is not limited to
the accreditation of institutions within a particular geographic area
and may include experience obtained in a national, State or group of
States, or programmatic basis.
Reasons: Changes proposed to Sec. 602.12 would reduce overall
regulatory burden for accrediting agencies seeking initial recognition.
The proposal represents an alignment with the Department's goal to
reduce barriers to entry while also seeking to serve the interest of
taxpayers and students by (1) ensuring minimum eligibility criteria are
met and (2) that accrediting agencies with little experience in
accrediting institutions or programs or enforcing standards be required
to demonstrate success in this regard, aligning with the Department's
goal of a risk-based approach for initial recognition. The Department
interprets the statutory requirement for a ``comprehensive review and
evaluation'' to require that the Secretary consider whether an agency
continues to satisfy all applicable recognition criteria. This is a
holistic approach to ensure that any altered or changed elements do not
contradict or conflict with any remaining elements and that the
totality of the agency continues to benefit and not harm recognition.
The statute does not prescribe the form of an agency's submission
or require the Department to review criterion in support of unchanged
policies and documentation during every review cycle. However, every
renewal remains comprehensive because every recognition criterion is
part of a holistic review. The Department is merely tailoring the
documentation requested from agencies whose prior reviews and ongoing
oversight indicate relatively lower risk.
We propose to add clearly defined guardrails that ensure that
accrediting agencies seeking recognition are legally established in the
relevant jurisdiction, and that the agency has accreditation standards
and operating procedures consistent with the law and regulations.
[[Page 53951]]
This ensures that agencies that seek recognition from the Department
have already established legitimate operations before initial petition,
and that Department staff in the Accreditation Group have sufficient
evidence to begin review of compliance with the Secretary's recognition
criteria.
We propose to add Sec. 602.12(b) to ensure that each agency
submits a comprehensive petition to the Department for evaluation
demonstrating that the accrediting agency meets the basic eligibility
requirements and demonstrates implementation of the required
accrediting standards, operating policies and procedures.
We propose to amend Sec. 602.12(c) to remove language related to
the requirement that an accrediting agency specify the geographic area
for which the accrediting agency seeks recognition. By removing
references to geographic area, the Department seeks to discourage
identification of accrediting agencies based on geography and reduces
unnecessary barriers to the recognition of accrediting agencies and an
agency's subsequent recognition of an institution or program.
We also propose to remove the requirement that an accrediting
agency grant or deny accreditation or preaccreditation for at least two
years prior to seeking recognition by the Department. This two-year
requirement is not statutory and represents undue and unnecessary
burden for accrediting agencies seeking recognition. Timelines for
review can be lengthy, given the cycle of review by the NACIQI, and may
cause accrediting agencies seeking initial recognition to linger in
review stage longer than necessary. Eliminating this two-year
requirement removes a significant competitive barrier to entry that the
Department expects will induce more accreditation agencies to pursue
recognition and ultimately increase competition in the accreditation
market.
By allowing agencies to petition for recognition as soon as it has
received an application from at least one institution or program, it
ensures that Department staff have evidence of standards and practices
to review. And, by ensuring that recognition by the Department cannot
be granted until the agency has approved a program or institution, it
allows Department staff, NACIQI, and the Senior Department official to
review implementation of such standards and practices to ensure the
agency is functioning as a quality indicator. Both these stipulations
provide enhanced guardrails to ensure Federal student aid is only
flowing to qualified programs or institutions but also provides the
agency with increased flexibility in timeline for review and decreases
overall time to recognition. These changes also implement the
Department's interpretation and guidance published contained in 91 FR
7199.
Further, the Department proposes to redesignate current regulations
under Sec. 602.12(b) to Sec. 602.12(d). In redesignating, we have
also added a condition that accrediting agencies must apply to the
Department when seeking a contraction in scope. For example, an
accrediting agency would need to apply to the Department by fulfilling
requirements under proposed Sec. 602.32 if that agency sought to
contract its scope from accrediting entry-level programs in a
profession at the master's degree level to only programs at to the
doctoral degree level. The proposed addition will provide an avenue for
the Department and the senior Department official to take action
related to the current language at Sec. 602.32(e): ``The Department
may view as a negative factor when considering an application for
initial, or expansion of scope of, recognition as proposed by an
agency, among other factors, any evidence that the agency was part of a
concerted effort to unnecessarily restrict the qualifications necessary
for a student to sit for a licensure or certification examination or
otherwise be eligible for entry into a profession.''
Finally, we propose adding 602.12(e) to reduce unnecessary barriers
to the recognition of accrediting agencies, as directed by E.O. 14279,
by acknowledging that accreditation experience can occur outside of a
particular geographic area and may include in a national, State, or
programmatic basis.
Sec. 602.13 Effect of Recognition
Statute: Section 496(a) of the HEA states that the Secretary may
recognize an accrediting agency or association to be a reliable
authority as to the quality of education or training offered for the
purposes of title IV, HEA programs or for other Federal purposes, if,
among other things, the agency or association is one of the four types
enumerated in HEA Section 496(a)(1). With the exception of a State
agency approved by the Secretary for the purpose of accrediting
institutions of higher education, all three of these categories require
that the agency or association be comprised of a ``voluntary
membership.'' See HEA Section 496(a)(2).
Additionally, HEA Section 496(n)(3) states that, when reviewing and
evaluating the performance of all accrediting agencies or associations
seeking recognition by the Secretary, the ``Secretary shall consider
all available relevant information concerning the compliance of the
accrediting agency or association with the criteria provided for in
this section, including any complaints or legal actions against such
agency or association.''
Current Regulations: None. This section is currently reserved.
Proposed Regulations: Under Sec. 602.13(a), the Department
proposes to affirm that recognition does not confer immunity or any
relief from Federal or State antitrust laws. Accrediting agencies,
institutions, and programs remain subject to those laws,
notwithstanding recognition or eligibility determinations made by the
Department.
Under Sec. 602.13(b), the Department proposes to amend the
regulations to state that recognition does not authorize collective
action among accrediting agencies, institutions, or programs that would
otherwise be subject to oversight under Federal or State law.
Finally, we propose to amend Sec. 602.13(c) such that recognition
does not create a property interest or entitlement to continued
recognition.
Reasons: The HEA does not provide that recognition of an
accrediting agency or association by the Secretary confers any form of
immunity from Federal or state antitrust laws.
The U.S. Department of Justice recently made clear in a statement
of interest filed in a private lawsuit on December 15, 2025 that the
antitrust laws apply to recognized accreditation agencies.\6\ In that
case, a party suggested that the Department of Education's recognition
displaces the antitrust laws.\7\ The Department of Justice explained
that ``[a]rguments supposing ``[r]epeals of the antitrust laws by
implication from a regulatory statute are strongly disfavored.''
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Am. Train Dispatchers Ass'n, 499 U.S. 117, 129
(1991) (quoting United States v. Phila. Nat. Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 350
(1963)). And that, the party had failed to make a ``convincing showing
of clear repugnancy between the antitrust laws and the [Department of
Education's] regulatory system'' necessary to establish a repeal by
implication.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Statement of Interest of the United States at 17, Lincoln
Mem'l Univ. v. Am. Veterinary Med. Assoc. No. 25-cv-00282 (E.D.
Tenn. Dec. 15, 2025), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1420886/dl?inline
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department believes that adding clarification to its
regulations regarding
[[Page 53952]]
this point is important, for multiple reasons.
First, the Department interprets the phrase ``voluntary
membership,'' as used in HEA Section 496(a)(2), in accordance with the
plain meaning of the word ``voluntary''--i.e., a membership composed of
persons or institutions or programs who have joined on their ``own free
will without valuable consideration or legal obligation'' or otherwise
``unconstrained by interference.'' See Merriam-Webster, Voluntary,
Merriam-Webster.com (last updated June 20, 2026). One form of
interference which would preclude an agency or association's membership
from being truly voluntary is that agency or association engaging in
anti-competitive behavior prohibited by Federal or State antitrust
laws, as such actions undermine the efficiency and fairness of the
accreditation marketplace and limit the choices of market participants.
Second, the Department notes that E.O. 14279 directed the
Department to ``resume recognizing new accreditors to increase
competition and accountability in promoting high-quality, high-value
academic programs focused on student outcomes.'' The Department
believes that, to carry out this directive successfully, it is
necessary to remind existing accrediting agencies of the legal
obligations to comply with Federal or State antitrust laws (despite
this not being a new requirement) and to ensure that agencies do not
attempt to construe the Secretary's recognition to permit behavior that
is illegal under the antitrust laws.
In a similar vein, neither the HEA, nor current Department
regulations, authorize collective action among accrediting agencies,
institutions, or programs that would otherwise be subject to oversight
under Federal or State law, however, the Department believes that it is
important to clarify this point for accrediting agencies. While the
Department seeks to encourage collaboration amongst accrediting
agencies, institutions, and other stakeholders, agreements to take
collective action can limit competition and run afoul of antitrust
regulation. Therefore, the Department proposes to include this language
in regulation to minimize any potential for an accrediting agency to
improperly construe the Secretary's recognition to allow for activities
which may violate Federal or State antitrust laws.
Finally, the Department proposes to add language stating that
recognition of an accrediting agency by the Secretary does not create a
property interest or entitlement to continued recognition for clarity.
``To have a property interest in a benefit,'' a person or entity must
``have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.'' Bd. of Regents of
State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 565, 577 (1972). Legitimate claims of
entitlement arise from sources of positive law, such as statutes or
regulations, that create reasonable expectations of specific benefits.
Id. Thus, because neither Section 496 of the HEA, nor the Department's
regulations, require the Secretary to grant recognition to an agency or
association or to continue such recognition after it is initially
granted, no such legitimate claim of entitlement or property interest
in such recognition can possibly exist. Adding this language to the
Department's regulations will simply serve to provide additional
clarity and will provide the Department with protection in the event an
accrediting agency who is denied recognition pursues legal action
against the Department.
We further clarify that the Department is not the enforcer of
antitrust law, but accrediting agencies are expected to comply with
federal law, including avoiding anti-competitive practices, and that
any findings by the Department of antitrust violations by agencies
would be based on competent legal authority.
Sec. 602.14 Purpose and Organization
Statute: Section 496(a)(2) of the HEA lists the categories of
accrediting agencies that the Department will recognize, including but
not limited to, a State agency listed by the Secretary as nationally
recognized on or before October 1, 1991; an agency with voluntary
membership of institutions that utilize the agency's accreditation to
access title IV, HEA programs; an agency that has voluntary membership
of institutions or programs that utilize the agency's accreditation to
access other Department or Federal programs; or an agency that has a
voluntary membership of individuals in a profession or programs within
institutions to access title IV, HEA programs. Section 496(a)(3)
requires an accrediting agency to operate ``separate and independent''
of any related, associated, or affiliated trade association or
membership organization unless that agency is categorized as having a
voluntary membership of institutions or programs that utilize the
agency's accreditation to access other Department or Federal programs.
Section 496(b) of the HEA defines the term ``separate and
independent''.
Current Regulations: The current regulations under Sec. 602.14(a)
generally mirror statutory requirements that prescribe which agencies
the Department can recognize. Similarly, Sec. 602.14(b) prescribes the
definition of ``separate and independent,'' which generally follows the
statutory framework.
Regulations under Sec. 602.14(c) allow for the joint use of
personnel, services, equipment, or facilities by an agency and a
related, associated or affiliated trade association or membership
organization and clarifies these shared resources do not violate
separate and independent requirements when certain firewalls are in
place. Paragraph Sec. 602.14(d) provides the parameters by which the
Secretary may waive the ``separate and independent'' requirements.
Finally, current regulations under Sec. 602.14(e) state that an agency
seeking a waiver of the ``separate and independent'' requirements must
apply for the waiver each time the agency seeks recognition or
continued recognition.
Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to remove the phrase
`` . . . or obtain a waiver of those requirements under paragraph (d)
of the section'' from Sec. 602.14(a)(4)(ii). The Department does not
interpret this change to eliminate any waiver authority that Congress
expressly provided in Sec. 496(a)(3)(C). Rather, the Department
concludes that no separate regulatory waiver process is necessary
because the Secretary retains whatever waiver authority the statute
itself provides.
We also propose to amend paragraphs (b)(1)-(5) and add new (b)(6).
We propose amending Sec. 602.14(b) to define ``separate and
independent'' as (1) the members of the agency's decision-making body,
who decide the accreditation or preaccreditation status of institutions
or programs, establish the agency's accreditation policies, or both,
are not elected or selected by the board or chief executive officer of
any related, associated, or affiliated trade association or
professional organization and are not staff of the related, associated,
or affiliated trade association or professional organization; (2) at
least one member of an the agency's decision-making body is a
representative of the public, and at least one-seventh of the body
consists of representatives of the public; (3) the agency has
established and implemented mandatory conflict of interest controls for
each member of the decision making body in accordance with Sec.
602.15(e); (4) the agency's dues are paid and held separately from any
dues paid to any related, associated, or affiliated trade association
or professional organization; (5) the agency develops and determines
its own budget, without review by or in
[[Page 53953]]
consultation with any other entity or organization, including any
related, associated or affiliated trade association or professional
organization; and (6) the authorized representative of the agency
submits a signed statement certifying that it has met the requirements
to be ``separate and independent'' within each petition for recognition
submitted to the Department, and includes in that statement information
regarding any complaints received during the current recognition period
that are material.
Finally, we proposed to remove and rescind Sec. 602.14(c) and (d).
Reasons: The proposed changes to Sec. 602.14 strengthen the fiscal
and administrative requirements that an agency must meet in order for
an agency to demonstrate that it is ``separate and independent'' from
any related, associated, or affiliated trade association or membership
organization. We propose to strike ``or obtains a waiver of those
requirements under paragraph (d) of this section'' from Sec.
602.14(a)(4)(ii) to no longer allow for waivers from compliance with
the separate and independent criteria. The Department also clarifies
that removal of the waiver may only affect those agencies eligible for
a waiver under the current regulations. The Department does not
interpret this change to eliminate any waiver authority that Congress
expressly provided in Sec. 496(a)(3)(C). Rather, the Department
concludes that no separate regulatory waiver process is necessary
because the Secretary retains whatever waiver authority the statute
itself provides. Section 496(a)(3)(C) of the HEA; statute also
clarifies that the granting of a waiver has been subject to the
Secretary's discretion. We believe that an accrediting agency's
decision-making body must not be influenced by any related, associated,
or affiliated trade association or professional organization, and the
waiver outlined under Sec. 602.14 (d) did not adequately restrict such
influence in the accreditation or preaccreditation of institutions or
programs. The ability for an agency to seek a waiver has the potential
to compromise some of the controls in place to prevent certain negative
consequences, such as credential inflation, restrictions on entry into
occupational fields, restrictions on the capacity of educational
institutions, and slower adoption of innovations.
There was extensive discussion by the AIM Committee surrounding
Sec. 602.14(c) and proposed changes. Negotiators were concerned that
accrediting agencies that share joint use or personnel services,
equipment, or facilities with a related, associated, or affiliated
trade association would be penalized, even if there was no interaction
between the two bodies. A few negotiators commented that some
localities have limited office space that could necessitate that need
to occupy the same facility; others pointed to the size of some
facilities and the ability to separate via multiple floors or office
spaces. One negotiator asked what the process would be for accrediting
agencies that currently occupy the same facility as the related,
associated, or affiliated trade association under a multiyear lease.
The Department reiterated its position that, at minimum, accrediting
agencies must avoid conflicts of interest by having separate personnel
services, equipment, or facilities with a related, associated or
affiliated trade association. Though we can appreciate the fact that
there may be some hurdles accrediting agencies may face when shifting
offices, that does not alleviate concerns that such proximity could
exacerbate relationships that are already too close. Further, the
Department clarified that we do not share the same concerns that an
agency may not be able to find a separate space to conduct activities.
The earliest these regulations would become effective is July 1, 2027,
which we believe is sufficient time for an agency to find separate
space and plan to comply with any changes in regulations. Additionally,
we have provided for additional time for an agency that currently has a
lease within the same facility at the related, associated or affiliated
trade association. Under Sec. 602.15(e)(4), the Department proposes to
provide agencies with an additional year to comply with any regulations
that affect shared spaces; therefore, the earliest date that agencies
would be expected to comply with the regulation would be July 1, 2028.
Sec. 602.15 Administrative and Fiscal Responsibilities
Statute: Section 496(c) of the HEA provides that no accrediting
agency or association may be recognized by the Secretary as a reliable
authority as to the quality of education or training offered by an
institution seeking to participate in title IV, HEA programs unless the
agency or association maintains specific operating procedures
enumerated therein. HEA section 496(c)(1) requires an accrediting
agency that wishes to be recognized by the Secretary to ensure
accreditation team members are well-trained and knowledgeable with
respect to their responsibilities.
With respect to those accrediting agencies serving as institutional
agencies, as well as for programmatic accrediting agencies (whether or
not the programmatic agency serves as a title IV gatekeeper), Section
496(a)(2) of the HEA requires that agency's membership be
``voluntary.''
Section 496(a)(4)(A) requires that to be recognized by the
Secretary, an accrediting agency or association must demonstrate that
it consistently applies and enforces standards that respect the stated
mission of the institution of higher education, including religious
missions, and that ensure that the education offered by the institution
of higher education is of sufficient quality to achieve the stated
objective for which the courses or the programs are offered.
Current Regulations: Current regulations under Sec. 602.15 require
that an accrediting agency has administrative and fiscal capability to
carry out accreditation activities in light of its scope of
recognition. An agency must demonstrate that it has (1) adequate staff
and financial resources, (2) competent and knowledgeable individuals,
qualified by education or experience to conduct on-site evaluations,
apply or establish policies, and make accreditation or preaccreditation
decisions, (3) academic and administrative personnel on its evaluation,
policy, and decision-making bodies, if an institutional agency, (4)
educators, practitioners, and employers on its evaluation, policy and
decision-making bodies, if a programmatic agency, (5) representatives
of the public on all decision-making bodies, and (6) clear and
effective controls to prevent or resolve conflicts of interest by the
agency's board members, commissioners, evaluation team members,
consultants, administrative staff, and other agency representatives.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend the regulations at Sec.
602.15 to add that the agency must have conflict of interest controls
that apply to its own activities to carry out its accreditation
activities in light of its requested scope of recognition. We propose
to amend Sec. 602.15(a) to state that the agency meets this
requirement if it demonstrates that it has (1) adequate administrative
staff and financial resources to carry out its accrediting
responsibilities, (2) competent and knowledgeable individuals,
qualified by education or experience in their own right as appropriate
for their roles, (3) training provided to all agency representatives
and staff that includes topics related to best practices in various
educational delivery methods, models, and modalities; innovative or
lower-cost educational delivery models that may provide high quality
education to students; and avoiding unnecessary costs to institutions
in the accreditation process, and (4) representatives of the
[[Page 53954]]
public on all decision-making bodies. We propose to move and amend the
requirements currently at Sec. 602.15(a)(6) to Sec. 602.15(e).
In addition to amending existing requirements under Sec. 602.15,
we propose to add four additional requirements for an agency to
demonstrate administrative and fiscal responsibilities.
We propose at Sec. 602.15(c) that that the agency must conduct its
accreditation activities in a manner that seeks to avoid unnecessary
financial, compliance, and administrative burdens, including by
avoiding duplicative reporting, excessive documentation requirements,
and unwarranted prescriptive processes.
We propose at Sec. 602.15(d) that the agency will cooperate with
other agencies and the Department in the development of common
templates and forms for institutions or programs to submit when seeking
to change accrediting agencies.
We propose at Sec. 602.15(e) that the agency has clear and
effective controls, including guidelines, to (1) prevent or resolve
conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest, by
the agency's officers and directors, employees (including temporary,
part-time, and full-time employees), evaluation team members,
consultants and contractors, volunteers, and other agency
representatives, (2) ensure that members of the standards-setting body,
which may include members of the decision-making body, do not vote as
members of the decision-making body on the setting of standards or
policies that affect any institution or program that of which such a
member is an officer, director, or employee, (3) determine its dues
without review by any related, associated, or affiliated trade
association or professional organization, (4) disallow shared
resources, such as personnel, services, equipment, facilities, or
information technology, nor have office space in the same building as
any related, associated, or affiliated trade association or
professional organization. The requirement for separate office space
will take effect one year after the effective date of the final
regulations, (5) ensure that any officers, directors, employees, or
volunteers of the agency do not share or solicit feedback regarding the
agency's policies, standards, or decisions with respect to any
institution or program from any related, associated, or affiliated
trade association or professional association, (6) prominently disclose
on its website all relationships with related, associated, or
affiliated trade associations or professional organizations, and (7)
not act to restrict access to employment in a profession, occupation,
or vocation unless the agency provides notice of clear and convincing
evidence to the Secretary that the restriction is necessary to protect
the public interest; the expected public benefits outweigh the costs to
the public from reduced access to the profession, occupation, or
vocation; and no less restrictive alternative would adequately protect
the public interest. We propose that restricting access to employment
includes taking steps to increase credentialing standards; increasing
the cost or level of required education or training; or decreasing the
availability of education or training in a manner that may benefit any
related, associated, or affiliated trade association or professional
organization.
Finally, we propose at Sec. 602.15(f) that the agency's
accreditation standards, policies and enforcement practices must not
restrict public institutions from fulfilling their obligations under
the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. These
standards similarly also must not restrict any private institutions
that, through their institutional policies, guarantee the same or
similar protections for students or faculty, unless the institution has
a religious mission.
Reasons: The Department proposes to amend 34 CFR 602.15 to provide
accrediting agencies with the flexibility necessary to adopt policies
and procedures that encourage innovation and minimize unnecessary
expenses for institutions, while simultaneously requiring agencies to
operate in an open, transparent manner. The Department also seeks to
add language to 34 CFR 602.15 for the purposes of clarifying that
accrediting agencies should be composed of a ``voluntary'' membership
and to require accrediting agencies to adopt policies designed to
restrict anticompetitive behavior that could preclude institutions or
programs from choosing, or switching to, the agency which best aligns
with the institution's or program's educational mission.
First, to provide additional flexibility to accrediting agencies,
the Department proposes to eliminate the current requirement in 34 CFR
602.15(a)(3) that institutional agencies include academic and
administrative personnel on their evaluation, policy, and decision-
making bodies. Likewise, the Department proposes to remove the current
requirement in 34 CFR 602.15(a)(4) for programmatic accrediting
agencies to include educators, practitioners, and/or employers on their
evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies. Instead, the Department
proposes to reduce the burden by simplifying these requirements by
expecting that all accrediting agencies possess competent and
knowledgeable individuals, qualified by education or experience, and
trained by the agency on their responsibilities, as appropriate for
their roles. The Department believes that this change will allow
accrediting agencies the discretion to adopt the structures necessary
to best perform their function and respond to the needs of their
membership.
Additionally, the Department proposes to require accrediting
agencies to adopt procedures necessary to manage conflicts of interest
and prevent collusion between agencies, the institutions or programs
which they accredit, related, associated, or affiliated trade
associations, or professional organizations which could lead to
accrediting agencies engaging in anticompetitive behavior that would
compromise the ``voluntary'' membership of the agency and taint the
agency's ability to apply and enforce its standards in a consistent
manner. While the current regulations require accrediting agencies to
adopt controls to manage conflicts of interest, the Department believes
that it necessary to increase the specificity of these requirements, in
recognition of the influence that agencies, both institutional and
programmatic, wield over the institutions and programs that they
accredit. To this end, the Department proposes requiring accrediting
agencies to prominently disclose their relationships with related,
associated, or affiliated trade associations and adopt controls to
ensure that such organizations do not influence an agency's independent
evaluation of the institutions and programs they accredit.
In this same vein, the Department proposes adding language barring
accrediting agencies from acting to restrict employment in a given
profession, occupation, or vocation. The purpose of this change is to
ensure that agencies do not attempt to establish a monopoly over the
accreditation of certain types of programs or institutions,
particularly those that may lead to credential inflation, resulting in
increased costs to students and lengthier time to credential. However,
the Department recognizes that certain restrictions on access to
employment in specific professions, occupations, or vocations may be
necessary to protect the public interest, such as ensuring sufficient
level of quality and safety in job performance. To this end, the
Department proposes adding provisions
[[Page 53955]]
that allow accrediting agencies to act to create such restrictions, so
long as the agency provides clear and convincing evidence that such
restrictions are necessary to the public interest.
Finally, the Department proposes to add language that explicitly
bars accrediting agencies from adopting or enforcing policies that
would prevent public institutions from fulfilling their obligations
under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or
private institutions from adopting policies which guarantee similar
protections to students and faculty. The Department believes that this
requirement is necessary to ensure that all institutions or programs
are treated in a consistent manner by accrediting agencies and that
agencies do not take actions that would unnecessarily restrict free
inquiry and academic discourse at institutions or programs.
Sec. 602.16 Accreditation and Preaccreditation Standards
Statute: Section 496(a)(5) states that accrediting agencies must
establish standards of accreditation to assess the institution's or
program's success with respect to student achievement, curricula,
faculty, facilities, fiscal and administrative capacity, student
support services, recruiting and admissions practices, program length
and credentials, student complaints, and compliance with program
responsibilities under title IV of the HEA.
Current Regulations: The current regulations require that an
accrediting agency's standards set forth clear expectations for the
institutions or programs it accredits under the same criteria as listed
under the Statute heading of this section. The accrediting agency's
preaccreditation standards, if offered, must relate to its
accreditation standards and not span more than five years before a
final action is made.
Specifically, Sec. 602.16(a)(1) and (a)(1)(i) require that the
agency's accreditation standards must set forth expectations for the
institutions or programs it accredits in the following areas, including
success with respect to student achievement in relation to the
institution's mission, which may include different standards for
different institutions or programs, as established by the institution,
including, as appropriate, consideration of State licensing
examinations, course completion, and job placement rates.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 602.16(a)(1) and
(a)(1)(i) to require that the agency's accreditation standards must
establish requirements for the institutions or programs it accredits in
the following areas: (i) Success with respect to student achievement at
the institutional and program level in relation to the institution's
mission, which may include different standards for different
institutions or programs, as established by the institution, including,
as appropriate, consideration of State licensing examinations, course
completion, and job placement rates, as described in Sec.
602.17(a)(1). We also propose under Sec. 602.16(f) that an agency that
has established and applies the standards in paragraph (a) of this
section may establish any additional lawful accreditation standards
that are consistent with ensuring institutional or programmatic quality
and integrity, as it deems appropriate.
Reasons: The proposed edits under Sec. 602.16 eliminate
subjectivity and increase the clarity of the regulations by changing
``set forth clear expectations'' to the proposed ``establish
requirements'' under Sec. 602.16(a)(1), which does not change the
effect of the regulation, and adding ``at the institutional and program
level'' under Sec. 602.16 (a)(1)(i). Also, under Sec.
602.16(a)(1)(i), we propose to add a cross reference to Sec.
602.17(a)(1) to provide accrediting agencies with clarity on the
application of standards.
Finally, we added clarifying language to Sec. 602.16(f) to require
that any additional standard that an accrediting agency adopts beyond
those required by Section 496 of the HEA does not violate any other
Federal law and is consistent with ensuring institutional or
programmatic quality and integrity. In amending these standards, we
also address one of the goals of E.O. 14279, which is to ensure that
accrediting agencies do not force institutions or programs to violate
State laws, unless those conflict with Federal law or the Constitution.
For example, this requirement would prohibit an agency from holding a
standard that would require its recognized institutions or programs to
only hire faculty 30 years old or younger. Such a standard would
violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, therefore
placing the institution in violation of Federal law due to the agency's
policies. A policy such as this would neither be lawful, nor would it
contribute to the evaluation or assurance of quality or integrity at an
institution or program.
Sec. 602.17 Application of Standards in Reaching Accreditation
Decisions
Statute: Section 496(a)(6)(A) states that no accrediting agency or
association may be determined by the Secretary to be a reliable
authority as to the quality of education or training offered or for
other Federal purposes, unless the agency or association meets criteria
established by the Secretary. The Secretary shall, after notice and
opportunity for a hearing, establish criteria for such determinations.
Such criteria shall include an appropriate measure or measures of
student achievement. Such criteria shall require that such an agency or
association establish and apply review procedures throughout the
accrediting process, including evaluation and withdrawal proceedings,
which comply with due process procedures.
Current Regulations: Current regulations require that the agency
have effective mechanisms for evaluating an institution's or program's
compliance with the agency's standards before reaching a decision to
accredit or preaccredit the institution or program. The agency meets
this requirement if the agency demonstrates that it evaluates whether
the institution or program maintains clearly specified educational
objectives that are consistent with its mission and appropriate in
light of the degrees or certificates awarded; is successful in
achieving its stated objectives at both the institutional and program
levels; and maintains requirements that at least conform to commonly
accepted academic standards, or the equivalent, including pilot
programs in Sec. 602.18(b). The regulations also state that an
agency's standards must require an institution or program to engage in
a self-study process that assesses the institution's or program's
education quality and success in meeting its mission and objectives; to
highlight opportunities for improvement; and include a plan for making
those improvements. The regulations also require an accrediting agency
to conduct at least one on-site review of the institution or program
during which it obtains sufficient information to determine if the
institution or program complies with the agency's standards. The
current regulations also require an agency to allow the institution or
program the opportunity to respond in writing to the report of the on-
site review.
Current regulations also require an agency to conduct its own
analysis of the self-study and supporting documentation furnished by
the institution or program, the report of the on-site review, the
institution's or program's response to the report, and any other
information substantiated by the agency from other sources to determine
whether the institution or program complies with the agency's
[[Page 53956]]
standards. They also require an agency to provide the institution or
program with a detailed written report that assesses the institution's
or program's compliance with the agency's standards, including areas
needing improvement, and the institution's or program's performance
with respect to student achievement.
Finally, the regulations require an agency's standards to ensure
institutions have processes in place through which the institution
establishes that a student who registers in any course offered via
distance education or correspondence is the same student who
academically engages in the course or program. Regulations also require
it to be stated, clearly and in writing, that institutions must use
processes that protect student privacy and notify students of any
projected additional student charges associated with the verification
of student identity at the time of registration or enrollment.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 602.17(a) to tie
process of an agency applying and reviewing the standards to the
standards as set forth under Sec. 602.16. The remainder of Sec.
602.17(a) would require that the accrediting agency evaluates whether
an institution or program maintains clearly specified educational
objectives, which may include credit for prior learning, that are
consistent with its mission and appropriate in light of the degrees or
certificates awarded that are developed, regularly reviewed, and
updated using reliable data. We propose that, as appropriate to the
accrediting agency's own standards, it reviews an institution's student
success with respect to student achievement at both the institutional
and program levels, including minimum expectations, by assessing State
licensing or certification examination results, where applicable to the
program of study; program retention, completion, or graduation rates,
including as appropriate the extent to which grades meaningfully
reflect student learning and support progression through the program of
study, post-completion or graduation outcomes, including employment and
continued education; scores on relevant standardized assessments taken
for admission to a higher-level degree, during and after the time of
enrollment at an institution, as available; and educational and
economic returns aligned to the program's credential level, length, and
occupational context relative to the total cost of attendance. Such
returns shall be assessed using the earnings data calculated under 34
CFR 668 Subpart Q, enhanced Unemployment Insurance wage records, or
other reliable earnings data available to the agency.
We propose that when applying its standards on faculty, the
accrediting agency evaluate whether an institution maintains a
sufficient number of appropriately qualified faculty and other subject
matter instructors who are regularly evaluated on the performance of
their instructional, research, or service responsibilities and applies
written faculty performance evaluation policies that include defined
performance criteria and are conducted on a periodic basis. The
accrediting agency would be required to maintain academic freedom
protections that are clearly articulated and applied consistently to
faculty regardless of appointment classification, race or other
immutable characteristics, viewpoint, or ideology, unless the
institution has a religious mission. If an institution has a religious
mission, the agency would evaluate whether the institution maintains
academic freedom protections that are consistent with the institution's
religious mission and applied consistently to faculty, regardless of
appointment classification, race or other immutable characteristics,
and with sufficient flexibility in instructional staffing policies and
procedures to respond to persistent, material changes in student
demand, program viability, or financial conditions. In addition, in the
case of public institutions, the agency would be required to
consistently apply polices that protect the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. The agency should similarly evaluate
any private institution that, through its institutional policies,
guarantees the same or similar protections for students or faculty. The
agency would also be required to maintain policies regarding the
integrity of scholarly activity, research, and practices designed to
prevent, detect, and address fabrication, material misrepresentation or
falsification, plagiarism, and other forms of research misconduct. This
would need to include mechanisms for timely investigation, corrective
actions, and, as appropriate, public disclosure. Agencies would need to
evaluate whether institutions have a policy, or policies, to protect
civil rights and, as applicable, First Amendment rights, and whether
such policy or policies include academic freedom protections that are
clearly articulated and applied consistently to faculty regardless of
appointment classification, race or other immutable characteristics,
viewpoint, or ideology, unless the institution has a religious mission.
We propose to require that such policies must also include academic
freedom and freedom of inquiry protections for faculty in teaching,
scholarship, and research within the subject matter of a course and
research within their academic discipline, including conditions under
which a range of academic perspectives may be expressed and examined
without adverse action based on lawful viewpoints unrelated to
professional or academic competence, unless the institution has a
religious mission. In the case of a private institution, agencies would
be required to assess policies that, if established, guarantee the same
or similar protections.
We propose to require a recognized accrediting agency to establish
a policy that is designed to support, promote, and appropriately
prioritize intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas
amongst faculty, to include elements that address intellectual inquiry
and student learning, and measures student and faculty perceptions on
the range of viewpoints and perspectives offered by the institution or
program, unless the institution or program has a religious mission. If
an institution or program has a religious mission, the policy would
need to include elements that address intellectual inquiry and student
learning that are consistent with the institution's religious mission.
We propose that when applying its standards related to facilities,
equipment, and supplies and student support services, agencies conduct
a cost/benefit analysis, which means a review by the agency of the
institution's budget, resource utilization and allocation, and if
existing, its business/strategic plan, continuous improvement strategic
plan, and review of whether the institution considers whether the
expected benefits of the institution's activities justify the
associated financial, administrative and opportunity costs, and the
impact of capital expenditures on future operating expenses. Agencies
would also be required to conduct a review of an institution's
practices and capabilities regarding the administration of student aid
programs, and of the sufficiency and proper maintenance of the
institution's facilities to ensure that such facilities comply with
applicable safety standards, laws, and regulations.
We propose, when applying its standards on program length and the
objectives of degrees or credential offered, an accrediting agency
seeks to ensure that program length is appropriate to the objectives of
the program and credential awarded at the institution. In applying its
standard, the agency must not categorically prohibit or unreasonably
restrict the
[[Page 53957]]
accreditation of a short-term program that is designed to prepare
students for employment in recognized occupations eligible for Federal
student aid under applicable law or a certificate or degree program
offered for a shorter period of time than is traditionally required to
obtain that credential, so long as the program results in comparable
academic, professional, and employment outcomes for students who would
complete such programs.
We changed the initial wording slightly (without changing the
meaning) in subparagraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (v) from the consensus
language to grammatically align them with the stem and the rest of the
sentence structure.
We propose to add new Sec. 602.17(b), which would establish
requirements for how an agency must apply and determine an
institution's or program's compliance with its standards. We propose to
remove the current requirement for self-study and replace it with the
requirement for a comprehensive review process, that may include self-
study. We propose to make conforming changes throughout Sec. 602.17,
renumbering current paragraphs (b)-(f) to 602.17(b)(1)-(5). We propose
to move current 602.17(g) to 602.17(c), in which a clarifying, non-
substantive technical edit is made. Our proposal also strikes the
current paragraph at 602.17(h).
We propose to add Sec. 602.17(d) to require that, when applying
its standards, an agency seeks to reduce unnecessary barriers which
restrict the ability of institutions or programs from adopting
instructional, programmatic, or delivery practices that improve student
access, accelerate credential or degree completion, or support
innovative models of postsecondary education, including program length.
We propose to add Sec. 602.17(e) to require that the agency
adopts, implements, and enforces written policies and procedures that
seek to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and integrity of all
representations made by the agency tot The Secretary, the public,
including current and prospective students, State, Tribal, and other
governmental authorities, and institutions or programs it accredits or
preaccredits.
Under proposed Sec. 602.17(f), we would require that the agency
has policies to ensure it does not knowingly make false, misleading, or
materially incomplete statements regarding the accreditation or
preaccreditation status of any institution or program; the scope,
conditions, or implications of accreditation or preaccreditation, or
compliance of an institution or program with applicable Federal or
State law.
We propose to require that the accrediting agency maintain
procedures for the prompt correction of materially inaccurate public
statements or disclosures, maintains procedures for investigating
credible allegations that the agency or its representatives made
materially inaccurate or misleading representations, and takes
appropriate corrective or disciplinary action when it determines that
materially inaccurate or misleading representations have occurred.
We propose under Sec. 602.17(g) that the agency may not have
standards that encourage, direct, or otherwise require institutions or
programs to violate Federal or State law, including by having policies
that provide any preferences on the basis of race.
Finally, under Sec. 602.17(h) we propose to state that nothing in
this section would be construed to require any action that would
conflict with applicable Federal or State law.
Reasons: In amending Sec. 602.17(a), we propose to codify in
regulation that the stipulations for review and evaluation under this
section is how accrediting agencies must evaluate and monitor its
established standards in accordance with Sec. 602.16 at its recognized
institutions and programs. When applying these standards, the
Department anticipates that accrediting agencies will use data to
ensure continuous improvement in their programs and consistent
evaluation against previous benchmarks. We proposed changes under Sec.
602.17(a)(1) to ensure that standards related to student achievement
may include credit for prior learning. This ensures that a priority of
E.O. 14279 is addressed, which requested that the Department reduce
barriers to agencies implementing innovative practices to advance
credential completion and establishing new educational models.
Requiring accrediting agencies to evaluate prior credit ensures that
educational programs and coursework becomes stackable, and that
students retain high-quality prior credit to shorten time to
completion, as well as keep credit earned from outside learning while
enrolled at a program. Additionally, the proposed requirements to
regularly review degree or certificate offerings using reliable data
continues to emphasize several of the Administration's goals, which is
to ensure that there are objective measures of quality utilized
alongside of subjective measures. Using reliable data ensures that
programs are evaluated against the same metrics and can be
comparatively weighted to ensure accountability in higher education.
These data may also speak to the quality of outcomes upon graduation,
including employment rates, placement rates, or average wages. Note
that the Department may provide more clarity on how an agency may
assess ``relevant standardized assessments'' taken for admission to a
higher-level degree in the future sub-regulatory guidance.
We propose changes to Sec. 602.17(a)(2), and the addition of Sec.
602.17(a)(1)(ii), to set expectations that accrediting agencies must
adhere to when evaluating institutions and programs for standards
related to student achievement. The proposed addition of Sec.
602.17(a)(2) would set expectations to which accrediting agencies must
adhere when evaluating institutions and programs for standards related
to faculty. This addition includes Sec. 602.17(a)(2)(iii)-(viii) to
implement the requirements in E.O. 14279 which ``requires that
institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual
diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom,
intellectual inquiry, and student learning'' and to ensure that
``accreditors are not using their role under Federal law to encourage
or force institution to violate State laws, unless such State laws
violate the Constitution or Federal law.'' The Department's goal in
instituting these regulations is to support academic freedom and
intellectual diversity on college campuses as a critical component of
educational quality. Diversity of thought and perspectives help inform
students' decision-making, research, and practices.
The Department believes promoting intellectual diversity at
postsecondary institutions will also help to increase critical thinking
amongst students. As students graduate and enter the workforce, their
jobs, family, and many other life circumstances will require strong
critical thinking skills. Individuals will be able to make more
thoughtful, well-developed decisions having been exposed to a diversity
of thought during college. Intellectual diversity will also expose
students to a wide variety of perspectives which will encourage them to
express their own views and strengthen their understanding of their
rights to constitutionally protected speech. We also believe that
healthy debate is necessary, and intellectual diversity will encourage
students to engage in meaningful conversations with professors and
other students. Students can find common ground on various subjects or
simply agree to disagree but still come away with a full
[[Page 53958]]
understanding of other thoughts and viewpoints.
The intent is not to prescribe specific institutional policies or
override institutional autonomy, but rather to ensure that sufficient
consideration is given to ensuring intellectual diversity is present on
campus. The proposed regulations would also require accrediting
agencies to ensure that accredited public institutions' policies,
practices, and procedures comport with the First Amendment, as
interpreted by Federal courts, including with respect to viewpoint
nondiscrimination, religious nondiscrimination, and speech protections.
Such references, throughout the regulations, are not intended to make
accrediting agencies the arbiters of constitutional law, but to ensure
institutions have and apply policies consistent with legal
requirements. Further, accrediting agencies are not expected to
investigate or enforce civil rights law but to ensure institutions have
policies and respond appropriately to findings by competent
authorities. The accrediting agency's role is to ensure institutions
have and apply appropriate policies, not to adjudicate legal disputes
or act as enforcement agencies. The HEA does not define the term
``academic freedom''. During negotiated rulemaking, the Department
proposed a definition of academic freedom. While we believe that the
proposal was clear and represented a fair interpretation of the phrase,
a few negotiators dissented to the inclusion of a definition of
academic freedom in the regulations. The Department subsequently
removed the definition from the proposal; instead, we propose to
require that agencies adopt and implement standards for evaluating if
an institution has a policy for academic freedom. For reference, the
Department's non-binding proposed language for adoption is represented
below. We are not requiring agencies or institutions to apply this
definition; however, if an agency or institution does apply this
definition, we believe that would meet the requirements of the E.O. and
our proposed regulations.
Academic Freedom:
(1) Means the freedom of faculty to:
(i) conduct research, publish their findings, and teach without
undue interference and engage in discussion of any matter germane to
the subject of the course being taught; and
(ii) speak and write in their personal capacity, provided that such
activities are lawful and comply with applicable institutional rules
and policies, and that faculty do not represent their views as those of
the institution.
(2) Does not include the freedom to introduce, or solicit
discussion of, material that is not germane to the subject of the
course being taught.
(3) Nothing in this definition shall be construed to prohibit
institutions or accrediting agencies from adopting and enforcing
policies reasonably designed to promote intellectual diversity, the
exposure of students to a range of scholarly viewpoints, or the
balanced presentation of competing perspectives, so long as such
policies do not infringe the core protections of academic freedom
described in this section.
The proposed Sec. 602.17(a)(2)(vi) requires that, in evaluating
whether an institution is in compliance with an agency's standards, the
agency must evaluate whether an institution maintains policies related
to research misconduct. Research misconduct includes, but is not
limited to, plagiarism, material misrepresentation of research
findings, including through undisclosed selective reporting or other
practices that distort the accuracy or reliability of results. We
believe that accrediting agencies must ensure institutions have
policies in place to prevent faculty members from engaging in improper
authorship attribution, citation manipulation, or coordinated practices
intended to inflate or misrepresent scholarly impact. We encourage the
use of artificial intelligence to enhance productivity, streamline
processes, and make teaching more efficient. However, we also believe
agencies and institutions must ensure that artificial intelligence is
not used by faculty to supplant teaching and instruction. We do not
believe that artificial intelligence should degrade methods in the
conduct and presentation of research. The proposed regulations help to
maintain integrity of research and among the institution's faculty by
encouraging responsible uses of beneficial technology. Students benefit
from the research activities of institutions of higher education in
many ways. Many students have opportunities to work directly with
faculty on research projects and gain valuable experience and exposure
to cutting-edge technology and ideas. Faculty involved in research are
better able to teach students about current ideas in their disciplines.
Research that is not conducted with integrity, however, will not convey
these benefits to students, and can even tarnish the reputations of
students involved in unethical research and teach the wrong lessons.
Additionally, the proposal will benefit taxpayers by ensuring that the
education system they help fund is built upon integrity and responsible
practice.
We propose to add Sec. 602.17(a)(3)(i) and (ii), which would
require accrediting agencies to conduct a cost/benefit analysis to
review and ensure institutions have sufficient flexibility in
instructional staffing policies and policies regarding integrity of
scholarly activity. The addition of this language is intended to
provide relief for students and taxpayers who have suffered increased
debt burdens through costly standards of accreditation, whether that be
decreasing the number of students allowed in a classroom at once,
requiring increased student to teacher ratios where not necessarily
required, or decreasing the number of courses a professor is required
to teach, thereby adding additional hiring costs. These regulations
would allow greater institutional flexibility to control costs and to
make cost efficiency a factor that accrediting agencies consider when
evaluating whether to implement certain standards, and in evaluating
whether changes made by a recognized program or institution are
justifiably necessary to the quality of the program at the cost
proposed. The intent is not to require burdensome analyses for every
expenditure, but to encourage prudent, evidence-based decision-making.
The Department also proposes to add Sec. 602.17(a)(4), which
provides that agencies must evaluate whether the length of a program is
appropriate to the goals of such program and the credential sought. In
proposing this regulation, the Department seeks to ensure that program
length is not artificially extended in order to seek additional revenue
from a student. For example, when evaluating programs in accordance
with the proposed regulation, the Department would expect that
accrediting bodies would weigh the length of the program against peer
programs. A bachelor's degree that requires five years of education may
be a program that an agency would feel to be inappropriate in length,
given the nation-wide standard of four-year bachelor's degrees.
Conversely, an agency must also ensure that the program length is
sufficient to provide the appropriate education, which may be more
subjective and varied at the graduate level. This provision would
require the agency to conduct careful evaluation to ensure that Federal
student aid dollars, and taxpayer resources, are not being used
inappropriately to increase an institution's bottom line. In adding
this provision to regulations, we aim to continue to decrease barriers
that limit
[[Page 53959]]
innovation and practices that advance credential completion.
Proposed changes to Sec. 602.17(b) would eliminate the requirement
that an institution or program engage only in a ``self-study'' and
allow agencies to implement innovative and comprehensive approaches to
evaluating the quality of an institution or program. We believe that
only allowing institutions to conduct a self-study is limiting, and new
approaches for reflection and evaluation should be encouraged to spur
competition and advancement in accreditation. During self-study the
institution or program seeking recognition prepares an in-depth self-
evaluation study that measures its performance against the standards
established by the accrediting agency. We believe innovation is key to
advancing evaluation of academic quality. Relying on a one-size fits
all approach discourages progress and new methodologies from emerging
that may be better than a self-study. Accrediting agencies can continue
to require a self-study; however, other options may be better for
institutions. Institutions may prefer an independent audit or a review
from business leaders in the community or region that the institution
is located among forms of evaluation.
The proposed addition of Sec. 602.17(d) is a direct application of
the requirement in E.O. 14279 that prohibits accrediting agencies from
engaging in practices that result in credential inflation that burdens
students with additional unnecessary costs. One of the most common
letters that the Department receives from the public is regarding the
high cost of attendance at postsecondary institutions. Many prospective
students have written to the Department requesting more be done
regarding overall costs to credential completion. By prohibiting
agencies from establishing unnecessary barriers to actions that may
improve access, accelerate credential completion, or support innovative
models around program length, the Department is taking the necessary
steps to encourage agencies and institutions to think about and enact
policies that reduce a student's need to borrow more. The proposed
addition of Sec. 602.17(e) seeks to mandate that the accrediting
agency has a policy that ensures that accredited institutions only
present factual information to stakeholders. The proposal ensures
transparency and consistency, while also protecting taxpayers and
students by adding requirements regarding misrepresentation and fraud.
We proposed to add Sec. 602.17(f) to require integrity and
transparency in the public communications and policy of accrediting
agencies. Accurate statements from accrediting agencies about
accredited and preaccreditation institutions serve to protect and
safeguard students, taxpayers and postsecondary institutions.
The proposed addition of Sec. 602.17(g) reinforces the
Department's objective, and a goal of E.O. 14279, of ensuring that
higher education programs are free from unlawful discrimination or
other violations of Federal law. As noted above, this does not intend
to make the agency the arbiter of any violation of Federal law, but
rather ensures that the agency evaluates any glaring violations of such
law. The proposed language under Sec. 602.17(g) related to
discrimination or preferences is limited to those practices that are
unlawful under Federal or State law, and not intended to prohibit
lawful single-sex or mission-based practices.
Finally, the proposed addition of Sec. 602.17(h) confirms that
these regulations do not require an accrediting agency to violate
applicable Federal or State law to demonstrate compliance.
The changes proposed in Sec. 602.17 are intended to provide
flexibility when taking into account institutional mission, program
type, and other contexts.
Sec. 602.18 Ensuring Consistency in Decision-Making
Statute: Section 496(a)(4)(A) states that the Secretary shall
establish criteria to require that such agency or association
consistently applies and enforces standards that respect the stated
mission of the institution of higher education, including religious
missions, and that ensure that the courses or programs of instruction,
training, or study offered by the institution of higher education,
including distance education or correspondence courses or programs, are
of sufficient quality to achieve, for the duration of the accreditation
period, the stated objective for which the courses or the programs are
offered.
Current Regulations: The current regulations under Sec. 602.18(a)
require accrediting agencies to consistently apply and enforce
standards that respect the stated mission of the institution and ensure
that its instruction is of sufficient quality to achieve its stated
objective for the accreditation or preaccreditation period.
The current regulations under Sec. 602.18(b) require an
accrediting agency to have written specification of the requirements
for accreditation and preaccreditation, have effective controls against
inconsistent application of standards, base decisions on published
standards, have a reasonable basis for determining that information is
reliable, and provide the institution or program with a detailed
written report that identifies deficiencies and publish policies for
retroactive accreditation.
The current regulations at Sec. 602.18(c) state that nothing
prohibits an agency, when special circumstances exist, to include
innovative program delivery approaches or, when an undue hardship on
students occurs, from applying equivalent written standards, policies,
and procedures that provide alternative means of satisfying one or more
of the requirements set forth in 34 CFR 602.16, 602.17, 602.19, 602.20,
602.22, and 602.24, as compared with written standards, policies, and
procedures the agency ordinarily applies as along as certain conditions
are met.
The regulations under Sec. 602.18(d) state that nothing prohibits
an agency from permitting the institution or program to be out of
compliance with one or more of its standards, policies, and procedures
adopted in satisfaction of Sec. Sec. 602.16, 602.17, 602.19, 602.20,
602.22, and 602.24 for a period of time, as determined by the agency
annually, not to exceed three years unless the agency determines there
is good cause to extend the period of time and meets several other
regulatory requirements.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to add new paragraph Sec.
602.18(b)(4) that states that the agency meets the requirement in
paragraph (a) of this section if the agency ``has adopted and followed
procedures to ensure that agency decisions are neutral with respect to
viewpoint and ideology that are unrelated to its accrediting policies
or standards, except that nothing in this paragraph requires an
accrediting agency with a religious mission to be neutral with respect
to viewpoints,'' followed by conforming changes to renumber current
paragraphs 602.18(b)(4)-602.18(b)(6) to 602.18(b)(5)-602.18(b)(7).
We propose to amend paragraph Sec. 602.18(c) to codify that
nothing prohibits an agency from reducing barriers that limit
institutions and programs from adopting practices that advance
credential and degree completion, and that promote new models of
education by applying equivalent written standards, policies, and
procedures that provide alternative means of satisfying one or more of
the requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 602.16, 602.17, 602.19,
602.20, 602.22, and 602.24, as compared with written standards,
policies, and procedures the agency ordinarily applies as long as
conditions under the current regulations
[[Page 53960]]
are met. Finally, we propose rescinding Sec. 602.18(d).
Reasons: We propose the addition of paragraph Sec. 602.18(b)(4) to
ensure that accrediting agencies remain neutral towards viewpoint
diversity and prioritize diversity of thought on campuses. Within this,
we also recognize that there are several accrediting agencies or
associations with religious missions. As such, we stipulate here that
this does not apply to institutions accredited by these agencies, in
the name of respecting the mission of such an agency. We propose edits
to paragraph (c) to clarify that the Department encourages new
education models to accelerate innovation and improve accountability by
establishing new flexible and streamlined quality assurance pathways
for higher education institutions that provide high-quality, high-value
academic programs.
We rescinded Sec. 602.18(d) because we propose to move to the
language to Sec. 602.20 with modifications, as described below.
Sec. 602.20 Enforcement of Standards
Statute: Section 496(a)(4)(A) states that an accrediting agency
consistently applies and enforces standards that respect the stated
mission of the institution of higher education. Section 496(a)(6)
states that an accrediting agency or association shall establish and
apply review procedures throughout the accrediting process, including
evaluation and withdrawal proceedings, which comply with due process
procedures. Finally, Section 496(e) states that the Secretary may not
recognize the accreditation of any institution of higher education
unless the institution of higher education agrees to submit any dispute
involving the final denial, withdrawal, or termination of accreditation
to initial arbitration prior to any other legal action.
Current Regulations: Under current Sec. 602.20(a)(4), if the
agency's review of an institution or program under any standard
indicates that the institution or program is not in compliance with
that standard, the agency must have a written policy to evaluate and
approve or disapprove monitoring or compliance reports it requires,
provide ongoing monitoring, if warranted, and evaluate an institution's
or program's progress in resolving the finding of noncompliance. The
regulations prescribe the procedures an accrediting agency must
implement if it finds an institution or program out of compliance.
Additionally, Sec. 602.20(e) requires that all adverse actions are
subject to arbitration requirements.
Proposed Regulations: Under Sec. 602.20(a)(4), we propose to
remove the requirement that an accrediting agency be required to
approve or disapprove monitoring or compliance reports and provide
ongoing monitoring, if warranted, for an institution or program that is
non-compliant with any one of the agency's standards. The proposed
paragraph would require that an accrediting agency have a written
policy to evaluate an institution's or program's progress in resolving
the finding of noncompliance. Under Sec. 602.20(e), we propose to add
language to the existing paragraph to require that any agency
arbitration standard or policy must be nonbinding, except that both
parties may agree to binding arbitration after a dispute arises on a
case-by-case basis. If an agency has an arbitration policy or standard,
it must apply to all final adverse actions, however, an agency may
require the institution or program to first exhaust the agency's appeal
process; ensure that the arbitration process is fair and impartial; and
provide for a transparent and reasonable period of time for resolution
of disputes.
We propose adding new Sec. 602.20(h). Under the proposed
regulations, an agency must have a policy for restoring accreditation
(including retroactive restoration) in circumstances that the agency
determines are appropriate, including if required by an applicable
judicial decision.
As noted above in our description of the reasons for proposed
amendments to Sec. 602.18, we propose moving current Sec. 602.18(d)
to a new Sec. 602.20(i) and to make one amendment to remove current
602.18(d)(1)(v).
Reasons: We proposed the edits to Sec. 602.20(a)(4) to simplify
regulations. We believe the current language is confusing to
accrediting agencies since we use the terms ``monitoring or compliance
reports,'' which are defined at Sec. 602.3 as applicable to an agency,
not an institution or program. We believe removing the language does
not substantively change the requirement; accrediting agencies will
still need to have a written policy to evaluate an institution's or
program's progress in resolving a finding on noncompliance.
We propose the additions under Sec. 602.20(e) to more closely
align with the statutory text. Section 496(e) of the HEA states that
``The Secretary may not recognize the accreditation of any institution
of higher education unless the institution of higher education agrees
to submit any dispute involving the final denial, withdrawal, or
termination of accreditation to initial arbitration prior to any other
legal action.'' The best reading of this section is that the Department
cannot recognize that an institution is accredited unless the
institution and agency have agreed to an initial arbitration when the
institution is first accredited and asks for that accreditation to be
recognized by the Department. This arbitration agreement cannot be
binding, because the statute specifies that it must be ``initial'' and
provides that the institution may still instigate ``any other legal
action'' after arbitration. A binding arbitration agreement would
prevent the institution from pursuing ``any'' other legal action.
However, nothing in the statute prevents an institution and agency from
entering into a binding arbitration agreement later, once a dispute has
arisen. Indeed, nothing in the statute gives the Department the
authority to impose requirements on arbitration agreements other than
that which is entered into when the institution is first accredited.
The Department also released guidance in November 2023,\9\ that
clarified that arbitration must be initial and non-binding. If an
accrediting agency and institution choose to enter into binding
arbitration after a dispute arises, then that is permissible because
both parties come to an agreement as opposed to an agency requiring the
arbitration as a requirement to seek or maintain accreditation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Dear Colleague Letter GEN-23-14 Regulations Governing the
Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, Institutional Eligibility, and
Arbitration--https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/dear-colleague-letters/2023-11-03/regulations-governing-recognition-accrediting-agencies-institutional-eligibility-and-arbitration-updated-dec-5-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to add language under Sec. 602.20(h) to require an
accrediting agency to have a policy to restore accreditation in
circumstances it deems appropriate, including if required by an
applicable judicial decision. Current regulations already allow for
such a policy, but this proposal now requires an accrediting agency to
have such a policy. We believe the proposed language is necessary
because retroactive accreditation may be appropriate based on unseen
circumstances that might arise.
With the exception of Sec. 602.18(d)(1)(v), we propose moving
language from Sec. 602.18(d) to Sec. 602.20(i).
Sec. 602.21 Review of Standards
Statute: Section 496(a)(5) states that accrediting agencies must
establish standards of accreditation to assess the institution's
success with respect to student achievement in relation to the
institution's mission, which may include different standards for
different institutions or programs; curricula;
[[Page 53961]]
faculty; facilities, equipment, supplies; fiscal and administrative
capacity; student support services; recruiting and admissions
practices, academic calendars, catalogs, publications, grading and
advertising; program length and credentials; student complaints; and
record of compliance.
Current Regulations: Sec. 602.21(a) requires an accrediting agency
to maintain a comprehensive systematic program of review that involves
all relevant constituencies, and that demonstrates that its standards
are adequate to evaluate the quality of the education or training
provided by the institutions and programs it accredits and is relevant
to the educational or training needs of students. Sec. 602.21(b)
requires that an accrediting agency review follow specific procedures
outlined in that paragraph. Sec. 602.21(c) requires that changes to an
accrediting agency's standards be initiated with 12 months and that
such action must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
Finally, Sec. 602.21(d) prescribes the process an accrediting agency
must complete prior to finalizing any changes to its standards.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 602.21(a) to
require an accrediting agency to maintain a comprehensive systematic
program of review that occurs at regular intervals, involves all
relevant constituencies (including students), and that demonstrates
that its standards are adequate to evaluate the quality of the
education or training provided by the institutions and programs it
accredits and is relevant to the educational or training needs of
students. We propose to rescind paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section.
Reasons: We propose to amend 602.21 to add a condition that the
review of standards occur at regular intervals. This will ensure that
accrediting agencies continually and consistently review standards
dynamically. As technology advances and approaches to education
inevitably shift, accrediting agencies should be at least reviewing
standards regularly to ensure that students are receiving the most
relevant and high-quality education as possible. Without regular review
of standards, an accrediting agency and institutions that it accredits
could become obsolete and ineffective in producing positive outcomes.
An ineffective and outdated accrediting agency is not a good use of
taxpayer dollars via the institutions or programs it accredits and may
leave students without a good return on investment and with
insurmountable student loan debt that they may struggle to repay debt.
The inclusion of students in the reviews by the accrediting agency was
a suggestion by a negotiator during rulemaking. The negotiator believed
that students should serve a mandatory role in reviewing standards by
which accrediting agencies will evaluate institutions. Several
negotiators noted that students are often already included in reviews
of institutions and programs, therefore this addition may be
inconsequential.
The Department proposes rescinding paragraphs (b),(c), and (d) to
remove prescriptive regulations that are not based on statute. Removing
these paragraphs eliminates burdensome and complex regulations that are
not only difficult for accrediting agencies to implement but also
difficult for the Department to enforce. The regulations continue to
retain the statutory requirement for accrediting agencies to regularly
review their standards which, in totality, affords them the flexibility
to innovate but also maintain the guardrails of a regular review
process. Note that because only one paragraph remains in the section,
we would not keep the remaining paragraph labeled as (a), instead there
will not be paragraph indicators in the section.
Sec. 602.22 Substantive Changes and Other Reporting Requirements
Statute: Section 496(c)(1) states that no accrediting agency or
association may be recognized by the Secretary as a reliable authority
as to the quality of education or training offered by an institution
seeking to participate in the programs authorized under this
subsection, unless the agency or association performs, at regularly
established intervals, on-site inspections and reviews of institutions
of higher education (which may include unannounced site visits) with
particular focus on educational quality and program effectiveness, and
ensures that accreditation team members are well-trained and
knowledgeable with respect to their responsibilities, including those
regarding distance education.
Current Regulations: The current regulations under Sec. 602.22
detail and define substantive change policies and other institutional
reporting requirements. Current Sec. 602.22(a)(1) requires that if the
agency accredits institutions, it must maintain adequate substantive
change policies that ensure that any substantive change after the
agency has accredited or preaccredited the institution does not
adversely affect the capacity of the institution to continue to meet
the agency's standards and defines actions that are considered a
substantive change. Current Sec. 602.22(b) specifies that institutions
that have been placed on probation or equivalent status, have been
subject to negative action by the agency over the prior three academic
years, or are under a provisional certification, as provided in 34 CFR
668.13, must receive prior approval for the certain additional changes
and that all other institutions must report the changes described
within this subsection within 30 days to their accrediting agency.
Current Sec. 602.22(c) explains that institutions that have
successfully completed at least one cycle of accreditation and have
received agency approval for the addition of at least two additional
locations as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(H) of this section, and
that have not been placed on probation or equivalent status or been
subject to a negative action by the agency over the prior three
academic years, and that are not under a provisional certification, as
provided in 34 CFR 668.13, need not apply for agency approval of
subsequent additions of locations, and must report these changes to the
accrediting agency within 30 days, if the institution has met criteria
established by the agency indicating sufficient capacity to add
additional locations without individual prior approvals, including, at
a minimum, satisfactory evidence of a system to ensure quality across a
distributed enterprise. Current Sec. 602.22(d) requires the agency to
have an effective mechanism for conducting, at reasonable intervals,
visits to a representative sample of additional locations approved
under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(H) and (I) of this section. Current Sec.
602.22(e) allows the agency to determine the procedures it uses to
grant prior approval of the substantive change. However, these
procedures must specify an effective date, on which the change is
included in the program's or institution's grant of accreditation or
preaccreditation. The date of prior approval must not pre-date either
an earlier agency denial of the substantive change, or the agency's
formal acceptance of the application for the substantive change for
inclusion in the program's or institution's grant of accreditation or
preaccreditation. An agency may designate the date of a change in
ownership as the effective date of its approval of that substantive
change if the accreditation decision is made within 30 days of the
change in ownership. An agency may require a visit before granting
approval. Current Sec. 602.22(f) specifies that except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, if the agency's accreditation of an
institution enables the institution to seek eligibility to participate
in title IV,
[[Page 53962]]
HEA programs, the agency's procedures for the approval of an additional
location that is not a branch campus where at least 50 percent of an
educational program is offered must include visits and mechanisms to
ensure education quality. Current Sec. 602.22(g) explains that the
purpose of the visits described in paragraph (f) of this section is to
verify that the additional location has the personnel, facilities, and
resources the institution claimed it had in its application to the
agency for approval of the additional location. Finally, current Sec.
602.22(h) requires that the agency's substantive change policy defines
when the changes made or proposed by an institution are or would be
sufficiently extensive to require the agency to conduct a new
comprehensive evaluation of that institution.
Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to add language to
Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(i) to refer to a revised subparagraph in Sec.
602.22(a)(1)(ii). The proposed revision to Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)
strikes the language ``high-impact, high-risk changes, including''. We
propose to amend Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(B) to insert the phrase ``that
results in a change in control''. We propose to move the current Sec.
602.22(a)(1)(ii)(E) to Sec. 602.22(b)(1). The current Sec.
602.22(a)(1)(ii)(F) would become the new Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(E) and
would be amended to move the portion of this subsection stating ``A
substantial increase in the number of clock hours or credit hours
awarded, or'' to Sec. 602.22(b)(2). The current Sec.
602.22(a)(1)(ii)(G) would become the new Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(F) and
would be amended to add ``not otherwise reviewed as part of a change of
control transaction or the process for the addition of a location'' to
the existing text. In current Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(I) we propose to
strike the text ``agency's review'', ``include assessment of the
institution's'' and ``the regular evaluation of locations''. In Sec.
602.22(a)(1)(ii)(I)(1) we propose to strike ``is clearly identified.''
In Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(I)(4) we propose to strike ``engaged in long-
range'' and ``expansion'' and add ``appropriate'' and ``the addition''
in their place. We propose to add a new Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(K) to
state the ``Addition of the first prison education program at the first
two additional locations and the first additional prison education
program offered by a new method of delivery.'' The remaining changes to
Sec. 602.22(a)(1) would be conforming to renumber amended or removed
sections. In Sec. 602.22(b) we propose to strike the current Sec.
602.22(b)(1), Sec. 602.22(b)(2), and Sec. 602.22(b)(3). The new Sec.
602.22(b)(1) and (2) are those elements moved from Sec.
602.22(a)(ii)(E) and (F), respectively. In Sec. 602.22(c) we propose
to strike Sec. 602.22(c)(1)-(5). We propose to strike Sec. 602.22(d)
entirely. We propose to redesignate current Sec. 602.22(e) to Sec.
602.22(d) and strike ``Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (f) of
this section, an agency may require a visit before granting such an
approval.'' We propose to strike Sec. 602.22(f) and Sec. 602.22(g)
entirely. Finally, we propose to redesignate Sec. 602.22(h) to Sec.
602.22(e) for conforming and renumbering purposes.
Reasons: We propose to amend Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(i) to specify the
revised definition(s) of substantive change, as detailed in proposed
Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(A) through (K). We propose to amend Sec.
602.22(a)(1)(ii) so that the definition of substantive change applies
to a more precise set of situations, arrives at a better balance of
needed oversight, and returns some degree of deference to the agencies
to make the decisions on what the substantive changes are and how they
are processed. We recognize the burden institutions and accrediting
agencies face when implementing and overseeing these changes and
propose amending Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(A) through (K) to reduce this
burden. We propose to amend Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii) to simplify the
types of changes considered substantive. We propose to amend Sec.
602.22(a)(1)(ii)(B) to narrow its scope to changes that result in a
change of control. This would reduce burden for reviewing changes in
legal status, forms of control or ownership that would not lead to a
true change of control. We propose moving current Sec.
602.22(a)(1)(ii)(E) and (F) to Sec. 602.22(b)(1) and (2) to only
require notification for these changes that do not require accrediting
agency approval for Federal student aid eligibility purposes. We
propose amending current Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(G) to require the
acquisition of any other institution, program, or location of another
institution only if it was not otherwise reviewed as part of a change
of control transaction or the process for the addition of a location.
This proposed amendment reflects discussions held during negotiated
rulemaking that concluded the current requirement to report this as a
separate substantive change is cumbersome for both accrediting agencies
and institutions. It was recommended by negotiators that this language
be revised to only apply when an acquisition is not otherwise captured
in a change of control or separate location substantive change review.
We propose amending current Sec. 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(I) based on a
recommendation from a negotiator to streamline, simplify, and lessen
burden on accrediting agencies by requiring the institution to document
its fiscal and administrative capability to operate the location or
branch campus, instead of the accrediting agency. The institution still
must verify and document that it has appropriate plans for the addition
of the new location or branch campus. We propose adding a new Sec.
602.22(a)(1)(ii)(K) to formally address and include the prison
education programs (PEP) brought about by the FAFSA Simplification Act.
This regulatory addition is required under Sec. 668.237(b) and ensures
the addition of specified PEP programs will be considered a substantive
change and must be treated in accordance with Sec. 602.22. We further
propose to amend Sec. 602.22(a) to remove prescriptive regulations
that are not based on statute but still retain the best practices in
requiring institutional accrediting agencies to review substantive
changes. We propose to amend Sec. 602.22(b) to accommodate Sec.
602.22(b)(1) and (2), which were moved from Sec. 602.22(a)(ii)(E) and
(F). The remaining deletions in Sec. 602.22(b) are intended to reduce
burden and streamline the functions of reporting changes and wait time
for approvals regarding innovative approaches in core academic
functions (e.g., delivering instruction, modifying courses, assuming
competencies). The remaining proposed deletions in Sec. 602.22(c)
through Sec. 602.22(g) are intended to reduce the barriers that limit
institutions from adopting innovative practices that advance credential
and degree completion and spur new models of education. These proposals
are in direct support of E.O. 14279 and are designed to improve
accountability while streamlining required quality assurances. The
final changes in Sec. 602.22 are conforming and allow for new
numbering and proper organization of the regulation.
Sec. 602.23 Operating Procedures All Agencies Must Have
Statute: Section 496(c) of the HEA prescribes accrediting agency
operating procedures, which include requirements for public disclosure
of relevant information.
Current Regulations: The current regulations under Sec. 602.23
prescribe operating procedures that accrediting agencies must adhere
to. Under Sec. 602.23(c) the accrediting agency must
[[Page 53963]]
review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner any complaint it
receives against an accredited institution or program or the agency's
own standards or procedures and take follow-up action. Under Sec.
602.23(d) the accrediting agency must ensure that the institution or
program accurately discloses its accreditation status and provides the
name and contact information for the accrediting agency. The
regulations under Sec. 602.23(f) prescribe the procedural requirements
for institutions or programs granted preaccreditation by an accrediting
agency. The same paragraph confirms that all credits and degrees earned
and issued by an institution or program holding preaccreditation from a
nationally recognized accrediting agency are considered by the
Department to be from an accredited institution or program.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to include preaccredited
institutions under the requirements of paragraph Sec. 602.23(c)(1).
Under paragraph Sec. 602.23(c)(3) we proposed to include a requirement
to review conflicts of interest and mandate documentation of actions
when an accrediting agency reviews a complaint. The proposed would read
that the accrediting agency must (1) Review in a timely, fair, and
equitable manner any complaint it receives against an accredited or
preaccredited institution or program that is related to the agency's
standards or procedures. The agency may not complete its review and
make a decision regarding a complaint unless, in accordance with
published procedures, it ensures that the institution or program has a
sufficient opportunity to provide a response to the complaint, (2) Take
follow-up action, as necessary, including enforcement action, if
necessary, based on the results of its review, and (3) Review in a
timely, fair, and equitable manner, and apply unbiased judgment to, any
complaints against itself, to include conflict of interest violations,
and take follow-up action, as appropriate, based on the results of its
review, and document such complaints and actions.
The Department proposes to amend Sec. 602.23(d) to require that
the accrediting agency must require its accredited institutions or
programs to publicly disclose any action by the agency that begins the
enforcement timeline in Sec. 602.20(a) or (b). When an institution or
program makes such a disclosure or elects to make a public disclosure
of its accreditation or preaccreditation status, the agency must ensure
that the institution or program discloses that status accurately,
including the specific academic or instructional programs covered by
that status, the reason(s) for the action, and the name and contact
information for the agency.
We propose to rescind paragraph Sec. 602.23(f)(1) and modify the
remaining language (formerly Sec. 602.23(f)(2)) to refer to
``credentials'' instead of ``degrees''. The proposed language would
require that all credits and credentials earned and issued by an
institution or program holding preaccreditation from a nationally
recognized agency are considered by the Secretary to be from an
accredited institution or program.
We propose to add new paragraphs Sec. 602.23(h)-(l). Under
proposed Sec. 602.23(h), the agency must not have policies that
require institutions or programs to violate any Federal or State law,
including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et
seq., and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C.
1681 et seq. (Title IX), which means among other things, that agencies
must not have policies that require institutions or programs to provide
unlawful preferences to students, faculty, staff, contractors, or any
employees based upon their race, color, national origin, or sex,
including in admissions, hiring, and the selection of contracts.
Under proposed Sec. 602.23(i), the agency must have internal
controls to ensure compliance with antitrust laws, including by
ensuring that the agency does not directly or indirectly facilitate
coordination or collusive activities among institutions or programs
that violate the antitrust laws, or unnecessarily restrict access to
employment in an occupation.
Under proposed Sec. 602.23 (j), the agency must refrain from
reviewing aspects of institutional governance of public institutions
that are established by State law, including the appointment of
institutional directors or officers by elected or appointed State
officials.
Under proposed Sec. 602.23(k), the agency may have a timely
procedure to accelerate the comprehensive accreditation process for an
institution or program seeking initial accreditation. An institution or
program would be eligible to access this process if, at a minimum, it
holds current accreditation from another nationally recognized
accrediting agency and meets the requirements of Sec. 600.11 or is
impacted by a decision by the senior Department official or the
Secretary to terminate an agency's recognition.
Under proposed Sec. 602.23(l), the agency must establish and
maintain at least one structured mechanism through which currently
enrolled students, employed staff, and employed faculty of accredited
or preaccredited institutions or programs may communicate directly with
the agency any concerns related to the agency's accreditation standards
or the institution's or program's compliance. Such mechanism(s) must be
designed to ensure that information received is substantive and
manageable in volume. Permissible mechanisms include, but are not
limited to, any one or more of the following: (1) A registration
process through which students, staff, or faculty may sign up to
participate in structured meetings with agency representatives during
scheduled site visits or virtual visits, subject to reasonable limits
on the number of participants and appointment availability; (2)
Randomized panels of students, staff, or faculty selected by the
accrediting agency or its authorized representatives to participate in
confidential interviews or focus groups during site visits, conducted
in a manner that ensures a representative cross-section of the
institutional community; or (3) Student, faculty, staff surveys
independently administered by the agency as part of an initial or
renewal of accreditation process which minimally address the standards
areas required by Sec. 602.16 (a).
Reasons: We propose to add preaccredited institutions to the
requirements under Sec. 602.23(c)(1) to clarify that complaints
received against a preaccredited institution must also be reviewed in a
timely, fair, and equitable manner. Similarly, under Sec. 602.23(c)(3)
the Department seeks to clarify that all complaints, including those
related to conflicts of interest, about the accrediting agency itself
must be reviewed and documented in a timely, fair, and equitable
manner.
We proposed adding additional language to Sec. 602.23(d) regarding
an institution's or program's public disclosure of actions by the
accrediting agency to promote transparency and consistency amongst
accrediting agencies. The specific actions that would be required to be
disclosed include any action that cites non-compliance with any
standard from an institution or program, no matter the form of the
notice. Further, we believe that accrediting agencies must review an
institution's or program's public disclosure of its accreditation or
preaccreditation status to ensure that the institution or program is
accurately representing itself to prospective and enrolled students.
We propose to rescind the requirements under Sec. 602.23(f)(1)
[[Page 53964]]
because they are not required by statute. We also propose to change the
term ``degrees'' to ``credentials'' in regard to the recognition of
credentials from a preaccredited institution because credentials is a
broader term that could encompass the successful completion of other
programs which would implement E.O. 14279's direction that the
Department reduce barriers limiting institutions from adopting
practices that advance credential and degree completion and encourage
new models of education. By referring broadly to ``credentials'' rather
than only ``degrees,'' the regulations recognize the growing importance
of certificates and other high-value postsecondary credentials that
prepare students for employment and further education. The Department
does not believe that non-degree program credentials from preaccredited
institutions are viewed by the public, State agencies, and other
entities as the same quality as those received from an accredited
institution. We believe that this language will help confirm to
employers that credentials from preaccredited institutions carry the
same validity and legitimacy as credentials from accredited
institutions.
E.O. 14279 states that ``accreditation requires higher education
institutions to provide high-quality, high-value academic programs free
from unlawful discrimination or other violations of Federal law'' and
in order to effectuate this E.O., it states that the Department must
``mandate that accreditors require member institutions to use program-
level data on student outcomes to improve such outcomes, without
reference to race, ethnicity, or sex''. To codify the requirements of
E.O. 14279, we propose paragraph Sec. 602.23(h) to prohibit
accrediting agencies from having polices that violate Federal or State
law, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
2000d et seq., and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20
U.S.C. 1681 et seq. (Title IX).
The Trump Administration has sought to eliminate illegal diversity,
equity and inclusion requirements throughout the Federal government and
its programs, demonstrated in E.O.s 14151 \10\ and 14398.\11\ These
proposed regulations represent a continuation of those efforts. We
believe that all students, faculty, staff, contractors, and employees
should be held to the same standards regardless of their demographics
in admissions, as well as the hiring and selection for contracts. We
propose a prohibition of preferential treatment based on protected
characteristics, such as race-based scholarships or programs, and
preferential hiring or promotion practices. Merit must be prioritized
over race, color, national origin, or sex, traits which do not provide
any characterization of suitability or preparedness for study or
employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and
Preferencing--https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/.
\11\ Address DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors--https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/addressing-dei-discrimination-by-federal-contractors/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale for the antitrust provision under paragraph Sec.
602.23(i) can be found in the discussion for Sec. 602.13. We propose
Sec. 602.23(j) to direct accrediting agencies to refrain from
interfering with institutional governance decisions that fall within
the rightful purview of State governments, boards of trustees, or
similar governing bodies, limiting their role to advisory purposes
only. We propose Sec. 602.23(k) codify that an agency may prioritize
the accreditation of an institution or program changing accrediting
agencies if it meets the factors outlined in regulation. While an
agency is not required to prioritize the accreditation of an
institution or program, the Department wanted to add language that
would provide support for agencies that chose to prioritize in this
manner. As accrediting agencies are one part of the title IV
eligibility process for an institution, we want to encourage continuity
of access for students when an institution seeks to change accrediting
agencies so that there is a seamless transition. These regulations
encourage new, innovative accrediting agencies to seek recognition from
the Department, which will increase competition and quality of
agencies, therefore, we expect that some institutions may seek out new
accrediting agencies under the proposed regulations. We propose Sec.
602.23(l) to mandate that there be a direct line of communication
between impacted stakeholders which include students, staff and faculty
and the accrediting agency to express concerns in addition to the
formal complaint process already mandated under Sec. 602.23(c). By
adding this process for stakeholders to express concerns directly to
the accrediting agency, it may be able to address concerns and adjust
its policies or procedures to avoid receiving formal complaints
regarding its accredited or preaccredited institutions or programs. We
also believe that the accrediting agency should continuously receive
feedback from impacted stakeholders about how the institution or
program is implementing the agency's standards to ensure that
institutions do not impose additional standards or misrepresent the
accrediting agency's standards to stakeholders. We propose that
accrediting agencies have flexibility in effectuating this requirement.
Sec. 602.24 Additional Procedures Certain Institutional Agencies Must
Have
Statute: Section 496(c)(3) of the HEA requires an institution to
submit a teach-out plan to its accrediting agency for approval when the
Department notifies the accrediting agency of an action against the
institution, the accrediting agency acts to withdraw, terminate, or
suspend the accreditation of the institution, or the institution
notifies the accrediting agency that the institution intends to cease
operations. Section 496(c)(5) of the HEA requires the accrediting
agency to conduct an on-site visit within six months of a branch campus
opening or following a change in ownership. Section 496(c)(6) of the
HEA specifies that teach-out agreements must receive explicit approval
from the accrediting agency and conform to its standards. Section
496(c)(9) of the HEA requires accrediting agencies to verify that
institutions maintain publicly disclosed transfer of credit policies,
including clearly articulated criteria for evaluating and accepting
credits earned at other institutions of higher education.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 602.24(b) states that an
accrediting agency must conduct an on-site visit no later than six
months after the establishment of a branch campus or a change of
ownership or control. Current Sec. 602.24(c)(1) provides that the
accrediting agency must require an institution it accredits to submit a
teach-out plan (as defined in 34 CFR 600.2) to the agency for approval
upon the occurrence of specific events, to include when an institution
is participating in title IV, HEA programs under a provisional program
participation agreement and the Secretary has required a teach-out plan
as a condition of participation. Current Sec. 602.24(c)(2) requires an
institution to submit a teach-out plan and, if practicable, teach-out
agreements (as defined in 34 CFR 600.2) to the accrediting agency for
approval when the Department imposes monitoring or enforcement, when
accreditation is at risk, when the institution plans to close, or when
State authorization is revoked. Current Sec. 602.24(c)(3) states that
an accrediting agency must evaluate an institution's teach-out plan to
ensure it includes a list of currently enrolled students, academic
programs offered by the
[[Page 53965]]
institution, and the names of other institutions that offer similar
programs and that could potentially enter into a teach-out agreement
with the institution. Current Sec. 602.24(c)(4) states that if the
agency approves a teach-out plan that includes a program or institution
that is accredited by another recognized accrediting agency, it must
notify that accrediting agency of its approval. Current Sec.
602.24(c)(6) lists criteria closing institutions must have their teach-
out agreements. Current Sec. 602.24(c)(7) requires the accrediting
agency to confirm that an institution's teach-out agreement meets
certain criteria before approving the agreement. Current Sec.
602.24(c)(10) requires an institution to provide copies of all
notifications related to the institution's closure or teach-out
options. Current Sec. 602.24(d) states that if an institution closes
without a teach-out plan or agreement, the accrediting agency is
required to work with the Department and the appropriate State agency
to assist students in finding reasonable opportunities to complete
their education without additional charges. Current Sec. 602.24(e)
requires an institution to have transfer of credit policies that are
publicly disclosed in accordance with Sec. 668.43(a)(11) and include a
statement of the criteria established by the institution regarding the
transfer of credit earned at another institution of higher education.
Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to amend Sec.
602.24(b) to clarify that site visits to new branch campuses or
following a change in ownership cannot be conducted solely by agency
staff. The Department proposes to amend Sec. 602.24(c)(1) to require
an institution to submit a teach-out plan to its accrediting agency
within 30 days when certain events occur. The Department proposes to
amend Sec. 602.24(c)(1)(iii) to require an institution to submit a
teach-out plan after its accrediting agency is notified that the
institution's participation in the title IV, HEA programs has changed
from full to provisional certification. The Department proposes to
remove ``plan and, if practicable, teach-out'' from current Sec.
602.24(c)(2) and add ``unless the institution is completing its own
teach-out'' at the end of current Sec. 602.24(c)(2)(iv). The
Department proposes adding a new Sec. 602.24(c)(3) to allow an
institution that is unable to secure a teach-out agreement to document
the reasons it cannot do so, and in such cases, require the institution
to provide financial protection.
The Department proposes to renumber Sec. 602.24(c)(3)-(10) and
amend new Sec. 602.24(c)(4) to require institutions to explain how
they plan to maintain and provide students with access to their
transcripts in the event of closure. The Department also proposes to
add the phrase ``or a teach-out agreement'' to new Sec. 602.24(c)(5)
and remove the word ``closing'' in current Sec. 602.24(c)(6), the
additional criteria in current Sec. 602.24(c)(7), and the entire
paragraph in current Sec. 602.24(c)(10).
The Department proposes to amend Sec. 602.24(d) to clarify the
responsibilities an accrediting agency must fulfill when one of its
institutions does not have a teach-out plan. The Department proposes
that an accrediting agency work with institutions to secure teach-out
agreements and to secure transfer options for institutions that cannot
arrange a teach-out agreement. The Department also proposes for
accrediting agencies to have teach-out or transfer options, the terms
of such options, and information on obtaining transcripts, loan
discharges, and reimbursement publicly available on their website, and
to share such information with appropriate State agencies and, as
applicable, with other recognized accrediting agencies.
The Department proposes to amend Sec. 602.24(e) to require
institutions to include additional specified criteria in their transfer
of credit policies. Such criteria include the public disclosure of
general policies for specific academic standards, time limits, and
curricular requirements for acceptance of credits, and a comprehensive
statement of all transfer of credit criteria established by the
institution, which must consider the comparability and applicability of
coursework completed or credit earned at another institution accredited
by an agency recognized by the Secretary. The Department proposes to
prohibit an institution from denying transfer of credit based on the
institution at which the student completed the coursework or the agency
that accredits that institution, so long as the agency is recognized by
the Secretary. The Department also proposes for the institution to
utilize a presumption of awarding transfer credit for undergraduate
programs for coursework that has been successfully completed at another
institution, accredited by an agency recognized by the Secretary, and
comparable in content and learning outcomes to the institution's own
course offerings, unless the institution provides a written basis for
denial under 34 CFR 668.43(c)(4) in accordance with its academic
standards or curricular requirements. Lastly, the Department proposes
that an institution be required to provide the student with an
opportunity to appeal the decision within 15 calendar days of receipt
of the institution's written notification if an institution declines to
award transfer credit.
Reasons: The Department proposes to require a site visitor
alongside accrediting agency staff during on-site visits to preserve
the independence, integrity, and credibility of the accreditation
process. As mentioned in negotiated rulemaking, this requirement would
codify what is already being done during site visits to be applied
consistently across agencies. For example, having a peer or independent
reviewer alongside accrediting agency staff would help the evaluation
reflect professional expertise and perspectives that extend beyond
accrediting agency staff alone. Peer reviewers bring field specific
knowledge that allows them to assess academic standards, administrative
capacity, and institutional practices with appropriate depth.
Independent reviewers, likewise, help the accreditation process not be
unduly influenced by an agency's internal perspectives or by
longstanding relationships with institutions.
The Department proposes a 30-day deadline to submit a teach-out
plan as the occurrence of any of the events that require a teach-out
plan are time-sensitive and could result in an institutional closure.
The Department also clarifies the language for when a shift from full
to provisional certification occurs because such a shift is an early
warning that an institution may have an increased risk of closure, and
having a plan in place would quickly help safeguard students, prevent
administrative gaps if conditions worsen, strengthen oversight, and
reinforce existing responsibilities for transcript access and
coordinated closure planning.
The Department proposes to remove the phrasing ``plan and, if
practicable, teach-out'' and add ``or a teach-out agreement'' in Sec.
602.24(c)(2) to eliminate ambiguity, clearly distinguish between plans
and agreements, and ensure accrediting agencies apply teach-out
requirements consistently and effectively. We heard from negotiators
that the current wording blurs the distinction between teach-out plans
and teach-out agreements and creates uncertainty in situations where
institutions face rapid or unanticipated closure, therefore we propose
to require teach-out agreements for certain operational or financial
events, such as abrupt changes in ownership, major compliance findings,
severe financial
[[Page 53966]]
deterioration as such events present heightened risks of institutional
disruption and student harm. The Department believes having teach-out
agreements in place would provide students with a clear, reliable
pathway to continue their education without interruption and encourage
institutions to plan proactively for continuity of instruction when
facing circumstances that materially threaten their ability to operate.
The Department also proposes to add ``unless the institution is
completing its own teach-out'' to make explicit that an institution
conducting its own orderly teach-out should not also be required to
develop a separate external teach-out agreement.
The Department proposes to allow an institution that cannot secure
a teach-out agreement within 30 days to document the reasons it cannot
do so since some institutions, such as those offering programs with
limited transferability or operating in geographic areas with few
comparable institutions, may face challenges in securing such
agreements. In these cases, financial protection such as a letter of
credit would serve as an essential safeguard for resources to be
available to support students in the event of closure. The Department
also proposes requiring that teach-out plans include a clear process
for maintaining and providing access to student transcripts to help
affected students transfer credits, obtain licensure, apply for jobs,
and continue their education if an institution closes.
Additionally, the Department proposes to remove the word
``closing'' in current Sec. 602.24(c)(6) for accrediting agency
obligations to not only apply when an institution is formally closing,
but whenever a teach-out agreement is required. The Department proposes
to remove the criteria listed in current Sec. 602.24(c)(7) because the
provisions extend beyond what the HEA requires for teach-out agreements
and therefore lack a statutory foundation. The HEA establishes the core
requirements for accrediting agencies when evaluating teach-out
agreements, but it does not authorize the Department to impose other
criteria unrelated to the statutory framework. By removing the
additional criteria, the Department would avoid imposing unsupported or
unnecessary burdens on institutions and accrediting agencies and
maintain clear alignment between statutory and regulatory requirements.
Similarly, the Department also proposes to remove Sec. 602.24(c)(10)
as it is not supported by statute and imposes unnecessary prescriptive
oversight on accrediting agencies.
The Department proposes establishing explicit expectations for
accrediting agencies to coordinate with both the Department and State
agencies during an institutional closure to improve the effectiveness,
timeliness, and consistency of student protection efforts. Closures
demand fast, accurate, and coordinated action across the Federal-State-
accrediting agency triad and since State notifications, institutional
withdrawal notices, and teach-out processes are already intertwined,
greater collaboration would help students receive timely protections,
access to teach-out options, clear information, and continuity of
records.
The Department proposes new transfer of credit requirements to
address longstanding inequities and inconsistencies in how institutions
evaluate credits earned at other institutions accredited by an agency
recognized by the Department. Section 496(c)(9) of the HEA requires
accrediting agencies to verify that institutions maintain publicly
disclosed transfer of credit policies, including clearly articulated
criteria governing the evaluation and acceptance of credits earned at
other institutions of higher education. Congress therefore recognized
that transfer of credit policies are an appropriate subject of review
by an accrediting agency and that transparency regarding those policies
is an important component of educational quality and student
protection. Consistent with the Secretary's authority under section 496
of the HEA to establish recognition criteria for accrediting agencies,
the Department proposes requirements designed to ensure that
accrediting agencies evaluate whether institutions administer transfer
of credit policies in a transparent, academically grounded, and
consistently applied manner.
The Department clarifies that the transfer of credit provisions are
intended to apply primarily to undergraduate credit, reflecting the
reality that most student mobility and credit transfer activity occurs
at the undergraduate level. The Department has observed that credit
transfer decisions are often made using criteria that are not fully
disclosed to students or that rely primarily on the identity of the
sending institution or its accrediting agency rather than on the
academic quality of the coursework completed. Such practices may
unnecessarily delay degree completion, require students to repeat
substantially equivalent coursework, increase educational costs and
borrowing, reduce student mobility, and discourage innovation by
limiting students' ability to move among institutions accredited by
different nationally recognized accrediting agencies. These
consequences are inconsistent with the Administration's objectives of
reducing unnecessary costs, promoting innovation, encouraging
competition among institutions and accrediting agencies, and improving
educational value for students. Accordingly, the Department proposes to
require institutions to publish transfer of credit policies that
clearly describe the academic standards, time limits, curricular
requirements, and other criteria used when evaluating transfer
coursework. Public disclosure of these standards would provide students
with accurate information before enrollment, promote consistent
institutional decision making, and enable accrediting agencies to
determine whether institutions are applying their own published
policies faithfully and consistently.
The Department further proposes that institutions are not permitted
to deny transfer credit solely because coursework was completed at
another institution accredited by a different accrediting agency
recognized by the Secretary. The Department believes that decisions
based solely on institutional identity or the identity of a nationally
recognized accrediting agency, rather than on academic considerations,
are inconsistent with the purpose of maintaining published academic
criteria for evaluating transfer credit and unnecessarily limit student
mobility and institutional competition. Nothing in these proposed
regulations, however, requires an institution to disregard its own
academic standards or curricular requirements.
The Department also proposes to require institutions to award
transfer credit for undergraduate coursework completed at another
institution accredited by an agency recognized by the Secretary when,
after application of the institution's published academic standards and
curricular requirements, the institution determines that the coursework
is comparable in content and learning outcomes to its own offerings.
Institutions retain full responsibility for determining academic
comparability, including consideration of subject matter, learning
outcomes, sequencing, laboratory requirements, program coherence, and
other legitimate academic considerations. When an institution concludes
that transfer credit should not be awarded, it must provide the student
with a written explanation identifying the academic basis for the
decision, consistent with the institution's published policies. These
[[Page 53967]]
requirements are intended to promote transparency, consistency, and
accountability while preserving institutional responsibility for
academic quality and curricular integrity.
Finally, the Department proposes to require institutions to provide
students with a meaningful opportunity to appeal credit transfer
determinations when denied. An appeals process promotes consistent
application of published institutional standards, allows institutions
to consider additional academic information that may not have been
available during the initial review, and improves confidence that
credit transfer decisions are based on legitimate academic
considerations rather than undisclosed or inconsistently applied
criteria. The Department believes these proposed requirements
appropriately implement section 496(c)(9) of the HEA by establishing
expectations for accrediting agencies to evaluate whether institutions
maintain, disclose, and consistently administer academically grounded
transfer of credit policies while preserving institutional authority to
determine academic equivalency and educational quality.
Sec. 602.25 Due Process
Statute: Section 496(a)(6) of the HEA states an accrediting agency
or association shall establish and apply review procedures throughout
the accrediting process, including evaluation and withdrawal
proceedings, which comply with due process procedures.
Current Regulations: Current regulations under 34 CFR 602.25
prescribe that an agency must demonstrate that the procedures it uses
throughout the accrediting process satisfy due process.
One of the requirements, under 34 CFR 602.25(f), provides that the
accrediting agency must provide an opportunity, upon written request of
an institution or program, for the institution or program to appeal any
adverse action prior to the action becoming final. The appeal must take
place at a hearing before an appeals panel that must meet several
requirements. The hearing may not include current members of the
agency's decision-making body that took the initial adverse action. It
must be subject to a conflict of interest policy. It cannot only serve
only an advisory or procedural role, and must have and use the
authority to affirm, amend, or remand adverse actions of the original
decision-making body. A decision to affirm or amend the adverse action
is implemented by the appeals panel or by the original decision-making
body, at the agency's option; however, in the event of a decision by
the appeals panel to remand the adverse action to the original
decision-making body for further consideration, the appeals panel must
explain the basis for a decision that differs from that of the original
decision-making body and the original decision-making body in a remand
must act in a manner consistent with the appeals panel's decisions or
instructions.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to rescind paragraphs
602.25(f)(1)(iii) and (iv), which require an appeals panel to not only
serve an advisory or procedural role and instead have authority, and
that the appeals panel affirms, amends, or remands the adverse action.
Reasons: These rescissions would remove prescriptive regulations
that are not required in the HEA. These changes would implement one of
the orders under E.O. 14279 that directed the Department to reduce
unduly burdensome requirements to accrediting agencies. Section
496(a)(6)(C)(i) and (ii) of the HEA only states that if an accrediting
agency takes an adverse action against the institution or program,
prior to such action becoming final the agency must provide for an
opportunity to appear at a hearing before an appeals panel that--``(i)
shall not include current members of the agency's or association's
underlying decision-making body that made the adverse decision; and
(ii) is subject to a conflict of interest policy.'' These provisions
are covered in Sec. 602.25(f)(1)(i) and (ii).
Sec. 602.26 Notification of Accrediting Decisions
Statute: Section 496(a)(6) of the HEA states an accrediting agency
or association shall establish and apply review procedures throughout
the accrediting process, including evaluation and withdrawal
proceedings, which comply with due process procedures. Section
496(a)(7) of the HEA states that an accrediting agency or association
shall notify the Secretary and the appropriate State licensing or
authorizing agency within 30 days of the accreditation of an
institution or any final denial, withdrawal, suspension, or termination
of accreditation or placement on probation of an institution, together
with any other adverse action taken with respect to an institution.
Section 496(a)(8) of the HEA states that an accrediting agency such
agency or association shall make available to the public, upon request,
and to the Secretary, and the State licensing or authorizing agency a
summary of any review resulting in a final accrediting decision
involving denial, termination, or suspension of accreditation, together
with the comments of the affected institution.
Current Regulations: Current regulations require that accrediting
agencies must demonstrate that it has established and follows written
procedures requiring it to provide written notice of its accrediting
decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or
authorizing agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the
public. Under Sec. 602.26(a), an agency must provide written notice of
the following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate
State licensing or authorizing agency, the appropriate accrediting
agencies, and the public no later than 30 days after it makes the
decision to award initial accreditation or preaccreditation to an
institution or program or to renew an institution's or program's
accreditation or preaccreditation.
Under Sec. 602.26(b), an agency must provide written notice of a
final decision of a probation or equivalent status or an initiated
adverse action to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or
authorizing agency, and the appropriate accrediting agencies at the
same time it notifies the institution or program of the decision and
requires the institution or program to disclose such an action within
seven business days of receipt to all current and prospective students.
Under Sec. 602.26(c), an agency must provide written notice of the
following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State
licensing or authorizing agency, and the appropriate accrediting
agencies at the same time it notifies the institution or program of the
decision, but no later than 30 days after it reaches the decision: a
final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminate the
accreditation or preaccreditation of an institution or program or a
final decision to take any other adverse action, as defined by the
agency, not listed above. An agency must provide written notice to the
public of the decisions listed in (b) and (c) within one business day
of its notice to the institution or program. For any decision listed in
(c), the institution or program must disclose the decision to current
and prospective students within seven business days of receipt and
makes available to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or
authorizing agency, and the public, no later than 60 days after the
decision, a brief statement summarizing the reasons for the agency's
decision and the official
[[Page 53968]]
comments that the affected institution or program may wish to make with
regard to that decision, or evidence that the affected institution has
been offered the opportunity to provide official comment.
Under paragraph (g), the agency must also notify the Secretary, the
appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, the appropriate
accrediting agencies, and, upon request, the public if an accredited or
preaccredited institution or program decides to withdraw voluntarily
from accreditation or preaccreditation, within 10 business days of
receiving notification from the institution or program that it is
withdrawing voluntarily from accreditation or preaccreditation; or lets
its accreditation or preaccreditation lapse, within 10 business days of
the date on which accreditation or preaccreditation lapses.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to amend Sec. 602.26(b) to
require a decision letter or clear explanation in writing that explains
the reasons for the final decision. We propose to amend Sec. 602.26(c)
to require a decision letter or clear explanation in writing of final
decisions when a final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or
terminate the accreditation or preaccreditation of an institution or
program or when a final decision to take any other adverse action, as
defined by the agency, not listed. We also propose to amend Sec.
602.26(d) to require that for decision listed above, the agency must
update its website directory of accredited institutions or programs to
note the decision within one business day of its notice to the
institution or program. We further propose to amend Sec. 602.26(e) to
require an agency's decision letter or clear explanation instead of a
brief summary statement of the reasons for the agency's decision and
the official comments that the affected institution or program may wish
to make with regard to that decision, or evidence that the affected
institution has been offered the opportunity to provide official
comment. We propose to add a new Sec. 602.26(f) that requires an
agency to maintain on its website a clear record of all actions taken
for each institution or program it accredits or preaccredits for a
period of at least five years, including in the agency's decision
letter required pursuant to subparagraphs (b), (c), and (e) above. We
propose to redesignate current Sec. 602.26(f) to Sec. 602.26(g) to
allow for the new Sec. 602.26(f) above. Finally, we propose adding a
new Sec. 602.26(h) to state that if the agency issues a final decision
to withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminate the accreditation or
preaccreditation of the institution, and the institution challenges
this final decision, the Department may continue to provide access to
title IV, HEA programs to an institution until both arbitration and
judicial review has concluded or until relief is denied, whichever
occurs first, if failure to do so would result in immediate,
irreparable harm to the institution. We propose to make it clear that
this provision would not authorize the Department to nullify agency
decisions that are made in a manner consistent with the agency's
standards, even if the Department disagrees with said decision.
Reasons: The changes to Sec. 602.26(b), (c), (d) and (e) are
designed to improve and clarify the notice requirements (e.g., clear
explanations in lieu of brief summarizing statements) and to bring the
overall notification process in line with current methods of disclosure
and notification (e.g., ubiquitous websites). We have added a new Sec.
602.26(f) to broaden transparency and notification efforts/initiatives
to convey all actions taken for a period of at least five years. We
feel this expanded requirement will benefit any interested person or
entity seeking recent accrediting agency actions at a specific
institution or program. We have added a new Sec. 602.26(h) to allow
for situations where an accrediting agency issued a final decision
regarding accreditation but an institution is seeking arbitration and/
or judicial review. In such a situation, this new regulation would
allow the Department to continue title IV, HEA funding, to the
institution until the review is concluded or relief is denied,
whichever comes first. This proposed regulation provides a limited
opportunity for the Department to limit the effect of an adverse
accrediting action while an institution is seeking arbitration and/or
judicial review of the action. The remainder of the changes made to
this section were conforming to allow for proper numbering.
Sec. 602.27 Other Information an Agency Must Provide the Department
Statute: Section 496(n)(1) of the HEA states the Secretary shall
conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of all
accrediting agencies or associations which seek recognition by the
Secretary in order to determine whether such accrediting agencies or
associations meet the criteria established in the HEA.
Current Regulations: The current regulations under Sec. 602.27
require agencies to provide other information to the Department.
Current Sec. 602.27(a)(1) states that agencies must submit to the
Department a list, updated annually, of its accredited and
preaccredited institutions and programs, which may be provided
electronically. The remainder of the regulations under Sec. 602.27
detail other information that agencies must submit to the Department
such as year-end summaries, proposed policy changes, expansion of scope
notifications for distance education and correspondence courses, etc.
We are only proposing changes to Sec. 602.27(a)(1) and the remainder
of Sec. 602.27 remains unchanged.
Proposed Regulations: We propose amending Sec. 602.27(a)(1) to
require more frequent updates of an agency's accredited and
preaccredited institutions and programs, not solely an annual list. The
proposed Sec. 602.27(a)(1) requires agencies to submit regular and
timely updates throughout the year on the Department's website. We
propose to remove the phrase ``which may be provided electronically.''
Reasons: The Department wants updates regarding accredited and
preaccredited institutions and programs as close to real-time as
possible, thus the phrase ``regular and timely updates'' is used in
proposed Sec. 602.27(a)(1). The Department feels an annual update is
not sufficient to appraise the Department or the public about important
accreditation or preaccreditation changes to institutions and programs.
We also propose to remove the phrase ``which may be provided
electronically'' because it is no longer needed, as we expect this
notification to be placed on the Department's web-based directory.
Sec. 602.28 Regard for Decisions of States and Other Accrediting
Agencies
Statute: Section 496(l)(2) of the HEA establishes the requirements
if the Secretary determines that an accrediting agency or association
has failed to apply effectively the criteria in the HEA or is otherwise
not in compliance with the requirements of the HEA.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 602.28 addresses how accrediting
agencies take into account negative decisions or adverse actions by
States and other recognized accrediting agencies in the review of their
accredited and preaccredited institutions and programs. Current Sec.
602.28(d) states that if the agency learns that an institution it
accredits or preaccredits, or an institution that offers a program it
accredits or preaccredits, is the subject of an adverse action by
another recognized accrediting agency or has been placed on probation
or an equivalent status by another recognized agency, the agency must
promptly review its accreditation or
[[Page 53969]]
preaccreditation of the institution or program to determine if it
should also take adverse action or place the institution or program on
probation or show cause.
Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes to amend Sec.
602.28(d) only. We propose to add language to specifically add actions
to a program that is accredited or preaccredited by the agency to fall
under the required review. We propose to strike ``by another recognized
accrediting agency'' and add language that expands applicability to
institutions or programs that have been the subject of similar negative
or adverse action by a State agency or Federal agency, as well as
another recognized accrediting agency. We also propose to replace
``show cause'' with ``an equivalent status''.
Reasons: The Department proposes to amend Sec. 602.28(d) to more
precisely specify that programs, not just institutions, are subject to
review by an agency in situations where another recognized agency has
initiated an adverse action or placed a program on probation or an
equivalent status. This provision promotes program quality and
accountability by requiring comprehensive review and discouraging
changes of accrediting agencies for the purpose of evading minimum
accreditation standards. We also propose expand the other recognized
agencies to include State and Federal agencies to allow for increased
accountability for institutions or programs subject to negative or
adverse actions by those entities. Finally, we wish to allow agencies
flexibility in placing affected institutions or programs on probation
or an equivalent status, not solely a show cause status. This approach
also aligns with similar language in Sec. 602.26(b).
Sec. 602.30 Agency Applications and Reports To Be Submitted to the
Department
Statute: Section 496(d) of the HEA states that no accrediting
agency or association may be recognized by the Secretary for the
purpose of this Act for a period of more than five years. Section
496(n) of the HEA states that the Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of all
accrediting agencies or associations which seek recognition by the
Secretary in order to determine whether such accrediting agencies or
associations meet the criteria established by this section. The statute
requires the Secretary to conduct an independent evaluation of the
information provided by such agency or association. Included in this
section are requirements related to agency applications, including
requirements related to distance education and the provision of
documentation. Additionally, Section 496(o) of the HEA states that the
Secretary shall by regulation provide procedures for the recognition of
accrediting agencies or associations and for the appeal of the
Secretary's decisions.
Current Regulations: We propose to redesignate and amend current
regulations in Sec. 602.31 to Sec. 602.30. The current regulations in
Sec. 602.31 require that accrediting agencies must apply in writing
for initial or continued recognition, submitting the application at
least every five years and 24 months before their current recognition
expires. Applications must include the agency's requested scope of
recognition, proof it meets the recognition criteria in Sec. 602
subpart B (including its policies and standards), and documentation
showing how it evaluates distance-education or correspondence programs
if those are included in its scope. An agency requesting an expansion
of scope must submit a written application that states the requested
scope, provides the relevant accreditation standards and evidence of
their use, and includes the materials required under Sec. 602.32(j)
and 602.32(l). If an accrediting agency is required to submit a
compliance or monitoring report, it must file the report within 30 days
after the compliance period ends. If an agency that has requests a
change in scope to include distance education or corresponding courses
reports an increase in headcount enrollment for an institution it
accredits the agency must submit a report within 45 days explaining how
it evaluates an institution's ability to handle a significant
enrollment increase, what caused the enrollment growth and the results
of its review, and any additional information needed to show it is
effectively applying recognition criteria. By applying for recognition,
an accrediting agency agrees to allow the Department to observe its
site visits and meetings, review any documents it needs, and access its
records, staff, and facilities. Agencies must follow Federal laws when
submitting materials for recognition. Before sending documents to the
Department, they must redact all personally identifiable information,
mark any business information they believe is confidential, and submit
only required documents. The Department may request unredacted versions
for review and will handle public disclosure requests under FOIA.
Finally, the Secretary may limit the length of agency submissions.
Proposed Regulations: We propose to strike the language regarding
the submission timeline and concurrent submission requirements under
current Sec. 602.30(a) (proposed Sec. 602.31(a)), insert the
requirement for an accrediting agency to submit a written application
to the Secretary if it seeks a contraction of scope under Sec.
602.30(b), and insert the prohibition that an accrediting agency cannot
prematurely redact business and other non-PII information in its
applications and reports submitted to the Department under Sec.
602.30(f)(1)(iii) and Sec. 602.30(f)(2).
Reasons: The recission related to the recognition timeline in Sec.
602.30(a) would streamline the recognition process and align with
timeline changes noted in the proposed regulations in Sec. 602.31. The
proposed regulations would change the recognition process from lasting
over 720 days to an estimated 240 days, reducing burden, enhancing the
currency of the Department's oversight for accrediting agencies, and
focusing Department resources based on potential risk related to the
distribution of title IV, HEA funds. This decreased timeline also
enables nascent accrediting agencies to become recognized in a timelier
manner which will enhance competition among accrediting agencies and
benefit students and taxpayers. These changes would implement one of
the orders under E.O. 14279 that directs the Department to resume
recognizing new accrediting agencies to increase competition and
accountability in promoting high-quality, high-value academic programs
focused on student outcomes.
Including contraction of scope in Sec. 602.30(b) would clarify
that any significant change in the scope of recognition for an
accrediting agency would be reviewed by the Secretary to ensure that
accrediting agencies do not restrict entry into professional fields by
eliminating credentials obtained at lower levels. These changes would
implement one of the orders under E.O. 14279 that direct the Department
reduce barriers that limit institutions from adopting practices that
advance credential and degree completion and spur new models of
education and prohibit accrediting agencies from engaging in practices
that result in credential inflation that burdens students with
additional unnecessary costs. The amendment and recission in Sec.
602.30(f)(1)(iii) and Sec. 602.30(f)(2) would continue to allow for
accrediting agencies to identify any material believed to be exempt
from public
[[Page 53970]]
disclosure under FOIA for later redaction prior to publication but
would no longer permit agencies to prematurely redact business and
other non-PII information and obscure information from Department
review. These changes would implement one of the orders under E.O.
14279 that direct the Department to increase the consistency,
efficiency, and effectiveness of the accrediting agency recognition
review process and align the regulations with Section 496(n)(4) which
states that the Secretary shall maintain sufficient documentation to
support the conclusions reached in the recognition process.
Sec. 602.31 Procedures for Submitting Applications for Recognition and
Renewal of Recognition
Statute: Section 496(d) of the HEA states that no accrediting
agency or association may be recognized by the Secretary for the
purpose of this Act for a period of more than five years. Section
496(n) of the HEA states that the Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of all
accrediting agencies or associations which seek recognition by the
Secretary in order to determine whether such accrediting agencies or
associations meet the criteria established by this section. The
Secretary shall conduct an independent evaluation of the information
provided by such agency or association. Included in this section are
requirements related to agency applications, including requirements
related to distance education and the provision of documentation, as
well as requirements for site visits by Department staff to the agency
seeking recognition. Section 496 (n)(2) of the HEA states that
Secretary shall place a priority for review of accrediting agencies or
associations on those agencies or associations that accredit
institutions of higher education that participate most extensively in
the programs authorized by this title and on those agencies or
associations which have been the subject of the most complaints or
legal actions. Additionally, Section 496(o) of the HEA states that the
Secretary shall by regulation provide procedures for the recognition of
accrediting agencies or associations and for the appeal of the
Secretary's decisions.
Current Regulations: We propose to redesignate and amend current
regulations in Sec. 602.32 to Sec. 602.31. In the current
regulations, agencies renewing recognition must, 24 months before their
recognition expires, submit a list of institutions or programs they
expect to review for accreditation within the next year, along with
those subject to compliance reporting. If no reviews are anticipated
during that period, the agency may instead provide institutions or
programs it has reviewed since its prior recognition. Agencies seeking
initial recognition must meet these requirements and additionally
provide letters of support from accredited institutions or programs,
educators, and, where relevant, employers or practitioners, along with
a letter from at least one institution intending to rely on the agency
as its Federal link. Upon receiving an application, Department staff
publish a Federal Register notice inviting public comment, then
evaluates the application using all relevant information, including
site visits, file reviews, public comments, and complaints. Evidence of
efforts by an agency to improperly restrict professional entry may be
considered negatively in the recognition review. If an agency seeking
initial recognition fails to meet basic eligibility requirements,
Department staff return the application and require withdrawal.
Otherwise, Department staff issues a draft analysis, allows at least
180 days for agency response, and then prepares a final analysis with a
compliance determination and a recommended action. The final analysis
is provided to the accrediting agency and to the NACIQI no later than
30 days prior to the advisory committee meeting. Agencies may request
deferral of Advisory Committee consideration if Department staff fail
to provide required materials on time, unless the delay was caused by
the agency. Agencies requesting an expansion of scope must submit
supporting documentation, letters from institutions or programs that
would seek accreditation under the expanded scope, and explanations of
capacity and budget to support the expansion. Applications for
expansion of scope, compliance reports, and enrollment increases are
processed according to the evaluation procedures described in the
regulation for renewal of recognition.
Proposed Regulations: In the proposed regulations, the Department
would remove the application process for recognition or renewal of
recognition that is currently identical for all agencies and instead
provide specific instructions and requirements based on agency
activities. Under the proposed Sec. 602.31(a)(1), when the
institutions accredited by an agency receive a substantial portion of
all title IV, HEA program funds, as determined by the Secretary, the
agency would be required to submit a comprehensive application for
recognition. Under the proposed Sec. 602.31(a)(2), when not designated
for review under Sec. 602.31(a)(1) the institutional accrediting
agency would submit an application demonstrating its adherence to the
regulatory requirements found in Sec. Sec. 602.15, 602.16, 602.17,
602.19, and 602.20, along with any additional criteria identified by
Department staff. The agency would be required to attest that its
policies and practices have remained in full compliance with all other
criteria in subpart B since its most recent comprehensive review as
well as conformity with all recognition standards beyond those
addressed directly in its application. Under the proposed Sec.
602.31(a)(3), when an accrediting agency, or any of its officers or
directors, has been involved in legal actions, complaints, or other
compliance matters that collectively or individually raise significant
concerns about the agency's adherence to the regulatory requirements in
this part, the agency would be required to submit a comprehensive
application. Under the proposed Sec. 602.31(a)(4), when a programmatic
accrediting agency is not selected for review under paragraph (a)(3),
it would submit an application demonstrating its compliance with the
standards set forth in Sec. Sec. 602.10, 602.16, 602.17, 602.19, and
602.20, as well as any additional criteria identified by Department
staff. The agency would also be required to attest that, since its most
recent comprehensive review, its policies and practices have remained
in full compliance with all other requirements in subpart B that are
not addressed in its application. Under the proposed Sec.
602.31(a)(5), any agency described in Sec. 602.31(a)(2) or Sec.
602.31(a)(4) would need to submit a comprehensive application at least
once every third cycle of review. Under the proposed Sec.
602.31(a)(6), the Department would evaluate a range of considerations
when reviewing an accrediting agency's performance for the purpose of
determining which type of recognition review to be conducted including:
whether any accredited institutions closed without required teach-out
agreements; whether the Department has received serious or a high
proportion of complaints regarding the agency's accredited institutions
or programs; whether the agency has substantially increased the number
of institutions or programs it accredits; and the number and
seriousness of any noncompliance findings identified in the senior
Department official's or Secretary's decision letter on the agency's
renewal of recognition.
[[Page 53971]]
The Department would strike the current requirements in Sec.
602.31(b) related to additional requirements that are only applicable
to agencies seeking initial recognition. Under the newly proposed
602.31(b), the Department would make technical changes to the language
in the section to clarify that the specific information sought in the
notice concerns the performance of the agency. Additionally, the
changes would expand the public's ability to comment on accrediting
agency performance by requiring agencies to publish on their websites
information regarding public comment related to the recognition review.
Under the proposed 602.31(c), the Department would strike the date
listed as it is no longer relevant. Under the proposed Sec.
602.31(c)(1), the Department would amend the observation requirements
by Department staff of an agency seeking recognition to require a site
visit to the agency, which may include a file review or an observation
of the agency's decision-making body meeting, an agency's visit to a
member institution or program, or of other agency activity. Under the
proposed Sec. 602.31(c)(2), the Department would strike ``comments and
other third-party'' and include ``information'' in place of
``comments'' after the remaining third-party.
Under the proposed Sec. 602.31(d), the Department would clarify
that the Department could treat certain forms of anticompetitive
conduct as a negative factor when evaluating an agency's application
for initial recognition, including collusive activity between an
accrediting agency and related professional or membership organizations
that improperly inflates the qualifications required for students to
sit for licensure or certification examinations or to enter a
profession through unjustified increases in education or training
requirements. Under the proposed Sec. 602.31(g)(1), the Department
would require the draft staff analysis to be completed within 120 days
of the submission deadline set by the Department. Under the proposed
Sec. 602.31(g)(2), the Department would provide the agency at least 90
days to submit its response. Under the proposed Sec. 602.31(g)(2), the
Department would strike ``comments'' and replace with ``information.''
Under the proposed Sec. 602.31(h), the Department would amend this
section with technical changes and clarify language related to any
agency failure to submit timely information would forfeit the agency's
right to request a deferral. Under the proposed Sec. 602.31(i), the
Department would extend an agency's recognition period automatically if
Department staff were unable to complete their evaluation of an
agency's application before the current recognition period ends. Any
recommended recognition period following the extension would not be
able to exceed five years of the original expiration date. The
Department would strike the current Sec. Sec. 602.32(j),(k),(l), and
(m) and provide the relevant revisions in Sec. 602.32.
Reasons: The changes in Sec. Sec. 602.31(a)(1)-(a)(6) would allow
for greater focus on the accrediting agencies that enable the flow of
substantive Federal monies while ensuring all accrediting agencies are
regularly reviewed in an appropriate oversight manner. The changes more
directly implement the expectations in 496(n)2) of the HEA by enabling
the Department to implement a risk-based type review. The changes also
offer sufficient flexibility for the Department to determine if
additional criteria must be reviewed to ensure continued compliance.
These changes would implement one of the orders under E.O. 14279 that
direct the Department to increase the consistency, efficiency, and
effectiveness of the accrediting agency recognition review process. The
removal of current Sec. 602.31(b) would ensure that accrediting
agencies seeking initial recognition are not held to requirements
beyond those applied to currently recognized agencies, thus meeting one
of the goals of the Department to streamline the recognition process
and eliminate any inappropriate barriers to recognition by implementing
one of the orders under E.O. 14279 that direct the Department to reduce
barriers that limit institutions from adopting practices that advance
credential and degree completion and spur new models of education, and
ensure that the accreditor recognition and reauthorization process is
transparent, efficient, and not unduly burdensome. Additionally, the
technical changes would clarify the language in the criteria to reflect
the request for only specific information related to performance
concerns of the agency. The inclusion of a new subsection under
requiring accrediting agencies to post the request for third-party
information from the Department on their own websites will increase the
transparency of the review process and better promote the public's
participation. The removal of the date from Sec. 602.31(c) is
appropriate given that the date has passed and all accrediting agencies
are now required to abide by the processes noted in the section. Under
Sec. 602.31(c)(1), the amended language would require at minimum one
site visit to an agency under review for recognition, which may include
a file review or an observation to an agency's decision-making body
meeting, of a visit to an institution or program being reviewed, or
another agency activity. The current requirement for Department staff
to conduct three site visits is burdensome for accrediting agencies and
the Department. These changes also implement one of the orders under
E.O. 14279 that direct the Department to ensure that the accreditor
recognition and reauthorization process is transparent, efficient, and
not unduly burdensome. The recission of the term ``comment'' and
substitution of the term ``information'' in Sec. 602.31(c)(2) is a
technical edit to align with the revision to Sec. 602.31(b). Under
Sec. 602.31(d), the Department seeks to ensure that accrediting
agencies make decisions independently to prevent any conflict of
interest or anticompetitive conduct. These changes also implement one
order under E.O. 14279 that directs the Department to ensure
accreditors are prohibited from engaging in practices that result in
credential inflation that burden students with additional unnecessary
costs. This change would also seek to prevent inappropriate agency
decisions to improperly inflate credential for entry into any field or
to sit for any field-required exam. The new timeline for review in
Sec. 602.31(g)(1) would significantly expedite the timeline for
recognition reviews by requiring Department staff to review agency
submissions within 120 days rather than the current 12 months. The
change would implement the E.O. 14279 direction that the Department
increase the efficiency of the accreditor recognition review process
and resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and
accountability in promoting high-quality, high-value academic programs
focused on student outcomes. The recission of the term ``comment'' and
expanding the language to include public and third-party information in
Sec. 602.31(g)(2) is a technical edit to align with the revision to
Sec. 602.31(b). The technical changes in Sec. 602.31(h) would provide
greater clarity to processing requirements should the accrediting
agency fail to timely submit information and include confirmation that
no deferral of an agency application will occur if the agency is at
fault for the delay. The changes to Sec. 602.31(i) would clarify
procedures for recognition status if the Department does not complete
its review prior to the expiration date of an
[[Page 53972]]
agency's recognition period. This change would resolve delays that
could occur due to government closure or other issues that would delay
the review of the agency's application and then require either an
immediate determination by the Department or the creation of quasi-
regulatory processes for the extension of an agency's recognition.
Finally, the Department would strike (j), (k), (l), and (m) from this
section as they deal with other types of reports, which are moved to
Sec. 602.32 and amended in that section.
Sec. 602.32 Procedures for Review of an Expansion of Scope, a
Contraction of Scope, Compliance Reports, or Increases in Headcount
Enrollment
Statute: Section 496(l) of the HEA states that if the Secretary
makes a determination of noncompliance or ineffective application of
the criteria, the Secretary may require the agency or association to
take appropriate action to bring return to compliance with such
requirements within a timeframe specified by the Secretary. Section
496(n) of the HEA states that the Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of all
accrediting agencies or associations which seek recognition by the
Secretary in order to determine whether such accrediting agencies or
associations meet the criteria established by this section. The
Secretary shall conduct an independent evaluation of the information
provided by such agency or association. Included in this section are
requirements related to agency applications, including requirements
related to distance education and the provision of documentation.
Section 496(o) of the HEA states that the Secretary shall by regulation
provide procedures for the recognition of accrediting agencies or
associations and for the appeal of the Secretary's decisions. Section
496(q) of the HEA states that the Secretary shall require a review, at
the next available meeting of the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity, of any change in scope undertaken
by an agency or association under subsection (a)(4)(B)(i)(II) if the
enrollment of an institution that offers distance education or
correspondence education that is accredited by such agency or
association increases by 50 percent or more within any one
institutional fiscal year.
Current Regulations: We propose to redesignate and amend current
regulations in Sec. 602.32(c)-(h) to this section. In the current
regulations, the Department processes applications for expansion of
scope, compliance reports, or increases in enrollment reports in
accordance with paragraphs with paragraphs (c) through (h) of Sec.
602.32. These regulations require that the Department publishes a
notice in the Federal Register upon receiving an agency's application
for recognition, thereby inviting public comment on the agency's
adherence to the established recognition criteria and announcing the
deadline for such submissions. Department staff then conducts a
comprehensive evaluation of the agency's application for initial or
continued recognition. This evaluation considers all relevant
information regarding the agency's compliance with recognition criteria
and the consistency with which those criteria are applied. The
evaluation must include site visits to the agency or to institutions
and programs it accredits; reviews of agency files; examination of
public comments, third-party information, and complaints; as well as
consideration of legal actions involving either the agency or the
institutions under its purview. In reviewing applications for initial
recognition or expansion of scope, the Department may weigh negatively
any evidence that the agency participated in efforts to unduly limit
student eligibility for licensure, certification, or entry into a
profession. Department staff may also review information related to
accredited institutions or programs to assess their compliance with
agency standards and the agency's effectiveness in applying those
standards, while ensuring that all materials relied upon in the
evaluation are made available to the agency for review and comment.
Upon completing its evaluation, Department staff prepares a draft
analysis identifying any areas of potential noncompliance and transmits
it to the agency along with relevant comments, complaints, and
supporting materials. The agency is afforded at least 180 days to
respond. After reviewing any response, Department staff prepares a
final analysis indicating whether the agency is in full, substantial,
or noncompliance with each criterion. The final analysis includes a
recommendation to the senior Department official regarding approval,
continued recognition (with or without monitoring or compliance
reporting), or denial, limitation, suspension, or termination of
recognition. The final analysis and accompanying materials are provided
to the agency no later than 30 days prior to the Advisory Committee
meeting.
Proposed Regulations: We propose new processing requirements for
expansions and contractions of scope, compliance reports, and increases
in headcount. Specifically, under proposed Sec. 602.32(a)(1) and (2)
the Department will consider applications for an expansion or
contraction of an accrediting agency's scope only when submitted
together with an application for recognition, unless Department staff,
at their discretion, elect to review such a request independently.
Under proposed 602.32(a)(3), in evaluating proposed scope changes, the
Department may treat evidence of anticompetitive conduct, such as
collusion between an accrediting agency and affiliated professional or
membership organizations to inflate qualification requirements for
professional entry or licensure, as a negative factor. Under proposed
Sec. 602.32(b), for compliance reports, Department staff will complete
its evaluation and, within 90 days of the deadline established in the
senior Department official's or Secretary's decision letter, prepare a
written draft analysis of the agency's report. This draft, along with
any materials received by the Department within the established
timeframe, will be sent to the agency and identifies any potential
areas of noncompliance. The agency will be invited to submit a written
response within at least 45 days. Department staff will then review any
response and prepare a final analysis indicating whether the agency is
in full, substantial, or noncompliance with the applicable recognition
criteria, and provide a recommendation to the senior Department
official on whether recognition should be approved, continued (with or
without reporting or monitoring requirements), or denied (limited,
suspended, or terminated). The final analysis and all available
materials for the Advisory Committee will be provided to the agency no
later than 30 days prior to the Committee's meeting.
Under proposed Sec. 602.32(c), reports related to increases in
headcount enrollment submitted pursuant to proposed Sec. 602.30(d)
will be processed by the Department using the same procedures
applicable to compliance reports.
Reasons: The addition of this section would allow for clearer,
quicker, and more specific processing requirements related to reviews
of scope, compliance reports, and increase in headcount enrollment. By
only allowing for the review of changes in scope with an application
for recognition other than in special cases in Sec. 602.32(a)(2), the
Department aims to focus Department and accrediting agency resources
and increase the efficiency of the review process in accordance with
E.O. 14279. Under proposed Sec. 602.32(a)(3), the
[[Page 53973]]
Department would make clear that it will not permit agencies to expand
or contract scope in a manner that would violate antitrust laws or
cause inappropriate credential inflation.
Under proposed Sec. 602.32(b), the Department would establish
clear procedures for the review of compliance reports. The new
procedures would significantly expedite the time of review for
compliance reports by requiring Department staff to review agency
submissions within 90 days rather than the previous 12 months and
requiring the agency to reply to any concerns within 45 days rather
than the previous 180 days. This change would implement E.O. 14279,
which directs the Department to increase the efficiency of the
accreditor recognition review process and also potentially ensure, by
resolving issues in a more timely manner, the protection of students
and the stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Under proposed Sec. 602.32(c), the Department would make clear
that reviews related to increase in headcount enrollment would be
processed in the same expedited timeline as compliance reports.
Sec. 602.33 Procedures for Review of Agencies During the Period of
Recognition, Including the Review of Monitoring Reports
Statute: Section 496(n) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of all
accrediting agencies seeking recognition to determine if they meet the
criteria. Additionally, Section 496(o) of the HEA states that the
Secretary shall provide procedures for the recognition of accrediting
agencies.
Current Regulations: Current regulations enable Department staff to
conduct a review of an accrediting agency at any time based upon an
agency's submission of a monitoring report or any other credible
information that raises compliance concerns. Department staff will
provide the agency with a draft analysis along with any supporting
documentation if such reviews indicate compliance issues. The agency
will have ninety days to provide a written response after which
Department staff will either conclude the review, continue monitoring,
or provide a final analysis for presentation to the NACIQI. In such an
event, a notice will be made in the Federal Register, any public
comments received will be provided to the agency, further analysis will
be finalized if needed due to comments or agency responses, and the
final staff analysis will be provided to the agency at least thirty
days prior to the NACIQI meeting.
Proposed Regulations: We propose adding a new section as Sec.
602.33(c) ensuring accrediting agencies are provided with any
documentation as a result of an inquiry being made under Sec.
602.33(a)(2) and are given an opportunity to respond, which is a
modification of language being removed from current Sec. 602.33(c). We
propose adding a new section as Sec. 602.33(d) to ensure that reviews
resulting in a finding of an agency in compliance are concluded and the
agency is notified. We propose adding language in the existing Sec.
602.33(c)(2) (proposed Sec. 602.33(e)(2)) to clarify that the
Department only provides not previously provided supporting
documentation to accrediting agencies. We propose changing the timeline
in the existing Sec. 602.33(c)(3) (proposed Sec. 602.33(e)(3)) for
accrediting agencies to provide a written response to the draft
analysis from ninety days to forty-five days. We propose adding
language in Sec. 602.33(c)(4)(i) (proposed Sec. 602.33(e)(4)(i)) to
clarify that a review is concluded upon finding that an accrediting
agency is in compliance. We propose striking the existing Sec.
602.33(c)(4)(iii)(B-C) to eliminate publishing a notice in the Federal
Register and the steps involved with soliciting and receiving third
party comments on reviews initiated under this section that result in a
finding of noncompliance.
Reasons: The addition of the new Sec. 602.33(c) will promote
greater transparency and due process for accrediting agencies but is
not a significant change from current practice. The clarification in
the existing Sec. 602.33(c)(2) and the change to the timeline in Sec.
602.33(c)(3) will promote greater efficiency. The change would
implement the E.O. 14279 for the Department to increase the efficiency
of the accreditor recognition review process and ensure that the
accreditor recognition and reauthorization process is transparent,
efficient, and not unduly burdensome.
The change in Sec. 602.33(c)(4)(i) (proposed Sec.
602.33(e)(4)(i)) will clarify that a review is only concluded if the
result was a finding of compliance. The removal of existing Sec.
602.33(c)(4)(iii)(B-C) will promote greater efficiency in the use of
Department resources, particularly given that public comment is not
required by statute for such reviews, and the public will still have an
opportunity to provide third-party comments in response to a notice in
the Federal Register throughout other stages of an accrediting agency's
recognition process. The addition of the new Sec. 602.33(d) will
promote greater transparency and finality for accrediting agencies that
have been found in compliance following a review.
Sec. 602.34 Advisory Committee Meetings
Statute: Section 114(a) of the HEA requires the establishment of
the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity
(NACIQI). Section 114(c) of the HEA states that one of the NACIQI's
functions is to advise the Secretary with respect to the recognition of
a specific accrediting agency. Section 114(d) of the HEA sets forth
meeting procedures for the NACIQI which includes: publication of
meeting information, establishment of an agenda, invitation for public
comment, and attendance by a Department representative. Additionally,
Section 496(o) of the HEA states that the Secretary shall provide
procedures for the recognition of accrediting agencies.
Current Regulations: Current regulations provide procedures for the
Advisory Committee (NACIQI) meetings and its review of accrediting
agencies. Department staff develop a proposed meeting schedule and the
NACIQI establishes an agenda for approval by the Designated Federal
Official. Department staff provide the NACIQI with the agency's
application or compliance report and supporting documentation, the
agency's response to the draft staff analysis, a final staff analysis,
any timely third-party comments and any agency responses to them, and
any other information used in developing the analysis. Prior to the
NACIQI meeting, the Department issues a Federal Register notice
inviting interested parties to make oral presentations. The NACIQI
conducts a public meeting to review the agency, develops a written
motion making a recommendation on recognition regarding the agency, and
provides the recommendation to the senior Department official.
Proposed Regulations: We propose including NACIQI's consideration
of an agency seeking a contraction of its scope of recognition under
Sec. 602.34(c)(1). We propose striking the term ``comment'' under
Sec. Sec. 602.34(c)(4) and (c)(5) and instead require the Department
to provide third-party ``information'' and responses to the NACIQI. We
propose adding the new subsection Sec. 602.34(d)(2) to require
accrediting agencies to publish a notice of an upcoming NACIQI meeting,
concerning the agency, on its own website with instructions on how the
public can participate. The remaining proposed
[[Page 53974]]
regulations are not substantive changes but are proposed cross-
reference changes and technical amendments.
Reasons: Including contraction of scope in Sec. 602.34(c) would
clarify that any significant change in scope would be reviewed by the
NACIQI to ensure that accrediting agencies do not restrict entry into
professional fields by eliminating credentials obtained at lower
levels. The change would implement an order within E.O. 14279 directing
the Department to prohibit practices that result in credential
inflation. The recission of the term ``comment'' and substitution of
the term ``information'' in Sec. Sec. 602.34(c)(4) and (c)(5) will
reflect the change in terms made in Sec. 602.31(b). The inclusion of a
new subsection under Sec. 602.34(d) requiring accrediting agencies to
post NACIQI meeting information on their own websites will increase the
transparency and expand the public's ability to comment on accrediting
agency performance at the NACIQI meeting by requiring agencies to
publish on their websites information regarding public participation
related to the recognition review. The non-substantive and cross-
reference changes will provide greater clarity and conformity.
Sec. 602.35 Responding to the Advisory Committee's Recommendation
Statute: Section 496(n) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of all
accrediting agencies seeking recognition to determine if they meet the
criteria. Additionally, Section 496(o) of the HEA states that the
Secretary shall provide procedures for the recognition of accrediting
agencies.
Current Regulations: Current regulations provide the procedures for
allowing Department staff or an accrediting agency, or both, to submit
further information to the senior Department official following a
NACIQI meeting. These procedures also provide guidance on the
limitations to comments submitted and the provision of comments to
Department staff or an accrediting agency, or both.
Proposed Regulations: We propose adding language to Sec. 602.35(a)
to clarify that the timeline for the Department staff or the
accrediting agency to submit further comments to the senior Department
official begins within ten business days of the transcript of the
NACIQI meeting being published as opposed to beginning instead within
ten business days following the conclusion of the meeting itself.
Reasons: The clarification in Sec. 602.35(a) will better ensure
that both Department staff and the accrediting agencies have an
appropriate amount of time and access to the NACIQI transcript when
drafting any further comments for consideration by the senior
Department official following a NACIQI meeting.
Sec. 602.36 Senior Department Official's Decision
Statute: Section 496(l) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
determine if an accrediting agency is in compliance with the
requirements. If not, the Secretary shall either limit, suspend, or
terminate the agency's recognition or require it to take corrective
actions. If the agency does not return to compliance, the Secretary is
required to limit, suspend, or terminate the agency's recognition. An
agency must be provided with notice and an opportunity for a hearing if
the Secretary seeks to limit, suspend, or terminate an agency's
recognition. Section 496(n) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of all
accrediting agencies seeking recognition to determine if they meet the
criteria. Section 496(n) of the HEA also requires the Secretary to
maintain sufficient documentation to support the conclusions reached in
the recognition process and, if the Secretary does not recognize any
accrediting agency, to publicize the reason for denying recognition.
Additionally, Section 496(o) of the HEA states that the Secretary shall
provide procedures for the recognition of accrediting agencies.
Current Regulations: Current regulations provide the procedures for
the senior Department official to make a recognition decision. The
regulations describe the types of corrective actions that can be taken
if needed as well as timelines that must be followed. They also provide
for due process.
Proposed Regulations: We propose making cross-reference changes to
conform to earlier proposed changes, to include action on an
application of a contraction of scope and revising regulatory
citations.
Reasons: The proposed cross-reference changes ensure proper
references and continuity throughout the regulations.
Sec. 602.37 Appealing the Senior Department Official's Decision to the
Secretary
Statute: Section 496(l) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
determine if an accrediting agency is in compliance with the
requirements. If not, the Secretary shall either limit, suspend, or
terminate the agency's recognition or require it to take corrective
actions. If the agency does not return to compliance, the Secretary is
required to limit, suspend, or terminate the agency's recognition. An
agency must be provided with notice and an opportunity for a hearing if
the Secretary seeks to limit, suspend, or terminate an agency's
recognition. Section 496(n) of the HEA requires the Secretary to
conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of all
accrediting agencies seeking recognition to determine if they meet the
criteria. Additionally, Section 496(o) of the HEA states that the
Secretary shall provide procedures for the recognition of accrediting
agencies.
Current Regulations: Current regulations provide the procedures for
an accrediting agency to appeal the recognition decision of the senior
Department official.
Proposed Regulations: We propose making cross-reference changes to
conform to earlier proposed changes, to include revised regulatory
citations.
Reasons: The proposed cross-reference changes ensure proper
references and continuity throughout the regulations.
Sec. 668.43 Institutional and Programmatic Information
Statute: Section 485 (a)(1) of the HEA requires institutions
participating in the title IV, HEA programs to provide accurate and
comprehensive institutional and consumer information to current and
prospective students, and to make the information readily available
upon request, through appropriate publications, mailings, and
electronic media. Section 485 (a)(1) of the HEA states that
institutions must provide a non-exhaustive list of information related
to academic programs, cost of attendance, program requirements,
institutional policies, accreditation, completion and graduation rates,
and other consumer relevant disclosures.
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 668.43(a)(11) requires
institutions' transfer of credit policies to include any established
criteria the institution uses regarding the transfer of credit earned
at another institution and any types of institutions or sources from
which the institution will not accept credits, a list of institutions
with which the institution has established an articulation agreement,
and written criteria used to evaluate and award credit for prior
learning experience including, but not limited to, service in the armed
forces, paid or unpaid employment, or other demonstrated competency or
learning. Current
[[Page 53975]]
Sec. 668.43(c)(3) requires disclosures to be made directly to the
student in writing, which may include through email or other electronic
communication. Current Sec. 668.43(c)(3) also requires an institution
to make a determination regarding the State in which a student is
located in accordance with the institution's policies or procedures,
which must be applied consistently to all students. The institution
must, upon request, provide the Secretary with written documentation of
its determination of a student's location, including the basis for such
determination. An institution must make a determination regarding the
State in which a student is located at the time of the student's
initial enrollment in an educational program and, if applicable, upon
formal receipt of information from the student, in accordance with the
institution's procedures, that the student's location has changed to
another State.
Proposed Regulations: The Department proposes adding additional
criteria to Sec. 668.43(a)(11) that institutions must include in their
transfer of credit policies. The additional criteria includes the
timeline by which a transcript must be submitted for timely review so
that a prospective student can make an informed decision prior to
making a nonrefundable financial commitment, enrollment or
registration, and a statement regarding whether the institution
considers credit earned in a non-degree program, or hours completed in
a non-credit program, for transfer or articulation to a degree program.
The Department proposes to amend current Sec. 668.43(c)(3) with
disclosure requirements for transfer of credit. Namely, if an
institution receives a timely transcript from a student, the
institution would be required to inform the student of the credit that
would be awarded for courses on the transcript. Institutions would be
required to inform the student of the credit that the institution
declines to award for courses on that transcript, and disclose the
estimated time and, when applicable, courses that would be needed to
replace the courses for which the institution declined to award credit.
The Department proposes adding a new provision, Sec. 668.43(c)(4),
that states that if the institution declines to award credit to a
student pursuant to its transfer of credit policy under 34 CFR
602.24(e)(4), the institution would need to provide the student with a
written rationale specific to each course that does not result in
transfer credit. The Department also proposes to move the content from
current Sec. 668.43(c)(3), which requires disclosures to be made
directly to the student in writing, to Sec. 668.43(c)(5)(iii).
Accordingly, the Department proposes to update the cross references in
this section from paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) to (c)(5)(iii)(A). The
Department also proposes to require institutions to provide students
with disclosures related to transcripts by the earlier of the date that
the student signs an enrollment agreement completes registration or
makes a nonrefundable financial commitment to the institution.
The Department proposes to add the word ``nonrefundable'' in
current Sec. 668.43(d)(3) to require an institution to provide the
relevant information to access the website maintained by the Secretary
to any prospective student, or a third party acting on behalf of the
prospective student, before the prospective student signs an enrollment
agreement, completes registration, or makes a nonrefundable financial
commitment to the institution.
Reasons: The Department proposes a defined timeline for students to
submit transcripts in Sec. 668.43(a)(11) so institutions can complete
transfer credit evaluations before a prospective student makes any
binding financial or enrollment commitment. A timeline would prevent
delays in transcript review that could disadvantage students or
pressure them into committing without knowing their standing in the
program. The Department also proposes that an institution disclose
whether it considers credit earned in a nondegree program, or hours
completed in a noncredit program, for transfer or articulation to a
degree program in order for students have accurate, up-front
information about whether learning they have already completed--in non-
degree or non-credit programs--would count toward a degree program at
the institution.
The Department proposes new Sec. 668.43(c)(3) to help prospective
students understand credit acceptance before making a financial
commitment. The Department proposes adding Sec. 668.43(c)(4) to have
institutions explain exactly why a course was not accepted, rather than
leaving students uncertain or subject to unclear institutional
practices. The Department proposes adding Sec. 668.43(c)(5) to provide
students and borrowers with timely, accurate information necessary to
make informed decisions. Clear timing standards reduce ambiguity,
promote consistency across institutions, and help prevent delays that
can negatively affect students' ability to transfer credits, verify
completion, or access financial aid. By establishing a uniform
disclosure framework, the Department aims to enhance transparency,
strengthen consumer protection, and improve administrative efficiency
while minimizing compliance burdens for institutions.
The Department proposes moving the contents of current Sec.
668.43(c)(3) to Sec. 668.43(c)(5)(iii) because the cross references in
the amendatory language needed to be renumbered to align with the new
regulatory structure. The Department proposes to add the word
``nonrefundable'' in current Sec. 668.43(d)(3) to anchor disclosure
timing to before a student becomes financially at risk. The intent is
to prevent institutions from charging nonrefundable deposits and
creating financial liability before students receive information about
whether their academic credits will transfer.
VIII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a
rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments
or communities;
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive Order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
As indicated in the Net Budget Impact section of this RIA, the
Department estimates that there will be no significant change in
transfers between the Federal Government and student loan borrowers and
Pell Grant recipients as a result of the proposed regulations.
Quantified annualized costs include updates and reporting costs for
accrediting agencies, institutions, and individuals detailed in the
Paperwork
[[Page 53976]]
Reduction Act section of this NPRM of $490.3 million and $494.2 million
at 3 percent and 7 percent discounting, respectively. Therefore, based
on our estimates of quantified costs and benefits, OIRA has determined
that this proposed regulation is ``economically significant'' under
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and subject to OMB review.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and considering--among
other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of cumulative
regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' OIRA has emphasized
that these techniques may include ``identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes.''
This action is expected to be considered a regulatory action under
Executive Order 14192. This Executive Order directs agencies of the
executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the
expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources, and to
alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.
We estimate that this rule would generate approximately $417.9 million
in annualized costs at a 7% discount rate, discounted relative to year
2024, over a perpetual time horizon.
Consistent with OMB Circular A-4, we compare the proposed
regulations to the current regulations. In this regulatory impact
analysis, we discuss the need for regulatory action, potential costs
and benefits, net budget impacts, and the regulatory alternatives we
considered.
Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
In this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget
impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as the
regulatory alternatives we considered.
1. Need for Regulatory Action
The Department proposes this regulatory action to align the
Secretary of Education's (Secretary) criteria for recognition of
accreditors to promote high-quality, high-value, and affordable
education for students as outlined in Executive Order 14279,
``Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,'' issued on
April 23, 2025, by President Trump.\12\ Executive Order 14279 directs
the Secretary to take several actions related to the Department's
recognition of accrediting agencies or associations to ensure agency
standards and enforcement actions are focused on student outcomes and
free from unlawful discrimination and other potential violations of
Federal and State law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Executive Order 14279. ``Reforming Accreditation to
Strengthen Higher Education.'' The White House. April 23, 2025.
www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reforming-accreditation-to-strengthen-higher-education/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended, requires the Secretary
to establish criteria for determining whether an accrediting agency is
a reliable authority, for purposes of the HEA and for other Federal
purposes, on the quality of education or training offered by the
institutions or programs that they accredit. Consistent with the
statute, the Secretary has established regulations for recognition of
accrediting agencies and has revised these regulations periodically.
The proposed regulations are intended to reduce barriers that limit
competition among accreditors and recognition of new accreditors.
Similarly, via changes to accreditor requirements, the proposed
regulations aim to increase educational innovation and foster new
education models that advance credential and degree completion. To
improve student outcomes on student loan repayment, graduate earnings,
and financial value and affordability, the proposed regulations also
mandate that accrediting agencies assess member institutions on
program-level student outcomes, without reference to race, ethnicity,
or sex.
2. Summary of Proposed Provisions
Table 2.1 provides a summary of the proposed provisions.
Table 2.1--Summary of Key Changes in the Proposed Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
Provision Regulatory section proposed provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special rules regarding Sec. 600.11....... Amend Sec. 600.11
institutional accreditation to make it less
or preaccreditation. burdensome for
institutions that
are changing
accreditors or wish
to utilize more
than one
accrediting agency.
How do I know which agencies Sec. 602.2........ Amend Sec. 602.2
the Secretary recognizes? to require the
Department provide
public notice on
its accreditation
website if the
Secretary denies
continued
recognition to a
previously
recognized agency,
or if the Secretary
limits, suspends,
or terminates the
agency's
recognition before
the end of its
recognition period.
What definitions apply to Sec. 602.3........ Amend Sec. 602.3
this part. to define and use
the term
``institution'' in
these regulations
instead of
``institution of
higher education''
which is defined in
the HEA, and
elsewhere in the
Department's
regulations, and
refers to a
narrower subset of
institutions, and
to add a definition
for ``related,
associated, or
affiliated trade
association.''
Link to Federal programs.... Sec. 602.10....... Amend Sec. 602.10
to clarify the
Secretary's
recognition extends
only to those
accrediting
agencies whose
institutions or
programs actively
participate in a
Federal program.
[[Page 53977]]
Extent of Accrediting Sec. 602.11....... Amend Sec. 602.11
activities. to require
accrediting
agencies to clearly
describe the scope
of their
accrediting
activities and
remove geographic
restrictions on
institutions' and
program' ability to
choose an
accrediting agency.
Accrediting experience...... Sec. 602.12....... Amend Sec. 602.12
to remove
references to
geographic areas
and geographic
constraints, and
require review of
contractions of
scope.
Additionally,
amends the
regulations to
clarify the
policies and
capacity an
accrediting agency
must have to seek
initial
recognition, and
eliminates the
``two-year rule''
for initial
recognition due to
lack of statutory
requirement.
Effect of recognition....... Sec. 602.13....... Unreserve and amend
Sec. 602.13 to
specify that an
accrediting
agency's
recognition by the
Department does not
provide any
immunity from
antitrust laws.
Purpose and organization.... Sec. 602.14....... Amend Sec. 602.14
to strengthen the
fiscal and
administrative
criteria an
accrediting agency
must meet to prove
it is fully
separate and
independent from
any related,
associated, or
affiliated trade or
membership
organization.
Administrative and fiscal Sec. 602.15....... Amend Sec. 602.15
responsibilities. to require
accrediting
agencies to
administer their
standards,
policies, and
procedures in a
manner that
minimizes
unnecessary
compliance costs
and administrative
burdens on
accredited
institutions, as
well as requires
agencies to
maintain
appropriate
conflict of
interest controls
and policies.
Accreditation and Sec. 602.16....... Amend Sec. 602.16
preaccreditation standards. to require
accrediting
agencies to
establish clear
institutional and
program level
student achievement
requirements
aligned with Sec.
602.17, and to
clarify that any
additional
standards must be
lawful and
consistent with
ensuring
institutional and
programmatic
quality and
integrity.
Application of standards in Sec. 602.17....... Amend Sec. 602.17
reaching accreditation to clarify
decisions. expectations for
reviewing student
achievement and
faculty related
policies, including
academic freedom
and intellectual
diversity. There
are also new
requirements for
cost-benefit
analysis,
institutional
flexibility and
mission, program
length review, and
safeguards against
misrepresentation.
Ensuring consistency in Sec. 602.18....... Amend Sec. 602.18
decision-making. to require
accrediting agency
decisions to be
neutral with
respect to
viewpoint and
ideology, except
for those with a
religious mission.
Enforcement of standards.... Sec. 602.20....... Amend Sec. 602.20
to provide guidance
to accrediting
agencies on how to
structure their
arbitration
procedures and
remove overly
prescriptive
requirements.
Review of standards......... Sec. 602.21....... Amend Sec. 602.21
to remove overly
prescriptive
requirements.
Substantive changes and Sec. 602.22....... Amend Sec.
other reporting 602.22 to refine
requirements. the list of changes
requiring
accreditor
approval, add
prison education
programs as a
defined substantive
change, and remove
outdated and overly
prescriptive
requirements.
Operating procedures all Sec. 602.23....... Amend Sec. 602.23
agencies must have. to require
accrediting
agencies to ensure
make sure
institutions comply
with all applicable
Federal and State
laws and remove
overly prescriptive
requirements.
Additional procedures Sec. 602.24....... Amend Sec. 602.24
certain institutional to strengthen
agencies must have. accrediting
agencies' oversight
of institutional
changes, expand
requirements for
teach-out planning,
including
transcript access,
and increase
transparency and
support for
students when
institutions face
disruptions. These
regulations would
also establish
clearer, fairer
transfer of credit
rules by defining
consistent
criteria,
prohibiting
discriminatory
denials, requiring
acceptance of
comparable credits,
and providing
students with an
appeals process.
Due process................. Sec. 602.25....... Amend Sec. 602.25
to remove overly
prescriptive
requirements.
Notification of accrediting Sec. 602.26....... Amend Sec. 602.26
decisions. to update and
modernize the
required content of
agency notices and
better align these
requirements with
contemporary
methods of
disclosure and
allow temporary
continuation of
eligibility for
title IV, HEA funds
after erroneous
decisions on the
part of the
accrediting agency.
Other information an agency Sec. 602.27....... Amend Sec. 602.27
must provide the Department. to require that the
Department's
website is updated
on a regular,
timely basis to
display the current
accreditation
status of all
institutions and
programs.
Regard for decisions of Sec. 602.28....... Amend Sec. 602.28
States and other to broaden the
accrediting agencies. circumstances under
which an
accrediting agency
must reevaluate an
institution or
program following
negative actions by
other authorities.
Agency applications and Sec. 602.30....... Amend Sec. 602.30
reports to be submitted to to modernize how
the Department. accrediting
agencies submit
applications and
required reports to
the Department.
Procedures for submitting Sec. 602.31....... Amend Sec. 602.31
applications for to modernize and
recognition and renewal of streamline the
recognition. procedures
accrediting
agencies must
follow when
submitting
applications for
initial or renewed
recognition.
Procedures for review of an Sec. 602.32....... Amend Sec. 602.32
expansion of scope, a to modernize and
contraction of scope, clarify the
compliance reports, or processes used to
increases in headcount review an
enrollment. accrediting
agency's expansions
or contractions of
scope, compliance
reports, and
increases in
headcount
enrollment.
Procedures for review of Sec. 602.33....... Amend Sec. 602.33
agencies during the period to modernize and
of recognition, including streamline the
the review of monitoring procedures for
reports. review of agencies
during the period
of recognition,
including the
review of
monitoring reports.
Advisory Committee meetings. Sec. 602.34....... Amend Sec. 602.34
to require the
National Advisory
Committee on
Institutional
Quality and
Integrity
(NACIQI's) to
review applications
for contractions of
scope, and for
accrediting
agencies to post
public notice of
upcoming NACIQI
reviews for
transparency and
consistency.
Responding to the Advisory Sec. 602.35....... Amend Sec. 602.35
Committee's recommendation. to update cross
references.
Senior Department official's Sec. 602.36....... Amend Sec. 602.36
decision. to update cross
references.
Appealing the senior Sec. 602.37....... Amend Sec. 602.37
Department official's to update cross
decision to the Secretary. references.
Institutional and Sec. 688.43....... Amend Sec. 668.43
programmatic information. to require transfer
of credit
disclosures and
direct written
notice to students.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Cost, Benefits, and Transfers
The proposed regulations would affect students, institutions of
higher education, accrediting agencies, and the Federal government. The
Department expects students and the Federal government to benefit from
the proposed regulations. The proposed regulation is likely to impose
new costs on institutions and accrediting agencies.
This analysis focuses on four major policy areas within the
proposed rule that are likely to have the most significant costs and
benefits:
(1) changes to accrediting agencies' transfer-of-credit policies;
(2) a new requirement that agencies adopt policies that assess
program-level student outcomes;
(3) regulatory changes that will allow for greater competition
among existing
[[Page 53978]]
and newly recognized accrediting agencies; and
(4) reforms that align accreditation standards with efforts to
reduce college costs and credential inflation.
We discuss the costs and benefits associated with each of these
areas below. The Department notes that there is little critical data
available on which to base estimates of the proposed regulation's
effect on the accrediting agency marketplace and responses by
institutions and students. For this regulatory impact analysis, the
Department has relied primarily on publicly available Database of
Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs (DAPIP) and its own
administrative data on title IV, HEA student aid recipients in the
National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) and Common Origination and
Disbursement (COD) data. As we described above in the Directed
Questions section, the Department is interested in receiving comments
about possible data, methods, and other related research that would
supplement these analyses. We are also interested in receiving comments
regarding possible impacts not identified by the Department, along with
supporting data and analysis.
Transfer of Credits
The proposed regulation would make it easier for students to
transfer credits to continue their postsecondary enrollment at a new
institution. Under section 602.24(e)(3), accrediting agencies would be
required to ensure member institutions adopt several policies regarding
transfer of credit that should increase the number of credits students
are able to retain when transferring to a new institution. For example,
the proposed rule would require that accreditors prohibit an
institution from denying transfer of credit based on the recognition of
the institution, or type of institution, at which the student completed
the coursework, so long as the agency providing accreditation is
recognized by the Secretary. The Department also proposes that
accrediting agencies require an institution to award transfer credit
for undergraduate programs for coursework that has been successfully
completed at another institution, is accredited by an agency recognized
by the Secretary, and is comparable in content and learning outcomes to
the institution's own course offerings, unless the institution provides
a written basis for denial.
Students could benefit from these proposed changes because they may
spend less time and money retaking courses that failed to transfer. A
2017 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office using
Department of Education data found that transfer students typically
lose 43 percent of their credits when they transfer.\13\ Under the
proposed rule, students will retain more of their credits earned at
prior institutions, allowing them to complete their postsecondary
education faster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report to
Congressional Requesters, ``Higher Education: Students Need More
Information to Help Reduce Challenges in Transferring College
Credits'', GAO-17-574, August 14, 2017, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-574.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to estimate the precise effect this policy may have
on enrollment and title IV, HEA student aid disbursements, and the
Department acknowledges a variety of outcomes could occur. First, the
policy may induce more students to enroll in higher education because
students will have more flexibility to switch programs. It may also
make transfer more desirable, allowing students to better match
themselves to different programs and enhancing their ability to
continue their education. If this occurs, the policy may ultimately
increase enrollment and title IV, HEA student aid disbursements,
imposing new costs on taxpayers and the Federal government.
Additionally, higher education institutions may benefit, as they would
likely receive additional revenues due to higher enrollment levels.
Alternatively, the policy may result in a reduction in title IV,
HEA disbursements, providing a benefit to the Federal government and
taxpayers and a new cost for higher education institutions. This would
occur if higher education enrollment remains constant and if the
proposed provision allows students finish their credentials faster,
resulting in fewer title IV, HEA disbursements. If this occurs,
institutions may experience costs because their transfer students will
likely spend less time enrolled (because they will not need to retake
the credits that the institution previously did not accept in the
transfer).
To better understand the potential impact of the transfer of credit
policies proposed for accrediting agencies in this rule, the Department
is providing information from the National Student Loan Data System on
the number of undergraduate students who transferred institutions
between the 2023-24 and 2024-25 award years and the title IV, HEA
student aid they received. This information is presented in Tables 3.1
and 3.2. Specifically, Table 3.1 shows that, between the 2023-24 and
2024-25 award year, a total of 1.8 million title IV, HEA students
transferred institutions, and among those students, roughly 60 percent
received title IV, HEA student aid in the award year they transferred
(2024-25). Table 3.2 shows that these title IV, HEA recipients received
a total of $8.8 billion in title IV, HEA funds at their new institution
in 2024-25, or an average of approximately $8,300 per transfer student.
While the Department lacks readily available data to determine how
much title IV, HEA disbursements could change due to the proposed
transfer of credit provisions, these data help establish a method to
gauge the potential impact for both students and taxpayers. For
example, if the Department assumes that 43 percent of title IV, HEA
student aid received by transfer students was spent covering tuition
and fees for course credits that failed to transfer (which is what
prior research indicates is the average share of credits that fail to
transfer), and under further assumptions that overall enrollment
remains constant and transfer students do not change other aspects of
their enrollment behavior, this would suggest that title IV, HEA
disbursements would decline by an average of approximately $3,600 per
transfer student during the 2024-25 award year. As described in the
Directed Questions section, the Department seeks public comments on
other data and methods that could be utilized to estimate the potential
impacts of this proposed transfer of credit provisions, and the
Department may revise these estimates based on the public comments we
receive.
[[Page 53979]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.000
[[Page 53980]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.001
Standards for Program-Level Student Outcomes
Under the proposed regulation, accrediting agencies are required to
review the use of additional student outcome metrics in their standards
for institutions. Under section 602.17, accreditors must review their
criteria for assessing whether an institution is successful in
achieving its stated objectives at both the institutional and program
levels, including minimum expectations regarding student outcomes such
as graduation rates, post-completion employment and educational and
economic returns using earnings data for former students relative to
the total cost of attendance.
Requiring accrediting agencies to review their standards and
criteria may impose new costs on both accreditors and institutions.
Some accrediting agencies may review their usage of student outcome
criteria and ultimately make no adjustments to the standards they use
because they have found, in their evaluation, that their standards are
sufficiently rigorous and properly evaluate student success. In these
cases, the cost to accreditors and institutions is likely to be small.
In other cases, accrediting agencies may review and then adopt new
standards related to student outcomes for the institutions they
accredit. Agencies that choose this action may experience costs from
several factors. First, for agencies that do not have a mechanism in
place to assess the student success metrics of the institutions or
programs they accredit, they will need to develop these new standards
and apply them routinely in the accreditation process. Second,
accrediting agencies may also need to develop systems and processes
that allow them to collect new data from institutions, and to invest in
new analytical capacity to assess the extent that institutions meet
minimum requirements related to student outcomes.
Institutions accredited by agencies who review and adopt new
standards may also incur new costs as those institutions work to comply
with the new standards and requirements from their accrediting agency.
This is likely to include new reporting costs between institutions and
accrediting agencies. Institutions are also likely to incur costs as
they work to change and improve any programs that fail to achieve
compliance with any new standards related to student achievement
imposed by an accrediting agency. Some institutions may ultimately
decide to close noncompliant programs, which will also cause
institutions to incur new costs, both in operational costs to shutter a
program, and in reduced enrollment and revenue associated with those
closed programs.
Accrediting agencies have considerable discretion in designing
their own standards regarding student outcomes under the proposed
regulation, and the Department cannot anticipate which metrics agencies
will consider revising or adopting when making determinations regarding
recognition. This makes it difficult for the Department to estimate the
impact of the proposed change. To inform the potential impact of the
proposed
[[Page 53981]]
requirement, the Department compiled data on the variation in several
student outcome metrics among institutions accredited by seven
institutional accreditors.\14\ These metrics include graduation rates,
post-enrollment earnings, and student loan delinquency rates. Data were
drawn from DAPIP, the College Scorecard, and the Program Participation
Data 2026 file released for the Accountability in Higher Education and
Access Through Demand-Driven (AHEAD) rulemaking. The results are
presented in Figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. These box plots show the
variation in student outcomes for institutions recognized by the same
accrediting agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ These include the Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges, Higher Learning Commission, Middle States
Commission on Higher Education, New England Commission of Higher
Education, Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, and
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These figures show a wide variation in student outcome metrics
among the institutions each accreditor accredits. For example, the
Higher Learning Commission recognizes both institutions with near
perfect graduation rates and institutions with graduation rates well
below 20 percent. The Higher Learning Commission also accredits
institutions with both extremely high (over 80 percent) and very low
student loan delinquency rates. The variation in outcomes across
institutions recognized by the same agency suggest that, in practice,
accrediting agencies have few meaningful standards on student outcomes.
If the proposed regulations result in agencies adopting more rigorous
or consistent standards, some institutions or programs might be at risk
of noncompliance and could therefore face pressure to improve or risk
losing recognition.
Figure 3.1--Variation in Institutional Graduation Rates by Accrediting
Agency
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.002
[[Page 53982]]
Figure 3.2--Variation in Institutional Completer Earnings by
Accrediting Agency
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.003
[[Page 53983]]
Figure 3.3--Variation in Institutional Loan Delinquency Rates by
Accrediting Agency
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.004
Accrediting Agency Competition and New Agencies
The proposed regulations will remove barriers for new accrediting
agencies to emerge and obtain Department recognition. Specifically, the
rule simplifies and streamlines the Department's regulations for
recognition and review of accrediting agencies, including eliminating
superfluous requirements for recognition of new accrediting agencies
that reduce competition and institutional choices when selecting an
accrediting agency. The proposed rule also simplifies procedures for
institutions to change accrediting agencies so that institutions are
not forced to comply with standards that are antithetical to their
values and missions. For example, the proposed rule would remove the
Department's current requirement that an accrediting agency grant or
deny accreditation or pre-accreditation to an institution for at least
two years prior to seeking recognition by the Department. This two-year
requirement is not statutory and represents an unnecessary burden for
new accrediting agencies. Similarly, the proposed regulations
streamline the process for institutions to change accreditors by
clarifying that the Secretary may not delay, condition, or otherwise
adversely affect an institution's participation in title IV, HEA
programs solely because the institution seeks accreditation from, or
changes accreditation to, another agency recognized by the Secretary.
Under section 602.13, the proposed regulation also specifies that
recognition by the Department does not confer immunity from antitrust
laws, which may further stimulate competition among accrediting
agencies.
The Department also believes that reducing barriers to entry may
improve accreditation by increasing contestability in the market for
accrediting services. Reducing barriers to entry may also facilitate
innovation by making it easier for new accrediting agencies to emerge
and for institutions offering new educational models to obtain
appropriate accreditation. To the extent such models attract students
who receive Pell Grants or Federal student loans, the rule could affect
Federal student aid outlays. Innovative models could reduce time to
completion of programs, reducing Federal student aid spending, or it
might attract new students. The Department cannot reliably quantify
this effect because it depends on future entry, institutional
participation, student enrollment, and the types of programs that
emerge. Contestability refers to the extent to which potential
competitors can realistically enter a market and existing customers can
switch providers, even if relatively few firms currently compete or
customers actually switch. Economic theory suggests that incumbent
organizations respond not only to actual competition but also to the
credible possibility of new entry or customer
[[Page 53984]]
mobility. Baumol's theory of contestable markets predicts that reducing
barriers to entry encourages incumbent firms to improve quality, reduce
unnecessary costs, and become more responsive to consumers, while
Demsetz emphasized that competition for a market can discipline
incumbent firms even in concentrated industries. See William J. Baumol,
``Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry
Structure,'' 72 American Economic Review 1 (1982); Harold Demsetz,
``Why Regulate Utilities?,'' 11 Journal of Law and Economics 55 (1968).
The Department believes that reducing unnecessary barriers to the
recognition of new accrediting agencies and facilitating institutional
mobility among recognized agencies is therefore likely to improve
accreditor agency performance even if relatively few institutions
ultimately change accreditors. Accordingly, to the extent that these
changes increase the credible possibility of new accreditor entry or
institutional mobility, economic theory suggests they may improve
accreditor performance even if relatively few institutions ultimately
change accreditors.
Although the Department lacks sufficient data to estimate how these
proposed changes will affect the accreditation marketplace, the changes
will likely increase the number of institutional accrediting agencies
recognized by the Department and may increase the number of
institutions seeking to change agencies. To provide context regarding
the potential impact of the proposed changes, the Department used
information from DAPIP to examine the growth and contraction in the
number of institutional accrediting agencies and the rate and number of
institutions that switch agencies over time. This analysis adds
evidence to the Department's view that both new accrediting agency
recognition and changes in agency by institutions are rare. For
example, Figure 3.4 and Table 3.3 show that there has been little
change in the number of institutional accrediting agencies over the
past 30 years, and that in recent decades the number of recognized
agencies has actually declined, despite the large increases in higher
education enrollment over this time. Additionally, Table 3.4 shows that
since 2020, only ten institutions have voluntarily switched from one of
the agencies formerly known as a regional accrediting agency, and that
fewer than 50 have ever voluntarily switched away from these
accreditors.
One of the key goals of the proposed regulations is that, through
the proposed reforms to reduce burden and enhance competition among
accreditors, more agencies will choose to enter the marketplace and
greater numbers of institutions will choose to change accreditors,
thereby enhancing competition. While prior regulatory reforms may not
have resulted in a descriptive change in the number of accreditors and
amount of accreditor switching that takes place (see Figure 3.4 and
Table 3.4), the proposed regulations include additional provisions
aimed at spurring competition, which may ultimately enhance the ability
for accreditors to enter and institutions to switch. Specifically, we
believe that the reduction in time from initial petition to review for
recognition by the senior Department official will ultimately result in
additional accrediting agencies entering the marketplace, providing
more options for institutions. These proposed changes also coincide
with regulatory efforts by some States that require the State's
institutions to switch accrediting bodies. Ultimately, accrediting
agencies may benefit from these proposed regulations because they will
likely experience less burden to gain initial recognition and maintain
recognition. Institutions, similarly, could benefit from these proposed
regulations if they value the ability to choose from a greater number
of potential agencies, or if the new agencies that may emerge are
better aligned with the institution's mission.
Figure 3.4--Number of Institutional Accrediting Agencies 1895-Present
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.005
[[Page 53985]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.007
[[Page 53986]]
Affordability and Innovation
The Department's proposed rule would require accrediting agencies
to adopt several new policies and procedures that aim to increase
college affordability. Specifically, under section Sec. 602.17
(Application of standards in reaching accreditation decisions), the
proposed rule would require accrediting agencies to consider efficiency
in their review of institutions and to conduct cost-benefit analyses to
ensure institutions' activities justify the associated financial,
administrative and opportunity costs, and the impact of capital
expenditures on future operating expenses. Such analyses could put
downward pressure on institutional costs and, by extension, tuition
prices. If some institutions prove to be incapable of conducting
credible cost/benefit analyses, the number of accredited institutions
could fall, but this is unlikely.
Similarly, the proposed rule could put downward pressure on student
costs by helping to reduce excessive program length by requiring that
accrediting agencies apply standards that ensure program length is
appropriate to the objectives of the program and credential awarded at
the institution. The proposed rule also aims to reduce credential
inflation and prevent agencies from restricting institutions from
offering short-term programs, which may help reduce costs for students
because they will be able to pursue fewer or shorter credentials to
work in a given occupation. This may ultimately increase enrollment and
title IV, HEA student aid disbursements if more students pursue
postsecondary education as a result of the improved affordability and
reduced time to completion.
The proposed rule would also specify in section 602.17 that
accrediting agencies' standards related to student achievement may
include credit for prior learning. Granting credits for prior learning
should reduce costs for students because it allows them to earn credit
from skills obtained outside the institution, such as service in the
armed forces, employment, or other demonstrated competency.
While these provisions would likely provide benefits to students
through lower prices and less time enrolled, they could also reduce
revenues for institutions and transfers of Federal title IV, HEA funds
to institutions. Institutions may therefore bear additional costs as
they adjust their programs and policies to align with new accreditation
standards. Accrediting agencies will bear new costs as they work to
incorporate these proposed changes into their standards and practices.
The proposed rule includes several provisions that ensure
accrediting agencies do not unnecessarily constrain innovations that
could further reduce costs to students and institutions, and may also
increase program quality. For example, section 602.15 (Administrative
and fiscal responsibilities) would be amended to require that
accrediting agencies provide training to all agency representatives and
staff that includes topics related to best practices in various
educational delivery methods, models, and modalities; innovative or
lower-cost educational delivery models that may provide high-quality
education to students; and avoiding unnecessary costs to institutions
in the accreditation process. These innovations may make higher
education more accessible for students, thereby increasing
postsecondary enrollment and title IV, HEA student aid disbursements.
The proposed rule also states that agencies should apply their
standard in ways that seek to reduce unnecessary barriers that restrict
the ability of institutions or programs from adopting instructional,
programmatic, or delivery practices that improve or accelerate
credential completion. By reducing unnecessary procedural requirements,
encouraging accrediting agencies to minimize administrative burdens,
recognizing innovative educational delivery models, and discouraging
unnecessary barriers to new instructional approaches, the proposed
regulations are expected to facilitate experimentation with new methods
of delivering high-quality postsecondary education. Because many of
these innovations have not yet been developed or implemented, the
Department cannot estimate their future value, but expects that
increased flexibility may improve educational quality, enrollment, and
affordability over time.
The proposed provisions related to innovation and new educational
models are likely to provide benefits to students by increasing the
range of available educational options and by reducing prices for those
options. As noted in the Net Budget Impact section of this RIA and in
the 2019 Accreditation regulations, these factors may have offsetting
effects on loan and grant volumes as credit transfer or shorter
programs could reduce the amount needed to complete a degree but others
could encourage increased enrollment. Accrediting agencies will bear
new costs in aligning their policies and practices to implement those
new requirements.
Finally, the proposed rule requires major new changes that mandate
separation between trade associations or affiliated organizations and
accrediting agencies. These relationships can result in credential
inflation if trade associations seek to require additional credentials
to enter into a profession and then use their affiliation with an
accrediting agency to make those requirements a condition of
accreditation for programs at institutions. One report finds that many
federally recognized programmatic accrediting agencies maintain deep
structural ties with the professional and trade associations with which
they are affiliated.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Cutsinger, B. and Terjesen, S., (2026). Captured
Gatekeepers: Structural Conflicts of Interest in U.S. Higher
Education (May 12, 2026). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6510203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accrediting agencies and affiliated organizations or associations
will bear new costs under these provisions as they work to alter their
legal, operational, and physical structures. Students may benefit from
these proposed changes because the policies could reduce excessive and
unnecessary degree and time requirements to enter into certain
professions.
Department Administrative Costs
The Department expects the proposed regulations to impose only
modest incremental administrative costs on the Federal Government. Most
provisions modify the criteria and procedures the Department uses when
recognizing accrediting agencies rather than establishing new Federal
programs or recurring operational responsibilities.
Implementation will primarily require Department staff to review
new, or additional, accrediting agency recognition applications and
petitions under the revised standards. These reviews are already part
of the Department's regular recognition process, and the proposed
regulations generally change the substance of those reviews rather than
creating new review processes. As a result, the Department expects most
implementation activities to be absorbed within existing recognition
cycles and staffing levels.
Some additional staff time may be required during the initial
implementation period to review revised accrediting agency policies and
procedures addressing issues such as conflicts of interest,
independence from affiliated organizations, antitrust compliance,
student outcomes, academic freedom, intellectual diversity, research
integrity, and other revised recognition criteria. The
[[Page 53987]]
Department also anticipates limited one-time costs associated with
updating guidance documents, internal training materials, and
information systems necessary to administer the revised regulations.
To the extent the proposed regulations encourage the recognition of
additional accrediting agencies or increase the number of institutions
seeking to change agencies, the Department could experience a modest
increase in recognition-related workload. However, these activities are
expected to occur gradually over multiple recognition cycles and to
remain manageable within existing administrative structures.
The Department also anticipates offsetting administrative savings.
Since the Department announced its accreditation reform efforts, two
accrediting agencies have voluntarily withdrawn from Department
recognition. As additional agencies determine that they no longer wish
to maintain Federal recognition under the revised regulatory framework,
the Department expects the number of federally recognized accrediting
agencies requiring recognition reviews, interim monitoring, compliance
reporting, and other oversight activities to decline. A smaller number
of recognized agencies would reduce the Department's workload
associated with recognition petitions, staff reviews, National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) proceedings,
monitoring, and related administrative actions, thereby partially
offsetting the implementation costs associated with these proposed
regulations.
The proposed regulations may also generate longer-term
administrative efficiencies by establishing clearer recognition
standards and focusing Department oversight on areas presenting the
greatest risk to students and taxpayers. To the extent these reforms
improve the efficiency of the recognition process, they could reduce
both Federal administrative costs and private-sector compliance burdens
over time.
Accordingly, the Department does not anticipate that implementation
of these proposed regulations will require significant additional
Federal resources. Over time, the Department expects that the
offsetting of administrative savings and efficiencies described above
may reduce the overall Federal administrative burden associated with
oversight of federally recognized accrediting agencies.
4. Additional Benefits
The Department expects the proposed regulations to produce several
important benefits that cannot be reliably quantified but that are
nevertheless relevant in evaluating the overall effects of the rule.
First, the proposed regulations are expected to increase
competition among recognized accrediting agencies. The Department
anticipates that reducing unnecessary barriers to the recognition of
new accrediting agencies, simplifying the process by which institutions
may change accrediting agencies, and eliminating unnecessary geographic
distinctions will increase institutional choice and create stronger
incentives for accrediting agencies to innovate, improve responsiveness
to institutions, and reduce unnecessary costs. While the Department
cannot reliably estimate the magnitude of these effects, economic
theory and experience in other quality-assurance markets suggest that
increased competition is likely to improve quality and efficiency over
time.
Second, the proposed regulations are expected to improve
transparency and accountability. The proposed requirements regarding
transfer-of-credit policies, public disclosure of accrediting actions,
institutional representations, and research integrity are intended to
provide students, taxpayers, employers, and policymakers with more
complete and reliable information regarding institutional quality and
performance. Greater transparency improves decision making by
prospective students and encourages institutions to maintain high
standards. Although these benefits cannot readily be expressed in
monetary terms, the Department expects them to improve the functioning
of the higher education marketplace.
Third, the proposed regulations are expected to strengthen academic
freedom, intellectual inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas. The
Department believes that institutions providing an environment in which
lawful viewpoints may be expressed and examined, faculty are evaluated
without regard to viewpoint or ideology, and students are exposed to a
range of scholarly perspectives are better positioned to fulfill the
educational purposes recognized by the Higher Education Act. While
these educational benefits cannot be quantified, the Department
considers them an important component of institutional quality and
student learning.
Fourth, the proposed regulations are expected to reduce regulatory
uncertainty by more clearly distinguishing the Department's recognition
criteria from accrediting agencies' own substantive accreditation
standards. The Department expects that clearer recognition standards,
streamlined procedures, and more transparent expectations will reduce
unnecessary disputes, improve the efficiency of the recognition
process, and allow both accrediting agencies and institutions to devote
greater resources to educational quality rather than regulatory
compliance. Although these benefits cannot be quantified, they are
expected to improve the administration of the Federal recognition
process over time.
Finally, the Department expects that the proposed regulations will
strengthen public confidence in the accreditation system. By
emphasizing educational quality, lawful administration of accreditation
standards, research integrity, objective measures of student outcomes,
transparency, and institutional accountability, the Department expects
the proposed regulations to reinforce public confidence that
accreditation serves students and taxpayers while respecting
institutional diversity, including intellectual diversity, and mission.
Although these effects are inherently difficult to quantify, they are
central objectives of the proposed rule.
5. Net Budget Impacts
The changes to accreditation implemented by the proposed
regulations are not estimated to have a significant net Federal budget
impact. Consistent with the requirements of the Credit Reform Act of
1990, budget cost estimates for the student loan programs reflect the
estimated net present value of all future non-administrative Federal
costs associated with a cohort of loans. A cohort reflects all loans
originated in a given fiscal year. The baseline for estimating the cost
of these regulations is the President's Budget FY2027 baseline that
includes effects of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act and final
regulations related to loan limits, repayment plans, and other areas
published May 1, 2026 \16\ and related to Accountability published July
1, 2026.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 84 FR 23768.
\17\ 91 FR 40136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules governing accreditation and the roles of actors in the
Federal-State-accrediting agency triad have been the subject of several
recent rules, including a rule published November 1, 2019 \18\ that
shared the goals of reducing barriers that limit competition,
innovations, and new educational
[[Page 53988]]
models. Adjustments from the earlier regulations are in the current
budget baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 84 FR 58834.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulations will build on and further those initial
efforts to foster innovation and remove regulatory barriers in the
accreditation process. This could have offsetting effects on Federal
student loan and Pell Grant volumes. If some schools are able to begin
or extend their participation in title IV, HEA programs by finding
accrediting agencies that support their innovative approaches or
missions, that could increase volumes compared to the baseline. On the
other hand, accrediting agencies requiring more acceptability of
transfer credits or approving experiential credits may allow some
students to complete programs faster and reduce loan and grant volumes.
The proposed mandate that accrediting agencies require institutions to
use data on student-level outcomes to improve performance mitigates
concerns that making accreditation changes less burdensome would result
in greater defaults or other negative outcomes.
In prior regulations \19\ the Department estimated the
accreditation reform would result in volume increases from easier
recognition of new accreditors or agencies with an expanded scope to
new credential levels, and the option for alternative standards to
allow for faster introduction of innovative programs. In 2019, we did
not estimate a significant change in repayment performance as
institutions with less favorable program outcomes could find more
lenient accrediting agencies or institutions with strong programs could
take advantage of the flexibility allowed by the substantive change
policy revisions to expand their program offerings. At the time we
noted the uncertainty of the extent to which increasing accreditation
options and encouraging program innovation would shift loan and grant
volume among more options for students versus generating new volume and
that uncertainty remains. Additionally, greater acceptance of transfer
credits may increase volumes by encouraging some students to complete
degrees but also may reduce volumes by credits being recognized by the
institutions receiving transfers. In retrospect, we know the number of
institutions that changed accreditors was fairly low, and it is
difficult to attribute particular changes in volume to accreditation
reforms given other economic, demographic, and programmatic
developments during the same period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 84 CFR 58834.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of specific evidence that changes in accreditation
policy have resulted in significant volume or loan repayment
performance changes in the past, the Department does not anticipate a
significant budget impact of the proposed regulations. We welcome
comments about this conclusion and sources of data or analysis and will
consider them when evaluating the potential net budget impact of the
final rule.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4, we have prepared an accounting
statement showing the classification of the benefits, costs, and
transfers associated with the provisions of these regulations. Table
5.1 provides our best estimate of the changes in annual monetized
benefits, costs, and transfers as a result of these proposed
regulations.
[[Page 53989]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.008
[[Page 53990]]
6. Alternatives Considered
As a part of the development of these regulations, the Department
engaged in a negotiated rulemaking process in which we received
comments and proposals from non-Federal negotiators representing
numerous impacted constituencies on a variety of issues. The proposals
were submitted from the constituencies listed under the ``Negotiated
Rulemaking'' heading of this NPRM. Information about these proposals is
available on our rulemaking website at https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/higher-education-policy/negotiated-rulemaking-higher-education-2026.
The Department worked with the negotiators and continued to provide
additional proposed regulatory text for consideration. Due to these
efforts, the negotiators reached consensus on the proposed regulations
in this NPRM.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This section considers the effects that the proposed regulations
may have on small entities in the Educational Sector as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. et seq., Pub. L. 96-354) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA). The purpose of the RFA is to establish as a principle of
regulation that agencies should tailor regulatory and informational
requirements to the size of entities, consistent with the objectives of
a particular regulation and applicable statutes.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or
any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not
have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.''
This proposed rule implements regulatory changes to realign the
Secretary's criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies to promote
high-quality, high-value, and affordable education for students.
Congress has prohibited the Department from intervening in the
curricular decisions of an institution or attempting to exert control
over its faculty, administration, or academic programs. Instead, under
the HEA, accrediting agencies oversee the quality and academic
sufficiency of instructional programs at institutions participating in
the title IV, HEA programs. Accrediting agencies are independent,
membership-based organizations that review member institutions or
programs to ensure they meet certain standards for academic quality and
rigor.
The HEA requires the Secretary to establish criteria for
determining whether an accrediting agency is a reliable authority, for
purposes of the HEA and for other Federal purposes, on the quality of
education or training offered by the institutions or programs that they
accredit. Such criteria are required to include appropriate measures of
student achievement. Consistent with statute, the Secretary has
established regulations for recognition of accrediting agencies at 34
CFR part 602 and has revised these regulations periodically.
Executive Order 14279 directed the Secretary to take several
actions related to the recognition of accrediting agencies or
associations by the Department. Some of these actions require changes
to existing regulations. The goal of these regulatory changes is to
realign the Secretary's criteria for recognition of accreditors to
promote high-quality, high value, and affordable education for
students.
As we describe below, the Department believes that the proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of institutions of higher education that meet its definition of
a small entity because institutions are only indirectly affected by the
regulation. The Department estimates that the proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of institutional
accreditors that meet the definition of small entities.
Description of, and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities to Which the Regulations Will Apply
The Department believes that institutions of higher education are
not directly regulated by the proposed rule and could only be
indirectly impacted by actions accrediting agencies take in response to
the proposed rule. For this reason, the Department does not examine the
possible impact of the proposed regulations on small entities that are
institutions of higher education. The Department also notes that it is
difficult to estimate the impact of the proposed rule on institutions
of higher education that are small entities because accrediting
agencies have wide discretion in how they implement the proposed
changes, and data on the impact of accreditation regulations on
institutions are not available. Moreover, as explained in Section 5 of
this RIA (``Net Budget Impact''), several of the proposed regulatory
changes are likely to have offsetting revenue effects for institutions,
including on institutions of higher education that are small entities.
For example, institutions will be subject to new student outcome
standards for recognition purposes, which could force some institutions
to reform or close programs, negatively affecting their revenues.
Policies aimed at increasing credit transfers for students could have
similar negative revenue effects on small entities. On the other hand,
the proposed rule includes several provisions meant to prevent
accrediting agencies from unnecessarily restricting innovation in
educational models, which should allow institutions--including small
entities--greater operational flexibility, which could increase their
revenue. The proposed reforms to increase new entrants and agency
switching should also promote greater operational flexibility by
creating a more favorable environment for institutions looking to
innovate.
The other group directly affected by the proposed regulations are
accrediting agencies. Most accrediting agencies are organized as
nonprofit entities that are defined as ``small entities'' if they are
independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of
operation. While dominance in accreditation is hard to determine for
institutional accreditors, as it currently stands, the Department
believes programmatic accrediting agencies--that is, recognized
agencies that accredit specific programs within an institution--very
often have dominance in their field. This is because there are usually,
at most only one or two, and in rare cases multiple, programmatic
agencies that provide recognition for a given field or occupation, that
is used not only for Federal programs, but also as for educational
requirements related to professional licensure.\20\ Therefore, we do
not consider programmatic accrediting agencies to be small entities for
the purposes of this analysis, but we welcome comments on this
determination and will consider any information received in evaluating
the final regulations. This determination is consistent with the
Department's past position on accrediting agency size standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In this context, the Department considers the field of
programmatic accrediting agencies to include only accrediting
agencies that accredit academic programs within the same field of
study. This is because programmatic accreditors that accredit
programs in one field of study--such as an agency that accredits law
programs--do not also accredit programs in any other field of study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department believes that institutional accrediting agencies,
which
[[Page 53991]]
function as gatekeepers to title IV, HEA program funds and are subject
to many of the policy changes in the proposed rule, meet the standard
for small entities. The Department considers these agencies to be
``professional organizations'' as classified under the North America
Industry Classification System (813920). The SBA defines small
professional organizations as businesses having less than $24 million
in total annual revenue. Each accrediting agency recognized by the
Department as institutional accrediting agencies report annual revenue
below this threshold (Table 6.1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.009
To determine whether the proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of institutional accrediting
agencies, the Department estimated the burden the proposed rule would
impose on institutional accrediting agencies, which is also included in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this proposed rule. The proposed
rule is estimated to require 470 hours of labor per institution to
comply with the proposed regulations because institutional accrediting
agencies will need to update their processes, data collection efforts,
and reporting activities.
Using the median hourly wage for Education Administrators,
Postsecondary (11-9033) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
($50.29 in 2025) and then doubling that figure to account for overhead
costs and benefits, the Department estimates that the burden imposed on
institutional accreditors is $47,273.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The Department is unable to determine which specific
workers at a small entity would complete the processing requirements
in the proposed regulations. We assume that most individuals who
complete the processing fall in the ``Education Administrators,
Postsecondary'' occupational category, who have a median hourly
income of $50.29. However, to provide a high-end estimate, we repeat
our analysis but now assume the processing is completed by lawyers,
who have a median hourly wage of $76.76. Under this assumption, the
estimated burden imposed on institutional accrediting agencies would
be $72,154. This alternative estimate does not change the conclusion
the Department draws on the proposed regulation's potential impact
on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These new costs will create a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of institutional accreditors. For the purposes of
this analysis the Department has defined ``significant economic
impact'' as increasing or reducing a small entity's revenues by more
than 3 percent, and a ``substantial number of small entities'' as more
the 5 percent of entities that meet the Department's definition of a
small entity. The $47,273 estimated burden for institutional
accrediting agencies that result from the proposed rule is about 8
percent of the Association of the Institutions of Jewish Studies'
reported annual revenue of approximately $600,000, exceeding the
Department's threshold of 3 percent. All other agencies would
experience less than a 3 percent effect on their revenues. Because
there are fewer than 20 institutional accrediting agencies, a single
accrediting agency represents over 5 percent of the accreditors and
therefore exceeds the Department's threshold for a substantial number.
The Department welcomes comments and data from the public that may
help it improve its impact analyses for small entities with respect to
the changes in this proposed regulation.
Alternatives Considered (Small Entities)
It is the Department's general policy to minimize compliance costs
and regulatory burden for all regulated entities, especially small
entities, and to develop regulations that are consistent with statutory
requirements. The Department considered other options and changes to
the proposed rule intended to reduce compliance costs and
administrative burden for small entities such as whether institutional
accreditors who meet the definition of small entities could have fewer
reporting requirements, or exemptions from certain aspects of the
regulation. As explained above, each currently-recognized institutional
accrediting agency is a relatively small non-profit voluntary
membership organization and meets the definition of a small entity
based on annual revenue volume (see Table 6.1). For that reason, the
Department determined that there were the alternatives considered for
small
[[Page 53992]]
entities would diminish the effectiveness of the proposed regulations
for institutional accrediting agencies, which serve as quality
gatekeepers for institutions participating in the Federal student
assistance programs, under which approximately 13 million students will
receive more than $120 billion in the current year. Furthermore, the
Department believes that such alternatives are inconsistent with the
Higher Education Act, which establishes specific requirements for
recognition of accrediting agencies that the existing regulations
implement and which are further enhanced by these proposed regulations,
and Executive Order 14279, which directed the Secretary to take
specific actions.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the Department consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the
1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not conduct or sponsor the collection
of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement
unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps make certain that the
public understands the Department's collection instructions,
respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can
properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.
This action contains proposed new information collection
requirements and amendments to existing collections.
Sec. 600.11 Special Rules Regarding Institutional Accreditation or
Preaccreditation
Summary
This proposed regulation would revise rules regarding the change of
an institution's accreditor. Currently, institutions are required to
submit materials to the Department demonstrating a reasonable cause for
changing accreditors. Proposed 600.11 removes this requirement unless
the Secretary has determined otherwise.
Institutions seeking approval of multiple accreditors will also be
required to submit a reasonable explanation for this request. Unless
the Secretary determines otherwise, all reasons are acceptable.
Finally, the institution will be required to use all reasonable
efforts to notify current students and recent graduates of the change
of accrediting agency within 10 days.
Burden
institutions will now be required to submit a form with required
information on switching accreditors. Burden for this requirement will
be assessed under a new OMB control number and will be made available
for public comment prior to the rule becoming effective.
Sec. 602.2 How do I know which agencies the Secretary recognizes?
Summary
Proposed section 602.2 explains that the Department will be
periodically publishing a list of recognized accreditors along with
additional accreditor action activities on its website.
Burden
The Department will be responsible for publishing the list of
accreditors. There is no additional burden on accrediting agencies for
this proposed regulation.
Sec. 602.3 What definitions apply to this part?
Summary
Proposed Sec. 602.3 revises some key definitions and adds new
definitions used in these regulations.
Burden
Accrediting agencies and institutions will be required to review
the new definitions and update internal policies and procedures to
ensure they are compliant with the new regulations. The Department
believes it will take institutions and accreditors 10 hours to review,
update, and make any relevant changes required to be in compliance with
the proposed regulations. The Department anticipates this will be a
one-time burden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity Responses Hours Burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public....................................... 1,806 institutions.................. 10 18,060
Private...................................... 1,649 institutions 50 accrediting 10 16,990
agencies =1,699 total.
For Profit................................... 1,546 institutions.................. 10 15,460
----------------------------
Total.................................... 5,051............................... ........... 50,510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 602.10 Link to Federal Programs
Summary
Requires that agencies demonstrate a link to a Federal program in
order to seek recognition by the Secretary.
Burden
No additional burden because changes made to this section are
technical in nature. They strengthen the language that agencies must
demonstrate a link to a Federal program in order to be recognized by
the Secretary.
Sec. 602.11 Extent of Accrediting Activities
Summary
The Department proposes that the agency must identify the extent of
its accrediting activities and demonstrate that it has the capacity,
policies, and procedures necessary to conduct accrediting activities
within the identified extent.
An agency may seek recognition to operate in a group of States, or
in all States, but the Secretary does not assign, prefer, or limit
geographic extent, except as necessary to ensure that the agency has
the capacity to carry out its intended accrediting activities.
Burden
The Department does not believe proposed 602.11 will result in
additional burden on accrediting agencies. This change is to reiterate
that accrediting agencies are not bound by geographic location, for
example a State or a region.
[[Page 53993]]
Sec. 602.12 Accrediting Experience
Summary
Proposed 602.12 explains the experience an accreditor must have in
order to be recognized by the Department.
Burden
Burden for the proposed regulation is assessed elsewhere throughout
the proposed changes and requirements of accreditation.
Sec. 602.13 Effect of Recognition
Summary
This proposed regulation makes clear that existing Federal and
State antitrust laws apply to all agencies recognized by the Secretary.
Burden
The Department does not believe this adds additional burden.
Sec. 602.14 Purpose and Organization
Summary
Proposed Sec. 602.14 explains that the agency must be ``separate
or independent'' from any related, associated, or affiliated trade
association or professional organization. We also eliminate the
regulations permitting a waiver of the separate or independent
requirement.
To comply, we propose that agencies are prohibited from any joint
use of personnel, services, equipment, or facilities by an agency at a
related, associated, or affiliated trade association or professional
organization. In addition, the regulations also propose that the agency
has established and implemented conflict of interest control for each
member of the decision-making body.
Under current rules, agencies could potentially restrict access to
employment in a profession, occupation, or vocation. This could be done
by increasing credentialing standards, increasing cost, or decreasing
availability of education or training. Under the proposed regulations
this would not be permitted unless the agency provides notice of clear
and convincing evidence to the Secretary.
Finally, under this proposed rule, the authorized representative of
the agency must submit a signed statement certifying that it has met
the requirements to be separate and independent. This certification
must also include information regarding any complaints received during
the current recognition period.
Burden
The proposed change under Sec. 602.14 (a)(4)(ii) removes the
ability for an agency to request a waiver to the ``separate and
independent'' requirements will increase burden for agencies that
currently have a waiver and purely programmatic agencies. We estimate
there are 25 agencies that could be impacted by this change in
regulation. These agencies will need to evaluate if they are in a
building with a related, associated, or trade organization. If so, the
proposed regulations would require that agency to move. The Department
estimates it will take 5 hours for agencies to review and evaluate
whether or not the regulations would require them to move. We
anticipate that around half of these agencies will have to move and we
believe it would take 40 hours for agencies to determine the need to
move, research moving, and complete the move. Adding a one-time burden
of 605 hours.
25 Agencies x 5 Hours = 125 Burden Hours
12 Agencies moving x 40 Hours to move = 480 Burden Hours
The proposed change under Sec. 602.14(b)(6) requires an authorized
representative of the agency to submit a signed statement certifying
that it has meet the requirements to be ``separate and independent''
will increase burden.
The Department estimates the changes under Sec. 602.14(b)(6) will
take an agency five hours to complete the statement and obtain the
necessary signature annually.
50 Accrediting Agencies x 5 Hours = 250 Burden Hours
Sec. 602.15 Administrative and Fiscal Responsibilities.
Summary
Proposed Sec. 602.15 explains that the agency must have the
administrative and fiscal capability, including conflict of interest
controls, to carry out its accreditation activities. Under current
regulations, conflict of interest controls are not included in the
administrative and fiscal responsibilities regulations. With this
proposed rule, agencies will now be required to have conflict of
interest controls.
Section 602.15 proposes training be provided to agency
representatives and staff, focusing on best practices and avoiding
unnecessary costs. The regulations also propose an agency will
cooperate with other agencies and the Department to develop common
accreditation templates.
Burden
The Department estimates that it will take each accrediting agency
30 hours to create, review and update conflict of interest controls.
50 Accrediting Agencies x 30 Hours = 1,500 Burden Hours
Creating training for representatives and staff would create burden
on accrediting agencies. We estimate it would take 18 hours for an
agency to create or research appropriate training for their staff. The
Department anticipates this will be an ongoing burden.
50 Accrediting Agencies x 18 Hours = 900 Burden Hours
Sec. 602.16 Accreditation and Pre-Accreditation Standards
Summary
We propose to add the word ``lawful'' to Sec. 602.16(f),
clarifying that an agency may establish any additional lawful
accreditation standards that are consistent with ensuring institutional
or programmatic quality and integrity, as it deems appropriate.
Burden
The Department does not believe this change adds or reduces burden
to this regulation.
Sec. 602.17 Application of Standards in Reaching Accreditation
Decisions
Summary
Section 602.17 provides more information on the expectations of the
standards for accreditation that agencies must follow. Agencies must
have policies that uniformly and consistently apply their accreditation
standards to the institutions or programs they accredit. The Department
proposes adding more details to an agency's required accreditation
requirements with regard to educational objectives, student success,
faculty performance and evaluation, facilities, academic freedom, and
intellectual diversity.
Agencies would also be required under 602.17 to complete a cost
benefit analysis which would be a review of an institution's budget,
practices regarding administration of financial aid, and maintenance of
an institution's facilities.
Burden
Agencies may already have policies and procedures in place that
address the proposed requirements. To comply with proposed 602.17
agencies must review the new regulations and assess whether or not
policies need to be updated, written, or both. We estimate this would
[[Page 53994]]
take an agency approximately 160 hours to review and update policies to
comply with 602.17.
50 Accreditors x 160 Hours = 8,000 Burden Hours
An agency would now be required to perform a cost-benefit analysis
for each institution it accredits. There are about 50 accreditors and
5,001 Title IV postsecondary institutions. We estimate each cost
benefit analysis would take an average of 150 hours. This results in
750,150 additional burden hours. The Department believes this will be
an annual burden.
Average of 10 Institutions/Accreditor x 50 Accreditors (Respondents) =
5,001 Responses
5,001 Responses x 150 Hours = 750,150 Burden Hours
Sec. 602.18 Ensuring Consistency in Decision-Making
Summary
We propose to add new paragraph Sec. 602.18(b)(4) that states that
the agency meets the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section if
the agency ``has adopted and followed procedures to ensure that agency
decisions are neutral with respect to viewpoint and ideology that are
unrelated to its accrediting policies or standards.
Burden
Burden for this proposed regulation has already been accounted for
elsewhere in this section.
Sec. 602.20 Enforcement of Standards
Summary
Under Sec. 602.20(e) we propose that any agency's arbitration
standard or policy must be nonbinding, except that both parties may
agree to binding arbitration after a dispute arises on a case-by-case
basis. We propose under Sec. 602.20(h) to require an agency to have a
policy about the circumstances for restoring accreditation, including
retroactive restoration, to an institution. Sec. 602.20(i) was
redesignated from Sec. 602.18(d).
Burden
The Department estimates that there will be a one time burden on
accrediting agencies that do not currently have retroactive
accreditation policies. We believe it would take an accrediting agency
30 hours to create such a policy.
50 Accrediting Agencies x 30 Hours = 1,500 Burden Hours.
The accreditation guidance \22\ on non-binding arbitration language
has been in effect since December 5, 2023, therefore, we do not believe
this creates additional burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ DCL GEN-23-14--Regulations Governing the Recognition of
Accrediting Agencies, Institutional Eligibility, and Arbitration--
https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/dear-colleague-letters/2023-11-03/regulations-governing-recognition-accrediting-agencies-institutional-eligibility-and-arbitration-updated-dec-5-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 602.21 Review of Standards
Summary
We propose to amend Sec. 602.21 to require an accrediting agency
to maintain a comprehensive systematic program of review that occurs at
regular intervals, involves all relevant constituencies (including
students), and that demonstrates that its standards are adequate to
evaluate the quality of the education or training provided by the
institutions and programs it accredits and is relevant to the
educational or training needs of students. We propose rescinding
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 602.21.
Burden
The Department estimates that there will be an annual burden
reduction due to the proposed reduction in regulations. The last time
burden was assessed for this regulation it was estimated that reviewing
standards would take approximately 12 hours for 53 accrediting agencies
to complete. We now estimate 50 accrediting agency responses at 8 hours
per accreditor resulting in a decrease of 2,000 hours of burden and a
decrease of 3 responses.
Sec. 602.22 Substantive Changes and Other Reporting Requirements
Summary
The proposed changes to Sec. 602.22 would clarify, streamline, and
reduce the types of situations that are defined in the agency's
definition of substantive change.
Burden
The Department believes the proposed changes to Sec. 602.22 would
reduce reporting burden on institutions and processing burden on
accrediting agencies. The definition of substantive change would apply
to a more precise set of situations, arrives at a better balance of
needed oversight, and returns some degree of deference to the agencies
to make the decisions on what the substantive changes are and how they
are processed.
We estimate there will be a reduction of 16 burden hours on
agencies annually.
50 Accrediting Agencies x 16 Hours = 800 less Burden Hours
Sec. 602.23 Operating Procedures All Agencies Must Have
Summary
We propose to include preaccredited institutions under the
requirements of paragraph Sec. 602.23(c)(1). Currently, there is only
a requirement to review complaints received against an accredited
institution.
Under paragraph Sec. 602.23(c)(3) we proposed to include a
requirement to review conflicts of interest and mandate documentation
of actions when an accrediting agency reviews a complaint.
The Department proposes to amend Sec. 602.23(d) to require that
the accrediting agency requires its accredited institutions or programs
to publicly disclose any action by the agency that begins the
enforcement timeline in Sec. 602.20(a) or (b).
Under proposed Sec. 602.23, the agency must not have policies that
require institutions or programs to violate any Federal or State law.
The agency must also have internal controls to ensure compliance with
antitrust laws.
Proposed Sec. 602.23(k) requires agencies have a timely procedure
to accelerate the comprehensive accreditation process for an
institution or program seeking initial accreditation.
Lastly, under proposed Sec. 602.23(l), the agency must establish
and maintain at least one structured mechanism through which currently
enrolled students, employed staff, and employed faculty of accredited
or preaccredited institutions or programs may communicate directly with
the agency.
Burden
In 2019 we estimated that it would take 2 hours for each
accrediting agency to comply with Sec. 602.23. For proposed 602.23 we
estimate that it would take an additional two hours to review the new
requirements and update their policies and procedures, as necessary. We
believe this will be an annual burden.
53 Accrediting Agencies x 2 Hours = 106 Burden Hours
Sec. 602.24 Additional Procedures Certain Institutional Agencies Must
Have
The proposed regulations would codify the requirement that a site
visitor accompany accrediting agency staff during on-site reviews,
clarify when institutions must submit teach out plans and agreements,
and establish clear timelines and documentation expectations. The
proposed regulations would also enhance transparency and student
support by requiring accrediting agencies to coordinate teach outs,
ensure transcript access and transfer
[[Page 53995]]
pathways, and notify other agencies when cross agency agreements are
approved. Additionally, institutions would be required to update and
publicly disclose comprehensive transfer of credit policies, adopt
consistent criteria for evaluating comparable credits, prohibit
discriminatory denials, and provide students with an appeals process.
Current regulations do not distinguish between the circumstances
requiring institutions to provide teach-out plans versus teach-out
agreements. Under the proposed regulations, institutions would be
required to submit a teach-out plan within 30 days when specified
events occur, such as when an institution's certification status
changes from full to provisional. On the other hand, teach-out
agreements would be required within the same 30-day window when
institutions experience triggering events that signal heightened
operational risk, including financial concerns or adverse actions. To
ensure institutions act promptly when they are unable to secure a
teach-out agreement, the Department proposes a new requirement
mandating that institutions provide their accrediting agency and the
State with documentation explaining why a teach-out agreement could not
be secured within 30 days. In addition, institutions in this situation
would be required to notify the Department, which may then require the
institution to provide proof of financial protection to safeguard
students in the event of closure.
Current regulations require accrediting agencies to evaluate
elements of teach out agreements that go beyond what the HEA requires,
while at the same time providing only limited and insufficient
contingency measures for institutions that close. Under the proposed
regulations, accrediting agencies would be required to coordinate with
institutions to secure teach-out agreements, review teach-out plans and
agreements and confirm that students retain access to transcripts and
transfer pathways. In addition, if a teach-out agreement includes a
program or institution that is accredited by another recognized
accrediting agency accrediting, the accrediting agency must notify the
other accrediting agency of its approval.
Burden
The proposed regulations would remove several overly prescriptive
requirements that are unsupported in the statutory framework. The
removal of these requirements would decrease unnecessary burdens on
teach-out institutions and accrediting agencies. However, several other
provisions in proposed Sec. 602.24 would create burden on institutions
and accrediting agencies.
Requiring a site visitor to accompany accrediting agency staff
during on-site visits would create burden as some accrediting agencies
would need to assign someone to be present during site visits. The
Department believes the burden would be minimal as many accrediting
agencies already have a site visitor present during on-site reviews.
Accrediting agencies would also be required to request and review
documents from institutions and maintain communication with
institutions and State agencies. Accrediting agencies would be required
to review the new regulations (10 hours), identify the scope of the new
requirements (20 hours), amend policies and procedures (40 hours),
train staff (100 hours), and update relevant systems (300 hours). The
Department estimates that this will take approximately 470 hours per
accrediting agency.
Institutions would be required to prepare teach-out plans and
agreements to comply with expanded transparency and student protection
requirements. Institutions would also need to review, update, and
publish transfer of credit policies according to the proposed changes.
Institutions would be required to review the new regulations (10
hours), identify the scope of the new requirements (20 hours), amend
policies and procedures (40 hours), train staff (100 hours), and update
relevant systems (300 hours). The Department estimates that this will
take approximately 470 hours one-time per institution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity Respondents Hours Burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public.................................................... 1,806 470 848,820
Private................................................... 1,649 470 775,030
For Profit................................................ 1,546 470 726,620
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 5,001 ................ 2,350,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 602.25 Due Process
Summary
Proposed 602.25 would rescind the requirement that an appeals panel
not only serve an advisory or procedural role and instead have
authority, and that the appeals panel affirms, amends, or remands the
adverse action.
Burden
The Department does not believe this proposed change would result
in any change in burden.
Sec. 602.26 Notification of Accrediting Decisions
Summary
Proposed 602.26 slightly amends the requirements for accrediting
agencies to report accrediting decisions to the Secretary. Agencies
will now be required to maintain a record of all actions taken for each
institution or program it accredits on its website for a period of at
least five years.
Burden
Proposed Sec. 602.26 would now require agencies to maintain on its
website a clear record of all actions taken for each institution or
program it accredits or preaccredits for a period of at least five
years. This adds burden to accrediting agencies as complying with the
new regulation requires agencies to expand their monitoring and
reporting processes. Agencies will need to review the new requirements
and create a process to ensure their website is compliant with this
proposed rule. Agencies may also have to update their systems or train
staff to keep their website up to date with actions taken for each
institution or program. We believe this will add 100 burden hours per
year.
100 burden hours x 50 accrediting agencies = 5,000 burden hours
Sec. 602.27 Other Information an Agency Must Provide the Department
Summary
Proposed Sec. 602.27 would require more frequent updates of an
agency's accredited and preaccredited institutions and programs to the
Department's website directory. The proposed reporting requirements
would require agencies to submit regular and timely updates throughout
the year rather than an annual list.
[[Page 53996]]
Burden
Complying with these new regulations would require agencies to
expand their reporting processes to allow for more frequent reporting
submissions to the Department. Agencies are already accustomed to
reporting actions taken. In 2023 the Department estimated that each
website update would take an agency 20 minutes to complete. Under the
proposed rules, we estimate this would take an average of 2 hours per
update. More frequent updates will also increase burden for this
regulation. Currently, accrediting agencies are required to submit an
update to the Department's website directory once per year. Under the
proposed regulation, agencies would be required to submit regular and
timely updates throughout the year.
If an agency updates the Department's website directory four times
per year, this would increase burden to 8 additional burden hours per
agency per year.
50 Accrediting Agencies x 8 Hours = 400 Burden Hours under 1845-
0838 Accrediting Agencies Reporting Activities for Institutions and
Programs--Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institution and Programs
(DAPIP).
Sec. 602.28 Regard for Decisions of States and Other Accrediting
Agencies
Summary
Proposed Sec. 602.28 would require accrediting agencies to expand
the function of reviewing the accreditation or preaccreditation of
certain institutions and allow agencies to place institutions on a show
cause or equivalent status. This would allow agencies to more precisely
specify that programs, not just institutions, are subject to review by
an agency when another recognized agency has initiated an adverse
action or placed a program on probation or an equivalent status. We
also propose expanding the other recognized agencies to include State
and Federal agencies to allow for increased accountability for
institutions or programs subject to negative or adverse actions by
those entities.
Burden
Complying with these new regulations would require agencies to
expand their institutional review processes. We believe this would
require 30 additional burden hours per year.
50 Accrediting Agencies x 30 Hours = 1,500 Burden Hours
Sec. 602.30 Agency Applications and Reports To Be Submitted to the
Department
Summary
The proposed regulations would modernize how accrediting agencies
submit applications and reports to the Department. The submission
timeline and concurrent submission requirements would be removed, and
there would be a new requirement for an accrediting agency to submit a
written application to the Secretary if it seeks a contraction of
scope. The proposed regulations would also prohibit an accrediting
agency from prematurely redacting business and other non-PII
information in its applications and reports submitted to the
Department.
Burden
602.30 would add burden to accrediting agencies. Currently, there
is no requirement for an agency to apply for a contraction of scope. We
believe that 10 accrediting agencies will apply for a contraction of
scope each year. In 2019 the Department estimated it would take 20
hours per expansion of scope application. Using a similar estimate, we
estimate it would take 20 hours to complete a contraction of scope
application. If 10 agencies submit a contraction of scope application
this would add 200 burden hours per year.
10 Accrediting Agencies x 20 Hours = 200 total burden hours
Sec. 602.30 Procedures for Submitting Applications for Recognition and
Renewal of Recognition
Summary
The proposed regulations would remove the application process for
recognition or renewal of recognition that is currently identical for
all agencies and instead provide specific instructions and requirements
based on agency activities.
Under proposed Sec. 602.31, when the institutions accredited by an
agency receive a substantial portion of all Title IV, HEA program
funds, the agency is required to submit a comprehensive application for
recognition. When not designated for review under the institutional
accrediting agency would submit an application demonstrating its
adherence to the regulatory requirements. When submitting information
to the Department, agencies are no longer required to redact certain
information prior to submission.
Burden
Proposed section 602.30 would slightly reduce burden on accrediting
agencies. In 2019 the Department estimated that 53 accrediting agencies
would require 285 additional hours of burden be added to this section.
The Department is now removing the 53 responses and 285 burden hours to
account for the reduction in requirements.
Sec. 602.32 Procedures for Review of an Expansion of Scope, a
Contraction of Scope, Compliance Reports, or Increases in Headcount
Enrollment
Summary
We propose new processing requirements for expansions and
contractions of scope, compliance reports, and increases in headcount.
Specifically, under proposed Sec. 602.32(a)(1) and (2) the Department
will consider applications for an expansion or contraction of an
accrediting agency's scope only when submitted together with an
application for recognition, unless Department staff, at their
discretion, elect to review such a request independently.
For compliance reports, Department staff will complete its
evaluation and a draft analysis. The draft along with any materials
received by the Department be sent to the agency identifying any
potential areas of noncompliance. The agency will be invited to submit
a written response within at least 45 days.
Under proposed Sec. 602.32(c), reports related to increases in
headcount enrollment submitted pursuant to proposed Sec. 602.30(d)
will be processed by the Department using the same procedures
applicable to compliance reports.
Burden
The Department estimates there will be 12 agencies invited to
respond to a written compliance report per year. We believe this
response would take an agency 15 hours to outline, draft, complete, and
transmit it to the Department.
12 Accrediting Agencies x 15 Hours = 180 Burden Hours
Sec. 602.33 Procedures for Review of Agencies During the Period of
Recognition, Including the Review of Monitoring Reports
Summary
The proposed regulations would modernize and streamline the
procedures for review of agencies during the period of recognition,
including the review of monitoring reports. We propose adding a new
section as Sec. 602.33(c) ensuring accrediting agencies are provided
with any documentation as a result of an
[[Page 53997]]
inquiry being made under Sec. 602.33(a)(2) and are given an
opportunity to respond within 45 days. Previously agencies were
permitted 90 days.
Burden
Proposed 602.33 does not contain any new information collection
requirements. The Department does not believe changing the timeframe
from 90 days to 45 days will result in additional burden on agencies.
Sec. 602.34 Advisory Committee Meetings
Summary
The proposed regulations would require the National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) to review
applications for contractions of scope. The Department also proposes
accrediting agencies post public notice of upcoming NACIQI reviews.
Burden
Agencies will now be required to post notices of upcoming reviews
to be completed by NACIQI. The Department believes this will take 2
hours per agency per year to determine if notification is necessary and
publish any relevant information.
50 Accrediting Agencies x 2 Hours = 100 Burden Hours
Sec. 602.35 Responding to the Advisory Committee's Recommendation.,
Sec. 602.36 Senior Department Official's Decision., Sec. 602.37
Appealing the Senior Department Official's Decision to the Secretary
Summary
We propose to make several technical, non-substantive edits to
Sec. 602.35, Sec. 602.36, and Sec. 602.37.
Burden
These edits do not require additional burden on the affected
entities.
Sec. 668.43 Institutional and Programmatic Information
Summary
Institutions will be required to provide a description of the
transfer of credit policies specific to each prospective student prior
to them making a nonrefundable financial commitment, enrollment, or
registration. If an institution declines to award credit for a course,
they must provide a written explanation to the student as to why they
were not awarded transfer credit and provide information on courses
that could be awarded transfer credit.
Under current regulations, institutions are required to provide
students with information regarding their credit transfer policies. In
certain situations, schools are also required to notify students prior
to enrollment if curriculum is not found to be adequate to satisfy the
State educational requirements for licensure or certification in the
State where the student is located.
Similarly, under proposed regulations, institutions would now be
required to inform students of the credit(s) that will or will not be
awarded based on the student's submitted transcripts if they are
submitted within a certain timeframe. When an institution declines to
award a credit, the institution must provide a written explanation as
to why they declined to award the credit and provide information and
examples of courses that otherwise would be awarded credit.
A student who receives the disclosure with the transcript deadline
may have already, at one point or another, submitted their transcript
to their institution. In this situation, a student would not be
required by regulation to submit their transcript again in order for an
institution to consider transfer credit so long as the institution has
what it needs prior to the date they prescribe in their disclosure.
Burden
Proposed Sec. 668.43 would create burden on institutions.
Institutions would be required to update their processes for the
transmission of required student disclosures to ensure the requirements
of the proposed regulation are met. Institutions will also need to
create new policies and procedures to comply with the proposed
requirements. This includes potentially creating new procedures to
accommodate the review of transcripts prior to a prospective student
making a nonrefundable financial commitment to the institution. For
simplicity and to keep the burden low, the Department believes most
institutions will send their required disclosures to students
electronically.
Institutions will be required to review the new regulations (10
hours), identify the scope of the new requirements (20 hours), amend
policies and procedures (40 hours), train staff (100 hours), and update
relevant systems (300 hours). The Department estimates that this will
take approximately 470 hours per institution one time.
This proposed regulation contains burden for students, too.
Students will receive a disclosure which must now include a date for
which the student must submit transcripts for consideration of transfer
credits. The Department estimates it would take a student an average of
one hour to transmit their transcripts for this purpose.
There are approximately 20,000,000 students enrolled at title IV
institutions. An estimated 17% of those students will have transcripts
to submit to their institution for consideration. This is about
3,400,000 students. Of those students, we believe 90 percent
(3,060,000) will submit their transcripts prior to the institution's
prescribed deadline.
If it takes one hour for a student to transmit the required
transcripts, this is a total of 3,060,000 hours of burden 3,060,000
responses. As explained in question 1 of this supporting statement,
this burden will be merged with 1845-0022 once the Department has
published all final regulations and has received OMB approval of
related collections.
Estimated Annual Burden and Respondent Costs Table
For institutions, we used the median hourly wage for Education
Administrators, Postsecondary (11-9033) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. In 2025 this was $50.29. To account for overhead costs and
benefits, the Department has multiplied this wage by two, resulting in
hourly costs of $100.58.
In 2025 the median hourly wage for all occupations was $24.51. For
consistency purposes, we have also doubled this wage to $49.02.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[[Page 53998]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.010
[[Page 53999]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.011
[[Page 54000]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.012
[[Page 54001]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.013
[[Page 54002]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU26.014
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and strengthened
Federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
[[Page 54003]]
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Assessment of Education Impact
In accordance with Section 411 of the General Education Provisions
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on
whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to provide meaningful and timely
input by State and local elected officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. ``Federalism
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed regulations do not have Federalism
implications.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person(s)
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 Adobe 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 your search to documents published
by the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 600
Colleges and universities, Foreign relations, Grant programs--
education, Loan programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Student aid, Vocational education
34 CFR Part 602
Colleges and universities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
34 CFR Part 668
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Consumer protection, Grant programs--education, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education
Nicholas Kent,
Under Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of
Education proposes to amend parts 600, 602 and 668 of title 34 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 600--INSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT
OF 1965, AS AMENDED
0
1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1088, 1091, 1094, 1099b,
and 1099c, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 600.11 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.11 Special rules regarding institutional accreditation or
preaccreditation.
(a) Change of accrediting agencies.
(1) For purposes of Sec. Sec. 600.4(a)(5)(i), 600.5(a)(6), and
600.6(a)(5)(i), the Secretary does not recognize the accreditation or
preaccreditation of an otherwise eligible institution if that
institution is in the process of changing its accrediting agency,
unless the institution provides the following to the Secretary:
(i) All materials related to its prior accreditation or
preaccreditation.
(ii) Materials demonstrating reasonable cause for changing its
accrediting agency. The Secretary will determine such cause to be
reasonable unless the Secretary determines that the institution is
seeking the change in order to--
(A) Evade or circumvent a requirement of Federal law or regulation;
(B) Avoid or delay enforcement or oversight by the Department or an
accrediting agency;
(C) Obtain eligibility for title IV, HEA programs through
misrepresentation or other unlawful means; or
(D) Otherwise undermine the integrity of the title IV, HEA
programs.
(2) The institution must publicly disclose within 10 business days
on its website and make reasonable efforts to notify all current
students, and recent graduates for whom they have active contact
information, of the change of accrediting agency.
(b) Multiple accreditation.
(1) An institution may obtain accreditation or preaccreditation
from more than one accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary if
the institution provides the following to the Secretary:
(i) Materials related to its prior accreditation or
preaccreditation;
(ii) A written explanation showing reasonable cause for having
multiple accreditors. The Secretary will determine such cause to be
reasonable unless the Secretary determines that the institution is
seeking to be accredited by more than one accrediting agency in order
to--
(A) Evade or circumvent a requirement of Federal law or regulation;
(B) Avoid or delay enforcement or oversight by the Department or an
accrediting agency;
(C) Obtain eligibility for title IV, HEA programs through
misrepresentation or other unlawful means; or
(D) Otherwise undermine the integrity of the title IV, HEA
programs.
(2) The Secretary will not determine the cause of having multiple
accrediting agencies to be unreasonable due to a withdrawal,
revocation, other termination of accreditation, probation or
equivalent, show cause order, or suspension order.
* * * * *
PART 602--THE SECRETARY'S RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING AGENCIES
0
3. The general authority citation for part 602 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b, unless otherwise noted.
0
4. Amend Sec. 602.2 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.2 How do I know which agencies the Secretary recognizes?
(a) Periodically, the Secretary publishes a list of recognized
agencies in the Federal Register, together with each agency's scope of
recognition. You may obtain a copy of the list from the Department at
any time. The list is also available on the Department's website.
(b) If the Secretary denies continued recognition to a previously
recognized agency, or if the Secretary limits, suspends, or terminates
the agency's recognition before the end of its
[[Page 54004]]
recognition period, the Secretary publishes an announcement of that
action on the Department's website, which includes the reasons for the
action and date it was taken, and also publishes such information of
the list and scope of recognized agencies published in the Federal
Register pursuant to subsection (a).
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 602.3 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.3 What definitions apply to this part?
(a) The following definitions are contained in the regulations for
Institutional Eligibility under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, 34 CFR part 600:
(1) Accredited.
(2) Additional location.
(3) Branch campus.
(4) Correspondence course.
(5) Direct assessment program.
(6) Distance education.
(7) Nationally recognized accrediting agency.
(8) Preaccreditation.
(9) Religious mission.
(10) Secretary.
(11) State.
(12) Teach-out.
(13) Teach-out agreement.
(14) Teach-out plan
(b) The following additional definitions apply to this part:
Accreditation means the status of public recognition that an
accrediting agency grants to an institution or program that meets the
agency's standards and requirements.
Accrediting agency or agency means a legal entity, or that part of
a legal entity, that conducts accrediting activities through voluntary,
non-Federal review, that may include peer review, and makes decisions
concerning the accreditation or preaccreditation status of
institutions, programs, or both.
Act means the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Adverse accrediting action or adverse action means the denial,
withdrawal, suspension, revocation, or termination of accreditation or
preaccreditation, or any comparable accrediting action an agency may
take against an institution or program.
Advisory Committee means the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity.
Compliance report means a written report that the Department
requires an agency to file when the agency is found to be out of
compliance to demonstrate that the agency has corrected deficiencies
specified in the decision letter from the senior Department official or
the Secretary. Compliance reports must be reviewed by Department staff
and the Advisory Committee and approved by the senior Department
official or, in the event of an appeal, by the Secretary.
Designated Federal Official means the Federal officer designated
under section 10(f) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.
Appdx. 1.
Final accrediting action means a final determination by an
accrediting agency regarding the accreditation or preaccreditation
status of an institution or program. A final accrediting action is a
decision made by the agency, at the conclusion of any appeals process
available to the institution or program under the agency's due process
policies and procedures.
Institution means an educational institution that meets the
requirements of paragraph (1) of the definition of eligible institution
found in 34 CFR 600.2.
Institutional accrediting agency means an agency that accredits
institutions.
Monitoring report means a report that an agency is required to
submit to Department staff when it is found to be substantially
compliant. The report contains documentation to demonstrate that--
(i) The agency is implementing its current or corrected policies;
or
(ii) The agency, which is compliant in practice, has updated its
policies to align with those compliant practices.
Program means a postsecondary educational program offered by an
institution that leads to an academic or professional degree,
certificate, or other recognized educational credential.
Programmatic accrediting agency means an agency that accredits
specific educational programs, including those that prepare students in
specific academic disciplines or for entry into a profession,
occupation, or vocation.
Recognition means an unappealed determination by the senior
Department official under Sec. 602.36, or a determination by the
Secretary on appeal under Sec. 602.37, that an accrediting agency
complies with the criteria for recognition listed in subpart B of this
part and that the agency is effective in its application of those
criteria. A grant of recognition to an agency as a reliable authority
regarding the quality of education or training offered by institutions
or programs it accredits remains in effect for the term granted except
upon a determination made in accordance with subpart C of this part
that the agency no longer complies with the subpart B criteria or that
it has become ineffective in its application of those criteria.
Related, associated, or affiliated trade association means an
organization that:
(i) is generally a membership organization;
(ii) is organized to promote a line of commerce, business,
industry, or profession;
(iii) does not engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily
carried on for profit, and no part of the net earnings of which inures
to the benefit of any member; and
(iv) is related to a particular accrediting agency in that the
agency accredits institutions or programs that prepare students to
enter the workforce of the same or substantially the same line of
commerce, business, industry, or profession that organization promotes.
Representative of the public means a person who is not--
(1) An employee, member of the governing board, owner, or
shareholder of, or consultant to, an institution or program that either
is accredited or preaccredited by the agency or has applied for
accreditation or preaccreditation;
(2) A member of any trade association or membership organization
related to, associated with, or affiliated with the agency; or
(3) A spouse, parent, child, or sibling of an individual identified
in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition.
Scope of recognition or scope means the range of accrediting
activities for which the Secretary recognizes an agency. The Secretary
may place a limitation on the scope of an agency's recognition for
title IV, HEA purposes. The Secretary's designation of scope defines
the recognition granted according to--
(i) Types of degrees and certificates covered;
(ii) Types of institutions and programs covered;
(iii) Types of preaccreditation status covered, if any; and
(iv) Coverage of accrediting activities related to distance
education or correspondence courses.
Senior Department official means the official in the U.S.
Department of Education designated by the Secretary who has, in the
judgment of the Secretary, appropriate seniority and relevant subject
matter knowledge to make independent decisions on accrediting agency
recognition.
Substantial compliance means the agency demonstrated to the
Department that it has the necessary policies, practices, and standards
in place and generally adheres with fidelity to those policies,
practices, and standards; or the agency has policies, practices, and
standards in place that need minor
[[Page 54005]]
modifications to reflect its generally compliant practice.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 602.10 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.10 Link to Federal programs.
(a) If the agency is seeking renewal of recognition and the agency
accredits institutions, it must demonstrate that its accreditation is a
required element in enabling at least one of those institutions to
establish eligibility to participate in the title IV, HEA programs. If,
pursuant to 34 CFR 600.11(b), an agency accredits one or more
institutions that participate in the title IV, HEA programs and that
could designate the agency as its link to the title IV, HEA programs,
the agency satisfies this requirement, even if the institution
currently designates another institutional accrediting agency as its
Federal link; or
(b) If the agency is seeking renewal of recognition and the agency
accredits institutions or programs, or both, it must demonstrate that
its accreditation is a required element, as stated in a Federal
statute, Federal regulation, Federal grant or funding announcement, or
other official Federal agency notice establishing eligibility
requirements for participation in the program, in enabling at least one
of those entities to establish eligibility to participate in non-HEA
Federal programs and provide documentation that an institution or
program is currently relying on the agency's accreditation as a
condition of eligibility to participate in such programs.
(c)(1) If the agency is seeking initial recognition, it must
demonstrate that an institution or program it accredits is likely to
rely on the agency's accreditation to establish or continue eligibility
to participate in an HEA or non-HEA Federal program upon recognition of
the agency within two years.
(2) In the event the agency does not have an institution or program
that is relying upon the agency's accreditation to establish or
continue eligibility to participate in an HEA or non-HEA Federal
program when the agency is recognized by the Department, it must report
to the Secretary when the first institution or program it accredits
begins relying upon its accreditation for such purposes.
(3) If, after two years after initial recognition, there are no
institutions or programs that rely on the agency's accreditation to
establish or continue eligibility to participate in an HEA or non-HEA
Federal program upon recognition of the agency, then the agency ceases
to be recognized by the Department.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 602.11 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.11 Extent of accrediting activities.
(a) The agency must identify the extent of its accrediting
activities and demonstrate that it has the capacity, policies, and
procedures necessary to conduct accrediting activities within the
identified extent.
(b)(1) An agency may seek recognition to operate in a group of
States, or in all States, but the Secretary does not assign, prefer, or
limit geographic extent, except as necessary to ensure that the agency
has the capacity to carry out its intended accrediting activities.
(2) The Secretary may not assign institutions or programs to
accrediting agencies; restrict institutions or programs from seeking
accreditation from any agency recognized by the Secretary; directly or
indirectly discourage institutions or programs from seeking
accreditation from another recognized agency through policy, guidance,
communications, or other actions; or otherwise favor one recognized
accrediting agency over another.
(3) The Secretary may not delay, condition, or otherwise adversely
affect an institution's participation in title IV, HEA programs solely
because the institution seeks accreditation from, or changes
accreditation to, another agency recognized by the Secretary.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 602.12 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.12 Accrediting experience.
(a) An agency seeking initial recognition must demonstrate that it
has sufficient accreditation experience prior to submitting an
application for recognition. An agency will be eligible to submit an
application for recognition when it can show the following--
(1) The agency is legally established to operate in the relevant
jurisdiction;
(2) The agency has adopted accreditation standards consistent with
Sec. 602.16;
(3) The agency has adopted operating procedures consistent with
Sec. 602.23; and
(4) The agency has established a process to accept applications for
accreditation consistent with Sec. 602.17 and has at least one
institution or program which has submitted an application for
accreditation.
(b) An agency seeking initial recognition must undergo the
Secretary's recognition process, defined in Sec. 602.31, and an
evaluation of the agency's compliance with the Secretary's recognition
criteria, defined in 34 CFR part 602, for the purpose of determining if
the agency is a reliable authority as to the quality of education or
training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits before
its application for recognition may be considered by the Advisory
Committee.
(c) The agency must have granted accreditation to one or more
institutions if it is requesting recognition as an institutional
accrediting agency and to one or more programs if it is requesting
recognition as a programmatic accrediting agency before the agency may
be granted recognition.
(d)(1) A recognized agency seeking an expansion or contraction of
its scope of recognition must follow the requirements of Sec. 602.32
and demonstrate that it has accreditation or preaccreditation policies
in place that meet all the criteria for recognition covering the range
of the specific degrees, certificates, institutions, and programs it
seeks in its proposed scope. A change to an agency's geographic area of
accrediting activities does not constitute an expansion or contraction
of the agency's scope of recognition, but the agency must notify the
Department of, and publicly disclose on the agency's website, any such
change.
(2) An agency that cannot demonstrate experience in making
accreditation or preaccreditation decisions under expanded scope at the
time of its application or review for an expansion of scope may--
(i) If it is an institutional accrediting agency, be limited in the
number of institutions to which it may grant accreditation under the
expanded scope for a designated period of time; or
(ii) If it is a programmatic accrediting agency, be limited in the
number of programs to which it may grant accreditation under that
expanded scope for a certain period of time;
(iii) Be required to submit a monitoring report regarding
accreditation decisions made under the expanded scope; and
(e) Experience qualifying under this section is not limited to the
accreditation of institutions within a particular geographic area and
may include experience obtained on a national, State or group of
States, or programmatic basis.
* * * * *
0
9. Add Sec. 602.13 by revising the reserved section to read as
follows:
Sec. 602.13 Effect of recognition.
(a) Recognition under this part does not confer immunity or any
relief from
[[Page 54006]]
Federal or State antitrust laws. Accrediting agencies, institutions,
and programs remain subject to those laws notwithstanding recognition
or eligibility determinations made by the Department.
(b) Recognition under this part does not authorize collective
action among accrediting agencies, institutions, or programs that would
otherwise be subject to oversight under Federal or State law.
(c) Recognition under this part does not create a property interest
or entitlement to continued recognition.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 602.14 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.14 Purpose and organization.
(a) The Secretary recognizes only the following four categories of
accrediting agencies:
(1) A State agency that--
(i) Has as a principal purpose the accrediting of institutions,
programs, or both; and
(ii) Has been listed by the Secretary as a nationally recognized
accrediting agency on or before October 1, 1991.
(2) An accrediting agency that--
(i) Has a voluntary membership of institutions;
(ii) Has as a principal purpose the accrediting of institutions and
that accreditation is used to provide a link to Federal HEA programs in
accordance with Sec. 602.10; and
(iii) Satisfies the ``separate and independent'' requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) An accrediting agency that--
(i) Has a voluntary membership; and
(ii) Has as its principal purpose the accrediting of institutions
or programs, and the accreditation it offers is used to provide a link
to Federal programs in accordance with Sec. 602.10.
(4) An accrediting agency that, for purposes of determining
eligibility for title IV programs--
(i) (A) Has a voluntary membership of individuals participating in
a profession; or
(B) Has as its principal purpose the accrediting of programs within
institutions that are accredited by another nationally recognized
accrediting agency; and
(ii) Satisfies the ``separate and independent'' requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) For purposes of this section, ``separate and independent''
means that--
(1) The members of the agency's decision-making body, who decide
the accreditation or preaccreditation status of institutions or
programs, establish the agency's accreditation policies, or both, are
not elected or selected by the board or chief executive officer of any
related, associated, or affiliated trade association or professional
organization and are not staff of the related, associated, or
affiliated trade association or professional organization;
(2) At least one member of an agency's decision-making body is a
representative of the public, and at least one-seventh of the body
consists of representatives of the public;
(3) The agency has established and implemented mandatory conflict
of interest controls for each member of the decision-making body in
accordance with Sec. 602.15(e);
(4) The agency's dues are paid and held separately from any dues
paid to any related, associated, or affiliated trade association or
professional organization;
(5) The agency develops and determines its own budget, without
review by or in consultation with any other entity or organization,
including any related, associated or affiliated trade association or
professional organization;
(6) The authorized representative of the agency submits a signed
statement certifying that it has met the requirements to be ``separate
and independent'' within each petition for recognition submitted to the
Department, and includes in that statement information regarding any
complaints received during the current recognition period that are
material.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 602.15 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities.
The agency must have the administrative and fiscal capability,
including conflict of interest controls, to carry out its accreditation
activities in light of its requested scope of recognition. The agency
meets this requirement if the agency demonstrates that--
(a) The agency has--
(1) Adequate administrative staff and financial resources to carry
out its accrediting responsibilities;
(2) Competent and knowledgeable individuals, qualified by education
or experience in their own right, as appropriate for their roles;
(3) Training provided to all agency representatives and staff that
includes topics related to best practices in various educational
delivery methods, models, and modalities; innovative or lower-cost
educational delivery models that may provide high-quality education to
students; and avoiding unnecessary costs to institutions in the
accreditation process; and
(4) Representatives of the public on all decision-making bodies.
(b) The agency maintains complete and accurate records of--
(1) Its last full accreditation or preaccreditation review of each
institution or program, including on-site evaluation team reports, the
institution's or program's responses to on-site reports, periodic
review reports, any reports of special reviews conducted by the agency
between regular reviews, and a copy of the institution's or program's
most recent self-study if applicable; and
(2) All decision letters issued by the agency regarding the
accreditation and preaccreditation of any institution or program and
any substantive changes.
(c) The agency conducts its accreditation activities in a manner
that seeks to avoid unnecessary financial, compliance, and
administrative burdens, including by avoiding duplicative reporting,
excessive documentation requirements, and unwarranted prescriptive
processes.
(d) The agency will cooperate with other agencies and the
Department in the development of common templates and forms for
institutions or programs to submit when seeking to change accrediting
agencies.
(e) The agency has clear and effective controls, including
guidelines, to--
(1) Prevent or resolve conflicts of interest, or the appearance of
conflicts of interest, by the agency's--
(i) Officers and directors;
(ii) Employees (including temporary, part-time, and full-time
employees);
(iii) Evaluation team members;
(iv) Consultants and contractors;
(v) Volunteers; and
(vi) Other agency representatives.
(2) Ensure that members of the standards-setting body, which may
include members of the decision-making body, do not vote as members of
the decision-making body on the setting of standards or policies that
affect any institution or program of which such a member is an officer,
director, or employee;
(3) Determine its dues without review by any related, associated,
or affiliated trade association or professional organization;
(4) Disallow shared resources, such as personnel, services,
equipment, facilities, or information technology, nor have office space
in the same building as any related, associated, or affiliated trade
association or professional organization. The requirement in this
paragraph for separate office space will take effect one year after the
effective date of this section;
[[Page 54007]]
(5) Ensure that any officers, directors, employees, or volunteers
of the agency do not share or solicit feedback regarding the agency's
policies, standards, or decisions with respect to any institution or
program from any related, associated, or affiliated trade association
or professional association;
(6) Prominently disclose on its website all relationships with
related, associated, or affiliated trade associations or professional
organizations; and
(7)(i) Not act to restrict access to employment in a profession,
occupation, or vocation unless the agency provides notice of clear and
convincing evidence to the Secretary that:
(A) the restriction is necessary to protect the public interest;
(B) the expected public benefits outweigh the costs to the public
from reduced access to the profession, occupation, or vocation; and
(C) no less restrictive alternative would adequately protect the
public interest.
(ii) For the purposes of this subsection, restricting access to
employment includes:
(A) taking steps to increase credentialing standards;
(B) increasing the cost or level of required education or training;
or
(C) decreasing the availability of education or training in a
manner that may benefit any related, associated, or affiliated trade
association or professional organization.
(f) The agency's accreditation standards, policies, and enforcement
practices must not restrict public institutions from fulfilling their
obligations under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. These standards similarly also must not restrict any private
institutions that, through their institutional policies, guarantee the
same or similar protections for students or faculty, unless the
institution has a religious mission.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 602.16 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards.
(a) The agency must demonstrate that it has standards for
accreditation, and preaccreditation, if offered, that are sufficiently
rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding
the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions
or programs it accredits. The agency meets this requirement if the
following conditions are met:
(1) The agency's accreditation standards must establish
requirements for the institutions or programs it accredits in the
following areas:
(i) Success with respect to student achievement at the
institutional and program level in relation to the institution's
mission, which may include different standards for different
institutions or programs, as established by the institution, including,
as appropriate, consideration of State licensing examinations, course
completion, and job placement rates, as described in Sec.
602.17(a)(1).
(ii) Curricula.
(iii) Faculty.
(iv) Facilities, equipment, and supplies.
(v) Fiscal and administrative capacity as appropriate to the
specified scale of operations.
(vi) Student support services.
(vii) Recruiting and admissions practices, academic calendars,
catalogs, publications, grading, and advertising.
(viii) Measures of program length and the objectives of the degrees
or credentials offered.
(ix) Record of student complaints received by, or available to, the
agency.
(x) Record of compliance with the institution's program
responsibilities under title IV of the Act, based on the most recent
student loan default rate data provided by the Secretary, the results
of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and any other
information that the Secretary may provide to the agency; and
(2) The agency's preaccreditation standards, if offered, must--
(i) Be appropriately related to the agency's accreditation
standards; and
(ii) Not permit the institution or program to hold preaccreditation
status for more than five years before a final accrediting action is
made.
(b) Agencies are not required to apply the standards described in
paragraph (a)(1)(x) of this section to institutions that do not
participate in title IV, HEA programs. Under such circumstance, the
agency's grant of accreditation or preaccreditation must specify that
the grant does not include participation by the institution in title
IV, HEA programs.
(c) If the agency only accredits programs and does not serve as an
institutional accrediting agency for any of those programs, its
accreditation standards must address the areas in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section in terms of the type and level of the program rather than
in terms of the institution.
(d)(1) If the agency has or seeks to include within its scope of
recognition the evaluation of the quality of institutions or programs
offering distance education, correspondence courses, or direct
assessment education, the agency's standards must effectively address
the quality of an institution's distance education, correspondence
courses, or direct assessment education in the areas identified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) The agency is not required to have separate standards,
procedures, or policies for the evaluation of distance education or
correspondence courses.
(e) If none of the institutions an agency accredits participates in
any title IV, HEA program, or if the agency only accredits programs
within institutions that are accredited by a nationally recognized
institutional accrediting agency, the agency is not required to have
the accreditation standards described in paragraphs (a)(1)(viii) and
(a)(1)(x) of this section.
(f) An agency that has established and applies the standards in
paragraph (a) of this section may establish any additional lawful
accreditation standards that are consistent with ensuring institutional
or programmatic quality and integrity as it deems appropriate.
(g) Nothing in paragraph (a) of this section restricts--
(1) An accrediting agency from setting, with the involvement of its
members, and applying accreditation standards for or to institutions or
programs that seek review by the agency;
(2) An institution from developing and using institutional
standards to show its success with respect to student achievement,
which achievement may be considered as part of any accreditation
review; or
(3) Agencies from having separate standards regarding an
institution's or a program's process for approving curriculum to enable
programs to more effectively meet the recommendations of--
(i) Industry advisory boards that include employers who hire
program graduates;
(ii) Widely recognized industry standards and organizations;
(iii) Credentialing or other occupational registration or
licensure; or
(iv) Employers in a given field or occupation, in making hiring
decisions.
(4) Agencies from having separate faculty standards for instructors
teaching courses within a dual or concurrent enrollment program, as
defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801, or career and technical education courses,
as long as the instructors, in the agency's
[[Page 54008]]
judgment, are qualified by education or work experience for that role.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 602.17 by revising the section to read as follows:
602.17 Application of standards in reaching accreditation decisions.
(a) The agency must have effective mechanisms for evaluating an
institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards
before reaching a decision to accredit or preaccredit the institution
or program. The agency meets this requirement if it demonstrates that
when reviewing institutions in accordance with the standards the agency
establishes under Sec. 602.16, it--
(1) For the purposes of meeting the standards requirements of Sec.
602.16(a)(1)(i), evaluates whether an institution or program--
(i) Maintains clearly specified educational objectives, which may
include credit for prior learning, that are consistent with its mission
and appropriate in light of the degrees or certificates awarded that
are developed, regularly reviewed, and updated using reliable data
(which may include Federal or state data);
(ii) As appropriate to its own standards, reviews an institution's
student success with respect to
student achievement at both the institutional and program levels,
including minimum expectations, by assessing:
(A) State licensing or certification examination results, where
applicable to the program of study;
(B) Program retention, completion, or graduation rates, including
as appropriate the extent to which grades meaningfully reflect student
learning and support progression through the program of study;
(C) Post-completion or graduation outcomes, including employment
and continued education;
(D) Scores on relevant standardized assessments taken for admission
to a higher-level degree, during and after the time of enrollment at an
institution, as available; and
(E) Educational and economic returns aligned to the program's
credential level, length, and occupational context relative to the
total cost of attendance. Such returns shall be assessed using the
earnings data calculated under 34 CFR 668 Subpart Q, enhanced
Unemployment Insurance wage records, or other reliable earnings data
available to the agency.
(2) When applying its standards according to Sec.
602.16(a)(1)(iii) on faculty, evaluates whether an institution
maintains:
(i) A sufficient number of appropriately qualified faculty and
other subject matter instructors who are regularly evaluated on the
performance of their instructional, research, or service
responsibilities;
(ii) Written faculty performance evaluation policies that include
defined performance criteria and are conducted on a periodic basis;
(iii) Academic freedom protections that are clearly articulated and
applied consistently to faculty regardless of appointment
classification, race or other immutable characteristics, viewpoint, or
ideology, unless the institution has a religious mission. If an
institution has a religious mission, the agency evaluates whether the
institution maintains academic freedom protections that are consistent
with the institution's religious mission and applied consistently to
faculty regardless of appointment classification, race, or other
immutable characteristics;
(iv) Sufficient flexibility in instructional staffing policies and
procedures to respond to persistent material changes in student demand,
program viability, or financial conditions;
(v) In the case of public institutions, consistently applied
policies that protect the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The agency should similarly evaluate any private
institutions that, through their institutional policies, guarantee the
same or similar protections for students or faculty;
(vi) Policies regarding the integrity of scholarly activity and
research and practices designed to prevent, detect, and address
fabrication, material misrepresentation or falsification, plagiarism,
and other forms of research misconduct as well as mechanisms for timely
investigation, corrective actions, and, as appropriate, public
disclosure;
(vii) A policy or policies to protect civil rights and, as
applicable, First Amendment rights, and whether such policy or policies
include:
(A) Academic freedom protections that are clearly articulated and
applied consistently to faculty regardless of appointment
classification, race or other immutable characteristics, viewpoint, or
ideology, unless the institution has a religious mission. If an
institution has a religious mission, the agency evaluates whether the
institution maintains academic freedom protections that are consistent
with the institution's religious mission and applied consistently to
faculty regardless of appointment classification, race, or other
immutable characteristics;
(B) Academic freedom and freedom of inquiry protections for faculty
in teaching, scholarship and research within the subject matter of a
course and research within their academic discipline, including
conditions under which a range of academic perspectives may be
expressed and examined without adverse action based on lawful
viewpoints unrelated to professional or academic competence, unless the
institution has a religious mission;
(C) In the case of a private institution, policies that if
established guarantee the same or similar protections as those
described in subsections (i) and (ii) above.
(viii) A policy that is designed to support, promote, and
appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity and the free exchange
of ideas amongst faculty, to include elements that address intellectual
inquiry and student learning, and measures student and faculty
perceptions on the range of viewpoints and perspectives offered by the
institution or program, unless the institution or program has a
religious mission. If an institution or program has a religious
mission, the policy shall include elements that address intellectual
inquiry and student learning that are consistent with the institution's
religious mission;
(3) When applying its standards according to Sec. 602.16(a)(1)(iv)
and (vi):
(i) A cost/benefit analysis, which means a review by the agency of
the institution's budget, resource utilization and allocation, and, if
existing, its business/strategic plan, continuous improvement strategic
plan, and review of whether the institution considers whether the
expected benefits of the institution's activities justify the
associated financial, administrative, and opportunity costs and the
impact of capital expenditures on future operating expenses;
(ii) A review of an institution's practices and capabilities
regarding the administration of student aid programs; and
(iii) A review of the sufficiency and proper maintenance of the
institution's facilities and that such facilities comply with
applicable safety standards, laws, and regulations.
(4) When applying its standards according to Sec.
602.16(a)(1)(viii), seeks to ensure that program length is appropriate
to the objectives of the program and credential awarded at the
institution. In applying its standard, the agency must not
categorically prohibit or unreasonably restrict the accreditation of a:
[[Page 54009]]
(i) Short-term program that is designed to prepare students for
employment in recognized occupations eligible for Federal student aid
under applicable law; or
(ii) Certificate or degree program offered for a shorter period of
time than is traditionally required to obtain that credential, so long
as the program results in comparable academic, professional, and
employment outcomes for students who would complete such programs.
(b) When applying and determining an institution's or program's
compliance with its standards, the agency must:
(1) Require the institution or program to engage in a-comprehensive
process, that may include a self-study, that assesses the institution's
or program's education quality and success in meeting its mission and
objectives, highlights opportunities for improvement, and includes a
plan for making those improvements;
(2) Conduct at least one on-site review of the institution or
program during which it obtains sufficient information to determine if
the institution or program complies with the agency's standards;
(3) Allow the institution or program the opportunity to respond in
writing to the report of the on-site review;
(4) Conduct its own analysis of the comprehensive process and
supporting documentation furnished by the institution or program, the
report of the on-site review, the institution's or program's response
to the report, and any other information substantiated by the agency
from other sources to determine whether the institution or program
complies with the agency's standards;
(5) Provide the institution or program with a detailed written
report that assesses the institution's or program's compliance with the
agency's standards, including areas needing improvement, and the
institution's or program's performance with respect to student
achievement;
(c) When applying its standards, an agency requires institutions to
have processes in place through which the institution establishes that
a student who registers in any course offered via distance education or
correspondence is the same student who academically engages in the
course or program; and
(d) When applying its standards, an agency seeks to reduce
unnecessary barriers which restrict the ability of institutions or
programs from adopting instructional, programmatic, or delivery
practices that improve student access, accelerate credential or degree
completion, or support innovative models of postsecondary education,
including program length.
(e) The agency has adopted, implements, and enforces written
policies and procedures that seek to ensure the accuracy, completeness,
and integrity of all representations made by the agency to:
(1) The Secretary;
(2) The public, including current and prospective students;
(3) State, Tribal, and other governmental authorities; and
(4) Institutions or programs it accredits or preaccredits.
(f) The agency has policies that the agency:
(1) Does not knowingly make false, misleading, or materially
incomplete statements regarding:
(i) The accreditation or preaccreditation status of any institution
or program; or
(ii) The scope, conditions, or implications of accreditation or
preaccreditation; and
(iii) Compliance of an institution or program with applicable
Federal or State law.
(2) Maintains procedures for the prompt correction of materially
inaccurate public statements or disclosures;
(3) Maintains procedures for investigating credible allegations
that the agency or its representatives made materially inaccurate or
misleading representations; and
(4) Takes appropriate corrective or disciplinary action when the
agency determines that materially inaccurate or misleading
representations have occurred.
(g) The agency may not have standards that encourage, direct, or
otherwise require institutions or programs to violate Federal or State
law, including by having policies that provide any preferences on the
basis of race.
(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any
action that would conflict with applicable Federal or State law.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec. 602.18 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making.
(a) The agency must consistently apply and enforce standards that
respect the stated mission of the institution, including religious
mission, and that ensure that the education or training offered by an
institution or program, including any offered through distance
education, correspondence courses, or direct assessment education is of
sufficient quality to achieve its stated objective for the duration of
any accreditation or preaccreditation period.
(b) The agency meets the requirement in paragraph (a) of this
section if the agency--
(1) Has written specification of the requirements for accreditation
and preaccreditation that include clear standards for an institution or
program to be accredited or preaccredited;
(2) Has effective controls against the inconsistent application of
the agency's standards;
(3) Bases decisions regarding accreditation and preaccreditation on
the agency's published standards and does not use as a negative factor
the institution's religious mission-based policies, decisions, and
practices in the areas covered by Sec. 602.16(a)(1)(ii), (iii), (iv),
(vi), and (vii) provided, however, that the agency may require that the
institution's or program's curricula include all core components
required by the agency;
(4) Has adopted and followed procedures to ensure that agency
decisions are neutral with respect to viewpoint and ideology that are
unrelated to its accrediting policies or standards, except that nothing
in this paragraph requires an accrediting agency with a religious
mission to be neutral with respect to viewpoints.
(5) Has a reasonable basis for determining that the information the
agency relies on for making accrediting decisions is accurate; and
(6) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written
report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution's or
program's compliance with the agency's standards.
(7) Publishes any policies for retroactive application of an
accreditation decision, which must not provide for an effective date
that predates either--
(i) An earlier denial by the agency of accreditation or
preaccreditation to the institution or program; or
(ii) The agency's formal approval of the institution or program for
consideration in the agency's accreditation or preaccreditation
process.
(c) This section does not prohibit an agency from reducing barriers
that limit institutions and programs from adopting practices that
advance credential and degree completion and that promote new models of
education by applying equivalent written standards, policies, and
procedures that provide alternative means of satisfying one or more of
the requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 602.16, 602.17, 602.19,
602.20, 602.22, and 602.24, as compared with written
[[Page 54010]]
standards, policies, and procedures the agency ordinarily applies, if--
(1) The alternative standards, policies, and procedures, and the
selection of institutions or programs to which they will be applied,
are approved by the agency's decision-making body and otherwise meet
the intent of the agency's expectations and requirements;
(2) The agency sets and applies equivalent goals and metrics for
assessing the performance of institutions or programs;
(3) The agency's process for establishing and applying the
alternative standards, policies, and procedures is set forth in its
published accreditation manuals; and
(4) The agency requires institutions or programs seeking the
application of alternative standards to demonstrate the need for an
alternative assessment approach, that students will receive equivalent
benefit, and that students will not be harmed through such application.
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec. 602.20 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.20 Enforcement of standards.
(a) If the agency's review of an institution or program under any
standard indicates that the institution or program is not in compliance
with that standard, the agency must--
(1) Follow its written policy for notifying the institution or
program of the finding of noncompliance;
(2) Provide the institution or program with a written timeline for
coming into compliance that is reasonable, as determined by the
agency's decision-making body, based on the nature of the finding, the
stated mission, and educational objectives of the institution or
program. The timeline may include intermediate checkpoints on the way
to full compliance and must not exceed the lesser of four years or 150
percent of the--
(i) Length of the program in the case of a programmatic accrediting
agency; or
(ii) Length of the longest program at the institution in the case
of an institutional accrediting agency;
(3) Follow its written policies and procedures for granting a good
cause extension that may exceed the standard timeframe described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section when such an extension is determined
by the agency to be warranted; and
(4) Have a written policy to evaluate an institution's or program's
progress in resolving the finding of noncompliance.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the agency must
have a policy for taking an immediate adverse action, and take such
action, when the agency has determined that such action is warranted.
(c) If the institution or program does not bring itself into
compliance within the period specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, the agency must take adverse action against the institution or
program, but may maintain the institution's or program's accreditation
or preaccreditation until the institution or program has had reasonable
time to complete the activities in its teach-out plan or to fulfill the
obligations of any teach-out agreement to assist students in
transferring or completing their programs.
(d) An agency that accredits institutions may limit the adverse or
other action to particular programs that are offered by the institution
or to particular additional locations of an institution, without
necessarily taking action against the entire institution and all of its
programs, provided the noncompliance was limited to that particular
program or location.
(e) All adverse actions taken under this subpart are subject to the
arbitration requirements in 20 U.S.C. 1099b(e). Any agency arbitration
standard or policy must be nonbinding, except that both parties may
agree to binding arbitration after a dispute arises on a case-by-case
basis. If an agency has an arbitration policy or standard, it must:
(1) Apply to all final adverse actions; however, an agency may
require the institution or program to first exhaust the agency's appeal
process;
(2) Ensure that the arbitration process is fair and impartial; and
(3) Provide for a transparent and reasonable period of time for
resolution of disputes.
(f) An agency is not responsible for enforcing requirements in 34
CFR 668.14, 668.15, 668.16, 668.41, or 668.46, but if, in the course of
an agency's work, it identifies instances or potential instances of
noncompliance with any of these requirements, it must notify the
Department.
(g) The Secretary may not require an agency to take action against
an institution or program that does not participate in any title IV,
HEA or other Federal program as a result of a requirement specified in
this part.
(h) The agency must have a policy for restoring accreditation
(including retroactive restoration) in circumstances that the agency
determines are appropriate, including if required by an applicable
judicial decision.
(i) Nothing in this part prohibits an agency from permitting the
institution or program to be out of compliance with one or more of its
standards, policies, and procedures adopted in satisfaction of
Sec. Sec. 602.16, 602.17, 602.19, 602.22, and 602.24 for a period of
time, as determined by the agency annually, not to exceed three years
unless the agency determines there is good cause to extend the period
of time and if--
(1) The agency and the institution or program can show that the
circumstances requiring the period of noncompliance are beyond the
institution's or program's control, such as--
(i) A natural disaster or other catastrophic event significantly
impacting an institution's or program's operations;
(ii) Accepting students from another institution that is
implementing a teach-out or closing;
(iii) Significant and documented local or national economic
changes, such as an economic recession or closure of a large local
employer;
(iv) Changes in State licensure requirements;
(v) Instructors who do not meet the agency's typical faculty
standards but who are otherwise qualified by education or work
experience to teach courses within a dual or concurrent enrollment
program, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801, or career and technical
education courses;
(2) The grant of the period of noncompliance is approved by the
agency's decision-making body;
(3) The agency projects that the institution or program has the
resources necessary to achieve compliance with the standard, policy, or
procedure within the time allotted; and
(4) The institution or program demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the agency that the period of noncompliance will not--
(i) Increase the cost of the program to the student without the
student's consent;
(ii) Create any undue hardship on, or harm to, students; or
(iii) Compromise the program's academic quality.
(5) The agency timeline must include the enforcement of
intermediate checkpoints that allow the agency to ensure the
institution will be in full compliance by the end of the timeline.
(6) An extension under this provision can only be granted by the
agency if the special circumstances constitute a new and independent
cause for the non-compliance.
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec. 602.21 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.21 Review of standards.
The agency must maintain a comprehensive systematic program of
[[Page 54011]]
review that occurs at regular intervals, involves all relevant
constituencies (including students), and that demonstrates that its
standards are adequate to evaluate the quality of the education or
training provided by the institutions and programs it accredits and is
relevant to the educational or training needs of students.
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec. 602.22 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.22 Substantive changes and other reporting requirements.
(a)(1) If the agency accredits institutions, it must maintain
adequate substantive change policies that ensure that any substantive
change, as defined in this section, after the agency has accredited or
preaccredited the institution does not adversely affect the capacity of
the institution to continue to meet the agency's standards. The agency
meets this requirement if--
(i) The agency requires the institution to obtain the agency's
approval of substantive change defined in subparagraph (ii) before the
agency includes the change in the scope of accreditation or
preaccreditation it previously granted to the institution; and
(ii) The agency's definition of substantive change covers at least
the following:
(A) Any substantial change in the established mission or objectives
of the institution or its programs.
(B) Any change in the legal status, form of control, or ownership
of the institution that results in a change of control.
(C) The addition of programs that represent a significant departure
from the existing offerings or educational programs, or method of
delivery, from those that were offered or used when the agency last
evaluated the institution.
(D) The addition of graduate programs by an institution that
previously offered only undergraduate programs or certificates.
(E) An increase in the level of credential awarded for successful
completion of one or more programs.
(F) The acquisition of any other institution or any program or
location of another institution not otherwise reviewed as part of a
change of control transaction or the process for the addition of a
location.
(G) The addition of a permanent location at a site at which the
institution is conducting a teach-out for students of another
institution that has ceased operating before all students have
completed their program of study.
(H) The addition of a new location or branch campus, except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section. The institution must
document its fiscal and administrative capability to operate the
location or branch campus, including verification of the following:
(1) Academic control by the institution.
(2) The institution has adequate faculty, facilities, resources,
and academic and student support systems in place.
(3) The institution is financially stable.
(4) The institution had appropriate planning for the addition.
(I) Entering into a written arrangement under 34 CFR 668.5 under
which an institution or organization not certified to participate in
the title IV, HEA programs offers more than 25 percent but less than 50
percent of one or more of the accredited institution's educational
programs.
(J) Addition of each direct assessment program.
(K) Addition of the first prison education program at the first two
additional locations and the first additional prison education program
offered by a new method of delivery.
(2)(i) For substantive changes under only paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C),
(E), (G), or (I) of this section, the agency's decision-making body may
designate agency senior staff to approve or disapprove the request in a
timely, fair, and equitable manner; and
(ii) In the case of a request under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(I) of this
section, the agency must make a final decision within 90 days of
receipt of a materially complete request, unless the agency or its
staff determine significant circumstances related to the substantive
change require a review by the agency's decision-making body to occur
within 180 days.
(b) Institutions that have been placed on probation or equivalent
status, have been subject to negative action by the agency over the
prior three academic years, or are under a provisional certification,
as provided in 34 CFR 668.13, must receive prior approval for the
following additional changes (all other institutions must report these
changes within 30 days to their accrediting agency or as directed by
their accrediting agency):
(1) A change in the way an institution measures student progress,
including whether the institution measures progress in clock hours or
credit hours, semesters, trimesters, or quarters, or uses time-based or
non-time-based methods.
(2) A substantial increase in the number of clock hours or credit
hours awarded.
(3) Entering into a written arrangement under 34 CFR 668.5 under
which an institution or organization not certified to participate in
the title IV, HEA programs offers up to 25 percent of one or more of
the accredited institution's educational programs.
(c) Institutions that have successfully completed at least one
cycle of accreditation and have received agency approval for the
addition of at least two additional locations as provided in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii)(H) of this section, and that have not been placed on
probation or equivalent status or been subject to a negative action by
the agency over the prior three academic years, and that are not under
a provisional certification, as provided in 34 CFR 668.13, need not
apply for agency approval of subsequent additions of locations, and
must report these changes to the accrediting agency within 30 days, if
the institution has met criteria established by the agency indicating
sufficient capacity to add additional locations without individual
prior approvals, including, at a minimum, satisfactory evidence of a
system to ensure quality across a distributed enterprise.
(d) The agency may determine the procedures it uses to grant prior
approval of the substantive change. However, these procedures must
specify an effective date on which the change is included in the
program's or institution's grant of accreditation or preaccreditation.
The date of prior approval must not pre-date either an earlier agency
denial of the substantive change, or the agency's formal acceptance of
the application for the substantive change for inclusion in the
program's or institution's grant of accreditation or preaccreditation.
An agency may designate the date of a change in ownership as the
effective date of its approval of that substantive change if the
accreditation decision is made within 30 days of the change in
ownership.
(e) The agency's substantive change policy must define when the
changes made or proposed by an institution are or would be sufficiently
extensive to require the agency to conduct a new comprehensive
evaluation of that institution.
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec. 602.23 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.
* * * * *
[[Page 54012]]
(c) The accrediting agency must--
(1) Review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner any complaint it
receives against an accredited or preaccredited institution or program
that is related to the agency's standards or procedures. The agency may
not complete its review and make a decision regarding a complaint
unless, in accordance with published procedures, it ensures that the
institution or program has sufficient opportunity to provide a response
to the complaint;
(2) Take follow-up action, as necessary, including enforcement
action, if necessary, based on the results of its review; and
(3) Review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner, and apply
unbiased judgment to, any complaints against itself, to include
conflict of interest violations, and take follow-up action, as
appropriate, based on the results of its review, and document such
complaints and actions.
(d) The agency must require its accredited institutions or programs
to publicly disclose any action by the agency that begins the
enforcement timeline in Sec. 602.20(a) or (b). When an institution or
program makes such a disclosure or elects to make a public disclosure
of its accreditation or preaccreditation status, the agency must ensure
that the institution or program discloses that status accurately,
including the specific academic or instructional programs covered by
that status, the reason(s) for the action, and the name and contact
information for the agency.
(e) The accrediting agency must provide for the public correction
of incorrect or misleading information an accredited or preaccredited
institution or program releases about--
(1) The accreditation or preaccreditation status of the institution
or program;
(2) The contents of reports of on-site reviews; and
(3) The agency's accrediting or preaccrediting actions with respect
to the institution or program.
(f) All credits and credentials earned and issued by an institution
or program holding preaccreditation from a nationally recognized agency
are considered by the Secretary to be from an accredited institution or
program.
(g) The agency may establish any additional operating procedures it
deems appropriate. At the agency's discretion, these may include
unannounced inspections.
(h) The agency must not have policies that require institutions or
programs to violate any Federal or State law, including Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., and Title IX of the
Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. (Title IX),
which means, among other things, that agencies must not have policies
that require institutions or programs to provide unlawful preferences
to students, faculty, staff, contractors, or any employees based upon
their race, color, national origin, or sex, including in admissions,
hiring, and the selection of contracts.
(i) The agency must have internal controls to ensure compliance
with antitrust laws, including by ensuring that the agency does not
directly or indirectly facilitate coordination or collusive activities
that are anticompetitive among institutions or programs or
unnecessarily restrict access to employment in an occupation.
(j) The agency must refrain from reviewing aspects of institutional
governance of public institutions that are established by State law,
including the appointment of institutional directors or officers by
elected or appointed State officials.
(k) The agency may have a timely procedure to accelerate the
comprehensive accreditation process for an institution or program
seeking initial accreditation. An institution or program would be
eligible to access this process if, at a minimum, it--
(1) Holds current accreditation from another nationally recognized
accrediting agency; and
(2)(i) Meets the requirements of Sec. 600.11; or
(ii) Is impacted by a decision by the senior Department official or
Secretary to terminate an agency's recognition.
(l) The agency must establish and maintain at least one structured
mechanism through which currently enrolled students, employed staff,
and employed faculty of accredited or preaccredited institutions or
programs may communicate directly with the agency concerns related to
the agency's accreditation standards or the institution's or program's
compliance therewith. Such mechanism(s) must be designed to ensure that
information received is substantive and manageable in volume.
Permissible mechanisms include, but are not limited to, any one or more
of the following:
(1) A registration process through which students, staff, or
faculty may sign up to participate in structured meetings with agency
representatives during scheduled site visits or virtual visits, subject
to reasonable limits on the number of participants and appointment
availability; or
(2) Randomized panels of students, staff, or faculty selected by
the accrediting agency or its authorized representatives to participate
in confidential interviews or focus groups during site visits,
conducted in a manner that ensures a representative cross-section of
the institutional community.
(3) Student, faculty, staff surveys independently administered by
the agency as part of an initial or renewal of accreditation process
which minimally address the standards areas required by Sec.
602.16(a).
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec. 602.24 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional agencies must
have.
* * *
(b) Site visits. The agency must undertake a site visit that cannot
be conducted solely by agency staff to a new branch campus or following
a change of ownership or control as soon as practicable, but no later
than six months, after the establishment of that campus or the change
of ownership or control.
(c) Teach-out plans and agreements. (1) The agency must require an
institution it accredits to submit a teach-out plan as defined in 34
CFR 600.2 within 30 days to the agency for approval upon the occurrence
of any of the following events:
(i) For a nonprofit or proprietary institution, the Secretary
notifies the agency of a determination by the institution's independent
auditor expressing doubt about the institution's ability to operate as
a going concern or indicating an adverse opinion or a finding of
material weakness related to financial stability.
(ii) The agency acts to place the institution on probation or
equivalent status.
(iii) The Secretary notifies the agency that the institution's
participation in title IV, HEA programs has changed from full to
provisional certification.
(2) The agency must require an institution it accredits or
preaccredits to submit a teach-out agreement (as defined in 34 CFR
600.2) to the agency for approval upon the occurrence of any of the
following events:
(i) The Secretary notifies the agency that it has placed the
institution on the reimbursement payment method under 34 CFR 668.162(c)
or the heightened cash monitoring payment method requiring the
Secretary's review of the institution's supporting documentation under
34 CFR 668.162(d)(2).
(ii) The Secretary notifies the agency that the Secretary has
initiated an emergency action against an institution,
[[Page 54013]]
in accordance with section 487(c)(1)(G) of the HEA, or an action to
limit, suspend, or terminate an institution participating in any title
IV, HEA program, in accordance with section 487(c)(1)(F) of the HEA.
(iii) The agency acts to withdraw, terminate, or suspend the
accreditation or preaccreditation of the institution.
(iv) The institution notifies the agency that it intends to cease
operations entirely or close a location that provides one hundred
percent of at least one program, including if the location is being
moved and is considered by the Secretary to be a closed school, unless
the institution is completing its own teach-out.
(v) A State licensing or authorizing agency notifies the agency
that an institution's license or legal authorization to provide an
educational program has been or will be revoked.
(3) If an institution is unable to secure a teach-out agreement
within 30 days with another institution as required under paragraph
(c)(2) of this section--
(i) The institution must provide documentation to the agency and
the State detailing why a teach-out agreement cannot be secured; and
(ii) The institution must notify the Department that a teach-out
agreement cannot be secured and if this is the case, the Department may
require the institution to provide financial protection.
(4) The agency must evaluate the teach-out plan to ensure it
includes a list of currently enrolled students, academic programs
offered by the institution, a plan to maintain and provide access to
transcripts in the event of closure, and the names of other
institutions that offer similar programs and that could potentially
enter into a teach-out agreement with the institution.
(5) If the agency approves a teach-out plan or a teach-out
agreement that includes a program or institution that is accredited by
another recognized accrediting agency, it must notify that accrediting
agency of its approval.
(6) The agency may require an institution it accredits or
preaccredits to enter into a teach-out agreement as part of its teach-
out plan.
(7) The agency must require an institution to include in its teach-
out agreement--
(i) A complete list of students currently enrolled in each program
at the institution and the program requirements each student has
completed;
(ii) A plan to provide all potentially eligible students with
information about how to obtain a closed school discharge and, if
applicable, information on State refund policies;
(iii) A record retention plan to be provided to all enrolled
students that delineates the final disposition of teach-out records
(e.g., student transcripts, billing, financial aid records);
(iv) Information on the number and types of credits the teach-out
institution is willing to accept prior to the student's enrollment; and
(v) A clear statement to students of the tuition and fees of the
educational program and the number and types of credits that will be
accepted by the teach-out institution.
(8) The agency must require an institution it accredits or
preaccredits that enters into a teach-out agreement, either on its own
or at the request of the agency, to submit that teach-out agreement for
approval. The agency may approve the teach-out agreement only if the
agreement meets the requirements of 34 CFR 600.2 and this section, is
consistent with applicable standards and regulations, and provides for
the equitable treatment of students being served.
(9) Irrespective of any teach-out plan or signed teach-out
agreement, the agency must not permit an institution to serve as a
teach-out institution under the following conditions:
(i) The institution is subject to the conditions in paragraph
(c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(ii) The institution is under investigation, subject to an action,
or being prosecuted for an issue related to academic quality,
misrepresentation, fraud, or other severe matters by a law enforcement
agency.
(10) The agency is permitted to waive requirements regarding the
percentage of credits that must be earned by a student at the
institution awarding the educational credential if the student is
completing his or her program through a written teach-out agreement or
transfer.
(d) Closed institution. If an institution the agency accredits or
preaccredits closes without a teach-out plan, the agency must work with
the Department and the appropriate State agency, to the extent
feasible, to assist students in finding reasonable opportunities to
complete their education without additional charges, including by--
(i) Working with institutions to secure teach-out agreements;
(ii) Where a teach-out agreement cannot be arranged, working with
institutions identified in the teach-out plan to secure transfer
options with those institutions;
(iii) Making teach-out or transfer options, the terms of such
options, and information on obtaining transcripts, loan discharges, and
reimbursement publicly available on the agency's website; and
(iv) Sharing such information with appropriate State agencies and,
as applicable, with other recognized accrediting agencies.
(e) Transfer of credit policies. The accrediting agency must
confirm, as part of its review for initial accreditation or
preaccreditation, or renewal of accreditation, that the institution has
transfer of credit policies which include provisions that--
(1) Are publicly disclosed in accordance with 34 CFR 668.43(a)(11)
and include general policies for specific academic standards, time
limits, and curricular requirements for acceptance of credits;
(2) Include a comprehensive statement of all transfer of credit
criteria established by the institution, which must consider the
comparability and applicability of coursework completed or credit
earned at another institution accredited by an agency recognized by the
Secretary;
(3) Do not deny the transfer of credit based on the institution at
which the student completed the coursework or the agency that accredits
that institution, so long as the agency is recognized by the Secretary;
(4) Award transfer credit for undergraduate programs for coursework
that has been successfully completed at another institution that is
accredited by an agency recognized by the Secretary and is comparable
in content and learning outcomes to the institution's own course
offerings, unless the institution provides a written basis for denial
under 34 CFR 668.43(c)(4) in accordance with its academic standards or
curricular requirements; and
(5) Provide the student an opportunity to appeal the decision
within 15 calendar days of receipt of the institution's written
notification if an institution declines to award transfer credit under
paragraph (4).
(f) Agency designations. In its accrediting practice, the agency
must--
(1) Adopt and apply the definitions of ``branch campus'' and
``additional location'' in 34 CFR 600.2;
(2) On the Secretary's request, conform its designations of an
institution's branch campuses and additional locations with the
Secretary's if it learns its designations diverge; and
(3) Ensure that it does not accredit or preaccredit an institution
comprising fewer than all of the programs, branch campuses, and
locations of an institution as certified for title IV participation by
the Secretary, except
[[Page 54014]]
with notice to and permission from the Secretary.
* * * * *
0
20. Amend Sec. 602.25 by revising the section to read as follows:
602.25 Due process.
The agency must demonstrate that the procedures it uses throughout
the accrediting process satisfy due process. The agency meets this
requirement if the agency does the following:
(a) Provides adequate written specification of its requirements,
including clear standards, for an institution or program to be
accredited or preaccredited.
(b) Uses procedures that afford an institution or program a
reasonable period of time to comply with the agency's requests for
information and documents.
(c) Provides written specification of any deficiencies identified
at the institution or program examined.
(d) Provides sufficient opportunity for a written response by an
institution or program regarding any deficiencies identified by the
agency, to be considered by the agency within a timeframe determined by
the agency, and before any adverse action is taken.
(e) Notifies the institution or program in writing of any adverse
accrediting action or an action to place the institution or program on
probation or show cause. The notice describes the basis for the action.
(f) Provides an opportunity, upon written request of an institution
or program, for the institution or program to appeal any adverse action
prior to the action becoming final.
(1) The appeal must take place at a hearing before an appeals panel
that--
(i) May not include current members of the agency's decision-making
body that took the initial adverse action; and
(ii) Is subject to a conflict of interest policy.
(2) The agency must recognize the right of the institution or
program to employ counsel to represent the institution or program
during its appeal, including to make any presentation that the agency
permits the institution or program to make on its own during the
appeal.
(g) The agency notifies the institution or program in writing of
the result of its appeal and the basis for that result.
(h)(1) The agency must provide for a process, in accordance with
written procedures, through which an institution or program may, before
the agency reaches a final adverse action decision, seek review of new
financial information if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The financial information was unavailable to the institution or
program until after the decision subject to appeal was made.
(ii) The financial information is significant and bears materially
on the financial deficiencies identified by the agency. The criteria of
significance and materiality are determined by the agency.
(iii) The only remaining deficiency cited by the agency in support
of a final adverse action decision is the institution's or program's
failure to meet an agency standard pertaining to finances.
(2) An institution or program may seek the review of new financial
information described in paragraph (h)(1) of this section only once and
any determination by the agency made with respect to that review does
not provide a basis for an appeal.
* * * * *
0
21. Amend Sec. 602.26 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.26 Notification of accrediting decisions.
The agency must demonstrate that it has established and follows
written procedures requiring it to provide written notice of its
accrediting decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing
or authorizing agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the
public. The agency meets this requirement if the agency, following its
written procedures--
(a) Provides written notice of the following types of decisions to
the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency,
the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public no later than 30
days after it makes the decision:
(1) A decision to award initial accreditation or preaccreditation
to an institution or program.
(2) A decision to renew an institution's or program's accreditation
or preaccreditation;
(b) Provides the decision letter or clear explanation in writing of
the reasons for a final decision of a probation or equivalent status or
an initiated adverse action to the Secretary, the appropriate State
licensing or authorizing agency, and the appropriate accrediting
agencies at the same time it notifies the institution or program of the
decision and requires the institution or program to disclose such an
action within seven business days of receipt to all current and
prospective students;
(c) Provides the decision letter or clear explanation in writing of
the following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate
State licensing or authorizing agency, and the appropriate accrediting
agencies at the same time it notifies the institution or program of the
decision, but no later than 30 days after it reaches the decision:
(1) A final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or
terminate the accreditation or preaccreditation of an institution or
program.
(2) A final decision to take any other adverse action, as defined
by the agency, not listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section;
(d) For the decisions listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, the agency must update its website directory of accredited
institutions or programs to note the decision within one business day
of its notice to the institution or program;
(e) For any decision listed in paragraph (c) of this section,
requires the institution or program to disclose the decision to current
and prospective students within seven business days of receipt and
makes available to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or
authorizing agency, and the public, no later than 60 days after the
decision, the agency's decision letter or clear explanation of the
reasons for the agency's decision and the official comments that the
affected institution or program may wish to make with regard to that
decision, or evidence that the affected institution has been offered
the opportunity to provide official comment;
(f) The agency must maintain on its website a clear record of all
actions taken for each institution or program it accredits or
preaccredits for a period of at least five years, including in the
agency's decision letter required pursuant to subparagraphs (b), (c),
and (e) above.
(g) Notifies the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or
authorizing agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and, upon
request, the public if an accredited or preaccredited institution or
program--
(1) Decides to withdraw voluntarily from accreditation or
preaccreditation, within 10 business days of receiving notification
from the institution or program that it is withdrawing voluntarily from
accreditation or preaccreditation; or
(2) Lets its accreditation or preaccreditation lapse, within 10
business days of the date on which accreditation or preaccreditation
lapses.
(h) If the agency issues a final decision to withdraw, suspend,
revoke, or terminate the accreditation or preaccreditation of the
institution, and
[[Page 54015]]
the institution challenges this final decision, the Department may
continue to provide access to title IV, HEA programs to an institution
until both arbitration and judicial review (if applicable) has
concluded or until relief is denied, whichever occurs first, if failure
to do so would result in immediate, irreparable harm to the
institution. This provision does not authorize the Department to
nullify agency decisions that are made in a manner consistent with the
agency's standards, even if the Department disagrees with said
decision.
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Sec. 602.27 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 602.27 Other information an agency must provide Department.
(a) The agency must submit to the Department--
(1) Regular and timely updates, occurring throughout the year, of
its accredited and preaccredited institutions and programs on the
Department's website directory;
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec. 602.28 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 602.28 Regard for decisions of States and other accrediting
agencies.
* * * * *
(d) If the agency learns that an institution it accredits or
preaccredits, an institution that offers a program it accredits or
preaccredits, or a program it accredits or preaccredits, is the subject
of an adverse action or has been placed on probation or an equivalent
status by another recognized agency, or has been the subject of a
similar action or status by a State agency or Federal agency, the
agency must promptly review its accreditation or preaccreditation of
the institution or program to determine if it should also take adverse
action or place the institution or program on probation or an
equivalent status.
* * * * *
0
24. Redesignate Sec. 602.31 to Sec. 602.30 and amend the section to
read as follows:
Sec. 602.30 Agency applications and reports to be submitted to the
Department.
(a) Applications for recognition or renewal of recognition. An
accrediting agency seeking initial or continued recognition must submit
a written application to the Secretary. Each accrediting agency must
submit an application for continued recognition at least once every
five years, or within a shorter time period specified in the final
recognition decision. The application must consist of--
(1) A statement of the agency's requested scope of recognition;
(2) Documentation that the agency complies with the criteria for
recognition listed in subpart B of this part, including a copy of its
policies and procedures manual and its accreditation standards; and
(3) Documentation of how an agency that includes or seeks to
include distance education or correspondence courses in its scope of
recognition applies its standards in evaluating programs and
institutions it accredits that offer distance education or
correspondence courses.
(b) Applications for expansions or contractions of scope. An agency
seeking an expansion or contraction of scope by application must submit
a written application to the Secretary. The application must--
(1) Specify the scope requested;
(2) Provide copies of any relevant standards, policies, or
procedures developed and applied by the agency for its use in
accrediting activities conducted within an expansion of scope proposed
and documentation of the application of these standards, policies, or
procedures; and
(3) Provide the materials required by Sec. 602.32(a).
(c) Compliance or monitoring reports. If an agency is required to
submit a compliance or monitoring report, it must do so within 30 days
following the end of the period for achieving compliance as specified
in the decision of the senior Department official or Secretary, as
applicable.
(d) Review following an increase in headcount enrollment. If an
agency that has notified the Secretary in writing of its change in
scope to include distance education or correspondence courses in
accordance with Sec. 602.27(a)(4) reports an increase in headcount
enrollment in accordance with Sec. 602.19(e) for an institution it
accredits, or if the Department notifies the agency of such an increase
at one of the agency's accredited institutions, the agency must, within
45 days of reporting the increase or receiving notice of the increase
from the Department, as applicable, submit a report explaining--
(1) How the agency evaluates the capacity of the institutions or
programs it accredits to accommodate significant growth in enrollment
and to maintain education quality;
(2) The specific circumstances regarding the growth at the
institution or program that triggered the review and the results of any
evaluation conducted by the agency; and
(3) Any other information that the agency deems appropriate to
demonstrate the effective application of the criteria for recognition
or that the Department may require.
(e) Consent to sharing of information. By submitting an application
for recognition, the agency authorizes Department staff throughout the
application process and during any period of recognition--
(1) To observe its site visits to one or more of the institutions
or programs it accredits or preaccredits, on an announced or
unannounced basis;
(2) To visit locations where agency activities such as training,
review and evaluation panel meetings, and decision meetings take place,
on an announced or unannounced basis;
(3) To obtain copies of all documents the staff deems necessary to
complete its review of the agency; and
(4) To gain access to agency records, personnel, and facilities.
(f) Public availability of agency records obtained by the
Department.
(1) The Secretary's processing and decision-making on requests for
public disclosure of agency materials reviewed under this part are
governed by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Trade
Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905; the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5
U.S.C. 552a; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10 (Federal Advisory Committees); and all
other applicable laws. In recognition proceedings, agencies must,
before submission to the Department--
(i) Redact the names and any other personally identifiable
information about individual students and any other individuals who are
not agents of the agency or of an institution or program the agency is
reviewing;
(ii) Redact the personal addresses, personal telephone numbers,
personal email addresses, Social Security numbers, and any other
personally identifiable information regarding individuals who are
acting as agents of the agency or of an institution or program under
review;
(iii) Designate, but not redact, all business information within
agency submissions that the agency believes would be exempt from
disclosure under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). A blanket designation of all information contained
within a submission, or of a category of documents, as meeting this
exemption will not be considered a good faith effort and will be
disregarded; and
(iv) Ensure documents submitted are only those required for
Department
[[Page 54016]]
review or as requested by Department officials.
(2) The agency may identify any other material the agency believes
would be exempt from public disclosure under FOIA, the factual basis
for the request, and any legal basis the agency has identified for
withholding the document from public disclosure.
(3) The Secretary processes FOIA requests in accordance with 34 CFR
part 5 and makes all documents provided to the Advisory Committee
available to the public.
(4) Upon request by Department staff, the agency must disclose to
Department staff any specific material the agency has redacted that
Department staff believes is needed to conduct the staff review.
Department staff will make any arrangements needed to ensure that the
materials are not made public if prohibited by law.
(g) Length of submissions. The Secretary may publish reasonable,
uniform limits on the length of submissions described in this section.
* * * * *
0
25. Redesignate Sec. 602.32 to Sec. 602.31 and amend the section to
read as follows:
Sec. 602.31 Procedures for submitting applications for recognition
and renewal of recognition.
(a) An agency must submit an application for initial or renewal of
recognition and meet the submission deadline set by the Department. The
type of application that must be submitted and the scope and priority
of the Department's review are determined by the Department as follows:
(1) If the total title IV, HEA program funds received by the
institutions accredited by an accrediting agency constitute a
substantial portion, as determined by the Secretary, of the total funds
awarded for the title IV, HEA programs, the agency must submit a
comprehensive application that addresses the agency's compliance with
all criteria in subpart B of this part.
(2) If an institutional accrediting agency is not identified for
review under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the agency must submit
an application that addresses the agency's compliance with Sec. Sec.
602.15, 602.16, 602.17, 602.19, and 602.20 and any other criteria as
directed by Department staff. The agency must also attest that since
its last comprehensive review the agency's policies and practices have
remained in compliance with all criteria in subpart B of this part not
addressed in its application.
(3) If an agency or its officers or directors have been the subject
of legal actions, complaints, or other compliance issues that
individually or in the aggregate raise substantial concerns regarding
the agency's compliance with this part, the agency must submit a
comprehensive application that addresses the agency's compliance with
all criteria in subpart B of this part.
(4) If an agency is exclusively a programmatic accrediting agency
and is not identified for review under paragraph (a)(3) of this
section, the agency must submit an application that addresses the
agency's compliance with the criteria in Sec. Sec. 602.10, 602.16,
602.17, 602.19, and 602.20 and any other criteria as directed by
Department staff. The agency must also attest that since its last
comprehensive review the agency's policies and practices have remained
in compliance with all criteria in subpart B of this part not addressed
in its application.
(5) An agency described in paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(4) of this
section must submit a comprehensive application that addresses the
agency's compliance with all criteria in subpart B of this part at
least once every third cycle of review.
(6) The Department may also consider factors that include but are
not limited to--
(i) Whether any of its accredited institutions closed without an
approved teach-out agreement in place when such an agreement was
required in accordance with Sec. 602.24(c);
(ii) Whether the Department has received serious or a high
proportion of complaints about the institutions or programs the agency
accredits;
(iii) Whether the agency has significantly increased the number of
institutions or programs it accredits; and
(iv) The number and severity of noncompliant findings identified in
the senior Department official's or Secretary's decision letter for the
agency's application for renewal of recognition.
(b) (1) After receipt of an agency's application for initial or
renewal of recognition, Department staff publishes a notice in the
Federal Register stating that the agency submitted an application and
inviting the public to provide information concerning the performance
of the agency to assist the Department in determining whether the
agency meets the criteria for recognition and establishing a deadline
for receipt of information from the public.
(2) Within 10 business days after publication of the notice
described in subparagraph (1), the agency must publish the request for
information on the agency's website to include instructions on how the
public can submit information in response to the request.
(c) The Department staff analyzes the agency's application for
initial or renewal of recognition, to determine whether the agency
satisfies the criteria for recognition, taking into account all
available relevant information concerning the compliance of the agency
with those criteria and the agency's consistency in applying the
criteria. The analysis of an application will include--
(1) A site visit, which may be conducted as an in-person visit at
the agency, including an on-site file review of agency documents, or
through a virtual file review of agency documents. The site visit may
also include, as appropriate, an in-person visit to the agency's member
institutions or programs, an on-site or virtual observation of a
meeting of the agency's decision-making body, or an on-site or virtual
observation of other agency activity. During the site visit, Department
staff may retain copies of documents needed for inclusion in the
administrative record;
(2) Review of the public information Department staff receives by
the established deadline, the agency's responses to the third-party
information, as appropriate, and any other information Department staff
obtains for purposes of evaluating the agency under this part; and
(3) Review of complaints or legal actions involving the agency; and
(4) Review of complaints or legal actions against an institution or
program accredited or preaccredited by the agency, which may be
considered but are not necessarily determinative of compliance.
(d) The Department may view as a negative factor when considering
an application for initial recognition as proposed by an agency
anticompetitive conduct that is violative of the antitrust laws, such
as collusion between accrediting agencies and any related, associated,
or affiliated trade association, professional organization, standard
setting organization, State certification organization, or membership
organization to unnecessarily inflate the qualifications necessary for
a student to sit for a licensure or certification examination or
otherwise be eligible for entry into a profession, occupation, or
vocation due to an increase in related education or training
requirements.
(e) Department staff's evaluation of an agency may also include a
review of information directly related to institutions or programs
accredited or preaccredited by the agency relative to
[[Page 54017]]
their compliance with the agency's standards, the effectiveness of the
standards, and the agency's application of those standards, but must
make all materials relied upon in the evaluation available to the
agency for review and comment.
(f) If, at any point in its evaluation of an agency seeking initial
recognition, Department staff determines that the agency fails to
demonstrate compliance with the basic eligibility requirements in
Sec. Sec. 602.10 through 602.15, the staff--
(1) Returns the agency's application and provides the agency with
an explanation of the deficiencies that caused staff to take that
action; and
(2) Requires that the agency withdraw its application and instructs
the agency that it may reapply when the agency is able to demonstrate
compliance.
(g) Except with respect to an application that has been returned
and is withdrawn under paragraph (f) of this section, when Department
staff completes its evaluation of the agency, the staff will--
(1) Within 120 days of the submission deadline set by the
Department, prepare a written draft analysis of the agency's
application;
(2) Send to the agency the draft analysis including any identified
areas of potential noncompliance and all third-party information and
complaints, if applicable, and any other materials the Department
received by the established deadline or is including in its review;
(3) Invite the agency to provide a written response to the draft
analysis and third-party comments or other material included in the
review, specifying a deadline that provides at least 90 days for the
agency's response;
(4) Review the response to the draft analysis the agency submits,
if any, and prepares the written final analysis--
(i) Indicating that the agency is in full compliance, substantial
compliance, or noncompliance with each of the criteria for recognition;
and
(ii) Recommending that the senior Department official approve,
continue recognition with a compliance report-to be submitted to the
Department within 12 months, continue recognition with a compliance
report to be submitted to the Department with a deadline in excess of
12 months based on a finding of good cause and extraordinary
circumstances, approve with monitoring or other reporting requirements,
or deny, limit, suspend, or terminate recognition; and
(5) Provide to the agency, no later than 30 days before the
Advisory Committee meeting, the final staff analysis and any other
available information provided to the Advisory Committee under Sec.
602.34(c).
(h) The agency may request that the Advisory Committee defer acting
on an application at that Advisory Committee meeting if Department
staff fails to provide the agency with the materials described, and
within the timeframes provided, in paragraphs (g)(3) and (5) of this
section. If the Department staff's failure to send the materials in
accordance with the timeframe described in paragraph (g)(3) or (5) of
this section is due to the agency's failure to timely submit reports or
other information requested by the Secretary, submit its response to
the draft analysis, or to comply with the requirements of Sec.
602.30(e), the Department will not grant the agency any requests to
defer consideration of its application.
(i) If Department staff does not conclude its review of the
application for recognition before the expiration of an agency's
recognition period, the recognition period automatically extends for a
period of time that expires when a recognition decision is made and
Department staff will limit the length of the recognition
recommendation to not exceed five years from the expiration.
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Sec. 602.32 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.32 Procedures for review of an expansion of scope, a
contraction of scope, compliance reports, or increase in headcount
enrollment.
(a) For an expansion or contraction of scope--
(1) The Department will only accept such applications in
conjunction with an application for recognition, except as provided in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section; and
(2) At the discretion of Department staff and on a case-by-case
basis, Department staff may review an application for an expansion or
contraction of scope independent of a renewal application.
(3) The Department may view as a negative factor, when considering
an expansion or contraction of scope as proposed by an agency,
anticompetitive conduct that is violative of the antitrust laws, such
as collusion between accrediting agencies and any related, associated,
or affiliated trade association, professional organization, standard
setting organization, State certification organization, or membership
organization to unnecessarily inflate the qualifications necessary for
a student to sit for a licensure or certification examination or
otherwise be eligible for entry into a profession, occupation, or
vocation due to an increase in related education or training
requirements.
(b) For the review of a compliance report, Department staff--
(1) Completes its evaluation of the agency's compliance report;
(2) Within 90 days of the submission deadline set by the SDO or
Secretary decision letter for the compliance report, prepares a written
draft analysis of the agency's compliance report;
(3) Sends to the agency the draft analysis, including any
identified areas of potential noncompliance and any other materials the
Department received by the established deadline or that is included in
its review;
(4) Invites the agency to provide a written response to the draft
analysis and other material included in the review, specifying a
deadline that provides at least 45 days for the agency's response;
(5) Reviews any response to the draft analysis the agency submits
and prepares the written final analysis--
(i) Indicating that the agency is in full compliance, substantial
compliance, or noncompliance with each of the criteria for recognition
under review; and
(ii) Including a recognition recommendation to the senior
Department official, including, but not limited to, a recommendation
that the senior Department official approve, continue recognition with
compliance reporting requirements based on a finding of good cause and
extraordinary circumstances, approve with monitoring or other reporting
requirements, or deny, limit, suspend, or terminate recognition; and
(6) Provides to the agency, no later than 30 days before the
Advisory Committee meeting, the final staff analysis and any other
available information provided to the Advisory Committee under Sec.
602.34(c).
(c) For the review of a report related to an increase in headcount
enrollment, the agency will provide the report required by Sec.
602.30(d); and the Department will process the report in accordance
with the procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section for a
compliance report.
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 602.33 by revising the section to read as follows:
602.33 Procedures for review of agencies during the period of
recognition, including the review of monitoring reports.
(a) Department staff may review the compliance of a recognized
agency with the criteria for recognition at any time--
(1) Based on the submission of a monitoring report as directed by a
[[Page 54018]]
decision by the senior Department official or Secretary; or
(2) Based on any information that, as determined by Department
staff, appears credible and raises concerns relevant to the criteria
for recognition.
(b) The review may include, but need not be limited to, any of the
activities described in Sec. 602.31(c) and (e).
(c) If the inquiry was initiated under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, Department staff will provide the agency with documentation
concerning the inquiry and an opportunity to respond within a
reasonable time.
(d) If, in the course of the review, Department staff determines
that the agency is in compliance with the criteria for recognition, the
Department will conclude the review and notify the agency.
(e) If, in the course of the review, Department staff notes that
one or more deficiencies may exist in the agency's compliance with the
criteria for recognition or in the agency's effective application of
those criteria, Department staff--
(1) Prepares a written draft analysis of the agency's compliance
with the criteria of concern;
(2) Sends to the agency the draft analysis including any identified
areas of noncompliance and all supporting documentation not previously
provided;
(3) Invites the agency to provide a written response to the draft
analysis within 45 days; and
(4) Reviews any response provided by the agency, and either--
(i) Determines the agency is in compliance with the criteria and
concludes the review;
(ii) Continues monitoring of the agency's areas of deficiencies; or
(iii) (A) Notifies the agency, in the event that the agency's
response or monitoring report does not satisfy the staff, that the
draft analysis will be finalized for presentation to the Advisory
Committee;
(B) Finalizes the staff analysis as necessary to reflect its review
of any agency response and any public comment received;
(C) Provides to the agency, no later than 30 days before the
Advisory Committee meeting, the final staff analysis and a recognition
recommendation and any other information provided to the Advisory
Committee under Sec. 602.34(c); and
(D) Submits the matter for review by the Advisory Committee in
accordance with Sec. 602.34.
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec. 602.34 by revising the section to read as follows:
Sec. 602.34 Advisory Committee meetings.
(a) Department staff submits a proposed schedule to the Chairperson
of the Advisory Committee based on anticipated completion of staff
analyses.
(b) The Chairperson of the Advisory Committee establishes an agenda
for the next meeting and, in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, presents it to the Designated Federal Official for
approval.
(c) Before the Advisory Committee meeting, Department staff
provides the Advisory Committee with--
(1) As applicable, the agency's application for recognition,
renewal of recognition, or the agency's application for expansion or
contraction of scope when Advisory Committee review is required, or the
agency's compliance report, and supporting documentation submitted by
the agency;
(2) The final Department staff analysis of the agency developed in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 602.31, 602.32, or 602.33, and any
supporting documentation;
(3) The agency's response to the draft analysis;
(4) Any written third-party information the Department received
about the agency on or before the established deadline;
(5) Any agency response to third-party information; and
(6) Any other information Department staff relied upon in
developing its analysis.
(d)(1) At least 30 days before the Advisory Committee meeting, the
Department publishes a notice of the meeting in the Federal Register
inviting interested parties to make oral presentations before the
Advisory Committee.
(2) Within 10 business days after publication of the notice
described in subparagraph (1), the agency must publish the meeting
notice on the agency's website to include instructions on how the
public can participate.
(e) The Advisory Committee considers the materials provided under
paragraph (c) of this section in a public meeting and invites
Department staff, the agency, and other interested parties to make oral
presentations during the meeting. A transcript is made of all Advisory
Committee meetings.
(f) The written motion adopted by the Advisory Committee regarding
each agency's recognition will be made available during the Advisory
Committee meeting. The Department will provide each agency, upon
request, with a copy of the motion on recognition at the meeting. Each
agency that was reviewed will be sent an electronic copy of the motion
relative to that agency as soon as practicable after the meeting.
(g) After each meeting of the Advisory Committee, the Advisory
Committee forwards to the senior Department official its recommendation
with respect to each agency, which may include, but is not limited to--
(1)(i) For an agency that is fully compliant, approve initial or
renewed recognition;
(ii) In the case of non-compliance--
(A) Continue recognition with a required compliance report to be
submitted to the Department within 12 months from the decision of the
senior Department official;
(B) In conjunction with a finding of exceptional circumstances and
good cause, continue recognition for a specified period in excess of 12
months pending submission of a compliance report; or
(C) Deny, limit, suspend, or terminate recognition.
(iii) In the case of substantial compliance, grant initial
recognition or renewed recognition and recommend a monitoring report
with a set deadline to be reviewed by Department staff to ensure that
corrective action is taken, and full compliance is achieved or
maintained (or recommend for action by staff under Sec. 602.33 if it
is not); or
(iv) Grant or deny a request for expansion or contraction of scope;
or
(v) Revise or affirm the scope of the agency.
* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec. 602.35 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(2) the to
read as follows:
Sec. 602.35 Responding to the Advisory Committee's recommendation.
(a) Within 10 business days following the publication of
transcripts of the Advisory Committee meeting, the agency and
Department staff may submit written comments to the senior Department
official on the Advisory Committee's recommendation. The agency must
simultaneously submit a copy of its written comments, if any, to
Department staff. Department staff must simultaneously submit a copy of
its written comments, if any, to the agency.
* * *
(c) * * *
(2) Within 10 business days of receipt by the Department staff of
an agency's comments or new evidence, if applicable, or of receipt by
the agency of the Department staff's comments, Department staff, the
agency, or both, as applicable, may submit a response to the senior
Department official. Simultaneously with submission, the agency must
provide a copy of any
[[Page 54019]]
response to the Department staff. Simultaneously with submission,
Department staff must provide a copy of any response to the agency. No
additional comments or new documentation may be submitted after the
responses described in this paragraph are submitted.
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec. 602.36 by revising paragraphs (a),(b),(e),(h), and (i)
to read as follows:
Sec. 602.36 Senior Department official's decision.
(a) The senior Department official makes a decision regarding
recognition of an agency based on the record compiled under Sec. Sec.
602.31, 602.32, 602.33, 602.34, and 602.35 including, as applicable,
the following:
(1) The materials provided to the Advisory Committee under Sec.
602.34(c).
(2) The transcript of the Advisory Committee meeting.
(3) The recommendation of the Advisory Committee.
(4) Written comments and responses submitted under Sec. 602.35.
(5) New documentation submitted in accordance with Sec.
602.35(c)(1).
(6) A communication from the Secretary referring an issue to the
senior Department official's consideration under Sec. 602.37(e).
(b) In the event that statutory authority or appropriations for the
Advisory Committee ends, or there are fewer duly appointed Advisory
Committee members than needed to constitute a quorum, and under
extraordinary circumstances when there are serious concerns about an
agency's compliance with subpart B of this part that require prompt
attention, the senior Department official may make a decision on an
application for renewal of recognition or compliance report on the
record compiled under Sec. 602.31 or Sec. 602.32 after providing the
agency with an opportunity to respond to the final staff analysis. Any
decision made by the senior Department official under this paragraph
from the Advisory Committee may be appealed to the Secretary as
provided in Sec. 602.37.
* * *
(e) The senior Department official's decision may include, but is
not limited to, approving for recognition; approving with a monitoring
report; denying, limiting, suspending, or terminating recognition
following the procedures in paragraph (g) of this section; granting or
denying an application for an expansion of scope; granting or denying
an application for a contraction of scope; revising or affirming the
scope of the agency; or continuing recognition pending submission and
review of a compliance report under Sec. Sec. 602.32 and 602.34 and
review of the report by the senior Department official under this
section.
(1)
(i) The senior Department official approves recognition if the
agency has demonstrated compliance or substantial compliance with the
criteria for recognition listed in subpart B of this part. The senior
Department official may determine that the agency has demonstrated
compliance or substantial compliance with the criteria for recognition
if the agency has a compliant policy or procedure in place but has not
had the opportunity to apply such policy or procedure.
(ii) If the senior Department official approves recognition, the
recognition decision defines the scope of recognition and the
recognition period. The recognition period does not exceed five years,
including any time during which recognition was continued to permit
submission and review of a compliance report.
(iii) If the scope of recognition is less than that requested by
the agency, the senior Department official explains the reasons for
continuing or approving a lesser scope.
(2)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, if the
agency fails to comply with the criteria for recognition listed in
subpart B of this part, the senior Department official denies, limits,
suspends, or terminates recognition.
(ii) If the senior Department official denies, limits, suspends, or
terminates recognition, the senior Department official specifies the
reasons for this decision, including all criteria the agency fails to
meet and all criteria the agency has failed to apply effectively.
(3)
(i) If the senior Department official concludes an agency is
noncompliant, the senior Department official may continue the agency's
recognition, pending submission of a compliance report that will be
subject to review in the recognition process, provided that--
(A) The senior Department official concludes that the agency will
demonstrate compliance with, and effective application of, the criteria
for recognition within 12 months from the date of the senior Department
official's decision; or
(B) The senior Department official identifies a deadline more than
12 months from the date of the decision by which the senior Department
official concludes the agency will demonstrate full compliance with,
and effective application of, the criteria for recognition, and also
identifies exceptional circumstances and good cause for allowing the
agency more than 12 months to achieve compliance and effective
application.
(ii) In the case of a compliance report ordered under paragraph
(e)(3)(i) of this section, the senior Department official specifies the
criteria the compliance report must address, and the time period for
achieving compliance and effective application of the criteria. The
compliance report documenting compliance and effective application of
criteria is due not later than 30 days after the end of the period
specified in the senior Department official's decision.
(iii) If the record includes a compliance report required under
paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, and the senior Department official
determines that an agency has not complied with the criteria for
recognition, or has not effectively applied those criteria, during the
time period specified by the senior Department official in accordance
with paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, the senior Department
official denies, limits, suspends, or terminates recognition, except,
in extraordinary circumstances, upon a showing of good cause for an
extension of time as determined by the senior Department official and
detailed in the senior Department official's decision. If the senior
Department official determines good cause for an extension has been
shown, the senior Department official specifies the length of the
extension and what the agency must do during it to merit a renewal of
recognition.
* * * * *
(h) If relevant and material information pertaining to an agency's
compliance with recognition criteria, but not contained in the record,
comes to the senior Department official's attention while a decision
regarding the agency's recognition is pending before the senior
Department official, and if the senior Department official concludes
the recognition decision should not be made without consideration of
the information, the senior Department official either--
(1)
(i) Does not make a decision regarding recognition of the agency;
and
(ii) Refers the matter to Department staff for review and analysis
under Sec. Sec. 602.31, 602.32, or 602.33, as appropriate, and
consideration by the Advisory Committee under Sec. 602.34; or
(2)
[[Page 54020]]
(i) Provides the information to the agency and Department staff;
(ii) Permits the agency to respond to the senior Department
official and the Department staff in writing, and to include additional
documentation relevant to the issue, and specifies a deadline;
(iii) Provides Department staff with an opportunity to respond in
writing to the agency's submission under paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this
section, specifying a deadline; and
(iv) Issues a recognition decision based on the record described in
paragraph (a) of this section, as supplemented by the information
provided under this paragraph (h).
(i) No agency may submit information to the senior Department
official, or ask others to submit information on its behalf, for
purposes of invoking paragraph (h) of this section. Before invoking
paragraph (h) of this section, the senior Department official will take
into account whether the information, if submitted by a third party,
could have been submitted in accordance with Sec. Sec. 602.31, 602.32,
or 602.33.
* * * * *
0
31. Amend Sec. 602.37 by revising paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 602.37 Appealing the senior Department official's decision to
the Secretary.
* * *
(g) If relevant and material information pertaining to an agency's
compliance with recognition criteria, but not contained in the record,
comes to the Secretary's attention while a decision regarding the
agency's recognition is pending before the Secretary, and if the
Secretary concludes the recognition decision should not be made without
consideration of the information, the Secretary either--
(1) (i) Does not make a decision regarding recognition of the
agency; and
(ii) Refers the matter to Department staff for review and analysis
under Sec. Sec. 602.31, 602.32, or 602.33, as appropriate; review by
the Advisory Committee under Sec. 602.34; and consideration by the
senior Department official under Sec. 602.36; or
(2) (i) Provides the information to the agency and the senior
Department official;
(ii) Permits the agency to respond to the Secretary and the senior
Department official in writing, and to include additional documentation
relevant to the issue, and specifies a deadline;
(iii) Provides the senior Department official with an opportunity
to respond in writing to the agency's submission under paragraph
(g)(2)(ii) of this section, specifying a deadline; and
(iv) Issues a recognition decision based on all the materials
described in paragraphs (e) and (g) of this section.
(h) No agency may submit information to the Secretary, or ask
others to submit information on its behalf, for purposes of invoking
paragraph (g) of this section. Before invoking paragraph (g) of this
section, the Secretary will take into account whether the information,
if submitted by a third party, could have been submitted in accordance
with Sec. Sec. 602.31, 602.32, or 602.33.
* * * * *
PART 668--STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
32. The general authority citation for part 668 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001-1003, 1070g, 1085, 1088, 1091, 1092,
1094, 1099c, 1099c-1, and 1231a, unless otherwise noted.
0
33. Amend Sec. 668.43 by revising paragraph (a)(11) to read as
follows:
Sec. 668.43 Reporting and disclosure of information.
(a) * * *
(11) A description of the transfer of credit policies established
by the institution, which must include a statement of the institution's
current transfer of credit policies that includes, at a minimum--
(i) The timeline by which a transcript must be submitted for timely
review so that a prospective student can make an informed decision
prior to making a nonrefundable financial commitment, enrollment, or
registration;
(ii) Any established criteria the institution uses regarding the
transfer of credit earned at another institution and any types of
institutions or sources from which the institution will not accept
credits;
(iii) A list of institutions with which the institution has
established an articulation agreement; and
(iv) Written criteria used to evaluate and award credit for prior
learning experience including, but not limited to, service in the armed
forces, paid or unpaid employment, or other demonstrated competency or
learning; and
(v) A statement regarding whether the institution considers credit
earned in a non-degree program, or hours completed in a non-credit
program, for transfer or articulation to a degree program;
* * * * *
(c)
(1) If the institution has made a determination under paragraph
(a)(5)(v) of this section that the program's curriculum does not meet
the State educational requirements for licensure or certification in
the State in which a prospective student is located, or if the
institution has not made a determination regarding whether the
program's curriculum meets the State educational requirements for
licensure or certification, the institution must provide notice to that
effect to the student prior to the student's enrollment in the
institution in accordance with Sec. 668.14(b)(32).
(2) If the institution makes a determination under paragraph
(a)(5)(v) of this section that a program's curriculum does not meet the
State educational requirements for licensure or certification in a
State in which a student who is currently enrolled in such program is
located, the institution must provide notice to that effect to the
student within 14 calendar days of making such determination.
(3) If a student timely provides a transcript to an institution
during the period described in paragraph (a)(11)(i) of this section,
the institution must--
(i) Inform the student of the credit that will be awarded for
courses on that transcript;
(ii) Inform the student of the credit that the institution declines
to award for courses on that transcript; and
(iii) Disclose the estimated time and, when applicable, courses
that would be needed to replace the courses for which the institution
declined to award credit under paragraph (ii).
(4) If the institution declines to award credit to a student
pursuant to its transfer of credit policy under 34 CFR 602.24(e)(4),
the institution must provide to the student a written rationale
specific to each course that does not result in transfer credit.
(5)(i) Disclosures under paragraphs (c)(1)-(4) of this section must
be made directly to the student in writing, which may include through
email or other electronic communication.
(ii) Disclosures under paragraph (c)(3) of this section must be
provided to the student by the earlier of the date that the student--
(A) Signs an enrollment agreement;
(B) Completes registration; or
(C) Makes a nonrefundable financial commitment to the institution.
(iii)
(A) For purposes of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section,
an institution must make a determination regarding the State in which a
student is located in accordance with the institution's
[[Page 54021]]
policies or procedures, which must be applied consistently to all
students.
(B) The institution must, upon request, provide the Secretary with
written documentation of its determination of a student's location
under paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A) of this section, including the basis for
such determination.
(C) An institution must make a determination regarding the State in
which a student is located at the time of the student's initial
enrollment in an educational program and, if applicable, upon formal
receipt of information from the student, in accordance with the
institution's procedures under paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A) of this
section, that the student's location has changed to another State.
* * * * *
(d)
* * * * *
(3) Distribution to prospective students. The institution must
provide the relevant information to access the website maintained by
the Secretary to any prospective student, or a third party acting on
behalf of the prospective student, before the prospective student signs
an enrollment agreement, completes registration, or makes a
nonrefundable financial commitment to the institution.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-17001 Filed 8-19-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P