The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing the

Secretary's recognition of accrediting agencies to implement provisions

added to the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), by the

Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The Secretary recognizes

accrediting agencies to assure that those agencies are, for HEA and

other Federal purposes, reliable authorities regarding the quality of

education or training offered by the institutions or programs they

accredit.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 24, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed regulations to

Karen W. Kershenstein, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland

Avenue, SW., room 3915, ROB-3, Washington, DC 20202-5244. If you prefer

to send your comments through the Internet, use the following address:

[email protected]

If you want to comment on the information collection requirements

in these proposed regulations, you must send your comments to the

Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in the Paperwork

Reduction Act section of this preamble. You may also send a copy of

these comments to the Department representative named in this section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen W. Kershenstein. Telephone:

(202) 708-7417. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-

800-877-8339.

Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an

alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer

diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding

paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment:

We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed

regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in

developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the

specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of

your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order

as the proposed regulations.

We also invite you to assist us in complying with the specific

requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of

reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed

regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should

take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while

preserving the effective and efficient administration of the

accrediting agency recognition process.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public

comments about these proposed regulations in room 3915, ROB-3, 7th and

D Streets, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal

holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the

Rulemaking Record

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or

print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs

assistance to review comments or other documents in the public

rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to

schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please call (202) 205-

8113 or (202) 260-9895. If you use a TDD, you may call FIRS at 1-800-

877-8339.

Negotiated Rulemaking Process

Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before publishing any

proposed regulations to implement programs under Title IV of the Act,

the Secretary obtain public involvement in the development of the

proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations, the

Secretary must conduct a negotiated rulemaking process to develop the

proposed regulations. All published proposed regulations must conform

to agreements resulting from the negotiated rulemaking process unless

the Secretary reopens the negotiated rulemaking process or provides a

written explanation to the participants in that process why the

Secretary has decided to depart from the agreements.

To obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed

regulations, we published a notice in the Federal Register (63 FR

59922, November 6, 1998) requesting advice and recommendations from

interested parties concerning what regulations were necessary to

implement Title IV of the HEA. We also invited advice and

recommendations concerning which regulated issues should be subjected

to a negotiated rulemaking process. We further requested advice and

recommendations concerning ways to prioritize the numerous issues in

Title IV, in order to meet statutory deadlines. Additionally, we

requested advice and recommendations concerning how to conduct the

negotiated rulemaking process, given the time available and the number

of regulations that needed to be developed.

In addition to soliciting written comments, we held three public

hearings and several informal meetings to give interested parties an

opportunity to share advice and recommendations with the Department.

The hearings were held in Washington, DC, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and

we posted transcripts of those hearings to the Department's Information

for Financial Aid Professionals web site (http://www.ifap.ed.gov).

We then published a second notice in the Federal Register (63 FR

71206, December 23, 1998) to announce the Department's intention to

establish four negotiated rulemaking committees to draft proposed

regulations implementing Title IV of the HEA. The notice announced the

organizations or groups believed to represent the interests that should

participate in the negotiated rulemaking process and announced that the

Department would select participants for the process from nominees of

those organizations or groups. We requested nominations for additional

participants from anyone who believed that the organizations or groups

listed did not adequately represent the list of interests outlined in

section 492 of the HEA. Once the four committees were established, each

negotiating committee met to develop proposed regulations for several

days each month, from January through May.

The proposed regulations contained in this notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) reflect the final consensus of the negotiating

committee, which was made up of the following members:

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

American Association of Community Colleges.

American Association of Cosmetology Schools.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

American Council on Education.

Association of American Universities.

Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.

Career College Association.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

[[Page 34467]]

Council of Recognized National Accrediting Agencies, consisting of the

Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools, the Accrediting

Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology, the

Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training, the

Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges and Schools, the Council on

Occupational Education, the Distance Education and Training Council,

and the National Accrediting Commission of Cosmetology Arts & Sciences.

Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, consisting of the

Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of

Colleges and Schools, the Commission on Institutions of Higher

Education and the Commission on Technical and Career Institutions of

the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, the Commission on

Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of

Colleges and Schools, the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest

Association of Schools and Colleges, the Commission on Colleges of the

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and the Accrediting

Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities and the Accrediting

Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association

of Schools and Colleges.

Education Finance Council.

Legal Services Counsel (a coalition).

National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.

National Association of College and University Business Officers.

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs/National

Council of Higher Education Loan Programs (a coalition).

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.

National Direct Student Loan Coalition.

National Women's Law Center.

State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.

The College Board.

The College Fund/United Negro College Fund.

United States Department of Education.

United States Student Association.

US Public Interest Research Group.

Under committee protocols, consensus meant that there was no

dissent by any member of the committee. Thus, the proposed regulations

in this document have been agreed to by each of the organizations and

groups listed as members of the committee.

To expedite its work, the negotiating committee established an

accreditation subcommittee, which was made up of the following members,

in addition to any members of the full committee:

Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges.

Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology.

Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors.

Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of

Colleges and Schools.

Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and

Schools.

The subcommittee made recommendations to the full negotiating

committee, which in turn reached final consensus on the proposed

regulations in this document.

Changes From Existing Regulations

The following discussion reflects proposed changes to the existing

regulations governing the Secretary's recognition of accrediting

agencies. Some of the proposed changes incorporate provisions contained

in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, the most significant of

which concern the standards accrediting agencies must have, the

timeframe for agencies to come into compliance with the criteria for

recognition, and distance education. Other proposed changes are the

result of discussion and subsequent consensus among negotiators about

how to improve the current regulations by clarifying existing

regulatory language and eliminating redundancies. All of the changes

are discussed in the order in which they appear in the proposed

regulations.

Please note that the proposed regulations differ organizationally

from the current regulations because we have rewritten them to comply

with Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1,

1998 on ``Plain Language in Government Writing.'' For your convenience,

the Appendix contains a distribution table listing the sections

contained in the current regulations and where they may be found in the

proposed regulations.

Subpart A--General (Secs. 602.1 Through 602.3)

Subpart A of the current regulations contains basic information

describing the purpose of the regulations and the definitions that

apply. It also contains some requirements agencies must meet if they

wish to be recognized. Subpart A of the proposed regulations contains

only the basic information about the purpose of the regulations and the

definitions that apply. The only significant changes proposed in

subpart A relate to some of the definitions contained in Sec. 602.3.

These are discussed in the next section.

Section 602.3 What Definitions Apply to This Part?

Most of the definitions in the proposed regulations are the same as

the ones in the current regulations. Substantive changes are proposed

for two definitions, however, and the proposed regulations contain

three new definitions.

Adverse accrediting action. The proposed regulations exclude

probation and show cause from the type of action currently included in

the term ``adverse action.'' Like Sec. 602.26(c) of the current

regulations, Sec. 602.20 of the proposed regulations requires

recognized agencies to take adverse action within a specified timeframe

if their review of an institution or program indicates that it is not

in compliance with agency standards. Including interim actions such as

probation and show cause as ``adverse actions'' permits noncompliant

institutions and programs to retain accreditation or preaccreditation

well beyond the maximum timeframes the regulations prescribe. Under the

proposed regulations, failure to achieve compliance within the

prescribed timeframe would result in denial, withdrawal, suspension,

revocation, or termination of accreditation or preaccreditation unless

the agency extends the timeframe for good cause.

Branch campus. Section 496(c)(3) of the HEA requires an

institutional accrediting agency whose accreditation enables the

institutions it accredits to establish eligibility to participate in

Title IV, HEA programs to conduct a site visit within six months to

each branch campus an institution establishes. While the 1998

amendments did not change the requirement for site visits within six

months of the establishment of a branch campus, the House-Senate

Conference Report noted that the definition of the term ``should not be

so broad as to be overly burdensome on agencies and institutions.''

The current regulations define ``branch campus'' to include ``any

location of an institution, other than the main campus, at which the

institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program.'' A

significant number of locations met this definition. Consequently,

agencies had to conduct a site visit within six months of the

[[Page 34468]]

establishment of each of these locations, even if the institution had a

proven track record in establishing additional locations that met or

exceeded the agency's standards. This proved to be burdensome and

costly to both agencies and institutions. In addition, this portion of

the definition of ``branch campus'' diverged from the definition of the

same term in the institutional eligibility regulations contained in 34

CFR part 600.

The proposed regulations change the definition of ``branch campus''

used in 34 CFR part 602 to conform to the definition of the term in 34

CFR part 600 and require agencies to conduct site visits to additional

locations that offer at least 50 percent of an educational program

under certain circumstances. The specific circumstances are discussed

under Sec. 602.22.

Distance education. The current regulations do not use this term.

In the accreditation section of the 1998 amendments, however, there are

two references to distance education. The first, found in section

496(a)(4) of the HEA, requires that an agency consistently apply and

enforce standards that ensure that the courses or programs offered by

an institution, ``including distance education courses or programs,''

are of sufficient quality to achieve, for the duration of the

accreditation period, the stated objective for which they are offered.

The second, found in section 496(n)(3) of the HEA, refers to the scope

of recognition the Secretary grants to an agency and states, ``If the

agency or association reviews institutions offering distance education

courses or programs and the Secretary determines that the agency or

association meets the requirements of this section, then the agency

shall be recognized and the scope of recognition shall include the

accreditation of institutions offering distance education courses or

programs.''

The proposed regulations adopt the same definition of ``distance

education'' as is used in establishing the Distance Education

Demonstration Programs in section 488 of the Higher Education

Amendments of 1998. The negotiating committee considered whether use of

the term ``courses'' in the statutory definition could be misread to

exclude programs offered through distance education. The committee

concluded, however, that a fair reading of ``courses'' includes

programs and is not limited to individual courses. The Secretary agrees

with this interpretation.

Scope of recognition. The proposed regulations define a new term,

``scope of recognition.'' The definition would include the description

contained in Sec. 602.13(e) of the current regulations about the

Secretary's recognition decision. The definition would also address the

provision contained in section 496(n)(3) of the Higher Education

Amendments of 1998 by adding the agency's accrediting activities

related to distance education to the list of items to be referenced by

the Secretary in the scope of recognition awarded to an agency. The

proposed definition also states that the Secretary may place a

limitation on the scope of an agency's recognition for Title IV, HEA

purposes.

Senior Department official. Not used in the current regulations,

this term is defined in the proposed regulations as ``the senior

official in the Department of Education who reports directly to the

Secretary regarding accrediting agency recognition.'' The current

regulations use another term, ``designated Department official,'' but

in various places this term has meant the Assistant Secretary for

Postsecondary Education or, more recently, the Chief Operating Officer;

in others, it has meant a member of that individual's staff to whom he

or she has delegated certain responsibilities. The use of the term

``designated Department official'' to describe different individuals in

the Department has caused some confusion in the current regulations.

For this reason, the proposed regulations do not use the term at all.

Rather, they establish the responsibilities of Department staff, the

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, and

the senior Department official in different stages of the recognition

process. Subparts C and D of the proposed regulations describe the

specific circumstances under which the senior Department official makes

recommendations regarding an agency's recognition.

Subpart B--The Criteria for Recognition (Secs. 602.10 Through 602.28)

With a few exceptions, subpart B of the proposed regulations

follows prior law in establishing the criteria for recognition.

However, the criteria have been grouped into several subheadings to

improve readability. A discussion of each group follows.

Basic Eligibility Requirements (Secs. 602.10 through 602.13)

The proposed regulations group under this heading the recognition

requirements found in Secs. 602.1(b), 602.20, and 602.22 of the current

regulations. If an agency seeking initial recognition fails to meet one

or more of these basic eligibility requirements, Sec. 602.31 of the

proposed regulations authorizes Department staff to recommend to the

agency that it withdraw its application for recognition.

Section 602.12 of the proposed regulations changes current

requirements related to accrediting experience so that the requirements

apply only to agencies seeking either initial recognition or an

expansion of their scope of recognition. A recognized agency, by virtue

of the fact that the Secretary has recognized it, has already

demonstrated its compliance with these requirements and need not be

burdened with demonstrating it again if it seeks continued recognition.

A new agency, on the other hand, needs to demonstrate that it has

accrediting experience in order to be recognized. Similarly, an agency

that seeks to expand its scope of recognition needs to demonstrate its

experience in the area for which it seeks the expansion.

The proposed regulations also specify the amount of experience

required for initial recognition. Specifically, they require a new

agency to have conducted accrediting activities, including making

accrediting decisions, for at least two years prior to seeking

recognition.

In conjunction with the issue of accrediting experience, the

Secretary notes that 1998 amendments replace the phrase ``accrediting

agency approval'' with ``accrediting agency recognition'' and generally

refer to agencies as ``recognized'' rather than ``approved.'' The

Secretary believes these changes simply clarify that the Secretary does

not ``approve'' agencies; i.e., grant them permission to operate,

conduct accrediting activities, and make accrediting decisions. Rather,

the Secretary ``recognizes'' them for having demonstrated, as a result

of their accrediting experience, that they are in fact reliable

authorities regarding the quality of education or training provided by

the institutions or programs they accredit.

Organizational and Administrative Requirements (Secs. 602.14 and

602.15)

Included under this heading are Secs. 602.3 and 602.21 of the

current regulations. There are no significant changes to either of

these sections in the proposed regulations, although some requirements

are either combined to eliminate redundancy or reworded for clarity.

For example, the current regulations require agencies to have adequate

administrative staff to carry out their accrediting responsibilities

effectively and to manage their finances effectively; they also require

agencies to have adequate financial resources to carry out their

accrediting responsibilities. These requirements are

[[Page 34469]]

combined and simplified in the proposed regulations to state that

agencies must have adequate administrative staff and financial

resources to carry out their accrediting responsibilities.

In another instance, the current regulations require agencies to

have ``competent and knowledgeable individuals, qualified by experience

and training, responsible for on-site evaluation, policy-making, and

decision-making regarding accreditation and preaccreditation status.''

This provision implements the statutory requirement contained in

section 496(c)(1) of the HEA that agencies must ensure ``that

accreditation team members are well-trained and knowledgeable with

respect to their responsibilities.'' However, agencies have not always

understood the language in the current regulations to mean that those

involved in the accreditation process must be well-trained in agency

standards, policies, and procedures. Consequently, the proposed

regulations restate the requirement explicitly by calling for agencies

to have ``competent and knowledgeable individuals, qualified by

education and experience in their own right and trained by the agency

on its standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site

evaluations, establish its policies, and make its accrediting

decisions.''

Required Standards and Their Application (Secs. 602.16 Through 602.21)

Included under this heading are all of Secs. 602.24 and 602.26 of

the current regulations and some sections in Sec. 602.23. The

significant changes in this group of criteria are discussed in the

description of each proposed section that follows.

Section 602.16 Accreditation and Preaccreditation Standards

The proposed regulations revise and reorder the list of required

accreditation standards found in Sec. 602.26(b) of the current

regulations to conform to the list found in section 496(a)(5) of the

1998 amendments. Specifically, the proposed regulations require

agencies to have accreditation standards that effectively address the

quality of an institution or program in the following areas: (1)

Success with respect to student achievement in relation to the

institution's mission, including, as appropriate, consideration of

course completion, State licensing examination, and job placement

rates; (2) curricula; (3) faculty; (4) facilities, equipment, and

supplies; (5) fiscal and administrative capacity as appropriate to the

specified scale of operations; (6) student support services; (7)

recruiting and admissions practices, academic calendars, catalogs,

publications, grading, and advertising; (8) measures of program length

and the objectives of the degrees or credentials offered; (9) the

record of student complaints received by, or available to, the agency;

and (10) the institution's record of compliance with its 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 the Secretary may provide to the agency.

The significant changes the proposed regulations make to the list

of required accreditation standards include the placement of success

with respect to student achievement first rather than ninth, the

elimination of the standard related to tuition and fees, the inclusion

of default rates in the standard related to institutions' compliance

with their Title IV responsibilities rather than in a separate

standard, and the combination of the two standards that dealt with

aspects of program length into a single standard.

In light of the statute's placement of success with respect to

student achievement as the first of the required standards, the

Secretary believes some discussion of the issue is warranted in this

NPRM. Section 496(a) of the HEA requires the Secretary to establish the

criteria for recognition and states that those criteria must include

``an appropriate measure or measures of student achievement.'' The

Secretary believes that the standards specified in Sec. 602.26(b)(9) of

the current regulations and Sec. 602.16(a)(1)(i) of the proposed

regulations, which require agencies to have a standard that effectively

addresses the success of an institution or program with respect to

student achievement, fulfill this statutory requirement.

The Secretary believes that any determination by an accrediting

agency that an institution or program it accredits provides quality

education or training must be based, in part, on an assessment of the

achievement of students enrolled in the institution or program, because

the true success of an institution or program is measured by the

success of its students. The Secretary further believes that success

with respect to student achievement, a measure of educational outcomes,

is an important indicator of educational quality, on a par with or even

surpassing the more traditional focus on educational ``inputs.''

In concluding this discussion of the required accreditation

standard related to success with respect to student achievement, the

Secretary wishes to reiterate the comments made on this issue in the

appendix to the 1994 regulations:

An accrediting agency's standard for assessing this area should

generally address the success of an institution or program in

meeting its educational objectives, as measured by the achievement

of its students. Typically under this standard, an agency should

require the institution or program to document and assess the

educational achievement of students in verifiable and consistent

ways, such as student grades, grade point averages, theses or

portfolios, the results of admissions tests for graduate or

professional school or other standardized tests, transfer rates to

institutions offering higher level programs, job placement rates,

completion rates, results of licensing examinations, evaluations by

employers, follow-up studies of alumni, and other recognized

measures of educational outcomes. The agency should also typically

require the institution or program to use effectively the

information obtained in this manner to improve student achievement

with respect to the degrees or certificates offered. Finally, the

agency should typically monitor in a systematic way the

institution's or program's performance with respect to student

achievement, including, as appropriate, completion rates, job

placement rates, and pass rates on State licensing examinations, or

other appropriate measures of occupational competency, to determine

if performance is consistent with both the institution's or

program's mission and objectives and any measures the agency may

have for institutions' or programs' performance with respect to

student achievement. For programs that provide vocational education,

agencies should establish quantitative standards for completion

rates, job placement rates, and pass rates on State licensing

examinations.

Section 602.17 Application of Standards in Reaching an Accrediting

Decision

There are no significant changes to this section of the proposed

regulations, which basically repeats Secs. 602.24(b)(1) and

602.24(b)(2) of the current regulations.

Section 602.18 Ensuring Consistency in Decision-Making

There are no significant changes to this section of the proposed

regulations, which basically repeats Secs. 602.23(b)(3), 602.23(b)(4),

and 602.26(d) of the current regulations.

Section 602.19 Monitoring and Reevaluation of Accredited Institutions

and Programs

There are no significant changes to this section of the proposed

regulations, which basically repeats Secs. 602.24(b)(4)

[[Page 34470]]

and 602.24(b)(5) of the current regulations. However, the Secretary

wishes to emphasize that accrediting agencies have a responsibility to

monitor institutions and programs throughout their accreditation period

to ensure that educational quality is maintained. While an agency may

determine the policies and procedures it will use to monitor its

institutions and programs, those procedures must provide for prompt and

appropriate action by the agency whenever it receives substantial,

credible evidence from any reliable source that indicates a systemic

problem with an accredited institution or program that calls into

question the ability of the institution or program to meet the agency's

standards. Furthermore, the Secretary expects those policies and

procedures to provide an agency with unambiguous authority to act if

educational quality is at issue, even if the matters are being reviewed

by other bodies, including courts. It is unacceptable for an agency to

have as its policy that it will not look into, and take appropriate

action based upon, information that comes to its attention through

pending third-party litigation.

Section 602.20 Enforcement of standards

There are no significant changes to this section of the proposed

regulations, which basically repeats Sec. 602.26(c) of the current

regulations.

Section 602.21 Review of Standards

The Secretary's criteria for the recognition of accrediting

agencies have long required agencies to maintain a systematic program

of review of their accrediting standards. The present statement of the

requirement is contained in Sec. 602.23(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the current

regulations and emphasizes the need for agencies to carry out a program

of review that ensures their standards are valid and reliable

indicators of educational quality and relevant to the needs of

students. The current regulations do not, however, define ``validity''

and ``reliability,'' and various technical interpretations exist for

these terms that, when applied in the context of accrediting agency

standards, are frequently misunderstood. Non-Federal negotiators

expressed concern that because ``valid'' and ``reliable'' have

established meanings in the field of statistics, the current

regulations arguably imply that a systematic program of review must

inevitably, or even usually, take the form of an extensive statistical

analysis. Another problem with the current regulations is that they

imply a well-defined conclusion to an agency's systematic program of

review, at which point the agency can state with certainty that all of

its standards are valid and reliable, when in fact a good systematic

program of review is ongoing.

The proposed regulations include two significant changes to address

these concerns. First, they avoid altogether the use of the terms

``valid'' and ``reliable'' in describing the requirements for a

systematic program of review. Instead, the proposed regulations require

agencies to maintain a systematic program of review that demonstrates

their standards are adequate to evaluate the quality of education or

training provided by the institutions and programs they accredit and

relevant to the needs of students. Second, while the proposed

regulations leave agencies free to determine the procedures they will

follow in evaluating their standards, they require agencies to ensure

that their program of review is comprehensive, occurs at regular

intervals or on an ongoing basis, examines each standard and the

standards as a whole, involves all of the relevant constituencies in

the review, and affords those constituencies a meaningful opportunity

to provide input into the review.

In proposing to eliminate the word ``reliable'' from this section,

the Secretary notes that sections 496(a) and 496(c) of the HEA use the

word ``reliable'' in describing agencies that may qualify for

recognition. Accordingly, the Secretary has incorporated this concept

into Sec. 602.16(a)(i) of the proposed regulations, which describes as

``reliable'' an agency that has standards that effectively address each

of the areas the statute requires agencies to address. The Secretary

views Sec. 602.16(a)(i) as a crucial provision of the proposed

regulations and as accurately conveying the substance of the word

``reliable'' as used in the statute. Because the concept of reliability

is already incorporated in Sec. 602.16(a)(i) and because, as previously

stated, it has had misleading connotations when used in the context of

an agency's review of its standards, the word ``reliable'' has been

deleted from Sec. 602.21.

The proposed terminology for Sec. 602.21 strikes a balance between

overly prescriptive regulation of agency standards and processes and a

requirement that looks only to the agency's review process and not to

the substance of the standards. As proposed, Sec. 602.21 places a

burden on agencies to demonstrate that their standards are adequate to

evaluate quality and relevant to the needs of students. At the same

time, the proposed section would eliminate any implication that the

program of review must take the form of a statistical analysis.

One other feature of the proposed review process is a requirement

that if an agency determines at any point in its systematic program of

review that it needs to make changes to its standards, it would have to

initiate action within 12 months to make the changes and would have to

complete that action within a reasonable period of time. This feature

reflects the 1998 amendment to the HEA that sets a general deadline of

12 months for agencies to remedy identified areas of noncompliance.

The proposed procedures for making changes to an agency's standards

also provide a more focused description of the notice an agency must

provide about its proposed changes and ensure the opportunity for

timely input by any person wishing to participate in the process.

Required Operating Policies and Procedures (Secs. 602.22 Through

602.28)

Included under this heading are Secs. 602.4, 602.25. 602.27,

602.28, 602.29, and 602.30 of the current regulations. The proposed

regulations contain several significant changes, as discussed in the

following sections.

Site Visits to Additional Locations

As discussed previously under Sec. 602.3, the definition of

``branch campus'' in the current regulations is quite broad. This

results in a significant burden being placed on agencies by requiring

them to conduct a site visit within six months to each branch campus an

institution established. It also places a significant burden,

particularly in terms of costs, on institutions that established large

numbers of sites that met the broad definition of branch campus.

The negotiating committee discussed at length how to modify the

site visit requirement to ease the burden on agencies and institutions

and still provide adequate protections to the Department and,

ultimately, the students who attend the institutions. The consensus

that was reached is reflected in these proposed regulations.

Specifically, the proposed regulations redefine branch campus to match

the narrow definition in the institutional eligibility regulations in

34 CFR part 600, and current site visit requirements would remain

applicable to all locations that meet this definition. However, the

proposed regulations provide relief from the burden of the current

requirements for site visits to other newly-established

[[Page 34471]]

locations that offer 50 percent or more of an educational program by

making them subject to evaluation under an agency's substantive change

policies. Specifically, the proposed regulations require agencies to

have a substantive change policy that addresses the establishment by an

institution of these types of additional locations and that includes an

analysis of the effect of the additional location or locations on the

overall fiscal and administrative capacity of the institution.

Under the proposed regulations, an agency's substantive change

policy would have to require the agency to conduct a site visit within

six months to an additional location offering 50 percent or more of an

educational program if any of three conditions is met. First, the

agency would have to conduct a site visit to each additional location

if the institution has a total of three or fewer additional locations.

The proposed regulations contain this requirement because of the need

for an agency to monitor an institution very closely as it begins to

operate more than just the main campus; the need for such close

monitoring diminishes once the institution has gained experience in

establishing effective systems for the administration of multiple

sites.

The proposed regulations also require an agency to conduct a site

visit within six months of the establishment of an additional location

if the agency has any serious concerns about the institution; e.g., if

the institution has been placed on warning, probation, or show cause by

the agency or is subject to some type of limitation on its

accreditation. Finally, the proposed regulations require a site visit

within six months to an additional location if the institution has

failed to demonstrate that it has either the administrative and fiscal

capacity to operate the additional locations it has already established

or a proven record of effective educational oversight of additional

locations.

Beyond these situations that require agencies to conduct site

visits to each additional location an institution seeks to establish,

the proposed regulations give agencies flexibility in deciding when to

conduct site visits to additional locations. Specifically, they require

agencies to have an effective mechanism for conducting additional site

visits at reasonable intervals to those institutions that operate more

than three additional locations. They also require agencies to have an

effective mechanism, which may include site visits, for ensuring that

institutions that experience rapid growth in the number of additional

locations maintain educational quality.

The negotiating committee believed the proposed approach to the

site visit requirement provided relief from the burden some agencies,

particularly those that accredit State institutions, have experienced

as a result of the requirement in the current regulations. Yet they

also believed this approach retained a reasonable degree of protection

by requiring site visits if circumstances warrant them.

Substantive Change

Except for the provisions related to site visits to additional

locations that were discussed in the previous section, Sec. 602.22 of

the proposed regulations basically repeats Sec. 602.25 of the current

regulations. However, there are a few changes. For example, under the

proposed regulations, agencies' substantive change policies would no

longer need to address changes from credit to clock hours or a

substantial increase in the length of a program. The former requirement

was deleted because few, if any, institutions ever changed from credit

to clock hours, while the latter was deleted because it duplicated

another requirement.

Unannounced Inspections

The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 changed the requirement

contained in Sec. 602.24(b)(3) of the current regulations that agencies

must conduct unannounced inspections of institutions that provide

vocational education, making it optional rather than mandatory.

Accordingly, Sec. 602.23(f) of the proposed regulations permits an

agency to establish any additional operating procedures it deems

appropriate, including unannounced inspections, but it does not require

the agency to conduct unannounced inspections.

Change in Ownership

While there has been no significant change to this provision in the

proposed accreditation regulations, the Secretary wishes to clarify

that it is the agency's definition of what constitutes a change in

control, not the Department's definition, that would govern this

section of the regulations. In conjunction with the statutory

requirement for standards that address Title IV compliance, however,

agencies whose accreditation enables the institutions they accredit to

establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs would need to

take due note in their definition of ``change in control'' of those

instances that are covered by the Department's definition of the term.

Teach-Out Agreements

The proposed regulations address two particular concerns with the

current regulations. First, the regulations appear to require agencies

to intercede in situations in which the agencies have no control

because the institution has already closed. Second, they appear to

imply that agencies can only approve teach-out agreements if the teach-

out institution is geographically close to the closed institution and

offers a program that is compatible in program structure and scheduling

to that offered by the closed institution.

The proposed regulations clarify that the role of the accrediting

agency is to ensure that the teach-out institution has the necessary

experience, resources, and support services to provide an educational

program that is of acceptable quality, is reasonably similar in

content, structure, and scheduling to that provided by the closed

institution, and can provide students access to the program and

services without requiring them to move or travel substantial

distances.

The proposed regulations also require an agency to work with the

Department and the appropriate State agency, to the extent feasible, to

ensure that students are given reasonable opportunities to complete

their education without additional charge.

Notification of Accrediting Decisions

Section 602.26 of the proposed regulations basically repeats

Sec. 602.29 of the current regulations, with one addition. The proposed

regulations require an agency to provide the appropriate State

licensing or authorizing agency and the appropriate accrediting

agencies written notice of any final adverse decision at the same time

it notifies the institution or program of the decision and to provide

notice to the public within 24 hours of notifying the institution or

program of the decision.

The proposed regulations mirror section 496(a)(7) of the statute in

requiring agencies to report only final adverse decisions. However, the

Secretary wishes to encourage all agencies to share information with

the Secretary on adverse decisions that are still appealable within the

agency if the information would help preserve the integrity of the

Title IV, HEA programs. The Secretary believes that sharing this type

of information is consistent with section 487(a)(15) of the HEA, which

requires an institution that participates in the Title IV, HEA programs

to acknowledge in its Program Participation Agreement the authority of

[[Page 34472]]

the Secretary, guarantee agencies, lenders, accrediting agencies, the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and State licensing and authorizing

agencies to share with each other any information pertaining to the

institution's eligibility to participate in the Title IV, HEA programs.

The Secretary notes that many agencies already share this information

and hopes that more will do so, particularly in those instances in

which students could be harmed if the information were not shared with

the Secretary.

Subpart C--The Recognition Process (Secs. 602.30 Through 602.36)

This subpart basically contains the recognition procedures found in

subpart C of the current regulations. The significant changes that are

proposed for the recognition process are discussed in the following

sections.

Application and Review by Department Staff (Secs. 602.30 and 602.31)

The proposed regulations basically repeat Secs. 602.10 and 602.11

of the current regulations. There are, however, three significant

changes proposed for the review of an agency's application by

Department staff.

First, the proposed regulations amend the procedures Department

staff follows in reviewing an agency's application for initial

recognition to allow staff to return the application if the agency

fails to meet one or more of the basic eligibility requirements

contained in Secs. 602.10 through 602.13. Under the proposed

procedures, staff would provide the agency with an explanation of the

deficiencies resulting in its decision to return the agency's

application and would recommend that the agency withdraw its

application and reapply if it can demonstrate that it has corrected the

deficiencies.

The second change in the proposed regulations concerns the

submission of written comments by third parties and codifies the

Department's current practice. Specifically, proposed Sec. 602.31(b),

(e), and(i) clarify that Department staff will consider, and forward to

the Advisory Committee for consideration, only those written third-

party comments received by the deadline the Department establishes in

the Federal Register notice.

The third change concerns the provision in Sec. 602.11(g) of the

current regulations that requires Department staff to send its analysis

of an agency's application to the agency at least 45 days before the

Advisory Committee meeting and allows the agency the right to request

that the Advisory Committee defer action on its application if

Department staff fails to meet the 45-day deadline. There have been

instances in recent years in which staff has been unable to meet the

deadline, not through any fault of its own but rather because it was

unable to complete its work due to an agency's failure to submit a

required report by the deadline the Secretary established. Under

Sec. 602.31 of the proposed regulations, the agency would forfeit its

right to request a deferral in those situations in which the

Department's inability to meet the deadline was due to the agency's

failure to respond in a timely manner to departmental requests.

Review by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and

Integrity (Secs. 602.32 and 602.33)

Included under this heading is Sec. 602.12 of the current

regulations and that portion of Sec. 602.13(b) that deals with an

appeal of the Advisory Committee's recommendation. The proposed

regulations include three significant changes from the current

regulations, two of which address what has been called the ``12-month

rule.'' The third clarifies the role of the senior Department official

in forwarding the Advisory Committee's recommendations to the

Secretary.

The ``12-Month Rule''

The 1998 amendments require the Secretary to limit, suspend, or

terminate an agency's recognition, after notice and opportunity for a

hearing, if the Secretary determines that an accrediting agency has

failed to perform effectively with respect to the criteria for

recognition or is otherwise not in compliance with the criteria.

Alternatively, the Secretary may require the agency to bring itself

into compliance within a timeframe the Secretary specifies, but the

timeframe may not exceed 12 months. The 1998 amendments also specify

that the Secretary must, after notice and opportunity for a hearing,

limit, suspend, or terminate the agency's recognition if the agency

fails to bring itself into compliance within the timeframe specified by

the Secretary unless the Secretary extends the timeframe for good

cause.

The proposed regulations make two changes to the Advisory

Committee's procedures to reflect this ``12-month rule.'' First, if the

Advisory Committee, as part of its review of a recognized agency for

continued recognition, determines that the agency fails to meet the

criteria for recognition or is ineffective in its performance with

respect to the criteria, Sec. 602.32(b) of the proposed regulations

calls for the Advisory Committee to take one of two actions. The

Advisory Committee would have to recommend either (1) denial of

recognition or (2) deferral of a decision on recognition for a period

not to exceed 12 months, during which period the agency would have to

come into compliance or face a limitation, suspension, or termination

action at the conclusion of the specified timeframe.

Second, the proposed regulations delete Sec. 602.12(c)(2) of the

current regulations, which allows the Advisory Committee to recommend

recognition even if the agency fails to comply with all of the criteria

for recognition.

The Role of the Senior Department Official

It has been Department practice, except in cases of contested

appeals of Advisory Committee recommendations, for the senior

Department official to transmit the Advisory Committee's

recommendations to the Secretary along with his or her own

recommendations and comments on the Advisory Committee's

recommendations. The language found in Secs. 602.32(d) and 602.34(b) of

the proposed regulations reflects this practice.

Review and Decision by the Secretary (Secs. 602.34 Through 602.36)

Included under this heading are Sec. 602.15 of the current

regulations and that portion of Sec. 602.13 that deals with the

Secretary's decision. The only significant change proposed concerns the

``12-month rule.'' Under the proposed regulations, if the Secretary, as

part of the review of a recognized agency for continued recognition,

determines that the agency fails to meet the criteria for recognition

or is otherwise not effective in its performance with respect to those

criteria, the Secretary may either deny recognition or defer a decision

on recognition for a period not to exceed 12 months. During the 12-

month period, the agency would have to come into compliance or face a

limitation, suspension, or termination action at the conclusion of the

specified period. The proposed regulations allow the Secretary to

extend the timeframe for the agency to come into compliance upon

application by the agency for good cause shown.

The negotiating committee carefully considered whether the

regulations should define ``good cause.'' In the end, the committee

concluded that it was best not to define this term. Instead, the burden

rests with an agency that has failed to meet the statutory deadline to

demonstrate that good cause exists for

[[Page 34473]]

the Secretary to grant a request for an extension of time.

Section 602.35 of the proposed regulations, which describes the

information that is included in the Secretary's recognition decision,

differs from Sec. 602.13(e) of the current regulations, which defines

the scope of recognition the Secretary grants to an agency, and should

be read in conjunction with the proposed addition regarding distance

education in Sec. 602.3 of a definition of ``scope of recognition.''

Subpart D--Limitation, Suspension, or Termination of Recognition

(Secs. 602.40 Through 602.45)

Included in this subpart is Sec. 602.14 of the current regulations.

The significant changes deal with the ``12-month rule'' and the hearing

procedures. They are discussed in the next section.

Limitation, Suspension, and Termination Procedures (Secs. 602.40

Through 602.43)

As previously mentioned, the 1998 amendments require the Secretary

to limit, suspend, or terminate an agency's recognition, if after

notice and opportunity for a hearing the Secretary determines that the

agency has failed to effectively apply the criteria for recognition or

is otherwise not in compliance with the criteria. Alternatively, the

Secretary may require the agency to bring itself into compliance within

a timeframe the Secretary specifies, but the timeframe may not exceed

12 months unless the Secretary extends the timeframe for good cause

shown.

As previously discussed, Secs. 602.32 through 602.36 of the

proposed regulations implement the ``12-month rule'' in those instances

in which an agency's noncompliance with the criteria for recognition

comes to the Department's attention as a result of a regularly

scheduled review of the agency for continued recognition. Sections

602.40 through 602.43 of the proposed regulations implement the ``12-

month rule'' if the Department learns of an agency's noncompliance at

any point during a previously granted period of recognition. In these

latter instances, the proposed regulations permit, but do not require,

the Secretary to provide a noncompliant agency up to 12 months to

achieve compliance. They also permit the Secretary to extend the

timeframe for achieving compliance on the basis of good cause shown.

The proposed regulations carry over the hearing procedures for a

limitation, suspension, or termination of recognition action contained

in Sec. 602.14 of the current regulations with only one change. While

the current procedures allow for the hearing to be held before either

the full Advisory Committee or a subcommittee, the proposed regulations

allow a hearing only before a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee.

The principal reason for the proposed change is one of timing; i.e., to

conform to the ``12-month rule.'' As the full Advisory Committee meets

only twice a year, waiting to hold the hearing at one of those meetings

could mean a delay of almost six months in bringing closure to the

issue. Accordingly, the proposed regulations would limit the hearing to

a subcommittee, which can be convened much more quickly.

Appeal Rights and Procedures (Secs. 602.44 and 602.45)

There are no significant changes to these sections of the proposed

regulations, which basically repeat Sec. 602.14(f) of the current

regulations.

Subpart E--Department Responsibilities (Sec. 602.50)

There are no significant changes to this section of the proposed

regulations, which basically repeats Sec. 602.5 of the current

regulations.

Other Changes

To comply with some terminology changes to the HEA resulting from

the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, the proposed regulations

contain some other changes. First, they would replace the State

Postsecondary Review entities with State licensing or authorizing

agencies. Second, they would consistently use the term ``standards''

rather than ``criteria'' or ``standards and criteria'' to refer to

requirements institutions or programs must meet in order to become

accredited or preaccredited by an agency.

Finally, the proposed regulations have been written in ``plain

language.'' Further discussion of this change is in the Executive Order

12866 section under the heading ``Clarity of the Regulations.''

General Comments on the Recognition Process

The Secretary acknowledges that the application for recognition

constitutes a significant burden on agencies that seek recognition. For

this reason, the Secretary is considering ways to reduce the burden.

One approach under consideration is to allow a recognized agency

applying for continued recognition to provide a simple statement of

assurance, along with some supporting documentation, that it continues

to meet each of the criteria for recognition. The supporting

documentation might include a complete set of the agency's standards,

policies, procedures, and by-laws.

Another approach under consideration is to have Department staff

conduct a site visit to agency headquarters for the purpose of

determining, through reviews of agency files and interviews with agency

staff, any significant changes that might affect the agency's ability

to meet certain requirements for recognition. The Secretary estimates

that at least two-thirds of the requirements in the proposed

regulations might be amenable to this type of approach, and the

resultant savings in time, effort, and cost to prepare an application

for recognition would be significant.

Still another approach under consideration is to identify other

sections of the regulations, similar to Sec. 602.12 of the proposed

regulations, that recognized agencies would not need to address in

their application for continued recognition.

The Secretary invites comments on these approaches and suggestions

for alternative methods for reducing the burden of the application

process on agencies without adversely affecting the Secretary's ability

to conduct a thorough evaluation of the agency.

Executive Order 12866

1. Potential Costs and Benefits

Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs

and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with these proposed regulations are

those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have

determined to be necessary for a determination that an accrediting

agency that seeks recognition is in fact a reliable authority regarding

the quality of education or training provided by the institutions or

programs it accredits. Elsewhere in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section we identify and explain burdens specifically associated with

information collection requirements. See the heading ``Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995.''

In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative

and qualitative--of this regulatory action, we have determined that the

benefits justify the costs. We have also determined that this

regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and

tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

We note that, as these proposed regulations were subject to

negotiated rulemaking, the costs and benefits of the

[[Page 34474]]

various requirements were discussed thoroughly by negotiators. The

resultant consensus reached on a particular requirement generally

reflected agreement on the best possible approach to that requirement

in terms of cost and benefit. Elsewhere in this preamble we discuss the

potential costs and benefits of the various requirements in the

proposed regulations under the heading ``Regulatory Flexibility Act

Certification.''

2. Clarity of the Regulations

Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1,

1998 on ``Plain Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to

write regulations that are easy to understand.

The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed

regulations 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, tables, etc.) aid or

reduce 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. 602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards.)

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 regulations

easier to understand?

Send any comments that concern how the Department could make these

proposed regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the

ADDRESSES section of the preamble.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. These proposed regulations will affect accrediting agencies

that apply for Secretarial recognition and the institutions they

accredit or that house the programs they accredit. The proposed

regulations reduce the burden on both agencies and institutions by

eliminating the requirement that agencies conduct unannounced

inspections of institutions that offer vocational education and by

greatly reducing the number of site visits agencies must make if

institutions establish additional locations. The proposed regulations

impose the minimum requirements needed to ensure the proper

implementation of the Secretary's statutory mandate to recognize only

those accrediting agencies that are reliable authorities regarding the

quality of education or training provided by the institutions or

programs they accredit.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Sections 602.16, 602.24, 602.26, 602.27, and 602.30 contain

information collection requirements. In addition, Secs. 602.15(b) and

602.23(a) contain specific record retention requirements, and

Secs. 602.23(e) and 602.28(e) contain third party disclosure

requirements. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a copy of these

sections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.

These proposed regulations contain significant information

collection requirements for accrediting agencies applying for

recognition by the Secretary, as well as additional requirements for

recognized agencies during their recognition period. The Department

needs and uses the information collected to determine whether an agency

seeking recognition by the Secretary meets the requirements for

recognition and whether, if the agency is recognized, it continues to

operate in compliance with the requirements for recognition throughout

its recognition period.

Collection of Information: The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting

Agencies

Each accrediting agency that seeks initial or continued recognition

is required by Sec. 602.30 to submit an application for recognition

demonstrating how it meets each of the criteria for recognition. We

estimate that it takes an agency approximately 80 hours to complete its

application, including time for reviewing instructions, searching

existing data bases, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total

burden on the 61 agencies recognized under the current regulations to

submit an application for continued recognition would be 4,880 hours.

As agencies must submit an application for recognition only once every

five years, this represents a total annual burden of 976 hours.

We also estimate that the burden on an agency to provide to the

Department on an annual basis the various documents and reports

required under Secs. 602.26 and 602.27 would be one hour. Thus, the

total annual reporting requirement for the 61 recognized agencies would

be 61 hours.

If you want to comment on the information collection requirements,

please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, OMB, room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC

20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. You

may also send a copy of these comments to the Department representative

named in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

We consider your comments on this proposed collection of

information in--

Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for

the proper performance of our functions, including whether the

information will have practical use;

Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of

the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and

assumptions;

Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the

information we collect; and

Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This

includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms

of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of

information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60

days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration,

it is important that OMB receives the comments within 30 days of

publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us

on the proposed regulations.

Intergovernmental Review

This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the

regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Assessment of Educational Impact

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.

[[Page 34475]]

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of

Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe

Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the

following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the PDF, you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with

Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you

have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing

Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC,

area at (202) 512-1530.

Note: The official version of this document is the document

published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the

official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal

Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://

www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 602

Colleges and universities, Education, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 16, 1999.

Richard W. Riley,

Secretary of Education.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes

to amend title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising part

602 to read as follows:

PART 602--THE SECRETARY'S RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING AGENCIES

Subpart A--General

Sec.

602.1 Why does the Secretary recognize accrediting agencies?

602.2 How do I know which agencies the Secretary recognizes?

602.3 What definitions apply to this part?

Subpart B--The Criteria for Recognition

Basic Eligibility Requirements

602.10 Link to Federal programs.

602.11 Geographic scope of accrediting activities.

602.12 Accrediting experience.

602.13 Acceptance of the agency by others.

Organizational and Administrative Requirements

602.14 Purpose and organization.

602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities.

Required Standards and Their Application

602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards.

602.17 Application of standards in reaching an accrediting

decision.

602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making.

602.19 Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and

programs.

602.20 Enforcement of standards.

602.21 Review of standards.

Required Operating Policies and Procedures

602.22 Substantive change.

602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.

602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional accreditors must

have.

602.25 Due process.

602.26 Notification of accrediting decisions.

602.27 Other information an agency must provide the Department.

602.28 Regard for decisions of States and other accrediting

agencies.

Subpart C--The Recognition Process

Application and Review by Department Staff

602.30 How does an agency apply for recognition?

602.31 How does Department staff review an agency's application?

Review by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and

Integrity

602.32 What is the role of the Advisory Committee and the senior

Department official in the review of an agency's application?

602.33 How may an agency appeal a recommendation of the Advisory

Committee?

Review and Decision by the Secretary

602.34 What does the Secretary consider when making a recognition

decision?

602.35 What information does the Secretary's recognition decision

include?

602.36 May an agency appeal the Secretary's final recognition

decision?

Subpart D--Limitation, Suspension, or Termination of Recognition

Limitation, Suspension, and Termination Procedures

602.40 How may the Secretary limit, suspend, or terminate an

agency's recognition?

602.41 What are the notice procedures?

602.42 What are the response and hearing procedures?

602.43 How is a decision on limitation, suspension, or termination

of recognition reached?

Appeal Rights and Procedures

602.44 How may an agency appeal the subcommittee's recommendation?

602.45 May an agency appeal the Secretary's final decision to limit,

suspend, or terminate its recognition?

Subpart E--Department Responsibilities

602.50 What information does the Department share with a recognized

agency about its accredited institutions and programs?

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b, unless otherwise noted.

Subpart A--General

Sec. 602.1 Why does the Secretary recognize accrediting agencies?

(a) The Secretary recognizes accrediting agencies to ensure that

these agencies are, for the purposes of the Higher Education Act of

1965, as amended (HEA), or for other Federal purposes, reliable

authorities regarding the quality of education or training offered by

the institutions or programs they accredit.

(b) The Secretary lists an agency as a nationally recognized

accrediting agency if the agency meets the criteria for recognition

listed in subpart B of this part.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

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 web site.

(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 recognition period, the

Secretary publishes a notice of that action in the Federal Register.

The Secretary also makes the reasons for the action available to the

public, on request.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.3 What definitions apply to this part?

The following definitions apply to this part:

Accreditation means the status of public recognition that an

accrediting agency grants to an educational insti- tution 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 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.

[[Page 34476]]

Branch campus means a location of an institution that meets the

definition of branch campus in 34 CFR 600.2.

Distance education means an educational process that is

characterized by the separation, in time or place, between instructor

and student. The term includes courses offered principally through the

use of--

(1) Television, audio, or computer transmission, such as open

broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, or satellite transmission;

(2) Audio or computer conferencing;

(3) Video cassettes or disks; or

(4) Correspondence.

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 not

appealable within the agency.

Institution of higher education or institution means an educational

institution that qualifies, or may qualify, as an eligible institution

under 34 CFR part 600.

Institutional accrediting agency means an agency that accredits

institutions of higher education.

Nationally recognized accrediting agency, nationally recognized

agency, or recognized agency means an accrediting agency that the

Secretary recognizes under this part.

Preaccreditation means the status of public recognition that an

accrediting agency grants to an institution or program for a limited

period of time that signifies the agency has determined that the

institution or program is progressing towards accreditation and is

likely to attain accreditation before the expiration of that limited

period of time.

Program means a postsecondary educational program offered by an

institution of higher education 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 that prepare students for entry into a

profession, occupation, or vocation.

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, affiliated with, or associated 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--

(1) Geographic area of accrediting activities;

(2) Types of degrees and certificates covered;

(3) Types of institutions and programs covered;

(4) Types of preaccreditation status covered, if any; and

(5) Coverage of accrediting activities related to distance

education, if any.

Secretary means the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education

or any official or employee of the Department acting for the Secretary

under a delegation of authority.

Senior Department official means the senior official in the U.S.

Department of Education who reports directly to the Secretary regarding

accrediting agency recognition.

State means a State of the Union, American Samoa, the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, the United States

Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the

Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia,

and the Republic of Palau. The latter three are also known as the

Freely Associated States.

Teach-out agreement means a written agreement between institutions

that provides for the equitable treatment of students if one of those

institutions stops offering an educational program before all students

enrolled in that program have completed the program.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Subpart B--The Criteria for Recognition

Basic Eligibility Requirements

Sec. 602.10 Link to Federal programs.

The agency must demonstrate that--

(a) If the agency accredits institutions of higher education, its

accreditation is a required element in enabling at least one of those

institutions to establish eligibility to participate in HEA programs;

or

(b) If the agency accredits institutions of higher education or

higher education programs, or both, its accreditation is a required

element in enabling at least one of those entities to establish

eligibility to participate in non-HEA Federal programs.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.11 Geographic scope of accrediting activities.

The agency must demonstrate that its accrediting activities cover--

(a) A State, if the agency is part of a State government;

(b) A region of the United States that includes at least three

States that are reasonably close to one another; or

(c) The United States.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.12 Accrediting experience.

(a) An agency seeking initial recognition must demonstrate that it

has--

(1) Granted accreditation or preaccreditation--

(i) 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;

(ii) That covers the range of the specific degrees, certificates,

institutions, and programs for which it seeks recognition; and

(iii) In the geographic area for which it seeks recognition; and

(2) Conducted accrediting activities, including deciding whether to

grant or deny accreditation or preaccreditation, for at least two years

prior to seeking recognition.

(b) A recognized agency seeking an expansion of its scope of

recognition must demonstrate that it has granted accreditation or

preaccreditation covering the range of the specific degrees,

certificates, institutions, and programs for which it seeks the

expansion of scope.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.13 Acceptance of the agency by others.

The agency must demonstrate that its standards, policies,

procedures, and decisions to grant or deny accreditation are widely

accepted in the United States by--

(a) Educators and educational institutions; and

(b) Licensing bodies, practitioners, and employers in the

professional or vocational fields for which the educational

institutions or programs within the agency's jurisdiction prepare their

students.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

[[Page 34477]]

Organizational and Administrative Requirements

Sec. 602.14 Purpose and organization.

(a) The Secretary recognizes only the following four categories of

agencies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Secretary recognizes * * that * * *

--------------*---------------------------------------------------------

(1) An accrediting agency.... (i) Has a voluntary membership of

institutions of higher education;

(ii) Has as a principal purpose the

accrediting of institutions of higher

education and that accreditation is a

required element in enabling those

institutions to participate in HEA

programs; and

(iii) Satisfies the ``separate and

independent'' requirements in paragraph

(b) of this section.

(2) An accrediting agency.... (i) Has a voluntary membership; and

(ii) Has as its principal purpose the

accrediting of higher education

programs, or higher education programs

and institutions of higher education,

and that accreditation is a required

element in enabling those entities to

participate in non-HEA Federal programs.

(3) An accrediting agency.... For purposes of determining eligibility

for Title IV, HEA programs--

(i) Either has a voluntary membership of

individuals participating in a

profession or has as its principal

purpose the accrediting of programs

within institutions that are accredited

by a nationally recognized accrediting

agency; and

(ii) Either satisfies the ``separate and

independent'' requirements in paragraph

(b) of this section or obtains a waiver

of those requirements under paragraphs

(d) and (e) of this section.

(4) A State agency........... (i) Has as a principal purpose the

accrediting of institutions of higher

education, higher education programs, or

both; and

(ii) The Secretary listed as a nationally

recognized accrediting agency on or

before October 1, 1991 and has

recognized continuously since that date.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) For purposes of this section, the term 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 membership

organization;

(2) At least one member of the agency's decision-making body is a

representative of the public, and at least one-seventh of that body

consists of representatives of the public;

(3) The agency has established and implemented guide lines for each

member of the decision-making body to avoid conflicts of interest in

making decisions;

(4) The agency's dues are paid separately from any dues paid to any

related, associated, or affiliated trade association or membership

organization; and

(5) The agency develops and determines its own budget, with no

review by or consultation with any other entity or organization.

(c) The Secretary considers that any joint use of personnel,

services, equipment, or facilities by an agency and a related,

associated, or affiliated trade association or membership organization

does not violate the ``separate and independent'' requirements in

paragraph (b) of this section if--

(1) The agency pays the fair market value for its proportionate

share of the joint use; and

(2) The joint use does not compromise the independence and

confidentiality of the accreditation process.

(d) For purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the Secretary

may waive the ``separate and independent'' requirements in paragraph

(b) of this section if the agency demonstrates that--

(1) The Secretary listed the agency as a nationally recognized

agency on or before October 1, 1991 and has recognized it continuously

since that date;

(2) The related, associated, or affiliated trade association or

membership organization plays no role in making or ratifying either the

accrediting or policy decisions of the agency;

(3) The agency has sufficient budgetary and administrative autonomy

to carry out its accrediting functions independently; and

(4) The agency provides to the related, associated, or affiliated

trade association or membership organization only information it makes

available to the public.

(e) An agency seeking a waiver of the ``separate and independent''

requirements under paragraph (d) of this section must apply for the

waiver each time the agency seeks recognition or continued recognition.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities.

The agency must have the administrative and fiscal capability 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

and experience in their own right and trained by the agency on its

standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site

evaluations, establish its policies, and make its accrediting and

preaccrediting decisions;

(3) Academic and administrative personnel on its evaluation,

policy, and decision-making bodies, if the agency accredits

institutions;

(4) Educators and practitioners on its evaluation, policy, and

decision-making bodies, if the agency accredits programs;

(5) Representatives of the public on all decision-making bodies;

and

(6) Clear and effective controls against conflicts of interest, or

the appearance of conflicts of interest, by the agency's--

(i) Board members;

(ii) Commissioners;

(iii) Evaluation team members;

(iv) Consultants;

(v) Administrative staff; and

(vi) Other agency representatives; and

(b) The agency maintains complete and accurate records of--

[[Page 34478]]

(1) Its last two full accreditation or preaccreditation reviews 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; and

(2) All decisions regarding the accreditation and preaccreditation

of any institution or program, including all correspondence that is

significantly related to those decisions.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Required Standards and Their Application

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--

(1) The agency's accreditation standards effectively address the

quality of the institution or program in the following areas:

(i) Success with respect to student achievement in relation to the

institution's mission, including, as appropriate, consideration of

course completion, State licensing examination, and job placement

rates.

(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, are

appropriately related to the agency's accreditation standards and do

not permit the institution or program to hold preaccreditation status

for more than five years.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) An agency that has established and applies the standards in

paragraph (a) of this section may establish any additional

accreditation standards it deems appropriate.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.17 Application of standards in reaching an accrediting

decision.

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 the agency

demonstrates that it--

(a) Evaluates whether an institution or program--

(1) Maintains clearly specified educational objectives that are

consistent with its mission and appropriate in light of the degrees or

certificates awarded;

(2) Is successful in achieving its stated objectives; and

(3) Maintains degree and certificate requirements that at least

conform to commonly accepted standards;

(b) Requires the institution or program to prepare, following

guidance provided by the agency, an in-depth self-study that includes

the assessment of educational quality and the institution's or

program's continuing efforts to improve educational quality;

(c) Conducts 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;

(d) Allows the institution or program the opportunity to respond in

writing to the report of the on-site review;

(e) Conducts 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 appropriate information from other sources to

determine whether the institution or program complies with the agency's

standards; and

(f) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written

report that assesses--

(1) The institution's or program's compliance with the agency's

standards, including areas needing improvement; and

(2) The institution's or program's performance with respect to

student achievement.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making.

The agency must consistently apply and enforce its standards to

ensure that the education or training offered by an institution or

program, including any offered through distance education, is of

sufficient quality to achieve its stated objective for the duration of

any accreditation or preaccreditation period granted by the agency. The

agency meets this requirement if the agency--

(a) Has effective controls against the inconsistent application of

the agency's standards;

(b) Bases decisions regarding accreditation and preaccreditation on

the agency's published standards; and

(c) Has a reasonable basis for determining that the information the

agency relies on for making accrediting decisions is accurate.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.19 Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and

programs.

(a) The agency must reevaluate, at regularly established intervals,

the institutions or programs it has accredited or preaccredited.

(b) The agency must monitor institutions or programs throughout

their accreditation or preaccreditation period to ensure that they

remain in compliance with the agency's standards. This includes

conducting special evaluations or site visits, as necessary.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

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) Immediately initiate adverse action against the institution or

program; or

[[Page 34479]]

(2) Require the institution or program to take appropriate action

to bring itself into compliance with the agency's standards within a

time period that must not exceed--

(i) Twelve months, if the program, or the longest program offered

by the institution, is less than one year in length;

(ii) Eighteen months, if the program, or the longest program

offered by the institution, is at least one year, but less than two

years, in length; or

(iii) Two years, if the program, or the longest program offered by

the institution, is at least two years in length.

(b) If the institution or program does not bring itself into

compliance within the specified period, the agency must take immediate

adverse action unless the agency, for good cause, extends the period

for achieving compliance.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.21 Review of standards.

(a) The agency must maintain a systematic program of review 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 relevant to the needs of students.

(b) The agency determines the specific procedures it follows in

evaluating its standards, but the agency must ensure that its program

of review--

(1) Is comprehensive;

(2) Occurs at regular, yet reasonable, intervals or on an ongoing

basis;

(3) Examines each of the agency's standards and the standards as a

whole; and

(4) Involves all of the agency's relevant constituencies in the

review and affords them a meaningful opportunity to provide input into

the review.

(c) If the agency determines, at any point during its systematic

program of review, that it needs to make changes to its standards, the

agency must initiate action within 12 months to make the changes and

must complete that action within a reasonable period of time. Before

finalizing any changes to its standards, the agency must--

(1) Provide notice to all of the agency's relevant constituencies

of the changes the agency proposes to make;

(2) Give the constituencies and other interested parties adequate

opportunity to comment on the proposed changes; and

(3) Take into account any comments on the proposed changes

submitted timely by the relevant constituencies and by other interested

parties.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Required Operating Policies and Procedures

Sec. 602.22 Substantive change.

(a) If the agency accredits institutions, it must maintain adequate

substantive change policies that ensure that any substantive change to

the educational mission, program, or programs of an institution 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--

(1) The agency requires the institution to obtain the agency's

approval of the substantive change before the agency includes the

change in the scope of accreditation or preaccreditation it previously

granted to the institution; and

(2) The agency's definition of substantive change includes at least

the following types of change:

(i) Any change in the established mission or objectives of the

institution.

(ii) Any change in the legal status, form of control, or ownership

of the institution.

(iii) The addition of courses or programs that represent a

significant departure, in either content or method of delivery, from

those that were offered when the agency last evaluated the institution.

(iv) The addition of courses or programs at a degree or credential

level above that which is included in the institution's current

accreditation or preaccreditation.

(v) A change from clock hours to credit hours.

(vi) A substantial increase in the number of clock or credit hours

awarded for successful completion of a program.

(vii) The establishment of an additional location geographically

apart from the main campus at which the institution offers at least 50

percent of an educational program.

(b) The agency may determine the procedures it uses to grant prior

approval of the substantive change. Except as provided in paragraph (c)

of this section, these may, but need not, require a visit by the

agency.

(c) If the agency's accreditation of an institution enables the

institution to seek eligibility to participate in Title IV, HEA

programs, the agency's procedures for the approval of an additional

location described in paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of this section must

determine if the institution has the fiscal and administrative capacity

to operate the additional location. In addition, the agency's

procedures must include--

(1) A visit, within six months, to each additional location the

institution establishes, if the institution--

(i) Has a total of three or fewer additional locations;

(ii) Has not demonstrated, to the agency's satisfaction, that it

has a proven record of effective educational oversight of additional

locations; or

(iii) Has been placed on warning, probation, or show cause by the

agency or is subject to some limitation by the agency on its

accreditation or preaccreditation status;

(2) An effective mechanism for conducting, at reasonable intervals,

visits to additional locations of institutions that operate more than

three additional locations; and

(3) An effective mechanism, which may, at the agency's discretion,

include visits to additional locations, for ensuring that accredited

and preaccredited institutions that experience rapid growth in the

number of additional locations maintain educational quality.

(d) The purpose of the visits described in paragraph (c) of this

section is to verify that the additional location has the personnel,

facilities, and resources it claimed to have in its application to the

agency for approval of the additional location.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.

(a) The agency must maintain and make available to the public, upon

request, written materials describing--

(1) Each type of accreditation and preaccreditation it grants;

(2) The procedures that institutions or programs must follow in

applying for accreditation or preaccreditation;

(3) The standards and procedures it uses to determine whether to

grant, reaffirm, reinstate, restrict, deny, revoke, terminate, or take

any other action related to each type of accreditation and

preaccreditation that the agency grants;

(4) The institutions and programs that the agency currently

accredits or preaccredits and, for each institution and program, the

year the agency will next review or reconsider it for accreditation or

preaccreditation; and

(5) The names, academic and professional qualifications, and

relevant employment and organizational affiliations of--

(i) The members of the agency's policy and decision-making bodies;

and

(ii) The agency's principal administrative staff.

(b) In providing public notice that an institution or program

subject to its jurisdiction is being considered for

[[Page 34480]]

accreditation or preaccreditation, the agency must provide an

opportunity for third-party comment concerning the institution's or

program's qualifications for accreditation or preaccreditation. At the

agency's discretion, third-party comment may be received either in

writing or at a public hearing, or both.

(c) The accrediting agency must--

(1) Review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner any complaint it

receives against an accredited institution or program that is related

to the agency's standards or procedures;

(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 and take follow-up

action, as appropriate, based on the results of its review.

(d) If an institution or program 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 and the name, address, and telephone number of 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) The agency may establish any additional operating procedures it

deems appropriate. At the agency's discretion, these may include

unannounced inspections.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional accreditors

must have.

If the agency is an institutional accrediting agency and its

accreditation or preaccreditation enables those institutions to obtain

eligibility to participate in Title IV, HEA programs, the agency must

demonstrate that it has established and uses all of the following

procedures:

(a) Branch campus. (1) The agency must require the institution to

notify the agency if it plans to establish a branch campus and to

submit a business plan for the branch campus that describes--

(i) The educational program to be offered at the branch campus;

(ii) The projected revenues and expenditures and cash flow at the

branch campus; and

(iii) The operation, management, and physical resources at the

branch campus.

(2) The agency may extend accreditation to the branch campus only

after it evaluates the business plan and takes whatever other actions

it deems necessary to determine that the branch campus has sufficient

educational, financial, operational, management, and physical resources

to meet the agency's standards.

(3) The agency must undertake a site visit to the branch campus as

soon as practicable, but no later than six months after the

establishment of that campus.

(b) Change in ownership. The agency must undertake a site visit to

an institution that has undergone a change of ownership that resulted

in a change of control as soon as practicable, but no later than six

months after the change of ownership.

(c) Teach-out agreements. (1) The agency must require an

institution it accredits or preaccredits that enters into a teach-out

agreement with another institution to submit that teach-out agreement

to the agency for approval.

(2) The agency may approve the teach-out agreement only if the

agreement is between institutions that are accredited or preaccredited

by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, is consistent with

applicable standards and regulations, and provides for the equitable

treatment of students by ensuring that--

(i) The teach-out institution has the necessary experience,

resources, and support services to provide an educational program that

is of acceptable quality and reasonably similar in content, structure,

and scheduling to that provided by the closed institution; and

(ii) The teach-out institution demonstrates that it can provide

students access to the program and services without requiring them to

move or travel substantial distances.

(3) If an institution the agency accredits or preaccredits closes,

the agency must work with the Department and the appropriate State

agency, to the extent feasible, to ensure that students are given

reasonable opportunities to complete their education without additional

charge.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 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) The agency uses procedures that afford an institution or

program a reasonable period of time to comply with the agency's

requests for information and documents.

(b) The agency 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.

(c) The agency permits the institution or program the opportunity

to appeal an adverse action and the right to be represented by counsel

during that appeal. If the agency allows institutions or programs the

right to appeal other types of actions, the agency has the discretion

to limit the appeal to a written appeal.

(d) The agency notifies the institution or program in writing of

the result of its appeal and the basis for that result.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

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 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:

(1) A final decision to place an institution or program on

probation or an equivalent status.

(2) A final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or

terminate

[[Page 34481]]

the accreditation or preaccreditation of an institution or program;

(c) Provides written notice to the public of the decisions listed

in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section within 24 hours of its

notice to the institution or program;

(d) For any decision listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,

makes available to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or

authorizing agency, and the public upon request, no later than 60 days

after the decision, a brief statement summarizing the reasons for the

agency's decision and the comments, if any, that the affected

institution or program may wish to make with regard to that decision;

and

(e) 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 30 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 30

days of the date on which accreditation or preaccreditation lapses.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.27 Other information an agency must provide the Department.

The agency must submit to the Department--

(a) A copy of any annual report it prepares;

(b) A copy, updated annually, of its directory of accredited and

preaccredited institutions and programs;

(c) A summary of the agency's major accrediting activities during

the previous year (an annual data summary), if requested by the

Secretary to carry out the Secretary's responsibilities related to this

part;

(d) Any proposed change in the agency's policies, procedures, or

accreditation or preaccreditation standards that might alter its--

(1) Scope of recognition; or

(2) Compliance with the criteria for recognition;

(e) The name of any institution or program it accredits that the

agency has reason to believe is failing to meet its Title IV, HEA

program responsibilities or is engaged in fraud or abuse, along with

the agency's reasons for concern about the institution or program; and

(f) If the Secretary requests, information that may bear upon an

accredited or preaccredited institution's compliance with its Title IV,

HEA program responsibilities, including the eligibility of the

institution or program to participate in Title IV, HEA programs. The

Secretary may ask for this information to assist the Department in

resolving problems with the institution's participation in the Title

IV, HEA programs.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.28 Regard for decisions of States and other accrediting

agencies.

(a) If the agency is an institutional accrediting agency, it may

not accredit or preaccredit institutions that lack legal authorization

under applicable State law to provide a program of education beyond the

secondary level.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the agency

may not grant initial or renewed accreditation or preaccreditation to

an institution, or a program offered by an institution, if the agency

knows, or has reasonable cause to know, that the institution is the

subject of--

(1) A pending or final action brought by a State agency to suspend,

revoke, withdraw, or terminate the institution's legal authority to

provide postsecondary education in the State;

(2) A decision by a recognized agency to deny accreditation or

preaccreditation;

(3) A pending or final action brought by a recognized accrediting

agency to suspend, revoke, withdraw, or terminate the institution's

accreditation or preaccreditation; or

(4) Probation or an equivalent status imposed by a recognized

agency.

(c) The agency may grant accreditation or preaccreditation to an

institution or program described in paragraph (b) of this section only

if it provides to the Secretary, within 30 days of its action, a

thorough and reasonable explanation, consistent with its standards, why

the action of the other body does not preclude the agency's grant of

accreditation or preaccreditation.

(d) 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 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.

(e) The agency must, upon request, share with other appropriate

recognized accrediting agencies and recognized State approval agencies

information about the accreditation or preaccreditation status of an

institution or program and any adverse actions it has taken against an

accredited or preaccredited institution or program.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Subpart C--The Recognition Process

Application and Review by Department Staff

Sec. 602.30 How does an agency apply for recognition?

(a) An accrediting agency seeking initial or continued recognition

must submit a written application to the Secretary. The application

must consist of--

(1) A statement of the agency's requested scope of recognition;

(2) Evidence that the agency complies with the criteria for

recognition listed in subpart B of this part; and

(3) Supporting documentation.

(b) By submitting an application for recognition, the agency

authorizes Department staff to observe its site visits and decision

meetings and to gain access to agency records, personnel, and

facilities on an announced or unannounced basis.

(c) The Secretary does not make available to the public any

confidential agency materials a Department employee reviews during the

evaluation of either the agency's application for recognition or the

agency's compliance with the criteria for recognition.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.31 How does Department staff review an agency's application?

(a) Upon receipt of an agency's application for either initial or

continued recognition, Department staff--

(1) Establishes a schedule for the review of the agency by

Department staff, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional

Quality and Integrity, and the Secretary;

(2) Publishes a notice of the agency's application in the Federal

Register, inviting the public to comment on the agency's compliance

with the criteria for recognition and establishing a deadline for

receipt of public comment; and

(3) Provides State licensing or authorizing agencies, all currently

recognized accrediting agencies, and other appropriate organizations

with copies of the Federal Register notice.

(b) Department staff analyzes the agency's application to determine

[[Page 34482]]

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 any deficiencies in the agency's

performance with respect to the criteria. The analysis in cludes--

(1) Site visits, on an announced or unannounced basis, to the

agency and, at the Secretary's discretion, to some of the institutions

or programs it accredits or preaccredits;

(2) Review of the public comments and other third-party information

the Department staff receives by the established deadline, as well as

any other information Department staff assembles for purposes of

evaluating the agency under this part; and

(3) Review of complaints or legal actions involving the agency.

(c) Department staff's evaluation may also include a review of

information directly related to institutions or programs accredited or

preaccredited by the agency relative to their compliance with the

agency's standards, the effectiveness of the standards, and the

agency's application of those standards.

(d) If, at any point in its evaluation of an agency seeking initial

recognition, Department staff determines that the agency fails to

demonstrate substantial compliance with the basic eligibility

requirements in Secs. 602.10 through 602.13, 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) Recommends that the agency withdraw its application and reapply

when the agency can demonstrate compliance.

(e) Except with respect to an application that is withdrawn under

paragraph (d) of this section, when Department staff completes its

evaluation of the agency, the staff--

(1) Prepares a written analysis of the agency, which includes a

recognition recommendation;

(2) Sends the analysis and all supporting documentation, including

all third-party comments the Department received by the established

deadline, to the agency no later than 45 days before the Advisory

Committee meeting; and

(3) Invites the agency to provide a written response to the staff

analysis and third-party comments, specifying a deadline for the

response that is at least two weeks before the Advisory Committee

meeting.

(f) If Department staff fails to provide the agency with the

materials described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section at least 45

days before the Advisory Committee meeting, the agency may request that

the Advisory Committee defer acting on the application at that meeting.

If Department staff's failure to send the materials at least 45 days

before the Advisory Committee meeting is due to the failure of the

agency to submit reports or other information the Secretary requested

by the deadline the Secretary established, the agency forfeits its

right to request a deferral.

(g) Department staff reviews any response to the staff analysis

that the agency submits. If necessary, Department staff prepares an

addendum to the staff analysis and provides the agency with a copy.

(h) Before the Advisory Committee meeting, Department staff

provides the Advisory Committee with the following information:

(1) The agency's application for recognition and supporting

documentation.

(2) The Department staff analysis of the agency.

(3) Any written third-party comments the Department received about

the agency on or before the established deadline.

(4) Any agency response to either the Department staff analysis or

third-party comments.

(5) Any addendum to the Department staff analysis.

(6) Any other information Department staff relied on in developing

its analysis.

(i) At least 30 days before the Advisory Committee meeting, the

Department publishes a notice of the meeting in the Federal Register

inviting interested parties, including those who submitted third-party

comments concerning the agency's compliance with the criteria for

recognition, to make oral presentations before the Advisory Committee.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Review by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality

and Integrity

Sec. 602.32 What is the role of the Advisory Committee and the senior

Department official in the review of an agency's application?

(a) The Advisory Committee considers an agency's application for

recognition at a public meeting and invites Department staff, the

agency, and other interested parties to make oral presentations at the

meeting. A transcript is made of each Advisory Committee meeting.

(b) When it concludes its review, the Advisory Committee recommends

that the Secretary either approve or deny recognition or that the

Secretary defer a decision on the agency's application for recognition.

(1)(i) The Advisory Committee recommends approval of recognition if

the agency complies with the criteria for recognition listed in subpart

B of this part and if the agency is effective in its performance with

respect to those criteria.

(ii) If the Advisory Committee recommends approval, the Advisory

Committee also recommends a recognition period and a scope of

recognition.

(iii) If the recommended scope or period of recognition is less

than that requested by the agency, the Advisory Committee explains its

reasons for recommending the lesser scope or recognition period.

(2)(i) If the agency fails to comply with the criteria for

recognition in subpart B of this part, or if the agency is not

effective in its performance with respect to those criteria, the

Advisory Committee recommends denial of recognition, unless the

Advisory Committee concludes that a deferral under paragraph (b)(3) of

this section is warranted.

(ii) If the Advisory Committee recommends denial, the Advisory

Committee specifies the reasons for its recommendation, including all

criteria the agency fails to meet and all areas in which the agency

fails to perform effectively.

(3)(i) The Advisory Committee may recommend deferral of a decision

on recognition if it concludes that the agency's deficiencies do not

warrant immediate loss of recognition and if it concludes that the

agency will demonstrate or achieve compliance with the criteria for

recognition and effective performance with respect to those criteria

before the expiration of the deferral period.

(ii) In its deferral recommendation, the Advisory Committee states

the bases for its conclusions, specifies any criteria for recognition

the agency fails to meet, and identifies any areas in which the agency

fails to perform effectively with respect to the criteria.

(iii) The Advisory Committee also recommends a deferral period,

which may not exceed 12 months, either alone or in combination with any

expiring deferral period in which similar deficiencies in compliance or

performance were cited by the Secretary.

(c) At the conclusion of its meeting, the Advisory Committee

forwards its recommendations to the Secretary through the senior

Department official.

(d) For any Advisory Committee recommendation not appealed under

[[Page 34483]]

Sec. 602.33, the senior Department official includes with the Advisory

Committee materials forwarded to the Secretary a memorandum containing

the senior Department official's recommendations regarding the actions

proposed by the Advisory Committee.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b and 1145)

Sec. 602.33 How may an agency appeal a recommendation of the Advisory

Committee?

(a) Either the agency or the senior Department official may appeal

the Advisory Committee's recommendation. If a party wishes to appeal,

that party must--

(1) Notify the Secretary and the other party in writing of its

intent to appeal the recommendation no later than 10 days after the

Advisory Committee meeting;

(2) Submit its appeal in writing to the Secretary no later than 30

days after the Advisory Committee meeting; and

(3) Provide the other party with a copy of the appeal at the same

time it submits the appeal to the Secretary.

(b) The non-appealing party may file a written response to the

appeal. If that party wishes to do so, it must--

(1) Submit its response to the Secretary no later than 30 days

after receiving its copy of the appeal; and

(2) Provide the appealing party with a copy of its response at the

same time it submits its response to the Secretary.

(c) Neither the agency nor the senior Department official may

include any new evidence in its submission; i.e., evidence it did not

previously submit to the Advisory Committee.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b and 1145)

Review and Decision by the Secretary

Sec. 602.34 What does the Secretary consider when making a recognition

decision?

The Secretary makes the decision regarding recognition of an agency

based on the entire record of the agency's application, including the

following:

(a) The Advisory Committee's recommendation.

(b) The senior Department official's recommendation, if any.

(c) The agency's application and supporting documentation.

(d) The Department staff analysis of the agency.

(e) All written third-party comments forwarded by Department staff

to the Advisory Committee for consideration at the meeting.

(f) Any agency response to the Department staff analysis and third-

party comments.

(g) Any addendum to the Department staff analysis.

(h) All oral presentations at the Advisory Committee meeting.

(i) Any materials submitted by the parties, within the established

timeframes, in an appeal taken in accordance with Sec. 602.33.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.35 What information does the Secretary's recognition decision

include?

(a) The Secretary notifies the agency in writing of the Secretary's

decision regarding the agency's application for recognition.

(b) The Secretary either approves or denies recognition or defers a

decision on the agency's application for recognition.

(1)(i) The Secretary approves recognition if the agency complies

with the criteria for recognition listed in subpart B of this part and

if the agency is effective in its performance with respect to those

criteria.

(ii) If the Secretary approves recognition, the Secretary's

recognition decision defines the scope of recognition and the

recognition period.

(iii) If the scope or period of recognition is less than that

requested by the agency, the Secretary explains the reasons for

approving a lesser scope or recognition period.

(2)(i) If the agency fails to comply with the criteria for

recognition in subpart B of this part, or if the agency is not

effective in its performance with respect to those criteria, the

Secretary denies recognition, unless the Secretary concludes that a

deferral under paragraph (b)(3) of this section is warranted.

(ii) If the Secretary denies recognition, the Secretary specifies

the reasons for this decision, including all criteria the agency fails

to meet and all areas in which the agency fails to perform effectively.

(3)(i) The Secretary may defer a decision on recognition if the

Secretary concludes that the agency's deficiencies do not warrant

immediate loss of recognition and if the Secretary concludes that the

agency will demonstrate or achieve compliance with the criteria for

recognition and effective performance with respect to those criteria

before the expiration of the deferral period.

(ii) In the deferral decision, the Secretary states the bases for

the Secretary's conclusions, specifies any criteria for recognition the

agency fails to meet, and identifies any areas in which the agency

fails to perform effectively with respect to the criteria.

(iii) The Secretary also establishes a deferral period, which does

not exceed 12 months, either alone or in combination with any expiring

deferral period in which similar deficiencies in compliance or

performance were cited by the Secretary, except that the Secretary may

grant an extension of an expiring deferral period at the request of the

agency for good cause shown.

(c) The recognition period may not exceed five years.

(d) If the Secretary does not reach a final decision on an agency's

application for continued recognition before the expiration of its

recognition period, the Secretary automatically extends the recognition

period until the final decision is reached.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.36 May an agency appeal the Secretary's final recognition

decision?

An agency may appeal the Secretary's decision under this part in

the Federal courts as a final decision in accordance with applicable

Federal law.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Subpart D--Limitation, Suspension, or Termination of Recognition

Limitation, Suspension, and Termination Procedures

Sec. 602.40 How may the Secretary limit, suspend, or terminate an

agency's recognition?

(a) If the Secretary determines, after notice and an opportunity

for a hearing, that a recognized agency does not comply with the

criteria for recognition in subpart B of this part or that the agency

is not effective in its performance with respect to those criteria, the

Secretary--

(1) Limits, suspends, or terminates the agency's recognition; or

(2) Requires the agency to take appropriate action to bring itself

into compliance with the criteria and achieve effectiveness within a

timeframe that may not exceed 12 months.

(b) If, at the conclusion of the timeframe specified in paragraph

(a)(2) of this section, the Secretary determines, after notice and an

opportunity for a hearing, that the agency has failed to bring itself

into compliance or has failed to achieve effectiveness, the Secretary

limits, suspends, or terminates recognition, unless the Secretary

extends the timeframe, on request by the agency for good cause shown.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.41 What are the notice procedures?

(a) Department staff initiates an action to limit, suspend, or

terminate an agency's recognition by notifying the agency in writing of

the Secretary's

[[Page 34484]]

intent to limit, suspend, or terminate recognition. The notice--

(1) Describes the specific action the Secretary seeks to take

against the agency and the reasons for that action, including the

criteria with which the agency has failed to comply;

(2) Specifies the effective date of the action; and (3) Informs the

agency of its right to respond to the notice and request a hearing.

(b) Department staff may send the notice described in paragraph (a)

of this section at any time the staff concludes that the agency fails

to comply with the criteria for recognition in subpart B of this part

or is not effective in its performance with respect to those criteria.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.42 What are the response and hearing procedures?

(a) If the agency wishes either to respond to the notice or request

a hearing, or both, it must do so in writing no later than 30 days

after it receives the notice of the Secretary's intent to limit,

suspend, or terminate recognition.

(1) The agency's submission must identify the issues and facts in

dispute and the agency's position on them.

(2) If neither a response nor a request for a hearing is filed by

the deadline, the notice of intent becomes a final decision by the

Secretary.

(b)(1) After receiving the agency's response and hearing request,

if any, the Secretary chooses a subcommittee composed of five members

of the Advisory Committee to adjudicate the matter and notifies the

agency of the subcommittee's membership.

(2) The agency may challenge membership of the subcommittee on

grounds of conflict of interest on the part of one or more members and,

if the agency's challenge is successful, the Secretary will replace the

member or members challenged.

(c) After the subcommittee has been selected, Department staff

sends the members of the subcommittee copies of the notice to limit,

suspend, or terminate recognition, along with the agency's response, if

any.

(d)(1) If a hearing is requested, it is held in Washington, DC, at

a date and time set by Department staff.

(2) A transcript is made of the hearing.

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the

subcommittee allows Department staff, the agency, and any interested

party to make an oral or written presentation, which may include the

introduction of written and oral evidence.

(e) On agreement by Department staff and the agency, the

subcommittee review may be based solely on the written materials

submitted.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.43 How is a decision on limitation, suspension, or

termination of recognition reached?

(a) After consideration of the notice of intent to limit, suspend,

or terminate recognition, the agency's response, if any, and all

submissions and presentations made at the hearing, if any, the

subcommittee issues a written opinion and sends it to the Secretary,

with copies to the agency and the senior Department official. The

opinion includes--

(1) Findings of fact, based on consideration of all the evidence,

presentations, and submissions before the subcommittee;

(2) A recommendation as to whether a limitation, suspension, or

termination of the agency's recognition is warranted; and

(3) The reasons supporting the subcommittee's recommendation.

(b) Unless the subcommittee's recommendation is appealed under

Sec. 602.44, the Secretary issues a final decision on whether to limit,

suspend, or terminate the agency's recognition. The Secretary bases the

decision on consideration of the full record before the subcommittee

and the subcommittee's opinion.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Appeal Rights and Procedures

Sec. 602.44 How may an agency appeal the subcommittee's

recommendation?

(a) Either the agency or the senior Department official may appeal

the subcommittee's recommendation. If a party wishes to appeal, that

party must--

(1) Notify the Secretary and the other party in writing of its

intent to appeal the recommendation no later than 10 days after receipt

of the recommendation;

(2) Submit its appeal to the Secretary in writing no later than 30

days after receipt of the recommendation; and

(3) Provide the other party with a copy of the appeal at the same

time it submits the appeal to the Secretary.

(b) The non-appealing party may file a written response to the

appeal. If that party wishes to do so, it must--

(1) Submit its response to the Secretary no later than 30 days

after receiving its copy of the appeal; and

(2) Provide the appealing party with a copy of its response at the

same time it submits its response to the Secretary.

(c) Neither the agency nor the senior Department official may

include any new evidence in its submission, i.e., evidence it did not

previously submit to the subcommittee.

(d) If the subcommittee's recommendation is appealed, the Secretary

renders a final decision after taking into account that recommendation

and the parties' written submissions on appeal, as well as the entire

record before the subcommittee and the subcommittee's opinion.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Sec. 602.45 May an agency appeal the Secretary's final decision to

limit, suspend, or terminate its recognition?

An agency may appeal the Secretary's final decision limiting,

suspending, or terminating its recognition to the Federal courts as a

final decision in accordance with applicable Federal law.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Subpart E--Department Responsibilities

Sec. 602.50 What information does the Department share with a

recognized agency about its accredited institutions and programs?

(a) If the Department takes an action against an institution or

program accredited by the agency, it notifies the agency no later than

10 days after taking that action.

(b) If another Federal agency or a State agency notifies the

Department that it has taken an action against an institution or

program accredited by the agency, the Department notifies the agency as

soon as possible but no later than 10 days after receiving the written

notice from the other Government agency.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)

Appendix--Distribution Table Showing The Reorganization of The

Current Regulations

Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of

Federal Regulations.

The following table shows where each section of the current

regulations is found in the proposed regulations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section in current regulations Location in proposed regulations

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 602.1......................... Secs. 602.1 and 602.10.

Sec. 602.2......................... Sec. 602.3.

Sec. 602.3......................... Sec. 602.14.

Sec. 602.4......................... Secs. 602.26 and 602.27.

Sec. 602.5......................... Sec. 602.50.

Sec. 602.10........................ Sec. 602.30.

Sec. 602.11........................ Sec. 602.31.

Sec. 602.12........................ Secs. 602.32 and 602.33.

Sec. 602.13........................ Secs. 602.3, 602.34, and 602.35.

[[Page 34485]]

Sec. 602.14........................ Secs. 602.40 through 602.44.

Sec. 602.15........................ Secs. 602.36 and 602.45.

Sec. 602.16........................ Sec. 602.2.

Sec. 602.20...... Sec. 602.11.

Sec. 602.21........................ Sec. 602.15.

Sec. 602.22........................ Secs. 602.12 and 602.13.

Sec. 602.23........................ Secs. 602.18, 602.21, and 602.23.

Sec. 602.24........................ Secs. 602.17, 602.19, and 602.23.

Sec. 602.25........................ Sec. 602.22.

Sec. 602.26........................ Secs. 602.16, 602.18, and 602.20.

Sec. 602.27........................ Secs. 602.23 and 602.24.

Sec. 602.28........................ Sec. 602.25.

Sec. 602.29........................ Sec. 602.26.

Sec. 602.30........................ Sec. 602.28.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-16143 Filed 6-24-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P