1

PART 602—ACCREDITATION

Subpart A—General

§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?

(a) The following definitions are contained in the regulations for Institutional Eligibility under the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 34 CFR part 600:

Accredited

Branch campus

Correspondence course

Credit hour

Distance education

Institution of higher education

Nationally recognized accrediting agency

Preaccreditation

Religious mission

Secretary

State

Teach-out

Teach-out agreement

Teach-out plan 

(b) The following definitions apply to this part:

Accreditation means the status of public recognition that an accrediting agency grants to an 

educational institution or program that meets the agency's standards and requirements.

Accrediting agency or agency means a legal entity, or that part of a legal entity, that conducts 

accrediting activities through voluntary, non-Federal 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.

Comment [A1]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: 

Definitions listed in (a) and deleted in (b) are not 

being eliminated, but instead moved to a more 

appropriate section of the regulations. Please refer 

to 34 CFR Part 600 for full definitions, including any 

proposed changes.
2

Adverse accrediting action or adverse action means the denial, withdrawal, suspension, revocation, 

or termination of accreditation or preaccreditation, or any comparable accrediting action an agency may 

take against an institution or program.

Advisory Committee means the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.

Compliance report means a written report that the Department requires an agency to file when 

that agency is found to be out of compliance to demonstrate that the agency has addressed deficiencies 

specified in a decision letter from the senior Department official or the Secretary. Compliance reports 

must be reviewed by the Department staff and the Advisory Committee and approved by the senior 

Department official to renew or, in the case of an initial award, grant, recognition. 

Designated Federal Official means the Federal officer designated under section 10(f) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appdx. 1.

Direct assessment program means an instructional program that, in lieu of credit hours or clock 

hours as a measure of student learning, utilizes direct assessment of student learning, or recognizes the 

direct assessment of student learning by others, if such assessment is consistent with the institution’s or 

program’s accreditation, and meets the conditions of 34 CFR 668.10. For title IV, HEA purposes, the 

institution must obtain approval from the Secretary before its first direct assessment program will 

qualify as an eligible program. 

As part of the accrediting agency’s review, in order for any direct assessment program to qualify as 

an eligible program, the accrediting agency must have—

(1) Evaluated the program(s) based on the agency’s accreditation standards and criteria, and 

included them in the institution's grant of accreditation or preaccreditation; and

(2) Reviewed and approved the institution's claim of each direct assessment program's equivalence 

in terms of credit or clock hours.

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 the 

decision made by the agency, at the conclusion of any appeal process available to the institution or 

program under the agency’s due process policies and procedures. 

Institutional accrediting agency means an agency that accredits institutions of higher education.

Monitoring report means a report that an agency is required to submit to the Department when it 

is found to be substantially compliant. The report contains documentation to demonstrate that –

(1) The agency is implementing its current or corrected policies;

(2) The agency has had more time to document that it is compliant; or

(3) The agency, which is compliant in practice, has updated its policies to align with those

compliant practices.

Program means a postsecondary educational program offered by an institution 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, 

including those that prepare students in specific academic disciplines or for entry into a profession, 

occupation, or vocation.

Comment [A2]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department proposes to codify the distinction 

between compliance reports and monitoring 

reports. A compliance report is required if the 

agency is not compliant, but the Department 

believes that the agency can come into compliance 

within 12 months. Staff and NACIQI must review 

and the SDO must approve a compliance report in 

order for recognition to be granted or continued. A 

monitoring report is required if the agency is 

substantially compliant but the Department wishes 

to closely monitor that agency’s performance to 

ensure that an improvement plan is in place and 

effective, or that the agency operates in continuous 

compliance. The report must be reviewed by staff 

and approved by the SDO for recognition to 

continue.
3

Recognition means an unappealed determination by the senior Department official under §602.36, 

or a determination by the Secretary on appeal under §602.37, that an accrediting agency complies with 

the criteria for recognition listed in subpart B of this part and that the agency is effective and consistent 

in its application of those criteria. A grant of recognition to an agency as a reliable authority regarding 

the quality of education or training offered by institutions or programs it accredits remains in effect for 

the term granted except upon a determination made in accordance with subpart C of this part that the 

agency no longer complies with the subpart B criteria or that it has become ineffective in its application 

of those criteria.

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 such that the inclusion of a particular geographic area

(including but not limited to a State or tribal lands) in one agency’s scope does not preclude the 

inclusion of that same or a similar geographic area in another agency’s scope;

(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 or correspondence courses.

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

designated by the Secretary to make decisions on accrediting agency recognition.

Substantial compliance means the agency has the necessary policies, practices, and standards in 

place, and generally adheres with fidelity to those policies, practices, and standards; or the agency has

policies, practices, and standards in place that need minor modifications to reflect its generally

compliant practice.

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

[64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55426, Oct. 27, 2009]

Comment [A3]: In order to end the monopoly of 

the current regional accreditation system, and to 

acknowledge that distance learning, additional 

locations, and branch campuses have expanded the 

reach of regional agencies far beyond their historic 

geographical scope, it is important for agencies to 

acknowledge every state in which they accredit an 

institution, branch campus, or additional location, 

and to allow for more than one agency to include a 

particular State or tribal nation in its scope. Note 

that this definition would also enable, for example, 

tribal nations to form their own regional agency in 

which one or more tribal nations could define the 

geographic scope of the agency. 

Comment [A4]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: 

Substantial compliance could indicate that an 

agency’s practices are compliant, but a minor 

correction or addition is needed to its written 

policies or other documents, or to the way in which 

it has implemented its policies in some 

circumstances. For example, when an institution is 

serving as a teach-out provider to students at a 

closing or closed campus, the agency may need to 

waive certain policies in order to allow that 

institution to accommodate additional students and 

to more generously accept credits earned by 

students at the closing or closed institution. There 

may also be instances where the agency cannot 

apply its standards to a particular institution due to 

extenuating circumstances, such as local or regional 

economic challenges, natural disaster, differences in 

state or tribal laws, the implementation of certain 

innovations, or the unique nature or mission of an 

institution (e.g. an aviation program or a 

conservatory may have very different performance 

requirements – including physical performance 

requirements - or employment outcomes than a 

more traditional institution).
4

Subpart B—The Criteria for Recognition

Basic Eligibility Requirements

§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. The 

agency satisfies this requirement if, pursuant to 34 CFR 600.11(b) , it accredits one or more institutions

that participate in HEA programs and that could designate the agency as its link to HEA programs, even if 

the institution at the time of application currently designates another institutional agency as its Federal 

link; 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)

§602.11 Geographic scope of accrediting activities.

The agency must demonstrate that its accrediting activities are limited to--

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

(b) A region in which all of the institutions, additional locations, and branch campuses the agency

accredits are located; or

(c) The United States. 

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

§602.12 Accrediting experience.

(a)(1) An agency seeking initial recognition must demonstrate that it has granted accreditation or 

preaccreditation prior to submitting an application for recognition--

(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.

(2) After an agency has successfully completed the recognition process as outlined in subpart C and 

the Secretary has made a decision to grant initial recognition--

Comment [A5]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: This 

provision is necessary to enable new agencies to 

enter the marketplace. Until an agency is 

recognized, it is highly unlikely that an already 

accredited institution or program will relinquish its 

current accreditation in hope that a new agency 

that may be better suited to its mission will become 

recognized. 

Comment [A6]: NOTE TO NEGOIATORS: The 

original proposal was not intended to force regional 

agencies to eliminate states from their scope or 

force institutions or programs to find new agencies. 

Rather, it was designed to point out that most 

regional agencies actually function as national 

agencies since they accredit additional locations and 

branch campuses outside of their scope. To clarify 

that we do not expect existing regional agencies to 

reduce their scope to 10 states, we have eliminated 

the reference to specific numbers of states and have 

instead changed the definition to require that the 

agency’s scope include every state in which an 

institution, additional location or branch campus is 

located. Agencies are permitted to have 

overlapping geographic scope, which reflects 

current practice since agencies already accredit 

branch campuses that are in states that are part of 

the scope of other agencies. 
5

(i) The agency must notify the Department prior to commencing its first accreditation review of an 

institution or program during that initial period of recognition. Department staff will observe associated 

accreditation activities to determine whether the agency conducts such activities in accordance with the 

Secretary’s Criteria for Recognition and the agency’s accreditation standards. If, during observations, 

Department staff determines that the agency is not conducting its accreditation process in accordance 

with the Secretary’s Criteria for Recognition or the agency’s accreditation standards, Department staff 

will proceed as provided in §602.33(c); and

(ii) The agency must complete an accreditation review of, and make an accreditation decision 

regarding, an institution or program during its first recognition period. If the agency does not make an 

accreditation decision during that recognition period, the Secretary will consider whether to withdraw 

recognition on that basis or review of the agency’s application for renewal of recognition. (b)(1) A 

recognized agency seeking an expansion of its scope of recognition must demonstrate that it has

accreditation or preaccreditation policies in place that meet all recognition criteria and cover the range 

of the specific degrees, certificates, institutions, and programs for which it seeks the expansion of scope. 

(2) A recognized agency seeking expansion of scope to include graduate programs must justify its 

reasons for adding programs at the graduate level by demonstrating that employers requiring a 

graduate level credential will pay a salary commensurate with the cost of graduate education. An 

agency must have policies that engage employers in the review and consideration of new graduate 

programs to determine whether the graduate-level credential is required for employment, whether 

sufficient employment opportunities are available for new graduates, and whether salaries align with 

the cost of graduate education.. (3) An agency that cannot demonstrate experience in making 

accreditation or preaccreditation decisions under the expanded scope at the time of its application or 

review for an expansion of scope may--

(i) If it is an institutional agency, be limited in the number of institutions to which it may grant 

accreditation under the expanded scope for a designated period of time; or

(ii) If it is a programmatic agency be limited in the number of programs to which it may grant 

accreditation under that expanded scope for a certain period of time; and

(iii) Be required to submit monitoring reports regarding accrediting decisions made under the 

expanded scope. 

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

§602.13 Agency acceptance by employers and practitioners

The agency must demonstrate that its standards, policies, procedures, and decisions to grant or 

deny accreditation are sufficiently rigorous to be accepted by employers and practitioners.

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

Comment [A7]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: This 

change seeks to solve the “chicken/egg” problem of 

requiring an agency to accredit an institution or 

program outside of its current scope in order to 

seek an expansion of scope; however, prior to 

receiving the expansion of scope, the institution or 

program is not considered eligible for Title IV or 

other Federal programs. We need to create onramps for agencies that seek an appropriate and 

necessary expansion of scope.

Comment [A8]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

“widely accepted” requirement is not found in 

statute, was too vaguely defined, and inconsistently 

enforced by the Department, and has enabled 

agencies, licensing bodies, and institutions to 

engage in anti-competitive practices to protect their 

market share. For example, licensing bodies that 

have an affiliated accrediting function are unlikely to 

approve a new accreditor as a trusted source of 

quality for the purpose of meeting eligibility 

requirements to sit for licensing exams. 

The revised language recognizes that even more 

important than being recognized by competitors as 

a reliable arbiter of quality, is the importance of 

being recognized by employers and practitioners as 

a trusted entity in ensuring that graduates of an 

institution are well prepared to enter and succeed in 

the workforce. 

By engaging employers in the evaluation of an 

accreditors standards, policies and procedures to 

grant or deny accreditation, students will have more 

opportunities to prepare for their occupation of 

choice and accreditors will be held to higher levels 

of accountability and less likely to engage in anticompetitive practices. 

Therefore, this change replaces an anti-competitive 

practice with one that more closely aligns with the 

ultimate goal of quality assurance in education. 
6

§602.14 Purpose and organization.

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

(1) A State agency that-

(i) Has as a principal purpose the accrediting of institutions of higher education, higher 

education programs, or both; and

(ii) Has been listed by the Secretary as a nationally recognized accrediting agency on or before 

October 1, 1991 and has been recognized continuously since that date.

(2) An accrediting agency that-

(i) Has a voluntary membership of institutions of higher education;

(ii) Offers accreditation that is used to provide a link to Federal HEA programs in accordance 

with § 602.10; and

(iii) Satisfies the "separate and independent" requirements contained in paragraph (b) of this 

section;

(3) An accrediting agency that-

(i) Has a voluntary membership; and

(ii) Has as its principal purpose the accrediting of higher education programs, or both higher 

education programs and institutions of higher education, and the accreditation it offers is used to 

provide a link to non-HEA Federal programs in accordance with § 602.10; 

(4) An accrediting agency that, for purposes of determining eligibility for title IV, HEA programs--

(i) (A) Has a voluntary membership of individuals participating in a profession; or

(B) Has as its principal purpose the accrediting of programs within institutions that are accredited by 

another nationally recognized accrediting agency; and

(ii) Satisfies the "separate and independent" requirements contained in paragraph (b) of this 

section or obtains a waiver of those requirements under paragraph (d) of this section;

(b) For purposes of this section, "separate and independent" means that-

(1) The members of the agency's decision-making body who decide the accreditation or 

preaccreditation status of institutions or programs, establish the agency's accreditation policies, or both 

are not elected or selected by the board or chief executive officer of any related, associated, or affiliated 

trade association, professional organization or membership organization and are not staff of the related, 

associated or affiliated trade association, professional organization 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 the body consists of representatives of the public;

(3) The agency has established and implemented guidelines for each member of the decisionmaking body including guidelines on avoiding 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

Comment [A9]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department is recommending the elimination of 

this table in response to feedback from the field 

that it is confusing. In its place, we propose 

language that more clearly explains the categories 

of agencies recognized by the Secretary.

Comment [A10]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department is concerned about the relationships 

between agencies and affiliated professional 

organizations that restrict eligibility for entrance 

into an occupation to graduates of institutions or 

programs accredited by the affiliated agency. We 

are also concerned when a membership 

organization votes to increase credential 

requirements, prompting the affiliated agency to 

increase the credential level of accredited programs 

to satisfy the requirements of the membership 

organization (especially when the membership 

organization also functions as a licensing board). 

The Department believes that agencies must 

demonstrate why a higher-level credential is 

required, based on employer demand and 

assurances that wages will increase commensurate 

with the added cost of education. It is also 

important to demonstrate that a higher credential is 

the preferred or only alternative and that curricular 

improvements or other changes would be 

insufficient. 
7

(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 violates the 

“separate and independent” requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) For purposes of paragraph (a)(4) 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)

§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 or experience in their own 

right and trained by the agency on their responsibilities, as appropriate for their roles, regarding the 

agency's standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site evaluations, policies, and make its 

accrediting and preaccrediting decisions, including, if applicable to the agency's scope, their 

responsibilities regarding distance education and correspondence courses; 

(3) Academic and administrative personnel on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies, if 

the agency accredits institutions; 

Comment [A11]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department once thought that these provisions 

could ensure compliance with the separate and 

independent requirement. However, the 

considerable amount of credential inflation that has 

taken place in occupations, including healthcare, is 

troubling. When even current safeguards regarding 

the joint use of space have proven insufficient, it is 

clear additional steps are needed to protect 

students and prevent unnecessary barriers to work.. 

Comment [A12]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department wishes to ensure such individuals are 

competent, but does not believe that competency 

can only be achieved through a formal education 

program when work-based learning or military 

service are viable alternatives. Our standards will 

no longer give priority to academic credentials over 

other avenues of competency development. 
8

(4) Educators and/or practitioners and employers on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making 

bodies, if the agency accredits programs or single-purpose institutions that prepare students for a 

specific profession;

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

(6) Clear and effective controls including guidelines to prevent or resolve 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 -

(1) Its last full accreditation or preaccreditation review of each institution or program, including onsite 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 decision letters made by the agency regarding the accreditation and preaccreditation of any 

institution or program and any substantive changes.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1845-0003) 

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

[ 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55426, Oct. 27, 2009]

Required Standards and Their Application

§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 clearly define its expectations for the institutions or 

programs it accredits, in the following areas: 

(i) Success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution's mission, which may 

include different standards for different institutions or programs, as established by the institution, 

including, as appropriate, consideration of State licensing examinations, course completion, and job 

placement rates.

Comment [A13]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department believes that decision letters are 

important documents that should be retained, but 

that indefinite retention of every email or 

deliberative document leading up to the decision 

memo is unnecessary.

Comment [A14]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department is concerned that determining 

effectiveness of a standard or practice may be 

highly subjective, take many years, and requires an 

obvious and major deficiency before ineffectiveness 

becomes apparent. The Department expects 

agencies to respond effectively to such major 

outliers promptly, but also to focus on working with 

institutions or programs towards continuous 

improvement and to set realistic expectations for 

making meaningful progress towards genuine 

(rather than superficial) improvement. 
9

(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, 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--

(i) Are appropriately related to the agency's accreditation standards; and

(ii) Do not permit the institution or program to hold preaccreditation status for more than five 

years before a final accreditation decision is made.

(b) Agencies are not required to apply the standards described in paragraph (a)(1)(x) of this section

to institutions or programs that do not participate in title IV, HEA programs. The agency’s grant of 

accreditation or preaccreditation under this section must specify that the grant, by request of the 

institution, does not include participation by the institution or program in title IV, HEA programs. 

(c) If the agency only accredits programs and does not serve as an institutional accrediting agency 

for any of those programs, its accreditation standards must address the areas in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section in terms of the type and level of the program rather than in terms of the institution. 

(d)(1) If the agency has or seeks to include within its scope of recognition the evaluation of the 

quality of institutions or programs offering distance education, correspondence courses, or direct 

assessment education, the agency's standards must effectively address the quality of an institution's 

distance education, correspondence courses, or direct assessment education in the areas identified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(2) The agency is not required to have separate standards, procedures, or policies for the 

evaluation of distance education or correspondence courses except that an agency that has or seeks to 

include either type of program within the scope of recognition must define “distance education” and 

“correspondence courses” in accordance with the definitions in 34 CFR 600.2 and in a manner that 

clearly distinguishes between the types of delivery.

Comment [A15]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: 

Institutions that seek accreditation to demonstrate 

institutional quality, but that do not participate in 

title IV, are not required to meet accreditation 

standards associated with title IV participation.

Comment [A16]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: 

Regular and substantive is defined elsewhere. The 

Department is interested in feedback regarding 

whether this language should be deleted if the 

Distance Learning and Educational Innovation 

Subcommittee and Main Committee ultimately 

decide to have the Department, rather than 

accrediting agencies, define these terms in 600.2.
10

(e) If none of the institutions an agency accredits participates in any title IV, HEA program, or if the 

agency only accredits programs within institutions that are accredited by a nationally recognized 

institutional accrediting agency, the agency is not required to have the accreditation standards 

described in paragraphs (a)(1)(viii) and (a)(1)(x) of this section. 

(f) An agency that has established and applies the standards in paragraph (a) of this section may 

establish any additional accreditation standards it deems appropriate. 

(g) Nothing in paragraph (a) of this section restricts--

(1) An accrediting agency from setting, with the involvement of its members, and applying 

accreditation standards for or to institutions or programs that seek review by the agency; 

(2) An institution from developing and using institutional standards to show its success with 

respect to student achievement, which achievement may be considered as part of any accreditation 

review;

(3) Agencies from having different governance requirements for approving curricular changes to

programs preparing students for employment in a specific field or occupation in order to enable 

programs to more effectively meet the recommendations or requirements of--

(i) Industry advisory boards that include employers who hire program graduates; 

(ii) Widely recognized industry standards and organizations;

(iii) Credentialing or other occupational registration or licensure; or

(iv) Employers in a given field or occupation in making hiring decisions.

Directed Questions:

1. The Department seeks recommendations from negotiators about when and how agencies 

should be allowed to grant waivers to institutions, such as to support innovation or in situations 

where an institution cannot reasonably be expected to comply with a given standard or requires for 

good cause additional time to come into compliance; when an institution is serving as a teach-out 

provider to students at a closed or closing institution; when state or local occupational licensing 

requirements are inconsistent with accreditation requirements; in the event of a natural disaster or 

catastrophic circumstance; to support innovation; or under other reasonable circumstances. Should 

institutions meet minimum performance requirements (such as no outstanding program reviews, 

sufficient financial responsibility scores, or student outcomes) in order to qualify for waivers for the 

purpose of experimenting with educational innovations?

2. The Department also seeks recommendations from negotiators on how it could discourage or 

prevent accreditors from aligning with state licensing bodies or other vocational credentialing boards 

to exclude the licensure of individuals who prepare for work through apprenticeship, the military, or 

other work-based learning pathways, and to prevent accreditors from responding to efforts to expand 

or elevate credentials that serve as minimum requirements for licensure or certification. 

3. The Department also seeks the advice of negotiators on how to ensure that transfer of credits 

remain the decision of institutions, but disallow institutions from categorically denying credits from 

Comment [A17]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department hears frequently from employers that 

colleges and universities are not responsive to 

rapidly changing workforce needs due to faculty 

governance models that often favor the status quo, 

make changes slowly when changes are made at all, 

and , and lack knowledge of current industry 

practices. While faculty may prefer models 

providing them with significant decision-making 

authority, there is nothing in statute or regulation 

that requires this to be the primary or only 

governance model acceptable to agencies. The 

Department wishes to encourage agencies to accept 

multiple governance models, including those that 

are more responsive to employer needs. 

The Department is concerned that many high 

quality workforce preparation programs currently 

reside in the non-credit and continuing education 

divisions of colleges and universities. Many have 

asserted that this less-than-ideal work-around is 

necessary to avoid the lengthy, burdensome, and 

unforgiving requirements of traditional faculty 

approval. In addition, campus leaders tell us that 

faculty pay scales in their regular academic 

programs are insufficient to allow the institution to 

hire individuals with exceptional technical skills, but 

not traditional academic credentials. These 

arrangements significantly disadvantage students 

and employers because college credits are not 

conferred to provide evidence of student learning, 

and often taxpayer subsidies are not extended to 

non-credit programs, which makes them much 

more expensive than programs offered for credit. 

These artificial and unnecessary barriers harm 

students and underserve employers, but they lack 

any basis in federal statute or regulation. 
11

national accreditors if the courses completed by the student are in alignment with those offered by 

the accepting institution.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1845-0003) 

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

[ 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55427, Oct. 27, 2009]

§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; and

(2) Is successful in achieving its stated objectives;

(b) Requires the institution or program to engage in a self-study process that assesses the 

institution’s or program’s educational quality and success in meeting its educational quality objectives

highlights opportunities for improvement and includes a plan for making those improvements to meet 

the institution’s or program’s educational quality objectives; 

(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 onsite 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 information substantiated by the agency from other sources to determine 

whether the institution or program complies with the agency's standards; 

(f) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written report that assesses the institution's 

or program's compliance with the agency's standards, including areas needing improvement, andthe 

institution's or program's performance with respect to student achievement; and

NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The Department seeks advice from negotiators on how to ensure continuous 

improvement and rigorous outcomes, while at the same time avoiding one-size-fits-all solutions that

fail to appropriately account for differences in institutional mission, occupational pathways, or the 

accountability that students have for their own success. The Department seeks to ensure that it, and 

NACIQI, does not violate the statutory prohibitions on dictating student achievement standards, while 

at the same time requiring institutions to achieve strong outcomes.

Comment [A18]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department is concerned that accreditation has 

become too focused on paperwork submission and 

bureaucracy with significant implications for the 

cost of and ability to innovate within postsecondary 

education. We propose to refocus accreditation on 

institutional mission, academic opportunity and 

rigor, and the student experience. 

The rising cost of accreditation is especially acute 

for small colleges, which must spend hundreds of 

thousands of dollars on consultants to prepare for

accreditation reviews, site visits, and other 

requirements for maintaining accreditation. We 

also hear complaints that in many instances, the 

individuals who serve as peer reviewers have no 

experience at an institution like the one they are 

visiting – perhaps because small rural institutions 

cannot afford to participate in accreditation 

activities that take them away from their campuses 

and students

Bureaucratic assessment models that employ the 

use of complicated rubrics and expensive tracking 

and reporting software further adds to the cost of 

accreditation. The Department does not believe that 

assessment regimes should be so highly prescriptive 

or that institutions or programs should feel the need 

to hire outside consultants to take the superficial 

steps that sometimes seem necessary to maintain 

accreditation. Rather than a one-size-fits-all 

method for review, the Department believes that 

peer reviewers should be more open to evaluating 

the materials an institution or program presents, 

and considering them in the context of the 

...

Comment [A19]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department and the Advisory Committee have, for 

too many years, pressured some agencies into 

adopting one-size-fits-all standards to evaluate 

institutions and programs, despite the fact that 

many have different missions and purposes, serve 

different populations of students, and emphasize 

different purposes of higher education (e.g., 

workforce preparation, character development, 

higher level problem-solving, research productivity, 

arts and humanities, or scholarly study). Not only 

does the HEA prohibit the Department from 

regulating student achievement standards, it also 

disallows the Secretary from requiring agencies to 

employ bright-line standards. A single standard

might not serve as a valid quality measure for a 

welding program, a nursing program and a social 

work program. Similarly, a single standard may be 

ineffective in comparing employment outcomes for 

students who have different goals and ambitions or 

who live in different parts of the country. 

Bright-line standards that do not take into account 

the many variables that impact student outcomes, 

may lack scientific rigor and validity, and may 

essentially allow institutional selectivity to be the 

driver of quality assessments. The Department is 

more interested in evaluating the value proposition 

of an institution or program, which requires a more 

sophisticated analysis that takes into account the 

many variables that affect student outcomes. 
12

(g) Requires institutions to have processes in place through which the institution establishes that 

the student who registers in any course, including a distance education or correspondence course or 

program, is the same student who participates in and completes the course or program and receives the 

academic credit. The agency meets this requirement if it—

(1) Requires institutions to verify the identity of a student who participates in classes, takes exams,

or submits assignments by using, at the option of the institution, methods such as--

(i) A secure login and pass code or electronic badging systems; 

(ii) Photo identification issued by a State or Federal agency, a foreign government, or the 

institution;

(iii) Proctored examinations; or

(iv) New or other technologies and practices that are effective in verifying student identity; and 

(2) Makes clear in writing that institutions must use processes that protect student privacy and 

notify students of any projected additional student charges associated with the verification of student 

identity at the time of registration or enrollment. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b) [ 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55427, Oct. 27, 2009]

§602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making.

The agency must consistently apply and enforce standards that respect the stated mission of the 

institution, including religious mission, and that ensure that the education or training offered by an 

institution or program, including any offered through distance education, correspondence courses, or 

direct assessment education, is of sufficient quality to achieve its stated objective for the duration of any 

accreditation or preaccreditation period. The agency meets this requirement if the agency—

(a) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written report that clearly identifies any 

deficiencies in the institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards;

(b) At the request of an institution, performs a review of the agency’s respect for the institution’s 

religious mission and provides a written report of the results of that review; 

(c) Does not deny preaccreditation or accreditation, or take action against an institution or 

program, due to an institution’s adherence to its religious mission in any of its policies and practices; 

and 

(d) Publishes any policies for retroactive application of an accreditation decision. 

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

[ 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55427, Oct. 27, 2009]

§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. 

Comment [A20]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: 

Because students enrolled at public or non-profit 

institutions may participate in title IV programs once 

the institution or program is preaccredited, it is 

important for those students to benefit from an 

affirmative final accreditation decision, even if it 

isn’t made until after the student completes a 

program. As long as the student was enrolled in the 

institution or program during the period of 

preaccreditation that resulted in the final decision, 

all credits earned during that enrollment are 

considered to have been earned from an accredited 

institution or program. Some agencies require up to 

five years of preaccreditation prior to a final 

accreditation decision, require a cohort of students 

to graduate from the program before a final 

accreditation decision will be made, or require an 

institution to undergo an extensive review 

subsequent to an approved change of control. 

Therefore, it is necessary for those agencies to 

retroactively award accreditation to ensure that the 

student’s interests are served and that taxpayer 

dollars used to support the student’s enrollment will 

enable the student to work and repay their student 

loans. 

Without retroactive accreditation, new institutions 

or programs would be required to graduate at least 

one cohort of students from a program, even 

though students who completed the program would 

have no chance of having their credential 

recognized as accredited. This would be 

irresponsible for an institution to do and unfair for 

the students who may unwittingly go through such 

an program. 

In 2017, the Department issued an announcement 

that retroactive accreditation was impermissible. 

The Department rescinded that guidance in 2018 

and now wishes to codify the permissibility of 

retroactive accreditation in regulation. 
13

(b) The agency must demonstrate it has, and effectively applies, monitoring and evaluation 

approaches that enable the agency to identify problems with an institution's or program's continued 

compliance with agency standards and that take into account institutional or program strengths and 

stability. These approaches must include periodic reports and collection and analysis of key data and 

indicators identified by the agency, including, but not limited to, fiscal information and measures of 

student achievement, consistent with the provisions of §602.16(f). This provision does not require 

institutions or programs to provide annual reports on each specific accreditation criterion.

(c) Each agency must monitor overall growth of the institutions or programs it accredits and, at 

least annually, collect headcount enrollment data from those institutions or programs. 

(d) Institutional accrediting agencies must monitor the growth of programs at institutions 

experiencing significant enrollment growth, as reasonably defined by the agency. 

(e) Any agency that has notified the Secretary of a change in its scope in accordance with § 

602.27(a)(4) must monitor the headcount enrollment of each institution it has accredited that offers 

distance education or correspondence courses. The Secretary will require a review, at the next meeting 

of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, of any change in scope 

undertaken by an agency if the enrollment of an institution that offers distance education or 

correspondence courses that is accredited by such agency increases by 50 percent or more within any 

one institutional fiscal year. If any such institution has experienced an increase in headcount enrollment 

of 50 percent or more within one institutional fiscal year, the agency must report that information to the 

Secretary within 30 days of acquiring such data. 

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

[ 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55427, Oct. 27, 2009]

§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) Have and follow a written policy for notifying the institution or program of the finding, provide

sufficient opportunity for the institution or program to respond to that finding, and requiring the 

submission and approval of additional information, a compliance report, or a monitoring report, or a 

combination thereof, to demonstrate the institution’s progress toward or success in achieving 

compliance;

(2) Have a written policy explaining the circumstances under which the agency will initiate an 

immediate adverse action;

(3) Have a written policy to evaluate and approve or disapprove monitoring or compliance reports 

it requires, to provide ongoing monitoring if warranted, and to evaluate an institution’s or program’s 

progress in resolving the finding of noncompliance;

(4) Provide the institution or program with a written timeline for coming into compliance that is 

reasonable, as determined by the agency’s decision-making body, based on the nature of the finding,

Comment [A21]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: This 

is a statutory provision.

Comment [A22]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: 

While agencies should be permitted to take 

immediate adverse action against an institution or 

program, doing so is almost never in the best 

interest of students. Students’ interests are best 

served when institutions or programs have time to 

implement a teach-out plan, enter into teach-out 

agreements with other institutions or programs, and 

help students move to a new institution to complete 

their programs. For students close to completion, it 

may be preferable to complete the program prior to 

the implementation of the adverse action. 

Oftentimes, institutions lose accreditation due to 

financial instability, not insufficient academic quality 

or institutional integrity. In such cases, it may cause 

unnecessary harm to students to force an institution 

into a precipitous closure. Therefore, the 

Department wishes to provide discretion to the 

agency to make a decision about the timing of an 

adverse action, based on the nature of the 

deficiency and the condition of the institution and 

its academic programs. 

Meaningful academic improvement may be difficult 

within a 12-month period of time. Changes 

requiring faculty approval and implementation, 

changes in admissions standards, and improved 

employment outcomes all may require entire 

cohorts of students to matriculate. Accreditors 

should ensure progress towards these goals, but 

cannot expect genuine, meaningful change to occur 

within 12 months.
14

the time it would reasonably take to come into compliance, and the stated mission and educational 

objectives of the institution or program. The timeline may include intermediate checkpoints on the way 

to full compliance; and

(5) Have and follow a written policy describing the process and criteria for requesting and being 

granted a good-cause extension of the timeline.

(b) If the institution or program does not bring itself into compliance within the period specified by 

the agency, including under paragraph (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section, the agency must take immediate 

adverse action against the institution or program, but may award a good cause extension if 

circumstances warrant such a decision, and may continue accreditation or preaccreditation for a 

sufficient amount of time to enable the institution or program to develop and implement a teach-out 

plan that provides the opportunity for students near completion of their program to do so and others to 

transfer to a new institution or program. 

(c) An agency that accredits institutions may limit the adverse or other action to particular 

programs that are offered by the institution or to particular additional locations of an institution, 

without necessarily taking action against the entire institution and all of its programs, provided the 

noncompliance was limited to that particular program or location. 

(d) All adverse actions taken under this subpart are subject to the arbitration requirements in 20 

U.S.C. 1099b(e).

(e) An agency is not responsible for enforcing requirements in 34 CFR 668.14, 668.15, 668.16, 

668.41, or 668.46, but if in the course of an agency’s work it identifies instances or potential instances of 

non-compliance with any of these requirements, it must notify the Department.

(f) The Secretary may not require an agency to take action against an institution or program that 

does not participate in any title IV, HEA or other Federal programs as a result of a requirement specified 

in this chapter.

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

§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 educational or training needs of students. 

(b) Before finalizing any changes to its standards, the agency must--

(1) Provide notice to all of the agency's relevant constituencies, and other parties who have made 

their interest known to the agency, 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 and respond to any comments on the proposed changes submitted timely by 

the relevant constituencies and by other interested parties..

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

Comment [A23]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department is clarifying that title IV compliance 

reviews are the responsibility of the Department, 

not agencies. However, if in the course of an 

accreditation review an agency identifies a 

deficiency or lack of compliance with a title IV 

requirement, it must report that deficiency to the 

Department. 

Comment [A24]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS:

The removal of this section is intended to provide 

more flexibility for an agency to devise its standards 

without undue interference from the Department. 

The Department continues to have the authority, 

however, to review the agency’s policies and 

procedures to ensure that they are sufficient for 

meeting the Department’s requirements. 

It is reasonable to believe that agencies may need to 

review the adequacy of their standards, policies and 

processes on different timelines, based on the 

number and kinds of institutions or programs they 

accredit. It may also be more effective for an 

agency to review a portion of its standards each 

year rather than performing a comprehensive 

review at longer or shorter intervals. 
15

Required Operating Policies and Procedures

§602.22 Substantive changes and other reporting requirements.

(a) If the agency accredits institutions, it must maintain adequate substantive change policies that 

ensure that any substantive change to the institution’s mission or programs 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 covers high-impact, high-risk changes, including 

at least the following--

(i) Any substantial change in the established mission or objectives of the institution or its programs,

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

(ii) The addition of programs that represent a significant departure from the existing offerings or

educational programs, or method of delivery, from those that were offered when the agency last 

evaluated the institution.

(iii) The addition of graduate programs by an institution that previously offered only undergraduate 

programs or certificates.

(iv) A change in the way an institution measures student progress, such as whether the institution

measures progress in clock hours or credit-hours, semesters, trimesters, or quarters; uses term or nonterm programs; or uses time-based or non-time based methods.

(v) The addition of subscription programs.

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

the level of credential awarded, for successful completion of one or more programs.

(vii) The acquisition of any other institution or any program or location of another institution.

(viii) The addition of a permanent location at a site at which the institution is conducting a teachout for students of another institution that has ceased operating before all students have completed 

their program of study.

(ix) The addition of each new location or branch campus, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section. The agency’s review shall include assessment of the institution’s fiscal and administrative 

capability to operate the location or branch, the regular evaluation of locations, and verification of the 

following:

(A) Academic control is clearly identified by the institution;
16

(B) The institution has adequate faculty, facilities, resources, and academic and student support

systems in place;

(C) The institution is financially stable; and

(D) The institution has engaged in long-range planning for expansion; and

(x) Entering into a written arrangement under 34 CFR 668.5 under which an institution or 

organization not certified to participate in the title IV, HEA programs offers more than 50 percent of one 

or more of the accredited institution's educational programs. 

(b)(1) Institutions that have been placed on a show-cause directive, have been subject to a

negative action by the agency over the prior three academic years, or are subject to sanction by the 

Department, must receive approval for the following additional substantive changes (all other 

institutions must simply report these changes within 30 days to their accrediting agency):

(i) A change in an existing program’s method of delivery.

(ii) A change of 25 percent or more of a program since the agency’s most recent prior review.

(iii) The development of customized pathways or abbreviated or modified courses or programs to–

(A) Accommodate and recognize a student’s existing knowledge, such as knowledge attained 

through employment or military service; and

(B) Close competency gaps between demonstrated prior knowledge (or competency) and the full 

requirements of a particular course or program.

(iv) Entering into a written arrangement under 34 CFR 668.5 wherein an institution or organization 

not certified to participate in the title IV, HEA programs offers more than 50 percent but less than 75

percent of one or more of the accredited institution's educational programs.

(2) Institutions that have received agency approval for the addition of a first additional location or 

branch campus as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this section, that have not been placed on a showcause directive or been subject to a negative action by the agency over the prior three academic years, 

and that are not subject to sanction by the Department, need not apply for agency approval of 

subsequent additions of locations and branches, and may simply report these changes to the accrediting 

agency within 30 days, if the institution has met criteria established by the agency indicating sufficient 

capacity to add additional locations without individual prior approvals, including at a minimum 

satisfactory evidence of a system to ensure quality across a distributed enterprise that includes—

(i) Clearly identified academic control;

(ii) Regular evaluation of the locations;

(iii) Adequate faculty, facilities, resources, and academic and student support systems;

(iv) Financial stability; and

Comment [A25]: The Innovation Subcommittee 

is working to develop recommendations regarding 

written arrangements (see 668.5 and the 

Department’s description of written agreements, 

which explains a number of scenarios under which 

written agreements may improve educational 

opportunities or reduce costs to students or 

institutions).
17

(v) Long-range planning for expansion.

(c) The agency must have an effective mechanism for conducting, at reasonable intervals, visits to a 

representative sample of additional locations approved under paragraphs (a)(2)(vii) and (a)(2)(viii) of 

this section. 

(d) The agency may determine the procedures it uses to grant prior approval of the substantive

change. 

(e) 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 

that is not a branch campus where at least 50 percent of an educational program is offered must 

provide for

(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 the additional location is meeting all of 

the agency standards that apply to that additional location; 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) A mechanism for conducting, at reasonable intervals, visits to a representative sample of 

additional locations of institutions that operate more than three additional locations; and 

(3) A 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. 

(f) The purpose of the visits described in paragraph (e) 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) 

[ 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55428, Oct. 27, 2009]

§602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.

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

preaccreditation, or substantive changes and the sequencing of those steps relative to any applications 

or decisions required by or from States or the Department relative to the agency’s preaccreditation, 

accreditation, or substantive change decisions; 

Comment [A26]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department has identified a number of instances in 

which confusion about the sequencing of approvals 

has jeopardized the continuation of accreditation. 

These instances have been identified relating to the 

addition of new programs, the addition of new 

locations, the establishment of a branch campus, 

and change of control. We believe that the agency 

should provide a clear timeline of approvals 

required for an institution to make a substantive 

change. 
18

(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) A list of 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 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. The agency may not 

complete its review and make a decision regarding a complaint unless, in accordance with published 

procedures, it ensures that the institution or program has sufficient opportunity to provide a response 

to the complaint; 

(2) Take follow-up action, as necessary, including enforcement action, if necessary, based on the 

results of its review; and 

(3) Review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner, and apply unbiased judgment to, any complaints 

against itself 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 and contact information for the agency. 

(e) The accrediting agency must provide for the public correction of incorrect or misleading 

information an accredited or preaccredited institution or program releases about--

(1) The accreditation or preaccreditation status of the institution or program; 

(2) The contents of reports of on-site reviews; and 

(3) The agency's accrediting or preaccrediting actions with respect to the institution or program. 

(f) The agency may establish any additional operating procedures it deems appropriate. At the 

agency's discretion, these may include unannounced inspections. 
19

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1845-0003) 

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

[ 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55428, Oct. 27, 2009]

§602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional agencies 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. The agency must require the institution to notify the agency if it plans to 

establish a branch campus or additional location, and to submit a business plan for the branch campus

or additional location that describes—

(1) The educational program to be offered at the branch campus or additional location; and

(2) The projected revenues and expenditures and cash flow at the branch campus.

(b) Site visits. The agency must undertake a site visit to a new branch campus or additional location,

or following a change of ownership, as soon as practicable, but no later than six months after the 

establishment of that campus or additional location or the change of ownership. 

(c) Teach-out plans and agreements.

(1) The agency must require an institution it accredits or preaccredits to submit a teach-out plan to 

the agency for approval upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 

(i) The Secretary notifies the agency that the Secretary has initiated an emergency action against 

an institution, in accordance with section 487(c)(1)(G) of the HEA, or an action to limit, suspend, or 

terminate an institution participating in any title IV, HEA program, in accordance with section 

487(c)(1)(F) of the HEA, and that a teach-out plan is required. 

(ii) The agency acts to withdraw, terminate, or suspend the accreditation or preaccreditation of the 

institution. 

(iii) The institution notifies the agency that it intends to cease operations entirely or close a 

location that provides one hundred percent of at least one program, including if the location is being 

moved (which, depending upon State requirements, may or may not be treated as a teach-out or closed 

school).

(iv) A State licensing or authorizing agency notifies the agency that an institution's license or legal 

authorization to provide an educational program has been or will be revoked. 

(2) The agency must evaluate the teach-out plan to ensure it includes a list of academic programs 

offered by the institution, and the names of other institutions that offer similar programs and that could 

potentially enter into a teach-out agreement with the institution.

(3) If the agency approves a teach-out plan that includes a program that is accredited by another 

recognized accrediting agency, it must notify that accrediting agency of its approval. 

Comment [A27]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department seeks to clarify that moving to a new 

location may or may not be considered a teach-out 

or closure, depending upon agency and State 

requirements regarding travel distance between 

campuses, and access to public transportation lines, 

etc.

Comment [A28]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department has learned through recent teach-out 

experiences that, while teach-out agreements 

cannot be executed until an institution has formally 

entered into a teach-out, it is important to know 

which institutions may have comparable programs 

that would enable those institutions to serve as 

potential teach-out partners.
20

(4) The agency may require an institution it accredits or preaccredits to enter into a teach-out 

agreement as part of its teach-out plan. 

(5) The agency must require an institution it accredits or preaccredits that enters into a teach-out 

agreement, either on its own or at the request of the agency, to submit that teach-out agreement for 

approval. The agency may approve the teach-out agreement only if the agreement is consistent with 

applicable standards and regulations, and provides for the equitable treatment of students by ensuring 

that the institution accepting students through the teach-out agreement--

(i) Has the necessary experience, resources, and support services to provide an educational 

program that is of acceptable quality and reasonably similar in content, delivery modality, and 

scheduling to that provided by the institution that is ceasing operations either entirely or at one of its 

locations; however, while an online option may be made available to students enrolled in a closing 

ground-based program, such an option is not sufficient unless ground-based options are also provided; 

(ii) Is able to remain stable, carry out its mission, and meet all obligations to existing students;

(iii) Has not been subject to show cause, probation, or an equivalent action by the agency during

the prior two years, unless the action was rescinded by the agency or resolved by the institution to the 

satisfaction of the agency; and 

(iv) Demonstrates that it can provide students access to the program and services without 

requiring them to move or travel for substantial distances or durations and that it will provide students 

with information about additional charges, if any. 

(d) Closed institution. If an institution the agency accredits or preaccredits closes without a teachout plan or agreement, the agency must work with the Department and the appropriate State agency, to 

the extent feasible, to assist students in finding reasonable opportunities to complete their education 

without additional charges. 

(e) Transfer of credit policies. The accrediting agency must confirm, as part of its review for initial 

accreditation or preaccreditation, or renewal of accreditation, that the institution has transfer of credit 

policies that are publicly disclosed in accordance with 34 CFR 668.43(a)(11).

(f) Agency designations. In its accrediting practice, the agency must--

(1) Adopt and apply the definitions of “branch campus” and “additional location” in 34 CFR 600.2; 

(2) On the Secretary’s request, conform its designations of an institution’s branches and additional 

locations with the Secretary’s if it learns its designations diverge; and

(3) Ensure that it does not accredit or preaccredit an institution comprising fewer than all of the 

programs, branches, and locations of an institution as certified for title IV participation by the Secretary, 

except with notice to and permission from the Secretary.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1845-0003) 

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

[ 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55428, Oct. 27, 2009; 75 FR 66947, Oct. 29, 2010]

Comment [A29]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department believes that it must clarify that it is 

insufficient to limit a teach-out plan or teach-out 

agreements to providers that offer programs using a 

different instructional modality than the closing 

institution. For example, students enrolled in a 

ground-based program may be offered the 

opportunity to complete the program online, but 

must also be offered the opportunity to complete 

the program at another institution that will provide 

a ground-based opportunity. An online program 

must include, among potential teach-out options, 

other online programs that are similar to the 

program being taught out. 

Comment [A30]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department believes that it is important for 

students involved in a teach-out or campus closure 

to be provided with teach-out options at institutions 

or programs that can accommodate the additional 

students, help them through the transition between 

campuses, and will be likely to be operational until 

the student can complete his or her program. 
21

§602.25 Due process.

The agency must demonstrate that the procedures it uses throughout the accrediting process satisfy 

due process. The agency meets this requirement if the agency does the following: 

(a) Provides adequate written specification of its requirements, including clear standards, for an 

institution or program to be accredited or preaccredited. 

(b) Uses procedures that afford an institution or program a reasonable period of time to comply 

with the agency's requests for information and documents. 

(c) Provides written specification of any deficiencies identified at the institution or program 

examined. 

(d) Provides sufficient opportunity for a written response by an institution or program regarding 

any deficiencies identified by the agency, to be considered by the agency within a timeframe 

determined by the agency, and before any adverse action is taken. 

(e) Notifies the institution or program in writing of any adverse accrediting action or an action to 

place the institution or program on probation or show cause. The notice describes the basis for the 

action. 

(f) Provides an opportunity, upon written request of an institution or program, for the institution or 

program to appeal any adverse action prior to the action becoming final. 

(1) The appeal must take place at a hearing before an appeals panel that--

(i) May not include current members of the agency's decision-making body that took the initial 

adverse action; 

(ii) Is subject to a conflict of interest policy; 

(iii) Does not serve only an advisory or procedural role, and has and uses the authority to make the 

following decisions: to affirm, amend, remand, or reverse adverse actions of the original decisionmaking body; and 

(iv) Affirms, amends, reverses, or remands the adverse action. A decision to affirm, amend, or 

reverse the adverse action is implemented by the appeals panel or by the original decision-making body, 

at the agency's option; however, in the event of a decision to remand the adverse action to the original 

decision-making body for further consideration, the appeals panel must explain the basis for a decision 

that differs from that of the original decision-making body and the original decision-making body in a 

remand must act in a manner consistent with the appeals panel's decisions or instructions. 

(2) The agency must recognize the right of the institution or program to employ counsel to 

represent the institution or program during its appeal, including to make any presentation that the 

agency permits the institution or program to make on its own during the appeal. 

(g) The agency notifies the institution or program in writing of the result of its appeal and the basis 

for that result. 
22

(h) (1) The agency must provide for a process, in accordance with written procedures, through 

which an institution or program may, before the agency reaches a final adverse action decision, seek 

review of new financial information if all of the following conditions are met: 

(i) The financial information was unavailable to the institution or program until after the decision 

subject to appeal was made. 

(ii) The financial information is significant and bears materially on the financial deficiencies 

identified by the agency. The criteria of significance and materiality are determined by the agency. 

(iii) The only remaining deficiency cited by the agency in support of a final adverse action decision 

is the institution's or program's failure to meet an agency standard pertaining to finances. 

(2) An institution or program may seek the review of new financial information described in 

paragraph (h)(1) of this section only once and any determination by the agency made with respect to 

that review does not provide a basis for an appeal. 

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

[ 74 FR 55429, Oct. 27, 2009]

§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—

...

(c) Provides written notice to the public of the decisions listed in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and 

(b)(3) of this section within one business day 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, no later than 60 days after the 

decision, a brief statement summarizing the reasons for the agency's decision and the official comments 

that the affected institution or program may wish to make with regard to that decision, or evidence that 

the affected institution has been offered the opportunity to provide official comment. 

(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 3 business days 

of receiving notification from the institution or program that it is withdrawing voluntarily from 

accreditation or preaccreditation; or 

(2) Lets its accreditation or preaccreditation lapse, within 3 business days of the date on which 

accreditation or preaccreditation lapses. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1845-0003) 
23

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

[ 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 55429, Oct. 27, 2009]

§602.27 Other information an agency must provide the Department.

(a) The agency must submit to the Department—

(1) A copy, updated annually, of its list of accredited and preaccredited institutions and programs; 

(2) 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; 

(3) Any proposed change in the agency's policies, procedures, or accreditation or preaccreditation 

standards that might alter its--

(i) Scope of recognition, except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section; or 

(ii) Compliance with the criteria for recognition; 

(4) Notification that the agency has expanded its scope of recognition to include distance 

education or correspondence courses as provided in section 496(a)(4)(B)(i)(I) of the HEA. Such an 

expansion of scope is effective on the date the Department receives the notification; 

(5) 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 

(6) 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. 

(b) If an agency has a policy regarding notification to an institution or program of contact with the 

Department in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) or (a)(6) of this section, it must provide for a case-bycase review of the circumstances surrounding the contact, and the need for the confidentiality of that 

contact. Upon a specific request by the Department citing what the Department considers to be a 

compelling need for confidentiality, such as a matter relating to a criminal investigation, the agency 

must consider that contact confidential. 

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

[ 74 FR 55430, Oct. 27, 2009]

§602.28 Regard for decisions of States and other accrediting agencies.

...

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1845-0003) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)
24

Subpart C—The Recognition Process

SOURCE: 74 FR 55430, Oct. 27, 2009, unless otherwise noted.

Application and Review by Department Staff

§602.30 [Reserved]

§602.31 Agency submissions to the Department.

(a) Applications for recognition or renewal of recognition. An accrediting agency seeking initial or 

continued recognition must submit a written application to the Secretary. Each accrediting agency must 

submit an application for continued recognition at least once every five years, or within a shorter time 

period specified in the final recognition decision. The application must consist of—

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

(2) Documentation, as specified in the Recognition Handbook for the year as posted on the 

Department’s website, that the agency complies with the criteria for recognition listed in subpart B of 

this part; and

(3) Evidence, including documentation, of how an agency that includes or seeks to include distance 

education or correspondence courses in its scope of recognition applies its standards in evaluating 

programs and institutions it accredits that offer distance education or correspondence courses.

(b) Applications for expansions of scope. An agency seeking an expansion of scope by application 

must submit a written application to the Secretary. The application must—

(1) Specify the scope requested;

(2) Provide copies of any relevant standards, policies, or procedures developed and applied by the 

agency for its use in accrediting activities conducted within the expansion of scope proposed and 

documentation of the application of these standards, policies, or procedures; and

(3) Provide the materials required by § 602.32(h)(1).

(c) Compliance or monitoring reports. If an agency is required to submit a compliance or 

monitoring report, it must do so within 30 days following the end of the period for achieving compliance 

as specified in the decision of the senior Department official or Secretary, as applicable.

(d) Review following an increase in headcount enrollment. If an agency that has notified the 

Secretary in writing of its change in scope to include distance education or correspondence courses in 

accordance with §602.27(a)(4) reports an increase in headcount enrollment in accordance with 

§602.19(e) for an institution it accredits, or if the Department notifies the agency of such an increase at 

one of the agency's accredited institutions, the agency must, within 45 days of reporting the increase or 

receiving notice of the increase from the Department, as applicable, submit a report explaining—

(1) How the agency evaluates the capacity of the institutions or programs it accredits to 

accommodate significant growth in enrollment and to maintain educational quality;

(2) The specific circumstances regarding the growth at the institution(s) or programs(s) that 

triggered the review and the results of any evaluation conducted by the agency; and
25

(3) Any other information that the agency deems appropriate to demonstrate the effective 

application of the criteria for recognition.

(e) Consent to sharing of information. By submitting an application for recognition, the agency 

authorizes Department staff throughout the application process and during any period of recognition—

(1) To observe its site visits to one or more of the institutions or programs it accredits or 

preaccredits, on an announced or unannounced basis;

(2) To visit locations where agency activities such as training, review and evaluation panel 

meetings, and decision meetings take place, on an announced or unannounced basis;

(3) To obtain copies of all documents the staff deems necessary to complete its review of the 

agency; and

(4) To gain access to agency records, personnel, and facilities.

(f) Public availability of agency records obtained by the Department. (1) The Secretary's processing 

and decision making on requests for public disclosure of agency materials reviewed under this part are 

governed by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905; the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C 552a; the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appdx. 1; 

and all other applicable laws. In recognition proceedings, agencies must, before submission to the 

Department—

(i) Redact the names and any other personally identifiable information about individual students 

and any other individuals who are not agents of the agency or of an institution the agency is reviewing;

(ii) Redact the personal addresses, personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, Social 

Security numbers, and any other personally identifiable information regarding individuals who are acting 

as agents of the agency or of an institution under review;

(iii) Designate all business information within agency submissions that the agency believes would 

be exempt from disclosure under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(4). A blanket designation of all information contained within a submission, or of a category of 

documents, as meeting this exemption will not be considered a good faith effort and will be 

disregarded; and

(iv) Ensure documents submitted are only those required for Department review or as requested 

by Department officials.

(2) The agency may, but is not required to, redact the identities of institutions that it believes are 

not essential to the Department’s review of the agency and may identify any other material the agency 

believes would be exempt from public disclosure under FOIA, the factual basis for the request, and any 

legal basis the agency has identified for withholding the document from public disclosure.

(3) The Secretary processes FOIA requests in accordance with 34 CFR part 5 and makes all 

documents provided to the Advisory Committee available to the public.

(4) Upon request by Department staff, the agency must disclose to Department staff any specific 

material the agency has redacted that Department staff believes is needed to conduct the staff review. 

Department staff will make any arrangements needed to ensure that the materials are not made public 

if prohibited by law. 

Comment [A31]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: 

Given the increase in Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) requests, the Department must require 

agencies to redact personally identifiable

information (PII) and other sensitive information 

prior to sending the documents to the Department 

to ensure that sensitive information is protected 

from public disclosure. 
26

(g) Length of submissions. The Secretary may publish in the Recognition Handbook posted for the 

year on the Department’s website reasonable, uniform limits on the length of submissions described in 

this section.

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

§602.32 Procedures for Department review of applications for recognition or 

for change in scope and increases in enrollment.

(a) (1) An agency preparing for renewing recognition will submit, 24 months prior to the date on 

which the current recognition expires--

(i) A list of all institutions or programs that the agency plans to consider for an award of initial 

recognition or renewed recognition over the next year or, if none, over the succeeding year, as well as 

any institutions or programs currently subject to compliance report review or reporting requirements. 

An agency that does not anticipate a review of any institution for an initial award of recognition or 

renewed recognition in the 24 months prior to the date of recognition expiration may submit a list of 

institutions or programs it has reviewed for an initial award of accreditation or renewal of accreditation 

at any time since the prior award of recognition or leading up to the application for an initial award of 

recognition; and

(ii) The agency’s application for initial or renewed recognition, as defined in §602.31(a), to 

include a copy of the agency’s policies and procedures manual, and its accreditation standards. 

(2) Department staff publishes a notice of the agency's submission of an 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.

(b) Department staff analyzes the agency's application for initial or renewal of recognition, 

including the documentation identified in the Recognition Handbook for the year posted on the 

Department’s website, to determine whether the agency satisfies the criteria for recognition, taking into 

account all available relevant information concerning the compliance of the agency with those criteria 

and the agency's consistency in applying the criteria. The analysis of an application for recognition 

includes—

(1) Observations from site visit(s), on an announced or unannounced basis, to the agency or to a 

location where agency conducts activities such as training, review and evaluation panel meetings, or 

decision meetings;

(2) Observations from site visit(s), on an announced or unannounced basis, to one or more of 

the institutions or programs the agency accredits or preaccredits;

(3) A file review at the agency of documents identified in the Recognition Handbook for the year 

posted on the Department’s website, at which time Department staff may retain copies of documents 

needed for inclusion in the administrative record;

(4) Review of the public comments and other third-party information Department staff receives 

by the established deadline, the agency's responses to the third-party comments, as appropriate, and

any other information Department staff obtains for purposes of evaluating the agency under this part;

and

Comment [A32]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: At 

the suggestion of the Department’s Office of 

Inspector General (Control Number EDOIG/A09R0003), accreditation staff is transitioning 

to a process of randomly selecting agency actions 

and decisions as part of an agency’s initial 

recognition or renewal of recognition review. 

Therefore, the Department needs to know which 

actions and decisions an agency anticipates 

performing in advance of the Department’s review 

period so that it can select from among those 

actions or activities. 
27

(5) Review of complaints or legal actions involving the agency; however, although complaints or 

legal actions brought by a third party against an accredited institution or program may be considered, 

they are not determinative of compliance unless the complaint or legal action results in a final judgment

on the merits by a court or administrative agency.

(c) Department staff analyzes the materials submitted in support of an application for expansion 

of scope to ensure that the agency has the requisite experience, to the extent possible, and policies that 

comply with subpart B of this part, capacity, and performance record to support the request;

(d) Department staff's evaluation of an agency may also include a review of information directly 

related to institutions or programs accredited or preaccredited by the agency relative to their 

compliance with the agency's standards, the effectiveness of the standards, and the agency's application 

of those standards, but must make any and all such materials available to the agency for review and 

comment.

(e) Department staff's evaluation of a compliance report or monitoring report includes review of 

public comments solicited by Department staff in the Federal Register received by the established 

deadline, the agency's responses to the third-party comments, as appropriate, other third-party 

information Department staff receives, and additional information described in paragraphs (b) and (d) 

of this section, as appropriate. 

(f) If, at any point in its evaluation of an agency seeking initial recognition, Department staff 

determines that the agency fails to demonstrate compliance with the basic eligibility requirements in 

§§602.10 through 602.15, the staff—

(1) Returns the agency's application and provides the agency with an explanation of the 

deficiencies that caused staff to take that action; and

(2) Requires that the agency withdraw its application and instructs the agency that it may reapply 

when the agency is able to demonstrate compliance.

(g) Except with respect to an application that has been returned and is withdrawn under paragraph 

(e) of this section, when Department staff completes its evaluation of the agency, the staff—

(1) Prepares a written draft analysis of the agency’s application;

(2) Sends to the agency the draft analysis including any identified areas of potential noncompliance and all third-party comments and complaints, if applicable, and any other materials the 

Department received by the established deadline or is including in its review;

(3) Invites the agency to provide a written response to the draft analysis and third-party comments

or other material included in the review, specifying a deadline that provides at least 180 days for the 

agency's response;

(4) Reviews the response to the draft analysis the agency submits, if any, and prepares the written 

final analysis–

(i) Indicating that the agency is in full compliance, substantial compliance, or non-compliance with 

each recognition standard; and

(ii) Recommending that the senior Department official approve, continue with compliance 

reporting requirements due in 12 months, continue with compliance reporting requirements with a 

deadline in excess of 12 months based on a finding of good cause and extraordinary circumstances, 

Comment [A33]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: This 

provision is intended to codify current practice. The 

Accreditation Group currently accepts such 

documentation as evidence that a new agency will 

meet the federal gatekeeping requirement if 

recognized. 
28

approve with monitoring or other reporting requirements, approve a monitoring report, deny, limit, 

suspend, or terminate recognition; and

(5) Provides to the agency, no later than 30 days before the Advisory Committee meeting, the final 

staff analysis and any other available information provided to the Advisory Committee under §602.34(c).

(h) The agency may request that the Advisory Committee defer acting on an application at that 

Advisory Committee meeting if Department staff fails to provide the agency with the materials 

described, and within the timeframes provided, in paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(5) of this section. If the 

Department staff's failure to send the materials in accordance with the timeframe described in 

paragraph (g)(3) or (g)(5) of this section is due to the failure of the agency to submit reports to the 

Department, other information the Secretary requested, or its response to the draft analysis, by the 

deadline established by the Secretary, the agency forfeits its right to request a deferral of its application.

(h) An agency seeking initial recognition must follow the policies and procedures outlined in 

section (a), but in addition must also submit—

(1) Letters of support for the agency from at least three accredited programs or institutions, 

three educators, and, if appropriate, three employers or practitioners, explaining the role for such an 

agency and the reasons for their support; and

(2) Letters from at least one program or institution that will rely on the agency as its link to a 

Federal program upon recognition of the agency, or intends to seek multiple accreditation which will 

allow it in the future to designate the agency as its Federal link.

(i)(1) An agency seeking an expansion of scope, either as part of the regular renewal of 

recognition process or during a period of recognition, must submit an application to the Secretary, 

separately or as part of the policies and procedures outlined in section (a), that--

(i) States the reason for the expansion of scope request;

(ii) Includes letters from at least three institutions or programs that would seek accreditation 

under one or more of the elements of the expansion of scope;

(iii) Explains how the agency must expand capacity in order to support the expansion of 

scope, if applicable, and, if necessary, how it will do so and how its budget will support that expansion of 

capacity; and

(iv)(A) If the application for initial recognition or expansion of scope includes graduate programs,

or higher credential level programs than the agency has accredited previously, provides letters of 

support from a sample of employers who hire employees in that field or occupation supporting the need 

for the higher or graduate level credential and committing to salaries and wages commensurate with 

the cost of education at the higher or graduate credential level. The agency must also submit a study 

that provides clear and convincing evidence that any shortcomings of current education and training 

programs at the current credential level cannot be resolved through changes in the curriculum at the 

current credential level; 

(B) If the application includes graduate programs among member institutions, demonstrates 

that the agency has in place policies to provide evidence that employers are demanding graduate 

Comment [A34]: NOTE TO NEGOTIATORS: The 

Department is concerned about the growth in 

graduate programs, which increase the cost of 

education and reduce opportunities for low-income 

students in areas where a higher level credential 

might not actually be needed to perform the job 

and wages may not match the added cost of 

additional education. Faculty are naturally inclined 

to want to offer programs at the graduate level and 

professionals are inclined to want to increase the 

prestige of their field. However, it is inappropriate 

to increase credential levels unless there is evidence 

that the needs of the field cannot be met by 

changing curricular requirements at the current 

credential level and that employers will raise wages 

commensurate with the added cost of the higher 

level credential. 
29

credentials of employees in that field, that graduate degrees are necessary, and that salaries paid to 

graduates are commensurate with the added cost of obtaining a higher level credential; and

(C) If the application for initial recognition or expansion of scope includes graduate programs, or 

higher credential level programs than the agency has accredited previously, statements by or on behalf 

of trade associations will not meet the requirements of providing documentation to justify an increased 

credential level or the addition of graduate programs.

(2) If an agency submits an application for expansion of scope, outside of the regular renewal of 

recognition process--

(j) Department staff will—

(A) Analyze the application and provide a written analysis to the agency, to include any areas of 

non-compliance with the Department’s standards, and provide 90 days for the agency to provide 

supplemental information addressing those areas; and

(B) Provide a written recommendation, based on the review of the application and any 

responses provided by the agency to the written analysis, to the senior Department official regarding 

the approval or denial of the application;

(ii) Within 90 days of receiving a recommendation from Department staff, the senior 

Department official will issue a decision regarding the expansion of scope application, including 

approval, approval with conditions, deferral of decision, or denial; and

(iii) The agency will have 30 days to appeal that decision to the Secretary, following the 

procedures in § 602.37.

(3) The agency must notify the Department within 30 days if any institution it accredits that 

offers distance education or correspondence courses increases its enrollment by 50 percent or more 

during any one institutional fiscal year. In such a case, the Secretary will require a review of the agency 

at the next available meeting of the Advisory Committee, based on the documentation provided as 

required in §602.19(e) and follow the process outlined in §602.32(a)-(g). 

(k) The Secretary may view the following as mitigating against accepting an initial, renewed, or 

expanded scope of recognition as proposed by an applicant agency:

(1) Evidence of collaboration by the agency, or any related or affiliated association, with a trade 

association or a State or occupational licensing or certification entity in supporting--

(A) An increase in the level of credential required for graduates to sit for a licensure or 

certification exam without evidence that employers will provide a commensurate increase in wages, or 

other restrictions, to enter the field; or

(B) Barriers that deny individuals who prepare through the military or work-based learning to 

qualify to sit for licensure or certification exams;
30

(2) Documentation that a lower level credential than that for which recognition is sought has 

historically been acceptable for graduates to enter the field, or is currently acceptable to a substantial 

number of employers;

(3) Evidence that institutions or programs accredited by the agency discriminate against credits 

or degrees earned from another institution or program based solely on the geographic scope of the 

recognized accreditor that accredits the institution or program, or without substantial regard to the 

academic content of the courses requested for transfer; or

(4) Evidence that the agency has established standards that reduce opportunities for students in 

secondary schools to participate in or earn credits through a dual or concurrent enrollment program, as 

defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801.

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

§602.33 Procedures for review of agencies during the period of recognition.

(a) Department staff may review the compliance of a recognized agency with the criteria for 

recognition at any time—

(1) Based on the submission of a monitoring report as directed by a decision by the senior 

Department official or Secretary; or 

(2) Based on any information that, as determined by Department staff, appears credible and raises 

issues relevant to the recognition criteria.

(b) The review may include, but need not be limited to, any of the activities described in §602.32(b) 

and (c).

(c) If, in the course of the review, and after provision to the agency of the documentation 

concerning the inquiry and consultation with the agency, Department staff notes that one or more 

deficiencies may exist in the agency's compliance with the criteria for recognition or in the agency's 

effective application of those criteria, it—

(1) Prepares a written draft analysis of the agency's compliance with the criteria of concern;

(2) Sends the draft analysis, including any identified areas of non-compliance and all supporting 

documentation, to the agency; 

(3) Invites the agency to provide a written response to the draft analysis within 90 days, and, if 

neither the senior Department official nor the Secretary has requested a monitoring report, provides the 

agency with an opportunity to submit a monitoring report to remedy any deficiencies; 

(4) Reviews the response provided by the agency, including any monitoring report submitted, and,

either--
31

(i) Concludes the review;

(ii) Continues monitoring of the agency’s areas of deficiencies; or

(iii) Makes a formal recommendation to the agency and the senior Department official to require a 

formal compliance report, require another monitoring report, or limit, suspend, or terminate 

recognition;

(5) Notifies the agency, in the event that the agency’s response and monitoring report does not 

satisfy the staff, that the draft analysis will be finalized for presentation to the Advisory Committee;

(6) Publishes a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER with an invitation for the public to comment on the 

agency's compliance with the criteria in question and establishing a deadline for receipt of public 

comment;

(7) Provides the agency with a copy of all public comments received and invites a written response 

from the agency;

(8) Finalizes the staff analysis as necessary to reflect its review of any agency response and any 

public comment received;

(9) Provides to the agency, no later than seven days before the Advisory Committee meeting, the

final staff analysis and a recognition recommendation and any other information provided to the 

Advisory Committee under §602.34(c); and

(10) Submits the matter for review by the Advisory Committee in accordance with §602.34.

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

Review by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional 

Quality and Integrity

§602.34 Advisory Committee meetings.

(a) Department staff submits a proposed schedule to the Chairperson of the Advisory Committee 

based on anticipated completion of staff analyses.

(b) The Chairperson of the Advisory Committee establishes an agenda for the next meeting and, in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, presents it to the Designated Federal Official for 

approval.

(c) Before the Advisory Committee meeting, Department staff provides the Advisory Committee 

with—

(1) As applicable, the agency's application for recognition, renewal of recognition, or expansion of 

scope when Advisory Committee review is required, or the agency's compliance report or monitoring 

report; and all supporting documentation submitted by the agency;

(2) The final Department staff analysis of the agency developed in accordance with §602.32 or 

§602.33, and any supporting documentation;

(3) The agency's response to the draft analysis;
32

(4) Any written third-party comments the Department received about the agency on or before the 

established deadline;

(5) Any agency response to third-party comments; and

(6) Any other information Department staff relied upon in developing its analysis.

(d) At least 30 days before the Advisory Committee meeting, the Department publishes a notice of 

the meeting in the FEDERAL REGISTER inviting interested parties to make oral presentations before the 

Advisory Committee.

(e) The Advisory Committee considers the materials provided under paragraph (c) of this section in 

a public meeting and invites Department staff, the agency, and other interested parties to make oral 

presentations during the meeting. A transcript is made of all Advisory Committee meetings.

(f) The written motion adopted by the Advisory Committee regarding each agency's recognition 

will be made available during the Advisory Committee meeting. The Department will provide each 

agency, upon request, with a copy of the motion on recognition at the meeting. Each agency that was 

reviewed will be sent an electronic copy of the motion relative to that agency as soon as practicable 

after the meeting.

(g) After each meeting of the Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee forwards to the senior 

Department official its recommendation with respect to each agency, which may include, but is not 

limited to, a recommendation to--

(1)(i) For an agency that is fully compliant, approve initial or renewed recognition;

(ii) Continue recognition with a required compliance report to be submitted to the Department 

within 12 months from the senior Department official;

(iii) In conjunction with a finding of exceptional circumstances and good cause, continue 

recognition for a specified period in excess of 12 months pending submission of a compliance report; 

(iv) In the case of substantial compliance, grant initial recognition or renewed recognition and 

recommend a monitoring report with a set deadline to be reviewed by staff to ensure that corrective 

action is taken and full compliance is achieved or maintained (or for action by staff under §602.33 if it is 

not); or

(v) Deny, limit, suspend, or terminate recognition;

(2) Grant or deny a request for expansion of scope; or

(3) Revise or affirm the scope of the agency;

(4) Approve a compliance report.

(h) After each meeting of the Advisory Committee at which a review of agencies occurs, the 

Advisory Committee forwards to the senior Department official its recommendation with respect to 

each agency.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)
33

§602.35 Responding to the Advisory Committee's recommendation.

(a) Within ten business days following the Advisory Committee meeting, the agency and 

Department staff may submit written comments to the senior Department official on the Advisory 

Committee's recommendation. The agency must simultaneously submit a copy of its written comments, 

if any, to Department staff. Department staff must simultaneously submit a copy of its written 

comments, if any, to the agency.

(b) Comments must be limited to—

(1) Any Advisory Committee recommendation that the agency or Department staff believes is not 

supported by the record;

(2) Any incomplete Advisory Committee recommendation based on the agency's application; and

(3) The inclusion of any recommendation or draft proposed decision for the senior Department 

official's consideration.

(c)(1) Neither the Department staff nor the agency may submit additional documentation with its 

comments unless the Advisory Committee's recognition recommendation proposes finding the agency 

noncompliant with, or ineffective in its application of, a criterion or criteria for recognition not identified 

in the final Department staff analysis provided to the Advisory Committee.

(2) Within ten business days of receipt by the Department staff of an agency's comments or new 

evidence, if applicable, or of receipt by the agency of the Department staff's comments, Department 

staff, the agency, or both, as applicable, may submit a response to the senior Department official. 

Simultaneously with submission, the agency must provide a copy of any response to the Department 

staff. Simultaneously with submission, Department staff must provide a copy of any response to the 

agency. No additional comments or new documentation may be submitted after the responses 

described in this paragraph are submitted.

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

Review and Decision by the Senior Department Official

§602.36 Senior Department official's decision.

(a) The Senior Department Official makes a decision regarding recognition of an agency based on 

the record compiled under §§602.32, 602.33, 602.34, and 602.35 including, as applicable, the following:

(1) The materials provided to the Advisory Committee under §602.34(c).

(2) The transcript of the Advisory Committee meeting.

(3) The recommendation of the Advisory Committee.

(4) Written comments and responses submitted under §602.35.

(5) New evidence submitted in accordance with §602.35(c)(1).

(6) A communication from the Secretary referring an issue to the senior Department official's 

consideration under §602.37(e).

(b) In the event that statutory authority or appropriations for the Advisory Committee ends, or 

there are fewer duly appointed Advisory Committee members than needed to constitute a quorum, and 
34

under extraordinary circumstances when there are serious concerns about an agency's compliance with 

subpart B of this part that require prompt attention, the senior Department official may make a decision 

in a recognition proceeding based on the record compiled under §602.32 or §602.33 after providing the 

agency with an opportunity to respond to the final staff analysis. Any decision made by the senior 

Department official under this paragraph may be appealed to the Secretary as provided in §602.37.

(c) Following consideration of an agency's recognition under this section, the senior Department 

official issues a recognition decision.

(d) Except with respect to decisions made under paragraph (f) or (g) of this section and matters 

referred to the senior Department official under §602.37(e) or (f), the senior Department official notifies 

the agency in writing of the senior Department official's decision regarding the agency's recognition 

within 90 days of the Advisory Committee meeting or conclusion of the review under paragraph (b) of 

this section.

(e) The senior Department official's decision may include, but is not limited to, approving for 

recognition; approving with a monitoring report; denying, limiting, suspending, or terminating 

recognition following the procedures in paragraph (g); granting or denying an application for an 

expansion of scope; revising or affirming the scope of the agency; approving a monitoring report; or 

continuing recognition pending submission and review of a compliance report under §§602.32 and 

602.34 and review of the report by the senior Department official under this section.

(1)(i) The senior Department official approves recognition if the agency complies or substantially 

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

(ii) If the senior Department official approves recognition, the recognition decision defines the 

scope of recognition and the recognition period. The recognition period does not exceed five years, 

including any time during which recognition was continued to permit submission and review of a 

compliance report.

(iii) If the scope of recognition is less than that requested by the agency, the senior Department 

official explains the reasons for continuing or approving a lesser scope.

(2)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, if the agency either fails to comply with 

the criteria for recognition listed in subpart B of this part, the senior Department official denies, limits, 

suspends, or terminates recognition.

(ii) If the senior Department official denies, limits, suspends, or terminates recognition, the senior 

Department official specifies the reasons for this decision, including all criteria the agency fails to meet 

and all criteria the agency has failed to apply effectively.

(3)(i) If the senior Department official concludes an agency is non-compliant, the senior 

Department official may continue the agency's recognition and require the agency to submit a 

compliance report that will be subject to review in the recognition process, provided that 

(A) the senior Department official concludes that the agency will demonstrate compliance with and 

effective application of the criteria for recognition within 12 months from the date of the senior 

Department official’s decision or less; or 

(B) the senior Department official identifies a deadline more than 12 months from the date of the 

decision by which the senior Department official concludes the agency will demonstrate full compliance 

with and effective application of the criteria for recognition, and also identifies exceptional 
35

circumstances and good cause for allowing the agency more than 12 months to achieve compliance and 

effective application. 

(ii) In the case of a compliance report ordered under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, the senior 

Department official specifies the criteria the compliance report must address, and the time period for 

achieving compliance and effective application of the criteria. The compliance report documenting 

compliance and effective application of criteria is due not later than 30 days after the end of the period 

specified in the senior Department official's decision.

(ii) If the record includes a compliance report required under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, 

and the senior Department official determines that an agency has not complied with the criteria for 

recognition, or has not effectively applied those criteria, during the time period specified by the senior 

Department official in accordance with paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, the senior Department official 

denies, limits, suspends, or terminates recognition, except, in extraordinary circumstances, upon a 

showing of good cause for an extension of time as determined by the senior Department official and 

detailed in the senior Department official's decision. If the senior Department official determines good 

cause for an extension has been shown, the senior Department official specifies the length of the 

extension and what the agency must do during it to merit a renewal of recognition.

(f) If the senior Department official determines that the agency is substantially compliant, or is fully 

compliant but has concerns about the agency maintaining compliance, the senior Department official 

may approve the agency’s recognition or renewal of recognition and require periodic monitoring reports 

that are to be reviewed and approved by Department staff.

(g) If the senior Department official determines, based on the record, that a decision to deny, limit, 

suspend, or terminate an agency's recognition may be warranted based on a finding that the agency is 

noncompliant with one or more standards of recognition, or if the agency does not hold institutions 

accountable for complying with one or more of the agency’s standards or criteria for accreditation that 

were not identified earlier in the proceedings as an area of noncompliance, the senior Department 

official provides—

(1) The agency with an opportunity to submit a written response and evidence addressing the 

finding; and

(2) The staff with an opportunity to present its analysis in writing.

(h) If relevant and material information pertaining to an agency's compliance with recognition 

criteria, but not contained in the record, comes to the senior Department official's attention while a 

decision regarding the agency's recognition is pending before the senior Department official, and if the 

senior Department official concludes the recognition decision should not be made without consideration 

of the information, the senior Department official either—

(1)(i) Does not make a decision regarding recognition of the agency; and

(ii) Refers the matter to Department staff for review and analysis under §602.32 or §602.33, as 

appropriate, and consideration by the Advisory Committee under §602.34; or

(2)(i) Provides the information to the agency and Department staff;

(ii) Permits the agency to respond to the senior Department official and the Department staff in 

writing, and to include additional evidence relevant to the issue, and specifies a deadline;
36

(iii) Provides Department staff with an opportunity to respond in writing to the agency's 

submission under paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section, specifying a deadline; and

(iv) Issues a recognition decision based on the record described in paragraph (a) of this section, as 

supplemented by the information provided under this paragraph.

(i) No agency may submit information to the senior Department official, or ask others to submit 

information on its behalf, for purposes of invoking paragraph (h) of this section. Before invoking 

paragraph (h) of this section, the senior Department official will take into account whether the 

information, if submitted by a third party, could have been submitted in accordance with §602.32(a) or 

§602.33(e)(2).

(j) If the senior Department official does not reach a final decision to approve, deny, limit, suspend, 

or terminate an agency's recognition before the expiration of its recognition period, the senior 

Department official automatically extends the recognition period until a final decision is reached.

(k) Unless appealed in accordance with §602.37, the senior Department official's decision is the 

final decision of the Secretary.

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

APPEAL RIGHTS AND PROCEDURES

§602.37 Appealing the senior Department official's decision to the 

Secretary.

(a) The agency may appeal the senior Department official's decision to the Secretary. Such appeal 

stays the decision of the senior Department official until final disposition of the appeal. If an agency 

wishes to appeal, the agency must—

(1) Notify the Secretary and the senior Department official in writing of its intent to appeal the 

decision of the senior Department official, no later than 10 business days after receipt of the decision;

(2) Submit its appeal to the Secretary in writing no later than 30 days after receipt of the decision; 

and

(3) Provide the senior Department official with a copy of the appeal at the same time it submits the 

appeal to the Secretary.

(b) The senior Department official may file a written response to the appeal. To do so, the senior 

Department official must—

(1) Submit a response to the Secretary no later than 30 days after receipt of a copy of the appeal; 

and

(2) Provide the agency with a copy of the senior Department official's response at the same time it 

is submitted to the Secretary.

(c) Once the agency’s appeal and the senior Department official’s response, if any, have been 

provided, no additional written comments may be submitted by either party.

(d) Neither the agency nor the senior Department official may include in its submission any new 

documentation it did not submit previously in the proceeding.
37

(e) On appeal, the Secretary makes a recognition decision, as described in §602.36(e). If the 

decision requires a compliance report, the report is due within 30 days after the end of the period 

specified in the Secretary's decision. The Secretary renders a final decision after taking into account the 

senior Department official's decision, the agency's written submissions on appeal, the senior 

Department official's response to the appeal, if any, and the entire record before the senior Department 

official. The Secretary notifies the agency in writing of the Secretary's decision regarding the agency's 

recognition.

(f) The Secretary may determine, based on the record, that a decision to deny, limit, suspend, or 

terminate an agency's recognition may be warranted based on a finding that the agency is noncompliant 

with, or ineffective in its application with respect to, a criterion or criteria for recognition not identified 

as an area of noncompliance earlier in the proceedings. In that case, the Secretary, without further 

consideration of the appeal, refers the matter to the senior Department official for consideration of the 

issue under §602.36(f). After the senior Department official makes a decision, the agency may, if 

desired, appeal that decision to the Secretary.

(g) If relevant and material information pertaining to an agency's compliance with recognition 

criteria, but not contained in the record, comes to the Secretary's attention while a decision regarding 

the agency's recognition is pending before the Secretary, and if the Secretary concludes the recognition 

decision should not be made without consideration of the information, the Secretary either—

(1)(i) Does not make a decision regarding recognition of the agency; and

(ii) Refers the matter to Department staff for review and analysis under §602.32 or §602.33, as 

appropriate, and review by the Advisory Committee under §602.34; and consideration by the senior 

Department official under §602.36; or

(2)(i) Provides the information to the agency and the senior Department official;

(ii) Permits the agency to respond to the Secretary and the senior Department official in writing, 

and to include additional evidence relevant to the issue, and specifies a deadline;

(iii) Provides the senior Department official with an opportunity to respond in writing to the 

agency's submission under paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section, specifying a deadline; and

(iv) Issues a recognition decision based on all the materials described in paragraphs (e) and (g) of 

this section.

(h) No agency may submit information to the Secretary, or ask others to submit information on its 

behalf, for purposes of invoking paragraph (g) of this section. Before invoking paragraph (g) of this 

section, the Secretary will take into account whether the information, if submitted by a third party, 

could have been submitted in accordance with §602.32(a) or §602.33(e)(2).

(i) If the Secretary does not reach a final decision on appeal to approve, deny, limit, suspend, or 

terminate an agency's recognition before the expiration of its recognition period, the Secretary 

automatically extends the recognition period until a final decision is reached.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b)
38

§602.38 Contesting the Secretary's final decision to deny, limit, suspend, or 

terminate an agency's recognition.

...

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

Subpart D—Department Responsibilities

SOURCE: 64 FR 56617, Oct. 20, 1999. Redesignated at 74 FR 55435, Oct. 27, 2009, unless otherwise 

noted.

§602.50 What information does the Department share with a recognized 

agency about its accredited institutions and programs?

...

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

PART 603—SECRETARY'S RECOGNITION PROCEDURES FOR 

STATE AGENCIES

§603.24 Criteria for State agencies.

The following are the criteria which the Secretary will utilize in designating a State agency as a reliable 

authority to assess the quality of public postsecondary vocational education in its respective State.

...

(c) Capacity to foster ethical practices. The State agency must demonstrate its capability and willingness 

to foster ethical practices by showing that it:

(i) Promotes a well-defined set of ethical standards governing institutional or programmatic practices, 

including recruitment, advertising, transcripts, fair and equitable student tuition refunds, and student 

placement services;

(ii) Maintains appropriate review in relation to the ethical practices of each approved institution or 

program.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1094(c)(4))

[39 FR 30042, Aug. 20, 1974, as amended at 75 FR 66947, Oct. 29, 2010]
39

PART 603—SECRETARY'S RECOGNITION PROCEDURES FOR 

STATE AGENCIES

§603.24 Criteria for State agencies.

The following are the criteria which the Secretary will utilize in designating a State agency as a 

reliable authority to assess the quality of public postsecondary vocational education in its respective 

State.

...

(c) Capacity to foster ethical practices. The State agency must demonstrate its capability and 

willingness to foster ethical practices by showing that it:

(i) Promotes a well-defined set of ethical standards governing institutional or programmatic 

practices, including recruitment, advertising, transcripts, fair and equitable student tuition refunds, and 

student placement services;

(ii) Maintains appropriate review in relation to the ethical practices of each approved institution or 

program.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1094(c)(4))

[39 FR 30042, Aug. 20, 1974, as amended at 75 FR 66947, Oct. 29, 2010]